[2024] KEHC 7618 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 7618 (KLR)

The court found that the deceased had made certain bequests to some of his children during his lifetime, and that all surviving beneficiaries had consented to the proposed mode of distribution as set out by the applicant in his affidavit. The court noted that the relevant title deeds and official searches confirmed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 7618 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: James Mwenda Kabeere; Respondent: Judith Tirindi Kabere; Respondent: Pheneas Kinyua Kabere (deceased); Respondent: Florence Gacheri Kabere; Respondent: Antonny Karani Kabere; Respondent: Catherine Muthoni Kabere (deceased); Respondent: Millicent Kagwiria Kabere; Respondent: Jamlick Kimathi Kabere; Respondent: Stanley Mwiti Kabere
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause E010 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Confirmation of Grant
Outcome
Summons for confirmation of grant allowed; estate to be distributed as proposed by the applicant; no order as to costs.
Judges
EM Muriithi
Legal Topics
Succession, Confirmation of Grant, Distribution of Estate, Consent of Beneficiaries
Source Language
en
Family and Children Succession Confirmation of Grant Distribution of Estate Consent of Beneficiaries

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

James Mwenda Kabeere

Applicant

Judith Tirindi Kabere

Respondent

Pheneas Kinyua Kabere (deceased)

Respondent

Florence Gacheri Kabere

Respondent

Antonny Karani Kabere

Respondent

Catherine Muthoni Kabere (deceased)

Respondent

Millicent Kagwiria Kabere

Respondent

Jamlick Kimathi Kabere

Respondent

Stanley Mwiti Kabere

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Confirmation of Grant

  1. 1 How should the estate properties of the deceased be distributed among the beneficiaries in accordance with the law and the wishes of the deceased?
  2. 2 Whether the bequests made by the deceased during his lifetime should be taken into account in the distribution of the estate.
  3. 3 Whether the beneficiaries have consented to the proposed mode of distribution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the deceased had made certain bequests to some of his children during his lifetime, and that all surviving beneficiaries had consented to the proposed mode of distribution as set out by the applicant in his affidavit. The court noted that the relevant title deeds and official searches confirmed the distribution of some properties to specific beneficiaries. In the absence of any objection and with the agreement of all parties, the court held that the estate should be distributed in accordance with the proposal made by the applicant. The court therefore allowed the summons for confirmation of grant and ordered that the estate properties be distributed as proposed, with...

Court Disposition

Summons for confirmation of grant allowed; estate to be distributed as proposed by the applicant; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The estate properties shall be distributed in accordance with the proposal made by the petitioner at paragraph (f) of his affidavit in support of the summons for confirmation of grant.
  • There shall be no order as to costs.