1. By Judgment dated 18th January 2024, the Court appointed BERNARD NJUGUNA KARANJA, SUSAN WANJIRU KARANJA AND VICTORIA WANGARI MUTHUSI as guardians and managers of the Estate of the subject herein.
2. It is now alleged that the Respondent herein, BERNARD NJUGUNA KARANJA is wasting the estate and therefore his appointment should be revoked.
3. Notwithstanding that the Court directed that the parties file submissions, at the time of writing this ruling none of the parties had filed their submissions.
4. In considering this application I am mindful of the mandate of this Court. It is limited to considering an application presented under the Mental Health Act and if satisfied make orders for the guardianship of the Subject and the management of his/ her affairs.
5. On delivery of judgment the Court is functus officio, so that whereas now there are disputes on the management of the Estate, the proper forum would be the Court that has the mandate to challenge the validity of the sale of land, the transfer of shares from the Company and the withdrawal of money from bank account. That does not lie with this Court. The Co Guardians ( Applicants) as Guardians and Manager of the Estate of the deceased have the wherewithal to challenge the actions of the Respondent herein but before a Court of competent jurisdiction.
6. Once it is established that the respondent has acted contrary to the mandate conferred on him, this Court will proceed to revoke that appointment.
7. Accordingly, the application is struck out for want of jurisdiction.
8. There shall be no order as to costs.
It is so ordered
SIGNED DATED AND DELIVERED IN VIRTUAL COURT THIS…29th ……DAY OF ……May ……..2025.
2. It is now alleged that the Respondent herein, BERNARD NJUGUNA KARANJA is wasting the estate and therefore his appointment should be revoked.
3. Notwithstanding that the Court directed that the parties file submissions, at the time of writing this ruling none of the parties had filed their submissions.
4. In considering this application I am mindful of the mandate of this Court. It is limited to considering an application presented under the Mental Health Act and if satisfied make orders for the guardianship of the Subject and the management of his/ her affairs.
5. On delivery of judgment the Court is functus officio, so that whereas now there are disputes on the management of the Estate, the proper forum would be the Court that has the mandate to challenge the validity of the sale of land, the transfer of shares from the Company and the withdrawal of money from bank account. That does not lie with this Court. The Co Guardians ( Applicants) as Guardians and Manager of the Estate of the deceased have the wherewithal to challenge the actions of the Respondent herein but before a Court of competent jurisdiction.
6. Once it is established that the respondent has acted contrary to the mandate conferred on him, this Court will proceed to revoke that appointment.
7. Accordingly, the application is struck out for want of jurisdiction.
8. There shall be no order as to costs.
It is so ordered
SIGNED DATED AND DELIVERED IN VIRTUAL COURT THIS…29th ……DAY OF ……May ……..2025.