[2012] KEHC 3878 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 3878 (KLR)

The court found that the issue of whether the petitioners had already received their inheritance was previously addressed in a related succession cause, where it was established that each son had been allocated a plot, and the objector had sold his share. The current distribution of the disputed plot among all three...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] KEHC 3878 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Brown Otengo Asava; Applicant: Arthur Mwanzi Asava; Respondent: Jemeny 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 Revocation of Grant
Outcome
application for revocation of grant dismissed
Legal Topics
Revocation of Grant, Distribution of Estate, Inheritance Rights, Beneficiary Entitlement
Source Language
en
Family and Children Revocation of Grant Distribution of Estate Inheritance Rights Beneficiary Entitlement

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brown Otengo Asava

Applicant

Arthur Mwanzi Asava

Applicant

Jemeny Mudaki Asava

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant

  1. 1 Whether the grant issued to the petitioners should be revoked due to alleged non-service and double inheritance.
  2. 2 Whether the objector, as the last born, is solely entitled to the suit property to the exclusion of his brothers.
  3. 3 Whether the distribution of the estate among the three sons was fair and in accordance with the law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the issue of whether the petitioners had already received their inheritance was previously addressed in a related succession cause, where it was established that each son had been allocated a plot, and the objector had sold his share. The current distribution of the disputed plot among all three sons was deemed fair and equitable. The objector’s claim for exclusive entitlement was unsupported by law or fact. The application for revocation of the grant lacked merit as there was no evidence of fraud, concealment, or procedural defect. The court dismissed the application and ordered each party to bear their own costs, emphasizing the equitable treatment of all...

Court Disposition

application for revocation of grant dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 3rd November 2008 for revocation of grant is dismissed.
  • Each party shall meet his own costs.