[2023] KEHC 2070 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 2070 (KLR)

The court found that there were third parties with interests in the disputed property (Kwanza/Namanjalala Block 5/1) who had not been served with the application for revocation of grant or joined as interested parties. Proceeding in their absence would violate the principles of natural justice, as they would be...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 2070 (KLR)
Parties
Objector: Maurice Nasiche Kudondo; Petitioner: Beatrice Naliaka Situma
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Bungoma
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 18 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Revocation of Grant
Outcome
Application for revocation of grant not determined; orders for service on third parties issued.
Judges
DK Kemei
Legal Topics
Revocation of Grant, Non Disclosure of Material Facts, Distribution of Estate, Third Party Rights
Source Language
en
Family and Children Civil Procedure Revocation of Grant Non Disclosure of Material Facts Distribution of Estate Third Party Rights

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maurice Nasiche Kudondo

Objector

Beatrice Naliaka Situma

Petitioner

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Revocation of Grant

  1. 1 Whether the grant of letters of administration issued to the petitioner was obtained fraudulently by concealment of material facts.
  2. 2 Whether the deceased's shares in Trans-Nzoia Investment Co Ltd (land Plot No 1 Namanjalala Farm) should be included in the estate.
  3. 3 Whether the application for revocation of grant is merited given the alleged exclusion of a beneficiary and property.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there were third parties with interests in the disputed property (Kwanza/Namanjalala Block 5/1) who had not been served with the application for revocation of grant or joined as interested parties. Proceeding in their absence would violate the principles of natural justice, as they would be condemned unheard. The court therefore held that it could not determine the application for revocation of grant until those third parties were served and given an opportunity to respond. The prudent course was to vacate the earlier order reserving the matter for ruling and direct service of the application on all interested third parties, with further directions to follow after...

Court Disposition

Application for revocation of grant not determined; orders for service on third parties issued.

Orders

  • The order reserving the matter for ruling is vacated.
  • The objector/applicant is ordered to serve the application dated April 23, 2021 upon third parties and/or interested parties, who are granted leave to file and serve responses within ten days of service.