[2013] KEHC 2417 (KLR)
The High Court found that the Principal Magistrate's Court at Kigumo lacked the necessary pecuniary jurisdiction to confirm the grant, as the estate was valued at Kshs. 200,000/=, exceeding the court's jurisdictional limit under Section 48 of the Law of Succession Act. Additionally, the court determined that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 2417 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Njogu Mwangi Mura; Applicant: Esther Muthoni Njogu; Applicant: John Wainaina; Respondent: Nganga Mwangi; Respondent: Peter Murigi Kiriga
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 882 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- summons for revocation of grant allowed
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Revocation of Grant, Pecuniary Jurisdiction, Non Disclosure of Beneficiaries, Distribution of Estate
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Njogu Mwangi Mura
Applicant
Esther Muthoni Njogu
Applicant
John Wainaina
Applicant
Nganga Mwangi
Respondent
Peter Murigi Kiriga
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Principal Magistrate's Court at Kigumo had pecuniary jurisdiction to confirm the grant for the estate valued at Kshs. 200,000/=.
- 2 Whether the grant was confirmed by concealment of material facts, specifically the omission of some beneficiaries from the distribution of the estate.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the Principal Magistrate's Court at Kigumo lacked the necessary pecuniary jurisdiction to confirm the grant, as the estate was valued at Kshs. 200,000/=, exceeding the court's jurisdictional limit under Section 48 of the Law of Succession Act. Additionally, the court determined that the applicants, who were entitled to inherit the estate, were omitted from the distribution, amounting to concealment of material facts. Both grounds justified the revocation of the grant. The court therefore allowed the summons for revocation of grant and directed that each party bear their own costs, considering the close family relationship among the parties.
Court Disposition
summons for revocation of grant allowed
Orders
- The summons for revocation of grant dated 4th October, 2010 is allowed as prayed.
- Each party shall bear his or her own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 882 OF 2010
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MWANGI MURA -(DECEASED)
NJOGU MWANGI MURA................................1ST APPLICANT
ESTHER MUTHONI NJOGU ….....................2ND APPLICANT
JOHN WAINAINA ….......................................3RD APPLICANT
VERSUS
NGANGA MWANGI …............................... 1ST RESPONDENT
PETER MURIGI KIRIGA ….......................2ND RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The subject matter of this judgment is the summons for the revocation of grant dated 4th October, 2010 taken out by Njogu Mwangi Mura, Esther Muthoni Njogu andJohn Wainainahereinafter referred to as the Applicants. The two sought for the confirmed grant to be revoked. The Applicants relied on two grounds. First, that the court which confirmed the grant had no pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and determined the dispute. Secondly, that the grant was confirmed by the making of a false statement or by the concealment from court of something material to the case. It is said that Nganga MwangiandPeter Murigi Kiriga, the Respondents herein failed to disclose that the Applicants were also beneficiaries to the Estate.
The Respondents filed the affidavit of Peter Murigi Kiriga to oppose the summons for revocation of grant. They claimed that the 1st Applicant was involved in the succession proceedings from the beginning and that the 2nd and 3rd Applicants have misled him to take the summons.
I have considered the averments set out in the rival affidavits. I have also considered the submissions filed by both sides. It is quite clear that the asset of the Estate i.e Loc.7/Ichagaki/565valued approximately Kshs. 200,000/=. By dint of Section 48 of the Law of Succession Act the Principal Magistrate's court at Kigumo had no pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and determine the succession cause. I have also noted that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents rank parri parsu with the 1st Applicant and the 1st Respondent to inherit the deceased's Estate, but they were omitted from sharing equally the Estate. I find the aforesaid grounds to justify the granting of the orders. Consequently, the summons for revocation of grant dated 4th October, 2010 is allowed as prayed. Since the parties are close family members, I direct that each party meets his or her own costs.
Dated, signed and delivered this 23rd day of August, 2013
J.K. SERGON
JUDGE
In open court in the presence of Muthoni holding brief for
Kirubi for Respondent
N/A Kimwere for Applicant