[2016] KEHC 1830 (KLR)
The court found that there was no evidence of a grant having been issued on 29th August 2014 or at any other time in this cause. The application for revocation was vague, unsupported by any reference to a grant or relevant proceedings, and lacked evidentiary basis. As such, there was nothing before the court to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 1830 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: __MISSING__; Respondent: __MISSING__
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 2963 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Revocation of Grant
- Outcome
- application struck out as misconceived and incompetent
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Revocation of Grant, Probate and Administration, Abuse of Court Process
- 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
__MISSING__
Applicant
__MISSING__
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Revocation of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there exists a grant issued on 29th August 2014 capable of being revoked.
- 2 Whether the application for revocation of grant is competent and properly before the court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there was no evidence of a grant having been issued on 29th August 2014 or at any other time in this cause. The application for revocation was vague, unsupported by any reference to a grant or relevant proceedings, and lacked evidentiary basis. As such, there was nothing before the court to determine, rendering the application misconceived, incompetent, and an abuse of the court process. The court accordingly struck out the application and awarded costs to the respondents.
Court Disposition
application struck out as misconceived and incompetent
Orders
- The summons for revocation of grant dated 4th November 2014 is struck out.
- The respondents shall have the costs of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
11 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 2963 OF 2014
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JULIA GATHONI NGANDO (DECEASED)
RULING
1. The summons for revocation of grant dated 4th November 2014 is incredibly vague. It seeks revocation of a grant that was allegedly made on 29th August 2014. I have carefully perused through the file of papers herein and there is no evidence that a grant of that nature was ever made by the court in this cause. There is no evidence whatsoever that a petition for such grant was ever filed in the matter.
2. The application does not indicate whether the grant had been issued by the lower court. There is no reference at all to any proceedings before a lower in the body of the application. Similarly, the affidavit in support does not say a word about it. The annextures to the affidavit do not help either.
3. In view of the above there cannot be anything for me to determine. The application is misconceived, incompetent, uncertain, imprecise and an abuse of the court process. I hereby strike it out. The respondents shall have the costs thereof.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016.
W. MUSYOKA
JUDGE