[2017] KEHC 9663 (KLR)
The court declined to confirm the grant at this stage because the identities and lists of all beneficiaries of the deceased's estate had not been clearly established. The judge found that none of the widows was able to provide a concrete list of the children of each house, and therefore, the court could not proceed...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 9663 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Teresina Chitayi Amulyoto; Applicant: Leah Khatenje Amulyoto; Respondent: Cecilia Shilosyo Amulyoto; Respondent: Alfred Amulyoto; Respondent: Rowland Amulyoto
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 550 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Confirmation of Grant
- Outcome
- Confirmation of grant deferred; matter set for hearing with all beneficiaries present.
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Confirmation of Grant, Beneficiaries Identification, Intestate Estate, Distribution of Estate
- 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
Teresina Chitayi Amulyoto
Applicant
Leah Khatenje Amulyoto
Applicant
Cecilia Shilosyo Amulyoto
Respondent
Alfred Amulyoto
Respondent
Rowland Amulyoto
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Confirmation of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the grant of representation can be confirmed without the physical presence of all beneficiaries.
- 2 Whether the list of beneficiaries of the deceased's estate is sufficiently clear to allow confirmation of grant.
- 3 Whether the proposals for distribution comply with the prior judgment and directions of the court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined to confirm the grant at this stage because the identities and lists of all beneficiaries of the deceased's estate had not been clearly established. The judge found that none of the widows was able to provide a concrete list of the children of each house, and therefore, the court could not proceed with confirmation of the grant or approve the proposed distribution. The court emphasized the necessity of the physical presence of all beneficiaries at the hearing to conclusively resolve the issues of entitlement and distribution, except for those who have formally renounced their interest. The ruling was grounded in the need for procedural fairness and compliance with the...
Court Disposition
Confirmation of grant deferred; matter set for hearing with all beneficiaries present.
Orders
- Counsel for the administrators to take another date at the registry for hearing of the summons for confirmation.
- All beneficiaries to attend court on the hearing date, except those who have formally renounced their interest.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
FAMILY DIVISION
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 550 OF 2008
IN THE MATER OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN MUHALIA AMULYOTO
BETWEEN
TERESINA CHITAYI AMULYOTO.....................1ST PETITIONER
LEAH KHATENJE AMULYOTO....................2ND PETITITONER
AND
CECILIA SHILOSYO AMULYOTO.....................1ST OBJECTOR
ALFRED AMULYOTO.........................................2ND OBJECTOR
AND
ROWLAND AMULYOTO....................................3RD OBJECTOR
R U L I N G
1. This cause which relates to the estate of John Amulyoto Muhalia (deceased) who died intestate on 11. 05. 2007 has a long history which culminated in the judgment of this court (Mwita J) delivered on 14. 06. 2017. By that judgment a grant of representation intestate for the estate of the deceased was to be issued in the joint names of Teresina Chitayi Amulyoto and Rowland Amulyoto subsequent to which the two administrations would file summons for confirmation of grant “indicating correct names of all beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate excluding the names of Sulumena Musinzi and Janet Godia.” In his ruling, Mwita Judge found and held that Sulumena Msinzi and Janet Godia were not widows of the deceased. The learned judge gave a rider to the joint filing of the summons for confirmation by Teresina Chitayi Amulyoto and Rowland Amulyoto when he directed that either of them could file summons for confirmation.
2. In the judgment, the learned Judge also found and held that the actual details of who the true beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate were had not come out clearly from the pleadings and the oral evidence, hence the direction to the administrators to indicate the correct names of all the beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate in the summons for confirmation, whether the summons was filed jointly or by either of the administrators.
3. In compliance with Justice Mwita’s orders, Summons for Confirmation of grant was filed by the firm of Rauto & CO. Advocates on the 16. 08. 2017. The same is dated 14. 07. 2017 and makes certain proposals on the mode of distribution of the various properties comprised in the deceased’s estate.
4. When the matter came up before me on 03. 10. 2017, Miss Rauto, Advocate, asked the court to render a ruling on the proposed distribution. Now that I have had the benefit of reading through the pleadings as well as the judgment of my learned brother Mwita Judge, I find that I cannot, at this stage, confirm the grant without the physical presence of all the beneficiaries to the deceased’s estate. This is because none of the widows was able to give a concrete list of the children of each of the two houses of the deceased.
5. In the circumstances, I direct counsel for the administrators to take another date at the registry for hearing of the summons for confirmation. I further direct that on that day for the hearing of the summons all the beneficiaries attend court to enable the court deal with the issues conclusively once and for all, except for those who will have formally renounced their interest in the deceased’s estate.
It is so ordered.
Ruling delivered, dated and signed in open court at Kakamega this 30th day of November 2017
RUTH N. SITATI
JUDGE
In the presence of
………Miss Atieno for Rauto……………………………for petitioners
………Deceased………………………………………………….for 1st objector
………M/S Andia (absent)………………………………………for 2nd objector
………Mr. Kubebea……………………………………………..for 3rd objector
………W/A……………………………………………….for 4th and 5th objectors
……………Polycap……………………………………..Court Assistant