[2015] KEHC 2535 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant was entitled to execution of the judgment confirming the grant, as there was no evidence of any challenge or stay of execution. The respondents' refusal to sign the transmission documents and release the original title amounted to obstruction of the lawful distribution of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 2535 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Charity Wanjugu Karoki alias Charity Wanjugu Kariuki; Respondent: Festus Muigua Kariuki; Respondent: Isaac Njuguna Kariuki; Respondent: Winrose Wanjiru Kariuki; Respondent: Moses Kariuki Ndirangu; Respondent: Charles Munene
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 195 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Authorise Deputy Registrar to Sign Transmission Documents and Dispense With Original Title
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Grant Confirmation, Estate Distribution, Transmission of Land, Court Orders Execution
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Charity Wanjugu Karoki alias Charity Wanjugu Kariuki
Applicant
Festus Muigua Kariuki
Respondent
Isaac Njuguna Kariuki
Respondent
Winrose Wanjiru Kariuki
Respondent
Moses Kariuki Ndirangu
Respondent
Charles Munene
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Authorise Deputy Registrar to Sign Transmission Documents and Dispense With Original Title
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should authorise the deputy registrar to sign transmission documents for LR. No. RUGURU/GACHIKA/65 in place of the respondents.
- 2 Whether the original title can be dispensed with to facilitate distribution of the estate as per the confirmed grant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant was entitled to execution of the judgment confirming the grant, as there was no evidence of any challenge or stay of execution. The respondents' refusal to sign the transmission documents and release the original title amounted to obstruction of the lawful distribution of the estate. In the absence of any opposition or valid reason for the respondents' inaction, the court exercised its discretion to authorise the deputy registrar to sign the necessary documents and to dispense with the original title, ensuring that the estate could be distributed as previously ordered. The court emphasised that its orders must be given effect and that parties cannot be...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The deputy registrar is authorised to sign the transmission documents in respect of LR. No. RUGURU/GACHIKA/65.
- The requirement for the original title in respect of LR. No. RUGURU/GACHIKA/65 is dispensed with to facilitate distribution of the estate.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 195 OF 2010
(IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KARIUKI MUIGUA alias KARIUKI MUIGWA alias KARIUKI S/O MUIGUA (DECEASED)
CHARITY WANJUGU KAROKI alias
CHARITY WANJUGU KARIUKI……PETITIONER/APPLICANT
VERSUS
FESTUS MUIGUA KARIUKI……………………1ST RESPONDENT
ISAAC NJUGUNA KARIUKI……………………2ND RESPONDENT
WINROSE WANJIRU KARIUKI………………3RD RESPONDENT
MOSES KARIUKI NDIRANGU………………...4TH RESPONDENT
CHARLES MUNENE……………………………..5TH RESPONDENT
RULING
By an application dated 13th June, 2014 the applicant sought for an order from this court to authorise the deputy registrar to sign the transmission documents in respect of land parcel referred to as LR. No. RUGURU/GACHIKA/65 and to dispense with the original title in respect of this parcel of land inorder to facilitate the distribution of the estate.
In the affidavit in support of application, she swore that the grant was made to her on 4th January, 2011. Apart from the 3rd respondent who is her niece, the rest of the respondents are the applicant’s siblings. The latter protested against the confirmation of the grant but their protest was dismissed and the grant confirmed on 23rd August, 2013.
While confirming the grant the court, in its judgment delivered on 23rd August, 2013, ordered that land parcel LR. No. RUGURU/GACHIKA/65 be shared equally amongst the applicant and the protestors.
As I understand the applicant, it has been impossible to transfer and register the respective shares of the land in issue as directed by the court because the respondents have refused to sign the transmission form and release the original title.
The application was served on the respondents on 14th April, 2015 but as the time it came up for hearing on 18th May, 2015, none of them had filed any sort of response to the application. Mr Mugo who held brief for Mr Mwaura for the respondents sought for an adjournment to file a response; in the absence of any reason for the respondents’ apparent inaction, I declined to grant the application for adjournment. Accordingly, the application was unopposed.
The judgment in this cause was delivered way back in August, 2013. There is nothing to suggest that it was challenged and even if it was, no order for stay of its execution was ever given. It follows, therefore, that there is no reason why the judgment should not be executed in terms of the confirmed grant. I would in the circumstances allow the applicant’s application dated 13th June, 2014. Parties will bear their own costs.
Signed, dated and delivered in open court this 2nd day of October, 2015
Ngaah Jairus
JUDGE