[2024] KEHC 15101 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's concerns were valid, as the respondent had proceeded to subdivide the estate land without involving other beneficiaries and in disregard of existing developments, contrary to the court's earlier directions. The absence of any response or evidence from the respondent to show...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 15101 (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 / Ruling on Chamber Summons for Injunction and Directions on Subdivision
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- HM Nyaga
- Legal Topics
- Administration of Estates, Confirmation of Grant, Subdivision of Land, Injunctions, Beneficiary Rights
- 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 / Ruling on Chamber Summons for Injunction and Directions on Subdivision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the subdivision of the deceased's estate should be conducted with regard to existing developments and occupation by beneficiaries.
- 2 Whether an injunction should issue to restrain the respondent from evicting or demolishing beneficiaries' properties pending proper subdivision.
- 3 Whether the respondent complied with prior court orders regarding subdivision and involvement of all beneficiaries.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's concerns were valid, as the respondent had proceeded to subdivide the estate land without involving other beneficiaries and in disregard of existing developments, contrary to the court's earlier directions. The absence of any response or evidence from the respondent to show compliance with the court's orders reinforced the applicant's case. The court held that it was necessary to issue an injunction to prevent eviction or demolition of beneficiaries' properties and to require the respondent to submit a surveyor's report for court approval, or to ensure all beneficiaries are present during any intended survey. This approach would ensure equitable...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- An injunction is issued restraining the respondent and her agents from evicting any party or demolishing the applicant's and other beneficiaries' property on the estate land until further orders of the court.
- The administrator/respondent is to submit any surveyor's report of the proposed subdivision to the court for approval within 30 days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
In re Estate of Kiumbia M’mukira alias Kiumba M’riria (Deceased) (Succession Cause 512 of 2013) [2024] KEHC 15101 (KLR) (28 November 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 15101 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Meru
Succession Cause 512 of 2013
HM Nyaga, J
November 28, 2024
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KIUMBIA M’MUKIRA alias KIUMBA M’RIRIA (DECEASED)
Between
Joseph Kinoti M’mukira
Applicant
and
Rosalia Nkatha Mukiira
Respondent
Ruling
1. The Application for consideration in the Chamber Summons dated 26th October, 2024 and it seeks the following prayers:-a.That the Honourable Court be pleased to certify this application as very urgent and the same be heard as a matter of priority.b.That the Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order that the subdivision of the deceased estate per the certificate of confirmation of grant herein be conducted paying regard to each beneficiary properties and or developments on the material parcel of land.c.That the Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of temporary injunction restraining the Respondent is agents, servants or anyone else claiming at her behest from evicting and or demolishing the Applicant’s and the other beneficiaries properties on and or from the deceased estate.
2. The Application is supported by the grounds on its face and the Affidavit of Joseph Kinoti M’Mukiira.
3. In a nutshell, the Applicant states that court confirmed the grant herein, distributing land parcel No. LR No. Nthimbiri/Kiutha/46 among all beneficiaries equally. That the Respondent then proceeded in secrecy to sub-divide the land without involving other beneficiaries. That the subdivision ignored the manner in which the parties have settled on the ground, and some have already built permanent houses. That if the intended subdivision proceeds, some of the properties will be demolished. He thus seeks that the subdivision be done in regard to the settlement on the ground.
4. The application was served but there was no response filed. The Respondent did not appear as the date set in court for directions of the application. The application is thus unopposed.
5. Even though there is no opposition to the application, it is the duty of the court to examine it and establish if it is merited.
6. The deceased died on 16/03/2003. From the affidavit filed in support of the petition for letters of administration the deceased had only one property, Nthimbiri/kiutha/46. She left 7 surviving relatives who included her husband and her 6 children.
7. When the grant came up for confirmation, the court ordered that the said property be divided equally with each beneficiary getting 1/7 of a share.
8. More importantly, the court, keenly aware of the possibility of an unpleasant situation arising, ordered that the surveyor ensured that there was little or no disruptions of the development on the ground.
9. It is that very situation that the Applicant now claims is imminent.
10. There is nothing from the respondent to show that the directions of the court were followed.
11. Thus, I am satisfied that the application has merits and I allow it on the following terms:-a.There shall be an injunction restraining the Respondent and her agents from evicting any party or demolishing the Applicant’s and other beneficiaries property or the land farming the estate, until further orders of this court.b.The Administrator/Respondent is to submit any surveyor’s report of the proposed subdivision of the land to this court for approval or otherwise, within the next 30 days.c.If there is no proposed surveyor’s report, the Respondent is to ensure that all the beneficiaries are on the ground when the intended survey is done and once done, and not later than 60 days from now, to be submitted to this court for approval.d.There shall be no orders as to costs.e.A mention date for compliance to be given after delivery of the Ruling.
H.M. NYAGAJUDGESIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024. H. M. NYAGAJUDGEIn the presence of :-