[2016] KEHC 2016 (KLR)
The court held that when a third party or beneficiary claims exclusive ownership of property listed as part of a deceased's estate, the probate court must set aside or remove the disputed asset from the schedule of estate assets pending determination of ownership by the appropriate court. The probate court's role is...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 2016 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: [Applicant's Name Not Provided]; Respondent: [Respondent's Name Not Provided]
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 1566 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Exclusion of Property From Estate
- Outcome
- Application allowed; disputed property set aside from estate pending determination of ownership by relevant court.
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Probate and Administration, Ownership Dispute, Estate Distribution
- 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
[Applicant's Name Not Provided]
Applicant
[Respondent's Name Not Provided]
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Exclusion of Property From Estate
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Plot No. 1 – 310 Mathare North should be excluded from the deceased's estate pending determination of ownership.
- 2 Whether the probate court has jurisdiction to determine ownership disputes over estate property.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that when a third party or beneficiary claims exclusive ownership of property listed as part of a deceased's estate, the probate court must set aside or remove the disputed asset from the schedule of estate assets pending determination of ownership by the appropriate court. The probate court's role is limited to distributing assets that are indisputably part of the estate. In this case, since the applicant claims exclusive ownership of Plot No. 1 – 310 Mathare North, the property must be set aside from the estate schedule, and the parties must seek a determination of ownership from the Environment and Land Court. If it is later determined that the property belongs to the...
Court Disposition
Application allowed; disputed property set aside from estate pending determination of ownership by relevant court.
Orders
- Plot No. 1 – 310 Mathare North is removed or set aside from the schedule of the assets of the estate.
- The applicant or administrators shall move the relevant court for a decree on the ownership of the said property.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 1566 OF 2013
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF FRANCIS PETER NJUGUNA RURIGI alias FRANCIS P. NJUGUNA RURIGI alias FRANCIS NJUGUNA alias F. P. NJUGUNA RURIGI alias FRANCIS PETER RURIGI (DECEASED)
RULING
1. The application I am called upon to determine is dated 26th November 2014, which seeks removal or exclusion of Plot No. 1 – 310 Mathare North from the schedule of the assets belonging to the deceased. The applicant asserts that the said asset did not belong to the deceased, but exclusively to her.
2. The respondent has opposed the application. She states that the deceased was the one who had purchased the property but inserted the name of the applicant, who was then his wife, as a co-owner. She asserts that the said asset forms part of the estate of the deceased.
3. I have noted from the record that Muchelule J. did grant orders on 1st February 2016 to preserve the said asset, and more particularly to stop the applicant from evicting tenants pending disposal of pending confirmation and protest proceedings.
4. Ideally, the issue being raised by the applicant in the instant application ought to be dealt with within the context of the confirmation and protest proceedings. That is provided for in Rule 42(2) (3) of the Probate and Administration Rules. I would though concede that it can also be handled prior to the hearing of the confirmation application.
5. Under Rule 42(2), it is provided as follows:-
‘Where a question arises as to the identity, share or estate of any person claiming to be beneficially interested in, or of any condition or qualification attaching to, such share or estate which cannot at that stage be conveniently determined, the court may prior to confirming the grant, but subject to the provisions of section 82 of the Act, by order appropriate and set aside the particular share or estate or the property comprising it to abide determination of the question arising in proceedings under Order XXXVI, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and may thereupon, subject to the proviso to section 71(2) of the Act, proceed to confirm the grant.’
6. My understanding of this is that where a claim is brought by anyone, whether a beneficiary or survivor of the deceased or even a third party, that he has an interest of one sort or other in estate property, such property shall be set aside or be removed from the schedule of assets to await determination of the question as to the interest of the claimant. Should it be established that the property or part thereof belongs to the claimant then the asset or part thereof remains removed from the schedule. However, should it be established that the claimant had no interest of any sort in it; the property is restored to the schedule and thereafter distributed under section 71 of the Act.
7. The nature of the proceedings for determining such interest is set out partly in Rule 41(3) and wholy in Rule 41(4). What is envisaged is an Originating Summons under the successor of Rule XXXVI Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rule. The summons ought to be at the instance of the administrator where the claimant is named as a respondent. That does not preclude a suit properly brought before the Environment and Land Court by the claimant against the estate under the Civil Procedure Act and Rules for determination of the question of ownership as between the deceased and the claimant. The effect of these provisions is that such questions ought not to be determined within the probate cause.
8. That should be the direction that ought to be taken in this matter. The applicant is claiming exclusive ownership of Plot No. 1 – 310 Mathare North. That is a matter that this court ought not to venture into determining. That is the exclusive province of the Environment and Land Court. The role of the probate court is to distribute those assets that are indisputably the deceased’s.
9. Going by the provisions of Rule 42(2)(3) of the Probate and Administration Rules I do hereby order that Plot No. 1 – 310 Mathare North be removed or set aside from the schedule of the assets of the estate. Thereafter, the applicant or the administrators shall move the relevant court for a decree on the ownership of the said property. If it turns out that the said asset is estate property, the administrators shall move this court in this cause on the strength of the said decree for the restoration of the asset to the schedule of the assets of the estate and its subsequent distribution. The setting aside of Plot No.1 – 310 Mathare North shall not be a bar to this court disposing of the pending confirmation and protest proceedings as they relate to the rest of the estate.
10. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016.
W. MUSYOKA
JUDGE