[2020] KEHC 4292 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant, who was the original petitioner and whose proposal was confirmed in the grant, had not demonstrated any genuine mistake or error in the confirmed grant. No mistake was pleaded or shown to have existed. Therefore, the application for rectification lacked merit. However, the court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 4292 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Milka Nabwire Amukowa; Respondent: Collins Onyango Amukoa; Respondent: Sylvanus Amukhale Amukoa; Respondent: Marydina Namukuru Amukoa; Respondent: Stephen Ombune Amukowa
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Busia
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Probate & Administration 62 of 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Probate and Administration / Ruling on Application for Rectification of Grant
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- KW Kiarie
- Legal Topics
- Rectification of Grant, Distribution of Estate, Beneficiary Rights, Rendering of Accounts
- 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
Milka Nabwire Amukowa
Applicant
Collins Onyango Amukoa
Respondent
Sylvanus Amukhale Amukoa
Respondent
Marydina Namukuru Amukoa
Respondent
Stephen Ombune Amukowa
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Probate and Administration / Ruling on Application for Rectification of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has established grounds for rectification of the confirmed grant.
- 2 Whether the respondents are entitled to dispose of the property forming part of the deceased's estate.
- 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to protection from eviction and disposal of the property.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant, who was the original petitioner and whose proposal was confirmed in the grant, had not demonstrated any genuine mistake or error in the confirmed grant. No mistake was pleaded or shown to have existed. Therefore, the application for rectification lacked merit. However, the court ordered the applicant/petitioner to render accounts within 60 days, as accounts had not been rendered since the confirmation of the grant. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for rectification of the grant is dismissed.
- The applicant/petitioner is ordered to render accounts within 60 days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUSIA
PROBATE & ADMINISTRATION NO.62 OF 2000
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF:
PAULO FESTO AMUKOWA ..................................................................................... DECEASED
BETWEEN
MILKA NABWIRE AMUKOWA...........................................1ST PETITIONER/APPLICANT
AND
COLLINS ONYANGO AMUKOA ...................................2ND PETITIONER/RESPONDENT
SYLVANUS AMUKHALE AMUKOA.......................... 1ST BENEFICIARY /RESPONDENT
MARYDINA NAMUKURU AMUKOA ..................... 2ND BENEFICIARY /RESPONDENT
STEPHEN OMBUNE AMUKOWA ............................ 3RD BENEFICIARY /RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The applicant herein, is seeking orders for rectification of the grant that was confirmed on 27th March 2012. Her application dated 27th November 2015 is premised on the following grounds:
a) That the applicant who is sickly and in need of care has been forced out of her own property jointly owned by [sic]the 3rd and the 4th beneficiary/ respondent [sic] by the respondents.
b)The respondents intends to dispose of the said applicant’s property jointly owned LR No. SOUTH TESO/ANGOROMO/1854 unless orders sought herein are granted.
c) The said L.R. SOUTH TESO/ANGOROMO/1854 forms the deceased homestead and the same will be disposed of if the sought herein are not granted.
d) The entire deceased’s estate is not ancestral land but a product of hard work from applicant and her late husband the deceased, hence the respondents have no right to dispose as they please.
e) The respondents who have ready been given their share of estate will not be prejudiced if orders sought herein are granted.
2. The application was opposed on the following grounds:
a) That the application is unmeritorious since the grant has been confirmed and implemented on the ground.
b) That the applicant intends to dispose of the land parcel No. SOUTH TESO/ANGOROMO/1854 jointly owned and where the homesteads of all the respondents are.
3. Both parties filed written submissions.
4. Upon my perusal of the supporting and replying affidavits, the submissions of the applicants as well as the record, the following facts emerge:
a) That after the confirmation of the grant on 27th March 2012 accounts have not been rendered.
b) The applicant herein was the petitioner and it was her proposal that was confirmed. Unless the court has been shown that a genuine mistake existed, rectification cannot be made.
c) In the instant case no mistake has been pleaded or shown to have existed.
5. The application therefore has no merit. The same is dismissed.
6. I make an order that the applicant /petitioner to render accounts within 60 days.
7. Each party to meet own costs.
DELIVEREDandSIGNEDatBUSIAthis15thday of July,2020
KIARIE WAWERU KIARIE
JUDGE