In re Estate of Peter Mathenge Mburuga (Deceased) [2020] KEHC 4961 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT KERUGOYA

SUCCESSION CAUSE NO.  126    OF  2014

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE   OF PETER MATHENGE MBURUGA (DECEASED)

JOYCE MABUTI MATHENGE..................................................APPLICANT

VERSUS

PAULINE   MUTHONI MBURUGA......................................RESPONDENT

VERSUS

NANCY WAMBUI MURIITHI & 6  OTHERS.....INTERESTED  PARTIES

JUDGMENT

1. The applicant has filed   a summons for   revocation and/or annulment   dated 20th of April, 2017.  She seeks orders that the Grant which was issued to the Respondent on 19th November, 2014 and   confirmed   on   8th July, 2015 be revoked.  Application is brought Under Section 76 of The  Laws  of  Succession   Act  and  Rule  44  of  the  Probate  and  Administration  Rules.

2. The  application is  based  on  the ground  that  the  proceedings  to  obtain  the  ground  were  defective  in  substance,  the  grant  was  obtained  fraudulently  by  the  making  of  a   false  statement  or  by  the  concealment  of  court  or  something  material  to  the  case  and  the  grant  was  obtained  by  means  of  untrue  allegations  of  fact  essential  in  point  of  law  to justify  the  grant  not    withstanding   that  the   allegation  was  made  in   ignorance  or  inadvertently. She  also  seeks  that  the title  issued  in pursuant  to   revoked  grant  being  lands  parcels  number  Kabare/  Nyangati/ 8301    to   8311  be  cancelled  and  be  consolidated  to  the  original  parcel  number  Kabare/ Nyangati/ 5950  in the  name  of  Peter  Mathenge  Mburuga  (deceased).

3. Application  is  supported  by  the  affidavit  of  Joyce  Mabuti  MAthenge   sworn on  20th  April, 2017.   The  applicant  is  stating  that  she  is  the  wife  of   Peter  Mathenge  Mburuga ( deceased)  and  the  respondent   who is   the  administratrix  of  the  estate  of  the   deceased   is  a  sister  of  the  deceased.

4. The  grant  of  letters  of  administration  was  issued  on 24th  November, 2014  under  certificate  of  confirmation  of  grant  was  subsequently  issued  on  13th  of   July, 2015.     The  deceased  Peter   Mathenge  Mburuga  died  inte-estate  on    16th  January, 2014  and  prior  to  his  death      the  deceased and  herself  lived  on land  parcel  number  Kabare/ Nyangati/5950  together  with  their  son  David  Murimi  Mathenge.

5. That   she further  depones  that  the  respondent  and  her  siblings  demolished   her  matrimonial  home  and evicted  her   and  her  son David  Murimi  Mathenge.

6. It is  her  contention  that  the  respondent   obtained  the  said  grants  of  letters   of  administration  without  her  knowledge  and  thus  disinheriting  her  and  her son   and  she has  gone  ahead  and  sold  the  land   to  other  people   who are  not  related  to  the  deceased  in  any  way.  That  it  is  therefore  necessary  to  have  the  orders  granted    so  that  the  estate  can  be  distributed  to  the rightful  beneficiaries.

7. The  respondent  opposed  the  application  and  filed  a  replying   affidavit   sworn   2nd   May, 2017,  her  contention  is   that  the  applicant  is  a stranger  to  her  family.

8. Further  she  depones  that  while  filing  the  Succession  she  followed  the  right  procedures,  by  obtaining  the  introductory  letter  from  the  area  chief  and  the  applicant  did  not  raise  any objection.

9. That  during the  burial  of  the  deceased  the applicant   who  is their  neighbor  did  not  raise  any  objection  by  saying   that  she  had  a relationship  with  the  deceased.

10. The  applicant  never  reaped  nor  had  she  built  any  structure  on  the  land  Kabare/ Nyangati / 5950  as  alleged.

11. The  applicant  never  raised  any  objection  during  the  partition  of  the  estate  and  the   application  is  an  afterthought.

12. The  interested  parties   filed  replying  affidavits.  They allege that they own land parcels  number  Kabare/ Nyangati/  8310  -8305,  and  the  applicant  is   a stranger  that  while  buying  the   parcels  of   land  there  was  nobody  on  the ground  nor  was  there  anyone  to challenge  the  transactions   of  sub-divisions  and  transfer.

13. That the certificate annexed to her summons to the confirmation of grant her name is given as Mabuti  Murumia  and  not  Joyce  Mabuti  Mathenge.

14. The interested parties have sworn   a further affidavit, and further depone that Joyce  Mabuti  Mathenge   is  married   elsewhere  to  one  Misheck,  and she  has  three  kids  with  Misheck  where  she is  legally  married,  namely;  Dennis Murimi Misheck, Wambui  Misheck  and  a  small  boy  Misheck,   and  Misheck  has  accepted  fully  the  responsibility   of  her  children  Dennis  Murimi  and  the  two  others  and  is  taking  parental  responsibility  on  them.

15. The introductory letter which was issued by the Chief shows that the deceased had no wife or children. They further contend that the deceased died in year 2001 and the applicant has waited for more than 13 years to claim the   deceased’s property.

16. They further contend that some of the interested parties are   innocent  purchasers  for  value   without  notice  who  diligently  follow  the  right   channel   to  buy  the  land,  conducted  search  on the  land  and  there  were  no  cautions  or  encumbrance’s  on  the  land.

17. The  parties  agreed  to  proceed  by  way  of  oral  evidence  in  court,    the  applicant  Joyce Mabuti Mathenge  ( PW1)  testified  that  she knows   the  deceased   Peter  Mathenge  who  was  her  husband  and  got  married  to  him  in  1999,  and   they  had  a  child  Dennis  Murimi  Mathenge.    She  testified  that  she  was  not  informed  when  the  Succession  was  filed  in  court,  that  Wanjohi  Mwea  Kamotho   who  is  mentioned  is not  related  to  the  deceased  and  the  same  Micheal   Wachira,  Manasse  Njeru  and  Nancy  Wawira  Miriti,   She had lodged a caution on the land number Kabare/ Nyangati/ 5950 and she prays   that the land  be  restored.

18. In   cross - examination she told the court she was not  married  in  church.  The deceased came with his  brother  and  one  elder   and  was  ordered    to  buy  a  goat,  and  they  brought  a  goat,   they  were  told  that  the  elders  wanted  something,  and   they  were  told   to  go  and  come  back   when    he   has money.  She said that  she  got  married  in  1999  and  they  were  living  in  town  before  the  deceased  went  back   to  his  home.  She further told the court that after the  deceased died,   her  house  was demolished  and  she  reported  to  the  Chief.  She had however,  had  no  evidence  to  prove  that  she  reported  about  the  house  and  she  denied  that  she  has  remarried.    She also admitted  that  she  has  two (2)  children   whose  fathers’  are  other  womens’  husband. She said she was not  married  to  one  Misheck  and  does  not  live  with  him.   Dennis   Murimi was 1 year and 3 months   when the  deceased  died. She admitted that  she  knows  that  the  interested  parties  bought  land  and  are  living  there.   She did not apply to evict them, because  she  came  to  know  when they  were already  on  the  land, and  they  have  lived  on  the  land  for  sixteen  (16)   years.

19. Pauline  Muthoni  Mburuga (Dw1)  defence  witness  1  testified  that   the  land  belonged  to  her  father  and    she  was  not  shown  the  land  as  she  never  used  to be  there.

20. The deceased Peter Mathenge told her to live on the portion. Rufus Muthike was the one who was doing the  Succession  an d distribution,  she  decided  not  to  live  alone  and  called  her  sisters  so  that  they  could  share  the  land.

21. Rufus Muthike assisted her to file the  Succession.  She told the court that when she went to  the  land  it was  clean,  there  was  no  person  living on  the  land,  she  has  lived   on  the  portion  she  was  shown  as  her  father’s property.

22. In   cross –examination she told the court that the deceased had not built a house as he used to   live at Kibibi  where  he  used  to  work.    He died at home due to illness. She told the court during cross-examination she did not know the applicant before  the  deceased  died,  and  that  the  deceased  was  not  married.

23. She  further   told  the    Court  she  did  not serve  Joyce  Mabuti  with  any  papers,  she  further  told  the  court  that  there  people  who  bought  the  land  which  she  sold  to  them to  assist   her  in  the  Succession.

Dw2   Wanjohi  Mwea,

DW3  Nancy  Wambui  Muriithi

DW4  David  Mbatia

Dw5  Manasse   Njeru  Nyamu

All testified that  they  bought  land  which was  the  resultant    sub-division  of   the  deceased  land.

24. Dw6  Rufus  Muthike  Mburuga  testified  that    the  deceased  was  his  brother,  he  had not married  and  he  had  no  child.   He  told  the court  that  he never  saw  elders  going  to  pay  dowry.   The  deceased  was  a  young man  and  he  had  no  wife  and  had no  house.   He was  21  years  old  at  the time  of  his  death.

25. The  succession  started  in  1997   in the estate  of  Mburuga  Gachau  who  was  their  father  and  the  land   was  Kabare/ Nyangati/565  measuring   16  acres.

26. He  testified  that  they  were  6  sons  who  inherited  the    land,  each  got  2 ½  acres.    Before  the   succession  was completed  the  deceased  fell sick and  died  in the  year  2001.   Before he  died  the  deceased  told  him  to give  his  land  to his  sisters  who  were  taking  care  of  him as  he  had  no wife,  and  that  is  what  he  did. Pauline Muthoni   filed  the  succession  so  that  she  could  distribute  the  land  to  the  other  sisters,  the  three  sisters  inherited  the  land.

27. When they   came  to  court,  nobody  objected.  There was no other person claiming  the  land  and  the  court  allowed  them  to distribute  the  land.  The sister sold the land to  finance  the sub-division.   The deceased did not say that he  had  married  Joyce  and  that  they had  a  child.

28. Dw7  Jeremiah   Kabiru  Mbuteti   he  told  the    court  that  the  deceased  was  not  married  and  a   young  man  who   used  to work  at  hotels  at  Kibibi  and   he  did  not  pay  dowry.   He told the court that he knows the  people  who  have  bought  the  land.  The applicant was not from that home,  she  is  a  stranger.    He testified that he has known the family from 1958   before Independence.

29. The applicant has never lived on the land, she had no house which was demolished.   The family   lives about 1 km from his home and   would not have failed to know. The parties proceeded to   file submissions at the close of the   Respondents case.

30. For  the  applicant  it  is  submitted  that;

The  applicant’s  evidence  was  that  sometime  in 1999  she  started  co-habiting   with  the  deceased  as  husband  and wife  and   in  the  year  2000  they  got  a  child   by  name  Dennis  Murimi.

31. The  applicant  submits   that  she  was  not  informed  about  the  Succession  cause   and  that  the  despite  the  fact  that  she  had  cautioned  the land  to  prevent  any  interference   with  the  land   that  caution  was  lifted without  her  consent.

32. That   the  deceased   only  managed  to  get  a  he –goat  which  was  slaughtered  for  Ngurario  and  also  paid  some  money  for    dowry  and  also  promised  to go back  to  the  in-laws  once  his  financial conditions    improved.  She stated that the property was given  out  to  strangers  who  were  not  related  to  the   deceased.

33. The applicant produced a copy of  her  National  identity  card  and  a copy  of   the  letter  of  the  clan  elders  as  her  exhibits.   The said letter from the clan elders among them   Muriu Njogu  Kimwere   who    had   accompanied  the   deceased  during  the  payment  of  dowry   and  Ngurario. She  also  submit  that  the  area  Chief  issued   a letter  dated  10th  January, 2014  which  identified  the  applicant  as  a  wife  of  the  deceased  and  her  son   Dennis  Murimi as  those  left  behind  by the  deceased.

34. I   urge  the  court  she  has  proved  on  a  balance  of  probabilities  that  there  was  a  relationship  between  her  and  the  deceased   and  out  of  that  union   there  was  an  issue  one  Dennis  Murimi  and the  copy  of  the  birth  certificate  for  Dennis  Murimi  was  supplied  to  the   respondents,  and  the   interested  parties   way  back  in   2017.

The  applicants  further  submit   that  the  evidence  on  record  is  sufficient to   warrant revocation  of  grant.

35. They  submit  that  the   proceedings   to  obtain the grant  were  defective  in  substance.   It  appears  that  there  are  conflicting  information  from the  chief   as  to  who  the  real  beneficiaries    of  the  estate  were.

36. That   the  information  contained  in  the  chief’s  letter  used  by  the  respondent  is  different  from  the   information    in  the  chief’s  letter  given  to  the  applicant  herein.  The  signatures  are  also  different.

37. The  grant  was  obtained  differently, fraudulently   by  making  of  a false  statement  or  concealment  to a  court  of  something  material  to  a  case.

38. It  was  submitted  that    the   applicant  stated  that   and this  is  supported  by  a  copy  of  a  search  certificate  issued  to  court  at  the  time  of   filing  the  succession  to  court  that  she  had  placed  a  caution on the  land.  She was not served with the court papers that lead  to  removal  of    the  said  caution.

39. That  is  the  application  dated  24th  November, 2015   it  was  intended  to be  served  upon  the  applicant  herein,  there  is  an  affidavit  of  service  sworn  by  one  Kunga  Mugi  and  paragraph  3  states  that  the  applicant  was  pointed  out  to  the  process server  by  the  respondent   Pauline  Muthoni  Mburuga. The respondent denied   having   pointed the   applicant to the process server   at any one time.

40. That  the   filing  of  a false affidavit  in  court  was meant  to  mislead  into  issuing  order  for  lifting  of  the  caution.   That it came  out  clearly  that  there   are  strangers   on the  land  who  were  given  2. 5  acres  save  for  a small  portion  of  1. 8  acres.

41. The applicant has relied on a persuasive decision on the  case  of;   M’Ngarithi  M’Miriti  alias  Paul  M’ Ngariti M’Miriti  ( deceased) (2017 ) eKLR  and Gitau  & 2 Others  -vrs- WAndai  & 5 Others  ( 1989)  KLR  231,  dealing  with  the  issue  of  entering  into  an  agreement   to  sale   the  estate  property before  getting  a grant  or  without  such  a  grant  is  an  act  of  intermeddling.  The act of the respondent and her sisters amounted to intermeddling with the   Estate.

42. He   submits   he  has  referred  the  court  to;  Benard  Muchiri  Mutugi  -versus-  Stephen  Muchuiri  ( 2018)  eKLR.  where  the  court  cited  the case  of;  Santuzzabilioti  alias  May  Santuzza  -versus-  Giancarlo  Filasconi  ( 2014)  eKLR,  as  authority  that  the  court  has  power  to  revert  the  Title  deed  to    revert  to  the  name  of   a  deceased  person  if  the  deceased  property  is  been  taken  away  by  none  beneficiaries.

He  submit  that  the  titles   be  cancelled  to revert   back  to  number  Kabare/ Nyangati/5950  in the name  of  Peter   Mathenge  Mburuga. For  the  interested  parties  it  is  submitted  that;

-The  applicant   never  produced  any  marriage  certificate  she  only  alleged  that  there  was  a traditional  ceremony   conducted  to assimilate  her  in the  family.

-She never  produced  any  photographs   for  the  ceremony, neither  did she  bring  a  witness  to  court to testify  and  support  her  claim  that she  was  indeed  the  wife  of  the  deceased.

- The  applicant   is   married  to  one  Misheck  with  whom  she  has  two  children,  and  she  admitted  that  she  had  other  kids  and  admitted  having  other  kids  with  different  men  but  denied  been  married  to  Misheck.

- The  applicant  never  introduced  her  child  to  the  family   and  the  birth  certificate  is  questionable. At  the time  of  his  death  the  deceased  was  21  years  old  and  had  no  family  and had  never  married.

43. Rufus  Muthike,  the  Interested  parties  witness  testified  that  he  is  the  one  who  took  care  of  the  hospital  bills  and  mortuary  bills  and  burial  arrangements  for  the  deceased.

44. He  further  testified  that  his brother  ( Peter  Mathenge  deceased) instructed  him  to share  his  properties  to his  sisters and  therefore  that I s  exactly  what  he  did.

45. He  further  submits  that  the  applicant  never  attended  burial  of  the  deceased  with  her  child.

That  he  was  able  to tell the court   that  even  his  1st  born  child  are  not  given  the name  Murimi  which  is  given  to  the  applicant’s  son.

He  further  told  the  court  that  their  late  father  was  called   Mburuga.

46. That  he  further  told  the  court  that,  the  deceased had not  built  any  home, disputing  the  African  story  that  her  house  was demolished  and   that  she  was  chased  away  from  the home.

47. The   applicant   submits  that   the  deceased  has  another  brother  who  is deceased,  and  the  family   has  never   chased  them away. The  applicant  did  not  explain  why  she  waited  for  16  years  to  file  a  revocation  of  grant. She  submits  that  the  interested  parties  bought  the land  genuinely and they  conducted a  search  before   the  purchase.

48. After  the    Succession  of  their   father’s  estate  Peter  Mathenge  Mburuga  was  given  2 ½  acres  which  the  rest  of  the  siblings  decided  it  should  go  to  the  sisters.    The  sisters  decided  to sell  their  shares  to  the  interested  parties.

49. The  interested parties  have  been in the  suit  land  for  five  years.  They  are  bona  fide  purchasers  for  value  without  notice  and  therefore  ought  not  to be  condemned,  an d in  one  of  the  sale  agreements  dated  3rd March, 2012  the  area  Chief  of  Nyangati  Immaculate  Wanjira  Njoka  also  witnessed  and  signed  the  agreement.

50. The  Chief   gave  a letter   for  the   Succession  proceedings  of  the  deceased  estate  to  commence,  and   later  the  Chief  gave  another  letter  to the  applicant.

51. The question  is,  if  she  knew  the  deceased  had  a  wife  and  a  child   why  did  she write  a  letter  dated   8th  October, 2013  saying  the  deceased  was  not  married  and  had no  children.

52. The  applicant  did  not  object  the  burial  of  the  deceased,  and   in  conclusion  she  said  that  the  applicant  is  married  to  one  Meshack  and  ought  inherit  from  her  husband.

53. The  applicant  never  called  any  witness   to  support her  claim, and   he  submit  that  the   applicant  is lying about  her  marriage  to the deceased. She  is  not  a wife  to  the  deceased  neither  did they have  a child  together. The  interested  parties  are   bona fide  purchasers  for  value  without  notice. They  conducted  due  diligence  before  purchasing  the  land. There  was no  objection.

54. The Succession cause  went  smoothly, and  they  now  live  on  the  land  which  they  have  developed  extensively. They  urge  the  court  to  dismiss  the  application.

ANALYSIS  AND  DETERMINATION

I  have  considered  all  the  evidence  adduced   and  the  submissions  and  the  various  affidavits  sworn  by  the parties.

There are  two  issues  for  determination;

1. whether the applicant was the wife  of the deceased.

2. revocation of grant.

1. Whether   the  applicant  was  the  wife  of  the deceased:

The   applicant has stated that she is the wife of the deceased.   He who   alleges  must   proof.

The applicant had the burden to proof that she is the wife of the deceased and therefore entitled to a share of his estate.  Section   107 and 108 of The Evidence   Act.

Burden of proof

(1)Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist.

(2)When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.

108Incidence of burden

The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side

109. Proof of particular fact

The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on the person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.

55. The applicant  had  the  legal  burden  to proof  the  allegation   in  Halsbury’s  Laws  of  England  4th  Edition  Volume  17  paragraph  13  and  14  describes  the  legal  burden  as  follows;

“ the  legal  burden  is  the  burden  of  proof,   which  remains  constant  throughout  a  trial,  it  is  the  burden  of  establishing  the  facts,  and  the  contentions,  which  will  support  a  parties  case.   If at the  conclusion of  the  trial , he  has  failed  to  establish  this  at  the  appropriate  he  will lose.  The legal burden  of  proof   normally  rests  among  the  party  desiring  the  court  to  take  action  thus  a  claimant   must  satisfy  the  court  or  tribunal  that  the conditions   which  entitle  him  to  an  award  have  been  satisfied  in  respect  of  a  particular  allegation,  the  burden  lies  upon  the  party  for  whom  substantiation of  that  particular  allegation  is  an  essential   of  his  case.   There may  therefore  be, separate  burdens  in  a  case  with  separate  issues.”

56. The legal burden in  a  case  is  supposed  to be  discharged  by  way of  Evidence  with  the  corresponding  party  having  a corresponding  duty  of  adducing  evidence  in  rebuttal.   This is what constitutes evidential burden.

57. In  this  case  the  applicant  had  the   legal  and  evidential  burden  to  proof   that  she  was  the  wife  of  the   deceased.

58. Upon considering  the  evidence  by  the  applicant,  she  did  not  discharge  the  legal  burden  to  proof  that  she  is  the  wife  of  the  deceased.  She did not proof  that  she  had  contracted  any form of  marriage  with  the  deceased.  Her allegation that a goat was taken by the deceased  to  her  father  was  not  credible.  She  did  not  call  any witness,  it  is  a  well-known  fact  that   such  a  function  involves  members  of   the  family  and  photographs  are  taken,  and  it  is  something   that   one  would  expect  a  party  to  prove  by  calling  witnesses,  this  the  applicant  did   not  do.

59. The respondents denied  that  the  deceased  was  not  married  and  called  witnesses  who confirmed  that   he   was  never  married and  was  a young  man   who  had  not  even  built   in his home.

60. The applicant  stated  that  he  had   a  child  with  the  deceased  but strangely  enough  this  child  was called  Murimi    he  would  adopted  a  name  of  the  father  of  the  deceased,  and  she  could  not  explain  why  the  child was  not  named    in  deceased   father  name.

61. Thirdly  the  applicant  said  the  deceased  had   a  home  and  that  she  was  evicted  and  he  house  demolished.  Upon been asked  if  she  reported  the  matter she  answered  in  the  negative.

62. The  applicant  never  attended  the  burial  of  the  deceased, nor  did  she  raise  any  objection  to  the  burial, and  I  find  that  all this  matters  show  that  she  could  not  have  been the  wife  of  the  deceased.

63. The applicant admitted that  she  saw  people  on  the  land  which  belonged  to the  deceased  but  she  raised  any  complaint  and  she  never  filed  Succession  in  the   estate  of  her  alleged  husband.

64. I  fail  to  see  why    even  after  she  alleged  that  she   is  the wife  of  the  deceased,  she  never  moved  to  court  for  over    15  years   to claim  the  estate  of  her  deceased  husband.

65. The applicant  also  admitted  that  she  has  two  other  children,  though  she denied  that   she  is  married  to  one  Meshack.    Her response in court   when  asked  who   the  father  of  her  children   was  left  a lot  to be  desired  and further  shows  that   she  was  not  a truthful  witness.

66. If we go  with  the  evidence  of  the  respondents  that  the applicant  has  a  husband  and  two  children  she  is  precluded  from   getting   a share  from  the  estate  of   the  deceased,  even  if  she  were  to  proof  that  she  was  the  wife  of  the  deceased.

Under Section   36  (1)  which  provides  for    inte  -estate  has  left  one surviving  spouse ,  the  section  provides  that;  the  surviving  spouse  if  she  be  a  widow  the  net  interest   shall be  determined  upon   her  remarriage  to  any   person.

Under Section  35  (5)   where  a  surviving spouse  is  a  widow  any   interest  that   she  has   in  the  estate   terminates  upon  re-marriage.

67. The  applicant  is  making  a claim for  dependency,  and under  Section  26  of  the  Act  the  court  is  empowered  to make  a  reasonable  provision  for  a  dependant  out  of  the  deceased  net   estate.   The applicant though claiming to be  the wife  of  the deceased,  has  come  to court  when  it  is  too late.

Section  30  of  the law  of  Succession  Act  provides  that;

“No application  under  this  part  shall be  brought  after  a grant  of  representation  in  respect  of  the  estate  to  which  the  application  refers  has  been made  and  confirmed  as  provided  by  Section   71. ”

68. The section puts  a limit  as  to  the  time  a  person  may  file  a claim  for  dependency.   The  applicant coming after  the  grant  has a been   confirmed  and the  estate  distributed,  even  if  she  had  a  claim  it  is  time  bad.

69. In  view  of  the  fore-going,  I find  that  the  applicant  has  not  discharged  the  burden  to  proof  that   she  was  the  wife  of  the deceased.

2.   Revocation  of  Grant;

The  law   on  revocation  of  grant  is  anchored  at    Section  76  of   the  Law  of  Succession  Act.

Section 76  of  The  Law  of  Succession   Act.  which  provides.

“A grant of representation, whether or not confirmed, may  at  any  time  be  revoked  or  annulled  if  the  court  decides,  either  on  application  by   any  interested  party  or  of  its  own  motion –that  the  proceedings  to  obtain  the grant  were  defective  in  substance;

b. that the grant was  obtained  fraudulently by  the  making  of  a  false  statement  or  by  the  concealment  from  the court  of  something  material  to  the case;

c. that the grant was obtained by  means of  an  untrue  allegation  of  a  fact  essential  in  point  of  law  to  justify  the grant  notwithstanding  that  the  allegation  was  made  in  ignorance  or  inadvertently.

70. The applicant  has not shown  that   the  grant  was   obtained  fraudulently  by concealment   from  court  something  material  to  the  case  and  that  the  proceedings  were  defective  and  that  the  grant  was  obtained  by  untrue  allegation  of  fact.

71. The respondents have  shown  that   the  deceased    was  not  married  and  therefore,  they  were  closest  relatives   and  were  entitled  to  succeed   in  his  estate  and  therefore  the  allegation  of  fraud   and  failing  to disclose  were  not  proved  to  the  required  standards.

72. The estate  has  been  sold  to  interested  parties   who had  no  notice  of    the  allegations  by  the  applicant.  The law of Succession  Act protects a  purchaser  for  value  without  notice.  Section 93  (1)   of  The  Law  of  Succession  Act  provides  that;

“ a  transfer  of  any  interest  in  immovable  or  movable  property  made  to  a  purchaser  either  before  or   after   the  commencement  of  this  act,  by  a  person  to  whom  representation  has  been  granted  shall be  buried  notwithstanding  any  subsequent  revocation    or  variation  of   the grant,  either  before  or  after  commencement  of  this  act.

(ii)   a transfer of immovable property by a personal  representative  to a  purchaser  shall not  be  invalidated  by  reason  only that  the  purchaser  may  have  notice  that  all debts,  liabilities,  funeral,  and  testamentary,  or  administration  expenses,  duties  and  legacies  of  the  deceased  have  not  been discharged  nor  provided  for.”

73. The interested parties bought the land after the grant was  confirmed.  The  only  restriction  on  dealings  with   immovable  property   is  the  one   found  at  Section   82  of  the  Law of  Succession  Act.    which  provide  that;

“no immovable property  shall  be  sold   before  the  confirmation  of  grant.”

74. The  interested  parties  have  deponed  that  they  bought  land  genuinely, and  they  did  conduct  a  search  before  purchasing.  The  interested   parties  bought  the  land  and  have  been  in quiet  possession  for  over  five  years  now. They are  bonafide  purchasers  for  value  without  notice,  and   they  cannot be  condemned.  Their interest is protected  under  Section  93 of  the  law  of  Succession  Act. The applicant has failed to establish grounds to warrant the revocation of  the grant.

In conclusion;

I find that  the  application  is  without  merit  and is  dismissed  with  costs  to  the  respondent  and the   Interested  parties.

Dated, signed  at  Kerugoya  this 29th day  of May 2020

L.W. GITARI

JUDGE