M’ndaka Kangangi1st & 7 others v Peter Gitonga Mutuamwari & 1 other

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT CHUKA SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 2 OF 2020 (FORMERLY MERU HIGH COURT SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 246 OF 1995) CONSOLIDATED WITH SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 251 OF 2012 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE KANGANGI KAIRARIA M’NDAKA KANGANGI1ST.............................APPLICANT/ADMINISTRATOR MWITI M’NDAKA.......................................................................2 ND APPLICANT BENEDICTOR NJIRU RIUNGU................................................3 RD APPLICANT MARTIN MIRITI M’NDAKA.....................................................4 TH APPLICANT CELINA KAIMENYI KIRUGARA............................................5 TH APPLICANT JEDIEL MURIUKI........................................................................6 TH APPLICANT ROBERT MUGENDI NABIA......................................................7 TH APPLICANT SAULU NTHIGA MBIUKI..........................................................8 TH APPLICANT VERSUS PETER GITONGA MUTUAMWARI...ADMINISTRATOR/1ST RESPONDENT MAJANI GARDENS LIMITED...............................................2 ND RESPONDENT R U L I NG This matter came up for directions on 6/7/2021 and to confirm substitution of the 1 st applicant. The counsel for the applicant informed the court that he had filed an application for the grant of letters of administration ad litem to substitute the applicant. The counsel for the applicant did not file any evidence to prove that the deceased applicant was substituted. The supporting affidavit was sworn by the 1 st applicant M’Ndaka Kangani. This is the supporting affidavit in support of the summons for revocation of grant. This affidavit was sworn on 4/3/2021. Later on 6/7/2021 this court was informed that the 1 st applicant had passed away. The deceased 1st applicant was the only applicant who swore an affidavit in support of the application. He never got an opportunity go give his evidence. He has not been substituted. As such it would be premature go give a ruling in the application when the mover of the application is deceased and was not heard on the application. The affidavit by the deceased applicant has made various allegations which were not substantiated as there was not evidence attached to the application as proof. He was also not heard on the allegation on the affidavit. 1. The court did not give directions on how the application would proceed. Rule 44(3) of the Probate and Administration Rules provides that upon filing of summons for revocation of grant and affidavit, the court shall proceed to give directions on the person to be served with the application. The applicant is then required to file evidence of service on the persons so directed. The court will then proceed to hear the matter or give appropriate directions on how to proceed.

page 1 of 2