[2014] KEHC 6709 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had already been allocated Plot KAKAMEGA/LYDUYWA/1269, which he subsequently sold, while the respondents received plots 1265 and 1268. Since all three beneficiaries had been given their respective shares, the only logical conclusion was for Plot 532 to be shared equally among them....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 6709 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Brown Otengo Asava; Applicant: Arthur Mwanzi Asava; Respondent: Jeremy Mudaki Asava
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 278 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Review
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- SJ Chitembwe
- Legal Topics
- Succession Review, Distribution of Estate, Revocation of 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
Brown Otengo Asava
Applicant
Arthur Mwanzi Asava
Applicant
Jeremy Mudaki Asava
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to exclusive ownership of plot number KAKAMEGA/MBALE/532.
- 2 Whether there are new facts to warrant a review of the court's ruling dated 10/5/2012.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had already been allocated Plot KAKAMEGA/LYDUYWA/1269, which he subsequently sold, while the respondents received plots 1265 and 1268. Since all three beneficiaries had been given their respective shares, the only logical conclusion was for Plot 532 to be shared equally among them. The court determined that the applicant failed to present any new information or evidence to warrant a review of the previous ruling. Consequently, the application for review lacked merit and was dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application dated 17/7/2012 is dismissed with costs.
- No review of the ruling dated 10/5/2012 is granted.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT
AT KAKAMEGA
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO: 278 OF 2007
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KENZIA
DALITSU alias KETSIA DALIDZU..................................DECEASED
AND
1. BROWN OTENGO ASAVA......................................PETITIONERS
2. ARTHUR MWANZI ASAVA
VERSUS
JEREMY MUDAKI ASAVA............................................OBJECTOR
R U L I N G
The application dated 17th July 2012 seeks a review of the court ruling made on 10/5/2012. The application also seeks to stop the Vihiga Land Registrar from registering new entries as a result of sub-division of plot number KAKAMEGA/MBALE/532. The application is supported by the applicant’s affidavit.
Mr. Athunga , counsel for the applicant submitted that the court ruled that Plot 532 be divided equally amongst the parties. The court relied on the proceedings in succession cause number 45B of 1990 but the grant issued in that cause was revoked. The applicant’s position is that the two respondents were given their respective share. The suit land remained in the names of the deceased and was for the benefit of the applicant who is the last born. Plot 532 therefore ought to have been given to the applicant.
Mr. Nyikul, counsel for the respondent opposed the application. Counsel contends that here are no new facts to warrant a review of the court ruling. The court only confirmed the grant.
In my ruling of 10/5/2012 I noted the fact that the court in Kakamega Succession cause No. 45B of 1990 revoked the grant that had been issued to the objector. Therefore the submissions that this court relied on the proceedings yet the grant had been revoked are misplaced. The main issue for determination is whether the applicant is entitled to plot number 532 exclusively.
In my ruling of 10/5/2012, I held that the three sons were each given their own land. The applicant herein was given Plot KAKAMEGA/LYDUYWA/1269 which he sold while the respondents got plot number 1265 and 1268. The applicant has not denied that he got plot number 1269. If each of the three beneficiaries had already been allocated land, the only logical conclusion is for plot 532 to be shared equally. This was the proposal made by the respondents in essence therefore, all the issued being raised have already been dealt with by the court.
In the end, I do find that there is no new information that has been presented by the applicant to warrant a review of the ruling of 10/5/2012. The application dated 17/7/2012 lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed with costs.
Dated, signed and Delivered at Kakamega this 27th day of February 2014.
SAID J. CHITEMBWE
JUDGE