[2015] KEHC 4989 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 4989 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent failed to disclose the existence of the applicants/objectors, who are widows of the deceased, during the succession proceedings. This amounted to concealment of material facts, warranting the revocation of the grant issued to the respondent. The court further noted that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 4989 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Margaret Juma; Applicant: Sarah Achieng; Applicant: Joyce Ajwang; Respondent: Gabriel Oluoch Menya
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Separation Cause 552 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant
Outcome
application allowed; grant revoked
Legal Topics
Revocation of Grant, Concealment of Material Facts, Succession Proceedings, Confirmation of Grant
Source Language
en
Family and Children Civil Procedure Revocation of Grant Concealment of Material Facts Succession Proceedings Confirmation of Grant

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

Margaret Juma

Applicant

Sarah Achieng

Applicant

Joyce Ajwang

Applicant

Gabriel Oluoch Menya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant

  1. 1 Whether the grant issued to the respondent should be revoked due to concealment of material facts.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants/objectors, as widows of the deceased, were entitled to be notified and included in the succession proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's claim to the suit property was properly established.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to disclose the existence of the applicants/objectors, who are widows of the deceased, during the succession proceedings. This amounted to concealment of material facts, warranting the revocation of the grant issued to the respondent. The court further noted that the respondent was aware of the applicants' existence and should have involved them, particularly at the confirmation stage. The court also observed that the respondent's claim to the suit property required further proof. Consequently, the grant issued to the respondent was revoked, as was the grant issued by the Ukwala Court, and the matter was transferred for further determination.

Court Disposition

application allowed; grant revoked

Orders

  • The grant issued on 25/2/13 and confirmed on 22/10/13 is revoked.
  • All consequences arising from the said confirmed grant are annulled.