REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 1583 OF 2010 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF PETER KARIUKI KABANU (DECEASED) RULING 1. The Summons dated 9th August 2010 seeks revocation of the grant made on 29 th November 2007 in Kiambu SPMCSC No. 99 of 2005, on the grounds that the proceedings to obtain the same were defective for want of pecuniary jurisdiction on the part of the granting court, for the property in question exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the said court. 2. The said application is brought at the instance of one of the administrators, who states that she stumbled on the fact of lack of jurisdiction when she received counsel from the advocates on record. 3. I have combed through the file of papers filed in the cause, and I have not chanced upon any reply to the application. Consequently, I find that the application is unopposed. After I gave directions that the application be disposed of by way of written submissions, only the applicant complied. 4. As the application is not contested, and after taking note of the assets listed in the petition lodged in Kiambu SPMCSC No. 99 of 2005, I am persuaded that there is merit in the application. Consequently, I shall allow the application as prayed, and revoke the grant made in Kiambu SPMCSC No. 99 of 2005 on 29th November 2007. 5. As the bulk of the estate is situate within the Kiambu County, which is within the geographical and administrative jurisdiction of the High Court of Kenya at Kiambu, I do hereby direct that the file in this cause, and that in Kiambu SPMCSC No. 99 of 2005, shall be transferred to the High Court at Kiambu for the said court to appoint a new administrator or administrators for the estate of the deceased. 6. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2016. W. MUSYOKA 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.