Joyce Ngima Njeru & 1 other v Ann Wambeti Njue

The court held that although the appellants, as beneficiaries, were interested parties eligible to seek revocation and had cited the statutory ingredients, the evidence they adduced did not establish those ingredients. Their evidence attacked the merits of the 1994 confirmation ruling, not the process of obtaining the grant, so the proper forum was an appellate court, not a revocation application under section 76.

The land in contest had never been registered in the name of the respondent's deceased husband. Requiring her to obtain a grant, register the land in his name and then transfer it to herself would be circuitous. As the only claimant to her deceased husband's property, it was more prudent for her to claim as a direct beneficiary of the ancestral/clan land.

The appellants alleged the respondent's deceased husband owned two other parcels which she should have pursued instead. The court found the existence of those properties was not proved, and that even proved existence would not operate to bar the respondent's direct entitlement to her deceased husband's share of the admitted ancestral/clan land in these proceedings.

The High Court correctly found that the appellants had not established the revocation ingredients; what they had was a right to appeal the confirmation decision. Allowing the appeal would not serve the parties' interests: the appellants waited seven years to complain, and the land had already been subdivided per a confirmation order reached after a merit hearing, with no allegation that the magistrate failed to exercise his discretion judiciously.