Lucy Wairimu Kimondo & 1 other v Richard Premchard Rama & 2 others

Rama (Deceased) to this court, the honourable court be pleased to consolidate the two matters for hearing and determination. 4. That the costs of this application be provided for. 2. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn jointly by the Petitioners who depose that they petitioned the Chief Magistrate’s Court for Letters of Administration in Nyahururu M.C. Succession Cause No. 484 of 2023 on 7th December, 2023 and were issued with grant of Letters of Administration Intestate. That the value of the Estate was indicated as Ksh.10,000,000/- and on 8th August, 2024 the beneficiaries (Respondents) sought revocation of grant issued on 23rd April, 2024 on grounds that a grant had been issued in Nairobi High Court 1131 of 1993 in the matter of the Estate of Jane Nyambura Purachand Rama (deceased) among other grounds. 3. That upon being served with the application they filed a response pointing out that the Chief Magistrate lacks pecuniary jurisdiction as the value of the Estate exceeds Ksh.20,000,000/- hence it is in the interest of justice that orders sought be granted. 4. In a reply thereto, the Respondents (Beneficiaries) through an affidavit deposed jointly by the Respondents depone that the Applicants filed Nyahururu CM Succession Cause No. E484 of 2023 with full knowledge that there was already another Succession Cause in respect to the Estate of Jane Nyambura Rama (Deceased) namely Nairobi HC Succession Cause No. 1131 of 1993. 5. That the Estate of the deceased is over Ksh.50,000,000/- in value hence they filed the Succession Cause with full knowledge that the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Nyahururu did not have the requisite jurisdiction in view of the value. 6. That the Nairobi HC Succession Cause is already concluded with a grant of Letters of Administration being issued in favour of the Public Trustee on 14th April, 1994 and subsequently confirmed on 22nd March, 1996, hence, what is required is transfer of the cause to this court. 7. Further, that there having been a grant already issued in respect to the Estate in Nairobi High Court Succession matter, filing of the instant application was intended to defeat the application in the lower court seeking to revoke the grant that was filed without jurisdiction that is a nullity ab initio and incapable of being transferred. 8. Subsequently, the Applicants withdrew prayer 2 and 3 of the application and opted to proceed with prayer 1 and sought determination of the same. 9. The Applicants opted to rely on affidavit evidence. 10. The Respondent filed submissions. It is submitted that the value of the Estate exceeds Kshs.20 million, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the lower court as provided by Section 48 of Laws of Succession Act of the Succession Cause No. E484 of 2023 was a nullity as the court lacked jurisdiction. Reliance if placed on the case of Nairobi HC Petition No. E088 of 2024; Kennedy Mong’are Okong’o v Loibex Builders Limited & Others, where it was held that; “ Without jurisdiction this Court is incapable of making an order for transfer.” 11. Also cited is the case of Owners of Motor Vessel “Lillian” v Caltex Oil (K) Ltd 1989 eKLR where it was held that; “ Jurisdiction is everything. Without t it a court has no power to make one more step. Where a court has no jurisdiction there would be no basis for continuation of proceedings pending https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8848/eng@2026-06-17 2

page 2 of 4

other evidence. A court of Law should down tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction.” 12. That the instant application was filed as a reaction to the Respondents’ application in the lower court seeking to have the grant issued therein revoked for being a nullity and for long been filed in a court without jurisdiction. 13. Further, submissions were made in respect of the 2nd and 3rd prayers which the court will not be addressing following withdrawal. 14. I have considered the application, affidavit in support and opposition and submissions by learned counsel for the Beneficiaries (Respondents) Mr. Njuguna Kamanga. 15. Territorial jurisdiction of the Chief Magistrate’s Court in hearing and determining succession matters is provided for by Section 49 of the Law of Succession Act (LS Act). For a Chief Magistrate, the pecuniary jurisdiction does not exceed twenty million shillings. (See Section 7 of the Magistrate’s Court Act). 16. In CM’s Nyahururu Succession Cause No. 484 of 2023, at the point of petitioning for Letters of Administration Intestate, the value of the Estate was estimated as Kshs. Ten Million. The Estate having been indicated as such did not exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. In the result a grant of Letters of Administration Intestate were issued on 23rd April, 2024. 17. On 9th August, 2024 summons for revocation/annulment of grant were filed where it was urged that the grant is a nullity as it was obtained through making of a false statement and/or concealment from court of something material as there was already a grant issued in respect of the Estate. It is also urged that the Estate exceeds Kshs.20 million which is a matter that should not have been in the Magistrate’s Court. I note that submissions have been filed by the Applicants. 18. The instant application is dated 18th September, 2024. It may objectively be argued that it is intended to defeat the intent of the lower court matter, in particular the application dated 8th March, 2024 for revocation of grant. Therefore, the question to be grappled with be is whether the matter should be transferred from the lower court. 19. In that regard the question to be determined is whether the court was seized of jurisdiction to determine the matter? In Kagenyi v Musiramo & Another [1968] EA 43, Sir Udo Udama stated; “ While it may be argued that since the provisions of s.18 of the Act do not restrict the powers of the High Court in this respect, it is difficult to see how a wrongly constituted suit could be transferred to another Court for trial especially as the jurisdiction of the Court of origin of the suit, which is a fundamental question, is involved… “In the result, this application is refused. It is dismissed because the subject matter of the application on the admission and showing of the applicant having been instituted in a Court without jurisdiction, namely, the Court of a magistrate grade II … it is incompetent for this Court to transfer the same to the High Court for hearing and determination.” 20. It is not in dispute that at the point of filing the petition, there was in existence another matter Succession Cause No. 1131 of 1993 in Nairobi in respect of the same Estate where a grant had been issued; and, further the value of Estate exceeds Kshs.20,000,000/- hence the petition was a nullity as the Magistrates Court lacked competent jurisdiction to determine it. Therefore, the proceedings as a whole were not valid. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8848/eng@2026-06-17 3

page 3 of 4

21. In the matter of the Estate of Ephraim Gaturia alias Gaturia Kamau (Deceased) MRG Succession Cause No. 337 of 2013, it was held that; “ In the Nairobi High Court Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 7 of 2011, Edward Murangiri Mugambi versus Habib Bank Limited, Njagi J while referring to the Kenyan case of Omwoyo versus African Highlands & Produce Co. Ltd (2002) 1KLR 698 (the decision of Ringera J, as he then was) and the Ugandan case of Kagenyi versus Misiramo & Another (1968) EA 48 the learned Judge had this to say on this issue; “Where a matter is filed in a court which has no jurisdiction, then there is no suit, properly so called, which has been filed. Consequently, there is no suit, so to speak to be transferred in this instance” By analogy, a petition or a succession cause filed in a court without jurisdiction, is an incompetent petition or succession cause and thus non-existent and therefore there is nothing to transfer from one court to another. To the extent that Murang’a Principal Magistrate’s Court Succession Cause number 189 of 2008 was filed in breach of Section 48 of the Law of Succession Act in a court without jurisdiction, that cause never existed and it is a nullity and being such a nullity there is nothing that was transferred to this court.” 22. The instant case having originated from a jurisdiction that was non-existent was void from the outset. Accordingly, it is struck out with costs to the Respondents. 23. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026. …………………… L.N. MUTENDE JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8848/eng@2026-06-17 4

page 4 of 4