[2015] KEHC 1644 (KLR)
The court held that the applicants had no legal authority to transact or deal with the share of the estate of Gladys Nini George, as no grant of representation had been issued in respect of her estate. Any purported sale or transfer of her share in the estate property was unlawful and amounted to intermeddling under...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 1644 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: First Applicant (Name not provided); Applicant: Second Applicant (Name not provided); Respondent: Respondent (Name not provided)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 855 of 1995
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Fence Off Portion of Estate Property Pending Administration of Beneficiary's Estate
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Succession of Estates, Intermeddling With Estate, Sale of Estate Property, Confirmation of Grant
- 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
First Applicant (Name not provided)
Applicant
Second Applicant (Name not provided)
Applicant
Respondent (Name not provided)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Fence Off Portion of Estate Property Pending Administration of Beneficiary's Estate
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants had legal authority to transact or deal with the share of the estate of Gladys Nini George before obtaining representation over her estate.
- 2 Whether the sale agreement between the applicants regarding the estate property was valid and lawful.
- 3 Whether the second applicant is entitled to fence off a portion of Dagoretti/Waithaka/159 pending administration of Gladys Nini George's estate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicants had no legal authority to transact or deal with the share of the estate of Gladys Nini George, as no grant of representation had been issued in respect of her estate. Any purported sale or transfer of her share in the estate property was unlawful and amounted to intermeddling under Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act. Furthermore, Section 82(b)(ii) of the Act expressly prohibits the sale of immovable property before confirmation of grant, and since no grant had been issued for Gladys Nini George's estate, the transaction was a nullity and illegal. The application to fence off the property was therefore without merit and was dismissed with costs to...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application dated 9th April 2014 is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 855 OF 1995
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF GEORGE MBUGUA NGARI (DECEASED)
RULING
The application dated 9th April 2014 seeks that the second applicant be allowed to fence off an 1/8 of Dagoretti/Waithaka/159 as the first applicant and the respondent pursues letters of administration in respect of the estate of Gladys Nini George.
The cause relates to the estate of George Ngari who died testate on 3rd August 1994. Representation was granted to his sons; Jason Mbugua and Sammy Ngari Mbugua, on 17th December 1999. The said grant was confirmed on 28th July 2000. The subject property, Dagoretti/Waithaka/159, was to be shared equally between the widows of the deceased – Gladys Nini, Esther Wanjiku and Susan Gathoni.
On 4th June 2011, the second applicant entered into a sale agreement with the first applicant to acquire an 1/8 of Dagoretti/Mutuini/159 for a consideration. The interest purportedly sold was what the first applicant considered to be his share in the share of his mother in Dagoretti/Waithaka/159.
It transpires that the first applicant’s mother, Gladys Nini, died and her children have been unable to take representation over her estate. They have resorted to having the matter resolved administratively through various government departments.
The second applicant has moved to court in an effort to secure what he considers to be his interest in the property.
The interest that was sold to the second applicant comprised of a share in the estate of the deceased herein allotted to a beneficiary who has since died. Upon confirmation, that share formed part of the estate of the dead beneficiary. In my view, transfers of interests in that share cannot be the subject of the instant court proceedings. The matter can only be addressed in proceedings in the estate of the said beneficiary, Gladys Nini George.
I have noted that no representation has been granted in respect of the estate of the said Gladys Nini George. That being the case, her estate does not vest in any of her children, and therefore none of them has any right to transact any business with any third party over the property. Such dealings with the property are barred by Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act, Cap 160, Laws of Kenya. It amounts to meddling with the estate.
The sale transaction between the applicants contravened Section 45 of the Act. Both applicants intermeddled with the estate of the deceased by entering into a sale agreement on the assets without any legal authorization. Section 45 creates an offence relating to intermeddling and imposes criminal sanctions. The applicants are open to criminal prosecution. Their acts were unlawful and criminal, and the transaction was no doubt a nullity.
Then there is also Section 82(b)(ii) of the Act, which outlaws sale of immovable property before grant is confirmed. The interest allegedly sold to the second applicant was immovable property. There is no grant in respect of the estate of Gladys Nini George. The alleged sale therefore also contravenes Section 82(b) (ii) of the Act. It is an illegality under this provision.
In view of the above, there cannot be any merit in the application dated 9th April 2014. It awaits only one fate, dismissal. I do hereby dismiss the same with costs to the respondent.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015.
W. MUSYOKA
JUDGE