REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU Succession Cause 246 of 1995 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KANGANGI KAIRARIA (DECEASED) M’NDAKA KANGANGI ................................................................ PETITONER VERSUS JOSEPH MURUNGI GITONGA ..................................................... APPLICANT RULING Justice Ouko, by his ruling delivered on 17 th July 2009, revoked the grant issued to the petitioner. Before that revocation, the petitioner had dealt with the suit property, that is, Mwimbi/Chogoria/1086 by sub dividing it into 6 portions. The Judge, in making that ruling, stated that the petitioner had distributed those portions to six other persons. Joseph Murungi Gitonga has filed a Chamber Summons dated 25 th February 2010 seeking the court to cancel those 6 sub divisions and to have the same revert to the original title Mwimbi/Chogoria/1086. Although the petitioner was served the application, when it came for hearing, he did not attend. After the hearing of that Chamber Summons, a ruling was reserved for 28th May 2010. However, as I sat to consider that ruling, it occurred to me that it is of paramount importance that the persons to whom the sub divided parcels were distributed be heard. For that reason, I do hereby set aside the proceedings of 16 th May 2010 and do hereby give leave to the applicant Joseph Murungi Gitonga to file a further affidavit setting out the names of persons to whom the subdivisions are registered in. At the reading of this ruling, I shall give fresh hearing dates to the Chamber Summons dated 25 th February 2010 and at that subsequent hearing, the registered owners of the sub divided parcels will require to be served so that they can be heard. Dated and delivered at Meru this 28th day of May 2010. MARY KASANGO JUDGE
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.