[2017] KEHC 4354 (KLR)
The court found that the objector failed to provide satisfactory evidence of his status as a beneficiary of the estate. The letter from the assistant chief was deemed insufficient as it did not clarify the family structure or list all beneficiaries. The objector's claims were unsupported by other alleged siblings,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 4354 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Christopher F.S. Nasokho; Applicant: Kennedy Kwoba Nasokho; Respondent: John Nyongesa Nasokho
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 85 of 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the petitioners
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Grant Revocation, Beneficiary Rights, Locus Standi
- 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
Christopher F.S. Nasokho
Applicant
Kennedy Kwoba Nasokho
Applicant
John Nyongesa Nasokho
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the grant of letters of administration was obtained fraudulently by concealment of material facts or by means of untrue allegations.
- 2 Whether the objector, John Nyongesa Nasokho, is a beneficiary entitled to be consulted and included in the distribution of the estate.
- 3 Whether the application for revocation of grant is res judicata and/or time-barred.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the objector failed to provide satisfactory evidence of his status as a beneficiary of the estate. The letter from the assistant chief was deemed insufficient as it did not clarify the family structure or list all beneficiaries. The objector's claims were unsupported by other alleged siblings, and the petitioners denied his relationship to the deceased. The court also noted that a similar application had previously been dismissed, raising the issue of res judicata. In the absence of credible evidence of non-disclosure or fraud, and given the unexplained delay in bringing the application, the court found no basis to interfere with the grant issued to the petitioners....
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the petitioners
Orders
- The application for revocation of grant is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the petitioners.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
53 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 85 OF 2000
IN THE MATTER OF ESTATE OF JACOB NASOKHO........DECEASED
AND
CHRISTOPHER F.S. NASOKHO)
KENNEDY KWOBA NASOKHO)....................................PETITIONERS
VERSUS.
JOHN NYONGESA NASOKHO..........................................OBJECTOR
RULING.
[1] JACOB NASOKHO (deceased) died on 12th June, 1997 and his two sons CHRISTOPHER NASOKHO and KENNEDY KWOBA NASOKHO petitioned for grant of letters of administration for his estate which was issued to them on 16th August, 2000 by Mbito (Judge) and confirmed on 7th June 2004 by Sergon (Judge).
On 8th November, 2013 JOHN NYONGESA NASOKHO applied for revocation/annulment of the grant and arguing that the said grant was secretly obtained without his consent, and other surviving beneficiaries. He argued on 7th June 2004, the petitioners had already transferred the land into their names on 09/03/1999 as per the green card.
The objector’s contention is that he too is a son of the deceased who apart from the petitioners, was survived by the objectors
(1) DISMAS NASOKHO
(2) ROSEMARY NASOKHO
(3) ZIPORAH NASOKHO
(4) JANEROSE NASOKHO
(5) PETRONILLAH NASOKHO
(6) DORIS NASOKHO
(7) AGNES NASOKHO
(8) NABALEYO NASOKHO
(9) VIGINEER NASOKHO
(10) MARY NASOKHO
The objector described himself as the elder son of the deceased who ought to have been consulted before the petition was filed.
The Petitioners had stated in the affidavit supporting their petition for confirmation of grant that the deceased was survived by themselves namely;
(1) CHRISTOPHER T.S. NASOKHO
(2) MARY NASIMIYU NASOKHO
(3) IMELDA NAMALWA
(4) HILDA NAFUNA NASOKHO
(5) PHANIS NALIAKA NASOKHO
(6) KALEP KILWAKE NAMITATI
(7) ELIZABEITH SITAWA
(8) CHEBUKWABI FRIENDS CHURCH
The asset Parcel No. KIMILILI/KIBINGEI/420 was distributed as follows;
(1) CHRISTOPHER F.S. NASOKHO 16 acres
(2) MARY NASIMIYU NASOKHO 2 acres
(3) IMELDA NAMALWA 2 acres
(4) HILDA NAFUNA NASOKHO 1 acre
(5) PHANIS NALIAKA NASOKHO 1 acre
(6) KENNEDY KWOBA 3 acres
(7) KALEP KILWAKE NAMITATI 5½ acres
(8) ELIZABETH SITAWA 1 acre
(9) CHEBUKWABI FRIENDS CHURCH ¼ acre
Apparently the petitioners left out their other siblings listed by the objector in the list of beneficiaries and even in the distribution of the asset which measured 12. 2 Ha valued at over Kshs.2. 5 million.
Since the respondents have pursuant to the grant registered themselves by transmission as proprietors of the deceased’s parcel of land, this court is urged to order cancellation of such registration and that the title do revert o the names of the deceased.
[2]. The respondents/petitioners opposed the prayers and in a replying affidavit sworn by KENNEDY KWOBA NASOKHO he termed the application as incompetent, misconceived and an abuse of court process saying there was inordinate, unexplainable and inexcusable doing of 11 years. Further that the application was res judicata as a similar one had been dismissed with costs on 22nd May, 2001.
They contend that the applicant is not a son of the deceased and has no locus standi to file this application nor were they under any legal obligation to inform him about the petition as he is a stranger to the estate. They insist that the grant was obtained in good faith after full disclosure of the facts and nothing material was concealed.
The matter proceeded by way of affidavits and witness statements only - no other arguments were presented by consent. The objector relied on a letter dated 14/06/2017 written by the assistant chief of CHEBUKWABI Sub-location but the name is not clear. It only lists the objector as the son of the deceased. This letter is unsatisfactory – it does not state whether the deceased had another wife or who the other siblings of the objector were. I would expect the letter to list the wife or wives of the deceased and their children – the manner in which the letter is drafted is self-serving and does not aid the court in making a conclusive decision about the alleged non – disclosure.
Who is or was the objector’s mother, was she also the mother of the petitioners – this application leaves more questions than answers in the light of the denial by the petitioners. Just who is the objector and how is it that his other siblings have not filed any statement to support his claims.
I find no reason to interfere with the grant issued and the application filed herein is dismissed with costs to the petitioners.
Delivered and dated this 14th day of July, 2017 at Bungoma.
H.A. OMONDI
JUDGE.