[2024] KEHC 8779 (KLR)
The court determined that distributing the Sabatia land (valued at approximately Kshs.10 million) to the 1st house and the Kabarak land (valued at up to Kshs.430 million) to the 2nd house would result in a grossly unequal and unjust distribution of the estate. The principle of equality among beneficiaries requires...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 8779 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Jeniffer Karanja Mbugua
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 155 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Directions After Valuation Reports and Prior to Final Distribution Order
- Outcome
- Directions issued; no final distribution order made. Parties to negotiate and propose an equal value distribution.
- Judges
- HM Nyaga
- Legal Topics
- Succession Estate Distribution, Valuation of Estate Assets, Equal Sharing Among Beneficiaries
- 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
Jeniffer Karanja Mbugua
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Directions After Valuation Reports and Prior to Final Distribution Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the distribution of the estate between the 1st and 2nd houses is equal and just in light of the valuation reports.
- 2 How to achieve equality in distribution when estate assets differ significantly in value and acreage.
- 3 Whether the court should order relocation or redistribution of beneficiaries to achieve equality.
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that distributing the Sabatia land (valued at approximately Kshs.10 million) to the 1st house and the Kabarak land (valued at up to Kshs.430 million) to the 2nd house would result in a grossly unequal and unjust distribution of the estate. The principle of equality among beneficiaries requires that shares be equal in value, not merely in acreage. Given the significant disparity in the value of the two properties as established by independent valuation reports, the court declined to make a final distribution order at this stage. Instead, the court directed the parties to negotiate and propose a mode of distribution that ensures each beneficiary receives an equal share...
Court Disposition
Directions issued; no final distribution order made. Parties to negotiate and propose an equal value distribution.
Orders
- Parties are directed to sit down and agree on a mode of distribution that ensures each beneficiary receives an equal share of the estate in terms of value.
- The 1st house's share is to be assigned a value of Kshs.10 million, as per the valuation reports.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
In re Estate of Elisha Chemwetich Kandagor (Deceased) (Succession Cause 155 of 2017) [2024] KEHC 8779 (KLR) (19 July 2024) (Directions)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 8779 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nakuru
Succession Cause 155 of 2017
HM Nyaga, J
July 19, 2024
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE ELISHA CHEMWETICH KANDAGOR (DECEASED)
Directions
1. In my Ruling delivered on 18th October, 2023, I had directed that the two properties namely: - L.R No.9413/15 (I.R.57223) (Kabarak)
L.R. No. Baringo/Sabatia 103/39 (Sabatia)
Be valued and reports be tendered to court.
2. That directive was compiled with as two reports by Kaerad Card Limited have been presented to the court. They are to the effect that:a.Sabatia land measuring approximately 21. 25 acres has a market value of Kshs.10 million. This means the valuation at around 470 per acre.b.Kabarak land measuring about 51. 5 acres has a market value of Kshs.280,000,000. This puts the price at around Kshs.5. 4 million an acre.
3. There was also a report filed by Lipak Consultants Ltd. The same found the properties valued as follows: -a.Baringo/Sabatia 103/39 was found to measure 21. 5 acres and was valued at Kshs.8. 5 million. This translates to about Kshs.400,000 per acre.b.L.R. 9413/15 (I.R. 57223) was found to measure 51. 4 9 acres and was valued at Kshs.430 million. This translates to around Kshs.8. 35 per acre.
4. It is then obvious that asking the 1st house to be content with the land at Sabatia and the 2nd have to take the land at Kabarak would create a very unequal mode of distribution.
5. It would be unconscionable to allow such a distribution which is evidently unjust and unfair.
6. Clearly, it can now be seen why the latter was so hotly contested.
7. The law, and as restated in the authorities cited earlier, is that there ought to be equal distribution of the estate among the beneficiaries.
8. Equal is a term that may not be defined legally. For instance, does it refer to acreage of land or the value of the land. All these are abstract permutations used and terms used and there cannot be a scientifically accurate way of ensuring equality. The Court does its best to ensure that the parties are generally given equal shares of the estate in terms of value.
9. It is apparent that the 1st house settled on the land at Sabatia, which is smaller and of lesser value than the land at Kabarak, where the 2nd family was settled. A way has to be found so that the members of the first house get a share that is equal in value as those of the 2nd house.
10. That is easier said than done, and given the issue that arose herein, there are other competing interests like those of 1st house daughters.
11. It would not be in the interest of the parties to make major relocations as a result of the distribution. It may be that they all have developed certain sections of the deceased’s land.
12. In my opinion, the best approach is to take account of the situation on the ground which is not specified to the court.
13. That being the case, I would be reluctant to make order right now.
14. I therefore direct that the parties sit down and see how each beneficiary will get an equal share4 of the estate in terms of value. The 1st house’s share will be take into account and be assigned a value of Kshs.10 million which is more or less the value given by the 2 valuers.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 19THDAY OF JULY, 2024. ..............H. M. NYAGA,JUDGE.In the presence of;C/A JenifferKaranja Mbugua for 3rd RespondentNo appearance for others.