[2014] KEHC 1184 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 1184 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to prove that the land in question was jointly owned by the deceased and others or that the deceased held it in trust for the applicant and his relatives. The only evidence of ownership was in the name of the deceased, and the agreement relied upon by the applicant was made...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KEHC 1184 (KLR)
Parties
Respondent: Muia Musyoka; Respondent: Joel Muendo Musyoka; Applicant: John Kasyoni Makenzi alias John Makenzi Mailu
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 616 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
LN Mutende
Legal Topics
Intestate Succession, Revocation of Grant, Beneficiaries Entitlement
Source Language
en
Family and Children Intestate Succession Revocation of Grant Beneficiaries Entitlement

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muia Musyoka

Respondent

Joel Muendo Musyoka

Respondent

John Kasyoni Makenzi alias John Makenzi Mailu

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant

  1. 1 Whether the grant of letters of administration was obtained fraudulently or by concealment of material facts.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant, as a nephew to the deceased, was entitled to a share of the estate or required to consent to the petition for grant.
  3. 3 Whether the land in question was jointly owned and held in trust for the applicant and others.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to prove that the land in question was jointly owned by the deceased and others or that the deceased held it in trust for the applicant and his relatives. The only evidence of ownership was in the name of the deceased, and the agreement relied upon by the applicant was made after the deceased's death and was not admissible or binding. Under Section 38 of the Law of Succession Act, the estate of a person who dies intestate devolves upon the surviving children, and the applicant, being a nephew, was not entitled to a share. The court held that the respondents did not need the applicant's consent to petition for the grant, and there was no...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application for revocation of grant is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.