Koinange & 2 others (Suing as Administrators of the Estate of the Late Charles Karuga Koinange) v Mitithiru Company Limited (Environment & Land Case E333 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 1414 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to strike out an estate lawsuit filed by one administrator alone, ruling the case should be heard first.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether co-administrators must jointly instruct advocates and consent to litigation on behalf of the estate
Yes; the administrators must act as one unit and there was no evidence of consent or delegation to the 1st Plaintiff, so the suit was filed without the consent of the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs
Order 1 Rule 13 requires written authority among plaintiffs, and section 82(a) of the Law of Succession Act vests enforcement powers in personal representatives collectively. Relying on Re Estate of Makokha Idris and the John Wacira Wambugu case, the court held joint administrators form one collective administration and must act jointly. No evidence showed Ashford & Co Advocates sought the consent of the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs, nor any delegation of responsibilities to the 1st Plaintiff.
Whether the suit property (Nairobi/Block91/131) forms part of the Estate of the deceased
Indeterminable on the application; it would require a mini-trial which is not appropriate at this interlocutory stage
The 3rd Plaintiff asserted the property was surrendered to the Government in 1991, while the 2nd Plaintiff maintained it was listed in the Further Rectified Partial Certificate of Confirmation of Grant issued after mediation. The court found the factual dispute could not be resolved without conducting a mini-trial, for which the striking-out application was not the proper forum, and the 1st Plaintiff deserved to be heard at trial.
What happens when co-administrators disagree on filing a suit on behalf of the estate
The non-consenting administrators can be excluded from the proceedings and the willing administrator allowed to ventilate his case; the propriety of the suit is determined after trial
The court observed a disparity among the co-administrators and questioned whether one administrator could pursue a cause of action where the others are unwilling. Balancing fair hearing against the lack of joint authority, the court chose not to lock out the 1st Plaintiff at the interlocutory stage, permitting him to litigate while the dissenting administrators may be excluded.
Legal principles established
#- Co-administrators of an estate must act jointly and take a common stand in matters pertaining to the estate; none may act singly absent delegation
- A suit filed on behalf of an estate without the consent of all co-administrators is liable to be struck out, but the court retains discretion to hear the diligent administrator rather than lock the estate out at an interlocutory stage
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 17th November 2022 is dismissed with no order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction; application brought under Order 2 Rule 15, Order 9 Rule 13 and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 56 of the Advocates Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Makokha v Omondi & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E169 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1974 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 1974 (KLR)9 Apr 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Koinange & 2 others (Suing as Administrators of the Estate of the Late Charles Karuga Koinange) v Mitithiru Company Limited (Environment & Land Case E333 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 1414 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/1414/eng@2024-03-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.