In re Estate of Manjit Singh - (Deceased) [2019] KEHC 11458 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI

MILIMANI LAW COURTS

FAMILY DIVISION

SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 1535 OF 2013

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MANJIT SINGH - (DECEASED)

CONNECTING MISSIONS SERVICES AFRICA..APPLICANT

VERSUS

VICKY MANJIT SINGH........................................RESPONDENT

RULING

1. The deceased Manjit Singh t/a Waithaka Diesel Workshop was sued by Connecting Missions Services Africa (the applicant) in Nairobi CMCC No. 3531 of 2012 to recover motor vehicle registration number KAQ 063G make Land Rover.  The applicant took the land rover for repairs at Waithaka Diesel Workshop.  The vehicle was serviced and repaired but was not released.  The suit had other prayers.  With the suit was an application for summary judgment.  Attempts to serve process proved futile.  It was later discovered that Manjit Singh had died on 5th July 2012, and that his son Vicky Manjit Singh had taken over the Workshop.  The said Vicky Manjit Singh had refused and/or failed to take out letters of administration in respect of his late father’s estate.  The applicant brought this petition for the letters of administration ad colligenda bona.  He asked that the grant issued be “limited for the purpose of progressing the suit to conclusion by substituting the deceased’s legal representative one Vicky Manjit Singh so that the plaintiff can recover its Land Rover registration number KAQ 063G and damages in the Plaint in Nairobi CMCC 3531 of 2012. ”

2. The application was not defended.

3. The application did not indicate the law under which it was being brought.  It is, however, clear that applications for the grant of letters of administration ad colligenda bona are brought under Section 67 of the Law of Succession Act (Cap 160) and Rule 36 of the Probate and Administration Rules.  Under Rule 36(2):-

“2.  Every such grant shall be in Form 47 and be expressly limited for the purpose only of collecting and getting in and receiving the estate and doing such acts as may be necessary for the preservation of the estate and until a further grant is made.”

4. The application seeks to sue the respondent in place of his deceased’s father.  It does not seek to collect and get into the estate to receive it to be able to preserve it.  In the case of MORJARIA –vs- ABDALLA [1984]eKLR, it was held that:-

“…  We do not think that the appointment of a person “ad colligenda bona” can possibly include the right to stand in the shoes of the deceased for the purpose of instituting an action, or, indeed, an appeal, especially where there is a specific provision, paragraph 14 of the Fifth Schedule, designed for this purpose …”

5. Consequently, I dismiss the application as it is misconceived.

DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019.

A.O. MUCHELULE

JUDGE