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

SAULO ODINGA OCHIDO V JOSEPH ASWANI OCHIDO [2012] KEHC 64 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 64 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
64
Citation
[2012] KEHC 64 (KLR)
Decided
11 October 2012
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeSuccessionPosturePetition for Revocation of Grant of Letters of AdministrationCoramSAID J. CHITEMBWE
Holding

The application is granted, and the grant of letters of administration to the petitioner is revoked. The deceased's estate, including plot number 1605, is to be distributed equally among the surviving children.

Facts

The deceased, Kandiri Ochieng, had two sons, Stephen Ochido Kandira and Sylvanus Ochieng Kandira, who were alive when the petitioner, Saulo Odinga Ochido, filed for letters of administration. The petitioner claimed the deceased's estate, including plot number 1605, but the objector, Joseph Aswani Ochido, contested the claim.

Issues

  1. Who is the rightful heir to the deceased's estate, particularly plot number 1605?
  2. Was the petitioner's application for letters of administration fraudulent?

Reasoning

The deceased had two sons who were alive when the petitioner applied for letters of administration. The petitioner was a grandson and not a dependant of the deceased. The grant was obtained fraudulently, and the petitioner's application was not in good faith.

Outcome

The petitioner's application for letters of administration is granted, and the grant is revoked. The deceased's estate is to be distributed equally among the surviving children.

Orders

  • The certificate of confirmation of grant issued to the petitioner is revoked.
  • The registration of the petitioner as the proprietor of plot number 1605 is cancelled.
  • A fresh grant confirmed grant to be issued to the objector.
  • The deceased's estate comprising of plot number 1605 to be distributed as follows: 0.75 acres to each of the four surviving children.

Remedies

  • The petitioner is ordered to meet the objector's costs of the application.
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 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case