Kenya Judgment

High Court · High Court at Bungoma

In re Estate of the Late John Manyonge Wakuli (Deceased) [2017] KEHC 1936 (KLR)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that while the applicant demonstrated a prima facie claim to the estate property based on longstanding possession and documentary evidence, the claim was not a sufficient ground for revocation of the grant in probate proceedings. The appropriate forum for resolving the applicant's claim to the land is the Environment and Land Court, where the applicant should file suit against the administrators of the estate. The court therefore stayed the confirmation of the grant pending the outcome of such proceedings, directing the applicant to institute the suit within 30 days.

Court disposition

Application for revocation of grant dismissed; confirmation of grant stayed pending outcome of land suit.

Orders

  • Confirmation of the grant is stayed pending hearing and determination of the intended suit by the applicant in the Environment and Land Court.
  • The applicant is directed to file a suit against the Petitioners as representatives of the estate within 30 days.
  • Costs of this application to abide the outcome of the intended suit.

02

Material facts

Parties

Meshack S.A. Maleche

Applicant

Rebecca Naliaka Manyonge

Respondent

Wycliffe Kasembeli Wakoli

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Probate and Administration Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant contends that he purchased land parcel Bungoma/Kabisi/546 from the deceased in 1973, took possession, and has occupied it for over 30 years. He alleges the respondents fraudulently concealed this fact when obtaining the grant and registered the property in the deceased's name despite knowing of his occupation. He supports his claim with a sale agreement, land control board documents, consent, ministry letter, and photographs showing possession.
Respondent
The 1st respondent asserts that the intended purchaser was the applicant's brother, who failed to pay the full purchase price. She claims the documents produced by the applicant are forgeries and maintains that the applicant is not entitled to the land, as she and her children are now squatters. The respondents deny any fraudulent concealment and oppose the revocation of the grant.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act (Cap 160)

    A grant of representation may be revoked if obtained fraudulently by concealment of material facts or by means of untrue allegations of fact essential in point of law.

  2. 02

    Jurisdictional principle under Kenyan law

    Disputes regarding ownership of estate property should be determined by the Environment and Land Court, not within probate proceedings.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that while the applicant demonstrated a prima facie claim to the estate property based on longstanding possession and documentary evidence, the claim was not a sufficient ground for revocation of the grant in probate proceedings. The appropriate forum for resolving the applicant's claim to the land is the Environment and Land Court, where the applicant should file suit against the administrators of the estate. The court therefore stayed the confirmation of the grant pending the outcome of such proceedings, directing the applicant to institute the suit within 30 days.

Obiter and limits

  • The applicant's claim, though not a ground for revocation, cannot be ignored and deserves to be heard in the appropriate forum.
  • It is only fair that the confirmation of the grant be stayed to allow the applicant to pursue his claim in the Environment and Land Court.

Court disposition

Application for revocation of grant dismissed; confirmation of grant stayed pending outcome of land suit.

  • Confirmation of the grant is stayed pending hearing and determination of the intended suit by the applicant in the Environment and Land Court.
  • The applicant is directed to file a suit against the Petitioners as representatives of the estate within 30 days.
  • Costs of this application to abide the outcome of the intended suit.

Source and reliance status

High Court

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

High Court

Judgment

[2017] KEHC 1936 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA

PROBATE & ADMINISTRATION CAUSE NO.93 OF 2006

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE JOHN MANYONGEWAKULI…DECEASED

AND

MESHACK S.A. MALECHE………………………....……………………………APPLICANT

VERSUS

REBECCA NALIAKA MANYONGE……………….……………………..1ST RESPONDENT

WYCLIFFE KASEMBELI WAKOLI…………………………………....…2ND RESPONDENT

RULING

1. Before Court for determination is an application for revocation of a grant that was issued to the respondents on the 1st of December 2006 on grounds that the same was obtained fraudulently by concealing of material facts and the proceedings thereof defective in substance.

2. In his affidavit in support of the application the applicant deposes that on 17th of January, 1973 he bought land parcel number Bungoma/Kabisi/546 from the deceased, and he took possession the same year; the respondents relocated and were aware that he was in occupation yet in 2006 they caused the property to he registered in the names of the deceased.

3. In her replying affidavit dated 15/7/2011 the 1st petitioner, claims that the person who intended to buy the land was the applicant’s brother who did not pay the entire purchase price, further all documents annexed were a forgery; the applicant ought not to have the land as her children and herself are currently squatters.

4. In the Petition for grant of representation the Petitioners indicated the only asset of the estate to be Bungoma/Kabisi/546 measuring 8. 1 hectares. This is the same property the applicant is claiming to have bought.

5. In evidence the applicant produced the following documents in support;

a. A Sale agreement dated 17th January, 1973

b. An application to the land Control Board

c. Letter of consent dated 21/3/1973

d. A letter from the Ministry of lands and settlement dated 29th November, 1976

e. Photographs of the house he erected on the land, the farm, homestead and livestock.

6. Coupled with the above he claims that he has been in possession for over 30 years which claim was not challenged by the Petitioners / respondents.

7. Although the Applicant’s claim cannot be the reason perse to revoke the grant his claim against the evidence adduced cannot be ignored all together.

He indeed, in my view has a prima facie claim against the estate of the deceased, however the claim is misplaced. He ought to pursue his claim in the Land and Environment Court against the Administrators (Petitioners).

8. And since the only asset shown to exist is the land subject matter of this application; it will only be fair that the confirmation of the grant herein be stayed pending hearing and determination of the intended suit by the applicant.

9. And inorder not to delay the matter the applicant is directed to file a suit against the Petitioners as representatives of the estate of the deceased in the Land & Environmental Court within the next 30 days of the date of this ruling.

10. The costs of this application do abide the outcome of the intended suit above.

DATED and DELIVERED at BUNGOMA this 21st day of September, 2017

ALI-ARONI

JUDGE

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Law of Succession Act (Cap 160)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.