[2017] KEHC 980 (KLR)
The court held that section 76 of the Law of Succession Act is concerned with the revocation of grants of representation, not with the revocation of certificates of confirmation of grant. The certificate is merely a formal document reflecting the court's orders on confirmation; revoking it would not affect the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 980 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Paul Mwaura Thuo (Deceased); Applicant: __MISSING__
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 1568 of 1994
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Certificate of Confirmation of Grant
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Succession Procedure, Revocation of Grant, Confirmation of Grant
- 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
Paul Mwaura Thuo (Deceased)
Respondent
__MISSING__
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Certificate of Confirmation of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether section 76 of the Law of Succession Act provides for revocation of a certificate of confirmation of grant.
- 2 Whether dissatisfaction with distribution orders can be remedied by revocation of the certificate of confirmation of grant.
- 3 Whether the application for revocation of the certificate of confirmation of grant is properly grounded.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that section 76 of the Law of Succession Act is concerned with the revocation of grants of representation, not with the revocation of certificates of confirmation of grant. The certificate is merely a formal document reflecting the court's orders on confirmation; revoking it would not affect the substantive orders regarding distribution of the estate. Therefore, the application for revocation of the certificate was misconceived and not supported by law. The appropriate remedies for a party dissatisfied with the distribution orders are review or appeal, not revocation of the certificate. As such, the application was dismissed as devoid of merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application dated 22nd February 2017 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
13 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 1568 OF 1994
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF PAUL MWAURA THUO (DECEASED)
RULING
1. On 20th January 2017, I delivered a ruling wherein I confirmed the grant and ordered distribution of the estate in the terms proposed in the ruling. The said judgment provoked the filing of an application, dated 22nd February 2017, for revocation of the certificate of confirmation grant issued herein dated 20th January 2017. There are several consequential prayers.
2. The application is founded on section 76 of the Law of Succession Act, Cap 160, Laws of Kenya, which provides for revocation of grants. The said provision is not designed to address problems with the distribution of the estate, rather it is concerned with the manner a grant of representation is obtained, the manner the estate has been administered and whether the grant is still operative. It has nothing to do with revocation of the certificate issued upon confirmation of a grant. Indeed, the only connection between section 76 and confirmation of a grant is that the court is given discretion to revoke a grant where the holder thereof fails to move for confirmation thereof within the period indicated. For that reason the application before me is not well grounded.
3. The contents of the affidavit in support of the application no doubt reveal that the applicant is dissatisfied with the orders that the court made on confirmation of the grant and distribution of the estate. The remedy availed by the law for any person so dissatisfied is review of the orders if grounds exist for such review; or appeal against the orders if grounds exist for such appeal. Revocation of the certificate issued upon the said orders is not available as a remedy.
4. The other thing that needs to be stated is that the certificate of confirmation of grant is a formal document extracted from the orders that the court makes on a confirmation application. The revocation of the certificate does not affect the orders themselves, which are largely left intact. It therefore would serve no purpose to revoke or annul or cancel the certificate without vacating or setting aside the orders from which it derives.
5. The short of it is that the application dated 22nd February 2017 is wholly misconceived and devoid of merit. I shall accordingly dismiss it with costs.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017.
W. MUSYOKA
JUDGE