[2010] KEHC 3173 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant, Loise Wangui Mburu, lacked locus standi to bring the summons for revocation of grant as she neither held a letter of administration for her allegedly missing husband nor a power of attorney. The court further held that there was no credible evidence to support the claim that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 3173 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Loise Wangui Mburu; Respondent: Jane Wambui Mwaura
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 3321 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Revocation of Grant
- Outcome
- summons for revocation dismissed for want of locus standi
- Judges
- KH Rawal
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Revocation of Grant, Locus Standi, Trusts in Succession, Proof of Interest
- 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
Loise Wangui Mburu
Applicant
Jane Wambui Mwaura
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Revocation of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has locus standi to bring the summons for revocation of grant.
- 2 Whether the applicant has proved that the deceased held the suit land in trust for Mburu Chege.
- 3 Whether there is sufficient evidence to revoke the grant of letters of administration issued to the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant, Loise Wangui Mburu, lacked locus standi to bring the summons for revocation of grant as she neither held a letter of administration for her allegedly missing husband nor a power of attorney. The court further held that there was no credible evidence to support the claim that the deceased held the suit land in trust for Mburu Chege, as no such trust was recorded on the title deed or asserted by Mburu Chege during his lifetime. The court also noted that the applicant and her husband were aware of the succession proceedings, as evidenced by prior litigation and tribunal records. Consequently, the summons for revocation was dismissed for want of competence,...
Court Disposition
summons for revocation dismissed for want of locus standi
Orders
- The summons for revocation dated 30th October 2004 is dismissed.
- No further orders are made.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)\
Succession Cause 3321 of 2004
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MWAURA CHEGE (DECEASED)
LOISE WANGUI MBURU …………………….….… APPLICANT
VERSUS
JANE WAMBUI MWAURA ……………………… RESPONDENT
RULING
The Administratix in this cause is the wife of the deceased and obtained the grant of letter of administration in the Succession Cause No. 2 of 1988 before the R.M’s Courts, Murang’a. The grant was also confirmed vide certificate of confirmation dated 26th July, 1990.
Thereafter Loise Wangui Mburu filed a summons for revocation on 30th October 2004 on the grounds that her husband one Mburu Chege was the first cousin of the deceased and was residing on half of the Land parcel No. Loc. 71/1 Chagaki/1/766 (referred to as the suit land) as a matter of right since 1970 and thus the deceased was holding the suit land in trust for the said Kibiru Chege.
It is further averred by the objector Louise that her aforesaid husband had disappeared without trace on 22nd November 1995 after the conclusion of the succession cause in Murang’a Law Courts.
However, I do note that exhibit A – produced by the objector which is a Court Proceedings of PMCC No.233 of 1990, clearly shows that the case for eviction against the said Mburu was filed by the Administratix and thus the claim of the objector that she or Mburu did not know of the present cause is definitely wrong and cannot be accepted. Even in the record of Land Dispute Tribunal dated 8th September 2004 the aforesaid case has been mentioned.
Moreover, except for the averments made by the objector and her witnesses, no proof is shown that her husband Mburu Chege disappeared on 22nd November 1995.
I also note from the record that the suit land was bought by the father of the deceased herein and the deceased inherited the same on 19th December 1975. Mburu Chege was allegedly very much on the Land at that time as per the contention of the objector. No claim was made by the said Mburu and no remarks of any trust is recorded on the Title deed issued to the deceased. The suit land is thus not shown to be an ancestral land so far as Mburu Chege was concerned. In any way the relationship between Mburu Chege and deceased is described (although the objector did change her position) and there is clear evidence of the fact that Mburu was a son of the brother of the deceased.
The purported possession as of right as alleged by the objector is thus not even distantly proved.
Furthermore, Mburu Chege is not the Objector and Louise the objector has not shown how she got the right to bring this application on behalf of her husband. There is neither a letter of administration (if Mburu is deemed to have died) or any power of Attorney on behalf of Mburu.
Only because she is a wife of a person who should be claiming the right before the court, if any, she has definitely not acquired any right to sue on behalf of her husband.
In any manner conceived under law, she has no locus standi, to present the summons for revocation dated 30th October 2004. The same is thus dismissed.
Once I have determined the issue of competence of the summons for revocation and dismissed the same, I do not intend to dwell on the facts of the matter. This long drawn matter has to come to an end.
Orders Accordingly.
Dated, Signedand Delivered at Nairobi this 18thday of March 2010.
K.H. RAWAL
JUDGE
18. 03. 2010