SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Kiara v Kagwiria & 2 others (Civil Appeal 88 of 2019) [2024] KECA 1033 (KLR) (26 April 2024) (Judgment)

[2024] KECA 1033 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
1033
Citation
[2024] KECA 1033 (KLR)
Decided
26 April 2024
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from the judgment of the High Court of Kenya at MeruCoramJAMILA MOHAMMED, L. KIMARU, A. O. MUCHELULE
Holding

The respondents did not make out a case that they are children of the deceased, and the appellant did not conceal any material facts.

Facts

The deceased, Julius Kiragu Kiara, died intestate on 18th February 2015. He was 50 years old and employed as a police officer. He was survived by his mother (the appellant) and three sisters and three brothers. The appellant petitioned for a grant of letters of administration intestate, which was granted to her on 14th October 2015. The respondents, Violet Kagwiria, Pamela Kagwiria, and Penina Kathure, filed an application to revoke the grant, claiming to be children of the deceased.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents are children of the deceased and entitled to be considered as beneficiaries of his estate.
  2. Whether the appellant concealed material facts to warrant revocation of the grant issued to her.

Reasoning

The court found the respondents' evidence contradictory and lacking credibility. A DNA test was not conducted due to the risk of disturbing the deceased's body. The respondents failed to assert the need for a DNA test, and the court concluded that other sources of samples could have been obtained from the deceased's immediate family.

Outcome

The judgment of the High Court revoking the grant issued to the appellant is set aside. The respondents' application is dismissed. The appellant is at liberty to apply for confirmation of the grant.

Orders

  • The judgment of the High Court revoking the grant issued to the appellant is set aside.
  • The respondents' application is dismissed.

Remedies

  • The appellant is at liberty to apply for confirmation of the grant.
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case