[2015] KEHC 6895 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 6895 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had raised a prima facie case that her inheritance in LR. NO. KABARE/MIKARARA/469 was at risk of further alienation, as the property had already been transferred and could be disposed of before the summons for revocation were heard. The respondents' own affidavits acknowledged the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 6895 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Lucia Wanjira Wachiori; Respondent: Kanini Wachiori; Respondent: Sera Wambui Wachiori
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Embu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 515 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Interlocutory Application for Prohibitory Order Pending Revocation of Grant
Outcome
Application allowed. Prohibitory orders issued as prayed and extended to additional parcels.
Legal Topics
Succession of Estates, Revocation of Grant, Prohibitory Orders, Distribution of Inheritance
Source Language
en
Family and Children Land and Property Succession of Estates Revocation of Grant Prohibitory Orders Distribution of Inheritance

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

Lucia Wanjira Wachiori

Applicant

Kanini Wachiori

Respondent

Sera Wambui Wachiori

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Interlocutory Application for Prohibitory Order Pending Revocation of Grant

  1. 1 Whether a prohibitory order should be placed on LR. NO. KABARE/MIKARARA/469, 471 and 474 pending the hearing and determination of the summons for revocation of grant.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient interest and risk of prejudice to warrant the prohibitory order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had raised a prima facie case that her inheritance in LR. NO. KABARE/MIKARARA/469 was at risk of further alienation, as the property had already been transferred and could be disposed of before the summons for revocation were heard. The respondents' own affidavits acknowledged the applicant's entitlement to the parcel, though it was held in trust by her brother. To preserve the status quo and protect the applicant's potential interest, the court exercised its discretion to issue a prohibitory order not only on LR. NO. KABARE/MIKARARA/469 but also on parcels 471 and 474, which were similarly implicated in the dispute. The court emphasized that such orders...

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Prohibitory orders issued as prayed and extended to additional parcels.

Orders

  • A prohibitory order is issued against LR. NO. KABARE/MIKARARA/469, 471 and 474 until the summons for revocation is heard and determined.
  • No order as to costs.