BOB AMALEMBA
July 06, 2026| A Bungoma manresiding in Australia has lost his bid to take over the management of his ailing father’s multi-million-shilling estate after the High Court ruled that he unlawfully sidelined his stepmother, who enjoys first priority under the law.
Justice Mwanaisha Shariff (pictured) dismissed the petition filed by NP, who had sought to be appointed manager of the estate and affairs of his 87-year-old father, Dr. CNP, saying the application was riddled with legal flaws and failed to comply with mandatory provisions of the Mental Health Act.
The petitioner had argued that his father, who suffers from Alzheimer’s dementia with Parkinsonism and hypertensive heart disease, had become incapable of managing his own affairs due to deteriorating memory, speech and cognitive function.
He told the court that taking over management of his father’s estate was necessary to protect his interests, particularly in a long-running succession dispute involving the estate of his late grandfather, which is believed to comprise substantial family property.
The son, who lives in Australia, also informed the court that he had obtained the consent of his siblings to seek the appointment.
However, the court found that he overlooked one critical legal requirement—his father’s wife.
Justice Shariff noted that under the Mental Health Act, a spouse takes precedence over children in seeking appointment as manager of the estate of a person suffering from mental illness unless the spouse is unable or unwilling to act.
Although the petitioner eventually disclosed the identity of his stepmother after being pressed by the court, he failed to demonstrate that she had declined to make the application herself.
The judge further observed that despite directing the petitioner to serve his stepmother with the court papers and obtain her response, he ignored those orders and failed to provide any proof of service.
“The spouse is better placed to be knowledgeable of the ward’s current mental state and his daily needs as compared to the petitioner who resides far off in Australia,” Justice Shariff ruled.
The court also questioned the medical evidence relied upon by the petitioner.
While a doctor’s report confirmed that the elderly man had been receiving treatment since 2020 and had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s dementia with Parkinsonism, the report was uncertified and therefore did not satisfy the requirements of the Mental Health Act.
Justice Shariff further found that the petitioner had failed to disclose whether his father had appointed a supporter, another legal requirement before a representative can seek court appointment.
Instead of detailing his father’s own assets, the petitioner presented an inventory relating to his late grandfather’s estate, where his father is one of the administrators.
The judge held that the succession dispute over the grandfather’s estate was a separate matter that should be dealt with by the court handling that succession cause and could not be used to justify appointing a manager under the Mental Health Act.
Perhaps most damaging to the application was the court’s finding that there was no evidence the elderly man owned identifiable property requiring the appointment of a manager.
“On the balance I do find that the ward has no known property to warrant an appointment of a manager to manage his affairs and estate,” Justice Shariff said.
He added that the petitioner and his siblings did not require court orders to care for or maintain their father.
The judge consequently dismissed the petition filed on November 11, 2025, describing it as lacking merit and ordered that each party bears its own legal costs.