AI Legal Chatbot
Documents
Cases
Laws
Law Firms
LPMS
Quizzes
Login
Join
In re Estate of Joab Odero (Deceased) [2020] eKLR Case Summary
Court
High Court of Kenya at Kisumu
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
T.W. Cherere
Judgment Date
October 14, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Case Summary
Full Judgment
Explore the case summary of In re Estate of Joab Odero (Deceased) [2020] eKLR, detailing essential legal findings and implications. Gain insights into estate management and judicial decisions in Kenya.
Case Brief: In re Estate of Joab Odero (Deceased) [2020] eKLR
1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: In the Matter of the Estate of Joab Odero Alias Joab Odero Odero (Deceased)
- Case Number: Succession Cause No. 227 of 1993
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Kisumu
- Date Delivered: 14th October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): T.W. Cherere
- Country: Kenya
2. Questions Presented:
The court must resolve the following legal issues:
- Whether the Applicant was denied a chance to be heard.
- Whether the Applicant has established a case for review of the orders made on 9th December 2019.
- What is the effect of the sale of property KISUMU/PANDPIERI/833 on the beneficiaries?
3. Facts of the Case:
The deceased, Joab Odero, was married to Hilda Achieng Odero (deceased) and Jane Adhiambo Odero. Letters of administration for the deceased’s estate were issued on May 19, 1994, to Hilda Achieng Odero (deceased), Jane Adhiambo Odero, and David Jairo Odero (deceased). A certificate of grant was issued on April 7, 1995, distributing the properties of the deceased, including KISUMU/PANDPIERI/833. In a ruling dated May 28, 2004, the court distributed the property equally between the two houses. In 2019, the Respondent sought to amend the certificate of confirmation of grant and sell KISUMU/PANDPIERI/833, with the proceeds to be distributed among beneficiaries. The Applicant opposed the sale, claiming reliance on the rental income from the property.
4. Procedural History:
The case progressed through the court system with several motions filed. The notice of motion dated July 24, 2019, was partly compromised by consent, allowing some requests while denying others. The Applicant failed to file an objection regarding the sale of the property by the deadline set by the court. Consequently, the court ordered the property to be reverted to the deceased's name and allowed the sale. The Applicant later filed a motion for review on February 18, 2020, claiming he was not given a chance to be heard, which was opposed by the Respondents.
5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered Article 50(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing, and
Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules
, which outlines the grounds for review of judgments.
- Case Law: The court referenced *National Bank of Kenya Limited v Ndungu Njau* [1997] eKLR, which established that a review could be granted to correct an apparent error or omission, but not simply because another judge could have reached a different conclusion.
- Application: The court found that the Applicant had not complied with the orders to file objections and had squandered the opportunity to be heard. The Applicant's claim of being denied an opportunity was unmeritorious. Additionally, the court determined that the sale of KISUMU/PANDPIERI/833 would not prejudice the Applicant as he would receive a share of the proceeds.
6. Conclusion:
The court dismissed the Applicant's motion for review, concluding that there were no sufficient grounds for review of the orders made on December 9, 2019. The decision emphasized the importance of compliance with court orders and the need for fair distribution of estate assets among beneficiaries.
7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the case ruling.
8. Summary:
The High Court of Kenya ruled against the Applicant's motion for review regarding the sale of property KISUMU/PANDPIERI/833, affirming that he had not been denied a fair hearing and that the sale was in the best interest of all beneficiaries. The ruling underscores the principles of fairness in estate distribution and the necessity for parties to adhere to procedural requirements in court.
Document Summary
Below is the summary preview of this document.
This is the end of the summary preview.
📢 Share this document with your network
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Related Documents
Esther Wandii Maingi & another v Macharia Chege [2020] eKLR Case Summary
Safaricom Limited v Transcend Media Group [2020] eKLR Case Summary
In re LW (Minor) [2020] eKLR Case Summary
In re Estate of Peter Okola Ochieng (Deceased) [2020] eKLR Case Summary
Patrick Kuria Thiga v Samuel Maina & 3 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary
Eunice Wanjiru Gathithi v Cannon Assurance Kenya Limited [2020] eKLR Case Summary
Kithyo Kata & 2 others v Martin Mukosi Ngaa & another [2020] eKLR Case Summary
Daniel Kahiga & another v Janet Jeruto Tolong & another [2020] eKLR Case Summary
In re Estate Christopher Ochieng (Deceased) [2020] eKLR Case Summary
Kangaroo Shuttle v Joshua Maina Ng’ang’a [2020] eKLR Case Summary
JGM v. GWG [2020] eKLR Case Summary
Samuel Ndiba Kihara & another v Housing Finance Company of Kenya Limited & 2 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary
Margaret Josephine Akoth Oloo & another v African Banking Corporation Limited & another [2020] eKLR Case Summary
William Opiyo Okumu v Joseph Ouma Adongo & 2 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary
In re Estate of Jane Waithira Njeru (Deceased) [2020] eKLR Case Summary
View all summaries