[2010] KEHC 1188 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant lacked locus standi to bring the application for revocation or annulment of the grant because he had not taken out letters of administration for his late father's estate. Without such authority, he could not pursue any claim relating to the estate of Simon Mungai Mutiti on behalf...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 1188 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: William Mburu Mungai; Respondent: Betha Wanjiru Mungai
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 1662 of 1993
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Revocation of Grant, Locus Standi, Beneficiary Rights, Letters of Administration
- 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
William Mburu Mungai
Applicant
Betha Wanjiru Mungai
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has locus standi to seek revocation or annulment of the grant issued to the respondent.
- 2 Whether the grant was obtained by concealment or misrepresentation of material facts, specifically the applicant's alleged status as a beneficiary.
- 3 Whether the applicant's family was unlawfully excluded from the estate distribution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant lacked locus standi to bring the application for revocation or annulment of the grant because he had not taken out letters of administration for his late father's estate. Without such authority, he could not pursue any claim relating to the estate of Simon Mungai Mutiti on behalf of his father's estate. Furthermore, the court held that the applicant's father had participated in the original succession proceedings as surety and had signed the relevant forms, indicating that the family was not excluded from the process. The court concluded that the application was both incompetent and without merit, as the applicant failed to establish any concealment or...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for revocation or annulment of the grant is dismissed.
- The applicant shall bear the costs of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Succession Cause 1662 of 1993
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF SIMON MUNGAI MUTITI – DECEASED
WILLIAM MBURU MUNGAI ………….….. APPLICANT/OBJECTOR
V E R S U S
BETHA WANJIRU MUNGAI ……………RESPONDENT/PETITIONER
R U L I N G
The grant in this estate of Simon Mungai Mutiti was issued on11th January, 1994 to the Respondent and confirmed on 29th July, 1994. The estate contained various parcels of land which were ordered to be registered in the Respondent’s name and thereafter in equal shares to her children.
On 26th August, 2010 the Applicant sought under section 70 of the Law of Succession Act (Cap. 160) to have the grant revoked and/or annulled on basis that the same was obtained by concealment of the material fact that he was a beneficiary of the estate, that he was not informed of the proceedings and that there was misrepresentation of material facts. In the supporting affidavit, the Applicant deponed that his father Mungai Mutiti Chege (who died on8th May 2007) was brother to the deceased herein; that the deceased was registered as a trustee of the properties listed in the grant. However, it is deponed, the property has now gone to the Respondent and children to the exclusion of the family of the late Mungai Mutiti Chege who include the Applicant. The family feels disinherited when, it is stated, they were meant to share in the properties.
The response by the Respondent was that the late Mungai Mutiti Chege participated in the succession cause as surety of the Respondent when she was applying for letters of administration and even signed P & A 57. She further deponed that the application was incompetent, vexatious and abuse of process. Mr. Mwaniki for the Respondent submitted that in so far as the Applicant was not the administrator of his father’s estate he had no locus to bring the application.
The Applicant seeks to benefit from the estate through his late father whom he says was a beneficiary of the said trust. Upon the death of his father, the Applicant needed to take out letters to be able to pursue any claim relating to the estate. Since he has not taken out letters he lacks the capacity to make the present claim seeking to revoke or annual the grant to the Respondent. Secondly, his father signed P & A 57 to the Respondent in this Cause and therefore the claim that they were kept out of the proceedings is without basis. The Applicant’s father had the opportunity to pursue whatever claim he had to the estate but did not.
In short, the application is not only incompetent but also lacks merits. It is dismissed with costs.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI
THIS 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2010
A.O. MUCHELULE
J U D G E