[2012] KEHC 2463 (KLR)
The court found that there was a genuine case that some assets of the deceased were not included in the petition for grant, as evidenced by the green cards for parcels No. 1859 and No. 1860. However, there was no evidence of fraudulent concealment by the petitioner; the omission could have been a genuine mistake. In...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 2463 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Betty Maitha Duncan; Objector: Gilbert Muriuki Chabari; Purchaser: Humphrey Mugambi Muga
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 386 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Application / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant
- Outcome
- application allowed in part
- Judges
- JW Lessit
- Legal Topics
- Revocation of Grant, Fraudulent Concealment, Distribution of Estate, Entitlement to Apply for Grant
- 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
Betty Maitha Duncan
Applicant
Gilbert Muriuki Chabari
Objector
Humphrey Mugambi Muga
Purchaser
Procedural Posture
Succession Application / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the confirmed grant was obtained fraudulently by concealment of material facts.
- 2 Whether all assets of the deceased were included in the petition for grant.
- 3 Whether the petitioner was entitled to apply for the grant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there was a genuine case that some assets of the deceased were not included in the petition for grant, as evidenced by the green cards for parcels No. 1859 and No. 1860. However, there was no evidence of fraudulent concealment by the petitioner; the omission could have been a genuine mistake. In light of the incomplete disclosure of assets, the court determined that the confirmed grant should be revoked to ensure proper administration of the estate and inclusion of all entitled beneficiaries.
Court Disposition
application allowed in part
Orders
- The confirmed grant issued by this court on 27th July 2003 is hereby revoked.
- Each party to bear their own costs of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
CIVIL SUIT 386 OF 2004
BETTY MAITHA DUNCAN..............................................................................................PETITIONER
VERSUS
GILBERT MURIUKI CHABARI.........................................................................................OBJECTOR
AND
HUMPHREY MUGAMBI MUGA....................................................................................PURCHASER
RULING
The application under consideration has been brought by the objector GILBERT MURIUKI CHABARI. It is the one dated 23rd May 2006. It has been brought under Section 76 of Law of Succession Act and Rule 44(1) of P & A Rules.
It seeks to have the confirmed grant revoked or annulled for reasons:-
1. The proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance.
2. The grant was obtained fraudulently by the making of a false statement and by concealment from the court of something material to the cause.
3. That the person to whom the grant was made was distributed the estate to persons who are not entitled to the estate of the deceased and has disinherited the objector.
There is a supporting affidavit sworn by the objector. The gist of the affidavit is that the grant was obtained fraudulently, secretly and by concealment of material facts. That the applicant being eldest son of the deceased and his other brothers were not informed; that not all the assets of the deceased were included in the petition and that those included were wrongly described. The objector avers that the petitioner is sister who is married in Gucha District and who was not entitled to apply for the grant.
The application is opposed Mr. Gituma for petitioner filed an affidavit which answers to this application, sworn by the petitioner. Mr. Gituma did not come for the hearing of the application.
The gist of the petitioners affidavit is none of the children of deceased are disinherited. That all assets of deceased except 1869 were included in the petition. That the rest are not in the deceased names.
Mr. Ondieki for objector urged the court to allow the application on the grounds set out in the supporting affidavit which he also repeated in his submissions. I have set out those grounds hereinabove.
The objector’s evidence as contained in his supporting affidavit to this application has been controverted inpart in petitioner’s affidavit. The petitioner has challenged some of the averments in it. Considering both petitioners and objector’s affidavit I find there is a genuine case that some assts of the deceased were not included. We have green card of at least two of the parcels No. 1859 and No. 1860. There is no evidence of fraudulent concealment. It could have been a genuine mistake.
Having considered this application I will grant it in the following terms.
1. The confirmed grant issued by this court on 27th July 2003 be and is hereby revoked.
2. Each party to bear their own costs of the application.
Dated, signed and delivered this day of 31st July 2012.
J. LESIIT
JUDGE