[2021] KEHC 5048 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 5048 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent failed to disclose the applicant, the only surviving daughter of the deceased, as a beneficiary in the succession proceedings. This omission constituted fraudulent obtainment of the grant by concealment of material facts and by making untrue allegations. The court held that such...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 5048 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Mary Adera Ogumbo; Respondent: George Opiyo Lusi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Homa Bay
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Probate & Administration 891 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Probate and Administration / Ruling on Summons for Revocation of Grant
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
KW Kiarie
Legal Topics
Revocation of Grant, Fraudulent Obtainment of Grant, Concealment of Material Facts, Succession, Appointment of Administrator
Source Language
en
Family and Children Revocation of Grant Fraudulent Obtainment of Grant Concealment of Material Facts Succession Appointment of Administrator

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Adera Ogumbo

Applicant

George Opiyo Lusi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Probate and Administration / Ruling on Summons for Revocation of Grant

  1. 1 Whether the grant of representation was obtained fraudulently by concealment of material facts.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant, as the only surviving daughter, was unlawfully excluded from the list of beneficiaries.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent failed in his duty to administer the estate lawfully.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to disclose the applicant, the only surviving daughter of the deceased, as a beneficiary in the succession proceedings. This omission constituted fraudulent obtainment of the grant by concealment of material facts and by making untrue allegations. The court held that such conduct falls squarely within the grounds for revocation of grant under Section 76(b) of the Law of Succession Act. Consequently, the grant previously issued to the respondent was revoked, and the applicant was appointed as the new administrator of the estate, with directions to file a proposed mode of distribution within 30 days.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The grant issued to the respondent is revoked.
  • The applicant is appointed administrator of the estate.