[2015] KEHC 4323 (KLR)
The court found that since the land in question is registered in the name of the deceased, it forms part of the estate and is subject to the law of succession. Any acts by the respondent, including cutting down trees or otherwise interfering with the property, constitute intermeddling as prohibited by Section 45 of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 4323 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: David Titus Mutua; Applicant: Philip Mutua Mutevu; Respondent: Joseph Musyoka Mutevu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 37 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- Application allowed with costs in cause.
- Judges
- BT Jaden
- Legal Topics
- Intermeddling With Estate, Gift Inter Vivos, Preservation of Estate, Administration of Estate
- 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
David Titus Mutua
Applicant
Philip Mutua Mutevu
Applicant
Joseph Musyoka Mutevu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent has unlawfully intermeddled with the deceased's estate by interfering with Plot No. 128 at Mbee Adjudication Section.
- 2 Whether the respondent's claim of a gift inter vivos can justify his actions prior to distribution of the estate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that since the land in question is registered in the name of the deceased, it forms part of the estate and is subject to the law of succession. Any acts by the respondent, including cutting down trees or otherwise interfering with the property, constitute intermeddling as prohibited by Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act. The respondent's claim of a gift inter vivos cannot be determined at this interlocutory stage and must be addressed during the distribution of the estate. Therefore, to preserve the estate, the respondent must be restrained from further interference until proper administration and distribution are conducted.
Court Disposition
Application allowed with costs in cause.
Orders
- The respondent, Joseph Musyoka Mutevu, is restrained from intermeddling and/or interfering with Plot No. 128 at Mbee Adjudication Section, part of the deceased's estate.
- Costs to be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 37 OF 2014
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KALEKYE MUTEVU ALIASPHILES KALEKYE MUTEVU (DECEASED)
DAVID TITUS MUTUA
PHILIP MUTUA MUTEVU...................APPLICANTS
VERSUS
JOSEPH MUSYOKA MUTEVU..........RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The application dated 12th May 2014 was brought under Section 45(1) and Section 47 of the Law of Succession Act and Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules. The application seeks orders that the Respondent/intermeddler, Joseph Musyoka Mutevu, be restrained from intermeddling and/or interfering with the parcel of land Plot No. 128 at MBEE ADJUDICATION SECTION, which is part of the deceased’s estate.
2. It is stated in the affidavit in support that the deceased is the registered owner of the land in question. The Applicant’s complaint is that the Respondent has entered the said land and started cutting down trees and committing other acts of wanton destruction thereon. That although the Respondent is part of the family of the deceased, he has no right to waste the said land or to deal with it in a manner that is inconsistent with the law of succession.
3. The application is opposed. According to the replying affidavit, the land in question was a gift from his father and mother (the deceased herein). That the Applicants did not challenge the gift inter vivos during the lifetime of the deceased.
4. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions which I have duly considered.
5. It is not in dispute that the land in question is registered in the name of the deceased. The letters (annextures JMM 3 & 4) from their late father to the parties herein is of no consequence at this stage of the case. Although the “gift agreement” dated 12th June 1986 is signed by both the deceased herein and her late husband, the question of the gift inter vivos can only be considered during the distribution of the estate (see Section 42 of the Law of Succession Act).
6. Since the land in question forms part of the estate of the deceased, cutting down trees and other forms of interfering with the estate of the deceased is intermeddling with the property of a deceased person. As stated in Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act –
“Except so far as expressly authorized by this Act, or by any other written law, or by a grant of representation under this Act, no person shall, for any purpose, take possession or dispose of, or otherwise intermeddle with, any free property of a deceased person.”
7. To preserve the estate of the deceased, I allow the application with costs in cause.
………………………………………
B. THURANIRA JADEN
Dated and delivered at Machakos this 7th day of May, 2015
………………………………………
B. THURANIRA JADEN
JUDGE