The Church of Almighty God Malaki Ltd v Administrator General & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 92 of 2009)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
All five preliminary objections upheld. The court held that the undated affidavit offended statutory requirements and could not stand in law. Service effected two months after issue without an extension order breached Order 5 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The application was misconceived because vesting orders on grounds of possession and acquiescence must be made to the Chief Registrar under Registration of Titles Act s.78. The respondents were wrongly sued as the Administrator General held no grant in the estate. The purported bequest was void under Succession Act s.105 for failure to deposit the will as required by law.
Outcome
Application dismissed on preliminary objections without consideration of merits
Facts
The applicant church claimed to have received a donation of 10 acres from the late Yose Kato in 1970 under a will, with possession since Kato's death in 1976. The Administrator General opened an estate file in 1993 but did not facilitate transfer. The applicant sought a vesting order directing the Commissioner for Land Registration to transfer part of Bulemezi Block 399 plot 12 into the church's name. The application was supported by an affidavit of Rev. Kikute. The respondents did not file affidavits in reply but raised five preliminary objections at the hearing. The affidavit was undated, service was effected on 26 February 2010 for a notice issued 21 December 2009, and the will was never deposited for safe custody as required by law.
Issues
- Whether an affidavit in support of an application that is not dated is valid in law.
- Whether service of court process effected two months and five days after issue, without an extension order, complies with the Civil Procedure Rules.
- Whether an application for a vesting order based on possession and acquiescence should be brought before the High Court or the Chief Registrar of Titles.
- Whether the Administrator General and Commissioner for Land Registration were properly sued where the Administrator General held neither probate nor letters of administration for the estate.
- Whether a bequest to a religious or charitable body is valid where the will was not deposited in the place provided by law for safe custody of wills of living persons.
Orders
- All five preliminary objections upheld.
- Application dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondents.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (14)
- Registration of Titles Act s.78
- Registration of Titles Act s.167
- Registration of Titles Act s.188
- Civil Procedure Rules O.5 r.1(b)
- Civil Procedure Rules O.5 r.2
- Civil Procedure Rules O.5 r.3
- Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
- Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.3
- Civil Procedure Act s.2
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Oaths Act s.6
- Commissioner for Oaths (Advocates) Act s.5
- Succession Act s.105
- Succession Act s.337
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.