REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 27 OF 2013 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF M’ITIRI IRUARE alias PETER M’ITIRI M’RWARE (DECEASED) MADRINA KAGWENE M’ITIRI.....................................................................1 ST PETITIONER WINFRED MAKENA ITIRI............................................................................2 ND PETITIONER VERSUS DAVID MUTWIRI M’ITIRI................................................................................1 ST APPLICANT KENNETH MWENDA M’ITIRI........................................................................2 ND APPLICANT RULING 1. This is a ruling on a Preliminary Objection raised by the Petitioner in their notice dated 4/2/2020 in respect to the application for revocation dated 27/5/2019 on the ground that the same was time barred under the express provision of section 30 of the Law of Succession Act, Cap 160 Laws of Kenya which provide that applications for provision of dependants cannot be brought after a grant of representation in respect of the estate to which the application refers has been confirmed as provided by section 71 of the law of succession act. 2. The Applicants however filed a notice to withdraw their application dated 27/5/2019 and the same stands withdrawn. 3. In light of the above, the Preliminary Objection cannot therefore stand as it has been overtaken by events. HON ANNE ADWERA ONG’INJO JUDGE RULING DATED AND DELIVERED BY EMAIL THIS 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 HON ANNE ADWERA ONG’INJO JUDGE In the presence of:Mr Kanijumoo Advocate for Respondents- Present online MS Kimathi Kiara Advocate for Applicants – No appearance – to be notified. HON ANNE ADWERA ONG’INJO JUDGE
Original judgment
Madrina Kagwene M’itiri & 1 other v David Mutwiri M’itiri & 1 other
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.