In re Estate of John Gichia Macharia [2022] eKLR

Deceased Name

Key Facts

Issues

• The court considered whether Adam and Lisa's application for administration was incompetent, as it was based on a cross-petition and objection filed long after the stipulated period had expired and after the grants were already issued. The court found the cross-petition and objection to be incompetent as they were filed outside the required timeframe and without seeking an extension, rendering the application itself incompetent.
• The court considered the appointment of Lisa (Adam's mother) and Adam as administrators, despite Lisa not being a beneficiary under Section 66's order of preference. The court prioritized Adam's best interests as the sole beneficiary, noting Lisa's involvement in the estate's companies and Adam's lack of experience, concluding their joint appointment was necessary to protect the estate and avoid conflict between Adam and SK Macharia.
• Adam argued SK Macharia lacked legal capacity to be appointed administrator due to his adjudicated bankruptcy status under Section 56(1)(a) of the Law of Succession Act. SK Macharia countered that this issue was subject to ongoing litigation in higher courts. The court declined to rule on the matter, following the precedent of Mutuku, J., by staying within the Succession Court's jurisdiction.
• The court addressed the necessity of appointing administrators for the estate of John Gichia Macharia, which had remained without administration since the revocation of previous grants. Pending litigation involving the estate and the deceased's business interests necessitated an urgent appointment. The court evaluated competing applications from SK Macharia, Lisa, and Adam, considering their relationships, suitability, and potential conflicts of interest.
• The court examined whether SK Macharia, as chairman of Directline (a company involved in litigation with AKM, where the deceased was a shareholder), could be appointed administrator without creating a conflict of interest. The court concluded that his dual roles as a company chairman and administrator would create conflicting loyalties, potentially compromising the estate's interests.

Date of Death

Holdings

• The court determined that the application seeking to appoint SK Macharia as administrator is incompetent because it is anchored on an incompetent cross-petition and objection, which were filed long after the stipulated period had expired and were not extended by the court.
• The court granted letters of administration to Lisa Anyango Amenya and Adam Kamau Macharia, concluding that appointing SK Macharia would create a conflict of interest due to his roles as chairman of Directline and his alleged bankruptcy, and that Adam, now an adult, cannot collaborate with his grandfather.
• The court ruled that the circumstances of the case do not warrant an award of costs, emphasizing that no costs will be granted in this matter.

Remedies

• Struck out the incompetent summons dated 12.8.21
• Issued grant of letters of administration to Lisa Anyango Amenya and Adam Kamau Macharia
• No award of costs in the circumstances

Will Type

Probate Status

Legal Principles

Succession Regime

Precedent Name

• In re Estate of Gurdial Kaur Sihra (Deceased)
• In re Estate George Ragui Karanja (Deceased)
• Macfoy vs. United Africa Co. Ltd

Executor Name

• Lisa Anyango Amenya
• Adam Kamau Macharia

Cited Statute

Executor Appointment

Judge Name

Beneficiary Classes

Passage Text

• Duly guided, the inevitable conclusion I draw is that the Application which is anchored on an incompetent cross petition which in turn is anchored on an incompetent objection is itself incompetent.
• In light of the foregoing, I am of the view that it is necessary to appoint administrators other than SK Macharia to forestall potential conflict of interest.
• Grant of letters of administration in respect of the estate of the deceased John Gichia Macharia is hereby issued to Lisa Anyango Amenya and Adam Kamau Macharia.