REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 516 OF 2002 (In the matter of the estate of HEZEKIAH M’MWANDO- Deceased) GITARI M’MWANDO.........................1ST PROTESTER/APPLICANT VERSUS FELISTER WANJIRU NJERU...................PETITIONER/RESPONDENT RULING The applicant in his application dated 13/5/2015 brought under Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules seeks for the following orders:- 1. That there be a stay of execution of the judgment and decree made by this court on 7/5/2015 pending hearing and determination of the appeal before the Court of Appeal. 2. That the costs of this application be provided for. In the supporting affidavit the applicant depones that he had lodged an appeal against the judgment of this court whereas it was directed that 3.5 acres out of LR. NGANDORI/KIRIGI/14 be excised and divided equally among the applicant, Felister Wanjiru Njeru and Salome Gicuku. He states that the appeal is based on the grounds that the court found that the parcel was jointly registered between the deceased and the applicant. He stands to suffer loss if the 3.5 acres are share between the 3 beneficiaries. He is likely to be rendered homeless and a destitute if the petitioner/respondent executes the judgment. The respondents opposed the application citing Order 42 Rule 6(2)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant is not entitled to stay the execution unless he provides security of the due performance of the decree by depositing KShs.200,000/= pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. This application is brought under Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules which provides:- “Nothing in these Rules shall limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court”. In the case of JAMES KARANJA CHEGE & 3 OTHER VS EUNICE WANJIKU CHEGE [2011] eKLR the court held that even though the provisions relating to stay of execution are not among the provisions imported into the Law of Succession Act by Rule 63 of the Probate and Administration Rules, the court could still exercise its inherent powers under Rule 47, 49 and 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules to ensure that ends of justice are met.
page 1 of 2
The applicant is required to show that he has an arguable appeal which has high chances of success. In paragraph 6 of the supporting affidavit the applicant depones that he intends to appeal against the whole judgment and specifically on the finding of the court that LR. NGANDORI/KIRIGI/14 was owned jointly by him and the deceased. The judgment of the court delivered on the 7/5/2015 dealt with the issues of distribution of the ½ share of the deceased in NGANDORI/KIRIGI/14 which was jointly registered in the names of the deceased and the applicant as indicated by the copy of register. It was not in dispute that the land in question was jointly owned by the deceased and the applicant who were father and son. The court ordered that the share of the deceased be distributed to the three beneficiaries who are all children of the deceased. The half share of the land was to remain with the applicant and was not affected by the distribution. The applicant cannot therefore lodge an appeal against a matter that was not an issue in the judgment. Considering the facts of this application and the relevant provisions of the law, I find that the applicant does not have an arguable appeal with any chances of success. His application must therefore fail. I find the application not merited and it is hereby dismissed with costs. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT EMBU THIS 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015. F. MUCHEMI JUDGE In the presence of:Both Parties present Ms. Muriuki for Mr. Ithiga for Respondent/Petitioner
page 2 of 2