[2016] KEHC 390 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants were not involved in the succession process and that their signatures were allegedly forged. The respondent did not contest these allegations. In the absence of any response from the respondent, the court accepted the applicants' assertions as true. Applying Section 76 of the Law...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 390 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Julius Kisabuli Maunda; Applicant: Ben Khamala Maunda; Respondent: Stanley Misigo Maunda
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 126 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant
- Outcome
- grant revoked and set aside
- Judges
- HK Chemitei
- Legal Topics
- Revocation of Grant, Non Disclosure of Material Facts, Forgery of Signatures, Purchasers for Value
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Julius Kisabuli Maunda
Applicant
Ben Khamala Maunda
Applicant
Stanley Misigo Maunda
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the grant issued on 26/1/2004 and confirmed on 13/11/2008 should be revoked due to non-involvement and alleged forgery of signatures by the applicants.
- 2 Whether the applicants and other purchasers were unlawfully excluded from succession proceedings.
- 3 Whether the respondent failed to disclose material facts or acted without the consent of other beneficiaries.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants were not involved in the succession process and that their signatures were allegedly forged. The respondent did not contest these allegations. In the absence of any response from the respondent, the court accepted the applicants' assertions as true. Applying Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act, the court held that failure to disclose material facts and lack of consent from all beneficiaries justified revocation of the grant. Consequently, the grant issued on 26/1/2004 and confirmed on 13/11/2008 was set aside with all attendant consequences.
Court Disposition
grant revoked and set aside
Orders
- The grant issued on 26/1/2004 and confirmed on 13/11/2008 is hereby set aside with all attendant consequences.
- Costs in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KEANYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KITALE
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 126 OF 2003
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KEFA MAUNDA KIBUNGUCHI.......DECEASED
JULIUS KISABULI MAUNDA............................................APPLICANTS/OBJECTORS
BEN KHAMALA MAUNDA....................................................APPLICANT/OBJECTORS
VERSUS
STANLEY MISIGO MAUNDA.................................................RESPONENT/PETITIONER
RULING
This is an application by the respondent dated 29/6/2016 for the following orders;
1) There be stay of prosecution of Bungoma ELC No. 225 of 2014 pending the hearing and determination of this summons.
2) The grant issued on 26/1/2004 and confirmed on 13/11/2008 be revoked.
Basically all the applicants are saying in their replying affidavit sworn on 29/6/2016 is that they were not involved in the earlier exercise and that the signatures on record are forgeries. They further aver that there are other purchasers of the suit property who are being harassed by the respondent through filing of
suit No. Bungoma ELC No. 225 of 2014 and yet they are recognised as purchasers for value of the land.
The respondent did not file any document to contest the application. All the parties herein are related, namely the sons of the deceased. Section 76 of the Succession Act provides that in such a situation where the applicant failed to disclose material facts or acted without the consent of the others this court is entitled to act through such an application or suo moto.
In the absence of any response by the respondent I take it that all that the applicants stated are true. They were not involved in the entire exercise of succeeding the deceased estate.
In the premises the grant issued on 26/1/2004 and confirmed on 13/11/2008 is hereby set aside with all the attendant consequences.
Costs in the cause.
Delivered this 5th day of December 2016.
________________
H.K. CHEMITEI
JUDGE
In presence of ;
Chebii for the Objector
No appearance for the Respondent
Kirong – Court Assistant