[2018] KEHC 998 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 998 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that she was a lawful wife of the deceased or that she and her children were unlawfully excluded from the estate. The evidence showed that JK, the applicant’s son, was sufficiently provided for with 2 acres of land as per the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 998 (KLR)
Parties
Petitioner: Priscilla Makena Mugambi; Applicant: Angelina Kamba Marete
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 171 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent/petitioner
Legal Topics
Revocation of Grant, Distribution of Estate, Status of Beneficiaries, Intestate Succession
Source Language
en
Family and Children Land and Property Revocation of Grant Distribution of Estate Status of Beneficiaries Intestate Succession

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Priscilla Makena Mugambi

Petitioner

Angelina Kamba Marete

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was a lawful wife of the deceased entitled to a share of the estate.
  2. 2 Whether the grant of letters of administration and subsequent distribution should be revoked due to alleged non-disclosure of beneficiaries.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant and her children were excluded from the estate distribution in contravention of succession law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that she was a lawful wife of the deceased or that she and her children were unlawfully excluded from the estate. The evidence showed that JK, the applicant’s son, was sufficiently provided for with 2 acres of land as per the deceased’s wishes. The applicant did not participate in the deceased’s burial, allegedly due to lack of knowledge, and had left the matrimonial home in 2000. The court was satisfied that the distribution of the estate was proper and that there was no basis for revocation of the grant or redistribution. The application for revocation was therefore dismissed, and the estate was to remain...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent/petitioner

Orders

  • The application for revocation dated 7th June 2017 is dismissed with costs to the respondent/petitioner.
  • The estate shall remain distributed as ordered on 10th December 2008.