SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

NTIRAMPEBA LAURENT v CHUNILAL R. PARMAR t/a QUARZO [2007] KEHC 2811 (KLR)

[2007] KEHC 2811 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
2811
Citation
[2007] KEHC 2811 (KLR)
Decided
25 May 2007
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil SuitPostureApplication to release funds from a joint accountCoramLESIIT, J.
Holding

The application is struck out as incompetent, bad in law, and misconceived. The Advocates on record, Khan & Katiku Advocates, are ordered to pay the costs of the application.

Facts

The Plaintiff, deceased, filed a suit against the Defendant for various claims, including an injunction and damages. The suit was filed on 1st March, 2000, and a consent order was made on 22nd December, 2000, directing the Plaintiff's deposit of KShs.750,000 to be held in an interest-earning account in the joint names of the Plaintiff's Advocates, Khan & Katiku and Ms. T. K. Kamba Mbaabu. The Plaintiff died on 5th January, 2003, and the suit abated under Order XXIII, rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Issues

  1. Who authorized the application to release the funds?
  2. Whether the application is competent and authorized by law.

Reasoning

The court found that until the representatives of the deceased Plaintiff's Estate or the Administrator of that Estate get involved, the Advocates on record have no mandate to move the court. The application was deemed incompetent and against the law.

Outcome

The application is struck out.

Orders

  • The application is struck out.
  • Khan & Katiku Advocates are ordered to pay the costs of the application.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules
  • Law of Succession Act
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case