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

B.M.M v L.C, E.T & S.G (Succession Cause 467 of 2007) [2015] KEHC 6385 (KLR) (26 February 2015) (Judgment)

[2015] KEHC 6385 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
6385
Citation
[2015] KEHC 6385 (KLR)
Decided
26 February 2015
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeSuccession CausePosturePetitioner's grant of letters of administration revokedCoramJ. A. Makaau
Holding

The objectors are not dependants/beneficiaries to the deceased estate and their consent was not required by the petitioner to petition for the grant of letters of administration.

Facts

The deceased, J M M, was married to S G under Meru Customary Law and had three children, E T, G, and L C. The deceased also had a co-wife, B M M, who petitioned for the grant of letters of administration.

Issues

  1. Whether the objectors are dependants/beneficiaries to the deceased estate?
  2. Whether the beneficiaries/dependants consents were obtained in petitioning for the grant?

Reasoning

The objectors did not participate in the funeral of the deceased nor were they recognized as the deceased relatives. The evidence showed that the objectors were not beneficiaries to the deceased estate and their consent to petitioning for the grant was not required.

Outcome

Petitioner's application for revocation of grant dismissed

Orders

  • Objectors application for revocation or annulment of grant of letters of administration dismissed
  • Titles to land parcel [particulars withheld] do not form part of the deceased estate

Remedies

  • Costs to the petitioner

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Law of Succession Act (Cap.160)
  • Probate and Administration Rules
  • Land Registration Act, 2012
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