[2017] KEHC 9259 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated compliance with the prior order requiring a survey to confirm the existence and extent of any omitted land. Without evidence that a survey had been conducted or that the applicants had contributed to the survey expenses, as previously directed, there was no...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 9259 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Keziah Wambui Mbugua; Applicant: Lucy Kisa Wanjira; Respondent: Peter Kabugo Miguongo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 2334 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Include Omitted Land in Confirmed Grant
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- AO Muchelule, DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Intestate Estate, Grant Confirmation, Distribution of Estate, Omitted Property, 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
Keziah Wambui Mbugua
Applicant
Lucy Kisa Wanjira
Applicant
Peter Kabugo Miguongo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Include Omitted Land in Confirmed Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether 0.62 acres of LR Dagoretti/Uthiru/53 was omitted from the confirmed grant and should be included for distribution among all beneficiaries.
- 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to relief without evidence of a survey or contribution to survey expenses as previously ordered.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated compliance with the prior order requiring a survey to confirm the existence and extent of any omitted land. Without evidence that a survey had been conducted or that the applicants had contributed to the survey expenses, as previously directed, there was no basis to grant the relief sought. The application to include the alleged omitted 0.62 acres in the confirmed grant was therefore dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application dated 2nd May 2017 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
FAMILY DIVISION
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 2334 OF 2008
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF LABAN MUGWONGA MIONDU alias LABAN MIGUONGO MIONDU (DECEASED)
KEZIAH WAMBUI MBUGUA.....................................1ST APPLICANT
LUCY KISA WANJIRA..............................................2ND APPLICANT
VERSUS
PETER KABUGO MIGUONGO….................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The applicants Keziah Wambui Mbugua and Lucy Kisa Wanjira are daughters of the deceased Laban Miguongo Miondu who died intestate on 8th April 1978. The respondent Peter Kabugo Miguongo is their brother. In the ruling of the court delivered on 22nd March 2017, it was found that the entire family of the deceased, including the applicants, had agreed to the respondent petitioning for the grant of letters of administration and had consented to the distribution of the estate, following which the grant had been confirmed. The applicants’ application for the revocation of the grant was dismissed.
2. In the present application the applicants state that 0. 62 acres LR Dagoretti/Uthiru/53 was left out during the confirmation of the grant. They sought that the potion be included and that the same be shared out to all beneficiaries. The 1st applicant supported the application by the affidavit in which she stated that the respondent’s division of the shares as per the certificate of confirmation indicated a total of 3. 58 acres which left out 0. 62 acres.
3. In the ruling referred to above, it was acknowledged that a survey would be done to confirm the sizes of the shares, and that if the survey revealed that there was a balance of land (after the shares in the certificate of confirmation have been considered) that balance shall be shared equally among all the beneficiaries. All the beneficiaries were to equally bear the expenses of the survey. The applicants are not saying that a survey has been done, or that they have contributed to any such survey.
4. I find no merit in the application dated 2nd May 2017 by the applicants and dismiss it with costs.
SIGNED at NAIROBI this 14TH day of SEPTEMBER 2017.
A. O. MUCHELULE
JUDGE
DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 18TH day of SEPTEMBER 2017.
W. MUSYOKA
JUDGE