[2017] KEHC 329 (KLR)
The court found that the deceased had, during his lifetime, distributed his land among his sons, with the 2nd widow holding her son's share in trust. There was no credible evidence that the daughters were allocated any land, nor did they object to the distribution at the time. Given that the beneficiaries have been...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 329 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Wafula Mang’oli; Respondent: Beatrice Nabangala; Respondent: Violet Nelima; Respondent: Rose Tindi Mangoli; Respondent: Christine Muchuma; Respondent: M S; Applicant: Pasciliza Nekesa Mang’oli
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Probate & Administration 124 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Probate and Administration Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- Estate distributed according to the deceased's lifetime arrangements; daughters not allocated shares; surveyor to demarcate boundaries; each party to bear own costs.
- Judges
- A Ali-Aroni
- Legal Topics
- Succession of Estates, Distribution of Land, Rights of Beneficiaries, Customary Law Inheritance
- 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
Peter Wafula Mang’oli
Applicant
Beatrice Nabangala
Respondent
Violet Nelima
Respondent
Rose Tindi Mangoli
Respondent
Christine Muchuma
Respondent
M S
Respondent
Pasciliza Nekesa Mang’oli
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Probate and Administration Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the distribution of the deceased's estate among the beneficiaries was lawful and equitable.
- 2 Whether the daughters of the deceased were entitled to a share of the estate.
- 3 Whether the widow and her son were to share one portion or each to have a specific share.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the deceased had, during his lifetime, distributed his land among his sons, with the 2nd widow holding her son's share in trust. There was no credible evidence that the daughters were allocated any land, nor did they object to the distribution at the time. Given that the beneficiaries have been in occupation since 1976 and some have sold portions to third parties, the court held that it would be inequitable and unjust to disturb the status quo after more than four decades. The court directed that the sons jointly engage a surveyor to establish boundaries and acreage, with the report to be filed in court to facilitate confirmation of the grant. Each party was to bear...
Court Disposition
Estate distributed according to the deceased's lifetime arrangements; daughters not allocated shares; surveyor to demarcate boundaries; each party to bear own costs.
Orders
- All sons to jointly engage a surveyor and meet the costs of establishing boundaries and specific acreage for each.
- Surveyor's report to be filed in court within 30 days to allow confirmation of grant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
43 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA
PROBATE & ADMINISTRATION CAUSE NO.124 OF 2003
RE: ESTATE OF MANGOLI MAELO (DECEASED)
AND
PETER WAFULA MANG’OLI...........................................PETITIONER
AND
BEATRICE NABANGALA............................................1ST OBJECTOR
VIOLET NELIMA.........................................................2ND OBJECTOR
ROSE TINDI MANGOLI............................................3RD OBJECTOR
CHRISTINE MUCHUMA............................................4TH OBJECTOR
M S................................................................................5TH OBJECTOR
PASCILIZA NEKESA MANG’OLI......6TH OBJECTOR/APPLICANT
JUDGEMENT
1. This matter revolves round the estate of the late Mang’oli Maelo (deceased) who died on the 22nd of September, 1976 leaving behind, surviving him his 2nd widow and several children.
2. It is not in dispute that he had the following children from his wives namely;
1st Wife – Atai Mang’oli
Alfred Wanyama – son
Achi Waswa Mang’oli – son
Francis Maelo Mang’oli – son
Peter Wafula Mang’oli – son
Nelson Juma Mang’oli – son
Jane Namukuru Mang’oli – daughter
2nd Wife – Pascilisa Nekesa
Beatrice Nabangala Mang’oli – daughter
Violet Nelima Mang’oli – daughter
Rose Tindi Mang’oli – daughter
Christine Machuma Mang’oli – daughter &
M S – son
3. From the record it is not in dispute that the deceased owned land known as E. Bukusu/W. Sang’alo/594 measuring 51. 9 acres and from the evidence of both sides there is consensus that during his life time the deceased sold 5 acres of the land to one Julius Makhino Karani (DW2) which land the said Julius has occupied; cultivated and built a church for many years, secondly that before his demise the deceased had divided the remainder of his land to all his sons and the 6th son being the child of his second wife and a minor had his portion taken care of by his mother.
4. Having settled the above what is in issues are the proportions each of the Beneficiaries are entitled to; whether the 2nd widow and her son were to share one portion or whether each one had a specific share or not, and whether the daughters were given any shares.
5. Parties agree that the deceased had shared out portions to each of the sons. The sons of the 1st house contend that the 6th son’s share is big enough to accommodate the daughters of that home and the surviving widow. The only daughter of the 1st house lays no claim to the Estate. The boundaries were demarcated and are known. I will therefore direct that the two houses jointly engage and meet the cost of the Surveyor in order to establish the boundaries and specific acreage of each person.
6. From the evidence of the 5th and 6th Objector the daughters of the 2nd house were to benefit from their mothers share, though no concrete evidence that the 6th Objector got a share was adduced. What the Court received were mere allegations which the Court cannot rely on however it is up to the 5th Objectors to share his portion with his mother and siblings if he so wish but it is abundantly clear that the deceased did not divide any land to the daughters from either side. The widow was holding her son’s share in trust and has all along continue to live there.
7. The daughters did not raise any objection with the deceased when he distributed his land during his life time and since parties have since 1976 – 41 years ago been in occupation and have since sold to third parties, there would be no justification after so many years to upset the status quo.
8. In the circumstances taking Judicial notice that several of the beneficiaries have sold
a). I direct that all the sons jointly engage a surveyor and meet the costs of establishing the boundaries and specific acreage for each one of them.
b). the report be filed in Court within 30 days to allow confirmation of grant.
c) thereafter each son will be at liberty to transfer to his buyers.
9. On receiving the report from the Surveyors, the Court will proceed to ascertain the shares as distributed for purposes of the confirmed grant.
10. Each party to bear his/her costs.
DATED and DELIVERED at BUNGOMA this 23rd day of November, 2017
ALI-ARONI
JUDGE