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

L C A v R K [2014] KEHC 8287 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 8287 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
8287
Citation
[2014] KEHC 8287 (KLR)
Decided
2 October 2014
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeSuccessionPostureAppeal from original trialCoramL. KIMARU
Holding

The court held that L C A was indeed the common law wife of the deceased and granted her a new grant of letters of administration.

Facts

The deceased, B E P, died on August 7, 1994. Rose Kikuyu petitioned for letters of administration on December 9, 1994, claiming she was the common law wife of the deceased. L C A contested this, arguing Kikuyu had made false statements and concealed her status as the deceased's wife.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant (L C A) was the common law wife of the deceased (B E P) at the time of his death.
  2. Whether the grant of letters of administration to Kikuyu should be revoked and a new grant issued to L C A.

Reasoning

The court found that L C A had lived with the deceased for four years and had a child with him, which established a reputation in society as husband and wife. The court held that the presumption of marriage by long cohabitation is now part of Kenyan jurisprudence.

Outcome

The grant issued to Kikuyu was revoked, and a new grant was issued to L C A.

Orders

  • The grant issued to Kikuyu is revoked.
  • A new grant is issued to L C A.

Remedies

  • L C A is now at liberty to apply for confirmation of the grant.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Law of the Succession Act
  • Probate and Administration Rules
Cases cited (1)
  • Margaret Doreen Atieno Adongo –vs- Benjamin Adongo Adeya & Others [2006] eKLR
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