[2020] KEHC 5141 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 5141 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to raise the issue of jurisdiction or the value of the property during the trial, despite being represented. The court held that such objections should have been made at the earliest opportunity and could not be entertained as an afterthought. The applicant also failed to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 5141 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Joseph Kamawe Mwega; Respondent: Charity Wanjiru Kamawe; Respondent: Amos Ng’ang’a Kamawe
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 1653 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Stay Orders and Revoke Grant
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Judges
A Ali-Aroni
Legal Topics
Revocation of Grant, Jurisdiction of Magistrate Court, Concealment of Material Facts, Removal of Caution, Intestate Succession
Source Language
en
Family and Children Revocation of Grant Jurisdiction of Magistrate Court Concealment of Material Facts Removal of Caution Intestate Succession

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Kamawe Mwega

Applicant

Charity Wanjiru Kamawe

Respondent

Amos Ng’ang’a Kamawe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Stay Orders and Revoke Grant

  1. 1 Whether the grant of letters of administration should be revoked or annulled due to alleged concealment of the value of the estate and procedural irregularities.
  2. 2 Whether the orders made by the trial magistrate removing cautions and directing registration of proprietors should be stayed.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court acted with bias or issued unprocedural orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to raise the issue of jurisdiction or the value of the property during the trial, despite being represented. The court held that such objections should have been made at the earliest opportunity and could not be entertained as an afterthought. The applicant also failed to prove any concealment of material facts or procedural irregularity sufficient to warrant revocation of the grant. Furthermore, the court found no evidence of bias or unprocedural conduct by the trial magistrate. Consequently, the application for stay of orders and revocation of the grant was dismissed, with costs awarded to the respondents.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondents

Orders

  • The application dated 6th July 2015 is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents/administrators.