[2011] KEHC 3188 (KLR)
The court found that while the respondent had distributed a substantial part of the estate, there remained undistributed assets due to various reasons, including the failure of some beneficiaries to execute necessary conveyancing documents. The court was not persuaded that the respondent had wholly failed or...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 3188 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Geoffrey Gitau Ng'ang'a; Applicant: James Kimotho Gitau; Applicant: Paul Mutungi Gitau; Applicant: John Ruge Gitau; Respondent: Johnson Ndung'u Gitau
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 795 of 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Revocation of Grant
- Outcome
- Grant of letters of administration intestate issued and confirmed to the respondent is revoked; new grant issued jointly to Johnson Ndung'u Gitau and Geoffrey Gitau Ng'ang'a; no order as to costs.
- Judges
- LK Kimaru
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Administration of Estates, Revocation of Grant, Distribution 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
Geoffrey Gitau Ng'ang'a
Applicant
James Kimotho Gitau
Applicant
Paul Mutungi Gitau
Applicant
John Ruge Gitau
Applicant
Johnson Ndung'u Gitau
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Revocation of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent failed, refused or neglected to distribute the estate of the deceased in accordance with the confirmed grant.
- 2 Whether the grant of letters of administration intestate should be revoked and new administrators appointed.
- 3 Whether the interests of the dependants have been compromised by the respondent's actions.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the respondent had distributed a substantial part of the estate, there remained undistributed assets due to various reasons, including the failure of some beneficiaries to execute necessary conveyancing documents. The court was not persuaded that the respondent had wholly failed or neglected his duties, but recognized the concerns raised by the applicants. To ensure the proper winding up of the estate and address the grievances, the court determined that joint administration was necessary. Accordingly, the grant previously issued solely to the respondent was revoked, and a new grant was issued jointly to the respondent and Geoffrey Gitau Ng'ang'a, with...
Court Disposition
Grant of letters of administration intestate issued and confirmed to the respondent is revoked; new grant issued jointly to Johnson Ndung'u Gitau and Geoffrey Gitau Ng'ang'a; no order as to costs.
Orders
- The grant of letters of administration intestate issued and confirmed to the respondent is revoked.
- A new grant shall be issued in the names of Johnson Ndung'u Gitau and Geoffrey Gitau Ng'ang'a.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO.795 OF 1997
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF GITAU MUTUNGI – (DECEASED)
GEOFFREY GITAU NG’ANG’A.............................................................................................................1ST APPLICANT
JAMES KIMOTHO GITAU.................................................................................................................2ND APPLICANT
PAUL MUTUNGI GITAU......................................................................................................................3RD APPLICANT
JOHN RUGE GITAU.............................................................................................................................4TH APPLICANT
VERSUS
JOHNSON NDUNG’U GITAU ............................................................................................................... RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The respondent is the administrator of the estate of Gitau Mutungi (deceased). He was issued with grant of letters of administration intestate on 24th June 1997. The grant was confirmed on 7th June 1998. From the petition, it was evident that during his life time the deceased was married to three wives. The three wives were blessed with fourteen (14) children. The respondent was granted consent by the beneficiaries of the deceased to petition the court to be granted the said letters of administration. In the schedule annexed to the confirmation of grant, the respondent distributed the properties that comprised the estate of the deceased to the beneficiaries. The estate of the deceased appear to have been substantial.
Things were apparently alright until the 4th February 2010 when the applicants herein, who are some of the beneficiaries of the deceased, filed summons seeking the revocation of the grant that was issued to the respondent. The applicants complained that the respondent had failed, refused or neglected to distribute the estate of the deceased in accordance with the schedule which was annexed to the confirmation of grant. They accused the respondent of disposing of some of the assets that comprised the estate of the deceased for his own benefit and not for the benefits of the dependants as provided in the said schedule. The applicants are of the view that unless new administrators of the estate of the deceased are appointed by the court, the interest of the dependants would be adversely compromised. The summons is supported by the annexed affidavit of Geoffrey Ng’ang’a Gitau. He swore a further affidavit in support of the application. Hellen Wanjiru Kabue, a dependant of the deceased swore an affidavit in support of the application. James Gitau Kamotho also swore an affidavit in support of the application. The respondent swore a replying affidavit in opposition to the application. In the said affidavit, the respondent explained how, pursuant to the certificate of confirmation of grant, he had distributed the estate of the deceased to the beneficiaries. He deponed that the part of the estate of the deceased that remained undistributed was due to the fact that some of the dependants had not executed conveyancing documents in order for their respective inheritance to be transferred to them. From the said affidavit, it appears that the respondent was of the opinion that he had performed his duties as the administrator of the estate of the deceased as required by the law.
At the hearing of the petition, I heard submissions made by Mrs. Macharia for the applicants and by Mr. Kimani for the respondents. Having carefully evaluated the facts of this cause, it was clear to the court that the issue in dispute between the applicants and the respondent relates to the winding up of the estate of the deceased. From the explanation given by the respondent, it was apparent that since the confirmation of grant was issued, a substantial part of the estate of the deceased has been distributed to the dependants. However, there is a portion that has remained undistributed due to various reasons, including the fact that some of the beneficiaries have not executed conveyancing documents to enable their respective inheritances to be transferred to them. The applicants, being from a different house to that of the respondent, appear to be particularly aggrieved by this state of affairs. However, this court has not been persuaded by the argument advanced by the said applicants to the effect that the respondent failed or neglected to distribute the estate of the deceased as mandated in the certificate of confirmation of grant. There are certain issues that need resolution sooner rather than later.
It is this court’s view that to enable the estate of the deceased to be wound up, it is imperative that the concerns raised by the applicants be addressed. Those concerns can only be addressed if one of the applicants is appointed to jointly administer the estate of the deceased with the respondent. The respondent shall be required to prepare a statement of accounts in relation to what he has so far done to distribute the estate of the deceased to the dependants. The respondent, with the assistance of Geoffrey Gitau Ng’ang’a (who I hereby appoint to be a joint administrator of the estate of the deceased with the respondent), shall within six (6) months from today’s date endeavour to wind up the estate of the deceased. Should there be any dispute, either party shall be at liberty to apply to the court.
In the premises therefore, the grant of letters of administration intestate issued and confirmed to the respondent in this cause is hereby revoked. A new grant shall be issued in the names of Johnson Ndung’u Gitau and Geoffrey Gitau Ng’ang’a. The same is confirmed on the same terms as the previous grant. If there are any assets belonging to the estate of the deceased that have since been discovered since the grant was confirmed, then the same should be distributed in accordance with the agreement of the dependants. There shall be no orders as to costs. It is so ordered.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2011
L. KIMARU
JUDGE