[2017] KEELC 2492 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 2492 (KLR)

The court found that the grant and certificate of confirmation relied upon by the plaintiff do not pertain to the estate of Toroitich Kiptai but to Joseph Kirwa Sambu. Furthermore, the grant was not issued to the plaintiff, and the authenticity of the documents is questionable, including the fact that the judge...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 2492 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Mark Kiptanui Arap Toroitich; Defendant: David Kipchumba Kiptai; Defendant: George Kiprotich Kiptai
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 142 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
Matter put in abeyance and referred for investigation.
Judges
MAO Odeny
Legal Topics
Succession Disputes, Estate Administration, Grant Confirmation Irregularities
Source Language
en
Land and Property Succession Disputes Estate Administration Grant Confirmation Irregularities

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

Mark Kiptanui Arap Toroitich

Plaintiff

David Kipchumba Kiptai

Defendant

George Kiprotich Kiptai

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the succession cause and grant relied upon pertain to the correct estate and parties.
  2. 2 Whether the grants attached are authentic and valid for the purposes of this suit.
  3. 3 Whether the matter should proceed in light of questionable documentation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the grant and certificate of confirmation relied upon by the plaintiff do not pertain to the estate of Toroitich Kiptai but to Joseph Kirwa Sambu. Furthermore, the grant was not issued to the plaintiff, and the authenticity of the documents is questionable, including the fact that the judge purported to have signed the grant was not appointed at the relevant time. In light of these irregularities, the court determined that the matter cannot proceed on the basis of potentially fraudulent or mistaken documentation. The court ordered that the matter be referred to investigative agencies and placed in abeyance pending the outcome of investigations.

Court Disposition

Matter put in abeyance and referred for investigation.

Orders

  • The Deputy Registrar to refer the matter to the relevant agencies for investigation.
  • The two files to be kept in the strong room.