[2015] KEHC 2728 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent was not entitled to the grant as he was not a creditor of the estate and had purchased the property from some beneficiaries rather than from the deceased. This purchase constituted intermeddling with the estate, violating section 45(1) of the Law of Succession Act. The affidavit...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 2728 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: David Munyao Wambua; Applicant: Elizabeth Ndulu Muthusi; Applicant: Tom Muthusi; Applicant: Margaret Veke Musembi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 359 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant
- Outcome
- Application allowed; grant revoked with costs to the applicants.
- Judges
- BT Jaden
- Legal Topics
- Revocation of Grant, Intermeddling With Estate, Citation Procedure, Beneficiary Rights
- 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
David Munyao Wambua
Respondent
Elizabeth Ndulu Muthusi
Applicant
Tom Muthusi
Applicant
Margaret Veke Musembi
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the grant issued to the respondent should be annulled or revoked due to concealment of material facts and non-inclusion of all beneficiaries.
- 2 Whether the respondent was entitled to the grant as a purchaser from some beneficiaries and not from the deceased.
- 3 Whether the respondent's actions amounted to intermeddling with the estate contrary to section 45(1) of the Law of Succession Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent was not entitled to the grant as he was not a creditor of the estate and had purchased the property from some beneficiaries rather than from the deceased. This purchase constituted intermeddling with the estate, violating section 45(1) of the Law of Succession Act. The affidavit evidence showed that there were twenty beneficiaries, none of whom had renounced their rights, and the respondent's actions did not comply with the requirements for obtaining a grant. The application for revocation of the grant was therefore merited and allowed.
Court Disposition
Application allowed; grant revoked with costs to the applicants.
Orders
- The grant issued to David Munyao Wambua is annulled/revoked.
- Any transactions or disposal of estate property by use of the grant are prohibited.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 359 OF 2008
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN MUTHUSI KATHENGE
DAVID MUNYAO WAMBUA .................................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
1. ELIZABETH NDULU MUTHUSI
2. TOM MUTHUSI
3. MARGARET VEKE MUSEMBI …………………… OBJECTORS/APPLICANTS
R U L I N G
1. The application (amended) dated 3/8/2012 seeks orders that the grant issued to David Munyao Wambua be annulled/revoked. It also seeks an order prohibiting any transactions that may be commenced by use of the grant herein and/or disposal of any of the properties to the estate.
2. It is stated in the affidavit in support that the citation was not served upon the citees. That the grant was obtained by concealment of material facts and that the interests of the Applicants were not taken care of. That beneficiaries who ought to have been cited were omitted. The Applicant accused the Respondent of fraud and misrepresentation. According to the Applicants, the Respondent purchased the suit property from some of the beneficiaries and not from the deceased.
3. The application is opposed. It is averred that the citation was served on the Applicants. According to the Respondent, he is the one who is in occupation of the suit property. That each of the beneficiaries, have their own portions of the suit property and nobody else has complained except the Applicant. It is further stated that the due process of the law was followed when the Respondent petitioned the court for the grant. It is further contended that the application is premature as the grant is yet to be confirmed.
4. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions which I have duly considered.
5. The citation dated 23/6/2008 clearly states that the Respondent purchased the suit property from the family members of the deceased. The sale violated section 45 (1) of the Law of Succession Act Cap 160 Laws of Kenya which provides as follows:-
“Except so far as expressly authorized by this Act, or by any other written law, or by a grant of representation under this Act, no person shall, for any purpose, take possession or dispose of, or otherwise intermeddle with, any free property of a deceased person.”
6. The grant herein was issued following a citation instituted by the Respondent against the following persons:-
i.Elizabeth Ndulu Muthusi
ii.Tom Muthusi
iii.Margaret Veke Musembi
It is noted that the application lists twenty persons who are beneficially entitled to the estate of the deceased. This affidavit evidence remains uncontroverted. None of the said beneficiaries had renounced their rights.
7. Rule 22 (1) of the Probate and Administration Rules provides as follows:-
“A citation may be issued at the instance of any person who would himself be entitled to a grant in the event of the person cited renouncing his right thereto.”
8. The Respondent was not a person entitled to the grant as he was not a creditor in the estate of the deceased. It is clear from the affidavit in verification of the citation that the Respondent purchased the suit property from the three citees and not from the deceased. The purchase amounted to intermeddling with the estate of the deceased.
9. For the aforestated reasons, I find that the application has merits. I allow the application with costs.
………………………………………
B. THURANIRA JADEN
JUDGE
Dated and delivered at Machakos this 11thday of March 2015.
………………………………………
B. THURANIRA JADEN
JUDGE