[2013] KEHC 3717 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 3717 (KLR)

The court determined that the omission of LR No: 209/9754/8 from the certificate of grant was not an error that could be rectified under Section 74 of the Law of Succession Act, as rectification is confined to correcting clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors apparent on the face of the record. Instead, the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEHC 3717 (KLR)
Parties
MISSING: Samson Mwenja Komo (Deceased)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 915 of 2003
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Rectification/review of Grant
Outcome
Application for rectification treated as an application for review and allowed.
Judges
DN Musyoka
Legal Topics
Succession, Rectification of Grant, Review of Orders, Omitted Assets
Source Language
en
Family and Children Succession Rectification of Grant Review of Orders Omitted Assets

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

Samson Mwenja Komo (Deceased)

MISSING

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Rectification/review of Grant

  1. 1 Whether the omission of LR No: 209/9754/8 from the certificate of grant can be rectified under Section 74 of the Law of Succession Act.
  2. 2 Whether the proper procedure is rectification or review of the confirmation order due to discovery of a previously unknown asset.

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that the omission of LR No: 209/9754/8 from the certificate of grant was not an error that could be rectified under Section 74 of the Law of Succession Act, as rectification is confined to correcting clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors apparent on the face of the record. Instead, the omission resulted from the administrators' lack of knowledge of the asset at the time of confirmation. The appropriate remedy in such circumstances is review of the confirmation order, not rectification. The court therefore reviewed the confirmation orders made on 18th February 2004 and 12th November 2007 and directed that a fresh certificate of grant issue to the administrators,...

Court Disposition

Application for rectification treated as an application for review and allowed.

Orders

  • The confirmation orders made on 18th February 2004 and 12th November 2007 are reviewed.
  • A fresh certificate of grant shall issue to the administrators reflecting LR No. 209/9754/8 as one of the assets.