[2019] KEHC 568 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate the existence of any new and important evidence that was not within her knowledge or could not have been produced at the time of the original proceedings. The alleged new facts, including the status of certain beneficiaries and the existence of related suits,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 568 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Dinah Robby Sang; Respondent: Daniel Kipsang Sabule; Respondent: Benson Kiptoobirech
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 260 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondents
- Judges
- HK Chemitei
- Legal Topics
- Estate Administration, Review of Judgment, Distribution of Estate, Probate Procedure
- 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
Dinah Robby Sang
Applicant
Daniel Kipsang Sabule
Respondent
Benson Kiptoobirech
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has discovered new and important evidence justifying review of the judgment distributing the estate.
- 2 Whether the matter should have proceeded by way of oral evidence rather than affidavit evidence.
- 3 Whether the applicant was denied a fair hearing or opportunity to present her case.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate the existence of any new and important evidence that was not within her knowledge or could not have been produced at the time of the original proceedings. The alleged new facts, including the status of certain beneficiaries and the existence of related suits, were already known and considered by the court. The matter was properly conducted by way of affidavit evidence, and all parties were represented and had the opportunity to request oral evidence but did not do so. The applicant's dissatisfaction with the judgment does not constitute grounds for review, and her remedy lay in appeal, not review. Consequently, the application for...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Orders
- The application dated 17th April, 2019 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITALE
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 260 OF 2014
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE KIBIRECH ARAP KOGO - (DECEASED)
DINAH ROBBY SANG ...................................APPLICANT/1ST PETITIONER
AND
DANIEL KIPSANG SABULE...................2ND PETITIONER /RESPONDENT
BENSON KIPTOOBIRECH.......................3RD PETITIONER/RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Applicant is one of the administrators of the deceased Estate herein. This court on 3rd April, 2019 delivered its considered judgment distributing the Estate among the beneficiaries pursuant to the rival affidavits and other supporting documents supplied by the parties.
2. The Applicant was dissatisfied with the said decision and has file the application dated 17th April, 2019 in which she has prayed that the said judgment be reviewed and set aside pursuant to the provisions of Section 49 and 73 of the Probate Rules as well as Section 47 of the Succession Act Cap 160 Laws of Kenya and Rule 45 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The substance of her application is that this matter ought to have proceeded by way of oral evidence as there are new and important facts and evidence which were discovered later and were not within the knowledge of the Applicant as at the time this matter came up for determination.
3. She has supported the above averments in her affidavit sworn on 17th April 2019 together with the attached annexures.
4. The 3rd Petitioner in his replying affidavit dated 25th June, 2019 has opposed the application arguing inter alia that there is nothing new that the applicant has discovered and that all that she is seeking is to disturb the status quo and the agreed mode of distribution by the families who included the Applicant. That the Applicant was present all through the proceedings and she has even admitted that she was married in somewhere in Nandi and has conceded that Rael Kogo is the wife of Taplelei Chebokong Kogo.
5. The provisions of Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules are applicable pursuant to the provisions of Rule 63 of the Probate and Administration Rules. Rule 45(1) goes on to state that the court should disturb its decree if there is …” discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason …”.
6. The court has perused paragraph 4 of the applicants supporting affidavit which essentially indicates the reasons why she is seeking review of the judgment of the court. Clearly it is not entirely true that the applicant did not know that Taplelei Chebokong Kogo was not the first wife of the deceased and that she had two daughters, the applicant and her sister Hellen Mibei.
7. That Rael Kogo was the wife of Taplelei Chebokong Kogo and had 9 children. The said details of the children are well captured in the pleadings leading to the judgment.
8. This court does not belief that it is a new evidence discovered by the applicant that Taplelei Chebokong Kogo ran away from her matrimonial home and in fact stayed with the applicant in Nandi.
9. It is also not new that suit No. Kitale CMCC 87 of 2018 was a new and important evidence discovered by the applicant. She was in fact a party in the matter and if it was relevant to the proceedings in this cause she ought to have brought it out.
10. This matter proceeded by way of affidavits evidence and there was no application by any party that the matter should be conducted by way of viva voce evidence. In fact, at some point this court ordered all the beneficiaries to attend court. Needless to state that all the parties were well represented by counsels through the entire process and they would have notified the court of the desire of the parties on how the matter should have been heard.
11. Paul Kimurgor Kogo has been a party in this matter as well as Mary Chepsat Kogo her mother and that house was provided for. They have not complained at all and the Applicant cannot purport to complain on their behalf without any authority.
12. The minutes which she alleges were altered were not new and were supplied to the court and that was some of the reasons this court considered when distributing the estate. There was no such evidence that the same were altered as none of the parties including the Applicant raised the issue in the supporting or opposing affidavits. The said minutes must have been within the knowledge of the applicant and she cannot claim otherwise.
13. In a nutshell, I do not find any merit in the application. If the Applicant was not satisfied with the judgment of the court she should have appealed seeing that the issues she purports to be new are not at all. The Applicant did participate all along through her counsel and thus she cannot cry foul.
14. The application is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Kitale this 18th day of December, 2019.
H. K. CHEMITEI
JUDGE
18/12/19
In the presence of:-
Parties Absent
Court Assistant – Silvia
Ruling read in open court.