[2023] KEHC 22105 (KLR)
The court found that the changes sought by the applicants—namely, the inclusion of a newly discovered asset in the schedule of distribution—do not fall within the scope of rectification as contemplated by section 74 of the Law of Succession Act, which is limited to correcting errors in names or descriptions....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 22105 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Sunil Narshi Shah; Applicant: Kamal Narshi Shah
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 2502 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Rectification of Grant
- Outcome
- summons for rectification of grant allowed
- Judges
- EKO Ogola
- Legal Topics
- Rectification of Grant, Discovery of New Assets, Probate and Administration, Distribution 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
Sunil Narshi Shah
Applicant
Kamal Narshi Shah
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Rectification of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the discovery of a new asset after confirmation of grant justifies rectification of the grant under section 74 of the Law of Succession Act.
- 2 Whether the court can invoke its inherent powers to allow inclusion of newly discovered assets in the schedule of distribution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the changes sought by the applicants—namely, the inclusion of a newly discovered asset in the schedule of distribution—do not fall within the scope of rectification as contemplated by section 74 of the Law of Succession Act, which is limited to correcting errors in names or descriptions. However, invoking Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules, the court exercised its inherent power to make orders necessary for the ends of justice. The court thus allowed the application for rectification, permitting the inclusion of the new asset in the confirmed grant, despite the technical limitations of section 74, to ensure a just distribution of the estate.
Court Disposition
summons for rectification of grant allowed
Orders
- The Summons for Rectification of Grant dated June 17, 2022 is allowed as prayed.
- The Certificate of Confirmation of Grant is to be rectified by adding the newly discovered asset to the schedule of distribution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
In re Estate of Narshi Punja Lakhtir Shah (Deceased) (Succession Cause 2502 of 2010) [2023] KEHC 22105 (KLR) (Family) (3 July 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 22105 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Family
Succession Cause 2502 of 2010
EKO Ogola, J
July 3, 2023
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF NARSHI PUNJA LAKHTIR SHAH (DECEASED)
Ruling
1. What is before this Court is the Summons for Rectification of Grant dated June 17, 2022. The Administrators of the Estate pray for the following:-1. That the Grant of Letters of Administration issued to Sunil Narshi Shah and Kamal Narshi Shah in this matter on June 21, 2011 and the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant of Letters of Administration issued on May 21, 2012 be rectified in the following manner:-a.The Certificate of Confirmation be rectified by adding to the schedule of distribution thereof the following:One share in Unique housing developers LimitedKamal Narshi Shah-56 years100%2. That the Grant of Letters of Administration and the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant of Letters of Administration, duly rectified as aforesaid, be issued to the Applicant by the Registry.3. That the cost of this Application shall be provided for.
2. The Summons are supported by the joint Affidavit of Sunil Narshi Shah and Kamal Narshi Shah. They depose that they have since discovered assets belonging to the deceased that were unknown to them at the time the Grant was being issued and later confirmed. Therefore, they pray for the Confirmed Grant to be rectified to include the newly discovered asset and for the asset to be distributed to the beneficiary of the estate.
Determination 3. I have considered this Summons for Rectification of Grant and the Affidavit in support thereto. Rectification of Grants is provided for by Section 74 of the Law of Succession Act, Cap 160, Laws of Kenya which provides as follows:-“Errors in names and descriptions, or in setting forth the time and place of the deceased’s death, or the purpose in a limited grant, may be rectified by the court, and the grant of representation, whether before or after confirmation, may be altered and amended accordingly.”
4. Rule 43(1) of the Probate and Administration Rulesfurther stipulate that:-“43(1) Where the holder of a grant seeks pursuant to the provisions of section 74 of the Act rectification of an error in the grant as to the names of descriptions of any person or thing or as to the time or place of the death of the deceased or, in he case of a limited grant, the purpose for which the grant was made, he shall apply by summons in Form 110 for such rectification through the registry and in the cause in which the grant was issued.”
5. From the aforementioned provisions, rectification is allowed in order to correct a misdescription of a property or to correct a name which has not been fully or properly described in the Grant.
6. So, does discovery of new evidence fit in the conditions stipulated in the aforementioned provisions? In Re Estate Of Charles Kibe Karanja (Deceased) 2015 eKLR the Court held as follows:-“If there is discovery of new assets that were not available or had not been discovered at the time of distribution, among others; it would be imprudent to seek rectification or alteration or amendment of the certificate of confirmation of grant. Such changes are fundamental, not superficial. They go to the core of the distribution. They cannot be affected without touching the orders made by the court at the distribution of the estate. Consequently, such changes cannot and should not be effected through a mere amendment of the certificate of confirmation of grant. The proper approach ought to be an application for review of the orders made at the confirmation of the grant.”1. From the foregoing I find that the sweeping changes proposed to be made by the summons do not fall under the scope of rectification under section 74. However, Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules provides that:-“Nothing in these Rules shall limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.”
7. To meet the end of justice, I hereby allow the Summons dated June 17, 2022 as prayed.
8. Cost of the Application be in the Cause.It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 3RD DAY OF JULY 2023………………………………………E.K. OGOLAJUDGEIn the presence of:N/A for the ApplicantsGisiele Muthoni Court Assistant