REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Succession Cause 479 of 2004 IN THE MATTER OF ESTATE OF LABAN KATAMBA MMBOGA (DECEASED) HESBON ESEMERE GADAMBA. ……………....................…………. APPLICANT VERSUS LABAN ANZENZE KATAMBA. ………………....................………. RESPONDENT RULING I have examined the court record. The Respondent was served through his wife who received the hearing notice although she declined to sign. The summons before the court however, is for the removal of the co-administrator because he has refused to co-operate to administer the estate. The coincidental point is that the applicant and the respondent appear to be the only beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased. The main issue therefore is distribution. In refusing to co-operate, the respondent has made distribution impossible since 2004. Hence the need to have the respondent in court to state his view as to how the deceased’s estate should be distributed. In the court’s view, the Respondent should be inclined to give the respondent the last chance to appear in court and propose his stand on how the estate should be distributed. If he fails to turn up during next hearing date, the court will proceed to hear the applicant and proceed to decide the mode of distribution, the absence of the respondent notwithstanding. The Respondent is accordingly hereby given notice to that effect and should therefore take this ruling seriously and attend court on the next hearing date. ORDER 1. Hearing of summons for Revocation on 30th June, 2008. 2. Each party to file proposal for distribution of the estate within 30 days. 3. This ruling and a hearing notice to be served upon the Respondent within 14 days, by Vihiga court Process-Server. Dated and delivered at Nairobi on 19th May 2008. ……………………………….. D A ONYANCHA JUDGE
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.