[2020] KEHC 135 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide any documentary evidence or annexures to support his claim of purchase of the suit property from the deceased. There was no proof of transfer of the land to the applicant, nor evidence of uninterrupted occupation. The applicant also did not contest the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 135 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Abraham Ngugi; Respondent: Lucy Wanjiru & 3 Others
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 83 ”B” of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Revocation of Grant
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondents
- Judges
- HK Chemitei
- Legal Topics
- Revocation of Grant, Purchaser Interest, Proof of Purchase, Succession Distribution
- 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
Abraham Ngugi
Applicant
Lucy Wanjiru & 3 Others
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Revocation of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant proved purchase of a portion of the deceased's land from the estate.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to revocation of the grant for being left out of the distribution.
- 3 Whether the applicant is protected as an innocent purchaser under Section 93 of the Law of Succession Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to provide any documentary evidence or annexures to support his claim of purchase of the suit property from the deceased. There was no proof of transfer of the land to the applicant, nor evidence of uninterrupted occupation. The applicant also did not contest the respondent's assertion that his wife, the 3rd respondent, had her interest addressed in the grant. Consequently, the applicant could not benefit from the statutory protection for innocent purchasers under Section 93 of the Law of Succession Act. The absence of evidence led the court to dismiss the application for revocation of the grant.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Orders
- The application for revocation of grant is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KITALE
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO 83 ”B” OF 2003
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE MARY WAMBOI NJATHI - (DECEASED)
ABRAHAM NGUGI.............................................................................OBJECTOR/APPLICANT
VERSES
LUCY WANJIRU &3 OTHERS...........................................................................RESPONDENTS
RULING
1. By his summons dated 11th April, 2019 the Applicant prays for orders that the grant issued on the 30th January, 2019 be revoked and that the Respondents be stopped from trespassing on the Applicant’s portion of the land he is currently occupying. The same is supported by the grounds on the face of the application and the affidavit which is undated.
2. He deponed that he purchased ½ an acre out of Land Parcel number WAITALUK/KAPKOI BLOCK 10/KAPKOI SISAL /311 from the deceased on 25th April, 1998 for a total purchase consideration of Kshs. 60,000. He then moved on the suit parcel of land and has done extensive developments thereon without any interruption from any quota including the Respondents.
3. He stated further that he learned of the existence of this cause from his advocates and he realised that unlike the rest of the beneficiaries he was left out of the distribution. He therefore prays that the grant be revoked and that his interest be considered as he stands to suffer loss.
4. Lucia Wanjiru Kimani has responded vide her replying affidavit dated 23rd September, 2019 in which she states that the applicant has not exhibited any evidence of purchase of the suit land or at all and that in any case all along he was aware of this cause. She said that as a matter of fact the Applicant is married to Nancy Wangare, the 3rd Respondent herein whose interest has been taken care of in the grant.
5. The parties were then ordered to file written submissions which the court has gladly perused and does not intent to reproduce the same here for want of time.
6. This application is disallowed for the simple reason that there is no evidence that the Applicant purchased the suit property from the deceased. There are no annexures contained in the supporting affidavit despite the respondents raising the same in the replying affidavit.
7. There is no evidence that the parcel of land was ever transferred to the Applicant thus benefiting from the protection accorded to innocent purchasers provided under Section 93 of the Law of Succession Act Cap 160 Laws of Kenya which he sought to rely on.
8. Finally, there is no evidence shown to this court that the Applicant has been in occupation of the suit land uninterrupted over the years. The Applicant was quiet on the allegation that he was married to the 3rd Respondent whose interest in fact had been taken care of.
9. In the premises, this application is dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Kitale this 25th day of February, 2020.
...............................
H. K. CHEMITEI
JUDGE
25/2/2020
In the presence of:-
Wanyonyi for the 1st Petitioner
Ngeywa for Oburu for the Applicant
Court Assistant – Kirong
Ruling read in open court.