[2015] KEHC 2369 (KLR)
The court found that the objector's claim as a purchaser was based on a transaction that occurred after the deceased's death, and therefore, he could not be recognized as a beneficiary in the succession cause. The court further held that any claim by the objector regarding occupation or limitation of actions must be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 2369 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Okello Makhono Ososo; Applicant: Simon Oduory Okeya
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Busia
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Succession Cause 298 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Revocation of Grant
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Revocation of Grant, Purchaser Claims in Estate, Limitation of Actions, Beneficiary Status
- 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
Okello Makhono Ososo
Respondent
Simon Oduory Okeya
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Revocation of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the grant of letters of administration intestate issued to Okello Makhono Ososo should be revoked or annulled.
- 2 Whether the applicant/objector should be included as a beneficiary of the estate as a purchaser or liability.
- 3 Whether a purchaser's claim arising after the deceased's death can be determined in a probate and administration cause.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the objector's claim as a purchaser was based on a transaction that occurred after the deceased's death, and therefore, he could not be recognized as a beneficiary in the succession cause. The court further held that any claim by the objector regarding occupation or limitation of actions must be pursued in the appropriate forum, namely the Environment and Land Court, and not within the probate and administration proceedings. Consequently, the summons for revocation of grant lacked merit and was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The summons for revocation of grant dated 2nd October 2014 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUSIA
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 298 OF 2013
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE SEBASTIAN MAKHONO OSOSO----DECEASED
AND
OKELLO MAKHONO OSOSO-------------------------------------ADMINISTRATOR
VERSUS
SIMON ODUORY OKEYA-----------------------------------APPLICANT/OBJECTOR
RULING
This decision is an answer to Objector’s summons dated 2nd October 2014 seeking the following substantive prayers:-
That: A grant of letters of administration intestate issued to OKELLO MAKHONO OSOSO on 5TH July 2014 be revoked or annulled, and/or in the alternative the Applicant be included in the list of the beneficiaries (form P& A 5) as a liability/purchaser.
Costs of this application to be in the cause.
The Objector contends that on 19th February 1994, he purchased 0. 2 hectares of Bunyala/Bulemia/40 from Josephine Ada Makhono who is the Widow to the Deceased. This court has been shown a Sale Agreement in that respect. The Objector asks this court to rule that the entire family of the Deceased consented to the sale and that in particular two sons of the widow, namely Charles Muyonga and Michael Juma Makhono witnessed the execution of the sale agreement.
The complaint by the Objector is the Petitioner has now refused to recognize him as a Beneficiary notwithstanding that his purchasers interest was included in the Chief’s letter of 24th July 2013 introducing the family of the Deceased to this Probate and Administration Court.
The response by the Petitioner is that the issue of the sale is one between the Objector and the widow and the house of the Petitioner was not involved. Secondly the Petitioner is in doubt as to the extent of land sold to the Objector arguing that at the time of sale no survey had been carried out on the land.
The stance of the Petitioner is that the Objector is not a beneficiary to the Estate of the Deceased. It may in fact be true that the Objector did not have any claim against the Deceased because the purported purchase took place on 19th February 1994, a date after the Deceased had died, the Deceased having died on 5th April 1989. A claim by a Purchaser can only be ventilated elsewhere and not in a Probate and Administration Cause. In the submission filed by the Objector’s Lawyer, it is argued on her behalf that she has occupied the land since the year 1994 and the Deceased family is barred by Section 7 of the Limitations of Action Act Cap 22 from reclaiming that land. That clearly is an argument that can be made before an Environment and Land Court. That is the court to which the Objector must turn to.
The Summons for Revocation dated 2nd October 2014 is therefore without merit and is hereby dismissed with costs.
As explained to the Parties, this Decision could only be delivered on Notice to them as I was proceeding for my Annual Leave and thereafter for August vacation. That explains the apparent delay.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Busia this 1st day of October
2015
F. TUIYOTT
J U D G E
In the presence of:-
Oile …………………Court Clerk
Juma……………………………… For the Administrator
Luchivya absent…………………………… For the Objector