[2015] KEHC 685 (KLR)
The court held that claims by purchasers who are not jointly recognized by both administrators of the estate do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Probate and Administration Court, as such claims are not protected under Section 93 of the Law of Succession Act. The court directed that the parties must submit a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 685 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Grevas Barasa Odewa; Respondent: Selpha Auma Sokoni
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Busia
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 154 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Distribution of Estate
- Outcome
- Parties directed to submit a new distribution proposal excluding unrecognized purchasers; no order as to costs.
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Estate Distribution, Probate, Purchaser Claims
- 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
Grevas Barasa Odewa
Applicant
Selpha Auma Sokoni
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Distribution of Estate
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether purchasers not recognized by both administrators are entitled to a share in the estate distribution.
- 2 Whether the Probate and Administration Court has jurisdiction to determine claims of purchasers not protected under Section 93 of the Law of Succession Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that claims by purchasers who are not jointly recognized by both administrators of the estate do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Probate and Administration Court, as such claims are not protected under Section 93 of the Law of Succession Act. The court directed that the parties must submit a new distribution proposal excluding any purchaser not recognized by both of them. Any aggrieved purchasers must pursue their claims in the Environment and Land Court, as the probate court cannot adjudicate on such matters. The court made no order as to costs.
Court Disposition
Parties directed to submit a new distribution proposal excluding unrecognized purchasers; no order as to costs.
Orders
- Parties to furnish to the court a distribution proposal excluding any purchaser not recognized jointly by both administrators.
- Purchasers not recognized by both administrators to present their claims in the Environment and Land Court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
42 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUSIA
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 154 OF 2004
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF SOKONI EDEWA DECEASED
AND
GREVAS BARASA ODEWA....................................PETITIONER
VERSUS
SELPHA AUMA SOKONI.........................................OBJECTOR
RULING
1. On 5th May 2014, a consent herein was entered in the following terms:-
By consent;
The Summons of 26. 10. 2012 is allowed only to the extent of rectification of the name.
Confirmation of grant shall issue jointly to both the Applicant and Respondent.
The Respondent shall within 21 days hereof respond to the distribution proposed by the Applicant in the affidavit of 26. 5.2012.
This Decision is an attempt to resolve an impasse on Distribution between the parties.
2. In paragraph 5 of the Affidavit of Selpha Auma Opiyo (Selpha) sworn on 26th May 2012, she proposes Distribution as follows;-
Selpha Auma Opiyo – Nil
Faustina Nekesa - Nil
Agneta Nanzala Sokono – 0. 3025 ha
Protus Kulundu Wasike – 1. 33 ha
Raphael Machu Khakaba – 0. 31 ha
Humphrey Okello – 0. 6 ha
Sheban Khaindikiri Sumba – 0. 4 ha
Grevas Barasa Edewa
Stephen Onyango Wabwire & - 3. 7475 ha
Pascal Wandera Ouma –
She makes an explanation of the proposal on Distribution in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8. It is important to reproduce them.
6) That the shares to myself and my sister Faustina Nekesa will go to the purchaser Protus Kulundu Wasike and Raphael Machu Khakaba.
7) That the purchasers Humphrey Okello and Shaban K. Sumba bought portions of land from Grevas Barasa Edewa who demarcated boundaries to them from his share of land.
8) That the remaining portion of land will be registered jointly in the names of Grevas Barasa Edewa, Stephen Onyango Wabwire and Pascal Wandera Ouma as they have refused to have their portions surveyed.
3. In responding to this proposal, Grevas Barasa Edewa (Grevas)stated that he does not recognize Duncan Okello, Protus Kulundu and Raphael Ekesa as neither he nor the Deceased sold any land to them.
4. In oral argument before Court, Mr. Wanyama for Selpha explained that the proposed Distribution by Selpha reflects the position on the ground. He also clarified that Duncan Okello is also known as Humphrey Okello.
5. What seems agreed is that the claim of those not recognized by Grevas are those of purchasers. Whether they may have had purchase agreements with either of the administrators or the Deceased may not be a matter for this Probate and Administration Court to deal with as none of their claims fall within those that find protection in Section 93 of the Law of Succession Act.
6. For that reason, I ask the parties to furnish to the Court a Distribution proposal which exclude any purchaser not recognized jointly by both of them. The unlucky “purchasers” will have to present their claims in an Environment and Land Court.
7. No order as to costs.
Dated, signed and delivered at Busia this 7th day of December 2015.
F. TUIYOTT
J U D G E
In the presence of :-
Oile C/Assistant
Applicant in person
N/A for Respondent