[2024] KEHC 6818 (KLR)
The court held that the summons for revocation of grant, being neither signed nor dated by the applicants or their advocates, was not a valid application before the court. Unsigned pleadings are not authenticated and cannot be attributed to any party, thus lacking legal effect. Furthermore, the absence of evidence...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 6818 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Ruth Atieno Odero; Applicant: Joyce Akoth Otoke; Applicant: Jane Awuor Oloo; Applicant: Celestine Okello; Respondent: John Mito Oloo; Respondent: Fredrick Odinga Oloo; Respondent: Francis Ooko Oloo; Respondent: William Odiwuor Oloo; Respondent: Peter Odiera Oloo; Respondent: Maurice Akongo Oloo; Respondent: Tom Oburu Oloo; Respondent: James Omolo Oloo; Respondent: Michael Oloo; Respondent: David Ochieng Oloo; Respondent: David Omondi Oloo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Succession Cause E033 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Revocation of Grant
- Outcome
- summons for revocation of grant struck out; file closed
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Revocation of Grant, Unsigned Pleadings, Authentication of Documents
- 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
Ruth Atieno Odero
Applicant
Joyce Akoth Otoke
Applicant
Jane Awuor Oloo
Applicant
Celestine Okello
Applicant
John Mito Oloo
Respondent
Fredrick Odinga Oloo
Respondent
Francis Ooko Oloo
Respondent
William Odiwuor Oloo
Respondent
Peter Odiera Oloo
Respondent
Maurice Akongo Oloo
Respondent
Tom Oburu Oloo
Respondent
James Omolo Oloo
Respondent
Michael Oloo
Respondent
David Ochieng Oloo
Respondent
David Omondi Oloo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Revocation of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the summons for revocation of grant can be entertained when the application is unsigned and undated.
- 2 Whether the lack of signature and date on pleadings affects their validity and admissibility.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the summons for revocation of grant, being neither signed nor dated by the applicants or their advocates, was not a valid application before the court. Unsigned pleadings are not authenticated and cannot be attributed to any party, thus lacking legal effect. Furthermore, the absence of evidence of payment of court fees (no digital stamp) further invalidated the application. Consequently, there was no application capable of being considered on merit, and the summons for revocation of grant was struck out. The file was ordered closed, and the registry was directed to notify the applicant’s counsel.
Court Disposition
summons for revocation of grant struck out; file closed
Orders
- The summons for revocation of grant which are unsigned and undated are struck out.
- This file is closed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
48 paragraphs
In re Estate of Raphael Oloo Otiang'a (Deceased) (Miscellaneous Succession Cause E033 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 6818 (KLR) (7 June 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 6818 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kisumu
Miscellaneous Succession Cause E033 of 2024
RE Aburili, J
June 7, 2024
Between
Ruth Atieno Odero
1st Objector
Joyce Akoth Otoke
2nd Objector
Jane Awuor Oloo
3rd Objector
Celestine Okello
4th Objector
and
John Mito Oloo
1st Petitioner
Fredrick Odinga Oloo
2nd Petitioner
and
Francis Ooko Oloo
Interested Party
William Odiwuor Oloo
Interested Party
Peter Odiera Oloo
Interested Party
Maurice Akongo Oloo
Interested Party
Tom Oburu Oloo
Interested Party
James Omolo Oloo
Interested Party
Michael Oloo
Interested Party
David Ochieng Oloo
Interested Party
David Omondi Oloo
Interested Party
Ruling
1. I have considered the application by way of summons for revocation of grant which is filed, seeking to revoke the grant issued in favour of John Mito Oloo, Walter Odongo Oloo and Fredrick Odinga Oloo on 1st April 2014 and confirmed on 16th November 2017 and rectified on 25th May 2017 vide Kisumu HC Succession Cause No. 494 of 2012.
2. I observe that the summons for revocation of grant are neither dated nor signed by the Applicants nor their advocates Mulinge & Ochieng & Company Advocates.
3. Pleadings which are unsigned are not authenticated and there is no ownership by the maker thereof.
4. I find no application capable of being considered on merit. I strike out the summons for revocation of grant as filed, and in addition, there is no indication that court fees was paid for the same as there is no digital stamp on the filed documents.
5. The summons for revocation of grant which are unsigned and undated are struck out and this file is closed.
6. Registry to notify the Applicant’s counsel.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Kisumu this 7th Day of June, 2024R. E. ABURILIJUDGEPage 2 of 2