[2019] KEHC 11923 (KLR)
The court determined that its involvement should have concluded with the issuance of the certificate of confirmation of grant, which stipulated equal sharing of the estate among beneficiaries. However, due to persistent disputes over the physical allocation of land parcels and the inability of the parties to reach...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 11923 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Samuel Kinyanjui; Applicant: Edward Ndungu; Applicant: Peter Kiambuthi; Respondent: Geoffrey Richu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 673 of 1990
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Distribution of Estate
- Outcome
- Application referred to court-annexed mediation.
- Judges
- AO Muchelule
- Legal Topics
- Intestate Succession, Distribution of Estate, Beneficiary Rights, Land Apportionment
- 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
Samuel Kinyanjui
Applicant
Edward Ndungu
Applicant
Peter Kiambuthi
Applicant
Geoffrey Richu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Distribution of Estate
Legal Issues
- 1 How should the estate of Joseph Gitau Richo be distributed among the beneficiaries on the ground.
- 2 Whether the court should intervene in the actual apportionment of land among beneficiaries after confirmation of grant.
- 3 Whether mediation is appropriate to resolve the ongoing disputes among beneficiaries.
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that its involvement should have concluded with the issuance of the certificate of confirmation of grant, which stipulated equal sharing of the estate among beneficiaries. However, due to persistent disputes over the physical allocation of land parcels and the inability of the parties to reach consensus despite several court orders and surveyor interventions, the court found it necessary to refer the matter to court-annexed mediation. This approach is grounded in the constitutional principle of promoting alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, specifically mediation, to achieve justice and maintain peace within the family. The court thus directed the Deputy...
Court Disposition
Application referred to court-annexed mediation.
Orders
- The dispute is referred to court-annexed mediation under Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution.
- The Deputy Mediation Registrar is directed to take over and communicate with the parties.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
FAMILY DIVISION
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 673 OF 1990
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH GITAU RICHO (DECEASED)
SAMUEL KINYANJUI.......................................................1ST APPLICANT
EDWARD NDUNGU...........................................................2ND APPLICANT
PETER KIAMBUTHI........................................................3RD APPLICANT
VERSUS
GEOFFREY RICHU.............................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The deceased Joseph Gitau Richo died intestate on 20th December 1985. The grant was issued to the respondent Geoffrey Richu (one of the deceased’s son) and was confirmed on 15th November 1991 by consent. It was agreed that the deceased’s estate comprised Dagoretti/Kinoo/T.408 and Dagoretti/Kinoo/600 and that they be equally shared among beneficiaries. The beneficiaries were the widow, 4 sons and 6 daughters. Since then the parties have come to court variously. The main dispute being how to share the parcels to each beneficiary on the ground. Surveyors have been on the ground and proposed the sharing, bearing in mind access to the road, to the river and where some of the beneficiaries are presently located. The parcels have developed places, some parts are flat and others have gullies. Several orders have been made, to no avail. Parties cannot simply accommodate one another, and agree on the sharing on the ground.
2. Ideally, the business of the court ought to have ended when the certificate of confirmation was issued on 15th November 1991. After the court, for instance, orders that the beneficiaries will equally share a piece of land it should not enter into the actual sharing on the ground. They are to invite a surveyor to apportion the land.
3. Secondly, it is not easy to get eleven people to each be satisfied with how a piece of land will be shared to them on the ground. Some give and take is certainly expected. All that one may worry about is access to the road, to the river and how go about the existing homes and/or developments. Even then it may become necessary to move some beneficiaries already settled. Parties may agree on compensation.
4. The application dated 27th May 2019 by Samuel Kinyanjui, Edward Ndungu and Peter Kiambuthi against Geoffrey Richu is a continuation of this misunderstanding. I have decided, in the wider interest of justice and peace in the family, to refer this dispute to court annexed mediation. I do this under Article 159(2)(c)of the Constitution. I direct the Deputy Mediation Registrar to take over and communicate with the parties accordingly.
DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 30TH OCTOBER 2019.
A.O. MUCHELULE
JUDGE