[2016] KEHC 4679 (KLR)
The court found that although the administrators had proposed a mode of distribution and listed all children, there was no provision made for the 2nd wife of the deceased. The omission was considered significant and required clarification, as the law mandates provision for all dependants, including widows. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 4679 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Loyford Muturi Kariba; Applicant: Charles Renji Muchira; Respondent: B.G.
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 280 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Confirmation of Grant
- Outcome
- Further information required before confirmation of grant; application deferred.
- Judges
- F Gikonyo
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Confirmation of Grant, Provision for Dependants, Distribution of Estate
- 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
Loyford Muturi Kariba
Applicant
Charles Renji Muchira
Applicant
B.G.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Confirmation of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for confirmation of grant can be allowed in the absence of provision for the 2nd wife of the deceased.
- 2 Whether the administrators have complied with the legal requirements for distribution of the estate among all dependants.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the administrators had proposed a mode of distribution and listed all children, there was no provision made for the 2nd wife of the deceased. The omission was considered significant and required clarification, as the law mandates provision for all dependants, including widows. The absence of a formal protest does not absolve the court from ensuring compliance with the law. Therefore, the court directed the administrators to provide information or clarification regarding provision for the 2nd wife before a decision on confirmation of the grant could be rendered.
Court Disposition
Further information required before confirmation of grant; application deferred.
Orders
- The administrators are directed to provide information or clarification regarding provision for the 2nd wife of the deceased before the court renders a decision on the confirmation application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
IN THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 280 OF 2012
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF GACHEKI MUCHAIRU ( DECEASED)
LOYFORD MUTURI KARIBA..................................1ST ADMINISTRATOR
CHARLES RENJI MUCHIRA................................2ND ADMINISTRATOR
RULING
Failure to provide for a widow
[1] Before me is an application dated 27th August, 2015 for confirmation of grant issued on 2nd June 2015 before expiry of six months as required in law. But I wish to quickly state that now over six months have passed by and I will treat this application as an ordinary application for confirmation of grant. There seems to be no objection to confirmation of grant as the mode of distribution proposed by the administrators. For clarity, the earlier objection raised herein was determined and resulted into annulment of the earlier grant and a fresh grant of representation was made to the administrators herein. I note also that all the children of the deceased have also been listed in paragraph2 of the said affidavit. Again, this estate involves two houses; that of Muthoni Gacoki (1st wife) and Teresia Gaiti Gachoki (2nd wife)- a fact that is disclosed in paragraph 3 of the Affidavit in support of the application for confirmation. There is therefore no major hurdle which may prevent confirmation of the grant. However, one matter is troubling my mind. Whereas there is provision for the 1st wife, there is none for the 2ndwife. I consider that matter to be important yet no explanationwas given about it.I am inclined, therefore, to seek for that information before I can confirm the grant. I make this decision fully aware that no formal protest has beenfiled by the 1st wife but the omission, if at all is glaring and being a matter of law the court should be satisfied about. Accordingly, I direct the administrator to provide the said informationor clarification to court forthwith after which I willrender my decision on confirmation application dated 27th August, 2015. It is so ordered.
Dated, Delivered and Signed in open court at Meru this 16th day of June, 2016
F. GIKONYO
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Mr. Kirimi advocate for the applicant
B.G. for respondent absent.
F. GIKONYO
JUDGE