[2018] KEHC 966 (KLR)
The court found that the proposal by the 2nd Administrator, Daniel Kaing’a, was reasonable and inclusive, as it provided for all beneficiaries, including the daughters of the deceased and Rael Itura. The 1st Administrator's proposal to exclude the daughters on the basis of their marital status was rejected, as there...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 966 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: M’Limbine Mbiti; Applicant: Daniel Kaing’a M’Limbine; Respondent: Mwamati Mutuma M’Limbine
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 506 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Confirmation of Grant and Distribution of Estate
- Outcome
- Protest dismissed; mode of distribution by 2nd Administrator adopted.
- Legal Topics
- Intestate Succession, Confirmation of Grant, Distribution of Estate, Rights of Daughters, Revocation of Grant
- 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
M’Limbine Mbiti
Applicant
Daniel Kaing’a M’Limbine
Applicant
Mwamati Mutuma M’Limbine
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Confirmation of Grant and Distribution of Estate
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the proposed mode of distribution by the 2nd Administrator is reasonable and lawful.
- 2 Whether the daughters of the deceased are entitled to a share of the estate despite being married.
- 3 Whether the protest by the 1st Administrator has merit in excluding certain beneficiaries.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the proposal by the 2nd Administrator, Daniel Kaing’a, was reasonable and inclusive, as it provided for all beneficiaries, including the daughters of the deceased and Rael Itura. The 1st Administrator's proposal to exclude the daughters on the basis of their marital status was rejected, as there was no evidence that they had renounced their interest in the estate. The court emphasized that all children are entitled to inherit unless they expressly disclaim their share. The protest by the 1st Administrator was found to be the cause of prolonged litigation and was dismissed. The court adopted the 2nd Administrator's mode of distribution as the order of the court.
Court Disposition
Protest dismissed; mode of distribution by 2nd Administrator adopted.
Orders
- The mode of distribution proposed by Daniel Kaing’a is adopted as the order of the court.
- There shall be no orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
44 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
SUCCESSION CAUSE 506 OF 2010
IN THE MATTER OF ESTATE OF LIMBINE MUKIRI
M’LIMBINE MBITI...............................................................1ST PETITIONER
DANIEL KAINGA M’LIMBINE..........................................2ND PETITIONER
VERSUS
MWAMATI MUTUMA M’LIMBINE........................................RESPONDENT
RULING
The deceased M’Limbine Mukiri died intestate on 20th April 1998 and left behind the following survivors.
1. Rael Itura – daughter-in-law
2. Daniel Kaing’a –son
3. Mbiti M’Limbine – son
4. Kaibi M’Limbine – son
5. Mohamati Mutuma – son
6. Kabii M’Limbine – daughter
7. Kailu M’Limbine – daughter
8. Muturia M’Limbine – daughter
This was idenfication by chief of Kiengu Location dated 28th July 2008 which was used by Daniel Kainga and Rael Itura to file succession cause in Maua CMC succession cause no. 20 of 2008.
The estate of the deceased is comprised of :-
1. L.R. Antubetwe/Njoune/1502
2. L.R Antubetwe/Njounge/858
3. L.R. Antubetwe/Njoune/1451
Grant in Maua succession cause no. 20 of 2008 was issued to Daniel Kaing’a and Rael Itura on 16th October 2008 and application for confirmation dated 22. 4.2009 filed on 23. 4.2009 – confirmed and certificate isue dated 29. 7.2009.
By a letter dated 22. 6.2010 CID Igembe Division wrote to E.O Maua Court to provide certified copies of proceedings to enable them investigate fraudulent transfer of land.
By an application dated 5th October 2010 C.B. Mwongela and Co. Advocates for Mwamati Mutuma M’Limbine filed this cause seeking that grant made and confirmed at Maua C.M.C be revoked.
On 20. 7.2016 Justice Gikonyo nullified proceedings that took place before the Maua Chief Magistrates court for reason court had no jurisdiction then to issue and confirm grant.
M’Limbine Mbiti and Daniel kaung’a M’Limbine were appointed new Administrators to the estate on 9th November 2016 and parties were orderd to apply for confirmation. 2nd Administrator had filed mode of distribution by 16. 11. 2017.
1st Administrator was given time to file mode of distribution by 8. 3.2018 but had not and 1st Administrtor advocate for reasons not given indicted he wanted to ceased acting. 1st Adminstration filed protest which directions were taken should be heard by way of written submissions.
I have looked at the mode of distribution in affidavit of Daniel Kaing’a in support of application for confirmationas well as protest by mwamati Mutuma in affidavit sworn on 20th June 2018 and find that the protest has been casue of all the trouble in this cause since it was filed in 2008 in Maua CMC cause no. 20 of 2008.
The mode of distribution by 2nd Administrator is REASONAL and all inclusive. The proposal of 1st administrator leaves out the daughters of the deceased claiming they are married and have no interests of getting a share of the deceased estate.
However there are no affidavits sworn by them to the effect they are denouncing their interests in the estate. He has also not shown that his late brother M’Nkanata the husband of Rael Ituma had benefited from any other land before the deceased person died. He confirms that Rael itura his late brothers wife lives on land in Njoune which 2nd Administrator said should be shared between 1st administrator and Rael. Rael to hold for herself and the children of M’Nkanata in equal shares.
In the circumstances I do find that proposal of Daniel kainga is reasonable and same is adopted as order of this court.
There shall be no orders as to costs.
HON. A.ONG’INJO
JUDGE
RULING SIGNED, DELIVERED AND DATED THIS 8TH DAY OF
NOVEMBER 2018.
In the presence of:
C/A: Penina/Kinoti
Petitioner:- Present in person
Objector:-Present in person
HON. A.ONG’INJO
JUDGE