[2022] KEHC 15789 (KLR)
The court found that LR No Thau/mumui/69 was still in the name of the deceased and thus formed part of the estate for distribution. However, it was established that the widows had not previously been allocated any land and currently occupy and cultivate the property in question. The court held that selling the land...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 15789 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: Justus Kimathi Marete; Objector: Rael Regeria M’aritho; Applicant: David Kithinji Marete; Respondent: Hellen Kaimura Marete
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 24 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons Dated August 10, 2020 Regarding Distribution of LR No Thau/mumui/69
- Outcome
- Application to sell LR No Thau/mumui/69 declined; property to be distributed equally between the two widows.
- Judges
- TW Cherere
- Legal Topics
- Intestate Succession, Distribution of Estate, Rights of Widows, Land Allocation, Confirmation 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
Justus Kimathi Marete
Petitioner
Rael Regeria M’aritho
Objector
David Kithinji Marete
Applicant
Hellen Kaimura Marete
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons Dated August 10, 2020 Regarding Distribution of LR No Thau/mumui/69
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether LR No Thau/mumui/69 forms part of the deceased's estate for distribution.
- 2 Whether LR No Thau/mumui/69 should be sold and proceeds shared among all beneficiaries or distributed to the widows.
- 3 Whether the widows' rights to inherit land they occupy should be protected.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that LR No Thau/mumui/69 was still in the name of the deceased and thus formed part of the estate for distribution. However, it was established that the widows had not previously been allocated any land and currently occupy and cultivate the property in question. The court held that selling the land would unjustly evict the widows and render them homeless, which would be contrary to the interests of justice and the protective intent of succession law, particularly Section 40 of the Law of Succession Act. The court therefore declined the application to sell the land and instead ordered that LR No Thau/mumui/69 be distributed equally between the two widows, with the...
Court Disposition
Application to sell LR No Thau/mumui/69 declined; property to be distributed equally between the two widows.
Orders
- The summons dated August 10, 2020 seeking sale and equal sharing of LR No Thau/mumui/69 among all beneficiaries is declined.
- LR No Thau/mumui/69 shall be distributed equally between Hellen Kaimura Marete and Rael Regeria M’aritho.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
In re Estate of Marete Mbui alias M’Marete M’Mbui alias Justus Marete (Deceased) (Succession Cause 24 of 2014) [2022] KEHC 15789 (KLR) (1 December 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 15789 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Meru
Succession Cause 24 of 2014
TW Cherere, J
December 1, 2022
In the Matter of the Estate of Marete Mbui alias M’’Marete M’Mbui alias Justus Marete (Deceased)
Between
Justus Kimathi Marete
Petitioner
and
Rael Regeria M’aritho
Objector
and
David Kithinji Marete
Applicant
Ruling
Introduction 1. By judgment dated July 11, 2017, the court distributed the estate of the deceased as follows:i.Each of the daughters and the widows of the deceased shall receive 1 acre in LR No Nyaki/munithu/503 and the balance thereof shall go to the four sons equally.ii.LR No Nyaki/munithu/446 is very small and may not be viably or legally subdivided into minute portions. The law on land use and other planning regulations cannot allow such subdivision. Thus, I order that LR No Nyaki/Munithu/446 shall be sold and the funds to be used to carry out survey work and other services needed in order to implement this grant. Any balance of the proceeds thereof shall be divided equally amongst all the beneficiaries herein.iii.As there is agreement of the parties, the shares in Barclays Bank and Kenya Commercial Bank shall go to the two widows in equal shares.iv.That the grant herein is confirmed on the above terms.v.Each party shall bear own costs. It is so ordered.
2. From the evidence presented before the court, the court at paragraph 5 of the judgment, the court noted that LR Nyaki/munithu/69 had been shared between the 4 sons of the deceased. It has however turns out that LR Nyaki/munithu/69 is in fact LR No Thau/mumui/69 and is still in the name of the decades and therefore forms part of deceased’s estate for distribution.
3. Applicant prays that LR No Thau/mumui/69 be sold and the proceeds thereof be shared equally between the two widows and children of the deceased. Objector on the other hand opposes the sale and proposes that LR No Thau/mumui/69 which she and her co-wife Hellen Kaimura Marete, occupy and use be distributed equally to them on account of the court not having given them any land.
4. I have considered the summons dated August 10, 2020 in the light of the affidavits on record, the previous court orders issued in this matter on July 11, 2017 and submissions filed on behalf of applicant and objector.
5. Section 40 of the Law of Succession Act cap 160 Laws of provides as follows;(1)Where an intestate has married more than once under any system of law permitting polygamy, his personal and household effects and the residue of the net intestate estate shall, in the first instance, be divided among the houses according to the number of children in each house, but also adding any wife surviving him as an additional unit to the number of children”.
6. There is no doubt that the widows of the deceased were not given land. It will be imprudent for this court to direct that the land that the widows occupy and cultivate be sold for that will not only lead to their eviction but will also render them homeless.
7. From the foregoing, I find that the interests of justice demand that the rights of the widows to inherit their husband’s estate be protected. Consequently, it is hereby ordered:1. The summons dated August 10, 2020 seeking that that LR No Thau/mumUI/69 be sold and the proceeds thereof be shared equally between the two widows and the deceased’s children is declined2. It is ordered that that LR No Thau/mumui/69 be distributed equally between the two widows namelyHellen Kaimura Marete and Rael Regeria M’aritho3. Certificate of confirmation dated January 24, 2019 shall be amended accordingly
MENTION ON 14TH FEBRUARY, 2023 TO CONFIRM DISTRIBUTIONDATED IN MERU THIS 01ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2022T.W. CHEREREJUDGEAppearancesCourt Assistant - Morris KinotiFor Petitioner - N/AFor Applicant - Mr. Mwanzia for Muia Mwanzia & Co. AdvocatesFor Objector - Mr. Gitonga for Basilio Gitonga, Muriithi & Assocates