[2019] KEHC 5663 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 5663 (KLR)

The court found that the estate of the deceased had already been distributed by a prior ruling delivered on 9th August 2018, with the agreement of the majority of beneficiaries. The applicant was the only dissenting party and had not provided sufficient reasons or support from other beneficiaries to justify...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 5663 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Daniel Mutwiri M’Igweta; Applicant: David Mwiraria Igweta; Respondent: Gladys Kathure Kithinji
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 382 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Post Distribution Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Legal Topics
Estate Administration, Intermeddling, Distribution of Estate, Accounting of Rental Income
Source Language
en
Family and Children Estate Administration Intermeddling Distribution of Estate Accounting of Rental Income

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Mutwiri M’Igweta

Applicant

David Mwiraria Igweta

Applicant

Gladys Kathure Kithinji

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Post Distribution Application

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should be ordered to account for rental proceeds from LR No. Ntima/Igoki/3478 and 5674.
  2. 2 Whether rent collected from LR Ntima/Igoki/5674 should be deposited in a joint interest-earning account.
  3. 3 Whether the estate distribution should be reviewed or altered post-final orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the estate of the deceased had already been distributed by a prior ruling delivered on 9th August 2018, with the agreement of the majority of beneficiaries. The applicant was the only dissenting party and had not provided sufficient reasons or support from other beneficiaries to justify reopening or reviewing the distribution. The court held that the applicant's grievances should be pursued through an appeal rather than by filing new applications. The court also noted that the respondent had previously accounted for the rental income and that the applicant's allegations of intermeddling were unsubstantiated. Consequently, the application was found to lack merit and...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application dated 22nd January 2019 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
  • Copy of the ruling to be supplied to the parties' advocates upon payment of copying charges.