[2011] KEHC 1746 (KLR)

[2011] KEHC 1746 (KLR)

The court found that while the objectors allege that Marachi/Bumala/1472 was held in trust by the deceased for Vincent Oduor Handa, they have not provided sufficient evidence to conclusively prove the existence of such a trust. The court held that the proper procedure would have been to file an independent suit to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] KEHC 1746 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Dorcas Ambiyo Chimoto; Applicant: Wilfred Ochieng Oduor; Respondent: Samson Ochieng Obonyo
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Busia
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 207 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Revocation of Grant
Outcome
Application for revocation of grant deferred; matter to proceed to hearing for proof of trust.
Legal Topics
Revocation of Grant, Trusts in Succession, Beneficiary Entitlement, Ancestral Land Disputes
Source Language
en
Family and Children Land and Property Revocation of Grant Trusts in Succession Beneficiary Entitlement Ancestral Land Disputes

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

Dorcas Ambiyo Chimoto

Applicant

Wilfred Ochieng Oduor

Applicant

Samson Ochieng Obonyo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Revocation of Grant

  1. 1 Whether the grant of letters of administration to Samson Ochieng Obonyo should be revoked on grounds of lack of priority.
  2. 2 Whether Marachi/Bumala/1472 was held by the deceased in trust for Vincent Oduor Handa and his beneficiaries.
  3. 3 Whether the objectors are entitled to be included as beneficiaries in the estate of Lucas Obonyo Handa.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the objectors allege that Marachi/Bumala/1472 was held in trust by the deceased for Vincent Oduor Handa, they have not provided sufficient evidence to conclusively prove the existence of such a trust. The court held that the proper procedure would have been to file an independent suit to plead and prove the trust, but in the interest of justice and efficiency, allowed the parties to adduce oral evidence on the issue of trust within the succession proceedings. The court declined to revoke the grant at this stage, instead directing that the matter proceed to hearing for proof of the alleged trust, with both parties given the opportunity to present and challenge...

Court Disposition

Application for revocation of grant deferred; matter to proceed to hearing for proof of trust.

Orders

  • Proceedings for proof of a trust to be through oral evidence with the opposite sides with informed right for cross examination.
  • Hearing date to be fixed in presence of both sides unless a party decides to ignore the Summons for attendance to court.