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

Alex Mwenda Mwirigi v Rodah Karimi Jadiel [2016] KEHC 1840 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 1840 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
1840
Citation
[2016] KEHC 1840 (KLR)
Decided
2 November 2016
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeSuccessionPostureApplication for revocation of grant of letters of administrationCoramF. GIKONYO
Holding

The court sets aside the confirmation of the grant due to the applicant's claims of not being aware of the proceedings, not signing any documents, and some estate properties being left out.

Facts

The applicant, Alex Mwenda Mwirigi, seeks revocation of a grant issued to the respondent, Rodah Karimi Jadiel, under section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. The grant was issued in the estate of Nicholas Muriungi, deceased. The applicant claims he was not aware of the proceedings, did not sign any documents, and that some estate properties were left out.

Issues

  1. Whether the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance
  2. Whether the grant was obtained fraudulently by the making of a false statement or by the concealment of something material to the case
  3. Whether the grant was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant

Reasoning

The court considers the applicant's claims and the evidence presented, concluding that the grant should be revoked due to the applicant's lack of awareness and the omission of some estate properties.

Outcome

The grant is set aside.

Orders

  • Each party shall bear their own costs of the application.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Law of Succession Act CAP 160 of the laws of Kenya
  • Probate and Administration Rules
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