Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedMalindi HCCC (Notice of Motion dated 18th December 2017) - suit over Plot M 39, Mguruleni Malindi· [2020] KEELC 3814 (KLR)

Ramadhan Iddi Ramadhan & another v Brown Mwangisi Charo & 11 others [2020] KEELC 3814 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya, Malindi
6 February 2020
JOJ.O. Olola
1,112 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court confirmed that court-appointed estate administrators can sell estate land, and restrained family members from violently blocking the sale.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By a Notice of Motion dated 18th December 2017, Ramadhani Idd Ramadhani and Abubakar Omar Kombo, administrators of the Estate of Liwali Sheikh Salim Bin Khalfan, sought a conservatory order preserving an agreement for the sale of four acres out of Plot M 39, Mguruleni Malindi, or an injunction restraining the twelve Defendants from inducing breach of the sale contract or interfering with fencing of the four acres pending trial. They alternatively sought an order that the Defendants keep the peace. The Defendants, led by Kitorobe Ali Kitorobe, asserted they were likewise grandchildren of the deceased's slaves and equal beneficiaries, that the deceased had executed a will and created a Wakf over the land in favour of his slaves, and that the Plaintiffs fraudulently obtained letters of administration intestate. They also pointed to earlier suits, Malindi HCCC No. 93 of 2009 and No. 35 of 2015. J.O. Olola J held that the Plaintiffs held a confirmed grant issued in Mombasa High Court Succession Cause No. 94 of 2011 (confirmed 11th September 2012), that no stay or revocation application was shown, and that under Section 82 of the Law of Succession Act administrators may deal with free assets including land by sale. Finding an inchoate sale agreement and no denial of the Defendants' use of force and threats, the court found no justification for their conduct and allowed the application in terms of Prayer No. 3 with costs to the Plaintiffs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Authority of court-appointed administrators to sell estate land

Holding

Plaintiffs, as lawfully appointed administrators under a grant confirmed on 11th September 2012 in Mombasa High Court Succession Cause No. 94 of 2011, had power to sell the free asset of four acres

Reasoning

The court noted the grant was issued and confirmed, and no order for stay or revocation was exhibited despite the Defendants' allegations of fraud in obtaining it. Under Section 82 of the Law of Succession Act, administrators may deal with free assets including land by sale. Thus the Defendants could not justify disrupting the survey and fencing.

p. 2
02

Whether interlocutory restraint against Defendants inducing breach of contract was justified

Holding

Yes - the Defendants did not deny frustrating the sale by force and threats and had no justification given the subsisting grant

Reasoning

The court found an inchoate agreement for sale existed and that the Defendants did not deny obstructing the survey by use of force and threats of violence. Their claimed entitlement as fellow beneficiaries was premature and no stay or revocation of the grant was in place, so no justification for their conduct existed.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Lawfully appointed legal representatives of a deceased's estate have power to deal with free assets, including land, by way of sale under Section 82 of the Law of Succession Act
  • Where a grant of representation subsists and no stay or revocation is shown, challenges to its validity do not justify interference with the estate's dealings

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion dated 18th December 2017 allowed in terms of Prayer No. 3 thereof
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the Plaintiffs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Law of Succession ActSection 82
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to grant interlocutory conservatory/injunctive relief; Plaintiffs appointed administrators in Mombasa High Court Succession Cause No. 94 of 2011

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ramadhan Iddi Ramadhan & another v Brown Mwangisi Charo & 11 others [2020] KEELC 3814 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Malindi HCCC (Notice of Motion dated 18th December 2017) - suit over Plot M 39, Mguruleni Malindi. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/3814/eng@2020-02-06

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.