[2013] KEHC 3004 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent failed to disclose the existence of other survivors of the deceased when applying for the grant, constituting concealment of material facts under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. The respondent did not file an affidavit to controvert the applicant's claims, and her attempt...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 3004 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Applicant (Name not provided); Respondent: Veronica Kariuko Mburia
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 3191 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Revocation of Grant
- Outcome
- application for revocation of grant allowed; grant revoked; matter transferred to Kerugoya High Court
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Revocation of Grant, Concealment of Material Facts, Succession Procedure, Dependants 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
Applicant (Name not provided)
Applicant
Veronica Kariuko Mburia
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Revocation of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the grant of representation to the respondent should be revoked for concealment of material facts regarding the existence of other beneficiaries.
- 2 Whether the matter is sub judice in light of other pending or consolidated suits.
- 3 Whether the applicant qualifies as a dependant or child of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent failed to disclose the existence of other survivors of the deceased when applying for the grant, constituting concealment of material facts under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. The respondent did not file an affidavit to controvert the applicant's claims, and her attempt to introduce factual matters through written submissions was improper. The court further held that the issue of sub judice did not arise because the related suits had been consolidated with the present cause, and the High Court at Nairobi was properly seized of the matter. Consequently, the application for revocation of the grant was merited, and the grant issued to the...
Court Disposition
application for revocation of grant allowed; grant revoked; matter transferred to Kerugoya High Court
Orders
- The grant made on 23rd July 1999 to Veronica Kariuko Mburia in Kerugoya SRMSC No. 6 of 1999 and confirmed on 17th December 1999 is hereby revoked.
- All transactions conducted on the basis of the said grant are cancelled and nullified.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO: 3191 OF 2005
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JORAM MBURIA GITU (DECEASED)
RULING
The summons for revocation dated 14th November 2005 seeks revocation of the grant made on 23rd July 1999 to Veronica Kariuko Mburia. It is supported by the affidavit of the applicant, who claims to be a son of the deceased.
The grant sought to be revoked was made by the resident magistrate's court at Kerugoya. It is submitted that the said grant has been confirmed. The applicant complains that the respondent concealed from the court the fact that the deceased had another wife and children. The respondent upon being served did not file an affidavit in reply. Instead she filed grounds of opposition, dated 11th November 2010. She says that the application dated 14th November 2005 is sub judice as there are other suits pending in courts at Kerugoya, Nyeri and Embu on the same estate.
Both sides have filed detailed written submissions. The applicant argues that his application meets the threshold set in Section 76of the Law of Succession Act for revocation of grant as the grant made to the respondent was obtained on concealed information. The respondent argues that the applicant was not a dependant of the estate as he was not a child of the deceased. She further argues that that the applicant's mother was divorced by the deceased.
I note that the matters raised in the written submissions of the respondent are matters of fact that ideally ought to be raised in an affidavit. The respondent chose not to file an affidavit and she lost the opportunity to place these facts before the court. Raising these facts in written submissions is tantamount to giving evidence from the bar. Evidently, the allegations made by the applicant in his affidavit in support of the application have not been controverted.
In the grounds of opposition dated 11th November 2010 it is argued that the matter is sub judice as there are other suits elsewhere on the same issue. She cites Kerugoya SPMCCC No. 20 of 2001, Nyeri HC MISC. Appl. No. 128'A' of 2000, Embu HCSC No. 253 of 1998 and Kerugoya RMCSC No. 6 of 1999. Nyeri HC Misc. Application No. 128 'A' of 2000, Kerugoya RMCSC No. 6 of 1999, Embu HCSC No. 527 of 2002 and Embu HCSC No. 253 of 1998 have all been consolidated with the current cause, and the court files in respect of those other causes are attached to the court file in respect of the instant cause. Kerugoya SPMCC No. 70 of 2001 is not a probate matter and therefore it has no bearing to these proceedings. Since the suits the respondents is referring to have been consolidated with this cause, it is this court which is seized of the matter concerning the estate of Joram Mburia Gitu. The issue of sub judice therefore does not arise.
As no evidence has been presented by the respondent to counter the facts in the summons for revocation application dated 14th November 2005, to the extent that the affidavit in support has not been replied to, I find that there is merit in the application. The record in Kerugoya SRMCSC No. 6 of 1999 is clear that the respondent did not disclose existence of other survivors of the deceased.
I will therefore allow the applicant dated 14th November 2005. The grant made on 23rd July 1999 to Veronica Kariuko Mburia in Kerugoya SRMSC No. 6 of 1999 and confirmed on 17th December 1999 is hereby revoked. All the transactions conducted on the basis of the said grant are hereby cancelled and nullified. Costs of the application are granted to the applicant.
I note that the property comprising the estate is situated in Kirinyaga County. There is a High Court registry at Kerugoya. There is no good reason why this matter should be handled at Nairobi and I will therefore order that this matter be transferred to the High Court of Kenya siting at Kerugoya for hearing and determination.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 27th DAY OF June 2013.
W.M. Musyoka
JUDGE