[2023] KEHC 23780 (KLR)
The court found that there was no dispute as to the identity of the beneficiaries or the assets comprising the estate. The protestors' objections were limited to allegations of lack of consent and bad faith, but they failed to propose any alternative mode of distribution or contest the existence of the assets. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 23780 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Erick Kipyegon Sang; Applicant: Cherotich Viviline Ngeno; Respondent: Gilbert Kiprono Sang; Respondent: Richard Kipkemoi Sang; Respondent: Kenneth Kiprotich Sang; Respondent: Robert Kibet Sang; Respondent: Nancy Chepkemoi Maritim
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause E004 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- Summons for confirmation of grant allowed; protest dismissed.
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Intestate Succession, Confirmation of Grant, Distribution of Estate, Beneficiary Rights
- 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
Erick Kipyegon Sang
Applicant
Cherotich Viviline Ngeno
Applicant
Gilbert Kiprono Sang
Respondent
Richard Kipkemoi Sang
Respondent
Kenneth Kiprotich Sang
Respondent
Robert Kibet Sang
Respondent
Nancy Chepkemoi Maritim
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the summons for confirmation of grant met the legal requirements for consent by all beneficiaries.
- 2 Whether the proposed mode of distribution of the deceased's estate was fair and lawful.
- 3 Whether the protestors' objections to the confirmation of grant had merit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there was no dispute as to the identity of the beneficiaries or the assets comprising the estate. The protestors' objections were limited to allegations of lack of consent and bad faith, but they failed to propose any alternative mode of distribution or contest the existence of the assets. The court determined that the petitioners' proposed distribution was fair and in accordance with the law, as all beneficiaries were included and the assets were to be divided equally, except for one asset specifically allocated. The protestors' failure to substantiate their claims or provide a viable alternative led the court to dismiss the protest and confirm the grant as proposed...
Court Disposition
Summons for confirmation of grant allowed; protest dismissed.
Orders
- The estate of Grace Chepkirui Ngeno to be distributed as proposed in the affidavit supporting the summons for confirmation of grant dated September 22, 2022.
- Kenya Commercial Bank Limited shares to be divided equally among the 12 beneficiaries.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
In re Estate of Grace Chepkirui Ngeno (Deceased) (Succession Cause E004 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 23780 (KLR) (19 October 2023) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 23780 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kericho
Succession Cause E004 of 2022
JK Sergon, J
October 19, 2023
Between
Erick Kipyegon Sang
1st Petitioner
Cherotich Viviline Ngeno
2nd Petitioner
and
Gilbert Kiprono Sang
1st Protestor
Richard Kipkemoi Sang
2nd Protestor
Kenneth Kiprotich Sang
3rd Protestor
Robert Kibet Sang
4th Protestor
Nancy Chepkemoi Maritim
5th Protestor
Judgment
1. The 1st and the 2nd petitioners herein who are the joint administrators of the estate of Grace Chepkirui Ngeno, the deceased herein, filed summons for confirmation of grant seeking to have the grant of letters of administration issued to them on March 11, 2022 be confirmed.
2. The petitioners filed an affidavit in support of the summons for confirmation of grant dated September 22, 2022 sworn by Viviline Cherotich Ngeno, the 2nd petitioner herein and stated that the deceased died intestate and left the following dependents;i.Alice Koech Ngeno Daughterii.Erick Kipyegon Sang Soniii.Nancy Chepkemoi Ngeno Maritim Daughteriv.Jane Koech Survived ByHillary Kimutai Deceased Daughterv.Irine Chepngeno Ngeno Daughtervi.Gladys Chelangat Daughtervii.Richard Kipkemoi Sang Sonviii.Robert Kibet Sang Sonix.Kenneth Kipngetich Sang Sonx.Viviline Cherotich Ngeno Daughterxi.Beatrice Chebet Ngeno Daughterxii.Gilbert Kiprono Sang Son
3. She averred that the deceased had the following assets;i.Kenya Commercial Bank Limited Shares.ii.Standard Chartered Bank Sharesiii.National Industrial Credit Limited Sharesiv.ABSA Bank Shares.v.NIC Bank Sharesvi.Image Registrarsvii.Chepsir/Kapketunga women’s group shares.
4. That no application of provision for dependants was pending and that it is now over six (6) months since the grant was issued and no objection had been contemplated and that there was no dependant of the deceased who had been left out hence the identification and distribution of the estate of the deceased be ascertained and determined as follows:i.Kenya Commercial Bank Limited shares to be divided equally among the 12 beneficiaries.ii.Standard Chartered Bank shares to be divided equally among the 12 beneficiaries.iii.National Industrial Credit Limited Shares to be divided equally among the 12 beneficiaries.iv.ABSA Bank Shares to be divided equally among the 12 beneficiaries.v.NIC Bank Shares to be divided equally among the 12 beneficiaries.vi.Image Registrars Shares to be divided equally among the 12 beneficiaries.vii.Chepsir/Kapketunga women’s group shares to be given to Kenneth Kiprotich Sang
5. She averred that no estate duty was payable in respect of the Estate of the deceased hence the court ought to confirm the grant.
6. Gilbert Kiprono Sang, Richard Kipkemoi Sang, Kenneth Kiprotich Sang, Robert Kibet Sang and Nancy Chepkemoi Maritim filed an affidavit of protest dated June 26, 2023 whereby they averred that the consent to the making of Grant of Letters of Administration Intestate dated September 22, 2022 was never signed or presented to the protestors herein, hence the purported summons for confirmation dated September 22, 2022 lacked the legal force of law for confirmation and did not meet the threshold set out by the law of succession on the requirements for consent to the summons in support.
7. That mode of distribution as per the Summons for Confirmation is highly contested by the protestors herein who had never participated or included by the petitioners in any manner whatsoever, in so far as the distribution of the estate of the deceased is concerned and that the same was a mere creation of the petitioners for their own selfish gains.
8. They averred that the pleadings on record by the petitioners are forgeries since no meeting has ever been held by the beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased on and for deliberations in regard to the distribution of the estate of the deceased
9. They further averred that the institution of the cause herein, the appointment of the administrators herein and the petitioners are in a plot to hurriedly rush the court to having the estate distributed as per their wishes against the laws governing proceedings in succession matters.
10. That the instant application for confirmation of grant has been brought in bad faith, to arbitrarily defeat, frustrate and abuse the course of justice and the court process.
11. I have considered the Summons for confirmation of grant and the supporting affidavit as well as the Affidavit of Protest. It is clear that there is no dispute about the beneficiaries. From the Affidavits and evidence given by parties, there is no liability of the estate listed neither has there been an application by any other person laying claim on the estate. I find that the main issue for determination is how the deceased estate should be distributed.
12. The protestors herein have just alleged that the instant application was brought in bad faith and that they highly contest the mode of distribution proposed by the petitioners’ but they have not proposed their preferred mode of distribution. The protestors did not contest the existence of the assets listed by the petitioners either. I find that the Petitioners proposed mode of distribution is fair in the circumstances.
13. The upshot therefore is that the Summons for Confirmation of Grant dated September 22, 2022 allowed.a.The Estate of Grace Chepkirui Ngeno be distributed as proposed in the Affidavit Supporting the Summons for confirmation of grant dated September 22, 2022 as follows:i.Kenya Commercial Bank Limited shares to be divided equally among the 12 beneficiaries.ii.Standard Chartered Bank shares to be divided equally among the 12 beneficiaries.iii.National Industrial Credit Limited Shares to be divided equally among the 12 beneficiaries.iv.ABSA Bank Shares to be divided equally among the 12 beneficiaries.v.NIC Bank Shares to be divided equally among the 12 beneficiaries.vi.Imagine Registrars Shares to be divided equally among the 12 beneficiaries.vii.Chepsir/Kapketunga women’s group shares to be given to Kenneth Kiprotich Sangb.The Affidavit of Protest against Confirmation of Grant dated June 26, 2023 is dismissed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023………….…………….J.K. SERGONJUDGEIn the presence of:C/Assistant - RutohNo Appearance for the PetitionersNo Appearance for the Beneficiaries