Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

(family Division) v Mumbua Kithome Mutisya Kithome

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI (FAMILY DIVISION) SUCCESSION CAUSE NO 1844 OF 1998 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KITHOME MUTYAUVYU (DECEASED) DANIEL MATUU KITHOME DAVID KILONZO KITHOME.....ADMINISTRATORS VERSUS MUMBUA KITHOME MUTISYA KITHOME...............................OBJECTORS RULING 1. The application subject of this ruling is dated 21 st November, 2019 brought by the Objectors pursuant to Section 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act and Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules. 2. The application seeks to have the order dismissing the application for revocation of grant dated 17 th May 2017 set aside, on grounds that the Objectors have at all times been ready to prosecute the objection and were absent on the 3 rd of December 2018 for the reason that the 1 st Objector was unwell and the Administrators’ counsel had communicated to the Objectors’ counsel that he would not be available. 3. The application was objected to by the Administrators and the Interested Party on grounds of inordinate delay, the document in support of the application being suspicious and the fact that the Applicants are not acknowledged heirs. 4. Having considered the application, the affidavit in support of the Objectors, the replying affidavit and the matter in its entirety I am convinced that the ends of justice will be met by allowing the application so that the mater may be heard on its merits. The Application is therefore allowed. 5. The application dated 17th May 2017 be fixed for hearing forthwith. 6. Costs in the cause. Dated and Delivered in Nairobi on this 20TH day of FEBRUARY, 2020. ALI-ARONI 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.