[2017] KEHC 4178 (KLR)
The court found that Magibai Dharamshi Puuja Shah, previously declared a dependant of the deceased, was now deceased and had no future needs. The funds in the Standard Chartered Bank account were adjudicated to belong to her estate, not to the estate of Vijaykumar Dharamshi Dhanani. Paryantray Dharamshi Dhanani, as...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 4178 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Saroj Rajnikant Dhanani; Respondent: Paryantray Dharamshi Dhanani; Beneficiary: Ravi Dhanani
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 1321 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Confirmation of Grant
- Outcome
- Summons for confirmation of grant allowed in part; estate to be distributed equally among the three children of the deceased.
- Judges
- REA Ougo
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Confirmation of Grant, Dependant Entitlement, Distribution of Estate, Reasonable Provision, Law of Succession Act
- 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
Saroj Rajnikant Dhanani
Applicant
Paryantray Dharamshi Dhanani
Respondent
Ravi Dhanani
Beneficiary
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Confirmation of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Paryantray Dharamshi Dhanani is entitled to a share of the deceased's estate as a dependant of Magibai Dharamshi Puuja Shah.
- 2 What assets form the estate of Vijaykumar Dharamshi Dhanani for distribution.
- 3 How the estate should be distributed among the beneficiaries.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that Magibai Dharamshi Puuja Shah, previously declared a dependant of the deceased, was now deceased and had no future needs. The funds in the Standard Chartered Bank account were adjudicated to belong to her estate, not to the estate of Vijaykumar Dharamshi Dhanani. Paryantray Dharamshi Dhanani, as administrator of Magibai's estate, was therefore not entitled to a share in the deceased's estate. The only assets available for distribution were Kajiado/Ntashart/2178-2205 (1/2 share), Kajiado/Kitengela/2645, and L.R. 1870/1/305, Upper Parklands. The court ordered that these assets be distributed equally among the three children of the deceased: Sonal Dhanani, Ravi Dhanani,...
Court Disposition
Summons for confirmation of grant allowed in part; estate to be distributed equally among the three children of the deceased.
Orders
- The assets Kajiado/Ntashart/2178-2205 (1/2 share), Kajiado/Kitengela/2645, and L.R. 1870/1/305, Upper Parklands shall be distributed equally among Sonal Dhanani, Ravi Dhanani, and Rishi Dhanani.
- Paryantray Dharamshi Dhanani is not entitled to any share in the estate of Vijaykumar Dharamshi Dhanani.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
53 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 1321 OF 2003
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF VIJAYKUMAR DHARAMSHI DHANANI (DECEASED)
SAROJ RAJNIKANT DHANANI…..……………………………APPLICANT
PARYANTRAY DHARAMSHI DHANANI….………..………RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The parties recorded consent with the applicant withdrawing application dated 28/8/2016. This in essence also led to the collapse of the Preliminary objection raised as the same was based on the said application.
2. The application coming for determination is dated 25/7/2014 which is summons for confirmation of grant. Parties recorded a consent that the same be dispensed with via affidavits. The court on 23rd June 2014 revoked the rectified confirmed grant issued on 8th March 2011 and parties were ordered to meet and agree on what formed the deceased’s estate and mode of distribution.
3. Paryntray Dharamshi Dhanani a brother to the deceased and a co-administrator to the deceased’s estate lists the following properties as the ones forming the deceased’s estate ;
i. Kajiado/Ntshart/2178-2205
ii. Kajiado/Kitengela/2645
iii. L.R. 1870/1/305- Upper Parklands
4. Funds held in Bank account No. [particulars withheld] , Standard Chartered Bank, Jersey Branch were held to belong to Magibai Dharamshi Puuja Shah (deceased) who was held to be a dependant of the deceased by Justice Gacheche in her Ruling dated 28th December 2008 and reiterate by this court in its ruling dated 20th March 2015. He added that he had since taken out a grant for Magibai’s estate hence entitled to a share she would have received. In his affidavit for mode of distribution dated 10th October 2016 Paryantray Dharamshi Dhanani proposed the said properties
a. Kajiado/Ntshart/2178-2205(1/2 share)
b. Kajiado/Kitengela/2645
c. L.R. 1870/1/305- upper Parklands
to be distributed equally to Paryantray Dharamshi Dhanani, Ravi Dhanani, Sonal Dhanani and Rishi Dhanani.
6. Sonal Dhanani in her affidavit dated 4th September 2014 lists the following as the assets of the deceased.
a. Bank Account No. [particulars withheld] held in Standard Chartered Bank
b. Kajiado/Ntashart/2178-2205(1/2 share)
c. Kajiado/Kitengela/2645
d. L.R. 1870/1/305- upper Parklands
with three (3) beneficiaries to the deceased’s estate namely Sonal Dhanani, Ravi Dhanani and Rishi Dhanani. It is important to note that this court had since settled the issue of the account Bank Account No. [particulars withheld] held in Standard Chartered Bank to belong to the late Magibai Dharamshi Puuja Shah and as such the same is not available for distribution in the deceased’s estate. This leaves only three properties namely;
b. Kajiado/Ntastart/2178-2205(1/2 share)
c. Kajiado/Kitengela/2645
d. L.R. 1870/1/305- upper Parklands for distribution between the beneficiaries of the deceased.
7. Magibai Dharamshi Puuja Shah had via the ruling dated 28th December 2008 had been declared a dependant of the deceased however she is since deceased. Sonal Dhanani proposes that each of the sibling to receive an equal 1/3 of the deceased’s estate.
8. In cases of dependency the court only provides reasonable provision for the party if proved she was a dependant but the same is not necessarily entitled to an equal share of the deceased’s estate as the rest of the beneficiaries of the deceased. Under Section 26 of the Law of Succession Act to make reasonable provision for the dependant. It provides that, “for dependants not adequately provided for by will or on Intestacy Where a person dies after the commencement of this Act, and so far as succession to his property is governed by the provisions of this Act, then on the application by or on behalf of a dependant, the court may, if it is of the opinion that the disposition of the deceased’s estate effected by his will, or by gift in contemplation of death, or the law relating to intestacy, or the combination of the will, gift and law, is not such as to make reasonable provision for that dependant, order that such reasonable provision as the court thinks fit shall be made for that dependant out of the deceased’s net estate.”
In exercise of its discretion, Section 28 provides that the court should have regard to -
“(a) the nature and amount of the deceased’s property;
(b) any past, present or future capital or income from any source of the dependant; the existing and future means and needs of the dependant;
(d) whether the deceased had made any advancement or other gift to the dependant during his lifetime;
(e) the conduct of the dependant in relation to the deceased;
(f) the situation and circumstances of the deceased’s other dependants and the beneficiaries under any will;
(g) the general circumstances of the case, including, so far as can be ascertained, the testator’s reasons for not making provision for the dependant.”
According to the affidavit of Paryntray Dharamshi Dhanani, Magibai Dharamshi Puuja Shah is deceased. In consideration of Section 28 (b) on any past, present or future capital or income from any source of the dependant; the existing and future means and needs of the dependant (emphasis mine). The late Magibai Dharamshi Puuja Shah is deceased and has no future needs it is also important to note that this court had found that money held in Bank Account No. [particulars withheld] held in Standard Chartered Bank to belong to her and as such she leaves behind a considerable estate being administered by the her son Paryntray Dharamshi Dhanani as such I find that Paryntray Dharamshi Dhanani is not entitled to any share in the late Vijaykumar Dharamshi Dhanani’s estate.
The assets forming the deceased’s estate namely
i. Kajiado/Ntastart/2178-2205(1/2 share)
ii. Kajiado/Kitengela/2645
iii. L.R. 1870/1/305 - upper Parklands
shall be distributed equally among the 3 children of the deceased namely;
i. Sonal Dhanani,
ii. Ravi Dhanani
iii. Rishi Dhanani
who are the bonafide beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate. Cost in the cause. It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered this 13thday of July, 2017.
R. E. OUGO
JUDGE
In the presence of;
Mr. Muigai for the Co. Administrator Ravi Dhanani
Mr. Mutinda holding brief for Mr. Mbindyo the Co. Administrator Paryantray Dharamshi Dhanani.
MS. Charity Court Clerk