[2023] KEHC 20884 (KLR)
The court found that the interested parties failed to establish sufficient grounds for review as required under Order 45(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. No new or important evidence was presented that was not previously available, and no error apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated. Additionally, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 20884 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Rael Kanana Marete; Respondent: Festus Mwirigi; Interested Party: Elias Mutuma; Interested Party: Robert Ntarangwi Mungania; Interested Party: Caroline Kagwiria Kanyuru
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 65 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Review
- Outcome
- Application for review dismissed with costs to the petitioner/respondent.
- Judges
- TW Cherere
- Legal Topics
- Succession Review, Distribution of Estate, Certificate of Succession, Beneficiary Entitlement
- 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
Rael Kanana Marete
Applicant
Festus Mwirigi
Respondent
Elias Mutuma
Interested Party
Robert Ntarangwi Mungania
Interested Party
Caroline Kagwiria Kanyuru
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the order distributing ½ share of LR Ntima/Ntakira/565 to the petitioner should be reviewed based on new evidence regarding the deceased's entitlement.
- 2 Whether the interested parties have established sufficient grounds for review under Order 45(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the interested parties failed to establish sufficient grounds for review as required under Order 45(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. No new or important evidence was presented that was not previously available, and no error apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated. Additionally, the alleged beneficiaries (families of Mutunga Riria and Kinyua Riria) had not made any formal claim before the court, and thus the court could not consider their entitlement. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed as unmerited.
Court Disposition
Application for review dismissed with costs to the petitioner/respondent.
Orders
- Summons for review dated January 21, 2023 is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the petitioner/respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
In re Estate of Janet Kainda M'riria (Deceased) (Succession Cause 65 of 2016) [2023] KEHC 20884 (KLR) (27 July 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 20884 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Meru
Succession Cause 65 of 2016
TW Cherere, J
July 27, 2023
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JANET KAINDA M’RIRIA(DECEASED)
Between
Rael Kanana Marete
Petitioner
and
Festus Mwirigi
Protestor
and
Elias Mutuma
Interested Party
Robert Ntarangwi Mungania
Interested Party
Caroline Kagwiria Kanyuru
Interested Party
Suing as Legal Representatives of the Estate of M’mungania M’riria
Ruling
1. By a ruling dated November 3, 2022, this court issued an order that ½ share of LR Ntima/Ntakira/565 shall wholly be distributed to Rael Kanana Marete (Petitioner/Respondent).
2. Interested Parties have by summons dated January 21, 2023 sought review of the foregoing order on the ground that by Certificate of Succession dated January 21, 1974 Janet Kainda M’riria(Deceased) was entitled to only ¼ share and not ½ of LR Ntima/Ntakira/565 as was distributed to Petitioner/Respondent.
3. Petitioner/Respondent opposed the application on the ground that she utilizes half the property and the family of M’Mungania M’Riria the other half and that there are no other claimants of the esttae.
Analysis and determination 4. I have considered the application in the light of the supporting affidavit, the replying affidavit and annexures thereto.
5. The law governing issues of review orders is anchored under Section 80 of theCivil procure Actand Order 45 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
6. Under Order 45(1) of the Rules, a party seeking review must prove that the application is filed without unreasonable delay; discovery of new or important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge, or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made; or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. This position was emphasized in the case ofIn re Estate of Maero Tindi (Deceased) [2018] eKLR.
7. Applicants claim that the families of Mutunga Riria and Kinyua Riria ought to benefit from this estate but have not been provided for. Unfortunately, no claim has been laid before the court by the alleged beneficiaries and this court cannot therefore decide on matters that have not been properly laid out in evidence.
7. In the end, I find that the summons for review dated January 21, 2023 is not merited and it is dismissed with costs to the Petitioner/Respondent.
DATED AT MERU THIS 27TH DAY OF JULY 2023WAMAE. T. W. CHEREREJUDGEAppearancesCourt Assistant - Morris KinotiFor Petitioner - Ms. Gikandi for Charles Kariuki & Kiome Associates AdvsFor Protestor - Mr. Muthomi for John Muthomi & Co. AdvocatesFor I. Parties - Mr. Akwalu for Mwenda, Mwarania, Akwalu & Co. Advocates