Skip to content
JudgmentPETITIONER VS RESPONDENT4 min read

PETITIONER VS RESPONDENT

High Court at Homabay High Court · · Olga A. Sewe

'

[1] The Notice of Motion dated 18 th December 2024 was filed by the applicants pursuant to Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. They thereby asked for the following orders:
[a] That the Court be pleased to grant them leave to re-open these proceedings and to proceed and administer the estate of the deceased according to the law.
[b] That orders be made allowing them to take out Grant of Letters of Administration Intestate in respect of the estate of the deceased herein.
[c] That they be granted leave to apply for Summons for Confirmation of Grant with a Mode of Distribution in respect of the assets comprising the estate of the deceased.
[d] That costs of the application be borne by the estate.
[2] The application was premised on the grounds that the applicants are the beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased; and that Grant of Letters of Administration Intestate was issued to three of the respondents, namely: Paul Omito Nyore (now deceased), Joseph Okoth Nyore and Vincent Titus Nyore; which Grant was revoked on 10 th May 2018. The Court thereafter ordered that Wilfrida Arwa Nyore be added as the fourth administrator. The applicants further averred that, upon revocation of the Grant, the parties were advised to apply afresh for Grant of Letters of Administration Intestate in respect of the estate of the deceased, but that before that could be done, they learnt that the succession cause had been dismissed in the year 2023 for want of prosecution.
[3] The applicants further averred that their non-attendance was not intentional, but was on account of communication breakdown between them and their previous Advocate. They accordingly implored the Court to not punish them for the mistake of their Advocate and prayed that their application be allowed. They pointed out that all the beneficiaries stand to suffer irreparable harm in that, while the estate is wasting away, no action can be taken by the administrators unless the dismissal order is set aside and the cause reinstated.
[4] The application was supported by the averments set out in the affidavit sworn on 18 th December 2024 by the 1 st applicant, Augustine M. Nyore . He essentially reiterated the grounds above-mentioned and annexed copies of their supporting documents to the said affidavit. At paragraph 12 of his affidavit, the 1 st applicant deposed that one of the administrators, namely, Paul Omito Nyore, is now deceased and that another one, Wilfrida Arwa Nyore , is now advanced in age and therefore that there is need to have the succession cause reinstated and new administrators appointed.
[5] The application was duly served on the surviving respondents and two of them, namely, the 3 rd and 4 th respondents attended court on the hearing date on 5 th May 2025 and indicated that they had no objection to the reinstatement of the cause.
[6] I have given consideration to the application and the grounds put forth by the applicants in support thereof. Although the application was filed under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act and Rules, the Court does have powers, under Section 47 of the Law of Succession Act and Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules to make such orders as would meet the ends of justice in such matters.
[7] A perusal of the court record confirms that Grant of Letters of Administration Intestate was issued herein on 27 th February 2018 to Paul Omito Nyore, Joseph Okoth Nyore and Vincent Titus Nyore . Thereafter an application was made for revocation of that Grant; which application was allowed by consent on 10 th May 2018. Orders were consequently issued as follows:
[a] That a fresh Grant be issued in the names of the four administrators, including Wilfrida Arwa Nyore .
[b] That the Chief’s letter earlier on supplied by the administrators be expunged and that the petitioners to supply a fresh letter from the Chief detailing all the beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased.
[c] That Form P&A.5 be amended to include all the beneficiaries as detailed in the Chief’s letter.
[8] The parties were given a mention date to confirm compliance and for further directions. It appears that no concrete action was taken thereafter and following several instances of non-attendance, the cause was ultimately fixed for Notice to Show Cause why it should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. The impugned order was accordingly made on 21 st November 2023. Even then, the parties took no action until September 2024 when the instant application was filed.
[9] Their explanation for the foregoing state of affairs was that there was communication breakdown between the administrators and their erstwhile advocate. That explanation has not been disputed or disproved and, in the main I find it plausible. Accordingly, I would allow the Notice of Motion dated 18 th December 2024 and grant orders as hereunder:
[a] That the dismissal order made herein on the 21 st November 2023 be and is hereby set aside and the succession matter is hereby reinstated for processing to its logical conclusion.
[b] That a fresh Grant of Letters of Administration to issue as ordered on 10 th May 2018 in the name of the surviving administrators.
[c] That the Administrators to forthwith comply with the directions issued on 10 th May 2018 as to the filing of a fresh Form P&A.5 and a fresh letter from the area Chief.
[d] That costs of the application be borne by the estate.
Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT HOMA BAY THIS 27 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

'
    PETITIONER VS RESPONDENT PETITIONER VS RESPONDENT