[2015] KEHC 3479 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 3479 (KLR)

The court held that the grounds advanced by the applicant for review did not meet the threshold under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The alleged failure to consider the Matrimonial Property Act, 2013, or misapprehension of law, are not grounds for review but for appeal. The omission of certain properties from the distribution was either addressed by prior consent or could still be canvassed in respect of undistributed assets, and did not justify setting aside the orders already made. The applicant's claim of prejudice due to her advocate's failure to file submissions is not a basis for reopening the matter. The application for review was therefore found to be without merit and...

Citation
[2015] KEHC 3479 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Cecilia Mudondo Wandera; Respondent: Matilda Wandera
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Busia
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
7 July 2015
Case Number
Succession Cause 237 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Review of Distribution Orders
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
F Tuiyott
Legal Topics
Succession and Inheritance, Distribution of Estate, Review of Court Orders
Source Language
English
Family and Children Succession and Inheritance Distribution of Estate Review of Court Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cecilia Mudondo Wandera

Applicant

Matilda Wandera

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Review of Distribution Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should review, set aside or vary its ruling and orders of 12th June 2014 regarding distribution of the deceased's estate.
  2. 2 Whether the omission of certain properties from the distribution amounts to an error justifying review.
  3. 3 Whether the court's failure to consider the Matrimonial Property Act, 2013, is a ground for review or appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the grounds advanced by the applicant for review did not meet the threshold under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The alleged failure to consider the Matrimonial Property Act, 2013, or misapprehension of law, are not grounds for review but for appeal. The omission of certain properties from the distribution was either addressed by prior consent or could still be canvassed in respect of undistributed assets, and did not justify setting aside the orders already made. The applicant's claim of prejudice due to her advocate's failure to file submissions is not a basis for reopening the matter. The application for review was therefore found to be without merit and...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 24th February 2015 is dismissed with costs.
  • The parties are at liberty to file a consent on the distribution of agricultural land if they so agree.