[2019] KEHC 1228 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant did not append his signature to the consent for the proposed mode of distribution, which is a critical requirement at the confirmation stage. The record showed that the applicant did not attend court on the date the grant was confirmed, and there was no explanation for his absence...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 1228 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: David Theuri Maina; Respondent: Eunice Nyawera Maina
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 180 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Rectification of Confirmed Grant
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Confirmed grant set aside. Application for confirmation of grant to be heard afresh.
- Judges
- HK Chemitei
- Legal Topics
- Rectification of Grant, Confirmation of Grant, Consent of Beneficiaries, Distribution of Estate
- 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
David Theuri Maina
Applicant
Eunice Nyawera Maina
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Rectification of Confirmed Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the confirmed grant issued on 4th October 2018 should be rectified or set aside due to lack of the applicant's consent.
- 2 Whether the distribution of the deceased's estate was equitable and in accordance with the law.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant did not append his signature to the consent for the proposed mode of distribution, which is a critical requirement at the confirmation stage. The record showed that the applicant did not attend court on the date the grant was confirmed, and there was no explanation for his absence or lack of consent. The absence of the applicant's participation and consent rendered the confirmation process procedurally defective. To ensure fairness and compliance with the law, the court set aside the confirmed grant and ordered that the application for confirmation of grant be heard afresh with all parties notified and given an opportunity to participate.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Confirmed grant set aside. Application for confirmation of grant to be heard afresh.
Orders
- The grant issued on 4th October, 2018 is set aside with all attendant consequences.
- The application for confirmation of grant dated 24th July, 2018 shall be set down for hearing afresh by the registry and all parties notified.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITALE
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 180 OF 2009
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE JOHN MAINA NYINGI - DECEASED
BETWEEN
DAVID THEURI MAINA................................................APPLICANT
VERSES
EUNICE NYAWERA MAINA & ANOTHER.........RESPONDENTS
RULING
1. By his summons dated 28th January 2019, the Applicant prayed for the rectification of the confirmed grant issued on the 4th of October, 2018 on the grounds that he was not consulted and that he did not append his signature to the proposed mode of distribution. When the application was being prosecuted he was left out despite being the only son to the deceased.
2. In his supporting affidavit sworn on the 28th day of January, 2019, he stated that he was a stranger to Nyikiwajo Investment ltd which was given a portion of the said deceased estate and that one of the known purchasers was left out of the suit land namely BUNGOMA /KIMININI/293.
3. EUNICE NYAWERA MAINA, the Administrator as well as the respondent in her replying affidavit stated that the distribution made to the court and which was approved was equitable and that they all got equal shares of the estate. She said that the family had sat down and agreed on the mode of distribution despite the absence of the Applicant who has all along been uncooperative.
4. The parties then filed their written submissions which the court has perused extensively. This court shall be inclined to allow the application for the following reasons.
5. First of all looking at the documents in support of the application for the confirmation of grant and in particular the consent filed on the 4th September 2018, the Applicant though mentioned therein did not append his signature which is a critical requirement at that level of confirmation.
6. Secondly and more importantly, the record of this court of 4th October, 2018 clearly showed that the applicant did not attend court and thus his consent not secured. There was no explanation why he did not attend court on that particular date or why his signature was not obtained when signing the consent form.
7. In the premises, the best way is to have a level playing field. The grant issued on 4th October, 2018 with all attendant consequences is hereby set aside. The application for confirmation of grant dated 24th July, 2018 be set down for hearing a fresh by the registry and all parties are notified.
8. Each party shall bear their own costs.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kitale this 18th day of December, 2019.
_______________
H. K. CHEMITEI
JUDGE
18/12/19
In the presence of:-
Nakitare holding brief for Barongo for the Applicant
No appearance for Respondent
Court Assistant – Silvia
Ruling read in open court.