REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT EMBU MISC. SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 82 OF 2008 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF REAH WANJUE MURATHI(DECEASED) KIARAGO RIMUNYA...................................PETITIONER/RESPONDENT VERSUS WILSON NJERU NJAGI.............................................................APPLICANT RULING 1. This ruling pertains to a citation against a son of the deceased dated 16/4/2018 in regard to matters of substituting the petitioner in this cause, now deceased. 2. On the 19/9/2017 this matter came up for the hearing of the application dated 20/7/2017 for revocation of grant. At the time, it was brought to the attention of the court that the Petitioner who was represented by Mr. Andande had passed away and that plans were underway to file an application for substitution. 3. Subsequently, on the 22/5/2018, Ms. Ndorongo for the applicant herein informed the court that since Mr. Andande had taken too long to substitute his client she had been taken out a citation in the magistrate’s court which was pending hearing. The matter never proceeded for hearing and on the 3/12/2018 the parties with the exclusion of Mr. Andande consented to dispose of the citation by way of written submissions. 4. I have perused the record and I do not find the said citation. It is my view that there is confusion in the forum to dispose of the citation. 5. It was therefore not possible to write the ruling that was to be delivered today the 25/07/2019. 6. Parties are hereby advised to put their documentation in order and move the court if need be. 7. Mr. Andande who has taken over two (2) years to substitute his client is given thirty (30) days to do so. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT EMBU THIS 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2019. F. MUCHEMI JUDGE In the presence of: Ms. Kungu for Ndorongo for Applicant 2nd Respondent present
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.