[2013] KEHC 6564 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 6564 (KLR)

The court found that Loc.9/Kanyenyaini/574 was properly included as an asset of the deceased's estate, as he was the registered proprietor at the time of his death. No defect in the proceedings or concealment of material facts was demonstrated. While the applicants alleged the existence of a trust, no such trust had...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEHC 6564 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Lucy Watiri Muburi; Applicant: John Mwangi Muburi; Respondent: Njoroge F.A. Wachira; Respondent: Alois Mwangi Wachira
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 214 of 1992
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
DN Musyoka
Legal Topics
Revocation of Grant, Trusts in Land, Non Disclosure of Material Facts, Succession of Estates
Source Language
en
Family and Children Land and Property Revocation of Grant Trusts in Land Non Disclosure of Material Facts Succession of Estates

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lucy Watiri Muburi

Applicant

John Mwangi Muburi

Applicant

Njoroge F.A. Wachira

Respondent

Alois Mwangi Wachira

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the grant of representation to the estate of Julius Wachira should be revoked for non-disclosure of material facts relating to Loc.9/Kanyenyaini/574.
  2. 2 Whether the deceased held Loc.9/Kanyenyaini/574 in trust for the applicants.
  3. 3 Whether there was any defect in the proceedings or concealment of material facts justifying revocation of the grant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Loc.9/Kanyenyaini/574 was properly included as an asset of the deceased's estate, as he was the registered proprietor at the time of his death. No defect in the proceedings or concealment of material facts was demonstrated. While the applicants alleged the existence of a trust, no such trust had been declared by a court of competent jurisdiction, and the Land Disputes Tribunal had not made such a declaration. The court held that it was not the proper forum to declare a trust and that the applicants should have sought such a declaration in a civil or land court. Consequently, the application for revocation of the grant failed as the statutory grounds under Section 76...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 28th October 2011 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.