[2016] KEHC 3150 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 3150 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant and his advocate were duly notified and present during the confirmation of grant proceedings, as evidenced by the court record and service of hearing notice. The applicant's claim of non-service and lack of participation was false. The grounds advanced for rectification of the grant did not fall within the scope of Section 74 of the Law of Succession Act, as no clerical or factual errors were demonstrated. Regarding the second application, the court held that the issues raised had already been fully canvassed and determined in prior proceedings, and did not constitute new or important evidence. The application was also brought after an inordinate and...

Citation
[2016] KEHC 3150 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Elias Gitari Marete; Respondent: Joyce Kathambi Muthoni
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
12 September 2016
Case Number
Succession Cause 50 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Two Applications for Review and Rectification of Grant
Outcome
Both applications for review and rectification of grant are dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Judges
F Gikonyo
Legal Topics
Confirmation of Grant, Rectification of Grant, Review of Judgment, Succession of Land, Beneficiary Shares
Source Language
English
Family and Children Land and Property Confirmation of Grant Rectification of Grant Review of Judgment Succession of Land Beneficiary Shares

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elias Gitari Marete

Applicant

Joyce Kathambi Muthoni

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Two Applications for Review and Rectification of Grant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was denied notice and participation in the confirmation of grant proceedings, warranting review or rectification of the grant.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established grounds for review, variation, or setting aside of the judgment on the basis that the suit land was not part of the deceased's estate.
  3. 3 Whether the applications for review meet the legal threshold under the Law of Succession Act and relevant procedural rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant and his advocate were duly notified and present during the confirmation of grant proceedings, as evidenced by the court record and service of hearing notice. The applicant's claim of non-service and lack of participation was false. The grounds advanced for rectification of the grant did not fall within the scope of Section 74 of the Law of Succession Act, as no clerical or factual errors were demonstrated. Regarding the second application, the court held that the issues raised had already been fully canvassed and determined in prior proceedings, and did not constitute new or important evidence. The application was also brought after an inordinate and...

Court Disposition

Both applications for review and rectification of grant are dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Orders

  • The application dated 10th October 2014 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
  • The application dated 24th May 2016 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.