[2014] KEHC 1399 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 1399 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient grounds for review, quashing, setting aside, or revocation of the orders made on 30th July 1999. The affidavits in support of the application did not establish that the respondent was not entitled to a share in the estate or that the previous orders...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KEHC 1399 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: __MISSING__; Respondent: __MISSING__
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Separation Cause 554 of 1998
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Review of Prior Orders
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
DN Musyoka
Legal Topics
Succession, Review of Orders, Entitlement to Estate, False Affidavits
Source Language
en
Family and Children Succession Review of Orders Entitlement to Estate False Affidavits

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

__MISSING__

Applicant

__MISSING__

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Review of Prior Orders

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is entitled to a share in the estate as a widow of the deceased.
  2. 2 Whether the orders made on 30th July 1999 should be reviewed, quashed, set aside, or revoked on grounds of alleged false affidavits.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient grounds for review, quashing, setting aside, or revocation of the orders made on 30th July 1999. The affidavits in support of the application did not establish that the respondent was not entitled to a share in the estate or that the previous orders were obtained through false affidavits. The appropriate remedy for dissatisfaction with the merits of the decision would have been an appeal to the Court of Appeal, not a review application. Consequently, the application was found to be unmerited and was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 14th April 2014 is dismissed with costs.