[2022] KEHC 15789 (KLR)

[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
Family and Children Intestate Succession Distribution of Estate Rights of Widows Land Allocation Confirmation of Grant

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
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 1 Whether LR No Thau/mumui/69 forms part of the deceased's estate for distribution.
  2. 2 Whether LR No Thau/mumui/69 should be sold and proceeds shared among all beneficiaries or distributed to the widows.
  3. 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.