Mugure v Kea & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E036 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5920 (KLR)

succession cause pending before the High Court at Malindi, pursuant to the Chamber Summons filed on December 9, 2024, by the Plaintifi against the Defendants. This Chamber Summons requests the revocation of the Grant of Letters of Administration issued to the 3rd Defendant/Respondent on October 24, 2011, and confirmed on October 22, 2012. 6. The Defendants/Respondents are accused of misrepresenting facts to the Court by claiming that the Plaintifi/Applicant was deceased, when she is still alive, thus depriving her of her rights as a beneficiary of the estate. The estate concerns Land Title No. Gede/Mijomboni/100, which the Plaintifi/Applicant purchased directly from the deceased, Kahindi Konde Tuva, whose estate is subject to the succession proceedings. The Plaintifi/Applicant only learned of the Grant of Letters of Administration after being served with documents by the Defendants/Respondents, who are also the heirs and beneficiaries of the estate involved in the current proceedings. 7. The Applicant avers that unless this application is granted as requested, there is a genuine risk of confiicting decisions emerging from the two parallel proceedings. The Applicant submits that the issues in this case and the succession cause are closely interconnected, and resolving the latter—already at an advanced stage—may efiectively resolve the issues in this matter. 8. The Applicant's citation of several authorities, which state that once a matter is pending revocation, a subsequent suit is stayed pending the outcome of the revocation proceedings to avoid confiicted decisions over the same subject matter, has been duly noted. The court reckons the legal precedents cited, including Re Estate of Alice Mumbua Mutua (Deceased) [2017] eKLR, Benson Mathu Wakaba and 2 Others v Doris Kigetu Maingi [2022] eKLR, Roseline Chepkerich v Priscila Jemutai Murei and 2 others [2018]. 9. It is the Applicant’s submission that proceeding with this matter before the conclusion of the succession cause would preempt or undermine the jurisdiction of the probate court and potentially result in confiicting decisions. 10. The Respondent argues that the succession cause concluded with the confirmation of the grant on October 22, 2012. The Plaintifi's revocation application, filed 12 years later on December 9, 2024, is not a valid basis for invoking Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act. See Kenya National Commission on Human Rights v Attorney General and Others [2020] eKLR. 11. The Respondent claims that the Plaintifi is listed as an alleged purchaser and therefore lacks any status comparable to the beneficiaries that would justify revoking the grant. See In re Estate of Andrew Adhiambo Obonyo (Deceased) [2022] KEНС 13343 (KLR) 12. Respondent argues that the land dispute concerns ownership, possession, and title under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act. The succession case involves estate distribution. The Plaintifi's 13-year silence, despite registering a caveat, indicates undue delay and abuse of process. See In Re Estate of Jonathan Khakina (Deceased) [2024] КЕНС 11420. 13. The Respondent further states that the Plaintifi's application is supported by her advocate's afidavit, which contradicts established legal principles indicating that an advocate should not depone to disputed facts—see the decisions in Karanja v Kenya Commercial Bank [2002] 2 KLR and Kitur and Another v Standard Chartered Bank and 2 Others [2002] eKLR. 14. I agree with the counsel representing the respondent that, when looking at the current stay of proceedings application as a whole, the Plaintifi's application under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act lacks merit. It does not meet all necessary conditions: there is no ongoing pending suit, the parties https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5920/eng@2025-07-24 2

page 2 of 3

are difierent, the subject matters are difierent, and the application was filed in bad faith after an unreasonable delay of over 12 years. 15. Additionally, the supporting afidavit is deemed incompetent, and the Plaintifi has failed to demonstrate any prejudice that could arise from a concurrent or prior resolution of the land dispute. 16. Accordingly, the Plaintifi's application dated April 7, 2025, is hereby dismissed with costs awarded to the Defendants. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT MALINDI VIRTUALLY ON THIS 24TH DAY OF JULY 2025. E. K. MAKORI JUDGE In the Presence of: Mr. Omwancha for the Applicant Ms. Mwangi for the Respondent Happy: Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5920/eng@2025-07-24 3

page 3 of 3