Ochido v Omedo

The learned magistrate in CMCC No. 27 of 2011, though dismissing the claim for want of locus standi, made factual findings that the deceased sold the suit property to Jakim in 1974 and that his family took possession. The appellant produced no contrary evidence and did not challenge those findings on appeal or review. Possession and occupation are weighty factors in proprietary claims, and issues about the sale agreement and Land Control Board consent were matters for those proceedings or an appeal from them, not collateral attack in the succession cause.

Section 76(b) permits revocation of a grant obtained by fraud or concealment of material facts. The appellant admitted being informed of the earlier case by Ambrose yet proceeded to petition for the grant without disclosing that the sole asset of the estate had already been found to have been sold. Given the direct impact on the estate's only asset, the omission was deliberate, not inadvertent, warranting revocation of the confirmed grant.

Having upheld the finding that the deceased sold the property to Jakim during his lifetime, the property was not free property of the deceased's estate available for distribution. The appellant's objections about the absence of transfer documents and want of land control consent were matters that could only have been litigated in the earlier suit or on appeal, and the Court declined to revisit them, leaving the trial court's distribution order intact.