[2007] KEHC 427 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent failed to specifically respond to the objector's evidence regarding the previous High Court case and the decree, which cast doubt on the legitimacy of his claim to Plot No. 21 Gacharage Market. The court accepted the objector's evidence on a balance of probabilities, noting that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 427 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Susan Nyambura Mbugua; Respondent: Kimani Gachau
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Succession Cause 1855 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- application for revocation of grant allowed
- Judges
- KH Rawal
- Legal Topics
- Revocation of Grant, Beneficiary Rights, Ownership of Land, Confirmation of Grant
- 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
Susan Nyambura Mbugua
Applicant
Kimani Gachau
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the grant issued to the respondent should be revoked due to non-disclosure or misrepresentation of material facts.
- 2 Whether the respondent was lawfully entitled to Plot No. 21 Gacharage Market as a purchaser or otherwise.
- 3 Whether the objector and other beneficiaries were properly included in the distribution of the deceased's estate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent failed to specifically respond to the objector's evidence regarding the previous High Court case and the decree, which cast doubt on the legitimacy of his claim to Plot No. 21 Gacharage Market. The court accepted the objector's evidence on a balance of probabilities, noting that the respondent did not adequately prove his entitlement to the plot or rebut the objector's assertions. Consequently, the court held that the grant was improperly confirmed in favour of the respondent and allowed the application for revocation of grant. The objector was directed to file a fresh petition including all beneficiaries, and the respondent was given liberty to prove...
Court Disposition
application for revocation of grant allowed
Orders
- The application for revocation of grant dated 17th June, 2004 is allowed.
- The objector shall file a fresh petition before the Court within 15 days including all beneficiaries of the estate.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Succession Cause 1855 of 2004
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF DANSON MBUGUA WARIGI – DECEASED
JUDGMENT
The objector Susan Nyambura Mbugua has filed summons for revocation of grant made in favour of Kimani Gachau in Succession Cause No. 39/1998 in the Principal Magistrate’s Court, Thika and issued on 24th July, 2002.
I am not certain about the said date of issue of the certificate of confirmation of the grant, because the record of the subordinate court shows that the ruling to confirm the grant of representation was made on 16th August, 2002.
Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the said Kimani Gachau has claimed Plot No. 21 Gacharage Market being a purchaser thereof. Certificate of confirmation sought to be revoked shows clearly that he has been given that plot only, while the deceased’s other property Loc./Gacharage/75 has been shared equally amongst the four children of the deceased from the objector herein (see letter dated 27th January 1998 from Assistant Chief, Gacharage - Mukuria Sub-location filed in the record of the Court file of the subordinate Court).
After the said confirmation, now a co-widow Susan has filed this objection proceedings. She has averred that the Administrator/Respondent is a stranger. She further averred that the deceased herein filed a case in High Court at Nairobi being H.C.C.S. No. 110 of 1977 (Originating Summons) against the Respondent claiming the ownership of the land in dispute.
She also produced a copy of decree issued in pursuance of the judgment delivered by Hancox J. (as he then was) on 1st November, 1982.
I do note that the said decree is not signed or certified and the effort to bring the file of the said case was also futile, due to its old age.
However, I also note that in the replying affidavit sworn by the Respondent on 10th October, 2006 and filed on 12th October, 2006 he has not refuted or even responded to the averments as regards the said case and decree thereof.
I also have a copy of Originating Summons (in Supra) and Affidavit of Facts sworn by the deceased on 17th December 1976 in the said case. It reveals that an agreement was arrived at between him and the Respondent to build a shop and on completion to occupy the same by the Respondent as a tenant on the rent to be agreed upon as well as to credit the expense of the building of the shop by the Respondent from the said rent. But the Respondent abandoned the work in January 1988 when it was about two feet above the foundation. It was further averred that the claim of the Respondent herein of being a joint lessee of the plot was not tenable in law and fact.
No response to these facts also is made by the Respondent. His assertion in the replying affidavit that he partly developed the plot and the agreement was to transfer the plot in his name are not adequately proved and cannot be accepted as true.
I must admit that the respondent has not taken undue advantage of the non-appearance on the part of the other beneficiaries in the estate. He has also disclosed the names of all the beneficiaries in his petition before the subordinate Court. It is only because of the fact that the documents by the objector as to the existence of the decree and affidavit by the deceased made in aforementioned case are not specifically traversed by the Respondent, I am constrained to accept them on balance of probability.
In the premises I allow the application for revocation of grant dated 17th June, 2004.
The objector shall file a fresh petition before the Court within 15 days from the date hereof including therein all the beneficiaries of the estate, as stated in the original grant by the Respondent
The Respondent be at liberty to get his claim proved.
I do not make any order on costs.
Dated and signed at Nairobi this 23rd day of January, 2007.
K. H. RAWAL
JUDGE
23. 1.07