[2001] KEHC 727 (KLR)
The court held that section 93 of the Law of Succession Act protects the interests of purchasers of immovable property acquired from a person to whom representation has been granted, even if the grant is subsequently revoked. Therefore, the parcels of land that had already been transferred to third parties before...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2001] KEHC 727 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Samuel Gathaiga; Respondent: __MISSING__
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 926 of 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Vacate and Set Aside Previous Orders
- Outcome
- application allowed in part
- Judges
- JL Osiemo
- Legal Topics
- Revocation of Grant, Transfer of Land, Protection of Purchasers, Succession Act Section 93
- 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
Samuel Gathaiga
Applicant
__MISSING__
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Vacate and Set Aside Previous Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether land parcels transferred to third parties before revocation of grant can revert to the deceased's estate.
- 2 Whether section 93 of the Law of Succession Act protects purchasers of immovable property from the estate in the event of subsequent revocation of grant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that section 93 of the Law of Succession Act protects the interests of purchasers of immovable property acquired from a person to whom representation has been granted, even if the grant is subsequently revoked. Therefore, the parcels of land that had already been transferred to third parties before the revocation of the grant could not revert to the deceased's estate. The previous order requiring the properties to revert to the deceased's name was vacated as it related to those parcels, and each party was ordered to bear their own costs.
Court Disposition
application allowed in part
Orders
- The order dated 31st March, 2000 is vacated as it relates to parcels of land known as L.R. GITHUNGURI/GITHUNGURI/2057, 2058, 2059, and 2062.
- Each party to bear his own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI SUCCESSION CAUSE NO.926 OF 1997 IN THE MATTER OF EUNICE WANJERI KIBIA …. DECEASED
R U L I N G
Grant of letters of Administration was issued Samuel Gathaiga, which was later rovocated on 18/11/1999. Before revocation land parcel NO.GITHUNGURIA/GATHUNGURI/1029 had been subdivided as follows:-
(a) L.R. GITHUNGURI/2057
(b) L.R. GITHUNGURI/2058
(c) L.R. GITHUNGURI/2059
(d) L.R. GITHUNGURI/2060
(e) L.R. GITHUNGURI/2061
(f) L.R. GITHUNGURI/2062
The parcels L.R. GITHUNGURI/2057,2058,2059 and 2062 had been transferred to 3rd party before the grant was rovocated.
An application cause before me on 27th March, 2000 which sought orders to the petitioner having been revoked, the deceased’s property should revert to her name which application I grant, on 31st March, 2000.
This application seeks orders to vacate and set aside my said orders of 31st March, 2000 as far as it related to the said parcels, which had been transferred to other persons. Namely.
(a) Githunguri/Githunguri/2057
(b) Githunguri/Githunguri/2058
(c) Githunguri/Githunguri/2059
(d) Githunguri/Githunguri/2062
This application is brought under section 93 of the Succession Act Cap 160.
The application is opposed on the ground that the grant was revoked because the Court, which issued it, has no jurisdiction to do so, and therefore the same was a nullity. Section 93 of the Law of Succession Act Cap 160 protects the interest of a purchase of immovable property of any interest in immovable property in the event the grant issued is subsequently revoked it says:
“A transfer of any interest in immovable property or movable property made to a purchaser either before or after the commencement of this Act by a person to whom representation has been granted shall be valid, notwithstanding any subsequent revocation or variation of the grant either before or after the commencement of this Act”
In the circumstances the properties mentioned above: GITHUNGURI/GITHUNGURI/2057, 2058,2059 and 2062 which had been transferred to lawful purchasers could not revert back to the estate of the deceased.
This application therefore succeeds and accordingly I varied as follows:
My order dated 31st March, 2000 is vacated as it relates to parcels of land known as:-
(a) L.R. GITHUNGURI/GITHUNGURI/2057
(b) L.R.GITHUNGURI/GITHUNGURI/2058
(c) L.R GITHUNGURI/GITHUNGURI/2059
(d) L.R.GITHUNGURI/GITHUNGURI/2062
Order accordingly, each party bear his own costs.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 23rd day of July, 2001
J.L.A. OSIEMO
JUDGE