[2020] KEHC 6311 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 6311 (KLR)

The court found that although there were claims of non-service and exclusion of certain beneficiaries, evidence showed that the applicant and his siblings were served but failed to attend court. The Petitioner, Erastus Kiambati, was found to have misrepresented his relationship to the deceased but this did not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 6311 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Starlings Mburugu Ndethiu; Petitioner: Erastus Kiambati; Respondent: Faith Ndumba; Respondent: Marion Gakii
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 16 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant
Outcome
Application for revocation of grant dismissed. Estate to be distributed as per the deceased's wishes and certificate of confirmation to issue accordingly.
Judges
A. Ong’injo
Legal Topics
Revocation of Grant, Distribution of Estate, Beneficiary Rights
Source Language
en
Family and Children Revocation of Grant Distribution of Estate Beneficiary Rights

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Starlings Mburugu Ndethiu

Applicant

Erastus Kiambati

Petitioner

Faith Ndumba

Respondent

Marion Gakii

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant

  1. 1 Whether the confirmed grant issued on 22nd November 2018 should be revoked due to alleged non-service and exclusion of beneficiaries.
  2. 2 Whether the distribution of the estate was fair and in accordance with the wishes of the deceased.
  3. 3 Whether all rightful beneficiaries, including Lydia Nguta, were considered in the distribution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although there were claims of non-service and exclusion of certain beneficiaries, evidence showed that the applicant and his siblings were served but failed to attend court. The Petitioner, Erastus Kiambati, was found to have misrepresented his relationship to the deceased but this did not materially affect the distribution as the deceased had identified portions of land for his children and the Petitioner. The court determined that the deceased intended each son and the Petitioner to receive one acre, while the widow and her daughters would share one acre, and Jackline Karimi would inherit her late mother's share. The court ordered the estate to be distributed...

Court Disposition

Application for revocation of grant dismissed. Estate to be distributed as per the deceased's wishes and certificate of confirmation to issue accordingly.

Orders

  • Certificate of confirmation to issue reflecting the distribution as set out by the court.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.