[2019] KEHC 3675 (KLR)
The court found that the mode of distribution in the confirmed grant, which provided for equal sharing among all nine beneficiaries, was reasonable and in accordance with the law. The applicant's claim for a larger share based on her status as first born, her unmarried status, and her contributions to the family was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 3675 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Annie Gathoni Kamau; Respondent: Estate of Kamau Mwenda alias Kamau Mwenda Mugekenyi (Deceased)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 748 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Review Confirmation of Grant
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- A Ali-Aroni
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Distribution of Estate, Confirmation of Grant, Review of Orders
- 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
Annie Gathoni Kamau
Applicant
Estate of Kamau Mwenda alias Kamau Mwenda Mugekenyi (Deceased)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Review Confirmation of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a larger share of the estate based on her status and contributions.
- 2 Whether the confirmed grant should be reviewed to allow the applicant to file a protest to the mode of distribution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the mode of distribution in the confirmed grant, which provided for equal sharing among all nine beneficiaries, was reasonable and in accordance with the law. The applicant's claim for a larger share based on her status as first born, her unmarried status, and her contributions to the family was unsupported by law and unproven by evidence. The court held that there was no legal or factual basis to review or set aside the confirmed grant, and even if the protest were allowed, the outcome would remain unchanged due to the lack of substantiated grounds for unequal distribution.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application dated 3rd October 2018 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI
(FAMILY DIVISION)
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO 748 OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KAMAU MWENDA
Alias KAMAU MWENDA MUGEKENYI (DECEASED)
ANNIE GATHONI KAMAU.......................APPLICANT
R U L I N G
1. The deceased herein died on the 23rd of January 2004. The Grantof Letters of Administration applied for on the 27thof March 2015 with the applicant consenting and signing as one of the proposed administrators.
2. Though the Applicant did not sign the consent to the mode of distribution at the point of confirmation of the grant, she was represented by counsel who confirmed that she did not oppose confirmation of the grant based on proposed distribution.
3. The grant was confirmed and issued on 6th of December 2016where all 9 beneficiaries including the Applicant are to share the only asset of the Estate equally.
4. From the record the distribution has stalled as the Applicant hasfailed to cooperate to allow distribution as she is one of the administrators.
5. In an application dated 3rd October 2018 the Applicant sought tohave the confirmation reviewed to allow her file a protest to the mode of distribution on grounds that she is the first born child of the deceased, is unmarried, had taken care of her deceased mother, had assisted educate her sisters and is therefore entitled to a larger share of the estate.
6. The application is objected to by way of a replying affidavit wherethe Applicant’s assertions are challenged and her proposition that she is entitled to a larger share declined.
7. Having considered the issues raised in the application I find themode of distribution in the confirmed grant most reasonable as the estate was equally distributed to the heirs.
8. Secondly the assertion of a higher entitlement has no basis in law,Indeed, no proof of the alleged reasons for a larger share were placed before the court.
9. Court do not act in vain, so that even if the order confirming thegrant was set aside and the protest allowed based on grounds found in the application the court will no doubt arrive at the same conclusion.
10. I therefore find no basis upon which to allow the application it isDismissed with costs.
Dated and Delivered in Nairobi on this 26th day of September, 2019
......................
ALI-ARONI
JUDGE