[2018] KEHC 6221 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any beneficiary status in relation to the estate of the deceased, Ekesa Ekakoro Okuru. The land parcel in question was registered in the deceased's name as absolute owner, and there was no evidence or claim of trust or challenge to the title during the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 6221 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: John Ekesa; Applicant: Gadhi Ejapu Ikakoro
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Busia
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Probate & Administration 458 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Probate and Administration / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant
- Outcome
- objection dismissed with costs
- Judges
- KW Kiarie
- Legal Topics
- Revocation of Grant, Law of Succession, Beneficiary Status, Fraudulent Obtainment, Priority of Administration
- 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
John Ekesa
Respondent
Gadhi Ejapu Ikakoro
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Probate and Administration / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the grant of representation was obtained through defective procedure or fraud.
- 2 Whether the applicant is a beneficiary entitled to challenge the grant.
- 3 Whether the respondent was entitled to the grant and administration of the estate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any beneficiary status in relation to the estate of the deceased, Ekesa Ekakoro Okuru. The land parcel in question was registered in the deceased's name as absolute owner, and there was no evidence or claim of trust or challenge to the title during the deceased's lifetime. The respondent, as the son of the deceased, was entitled to the grant, and the process of obtaining the grant was not shown to be defective or fraudulent. Consequently, the application for revocation of the grant was dismissed as unmerited.
Court Disposition
objection dismissed with costs
Orders
- The objection is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUSIA
PROBATE & ADMINSTRATION NO. 458 OF 2014
IN THE ESTATE OF:- EKESA EKAKORO OKURU...........................DECEASED
BETWEEN
JOHN EKESA..........................................................PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT
AND
GADHI EJAPU IKAKORO............................................OBJECTOR /APPLICANT
RULING
1. GADHI EJAPU IKAKORO, the applicant herein filed an application dated 16th December 2015 for revocation and annulment of the grant issued herein under sections 76 and 83(d) of the Law of Succession Act, Cap. 160 and Rules 44 (1) of the Probate and Administration Rules. It is premised on the following grounds:
a) That the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance.
b) That the grant was obtained fraudulently by making a false statement or by concealment of material facts.
c) That the petitioner does not rank in priority to the deceased estate and is out to disinherit the heirs.
2. The application was opposed by JOHN EKESA, the petitioner/respondent on the following grounds:
a) That land parcel number SOUTH TESO/AMUKURA/166 was registered in the name of EKESA EKAKORO OKURU,deceased.
b) That EKESA EKAKORO OKURUwas his father.
c) That the applicant has no relationship with EKESA EKAKORO OKURUand therefore not a beneficiary.
3. The grounds for revocation of a grant under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act were summarised in the matter of the Estate of Murathe Mwaria -deceased inNairobi HCCC NO.875/2005] by Koome Jas follows:-
i. when the procedure followed in obtaining the grant is defective in substance.
ii. when the grant is obtained fraudulently by making a false statement.
iii. making an untrue allegation of fact essential in point of law to justify the grant.
iv. or when the person who has the grant has failed to proceed diligently with the administration of the estate.
4. I have perused the affidavits of both parties and the following facts have emerged:
a) The land parcel number SOUTH TESO/AMUKURA/166was registered in the name of the deceased herein in 1972 and only changed ownership to the respondent on 22/12/2015. This was pursuant to the grant issued herein.
b) That the applicant has not demonstrated that he is a beneficiary of the estate of the deceased EKESA EKAKORO OKURU.
c) The deceasedEKESA EKAKORO OKURUwas not indicated to be holding land parcel numberSOUTH TESO/AMUKURA/166in trust for anybody. We cannot therefore impute trust. The nature of the title was indicated as ABSOLUTE. At no time during the lifetime of the deceased did the objector or any other person challenge the title in respect of land parcel number SOUTH TESO/AMUKURA/166. In any case, this is not a claim that can be made by a mere objection.
5. From the foregoing observations, I make a finding that the respondent herein obtained the grant herein legally.
6. The objection is therefore dismissed with costs.
DELIVEREDandSIGNEDatBUSIA this 29thdayof May, 2018
KIARIE WAWERU KIARIE
JUDGE