[2008] KEHC 512 (KLR)
The court found that Naomi Wanjiku Njuguna, the deceased's sister, obtained the grant of letters of administration fraudulently by failing to notify Joyce Muthoni Kawhai, the widow, and by presenting a consent document that was not genuine. The Law of Succession Act gives priority to the surviving spouse in...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 512 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joyce Muthoni Kawhai; Respondent: Naomi Wanjiku Njuguna
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Succession Cause 3103 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant
- Outcome
- application allowed; grant revoked
- Judges
- JW Gacheche
- Legal Topics
- Intestate Succession, Priority of Administration, Fraudulent Consent, Revocation 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
Joyce Muthoni Kawhai
Applicant
Naomi Wanjiku Njuguna
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the grant of letters of administration issued to Naomi Wanjiku Njuguna should be revoked for failure to notify Joyce Muthoni Kawhai, the widow, and for alleged fraud in obtaining consent.
- 2 Whether Naomi Wanjiku Njuguna had priority to petition for the grant over Joyce Muthoni Kawhai under the Law of Succession Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that Naomi Wanjiku Njuguna, the deceased's sister, obtained the grant of letters of administration fraudulently by failing to notify Joyce Muthoni Kawhai, the widow, and by presenting a consent document that was not genuine. The Law of Succession Act gives priority to the surviving spouse in intestate succession, and there was no evidence that Joyce had waived her rights or consented to Naomi's application. The consent relied upon by Naomi was found to be fraudulent, as the identity numbers did not match those of the alleged signatories, and each had provided their own identity card to dispute the signatures. The court concluded that Naomi did not comply with the mandatory...
Court Disposition
application allowed; grant revoked
Orders
- The grant of letters of administration issued to Naomi Wanjiku Njuguna is revoked and declared a nullity.
- Joyce Muthoni Kawhai is granted the orders sought in her application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Succession Cause 3103 of 2005
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF PETER MUCHIRI NJUGUNA
alias MUCHIRI NJUGUNA alias KAHWAI NJUGUNA (DECEASED)
RULING
This is an application by JOYCE MUTHONI KAWHAI (‘Joyce’), who seeks an order to revoke and annul a Grant of the Letters of Administration of the Estate of the late PETER MUCHIRI NJUGUNA, who died intestate and which Grant was issued to NAOMI WANJIKU NJUGUNA (‘Naomi’) in the Chief Magistrate’s court at Thika on 19/1/2005.
Joyce bases her application on the grounds that Naomi did not notify her of her intentions to petition for the Grant, and further that Naomi had filed a fraudulent consent in support of her petition.
Evidence on record reveals that Naomi was the deceased’s sister.
The legal position that pertains to priority of parties in matters of succession in intestate estates is well laid down in section 66 the Law of Succession Act (the Act), which stipulates that:
‘When a deceased has died intestate, the court shall, save as otherwise expressly provided, have a final discretion as to the person or persons to whom a grant of letters of administration shall, in the best interests of all concerned, be made, but shall, without prejudice to that discretion, accept as a general guide the following order of preference –
(a) surviving spouse or spouses, with or without association of other beneficiaries;
(b) other beneficiaries entitled on intestacy, with priority according to their respective beneficial interests as provided by Part V;
(c) the Public Trustee; and
(d) creditors:
Provided that, where there is partial intestacy, letters of administration in respect of the intestate estate shall be granted to any executor or executors who prove the will’.
The fact that Joyce was the wife of the deceased is not denied, nor is the fact that between them, Joyce and the deceased had seven children. Given this admission and in view of the fact that Naomi was all along aware of the existence of Joyce and her children, there can be no doubt that between the two, Joyce had a priority to petition the court with a view to administering her late husband’s estate, unless of course she waived her rights as provided for under rule 26 of the Probate Rules which provides that:
‘(1) Letters of administration shall not be granted to any applicant without notice to every other person entitled in the same degree as or in priority to the applicant.
(2) An application for a grant where the applicant is entitled in a degree equal to or lower than that of any other person shall, in default of renunciation, or written consent in Form 38 of 39, by all persons so entitled in equality or priority, be supported by an affidavit of the applicant and such other evidence as the court may require.
(3) Unless the court otherwise directs for reasons to be recorded, administration shall be granted to a living person in his own right in preference to the personal representative of a deceased person who would, if living, have been entitled in the same degree, and to a person not under disability in preference to an infant entitled in the same degree.’
There is no evidence that Naomi acted in compliance with the above provision, yet she made the trial Magistrate believe when she filed a ‘consent’ allegedly signed by Joyce and her children, which consent has been disputed by Joyce who claims that it is a fraudulent document.
I have perused the said consent document and I would tend to agree with Mr. Kinuthia that the same bears identity numbers which are clearly different from those of the alleged signatories, each of whom has annexed a copy of his/her identity card to the supporting affidavit. In m y humble opinion, that consent was fraudulent and I am sure that had that fact been brought to the attention of the learned trial magistrate, she would have arrived at a very different conclusion.
In vie of the above, I find that Naomi obtained the Grant fraudulently, and I do hereby grant Joyce the orders which she seeks, by declaring it a nullity and thereby revoking the said Grant. She shall also have the cost of this application.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 18th day of June 2008.
JEANNE GACHECHE
Judge
Delivered in the presence of: