[2020] KEHC 8268 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 8268 (KLR)

The court held that the omission of land parcel LR. No. Gaturi/Nembure/5192 from the grant does not fall within the limited scope of errors that can be rectified under Section 74 of the Law of Succession Act and Rule 43(1) of the Probate and Administration Rules. The omission of an entire asset is not an error in...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 8268 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Endita Rwamba; Respondent: Rucimiria Marigu
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Embu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 160 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Rectification of Grant
Outcome
Application struck out.
Judges
FN Muchemi
Legal Topics
Rectification of Grant, Omission of Asset, Administrator Substitution, Beneficiary Rights
Source Language
en
Family and Children Rectification of Grant Omission of Asset Administrator Substitution Beneficiary Rights

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Endita Rwamba

Applicant

Rucimiria Marigu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Rectification of Grant

  1. 1 Whether the omission of land parcel LR. No. Gaturi/Nembure/5192 from the grant can be rectified under Section 74 of the Law of Succession Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has legal capacity to seek rectification of grant and substitution as administrator.
  3. 3 Whether the omission constitutes an error as envisaged by Section 74 and Rule 43 of the Probate and Administration Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the omission of land parcel LR. No. Gaturi/Nembure/5192 from the grant does not fall within the limited scope of errors that can be rectified under Section 74 of the Law of Succession Act and Rule 43(1) of the Probate and Administration Rules. The omission of an entire asset is not an error in description or name but a substantive omission that requires a different procedure, such as review or amendment of the grant, involving all beneficiaries. Furthermore, the applicant, being merely a beneficiary and not the administrator, lacks the legal capacity to bring an application for rectification of grant. The proper party to bring such an application is the administrator,...

Court Disposition

Application struck out.

Orders

  • Summons for rectification of grant is struck out.
  • No order as to costs.