[2020] KEHC 2741 (KLR)
The court found that the 1st petitioner had provided sufficient evidence, on a balance of probabilities, that Kitale Municipality Residential Plot No. 10/94/58 was purchased by the deceased and forms part of the estate. As there was no opposition to the proposed mode of distribution and all parties had consented,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 2741 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Robai Syalo Lutilo; Applicant: Josephine Lutilo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 253 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Final Distribution of Estate
- Outcome
- Estate distributed as proposed by the administrators; no opposition.
- Judges
- DO Ohungo
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Estate Distribution, Administration of Estates
- 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
Robai Syalo Lutilo
Applicant
Josephine Lutilo
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Final Distribution of Estate
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the undeveloped plot Kitale Municipality Residential Plot No. 10/94/58 forms part of the deceased's estate.
- 2 What is the appropriate mode of distribution of the estate properties among the beneficiaries.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the 1st petitioner had provided sufficient evidence, on a balance of probabilities, that Kitale Municipality Residential Plot No. 10/94/58 was purchased by the deceased and forms part of the estate. As there was no opposition to the proposed mode of distribution and all parties had consented, the court saw no reason to disturb the proposal. The estate is to be distributed as per the proposal: Kitale Municipality LR No. 2116/25/IV to the 1st administrator, Kitale Residential Plot No. 10/94/58 to the 2nd administrator, and Matunda Market M.B Block 1/4018 to the 2nd administrator.
Court Disposition
Estate distributed as proposed by the administrators; no opposition.
Orders
- Kitale Municipality LR No. 2116/25/IV to be given to the 1st administrator (Robai Syalo Lutilo).
- Kitale Residential Plot No. 10/94/58 to be given to the 2nd administrator (Josephine Lutilo).
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 253 OF 2003
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD SYALO LUTILO (DECEASED)
ROBAI SYALO LUTILO.................................1ST ADMINISTRATOR
JOSEPHINE LUTILO.....................................2ND ADMINISTRATOR
RULING
Background:
What was pending before the court is the filing of valuation reports of the three properties that form the estate of the EDWARD SYALO LUTILO (deceased) for the purposes pf the court making final orders on the distribution of the estate. there was judgment on the matter but there had been no directions given as to distribution.
1ST PETITIONER’S CASE
The 1st petitioner (ROBAI SYALO LUTILO) referred to the valuation reports of the properties were filed on 15th May 2017. As regards the undeveloped plot; KITALE MUNICIPALITY RESIDENTIAL PLOT NO. 10/94/58, she relied on the documents filed in court on 15th May 2017 showing purchase of the property by the deceased, pointing out that the family of the deceased is in occupation of that parcel. The 1st administrator is ready and willing to transfer possession to the family after succession is complete.
She reiterated the position in their submissions filed on 10th December 2012, which proposed that the 1st administrator ought to get KITALE MUNICIPALITY LR NO. 2116/25/IV and (JOSEPHINE LUTILO) the 2nd administrator be given KITALE RESIDENTIAL PLOT NO. 10/94/58 and plot no. MATUNDA MARKET M.B BLOCK 1/4018 respectively.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
1. Distribution of the estate
DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTATE
There is no opposition to the proposed mode of distribution by any party. The issue that had arisen as per the record of the court on 25th March 2019 was the ownership of the undeveloped plot; KITALE MUNICIPALITY RESIDENTIAL PLOT NO. 10/94/58. It was not clear as to whether it formed part of the estate. The 1st petitioner filed a sale agreement dated 4th February 2002 as proof of the ownership of the property. She also attached proof of payment of instalments for the property although some are not clear. I find that on a balance of probabilities the deceased purchased the property and it formed part of the estate.
Since that there is no opposition to the proposed mode of distribution I see no reason to disturb the same. The property should be distributed as proposed.
Delivered on line and dated this 4th Day of May 2020 upon written consent of all counsel
H.A. OMONDI
JUDGE