[2016] KEHC 7489 (KLR)
The court found that the outcome of the summons for revocation of grant in the related High Court matter (Succession Cause No. 2639 of 2014) would substantially affect the present succession cause, as both proceedings concern the same property and beneficiaries. Despite procedural defects in the objection, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 7489 (KLR)
- Parties
- Objector: Evans Muchai Muritu; Objector: Mary Wairimu Muritu; Objector: Peter Ng'ang'a Muritu; Objector: Miriam Njeri Muritu; Petitioner: James Mbugua Muritu; Petitioner: Esther Wambui Muritu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 505 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Objection and Application for Stay Pending Revocation Proceedings
- Outcome
- Petition stayed pending determination of revocation summons in related cause; costs in the cause.
- Judges
- AO Muchelule
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Grant Revocation, Estate Administration, 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
Evans Muchai Muritu
Objector
Mary Wairimu Muritu
Objector
Peter Ng'ang'a Muritu
Objector
Miriam Njeri Muritu
Objector
James Mbugua Muritu
Petitioner
Esther Wambui Muritu
Petitioner
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Objection and Application for Stay Pending Revocation Proceedings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the property held by the deceased was her own or held as administrator of her late husband's estate.
- 2 Whether the objectors were fraudulently excluded from the distribution of their late father's estate.
- 3 Whether the current succession proceedings should be stayed pending determination of the revocation summons in a related cause.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the outcome of the summons for revocation of grant in the related High Court matter (Succession Cause No. 2639 of 2014) would substantially affect the present succession cause, as both proceedings concern the same property and beneficiaries. Despite procedural defects in the objection, the interests of substantial justice require that the current petition be stayed until the revocation application is determined. This approach ensures that the rights of all beneficiaries are properly considered and avoids conflicting decisions regarding the estate property.
Court Disposition
Petition stayed pending determination of revocation summons in related cause; costs in the cause.
Orders
- The present petition is stayed until the summons for revocation in High Court Succession Cause No. 2639 of 2014 is heard and decided.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
FAMILY DIVISION
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO.505 OF 2013
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF HOTENSIAH WAMORO MURITU (DECEASED)
EVANS MUCHAI MURITU.....................................1ST OBJECTOR
MARY WAIRIMU MURITU.....................................2ND OBJECTOR
PETER NG'ANG'A MURITU.................................3RD OBJECTOR
MIRIAM NJERI MURITU.......................................4TH OBJECTOR
VERSUS
JAMES MBUGUA MURITU..................................1ST PETITIONER
ESTHER WAMBUI MURITU..............................2ND PETITIONER
RULING
In the Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court at Kiambu in Succession Cause No. 150 of 1992 the deceased was Charles Muritu Gacheru. He died intestate on 14th March 1992. He left a widow Hotensiah Wamoro Muritu (the deceased in the instant Cause) and the following children:- Mary Wairimu Muritu (2nd objector), James Mbugua Muritu (1st petitioner), Margaret Wamaitha Muritu, Evans Muchai Muritu (1st objector), Esther Wambui Muritu (2nd petitioner), Miriam Njeri Muritu (4th objector) and Leonard Peter Ng’ang’a (3rd Objector). The estate of the deceased comprised motor vehicle registration number KAA 405Q, proceeds in A/C No. 141204938 at KCB Kipande Branch in Nairobi, proceeds in A/C No. 0120174673008 at Standard Chartered Bank Limuru Branch, LR No. 150/13 original No. 150/2/1 Riara Ridge and Kabete/Kabete/T.436. The widow applied for letters of administration intestate. A grant was issued to her which was confirmed on 14th October 1993. In the distribution she got LR No. 150/13 original No. 150/2/1 Riara Ridge as absolute proprietor and Margaret Wamaitha Muritu got Kabete/Kabete/436 as absolute proprietor. The two were then to receive the proceeds of the two bank accounts. In the High Court at Nairobi in Succession Cause No. 2639 of 2014, the objectors filed summons under section 76 of the Law of Succession Act (Cap. 160) for the revocation of the grant. The grounds were that their mother had failed to consult them, or seek their consent, in the Cause. They stated that they had not been involved in the petition or/fraudulently and confirmation of the grant with the result that they had been disinherited. The application is pending before this Court.
When Hotensiah died on 30th July 2012 the petitioners sought the grant of letters of administration intestate in the instant Cause. Her estate was indicated as LR 150/13 original No. 150/2/1 Riara Ridge which had been subdivided into parcels LR 150/36, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45 and 46. The total estimated value was Kshs.84,000,000/= The objectors objected to the making of the grant saying that the property held by her was not hers but was held as the administrator of the estate of their late father. They repeated the averments contained in the summons for revocation and stated that they had been fraudulently left out of the distribution of their late father’s estate. They asked that this petition be stayed to await the outcome of their summons for revocation.
The petitioner filed a replying affidavit which substantially responded to the allegations contained in the summons for revocation. They stated, among other things, that the summons had been brought too late in the day.
The other complaint was that the objection was not followed by an answer to the petition and cross-petition as is required by sections 67, 68and69of theActandrule 17of theProbate and Administration Rules. They relied on the decision in In the Matter of Amar Kaur Matharu (deceased) HC Succ Cause No. 2240 of 2012 atMilimani and asked that the objection be struck out.
I have considered the affidavits and the submissions filed in this matter. Notwithstanding the fact that the objection filed by the petitioners was not followed with an answer and cross-petition (although an application for extension of time to comply can still be made), I find that the decision in the summons for revocation may substantially affect this Cause. The two Causes are linked by the property, especially LR No. 150/13 original No. 150/2/1 and the resultant subdivisions. The property originally belonged to the late father of the objectors and petitioners, and there is no dispute that all these parties are beneficiaries of his estate. Substantial justice can only be done by an order that the present petition be stayed until the summons for revocation in HC 2639 of 2014 is heard and decided. I make an order in this regard and ask that costs be in the Cause.
DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 10th day of FEBRUARY 2016
A.O. MUCHELULE
JUDGE