[2019] KEHC 1530 (KLR)
The court found that the confirmed grant was issued prematurely and did not conform to the ruling of Ougo J dated 22nd November 2017. The ruling had set out two options for distribution of the estate: the first required valuation of L.R. Ndumberi/Ting’ang’a/T.20 and agreement among beneficiaries on the refund to be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 1530 (KLR)
- Parties
- Objector: Priscilla Mwara Kimani; Objector: James Muthama Hosea; Objector: Esther Gathoni Gicimu; Objector: Monica Wairimu Ngugi; Objector: Mary Wanjiru Wandau; Respondent: Nderitto Muruwa Gitau
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 136 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Execution of Transfer Forms and Interpretation of Confirmed Grant
- Outcome
- Confirmed grant set aside; new grant to issue in line with court's second option for distribution.
- Judges
- A Ali-Aroni
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Grant Confirmation, Estate Distribution, 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
Priscilla Mwara Kimani
Objector
James Muthama Hosea
Objector
Esther Gathoni Gicimu
Objector
Monica Wairimu Ngugi
Objector
Mary Wanjiru Wandau
Objector
Nderitto Muruwa Gitau
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Execution of Transfer Forms and Interpretation of Confirmed Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the confirmed grant issued conformed with the ruling of Ougo J dated 22nd November 2017.
- 2 Whether the distribution of L.R. Ndumberi/Ting’ang’a/799 and Title No. Ndumberi/Ting’ang’a/T.20 should follow the first or second option set out in the prior ruling.
- 3 Whether all beneficiaries, including Rahab Waruguru Gitau, were properly involved and consented to the distribution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the confirmed grant was issued prematurely and did not conform to the ruling of Ougo J dated 22nd November 2017. The ruling had set out two options for distribution of the estate: the first required valuation of L.R. Ndumberi/Ting’ang’a/T.20 and agreement among beneficiaries on the refund to be paid by Esther Gathoni Gicimu, failing which the second option would apply. Since there was no consensus among the beneficiaries and Rahab Waruguru Gitau was not involved, the first option could not be implemented. The respondent failed to provide an alternative valuation despite being given an opportunity. Consequently, the court held that the second option in Ougo J's ruling...
Court Disposition
Confirmed grant set aside; new grant to issue in line with court's second option for distribution.
Orders
- The confirmed grant is set aside.
- A new grant shall issue in accordance with the second option as set out in Ougo J's ruling: L.R. Ndumberi/Ting’ang’a/799 to be shared equally among James Muthama Hosea, Mary Wanjiru Wandau, Esther Gathoni Gicimu, Rahab Waruguru Gitau, and Nderitto Muruwa Gitau.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
44 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI
(FAMILY DIVISION)
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO 136 OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF HOSEA WANDAU KIANIA ALIAS H. WANDAU KIANIA (DECEASED)
PRISCILLA MWARA KIMANI
JAMES MUTHAMA HOSEA
ESTHER GATHONI GICIMU ...................................OBJECTORS
MONICA WAIRIMU NGUGI
MARY WANJIRU WANDAU
-VERUS-
NDERITTO MURUWA GITAU......PETITIONER/RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. The summons subject of this ruling is dated 25th of July 2018. It seeks to have the Deputy Registrar to execute transfer forms for L.R. No. Ndumberi/Ting’ang’a/779 and Title No. Ndumberi/Ting’ang’a/T.10 in line with the confirmation of the grant dated 22nd November, 2017.
2. The reasons for requesting the above prayer is because the Respondent Nderitto Muruwa Gitau and one other have declined to sign transmission documents.
3. On his part the Respondent objects to the prayers on grounds that the issued confirmed grant did not conform with the ruling of Ougo J of the 22nd of November 2017, secondly there was no valuation, and no consensus that their property L.R. Ting’ang’a/Ndumberi/T.20 measuring 0. 20 acres would go to Esther Gathoni further that the consent of one Rahab Waruguru Gitau a beneficiary was not obtained.
4. The issue in dispute in a nutshell is the interpretation of Ougo J’s ruling of 22nd November 2017 and secondly whether the confirmed grant as issued is in line with the said ruling.
5. Ougo J in her ruling in part stated thus:
“….. therefore L.R. Ndumberi/Ting’ang’a/799shall be shared amongst the 7 beneficiaries namely:
Priscilla Mwara Kimani
James Muthama Hosea
Monica Wairimu Ngugi
Mary Wanjiru Wandau
Esther Gathoni Gicimu
Rahab Waruguru Gitau, and
Nderitto Muruwa Gitau
L. R. No. Ndumberi/Ting’ang’a/T.20 shall go to Esther Gathoni Gicimu who will refund the other beneficiaries the value of the said property. The property shall be valued so that the parties know its current value and thereafter the parties shall agree on the sum to be paid to the beneficiaries. In the event they do not agree after valuation, then the said property shall be inherited by the two married sisters namely Pricilla Mwara Kimani and Monica Wairimu Ngugi and parcel No. Ndumberi/Ting’ang’a/799 shall be divided equally amongst the other five beneficiaries.”
The effect of the ruling was twofold; firstly, property Ndumberi/Ting’ang’a/T.20 was to be valued, parties were then to agree on how much would be refunded to other 6, once this had been achieved the said property would go to Esther Gathoni and the 2nd property would go to the other 6. If the first option was not achieved, Ndumberi/Ting’ang’a/T.20 was to go to Pricilla Mwara Kimani and Monica Wairimu NgugiandParcel No. Ndumberi/Ting’ang’a/79 be divided equally amongst the other five beneficiaries.
6. The confirmed grant was obtained prematurely as it covers the 1st option without, yet the option did not work and to that extend it did not conform with the ruling.
7. A valuation was done on the 25th of February 2019. The Respondent indicated that he did not agree with it. An opportunity was given to him to get his own valuation he has to-date failed to file one. Rahab Waruguru Gitau a widow of the beneficiaries’ sibling has not been involved nor her was obtained. Since there is no agreement amongst the beneficiaries the 2nd of the ruling takes effect.
8. Consequently, the confirmed grant which is not in line with the ruling be and is hereby set aside in its place a grant will issue in line with the 2nd option as follows:
a. L.R. No. Ndumberi/Ting’ang’a/799; be shared equally between:
James Muthama Hosea
Mary Wanjiru Wandau
Esther Gathoni Gicimu
Rahab Waruguru Gitau and
Nderitto Muruwa Gitau
b. Title No. Ndamburi/Ting’ang’a/T.20 be shared equally between Priscilla Mwara Kimani and Monica Wairimu Ngugi.
9. Should the administrators fail to effect the transfers the Deputy Registrar be at liberty to sign all the transmission documents in line with the above order.
10. Each of the parties do meet their costs.
Dated and Delivered in Nairobi on this5TH day of DECEMBER, 2019.
.........................
ALI-ARONI
JUDGE