[2015] KEHC 7015 (KLR)
The court held that the central issue is whether the applicant was married to the deceased, which determines her entitlement as a surviving spouse. The court found that this factual question cannot be resolved solely on affidavit evidence and requires oral testimony and cross-examination. The court also noted that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 7015 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Applicant (Name not provided); Respondent: Respondents (Names not provided)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 693 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Interlocutory Directions on Application for Revocation/nullification of Grant
- Outcome
- Directions issued for substantive hearing; no final determination on merits.
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Revocation of Grant, Customary Law Marriage, Spousal Status, 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
Applicant (Name not provided)
Applicant
Respondents (Names not provided)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Interlocutory Directions on Application for Revocation/nullification of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant was ever married to the deceased and is therefore a surviving spouse entitled to a share of the estate.
- 2 Whether the application for nullification of grant is properly before the court under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act.
- 3 Whether the issue of marriage can be determined on affidavit evidence or requires oral evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the central issue is whether the applicant was married to the deceased, which determines her entitlement as a surviving spouse. The court found that this factual question cannot be resolved solely on affidavit evidence and requires oral testimony and cross-examination. The court also noted that the application was not properly drafted under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act, as it sought nullification rather than revocation of the grant. However, the court declined to determine the application on technical grounds at this stage and instead directed that the matter proceed to a substantive hearing with both affidavit and oral evidence.
Court Disposition
Directions issued for substantive hearing; no final determination on merits.
Orders
- The application dated 20th May 2013 shall be heard at Nairobi for two days before a single judge.
- The application shall be disposed of by way of affidavit and oral evidence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
FAMILY DIVISION
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 693 OF 2001
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF NAFTAL ONGUSO MUTURI- DECEASED
RULING
1. The application by way Chamber Summons dated 20th May 2013 seeks several orders, the main one being a declaration that the grant of letters of administration intestate made to the respondents was null and void. The application is founded on Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act.
2. The said application is not properly drafted. Applications founded on Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act provide for revocation of a grant and not its declaration as null and void. Nullifying a grant and revoking it are two separate matters. Revocation is of something that is valid, while nullification is a declaration that the thing was null from inception. Whether a grant can be revoked in an application that seeks its nullification is a moot point.
3. The provisions of the Probate and Administration Rules do not envisage the filing of a Chamber Summons where one seeks orders under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. The law provides for the filing of a Summons for Revocation of Grant.
4. I will not deal with the technical issues surrounding the Chamber Summons dated 20th May 2013. I believe that they can be addressed at the disposal of the application.
5. The central issue for determination in the application is whether or not the applicant was ever married to the deceased. This will resolve the question as to whether she is a surviving spouse of the deceased and therefore entitled to a share in his estate.
6. Whether or not there was a customary law marriage, or even a marriage to be presumed from cohabitation, is a matter of fact. It cannot be resolved purely on affidavit evidence. The best approach should be oral evidence that is subjected to test by cross-examination of the witnesses.
7. I will not do justice to the application dated 20th May 2013 by determining it on the basis of the filed affidavits. I will not therefore make a decision on its merits. Instead I shall give directions on its final disposal.
8. The directions I give in the circumstances are as follows:-
That the application dated 20th May 2013 shall be heard at Nairobi for two (2) days before a single judge;
That it shall be disposed of by way of affidavit and oral evidence;
That the parties are hereby granted leave to file further affidavits sworn by the persons they propose to call as witnesses, if such persons have not filed such affidavits already;
That the leave in (c) above is for thirty (30) days; and
That the matter shall be given a hearing date at the registry on priority.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 23rd DAY OF January 2015.
W. MUSYOKA
JUDGE