[2015] KEHC 2718 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 2718 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide sufficient evidence of fraud or concealment of material facts in the inclusion of plot No. 27 Nguluni Market as an estate asset. The applicants did not produce any sale agreement from the deceased or documents from the local government confirming their ownership....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 2718 (KLR)
Parties
Respondent: Ndinda Mathuku; Respondent: Sammy Kitusa Mathuku; Respondent: Joel Nzioka Mathuku; Applicant: Herman Musembi Muloki; Applicant: Patrick Malaki Mutuku alias Babu Mutuku
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Appeal 25 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
BT Jaden
Legal Topics
Revocation of Grant, Fraudulent Concealment, Ownership Disputes, Succession Assets
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Revocation of Grant Fraudulent Concealment Ownership Disputes Succession Assets

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ndinda Mathuku

Respondent

Sammy Kitusa Mathuku

Respondent

Joel Nzioka Mathuku

Respondent

Herman Musembi Muloki

Applicant

Patrick Malaki Mutuku alias Babu Mutuku

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant

  1. 1 Whether the confirmed grant of Letters of Administration should be revoked on grounds of fraudulent inclusion of plot No. 27 Nguluni Market as an estate asset.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants established fraud or concealment of material facts regarding the ownership of plot No. 27.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide sufficient evidence of fraud or concealment of material facts in the inclusion of plot No. 27 Nguluni Market as an estate asset. The applicants did not produce any sale agreement from the deceased or documents from the local government confirming their ownership. The only sale agreement produced by the 2nd applicant was with a third party, not the deceased. The court concluded that the applicants had not established a legal or factual basis for revocation of the grant. The remedy, if any, lay in a civil suit rather than in succession proceedings. Accordingly, the application for revocation of the grant was dismissed for lack of merit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 10/5/2011 for revocation of grant is dismissed.