[2018] KEHC 9526 (KLR)
The court found that the certificate of confirmation of grant lacked essential details regarding the names of the beneficiaries and the specific acreage each was to receive, which was necessary for the implementation of the court's prior distribution order. The respondent's intention to appeal did not amount to a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 9526 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jane Nyambura Mungai; Respondent: Agnes Wambui Kinyanjui
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 327 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Rectification of Certificate of Confirmation
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- AO Muchelule, JO Nyarangi
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Intestate Estate Distribution, Rectification of Grant, Beneficiary Entitlement
- 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
Jane Nyambura Mungai
Applicant
Agnes Wambui Kinyanjui
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Rectification of Certificate of Confirmation
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the certificate of confirmation of grant should be rectified to specify the names of beneficiaries and their respective shares in the estate.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to execution of the confirmed grant in the absence of a stay or appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the certificate of confirmation of grant lacked essential details regarding the names of the beneficiaries and the specific acreage each was to receive, which was necessary for the implementation of the court's prior distribution order. The respondent's intention to appeal did not amount to a stay of execution, and no evidence of an appeal or stay was presented. Therefore, the applicant was entitled to have the certificate rectified to reflect the beneficiaries and their respective shares as previously ordered by the court. The application for rectification was allowed, specifying the distribution of the estate among the named beneficiaries.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Jane Nyambura Mungai shall get Kiambaa/Ruaka/913.
- Grace Wanjiru Kihuyu will get 0.127Ha of Kiambaa/Ruaka/914.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
FAMILY DIVISION
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 327 OF 2002
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF DANSON KIHOYO MUCHANO (DECEASED)
JANE NYAMBURA MUNGAI……………….….......... APPLICANT
VERSUS
AGNES WAMBUI KINYANJUI……….......………......RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The deceased Danson Kihoyo Muchano died intestate on 26th January 1993. On 16th April 2002 a grant of letters of administration intestate was issued to the applicant Jane Nyambura Mungai and the respondent Agnes Wambui Kinyanjui. The same was amended on 29th September 2003. It has been found by this court that the deceased left only Kiambaa/Ruaka/527 measuring 1. 12Ha. The same was subsequently subdivided into Kiambaa/Ruaka/913 and 914. It was directed that the applicant be given Kiambaa/Ruaka/913, and that Kiambaa/Ruaka/914 be divided equally to the three houses left by the deceased. The grant was confirmed on 16th May 2014 in those terms.
2. The applicant brought the present summons dated 3rd June 2016 seeking rectification of the certificate of confirmation to indicate the names from the houses to which the particular portions would go, and the acreage of each recipient. She proposed as follows:
a) the applicant to receive 0. 584Ha of Kiambaa/ Ruaka/913;
b) Grace Wanjiru Kihuyu to get 0. 127Ha of Kiambaa/ Ruaka/914;
c) the respondent to get 0. 127Ha of Kiambaa/ Ruaka/914; and
d) Danson Kinyanjui Mungai and Simon Waweru Mungai to equally share 0. 127Ha of Kiambaa/Ruaka/914.
3. The applicant’s case was that the certificate of confirmation had not indicated the names of the beneficiaries, and had not indicated how much land each was going to get. This information, she deponed, was crucial for the implementation of the certificate of confirmation.
4. The respondent opposed the application through her replying affidavit dated 4th November 2016. Her case was that she had been aggrieved by the distribution that the court had ordered through the ruling dated 16th May 2014, and that she had instructed her advocates to challenge the same by appealing to the Court of Appeal.
5. The respondent is entitled to appeal, if she is not satisfied with the ruling that was rendered on 16th May 2014 regarding how the estate of the deceased should be distributed. Presently, however, there is no appeal. If there is, she has not sought or obtained stay of execution. On the other hand, the applicant has a decision which she is entitled to execute. She asks that, in accordance with section 71 of the Law of Succession Act (Cap. 160), the court does indicate the respective identities and shares of all persons beneficially entitled; that this should be in accordance with the decision that the court has earlier issued.
6. I allow the application dated 3rd June 2016 in terms that Jane Nyambura Mungai shall get Kiambaa/Ruaka/913; Grace Wanjiru Kihuyu will get 0. 127Ha of Kiambaa/Ruaka/914; Agnes Wambui Kinyanjui will get 0. 127Ha of Kiambaa/Ruaka/914; and Danson Kinyanjui and Simon Waweru Mungai will equally share 0. 127Ha of Kiambaa/Ruaka/914.
7. This is a family dispute. I ask that each side shall bear own costs.
DATED and SIGNED at NAIROBI 11TH OCTOBER 2018
A.O. MUCHELULE
JUDGE
DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI 17TH OCTOBER 2018
J.N. ONYIEGO
JUDGE