[2015] KEHC 6823 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 6823 (KLR)

The court found that the application for revocation of grant dated 8th August 2013 was never served on the respondents. The only affidavit of service on record related to a mention notice, not the substantive application. As a result, the respondents were not given an opportunity to be heard, and any directions...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 6823 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Applicant (Name not specified); Respondent: Respondents (Names not specified)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 1892 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Service of Summons for Revocation of Grant
Outcome
Application not determined; directions for service issued.
Judges
DN Musyoka
Legal Topics
Succession Procedure, Revocation of Grant, Service of Process
Source Language
en
Family and Children Succession Procedure Revocation of Grant Service of Process

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant (Name not specified)

Applicant

Respondents (Names not specified)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Service of Summons for Revocation of Grant

  1. 1 Whether the summons for revocation of grant was properly served on the respondents.
  2. 2 Whether it is just to proceed with determination of the application without service on the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for revocation of grant dated 8th August 2013 was never served on the respondents. The only affidavit of service on record related to a mention notice, not the substantive application. As a result, the respondents were not given an opportunity to be heard, and any directions previously given were based on a misapprehension of the facts. The court held that it would be unjust to determine the application without the respondents' involvement and directed that proper service be effected before further proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application not determined; directions for service issued.

Orders

  • Applicants to serve the application dated 8th August 2013 on the respondents.
  • Directions given on 27th May 2014 are vacated.