[2022] KEHC 11674 (KLR)

[2022] KEHC 11674 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant, Catherine Nyoroka Muthuri, was present during the confirmation of grant proceedings, her identification was recorded, and she did not raise any objection to the mode of distribution at that time. The court held that her subsequent claim that her consent was forged was deceitful...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEHC 11674 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Catherine Nyoroka Muthuri; Respondent: Jason Gatobu; Respondent: M’Anampiu M’Buuri
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 489 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons to Set Aside Confirmation of Grant and Inhibition Orders
Outcome
summons dismissed; inhibition orders vacated; matter set for mention to confirm distribution
Judges
TW Cherere
Legal Topics
Confirmation of Grant, Consent to Distribution, Abuse of Court Process
Source Language
en
Family and Children Confirmation of Grant Consent to Distribution Abuse of Court 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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Catherine Nyoroka Muthuri

Applicant

Jason Gatobu

Respondent

M’Anampiu M’Buuri

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons to Set Aside Confirmation of Grant and Inhibition Orders

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was present and consented to the mode of distribution at the confirmation of grant.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's claim of forgery of consent to distribution is valid.
  3. 3 Whether the summons dated 6th May 2022 constitutes an abuse of court process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant, Catherine Nyoroka Muthuri, was present during the confirmation of grant proceedings, her identification was recorded, and she did not raise any objection to the mode of distribution at that time. The court held that her subsequent claim that her consent was forged was deceitful and amounted to an abuse of the court process. Consequently, the summons seeking to set aside the confirmation of grant and inhibition orders was dismissed, and the inhibition orders were vacated.

Court Disposition

summons dismissed; inhibition orders vacated; matter set for mention to confirm distribution

Orders

  • The summons dated 6th May, 2022 and filed on 11th May, 2022 is dismissed as an abuse of the court process.
  • Orders of inhibition issued on 24th June, 2022 are vacated.