[2008] KEHC 1741 (KLR)

[2008] KEHC 1741 (KLR)

The court found that Paul Wanjohi Mathenge was not a credible witness, as he gave inconsistent evidence regarding the timing of the subdivision of parcel 645. The subdivision and issuance of titles for parcels 1693 and 1694 occurred after the death of the registered owner, making the process irregular and not in...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] KEHC 1741 (KLR)
Parties
Petitioner: Duncan Gichane Mathenge; Objector: Paul Wanjohi Mathenge
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Succession Cause 139 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Judgment
Outcome
Grant confirmed with specified distribution of properties; no order as to costs.
Judges
MM Kasango
Legal Topics
Succession Disputes, Distribution of Estate, Land Title Subdivision, Confirmation of Grant
Source Language
en
Family and Children Land and Property Succession Disputes Distribution of Estate Land Title Subdivision Confirmation of Grant

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Duncan Gichane Mathenge

Petitioner

Paul Wanjohi Mathenge

Objector

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the subdivision of Thegenge/Karia/645 into parcels 1693 and 1694 by Paul Wanjohi Mathenge after the death of the deceased was lawful.
  2. 2 How the deceased's properties should be distributed among the beneficiaries.
  3. 3 Whether Paul Wanjohi Mathenge was entitled to parcel 1693 as claimed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Paul Wanjohi Mathenge was not a credible witness, as he gave inconsistent evidence regarding the timing of the subdivision of parcel 645. The subdivision and issuance of titles for parcels 1693 and 1694 occurred after the death of the registered owner, making the process irregular and not in accordance with succession law. The court accepted Duncan Gichane Mathenge's evidence as more credible and determined that the proper distribution of the deceased's estate required that Thegenge/Karia/1693 and 1694 be allocated to Duncan, while Gatarakwa/Gatarakwa/Block III/785 be allocated to Paul. The court confirmed the grant accordingly, ensuring compliance with the Law of...

Court Disposition

Grant confirmed with specified distribution of properties; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The property Thegenge/Karia/1693 and 1694 to go to Duncan Gichane Mathenge.
  • Gatarakwa/Gatarakwa/Block III/785 to go to Paul Wanjohi Mathenge.