[2014] KEHC 7584 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 7584 (KLR)

The court found that there was no sufficient basis to cancel the certificate of confirmation of grant as the applicant failed to demonstrate that he was excluded from the proceedings or that there was any procedural irregularity. The applicant should have sought review of the confirmation orders or revocation of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KEHC 7584 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: __MISSING__; Respondent: __MISSING__
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 2383 of 2003
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
DN Musyoka
Legal Topics
Succession, Confirmation of Grant, Revocation of Grant, Distribution of Estate
Source Language
en
Family and Children Succession Confirmation of Grant Revocation of Grant Distribution of Estate

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

__MISSING__

Applicant

__MISSING__

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the certificate of confirmation of grant should be cancelled due to alleged unequal distribution of the estate.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was denied participation in the confirmation proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no sufficient basis to cancel the certificate of confirmation of grant as the applicant failed to demonstrate that he was excluded from the proceedings or that there was any procedural irregularity. The applicant should have sought review of the confirmation orders or revocation of the grant itself, rather than seeking cancellation of the certificate. The application was therefore dismissed for lack of merit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The Motion dated 19th February 2012 is dismissed.
  • The respondent shall have costs of the application.