[2021] KEHC 3052 (KLR)
The court found that the issues raised, particularly the applicant's alleged status as a wife of the deceased and her entitlement to the estate, are highly contested and cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence alone. The court determined that these matters require viva voce evidence, allowing for cross-examination...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 3052 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Irene Wairimu Irungu; Respondent: Alice W. Maina; Respondent: Mary W. Mwangi; Respondent: David G. Mwangi; Respondent: Dennis K. Mwangi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 320 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Application / Interlocutory Ruling on Summons for Revocation of Grant
- Outcome
- Application for revocation of grant to be heard by viva voce evidence; no final determination on merits at this stage.
- Judges
- M Thande
- Legal Topics
- Revocation of Grant, Matrimonial Property, Beneficiary Exclusion, Probate Procedure
- 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
Irene Wairimu Irungu
Applicant
Alice W. Maina
Respondent
Mary W. Mwangi
Respondent
David G. Mwangi
Respondent
Dennis K. Mwangi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Application / Interlocutory Ruling on Summons for Revocation of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Irene Wairimu Irungu was a wife of the deceased and entitled to a share of the estate.
- 2 Whether the grant of letters of administration was obtained fraudulently by concealment of material facts or by means of untrue allegations.
- 3 Whether the applicant was unlawfully excluded from the succession proceedings and distribution of the estate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the issues raised, particularly the applicant's alleged status as a wife of the deceased and her entitlement to the estate, are highly contested and cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence alone. The court determined that these matters require viva voce evidence, allowing for cross-examination and assessment of witness credibility. Accordingly, the court directed that the summons for revocation of grant be disposed of by way of oral evidence, deferring any substantive determination until after a full hearing.
Court Disposition
Application for revocation of grant to be heard by viva voce evidence; no final determination on merits at this stage.
Orders
- Summons for revocation of grant dated 17.12.18 to be disposed of by way of viva voce evidence.
- Mention scheduled for 29.7.21 for directions as to hearing.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
SUCCESSION NO. 320 OF 2017
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF BONIFACE MWANGI GITAU
IRENE WAIRIMU IRUNGU.....................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
ALICE W. MAINA.........1ST PETITIONER/ADMINISTRATOR
MARY W. MWANGI.....2ND PETITIONER/ADMINISTRATOR
DAVID G. MWANGI.....3RD PETITIONER/ADMINISTRATOR
DENNIS K. MWANGI..4TH PETITIONER/ADMINISTRATOR
RULING
1. Boniface Mwangi Gitau the deceased herein died on 4. 1.17 at the age of 55 years. The record shows that the deceased was survived by his widow Alice Wanjugu Maina (Alice), and 2 children Mary Wanjiru Mwangi (Mary) and David Gitau Mwangi (David). The estate of the deceased comprised of a property known as Plot D 318, Dandora. A grant of letters of administration (the Grant) was on 10. 7.17 issued to Alice and thereafter confirmed on 11. 4.18. The certificate of confirmation of grant of even date indicated that the sole property of the estate was to be distributed to Alice, Mary and David in equal shares.
2. By her Summons dated 17. 12. 18 Irene Wairimu Irungu (Irene) seeks revocation of the Grant. In her summons, she names Alice, Mary, David and one Dennis K. Mwangi as petitioners/administrators. The grounds upon which the Application is premised are that Irene was married to the deceased and they cohabited in the suit property, which is her matrimonial home; that the Petitioners excluded her in the petition for the Grant and did not inform or obtain her consent; that they seek to disinherit her and her minor children; that in a bid to evict her from her matrimonial home the Petitioners on 10. 12. 18, accompanied by police offers invaded her matrimonial home armed with an order and attached her property falsely claiming that she was a tenant in rent arrears of Kshs. 1,158,000/=; that the Petitioners failed to disclose the properties of the deceased:
i. Plot No. 220 Nakuru Cider Lodge.
ii. Part of the estate at home in Bahati Nakuru
iii. Co-operative Bank account no. 0111xxxxxx
iv. Barclays bank account No. 0758xxxx
3. Alice opposed the Application by her replying affidavit sworn on 5. 5.21 and denied the allegations made by Irene. In particular, she claimed that the chief’s letter exhibited by Irene stating that Irene was a wife to the deceased is by a chief without jurisdiction. Alice seeks that the chief be summoned for cross examination; that the affidavit of marriage exhibited by Irene is void as it does not bear the name of the commissioner of oaths who administered the oath; that contrary to her averments, Irene was aware that Alice was the administrator of the estate; that the suit property is not Irene’s matrimonial home and that Alice assisted the deceased in developing the same; that the office of the Director of Housing Development Department should explain how it issued a payment card when Alice had the original all along; that the said payment card does not contain a picture of the deceased; that the purported affidavit by the deceased allegedly sworn on 23. 12. 12 was part of the efforts of Irene to deprive Alice of her right to property; that Irene has been collecting rent from the suit property since January 2017, which rent does not belong to her. Alice averred that the Grant was obtained validly and urged the Court to dismiss the summons with costs.
4. I have carefully considered the summons, the rival affidavits as well as the filed submissions. It is quite evident that the matters raised herein including the highly contested issue as to whether Irene Wairimu Irungu was a wife of the deceased, can only be established by adduction of viva voce evidence. Such evidence will be subjected to cross examination and the Court will have opportunity to observe and scrutinise the demeanor of the witnesses. To better serve the interests of justice therefore, I direct that the summons for revocation of grant dated 17. 12. 18 be disposed of by way of viva voceevidence. Mention on 29. 7.21 for directions as to hearing.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN NAIROBI THIS 16TH JULY, 2021
M. THANDE
JUDGE
In the presence of: -
........................................................for the Applicant
........................................................for the Respondents
........................................................Court Assistant