[2024] KEHC 4723 (KLR)
The court found that there was no valid objection to the confirmation of the grant as all beneficiaries, including the initial objector Joseph Javan Kiraya, had either consented or expressly stated they had no objection to the proposed distribution. The only asset forming part of the estate was LR Number 413/19...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 4723 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Albert Kilaya; Respondent: Joseph Javan Kiraya
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Naivasha
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 139 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- Application for confirmation of grant allowed.
- Judges
- GL Nzioka
- Legal Topics
- Confirmation of Grant, Distribution of Estate, Beneficiaries Consent, Objection to Distribution
- 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
Albert Kilaya
Applicant
Joseph Javan Kiraya
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the grant of letters of administration intestate should be confirmed as sought by the administrator.
- 2 Whether the property Naivasha/Maraigushu Block 14/103 Gathengera forms part of the deceased's estate.
- 3 Whether there is any valid objection to the proposed mode of distribution of the estate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there was no valid objection to the confirmation of the grant as all beneficiaries, including the initial objector Joseph Javan Kiraya, had either consented or expressly stated they had no objection to the proposed distribution. The only asset forming part of the estate was LR Number 413/19 Naivasha, as the other property claimed by the objector was not registered in the deceased's name and therefore did not form part of the estate. The court held that the confirmation of grant should proceed as sought, and any disputes regarding property not forming part of the estate could not be determined within this succession cause.
Court Disposition
Application for confirmation of grant allowed.
Orders
- The application dated 3rd April 2023 for confirmation of grant is allowed.
- Certificate of confirmation to be issued accordingly.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
In re Estate of Javan Kilaya Ushora (Deceased) (Succession Cause 139 of 2015) [2024] KEHC 4723 (KLR) (6 May 2024) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 4723 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Naivasha
Succession Cause 139 of 2015
GL Nzioka, J
May 6, 2024
In the matter of
Albert Kilaya
Administrator
Judgment
1. By an application being a summons for confirmation of grant dated 3rd April 2023, the administrator of the Estate of Javan Kilaya Ushora has sought from orders that the grant of letters of administration intestate issued to the administrator on 9th December 2015, be confirmed and the costs of the application be in the cause.
2. The application is supported by an affidavit of even date sworn by the administrator, in which he lists the names of the beneficiaries of the estate at paragraph 2 and the list of the assets of the estate at paragraph 5 being only one property, LR Number 413/19 Naivasha. In the same paragraph is the suggested mode of distribution. I equally note that, attached to the application is a consent signed by all beneficiaries to the confirmation of grant, except one beneficiary namely Joseph Javan Kiraya, a son of the deceased.
3. I further note from the court record an affidavit dated 7th July 2023 sworn by Joseph Javan Kiraya. He deposes at paragraph 2 that, he has no objection to the list of distribution of the subject land as proposed by family members and deposes by the administrator. That the subject land is not in his name and attached an official search from the Ministry of Land showing the land is in the name of the deceased. He sought that the summons for confirmation be allowed
4. Noting that, there was an objection to the earlier proposed mode of distribution of the land, the court referred the matter to mediation. The process took place and a partial settlement agreement was filed in court. It suffices to note that, the objector has a claim over a parcel of land which is not part of the asset listed herein.
5. Be that as it were, the objector filed an objection seeking that, the court do make an order to the effect that, the property Naivasha/Maraigushu Block 14/103 Gathengera belong to him solely to the exclusion of all the other family members of the Estate. He was heard on the application by calling a witness Ruth Njeri Ngigi. Having heard the witness it become clear that, the subject land had not been transferred into the name of the deceased. Therefore, it does not form part of the Estate of the deceased as of now. Even then the issue of whether that land belongs to the protestor/objector or the Estate cannot be canvassed in this matter.
6. In the given circumstances there being no objection to the confirmation of grant as herein sought I allow the application dated 3rd April 2023, with no orders as to cost. The relevant certificate of confirmation may be issued accordingly.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED THIS 6TH DAY OF MAY, 2024. ......................GRACE L. NZIOKAJUDGEIn the presence of:-N/A for the administratorJoseph Kiraya the ObjectorSelina Kilaya in attendanceMs Ogutu: Court assistant