[2015] KEHC 6161 (KLR)
The court found that, based on the affidavits, it was not possible at this stage to determine whether the applicant was a joint owner of the property in question or whether her rights had been sufficiently considered in the administration of the estate. The court declined to revoke the grant but ordered that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 6161 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Nthike Mulwa; Respondent: John Muteti Mulwa; Respondent: Esther Nduku Mulwa
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 219 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant
- Outcome
- Application for revocation of grant declined; directions given for confirmation proceedings.
- Judges
- BT Jaden
- Legal Topics
- Revocation of Grant, Letters of Administration, Priority of Administration, Joint Ownership of Property
- 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
Nthike Mulwa
Applicant
John Muteti Mulwa
Respondent
Esther Nduku Mulwa
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the grant of Letters of Administration intestate was obtained fraudulently or without disclosure of material facts.
- 2 Whether the applicant, as a co-wife, should have been included in the administration of the deceased's estate.
- 3 Whether the applicant is a joint owner of the property forming part of the estate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, based on the affidavits, it was not possible at this stage to determine whether the applicant was a joint owner of the property in question or whether her rights had been sufficiently considered in the administration of the estate. The court declined to revoke the grant but ordered that the respondents file a summons for confirmation of grant and serve the applicant, who would then have the opportunity to file an affidavit in protest. This would allow the court to properly consider the applicant's claims during the confirmation proceedings, ensuring that all interested parties are heard and any competing interests in the estate are addressed in accordance with the law.
Court Disposition
Application for revocation of grant declined; directions given for confirmation proceedings.
Orders
- Respondents to file a summons for confirmation of grant and serve the applicant.
- Applicant at liberty to file an affidavit in protest.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 219 OF 2011
NTHIKE MULWA .................................... APPLICANT
VERSUS
JOHN MUTETI MULWA
ESTHER NDUKU MULWA…………. RESPONDENTS
R U L I N G
The application dated 13/3/2012 seeks orders that the grant of Letters of Administration intestate made to John Muteti Mulwa and Esther Nduku Mulwa on 17th February 2012 be revoked.
According to the affidavit in support and the supplementary affidavit sworn by the Applicant, Nthike Mulwa is a co-wife to the deceased, Naumi Mulwa Nzeki. It is the Applicant’s assertion that the two parcels of land the subject of this cause, that is LR 559 and LR 566 Ikoleni Adjudication Section were jointly owned by the deceased and herself. The Applicant’s complaint is that the Respondents obtained the Grant of Letters of Administration without her knowledge.
In opposition to the application, the Respondents filed a replying affidavit. It is the Respondents’ contention that as children of the deceased whose spouse is also deceased they rank in priority in administering their late mother’s estate.
During the hearing of the application, both parties relied on their affidavits.
I have considered the application and the reply to the same. If the Applicant’s position is correct, then the Applicant ought to have been reflected as a liability in the estate of the deceased. At this juncture, this court is not able to tell if the Applicant is a joint owner of the property in question.
Consequently, I order that the Respondents do file a summons for confirmation and serve the same on the Applicant. The Applicant is at liberty to file an affidavit in protest. Orders accordingly.
………………………………………
B. THURANIRA JADEN
JUDGE
Dated and delivered at Machakos this 5thday of February 2015.
………………………………………
B. THURANIRA JADEN
JUDGE