[2021] KEHC 9819 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 9819 (KLR)

The court held that although the application for rectification of the grant did not cite the specific statutory provision, this omission was not fatal. The court found that the issues raised—redistribution of the estate to reflect actual occupation and provision for access roads—were partly errors and partly matters...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 9819 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Mary Syovinya Philip; Applicant: Daniel Mutia Philip
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 85 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Rectification of Grant
Outcome
Application for rectification and amendment of the grant allowed, subject to confirmation of beneficiary consent.
Judges
JN Onyiego
Legal Topics
Rectification of Grant, Distribution of Estate, Beneficiary Consent
Source Language
en
Family and Children Rectification of Grant Distribution of Estate Beneficiary Consent

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Syovinya Philip

Applicant

Daniel Mutia Philip

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Rectification of Grant

  1. 1 Whether the grant of representation should be rectified to redistribute the estate in accordance with the current occupation and to provide for access roads.
  2. 2 Whether the application for rectification, though not citing the specific statutory provision, is fatally defective.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that although the application for rectification of the grant did not cite the specific statutory provision, this omission was not fatal. The court found that the issues raised—redistribution of the estate to reflect actual occupation and provision for access roads—were partly errors and partly matters requiring review and amendment of the grant. The court invoked Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution to avoid undue technicalities and allowed the application for review and amendment of the grant, subject to the physical appearance of all beneficiaries to confirm their consent to the proposed redistribution, as their original shares would be affected.

Court Disposition

Application for rectification and amendment of the grant allowed, subject to confirmation of beneficiary consent.

Orders

  • Beneficiaries to appear in court on a convenient date to confirm the proposed new mode of distribution.