[2022] KEHC 1589 (KLR)
The court found that, although there was a delay in bringing the application for leave to appeal, the interests of justice in a sensitive succession matter involving land required that the applicant be granted leave. The court relied on the principle that parties should be allowed to appeal in succession and land...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 1589 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joseph Kinoti M’Mukira; Respondent: Rosalia Nkatha Mukiira
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 512 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Application for Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal granted.
- Judges
- TW Cherere
- Legal Topics
- Grant of Leave to Appeal, Distribution of Estate, Right to Be Heard, Succession Disputes, Administration of Estates
- 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 Kinoti M’Mukira
Applicant
Rosalia Nkatha Mukiira
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Application for Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal the ruling distributing the deceased's estate equally among the beneficiaries.
- 2 Whether the delay in bringing the application for leave to appeal is inordinate and prejudicial.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, although there was a delay in bringing the application for leave to appeal, the interests of justice in a sensitive succession matter involving land required that the applicant be granted leave. The court relied on the principle that parties should be allowed to appeal in succession and land matters to ensure all issues are determined by a court of last resort. The right to be heard, as enshrined in Article 50(1) of the Constitution, was also a key consideration. The court concluded that granting leave would better serve justice, and imposed a preservation order to prevent the beneficiaries from disposing of their shares until the intended appeal is determined.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal granted.
Orders
- Applicant is granted leave to appeal the ruling of 04th March, 2021.
- Beneficiaries shall, upon distribution, take possession but shall not sell, dispose, transfer, charge, or deal with their shares adversely until the intended appeal is heard and determined or further court orders.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
51 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
(CORAM: CHERERE-J)
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 512 OF 2013
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KIUMBIA M’MUKIRA alias KIUMBA M’RIRIA (DECEASED)
AND
IN THE MATTER OF PROTEST
BETWEEN
JOSEPH KINOTI M’MUKIRA...............................................................APPLICANT
AND
ROSALIA NKATHA MUKIIRA...............................PETITIONER/RESPONDENT
RULING
Introduction
1) By an order dated 04th March, 2021, this court directed that deceased’s estate comprising of LR.NO. NTHIMBIRI/KIUTHA/46 shall be distributed into seven (7) equal shares to the following:
i. 1/7 to Joseph Kinoti
ii. 1/7 to Samson Kiriinya
iii. 1/7 to Rosalia Nkatha
iv. 1/7 to Gladys Nkirote
v. 1/7 to Hellen Mwari Mwirigi
vi. 1/7 to Daniel Kimaita and Bernard Muthuri in equal shares
vii. 1/7 to Dennis Mwiti and Nancy Gatwiri in equal shares
2) Aggrieved by the foregoing order on distribution, the Applicant has moved the court by way of a chamber summons dated 03rd December, 2021 and filed on 08th December, 2021 seeking the orders THAT:
1) ………spent
2) ………spent
3) The Applicant be granted leave to appeal the ruling dated 04. 03. 2021 distributing the estate of the deceased equally to his children
4) Costs be provided for
3) The summons is based on the ground among that:
1) He was removed from being an administrator and he is aggrieved
2) The deceased had a will
3) He was not heard
4) Applicant intends to appeal this court’s ruling dated04th March, 2021
5) Application has been brought without inordinate delay
4) The motion is supported by an affidavit sworn by Applicant’s on 03. 12. 2021 in which he reiterates the grounds on the face of the application.
5) The Respondent opposed the summons by her replying affidavit sworn on 07. 03. 2022 in which she faults the applicant of inordinate delay having brought this application one year since the impugned ruling was delivered. It is further averred that Applicant has not demonstrated that his intended appeal will be rendered nugatory if the court order on distribution is executed.
Analysis and Determination
6) I have considered the summons in the light of the affidavit on record and annexures thereto and submissions for both parties and the issue for determination as whether leave to appeal ought to be granted
7) I have considered the holding by the Court of Appeal in Rhoda Wairimu Karanja & Another V Mary Wangui Karanja & Another [2014] eKLR where it upheld the decision of the High Court that the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal, in succession matters, lies with leave. The same court in the case of Mugahv Kunga (1988) KLR stated that the practice of the Court of Appeal in the case of land which is a sensitive issue is that the parties should be allowed to come to the court to have the issues involved in their dispute determined by a court of last resort.
8) Article 50 (1) of the Constitution underscores the right to be heard and provides that:
(1) Every person has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair and public hearing before a court or, if appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or body.
9) As this is a succession matter involving land, I am persuaded that the interest of justice would be better served if the Applicant is granted leave to appeal and the same is hence granted notwithstanding the inordinate delay in bringing this application.
10) From the foregoing analysis therefore, the court makes the following orders:
a)Applicant is granted leave to appeal the ruling of04th March, 2021
b)In order to preserve the subject matter, it is hereby ordered thatthe beneficiaries shall upon distribution of the estatetake possessionbut shallneitheroffer for sale, sell, dispose off, transfer, charge or deal with their respective shares in any adverse manner until the intended appeal is heard and determined or until any or further orders of the court.
c) Costs shall abide the outcome of the appeal.
DATED AT MERU THIS 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
T. W. CHERERE
JUDGE
APPEARANCES
COURT ASSISTANT - MORRIS KINOTI
FOR APPLICANT - MR. KIMATHI FOR L.KIMATHI KIARA & CO. ADVOCATES
FOR RESPONDENT - MR. RIUNGU FOR A.G.RIUNGU & CO. ADVOCATES