[2016] KEHC 5285 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent fraudulently excluded the applicant and her children, who were recognized as beneficiaries by the local chief, from the administration of the deceased's estate. The respondent's use of a questionable death certificate, filing in a court lacking proper jurisdiction, and failure to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 5285 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Lucy Njeri Njogu; Respondent: John Njenga Njogu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Naivasha
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 55 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Application / Ruling on Summons for Revocation of Grant
- Outcome
- grant revoked; new grant to issue to applicant, her eldest son, and respondent
- Judges
- CW Meoli
- Legal Topics
- Revocation of Grant, Fraud in Succession, Jurisdiction of Court, Status of Beneficiaries
- 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
Lucy Njeri Njogu
Applicant
John Njenga Njogu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Application / Ruling on Summons for Revocation of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the grant of letters of administration issued to the respondent should be revoked due to fraud and exclusion of rightful beneficiaries.
- 2 Whether the applicant and her children are rightful beneficiaries of the deceased's estate.
- 3 Whether the succession cause was filed in a court with proper jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent fraudulently excluded the applicant and her children, who were recognized as beneficiaries by the local chief, from the administration of the deceased's estate. The respondent's use of a questionable death certificate, filing in a court lacking proper jurisdiction, and failure to involve the chief from the deceased's area demonstrated an intention to conceal material facts and commit fraud. The court held that the grant was obtained through fraudulent means and in contravention of the Law of Succession Act, warranting its revocation. The court further directed that a new grant be issued jointly to the applicant, her eldest son, and the respondent, to be...
Court Disposition
grant revoked; new grant to issue to applicant, her eldest son, and respondent
Orders
- The grant issued to the respondent is revoked.
- A new grant shall issue in the names of the applicant, her eldest son George Gatonye Njogu, and the respondent John Njenga Njogu.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIVASHA
HCC SUCC. NO. 55 OF 2014
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF SIMON NJOGU GICHENI (DECEASED)
LUCY NJERI NJOGU…………………. ……………………….………………….OBJECTOR
-VERSUS-
JOHN NJENGA NJOGU ………………………….....…………………………..PETITIONER
RULING
The parties to the Summons for revocation of the grant issued to John Njenga Njogu (the Petitioner/Respondent) agreed to file submissions in respect of the application and to rely on their respective affidavits to the said Summons.
The gist of the applicant’s case is that she was the widow of the deceased Simon Njogu Gicheni and had four children with him; that he resided at Mai Mahiu and died of natural causes in the year 2001 but the widow did not take out Letters of Administration.
She complains that the Respondent, a son of the deceased through his first wife, also deceased, applied for Letters of Administration at Engineer Subordinate courts using a fake death certificate purporting that the deceased died from bodily injuries and that he excluded her and her children from the administration process.
The Respondent disputes the assertions by the applicant and asserts that he is the sole lawful heir to the estate of the deceased. He contends that the applicant was not a wife of the deceased but that she left the deceased’s land (home) after police arrested her as a murder suspect in relation to the death of his father. He denies that the applicant’s children are children of his deceased father. He continues to stand by his copy of death certificate and states that he has since transferred the land owned by the deceased father to himself, and sold the same.
Having considered the matters canvassed before me, it is apparent that the deceased lived at Maai Mahiu at the time of death; that the two parties herein are well known to each other, and that the Respondent is the son of the deceased by a deceased first wife.
The Respondent’s affidavit is silent on the fact that the succession case was filed at Engineer SRM’s court rather than Naivasha where the property of the deceased was located. Secondly, the deceased resided at Mai Mahiu but the chief of the said area was not approached to introduce the Respondent. Instead a chief based in an undisclosed location of Naivasha did the introduction letter used to file the petition. It is clear from the letter of the Chief Mai Mahiu that the applicant was considered the wife of the deceased and her children as his children. This is also confirmed by copies of identity cards attached to the applicant’s affidavits. The Respondent is clearly aware of the relationship between his deceased father and the applicant although he claims it did not amount to a marriage “under any known custom or law”.
On a balance, I am persuaded, particularly upon considering annextures LNN 1(a) & (b) being letters emanating from the office of the Senior Chief Mai Mahiu location, that the Respondent devised a fraudulent scheme to exclude the applicant and her children from the administration of the estate of the deceased.
The letter he purported to present to court for this purpose does not even indicate the location in respect by which it was issued. Nor is the name of the chief who authored the same indicated. Besides it is quite obvious that despite the close proximity between Mai Mahiu and Naivasha law courts the Respondent chose to file the succession cause in Engineer court, which probably did not have the necessary jurisdiction at the time, under Section 48 and 49 of the Succession Act.
It would seem that a few months after receiving the confirmed grant the Respondent commenced the transaction of transferring the land to himself, and now claims to have sold it to a third party. The Respondent’s actions taken together appear tainted by fraud as demonstrated by and the intention to conceal the existence of other beneficiaries from the court.
Allegations that the objector was a suspect to the murder of the deceased have no effect as there is no evidence that the applicant was charged or convicted for such an offence.
In the circumstances, the grant issued to the Petitioner cannot stand and is hereby revoked. I direct that a new grant does issue in the names of the objecting widow, her eldest son George Gatonye Njogu and the Respondent herein, John Njenga Njogu. The same will be confirmed in the usual way after the lapse of six months of the date of issue.
Delivered and signed at Naivasha this 21st day of April, 2016.
C. MEOLI
JUDGE
Mr. Njuguna for Applicant
Mr. Gichuki holding brief for Mr. Irungu Mwangi for Respondent
Cc Barasa