Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Amardeep Singh Rehal Balvinder Singh Rehal v Karmjit Kaur Rehal

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 768 OF 2009 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE HARVINDER SINGH REHAL (DECEASED) AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY THE DEFENDANTS OF THE ESTATE AMARDEEP SINGH REHAL BALVINDER SINGH REHAL ..BENEFICIARIES/APPLICANT VERSUS KARMJIT KAUR REHAL ...............................................................PETITIONER/RESPONDENT RULING By my ruling dated 20th September 2021, I held that the Respondent had stopped making remittances in July 2018. 1. The Court had directed the parties to provide supporting documents, which would enable the Court to verify the exact payments which had been made by the Respondent. 2. No such documents have been provided to the Court. 3. Secondly, the Applicant also failed to provide any explanation for the long period of inactivity on his part, during the time when he says that the Respondent was not remitting payments to him. 4. As held in the Ruling dated 20th September 2021, the un-explained failure by the Applicant, to raise issues for the years when he had not received remittances, was more consistent with the Respondent’s contention, that she had made large prepayments to the Applicant. 5. Although the Applicant had asserted that he had not received remittances from 2015, the figures which he had provided earlier indicate that he had been paid until August 2017. 6. Accordingly, I now order the Respondent to pay to the Applicant the sum of Kshs 4,000,000/=, which is computed at the rate of Kshs 100,000/= per month from August 2017, until January 2022. 7. Thereafter, the Respondent shall continue to remit Kshs 100,000/= monthly. 8. And in order to avoid any disputes in future, the Respondent should make payments in a verifiable manner, such as by cheque, standing order or Mpesa. 9. Upon receipt of payment, the Applicant must issue a written acknowledgement that he had received such payment, on the specified date. 10. If the Applicant should decline to provide a written acknowledgement, the Respondent will be at liberty to choose a payment system whose verifiability would not be dependent upon the co-operation of the Applicant. DATED, SIGNED AT DELIVERED AT KISUMU THIS 26TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022 FRED A. OCHIENG

page 1 of 2

JUDGE

page 2 of 2

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.