[2024] KEHC 11628 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 11628 (KLR)

The court found that, given the serious allegations of forgery and lack of notification, and the significant delay of 26 years in bringing the application, it would not be reasonable to revoke the grant based solely on affidavit evidence. The court determined that the objection should be heard by way of viva voce...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 11628 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Rose Ruguri Muiruri; Applicant: Serah Wairimu; Respondent: Patrick Mburu Muiruri
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 1608 of 1997
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Directions
Outcome
Objection to be determined by oral evidence; status quo on land parcels to be maintained; leave granted for further affidavits and witness statements.
Judges
HK Chemitei
Legal Topics
Grant Revocation, Succession Procedure, Forgery of Signatures
Source Language
en
Family and Children Grant Revocation Succession Procedure Forgery of Signatures

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

Rose Ruguri Muiruri

Applicant

Serah Wairimu

Applicant

Patrick Mburu Muiruri

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Directions

  1. 1 Whether the grant issued to the respondent should be revoked due to lack of notification to the applicants and alleged forgery of signatures.
  2. 2 Whether affidavit evidence alone is sufficient to determine the revocation application after a delay of 26 years.
  3. 3 Whether the objection to the grant should be determined by oral evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, given the serious allegations of forgery and lack of notification, and the significant delay of 26 years in bringing the application, it would not be reasonable to revoke the grant based solely on affidavit evidence. The court determined that the objection should be heard by way of viva voce (oral) evidence to adequately address the factual disputes. The status quo regarding the relevant land parcels is to be maintained pending the determination of the objection proceedings. The parties are granted leave to file further affidavits and witness statements within 45 days.

Court Disposition

Objection to be determined by oral evidence; status quo on land parcels to be maintained; leave granted for further affidavits and witness statements.

Orders

  • The objection to the grant shall be determined by way of viva voce (oral) evidence.
  • Status quo in respect to land parcels Kiambu/Gatuanyaga/2722 and 2723 as at the date of the ruling to be maintained pending determination of the objection.