[2023] KEHC 24436 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 24436 (KLR)

The court found that the addition of new assets to a confirmed grant does not fall within the scope of rectification under section 74 of the Law of Succession Act, as rectification is limited to correcting misdescriptions or errors, not substantive changes. However, the court acknowledged its inherent jurisdiction...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 24436 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Monica Wairimu Gakui; Applicant: Priscillah Nyawira Matu
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 2050 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Rectification of Grant
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
EKO Ogola
Legal Topics
Rectification of Grant, Discovery of New Assets, Probate and Administration, Confirmation of Grant
Source Language
en
Family and Children Rectification of Grant Discovery of New Assets Probate and Administration Confirmation of Grant

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Monica Wairimu Gakui

Applicant

Priscillah Nyawira Matu

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Rectification of Grant

  1. 1 Whether the omission of Stima Sacco and KCB Group shares from the confirmed grant can be rectified under section 74 of the Law of Succession Act.
  2. 2 Whether the discovery of new assets after confirmation of grant qualifies for rectification or requires review of the grant.
  3. 3 Whether the court can invoke its inherent jurisdiction to allow the inclusion of newly discovered assets.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the addition of new assets to a confirmed grant does not fall within the scope of rectification under section 74 of the Law of Succession Act, as rectification is limited to correcting misdescriptions or errors, not substantive changes. However, the court acknowledged its inherent jurisdiction under Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules to make orders necessary for the ends of justice. Given the consent of all beneficiaries and the need to ensure a just distribution of the estate, the court exercised its inherent power to allow the inclusion of the Stima Sacco and KCB Group shares in the confirmed grant, despite the procedural misstep. The application was...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The Summons dated November 15, 2021 are allowed as prayed.
  • The shares with Stima Sacco and KCB Group shall be added in the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant issued on April 22, 2013.