Commentary on Probate and Administration Appeal No. E004 of 2023: Jurisdictional Limits and Disputed Assets in Succession Proceedings

The High Court of Kenya at Nyeri, in its judgment on Probate and Administration Appeal No. E004 of 2023, reaffirmed critical principles regarding the jurisdiction of probate courts and the handling of disputed estate assets, aligning closely with established legal precedents and the commentary provided. The appeal, arising from Succession Cause No. 128 of 2019 at Mukurweini Magistrates Court, centered on the estate of Mutahi Njururi, whose sole asset—a 23-acre parcel of land (Lower Muhito/Mutundu/65)—was contested by the respondent, Muthoni Rwamba. The respondent claimed a proprietary interest based on an alleged trust, asserting that the deceased held the land in trust for her late husband, Rwamba Mugure. This dispute led the lower court to stay the confirmation of the grant, prompting the appellants, Jane Wanjira Gatimu and Wilson Mwangi Muraguri, to challenge the ruling on grounds that the trial magistrate erred in addressing jurisdiction sua sponte and in failing to consider the substantive merits of their case.

The High Court’s dismissal of the appeal underscores the limited mandate of probate courts under the Law of Succession Act, as highlighted in the commentary. The court affirmed that probate courts lack the authority to resolve disputes over property ownership, such as claims of trust, which fall under the purview of the Environment and Land Court (ELC) as mandated by Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act. This position echoes the precedent set in Re Estate of Peter Igamba Njoroge [2016] eKLR, which clarified that the probate court’s role is confined to distributing estates to rightful beneficiaries and does not extend to adjudicating proprietary claims. The absence of mechanisms within the Law of Succession Act to address ownership disputes necessitates that such matters be resolved in specialized courts like the ELC, ensuring judicial efficiency and adherence to constitutional mandates.

The commentary’s assertion that probate courts should stay confirmation of a grant when the deceased’s sole asset is disputed is directly reflected in the court’s reasoning. Since the estate comprised only the contested land, the trial magistrate’s decision to stay confirmation pending the ELC’s determination was deemed appropriate. The High Court noted that, had the deceased owned additional undisputed assets, the probate court could have proceeded with distributing those while awaiting the ELC’s ruling on the contested land. This approach prevents premature distribution of disputed assets, safeguarding the rights of potential claimants and ensuring that any decree from the ELC can be effectively implemented by the probate court, as recommended in the commentary.

On the issue of jurisdiction, the court robustly defended the trial magistrate’s sua sponte consideration, aligning with the commentary’s view that jurisdiction is the cornerstone of judicial proceedings. Citing Owners of Motor Vessel ‘Lilian S’ v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] eKLR, the court emphasized that a court must halt proceedings the moment it determines it lacks jurisdiction, as proceeding otherwise would be a futile exercise and a waste of judicial resources. The appellants’ contention that jurisdiction was not raised in the protest was dismissed, with the court affirming that a judge may independently address jurisdictional concerns to uphold the integrity of the judicial process. This principle ensures that courts operate within their legal bounds, preventing the risk of null proceedings.

In conclusion, the High Court’s judgment reinforces the procedural and jurisdictional boundaries of probate courts, emphasizing the need for specialized forums like the ELC to resolve complex ownership disputes. By dismissing the appeal, the court upheld the trial magistrate’s prudent decision to refer the trust claim to the appropriate forum, ensuring that the estate’s distribution aligns with a conclusive determination of ownership. This ruling not only adheres to the principles outlined in the commentary but also promotes judicial clarity and fairness in the administration of estates, particularly in cases involving singular, contested assets.