[2019] KEHC 7344 (KLR)
The court found that there was uncertainty and inconsistency in the description and ascertainment of the estate properties, as highlighted by the applicant and not adequately addressed by the respondent. The court noted that both parties bore responsibility for any errors in the property descriptions and that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 7344 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Janet Nkatha Kithinji; Respondent: Rodah Kagwiria Kithinji
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 239 of 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Partial Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
- Outcome
- Determination of the application for review deferred pending provision of property registration records.
- Judges
- F Gikonyo
- Legal Topics
- Succession Review, Estate Distribution, Error on Face of Record
- 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
Janet Nkatha Kithinji
Applicant
Rodah Kagwiria Kithinji
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Partial Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the distribution of the deceased's estate.
- 2 Whether the properties listed as part of the estate were correctly ascertained and described.
- 3 Whether the application for review meets the legal threshold for review of a judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there was uncertainty and inconsistency in the description and ascertainment of the estate properties, as highlighted by the applicant and not adequately addressed by the respondent. The court noted that both parties bore responsibility for any errors in the property descriptions and that the court itself had previously expressed difficulty in ascertaining the correct properties. Given these unresolved issues, the court determined that it could not proceed to review or alter the distribution of the estate until the parties provided official registration records for the properties in question. The court therefore deferred its determination of the application for...
Court Disposition
Determination of the application for review deferred pending provision of property registration records.
Orders
- Both parties to provide registration records of the properties in issue in affidavit form within 14 days.
- Relevant land registrars to provide the parties with the said records without delay.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 239 OF 1996
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JAPHETH MWIRABUA (DECEASED)
JANET NKATHA KITHINJI...................PETITIONER
VERSUS
RODAH KAGWIRIA KITHINJI.........RESPONDENT
PARTIAL RULING
1. Judgement in this matter was entered on 13th November 2018. The Court did not revoke the grant issued on 27th January 1998 except it ordered a new Certificate of Confirmation of Grant to be issued to record the following Distribution.
(i) One acre in Kiirua/ Nkando/46 to Janet Nkatha Kithinji
(ii) One acre in Ruiri/ Rwarera/825 (this is apart from the 1 Acre that was granted to her as a gift inter-vivos by her late father)
(iii) The whole part of plot No. 682 Meru Town.
2. The Petitioner now seeks this Court to review its judgement and reconsider the distribution of the estate. She avers that there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
3. The Petitioner herein alleges that the deceased herein had no other Plot other than Plot No. 682 Meru Town and that it is in this Plot that she has invested her entire pension after retirement. That some of the properties listed by the interested party do not belong to the deceased i.e. Plot No. 124 Meru Town and Isiolo Plot No. 32 Kulamawe. That the interested party also misled this Court on the issue of the properties i.e. Kiirua/ Naari/96 is said to measure 15 Acres when it is actually 2 acres. Kiirua/ Naari/46 and Kiirua/Nkando/46 are repeated to make the estate look vast and that the interested party painted the properties as bare.
4. The interested party filed a response vide Replying Affidavit dated 10th January 2019 pleading this Court to decline the request since there is no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and that the application has not brought any new material before the court. She did not provide specific details on the allegations by the petitioner.
5. I have taken time to consider this application as well as the submissions made by both parties. The court is perturbed by the allegations made by the petitioner on the errors herein. The interested party is of no help for she merely denied the existence of errors without providing proof thereof. In a succession case, the court must be certain about and should ascertain the estate property.
6. The petitioner as well as the interested party is responsible for any errors in the description or amount of the estate property. See the lists of the assets of the deceased in the petition, affidavits and submission of parties. The court was also in a dilemma in ascertaining some of the properties of the deceased. It expressed as much on land No 46-which at one point was described as KIIRUA/NAARI/46; at other times as KIIRUA/BARRIER/46 and at other times as KIIRUA/NKANDO/46.
7. In the premises, I will defer determination of the application for review until such time parties will provide the registration record of the properties in issue. Both parties are therefore ordered to provide these documents in an affidavit within 14 days. The relevant land registrars are hereby directed to provide the parties with the said records without delay. I will assign this case another date for directions. It is so ordered.
Dated signed and delivered in open court this 28th day of May 2019
F. GIKONYO
JUDGE
In presence of
M/S Munga for respondent
Carlpeters for Mutuma for petitioner
F. GIKONYO
JUDGE