[2013] KEHC 5658 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent obtained the grant of letters of administration by misrepresenting himself as a son of the deceased, failing to disclose all beneficiaries, and not obtaining the required consents from those with higher priority, including the applicant and her mother. The respondent's actions...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 5658 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Beatrice Penina Anupi; Respondent: Philip Manyasi Kotia
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 74 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Annulment of Grant
- Outcome
- application allowed; grant revoked; new grant to issue jointly to applicant and respondent
- Judges
- BT Jaden, SJ Chitembwe
- Legal Topics
- Revocation of Grant, Fraudulent Obtainment of Grant, Priority of Beneficiaries, Disclosure of Beneficiaries
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Beatrice Penina Anupi
Applicant
Philip Manyasi Kotia
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Annulment of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the grant of letters of administration intestate was obtained fraudulently by the respondent.
- 2 Whether the respondent failed to disclose material facts and beneficiaries to the court.
- 3 Whether the applicant and her mother, who ranked higher in priority, were excluded from the process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent obtained the grant of letters of administration by misrepresenting himself as a son of the deceased, failing to disclose all beneficiaries, and not obtaining the required consents from those with higher priority, including the applicant and her mother. The respondent's actions amounted to concealment of material facts and fraudulent misrepresentation, warranting revocation of the grant. Furthermore, the value of the estate exceeded the jurisdiction of the court that issued the original grant, rendering the process defective. The court therefore allowed the application, revoked the grant, and ordered a new grant to issue jointly to the applicant and...
Court Disposition
application allowed; grant revoked; new grant to issue jointly to applicant and respondent
Orders
- The grant of letters of administration intestate issued to Philip Manyasi Kotia on 19th September 2005 is revoked.
- A new grant to issue in the joint names of Beatrice Penina Anupi and Philip Manyasi Kotia.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 74 OF 2008
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE MAKANGA MANYASI – DECEASED
BEATRICE PENINA ANUPI ……………..….………………………………... APPLICANT
VERSUS
PHILIP MANYASI KOTIA ………………………………….……………… RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The Summons for annulment of grant dated 11/3/2008 seeks the following orders:-
The Honourable Court be pleased to revoke the grant of letters of administration intestate issued toPHILLIP MANYASI KOTIAon the 19th September 2005, on the grounds that the grant was obtained fraudulently by making a false statement and/or by concealment from the court of something material to the case.
An order do issue for the rectification of the register with respect to title No.W/BUNYORE/EBUSAKAMI/1254so as to cancel the name ofPHILIP MANYASI KOTIA.
The applicant, Beatrice Penina Anupi in her affidavit in support of the summons described her late father as a brother to the deceased herein. The deceased was not survived by any children or wife.
According to the applicant, the respondent, Philip Manyasi Kotia who is a step brother to the deceased obtained a grant of letters of administration to the estate of the deceased fraudulently. The applicant alleges as follows against the respondent:-
The respondent described himself as a son to the deceased when he was a step brother to the deceased.
The respondent failed to disclose that one beneficiary by the name Harrison Eyulewas a minor and that the deceased also had other nieces and nephews who survived him. The respondent falsely reflected one Kennedy Okoko Osiako as a child of the deceased.
The respondent did not obtain the consent of the applicant and her mother who ranked higher in priority.
It was further averred that after obtaining the grant, the respondent transferred land piece No. W/Bunyore/Ebusakami/1254 to his name.
The applicant filed a further affidavit and a supplementary affidavit which gives mere background information and details relating to the entire estate of the deceased. However, only the aforestated property is the subject of the application at hand.
In opposition to the application, the respondent filed a replying affidavit sworn on 11/12/2008. In the said affidavit the respondent describes himself as a brother to the deceased. According to the Respondent, he is entitled to an equal share of the estate of the deceased. The respondent’s stand is that the applicant was aware of the making of the grant of letters of administration herein.
According to the applicant, it was the applicant’s father who sold land parcels No. W/Bunyore/1677 and the respondent and land parcel No. W/Bunyore/1274 which were all properties left behind by the deceased herein. The respondent had no problem with transferring half of land parcel No. West/Bunyore/1254 to the applicant.
The respondent accused the applicant of selling land parcel No. West/Bunyore/1274 to one Mary Ayule when it had already been sold to one Harrison Osiako the father to Kennedy Osiako Okoko.
The respondent has in his affidavit conceded that he is a brother to the deceased and not a son. In the petition for letters of administration, the respondent described himself as a son to the deceased. The respondent also described one Harrison Osiako and one Harrison E. Tole as some of the survivors left behind by the deceased. That could not be the correct position as the respondent has stated in his replying affidavit that Harrison Osiako is a purchaser. The respondent also failed to disclose the applicant and her mother as some of the beneficiaries. No consent was obtained from the applicant when the court was petitioned for the grant.
The respondent gave the estimate value of the estate of the deceased as Kshs.150,000/=. This was beyond the jurisdiction of the Vihiga SPM’s Court as provided for under section 48 of the Law of Succession Act.
The application has merit and is allowed. A new grant to issue in the joint names of the applicant and the respondent. Costs of the application to the applicant.
B. THURANIRA JADEN
JUDGE
Dated and delivered at Kakamega this 27th day of June2013.
…………………………..
SAID J. CHITEMBWE
JUDGE