[2016] KEHC 555 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 555 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent, as the widow of the deceased Nguu Mbarimwe, had priority over all other persons, including her late son Joseph Njue Nguu, in applying for letters of administration. The evidence showed that Joseph Njue Nguu had the suit land registered in his name by transmission only two weeks...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEHC 555 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Mercy Njeru Njue; Respondent: Miliam Irima Nguu
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Embu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 135 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Revocation of Grant
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Revocation of Grant, Priority of Administration, Fraudulent Obtainment of Grant, Concealment of Material Facts
Source Language
en
Family and Children Civil Procedure Revocation of Grant Priority of Administration Fraudulent Obtainment of Grant Concealment of Material Facts

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mercy Njeru Njue

Applicant

Miliam Irima Nguu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Revocation of Grant

  1. 1 Who had priority in applying for letters of administration in respect of the estate of Nguu Mbaromwe.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent concealed any material fact or made untrue allegations in obtaining the grant.
  3. 3 Whether the grant issued to the respondent was outdated or misleading to the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent, as the widow of the deceased Nguu Mbarimwe, had priority over all other persons, including her late son Joseph Njue Nguu, in applying for letters of administration. The evidence showed that Joseph Njue Nguu had the suit land registered in his name by transmission only two weeks after being issued with a grant of representation, and before the grant was confirmed, which was both fraudulent and unprocedural. The respondent did not conceal any material facts or obtain the grant fraudulently. The applicant's claim was therefore without merit and amounted to an abuse of the court process. The application for revocation of the grant was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for revocation of grant is dismissed.
  • No orders as to costs.