Koinange & 14 others v Koinange [2024] KEHC 13071 (KLR)

Koinange & 14 others v Koinange (Civil Case 66 of 1984) [2024] KEHC 13071 (KLR) (Civ) (18 October 2024) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 13071 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Civil

Civil Case 66 of 1984

PM Nyaundi, J

October 18, 2024

Between

John Mbiyu Koinange

1st Applicant

Edwin Mbiyu Koinange

2nd Applicant

Noah Karuga Koinange

3rd Applicant

Wilfred Mbiyu Koinange

4th Applicant

Joseph Karuga Koinange

5th Applicant

James Njoroge Koinange

6th Applicant

Raymond Njoroge Koinange

7th Applicant

Leonard Karuga Koinange

8th Applicant

Godfrey Tharuba Koinange

9th Applicant

Wanjiru Gathiomi Koinange

10th Applicant

Nyambura Mbiyu Koinange

11th Applicant

Joyce Kagendo Koinange

12th Applicant

Phyllies Wambui Koinange

13th Applicant

Elizabeth Gathoni Koinange

14th Applicant

Annastasia Wanjiru - Representing Estate of the 4th Applicant

15th Applicant

and

Charles Karuga Koinange

Respondent

Ruling

1. This ruling relates to Summons dated 19th July 2024 presented under Article 159 (2)(d) of the Constitution of Kenya, Sections (sic) 59,63 and 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules, Sections 1A,1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 1 Rules 10 (2) and 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

2. The 4th Applicant having died, the Applicant seeks to substitute him as a party herein. She is the Administrator of his estate. Consequent to this prayer being granted she seeks that the Court be pleased to hear Application dated 3rd November 1993 and set aside the Elders award adopted on May 1992.

3. She also seeks to set aside the ruling of the Court delivered on 30th December 1992 pursuant to decree issued on 9th June 1992 alongside the consequential orders.

4. The basis of the Application is that the 4th Applicant’s Application dated 3rd November 1993 has not been heard. The Applicant invokes the Courts inherent powers to deliver substantial justice without having undue regard to technicalities.

5. To avail herself of the exercise of the Courts discretion in her favour, the Applicant has to meet the first hurdle which is the justifiability of her application. However, her contention that the Application dated 3rd November 1993 has not been prosecuted is not true. On 2nd November 1995, the Court delivered its ruling on that application after the Applicant argued it on 18th July 1995.

6. The Court noted that there was delay in presenting that application as the decree had already been executed and estate distributed. There was inordinate delay on the part of the Applicant. The Court further observed that there was no objection to the award at the time. The Court then reiterated one of the tenets of our justice system, which is that litigation must come to an end and categorically stated that the Application was an abuse of the Court Process. Leave was granted to appeal, it appears the Applicant then, did not pursue the appeal.

7. Clearly, this is therefore an attempt by the Applicant herein to resurrect a matter that was laid to rest almost 29 years ago. I have no hesitation in dismissing the application as lacking merit.

8. The Application dated 19th July 2024 is dismissed in its entirety, there shall be no order as to costs.File closed. It is so ordered

SIGNED DATED AND DELIVERED IN VIRTUAL COURT THIS 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024. P. NYAUNDIJUDGEIn presence of: -Fardosa Court Assistant.......................Advocate for Applicant......................Advocate for Respondent