[2012] KEHC 201 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's name was in fact included in both the Chief's letter and form P & A 5, and thus there was no fraudulent non-disclosure by the respondents. The allegations of fraud were deemed baseless. Regarding the correction of names, the court held that there was no valid reason to deny the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 201 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Charles Mukafwa Muwaya; Respondent: Eunice Barasa Muhaya; Respondent: Joseph Martin Muhaya
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 289 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Revocation and Notice of Motion for Correction of Names
- Outcome
- Application for revocation dismissed with costs; application for correction of names allowed with costs in the cause.
- Legal Topics
- Revocation of Grant, Fraudulent Non Disclosure, Beneficiary Rights, Correction of Names
- 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
Charles Mukafwa Muwaya
Applicant
Eunice Barasa Muhaya
Respondent
Joseph Martin Muhaya
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Revocation and Notice of Motion for Correction of Names
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the grant of letters of administration was obtained fraudulently by non-disclosure of the applicant's status as a beneficiary.
- 2 Whether the applicant's name was omitted from the relevant succession documents.
- 3 Whether the petitioners' names should be corrected to match their National Identity Cards.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's name was in fact included in both the Chief's letter and form P & A 5, and thus there was no fraudulent non-disclosure by the respondents. The allegations of fraud were deemed baseless. Regarding the correction of names, the court held that there was no valid reason to deny the application to correct the petitioners' names to match their National Identity Cards, as the objection raised by the applicant was not substantiated by any legitimate family or legal issue. Accordingly, the application for revocation was dismissed with costs, and the application for correction of names was allowed with costs in the cause.
Court Disposition
Application for revocation dismissed with costs; application for correction of names allowed with costs in the cause.
Orders
- The summons for revocation and annulment of grant dated 8.5.2012 is dismissed with costs.
- The application for correction of names filed on 5.12.2004 is allowed with costs in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Kakamega
Succession Cause 289 of 2011 [if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; line-height:115%; font-size:11. 0pt;"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JACOB MUHAYA MUKAFWA – DECEASED
AND
CHARLES MUKAFWA MUWAYA ……. OBJECTOR/APPLICANT
VERSUS
EUNICE BARASA MUHAYA ….1ST PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT
JOSEPH MARTIN MUHAYA … 2ND PETITIONER/RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The applicant, CHARLES MUKAFWA MUHAYA, has applied through the Summons for Revocation and annulment of grant dated 8. 5.2012 that the Grant of Letters of Administration made to the Respondents herein be revoked.
The application is supported by the affidavit sworn by the applicant on 8. 5.12. According to the said affidavit, the grant of letters of Administration was obtained fraudulently through non disclosure of the fact that the applicant is the biological son of the deceased and a beneficiary of the estate of the deceased.
In opposition to the application the 1st Respondent, EUNICE BARASA MUHAYA swore an affidavit filed in court on 20. 6.2012. The respondent’s contention is that she followed the due process and that the applicant’s name appears in the Chief’s letter and the form P & A 5.
I have perused the file. I find as a matter of fact that the applicant’s name is reflected in the Chief’s letter dated 21. 4.11. The applicant’s name is also reflected in form P & A 5.
The allegations by the applicant are baseless and his application is hereby dismissed with costs.
The Notice of Motion application filed on 5. 12. 2004 prays for the correction of names of the petitioners to tally with the names in their National Identity Cards.
The application is supported by the affidavit of the 1st applicant EUNICE BARAZA MWAYA. No affidavit was filed in reply to the said application.However, during the hearing of the application the objector CHARLES MUKAFWA stated that the names should not be corrected due to family problems. That Objection is also baseless. There are no good reasons why the errors in the name reflected in the grant of letters of Administration should not be corrected. The application for correction of names is allowed with costs in the cause.
Delivered, date and singed at Kakamega this 11TH day of October, 2012
B. THURANINA JADEN
J U D G E