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

Benson Gicovi v Rosemary Wanjira Muriuki [2015] KEHC 1394 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 1394 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
1394
Citation
[2015] KEHC 1394 (KLR)
Decided
6 October 2015
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeSuccessionPostureAppeal from confirmation of letters of administrationCoramR. Njue
Holding

Oral evidence is required to resolve the issues in dispute between the parties

Facts

The protestor/applicant has challenged the confirmation of the grant of the letters of administration granted to Benson Gicovi as an administrator. According to the protestor, Benson Gicovi as an administrator has failed to give him a share of the land which forms part of the estate of their father. Additionally, the protestor is also opposed to the proposed mode of distribution of the property of the estate.

Issues

  1. Failure of Benson Gicovi as an administrator to give the protestor a share of the land
  2. Opposition to the proposed mode of distribution of the property of the estate

Reasoning

The protestor/applicant has challenged the confirmation of the grant of the letters of administration granted to Benson Gicovi as an administrator. The protestor claims that Benson Gicovi has failed to give him a share of the land which forms part of the estate of their father. Additionally, the protestor is opposed to the proposed mode of distribution of the property of the estate.

Outcome

The protestor/applicant has challenged the confirmation of the grant of the letters of administration granted to Benson Gicovi as an administrator

Orders

  • Oral evidence be produced to resolve the issues in dispute between the parties
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 0.0 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case