[2011] KEHC 3910 (KLR)

[2011] KEHC 3910 (KLR)

The court held that it had no jurisdiction to make orders regarding title No. 590, as it was not an asset subject to distribution in the succession proceedings. The succession cause before the court related solely to title No. 591, which remained in the deceased's name. The applicant's complaints concerning title...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] KEHC 3910 (KLR)
Parties
Respondent: Jackson Shapaya Amere; Applicant: Elphas Aseka Akhungu
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 229 of 1996
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Remove Restriction on Title
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Succession Proceedings, Rectification of Grant, Land Title Restrictions
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Succession Proceedings Rectification of Grant Land Title Restrictions

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

Jackson Shapaya Amere

Respondent

Elphas Aseka Akhungu

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Remove Restriction on Title

  1. 1 Whether the High Court in succession proceedings can order removal of restrictions on a land title not forming part of the deceased's estate.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's complaints regarding title No. 590 are properly before the succession court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it had no jurisdiction to make orders regarding title No. 590, as it was not an asset subject to distribution in the succession proceedings. The succession cause before the court related solely to title No. 591, which remained in the deceased's name. The applicant's complaints concerning title No. 590 were therefore not properly before the succession court and should be pursued in the appropriate forum. Additionally, the applicant had already lost the 5 acres in question through separate proceedings (HCCC 73/2000 (O.S.)), and any further claim must be addressed in those proceedings. Consequently, the application to remove the restriction was dismissed as lacking merit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 3.2.2003 is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.