[2014] KEHC 967 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 967 (KLR)

The court found that the objection to the making of grant in HCSC No. 161 of 2006 was procedurally invalid because the objectors failed to file an answer to the petition and a cross-application, as required by law. Consequently, there was no valid objection on record, and the grant should have been issued as per the petition. However, since a grant had already been made in HCSC No. 690 of 2006, the court considered the application for revocation of that grant. The applicant established, through unchallenged evidence, that he was the lawful surviving spouse of the deceased and thus had priority over the deceased's sister in the administration of the estate. The grant in HCSC No. 690 of...

Citation
[2014] KEHC 967 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: M O O; Applicant: D E K; Respondent: M S K; Respondent: D K E
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
11 December 2014
Case Number
Succession Cause 161 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Objection and Summons for Revocation of Grant
Outcome
Objection dismissed; grant in HCSC No. 690 of 2006 revoked; fresh grant to be issued in HCSC No. 161 of 2006 to M O O and D E K.
Judges
DN Musyoka
Legal Topics
Succession, Letters of Administration, Revocation of Grant, Priority of Beneficiaries
Source Language
English
Family and Children Civil Procedure Succession Letters of Administration Revocation of Grant Priority of Beneficiaries

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M O O

Applicant

D E K

Applicant

M S K

Respondent

D K E

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Objection and Summons for Revocation of Grant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the objection to the making of grant in HCSC No. 161 of 2006 was valid in law.
  2. 2 Whether the grant made in HCSC No. 690 of 2006 should be revoked due to concealment of material facts and lack of priority.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the objection to the making of grant in HCSC No. 161 of 2006 was procedurally invalid because the objectors failed to file an answer to the petition and a cross-application, as required by law. Consequently, there was no valid objection on record, and the grant should have been issued as per the petition. However, since a grant had already been made in HCSC No. 690 of 2006, the court considered the application for revocation of that grant. The applicant established, through unchallenged evidence, that he was the lawful surviving spouse of the deceased and thus had priority over the deceased's sister in the administration of the estate. The grant in HCSC No. 690 of...

Court Disposition

Objection dismissed; grant in HCSC No. 690 of 2006 revoked; fresh grant to be issued in HCSC No. 161 of 2006 to M O O and D E K.

Orders

  • The grant made in Nairobi HCSC No. 690 of 2006 is revoked.
  • A fresh grant of letters of administration intestate shall be made out of HCSC No. 161 of 2006 in accord with the petition filed in that cause.