[2005] KEHC 2075 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's application for revocation of grant was procedurally defective as it was filed by Chamber Summons instead of the prescribed Form 107, and the supporting affidavit was not in the required Form 14. Furthermore, the applicant failed to follow the mandatory steps under Rule 44 of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 2075 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Lawrence Nandi Andole; Applicant: John Lusala Andole
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Succession Cause 376 of 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant
- Outcome
- Application struck out as incompetent.
- Legal Topics
- Succession Procedure, Revocation of Grant, Probate Rules Compliance
- 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
Lawrence Nandi Andole
Respondent
John Lusala Andole
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for revocation of grant complied with the mandatory procedural requirements under the Probate and Administration Rules.
- 2 Whether failure to apply for confirmation of grant within one year is a valid ground for revocation in the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's application for revocation of grant was procedurally defective as it was filed by Chamber Summons instead of the prescribed Form 107, and the supporting affidavit was not in the required Form 14. Furthermore, the applicant failed to follow the mandatory steps under Rule 44 of the Probate and Administration Rules, including obtaining directions from the court and serving the necessary notices. Due to these procedural lapses, the application was incompetent and could not be entertained, regardless of the substantive ground raised regarding the failure to apply for confirmation of the grant within one year.
Court Disposition
Application struck out as incompetent.
Orders
- The application for revocation of grant is struck out.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
Succession Cause 376 of 2000
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF PAUL ANDOLE LUBALE – DECEASED
B E T W E E N
LAWRENCE NANDI ANDOLE ……………… PETITIONER/RESPONDENT
A N D
JOHN LUSALA ANDOLE ……………….……….. OBJECTOR/APPLICANT
R U L I N G
The Objector/Applicant, John Lusala Andole, filed by way of Chamber Summons an application dated 19-8-2003 seeking orders that the Grant of Letters of Administration made to the Petitioner/Respondent on 26-6-2001 be revoked and a fresh Grant be made to the Applicant instead. The basis for the making of the application was that the Petitioner has failed to apply for confirmation of the Grant for a period of over one year. Mr. Mukavale, Advocate, who appeared for the Applicant urged the court to grant the application which proceeded exparte as the Petitioner did not appear in court on the day of the hearing although the date had been taken by consent in the court registry.
I have perused the application. Under Section 76 (d) (i) of the Law of Succession Act, Chapter 160 of the laws of Kenya a Grant of Letters of representation may be confirmed at any time, if the court decides either of its motion or on application by any party interested that the person to whom the Grant was made has failed, after due notice and without reasonable cause, inter alia, to apply for confirmation of the Grant within one year from the date thereof or such longer period as the court has ordered or allowed.
The procedure for seeking annulment or revocation of the Grant is set out in Rule 44 of The Probate and Administration Rules. Under Rule 44, an objector/Applicant must apply in FORM 107 which requires that a “Summons for revocation or annulment of Grant”be filed. The application made by the applicant did not comply with this requirement as the application was by Chamber Summons. The Summons for revocation or annulment of Grant is required by Rule 44(2) of the said rules to be accompanied by an affidavit of the Applicant in Form 14. Such affidavit is titled“Affidavit in support of Summons for the revocation or annulment of Grant.” The Applicant did not meet this requirement either as the affidavit filed was titled “Supporting affidavit.” More importantly, the application, once made, is required to be followed by a Notice in Form 70 signed by the Registrar addressed to the Applicant requiring him or her to attend court to take directions as to what persons if any, shall be served by the applicant with the application and as to the manner of effecting service. It is after directions in this regard are given that the Applicant is required to serve each of the persons so directed to be served with Notice in Form 68. Every person so served may file an affidavit stating whether he supports or opposes the application.
The application before the court was not in compliance with rule 44 (supra) and the Applicant did not take steps stipulated in the said rule. The application was incompetent and it is hereby struck out with no order as to costs.
Dated at Kakamega this 11th day of March, 2005.
G. B. M. KARIUKI
J U D G E