[2020] KEHC 8390 (KLR)
The court found that the application for confirmation of grant was premature as the administrators had not reached consensus on the distribution of the estate among all beneficiaries. The protests were merited, particularly as some beneficiaries, including daughters, were excluded from the proposed distribution. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 8390 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Nicholas Omondi Orondo; Respondent: Walter Oyoyo Ouko; Respondent: Mark Okori Otieno
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Homa Bay
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 78 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Protests to Confirmation of Grant
- Outcome
- Protests upheld; confirmation of grant held in abeyance.
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Confirmation of Grant, Estate Distribution, Administrator Duties
- 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
Nicholas Omondi Orondo
Applicant
Walter Oyoyo Ouko
Respondent
Mark Okori Otieno
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Protests to Confirmation of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the summons for confirmation of grant was premature due to lack of consensus among administrators and beneficiaries.
- 2 Whether the exclusion of certain beneficiaries, specifically daughters, from the proposed distribution was lawful.
- 3 Whether the protests to the confirmation of grant should be upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for confirmation of grant was premature as the administrators had not reached consensus on the distribution of the estate among all beneficiaries. The protests were merited, particularly as some beneficiaries, including daughters, were excluded from the proposed distribution. The court held that confirmation of grant should only proceed after all beneficiaries are included and an agreement is reached. The period for reaching such agreement was limited to four months, failing which the current administrators may be removed or additional administrators appointed to ensure proper distribution.
Court Disposition
Protests upheld; confirmation of grant held in abeyance.
Orders
- The summons for confirmation of grant is held in abeyance until all beneficiaries agree on a mode of distribution.
- Administrators and beneficiaries must reach an agreement within four months from the date of the ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT HOMA BAY
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO.78 OF 2014
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF:
MATHEW OMOLLO OYOYO alias MATHEW OYOYO..... DECEASED
AND
NICHOLAS OMONDI ORONDO......................APPLICANT/OBJECTOR
VERSUS
WALTER OYOYO OUKO....................1ST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER
MARK OKORI OTIENO.....................2ND RESPONDENT/PETITIONER
RULING
[1] By a ruling of this court made on the 12th February 2019, the grant of letters of administration Intestate issued to Walter Oyoyo Ouko and Mark Okori Otieno, on the 17th December, 2014, respecting the estate of Mathews Omollo Oyoyo alias Mathew Oyoyo (deceased) was revoked together with the ensuing certificate of confirmation of grant dated 9th March 2016, with an order that a fresh grant do issue in favour of Walter Oyoyo Ouko and Nicholas Omondi Orondo and be confirmed within six (6) months from that date or any shorter period that the parties may deem necessary.
Accordingly, on the 20th June 2019, an application for confirmation ofgrant was presented vide summons for confirmation of grant dated 10thApril 2019. However, an affidavit of protest to the summons dated 21stAugust 2019, was filed on 22ndAugust 2019 byMargret Achieng Oyoyo, in her capacity as an alleged beneficiary of the deceased’s estate.
A second affidavit of protest dated 9th September 2019, was filed on 18th September 2019, by Walter Oyoyo Ouko, who is the first administrator and applicant in the impugned summons for confirmation even though the affidavit in support of the summons was deponed by his co-administrator/applicant; Nicholas Omondi Orondo.
[2]It seems that the two administrators did not sit down and agree on the distribution of the estate to all the beneficiaries. This explains the reason for the protest by the first administrator and implies that the application for confirmation of the grant was rather pre-mature and was made without consensus of all the beneficiaries.
The first protest by Margret confirms the lack of consensus inasmuch as she alleges that she is excluded from the distribution of the estate alongside other daughters of the deceased.
[3]For all the foregoing reasons, both protests are merited and are hereby upheld with the result that the impugned summons for confirmation of grant be held in abeyance until such time that the administrators and indeed all beneficiaries of the estate shall agree on a mode of distribution which shall take into account all the identified beneficiaries, be they male or female. In that regard, the period within which an agreement must be reached in order to facilitate the issuance of the necessary certificate of confirmation of grant be and is hereby limited to four (4) months from this date hereof. In default, it shall be deemed that the current crop of administrators have failed in their duty of distributing the estate and could thus be removed as such and be replaced by new administrator or be enjoined with an additional two administrators to fastrack and facilitate proper distribution of the estate among the identified beneficiaries.
Ordered accordingly.
J.R. KARANJAH
JUDGE
05. 02. 2020
[Dated and signed this 5th day of February, 2020]