[2021] KEHC 4030 (KLR)
The court found that the protestor failed to provide any evidence to support his claims that the motor vehicle was not part of the estate or that the deceased had left a valid will. In the absence of proof, the court held that the allegations could not be sustained. The protestor also did not object to the proposed...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 4030 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joseph Muchiri Kamau; Applicant: Elizabeth Waithera Njoroge; Respondent: Peter Wainaina Kamau
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 798 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Confirmation of Grant
- Outcome
- Protest dismissed; grant confirmed as proposed.
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Confirmation of Grant, Distribution of Estate, Validity of Will
- 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
Joseph Muchiri Kamau
Applicant
Elizabeth Waithera Njoroge
Applicant
Peter Wainaina Kamau
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Confirmation of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the protestor has proved that motor vehicle KDY *** is not part of the estate.
- 2 Whether the deceased died testate and left a valid will.
- 3 Whether the proposed distribution of the estate should be confirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the protestor failed to provide any evidence to support his claims that the motor vehicle was not part of the estate or that the deceased had left a valid will. In the absence of proof, the court held that the allegations could not be sustained. The protestor also did not object to the proposed distribution of the estate. Consequently, the court allowed the application for confirmation of grant and ordered that the estate be distributed as proposed by the applicants.
Court Disposition
Protest dismissed; grant confirmed as proposed.
Orders
- The protest is dismissed.
- The summons for confirmation of grant dated 18th December 2015 is allowed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
13 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 798 OF 2013
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JEREMIAH KAMAU MUCHIRI (DECEASED)
RULING
1. The application for determination is the summons dated 18th December 2015, which seeks confirmation of the grant herein. It is brought at the instance of Joseph Muchiri Kamau and Elizabeth Waithera Njoroge, who I shall refer to hereafter as the applicants. It carries proposals on distribution of the assets of the estate. There is an attached consent n Form 37, duly executed by Joseph Muchiri Kamau, Elizabeth Waithera Njoroge, Francis Ndung’u Kamau, Gladys Muthoni and Milka Mugure Kamau.
2. There is only one objection to the distribution, by Peter Wainaina Kamau, through a protest affidavit, sworn on 8th September 2016. I shall refer to him as the protestor. He raises only two principal objections: that motor vehicle KDY *** did not belong to the estate, for he had bought it; and that the deceased had died testate having left a will. The protest affidavit on record does not have any annexures. There is, therefore, no evidence that KDY *** had ceased to be estate property, and equally there is no evidence that the deceased had made any will, leave alone a valid one.
3. The applicants filed separate affidavits, in response, which are perfect replicas of each other, essentially making a variety of accusations against the protestor.
4. I have not found anything substantive in the protest. The protestor has not presented any material to show that he owned the vehicle he claims he bought from the deceased. He has equally not attached copy of the will that he says the deceased made. He who alleges must prove. He has said nothing about the distribution proposed by the applicants, and I shall take it that he has no concrete objection to it.
5. In the end, I find no merit at all in the protest. Since there is no serious opposition to the proposals made in the summons for confirmation of grant, dated 18th December 2015, I shall allow the same. The estate shall be distributed as proposed. A certificate of confirmation of grant shall issue accordingly. Any party unhappy with these orders has leave of 28 days to move the Court of Appeal appropriately.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT KAKAMEGA THIS 17TH DAY OFSEPTEMBER 2021
W MUSYOKA
JUDGE