[2016] KEHC 5792 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants' names were missing from both the consent to the making of the grant and the consent to the confirmation of the grant. This omission constituted a defect in substance and amounted to concealment of material facts. As such, the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 5792 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Cheporoko Riomongar; Applicant: Loriono Riomongar; Applicant: Domitila Chepokosumoi Daniel; Respondent: Jacob Kuchulem Riomongor; Respondent: Monica Chepengat Kuchulem
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 40 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- BT Jaden
- Legal Topics
- Revocation of Grant, Non Disclosure of Beneficiaries, Intestate Succession, Consent to 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
Cheporoko Riomongar
Applicant
Loriono Riomongar
Applicant
Domitila Chepokosumoi Daniel
Applicant
Jacob Kuchulem Riomongor
Respondent
Monica Chepengat Kuchulem
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the grant of letters of administration was obtained through concealment of material facts.
- 2 Whether the applicants, as beneficiaries, were excluded from the succession proceedings.
- 3 Whether the grant should be revoked and the estate reverted to its original title.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants' names were missing from both the consent to the making of the grant and the consent to the confirmation of the grant. This omission constituted a defect in substance and amounted to concealment of material facts. As such, the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective, justifying revocation of the grant under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. The court allowed the application for revocation of the grant and awarded costs to the applicants.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The grant of letters of administration issued to the respondents on 27/5/2013 and confirmed on 20/3/2014 is revoked and/or annulled.
- Costs awarded to the applicants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITALE
SUCCESSION CAUUSE NO. 40 OF 2013
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF RIOMONGOR
KUCHULEM........................................DECEASED
CHEPOROKO RIOMONGAR..........................1ST APPLICANT
LORIONO RIOMONGAR..............................2ND APPLICANT
DOMITILA CHEPOKOSUMOI DANIEL............3RD APPLICANT
AND
JACOB KUCHULEM RIOMONGOR..............1ST RESPONDENT
MONICA CHEPENGAT KUCHULEM …............2ND RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The application dated 10/6/2015 principally seeks orders that the grant of letters of administration issued to the Respondent herein on the 27/5/2013 and confirmed on the 20/3/2014, over the estate of the late RIOMONGAR KUCHULEM, and who died on the 23/3/1990 be revoked and or annulled.
Secondly, that upon the revocation and or annulment of the grant of letters of administration issued to the Respondents on the 27/5/2013 and confirmed on the 20/3/2014, an order be made that the land comprised in Title Nos. WEST POKOT/CHEPARERIA/2298, 2299, 22300and 22301 do revert to Title No WEST POKOT/CHEPARERIA/379 in the name of the late RIOMONGAR KUCHULEM.
The 1st applicant is a widow to the deceased while the 2nd and 3rd applicants are her children with the deceased. It is stated that the 2nd widow of the deceased is CHEPTAR RIOMONGAR. That the other two widows of the deceased have since passed on. That prior to his death, the deceased had shared out his land among his four houses. The applicants' complaint is that they were not aware of this succession cause. That some of the land parcels which form part of the estate of the deceased were not disclosed to the court.
The application is opposed. According to the replying affidavit, the deceased shared out his land amongst his four houses. It is contended that all the beneficiaries were notified of the petition herein but no objection was lodged and that there was no concealment of any material facts.
During the hearing of the application, the parties opted to proceed by way of written submissions. Subsequently the applicants filed theirs but the Respondents stated that they would not file any. I have considered the filed submissions.
I have scrutinized the consent to the making of a grant of Administration Intestate to a person of equal or lesser priority (form 38) which was filed herein. The applicants names are missing from the said consent.
The applicants names are also missing from the consent to the confirmation of the grant.
The proceedings to obtain the grant were therefore defective in substance due to the concealment of material facts. The application is allowed with costs to the applicants.
B. THURANIRA JADEN
JUDGE
Delivered and dated this 23rd day of march 2016.
B. THURANIRA JADEN
JUDGE