[2014] KEHC 4375 (KLR)
The court found that the parties had submitted themselves to the arbitration of the Kiptuiyek Clan elders, who determined a fair mode of distribution of the deceased's estate. The applicant's proposal reflected this arbitration and was considered equitable. The protestor's objection was found to lack merit as it did...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 4375 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Henry Kipkoros Tonui; Respondent: Kipkemoi Soi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 26 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Confirmation of Grant and Protest
- Outcome
- Protest dismissed; summons for confirmation of grant allowed as prayed.
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Distribution of Estate, Confirmation of Grant
- 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
Henry Kipkoros Tonui
Applicant
Kipkemoi Soi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Confirmation of Grant and Protest
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the proposed mode of distribution of the estate by the applicant should be adopted.
- 2 Whether the protestor's objection to the proposed distribution has merit.
- 3 Whether the clan elders' arbitration should guide the distribution of the estate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the parties had submitted themselves to the arbitration of the Kiptuiyek Clan elders, who determined a fair mode of distribution of the deceased's estate. The applicant's proposal reflected this arbitration and was considered equitable. The protestor's objection was found to lack merit as it did not align with the consensus reached through clan arbitration. The court therefore allowed the summons for confirmation of grant as prayed, directing that the estate be distributed in accordance with the applicant's proposal as set out in his affidavit.
Court Disposition
Protest dismissed; summons for confirmation of grant allowed as prayed.
Orders
- The summons for confirmation of grant dated 3rd October 2013 is allowed as prayed.
- The estate to be distributed as proposed in paragraph 6 of the affidavit of Henry Kipkoros Tonui sworn on 3rd October 2013.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KERICHO
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO.26 OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF
CHEPSIONGOK MOSONIK – DECEASED
AND
HENRY KIPKOROS TONUI ..............................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
KIPKEMOI SOI .................................................................PROTESTOR
R U L I N G
The ruling is the outcome of the summons for confirmation of grant dated 3rd October 2013 and the subsequent affidavit of protest. Henry Kipkoros Tonui the Applicant took out the summons for confirmation of grant dated 3rd October 2013 where of he proposed for the Estate of Chepsiongok Mosonik, deceased to be distributed as follows:-
Kipkemoi Soi - 2. 223 Acres (on one part)
Henry Kipkoros Tonui - 0. 741 Acres (on the other part)
But the same shall be shared equally between Henry Kipkoros Tonui, Rebman K. Tanui and Rogers C. A. Tonui i.e.
Henry Kipkoros Tonui - 0. 741 Acres
Rebman Kipkurui Tanui - 0. 741 Acres
Roger C. A. Tonui - 0. 741 Acres
Kipkemoi Soi, hereinafter referred to as the Protestor filed an affidavit of Protest objecting to the mode of distribution proposed by the Applicant. The Protestor instead proposed for the Estate to be shared as follows:
Kipkemoi Soi - Kericho/Kapsuser/1669 3. 246 Acres.
Who is the only son to the deceased.
GRANDSONS TO CHESONGOK MOSONIK
Henry Kipkoros Tonui - Kericho/Kapsuser/1669 0. 40 Acres
Rebman Tonui - Kericho/Kapsuser/1669 0. 40 Acres
Rogers C. A. Tonui - Kericho/Kapsuser/1669 0. 40 Acres
When the dispute came up for hearing, this court directed the same to be disposed of by affidavit evidence and written submissions.
I have considered the grounds set out on the face of the summons and the facts deponed in the affidavits filed for and against the summons. I have further taken into account the written submissions filed herein. The applicant is of the view that the property should be shared equally between the duo as directed by Kiptuiyek Clan elders. It is apparent from the Applicant’s submission that his view is that the beneficiaries of the deceased’s Estate had agreed on the mode of distribution he had proposed. I am convinced the protagonists herein submitted themselves to the clan elders to offer a solution on how the deceased’s Estate should be shared. The schedule of distribution proposed by the Petitioner appears to be fair and in accordance with the arbitration of the clan elders. I find the protest to be without merit. The summons for confirmation of grant dated 3rd October 2013 is allowed as prayed. The Estate to be distributed as proposed in paragraph 6 of the affidavit of Henry Kipkoros Tonui sworn on 3rd October 2013. The disputants are members of the same family hence each should meet his own costs.
Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Kericho this 16th day of May 2014.
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Maengwe for Applicant
Protestor: present in person