[2018] KEHC 1078 (KLR)
The court found that M’Mweti M’Mingaine's protest lacked merit as he failed to provide credible evidence that he was entitled to a share of the estate or that he had purchased the land in question. The evidence from Meeme Baimaria and his witnesses established, on a balance of probabilities, that M’Mweti had already...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 1078 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: M’Mweti M’Mingaine; Objector: Meeme Baimaria
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 68 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Confirmation of Grant and Protest
- Outcome
- Protest dismissed; estate distributed as ordered.
- Legal Topics
- Succession of Estates, Distribution of Land, Confirmation of Grant, Intestate Succession
- 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
M’Mweti M’Mingaine
Petitioner
Meeme Baimaria
Objector
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Confirmation of Grant and Protest
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the protestor, M’Mweti M’Mingaine, is entitled to a share of the deceased's estate.
- 2 Whether the proposed distribution of Land Parcel No. ITHIMA/NTUNENE/704 is fair and in accordance with the law.
- 3 Whether the protestor benefited inter vivos from the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that M’Mweti M’Mingaine's protest lacked merit as he failed to provide credible evidence that he was entitled to a share of the estate or that he had purchased the land in question. The evidence from Meeme Baimaria and his witnesses established, on a balance of probabilities, that M’Mweti had already benefited inter vivos from the deceased and was not entitled to further distribution from the estate. The court accepted the proposed distribution of the estate among Meeme Baimaria, Ntarangwi Baimaria, Kawira Baimaria, and Muruthi Baimaria, finding it to be fair and supported by the evidence. The protest was dismissed, and the estate was ordered to be distributed as proposed.
Court Disposition
Protest dismissed; estate distributed as ordered.
Orders
- The suit parcel of land (ITHIMA/NTUNENE/704) to be distributed as follows: Meeme Baimaria - 2.40 acres; Ntarangwi Baimaria - 2.40 acres; Kawira Baimaria - 0.50 acres; Muruthi Baimaria - 0.50 acres.
- The protestor, M’Mweti M’Mingaine, to pay costs of the protest.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
43 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 68 OF 2006
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF M’MINGAINE WA MINGAINE (DCD)
M’WETI M’MINGAINE........................................................PETITIONER
VERSUS
MEEME BAIMARIA..............................................................OBJECTOR
RULING
This cause relates to the estate of the late M’MINGAINE WA MINGAINE died on 30th November 2005 leaving behind Land Parcel No. ITHIMA/NTUNENE/704.
He was also survived by a son namely MEEME BAIMARIA as per letter from Chief of Ntunene Location dated 13th February 2006 daughter Beatrice Kangai Ntarangwi as showed in form P & A 5
Meeme Baimaria was appointed administrator on 26th July 2006.
In application for confirmation dated 8th march 2013:
Kawira M’Mingaine
M’Mbirithia M’Mingaine
Muruthi Baimaria
Ntaragwi Baimaria
Consented to confirmation of grant and distribution of estate as filed by Meeme Baimaria in which he proposed that the estate be distributed equally between him and his only sister.
Affidavit of protest was filed by M’Mweti M’Mingaine on 8th September 2013.
From the evidence adduced by the witnesses of Meeme Baimaria, I do find that their evidence overwhelms the evidence of M’Mweti M’Mingaine who has never lived on the suit land and even buried his parents on the land he lives on. Currently he doesn’t give a satisfactory reason as to where he buried his parents on the land he claims to have bought if indeed he claims to have bought it using his money the parents had their own land where they could have been buried.
The said M’Mweti also said he cut the tress he had planted in suit land and the only reason must have been that he did not belong to him. He didn’t call any witness to prove he bought land he is cultivating, occupying or that he didn’t get it from his father.
Meeme’s cousin the 2nd witness said it is Meeme and Ntarangwi who were not given land by their father. He said the deceased died in 1972 and left where Meeme and others had been settled in their respective homes in parcels of land he had given them.
The 3rd witness said the father of Meeme and M’Mweti instructed them to ensure his 2 sons were settled on the land in question because they were still very young by the time he was dying.
M’Mweti didn’t bring any other clan elder to refuse what Meeme’s witnesses said.
I do therefore find that M’Mweti protest has no merit since it has been proved on a balance of probabilities that he benefited intrevivos.
I do find that the suit parcel of land should be shared between Meeme Baimaria, Ntaragwi Baimaria, Kawira M’Mingaine, Muruthi Baimaria.
The parcel of land in question measures 5. 80 acres. It was proposed that same be shared equally between Meeme and Ntaragwi. This court orders that it is distributed as follows:
a) Meeme Baimaria 2. 40 acres
b) Ntarangwi Baimaria 2. 40 acres
c) Kawira Baimaria 0. 50 acres
d) Muruthi Baimaria 0. 50 acres
The protestor, M’Mweti M’Mingaine to pay costs of protest.
HON. A. ONG’INJO
JUDGE
RULING SIGNED, DELIVERED AND DATED THIS 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018
IN THE PRESENCE OF:
C/A – Kinoti
M/s Aketch for Objector
Mr. Kiogora Arithi for Petitioner
Court– Certified copy of ruling to be supplied upon payment of charges.
HON. A. ONG’INJO
JUDGE
22/11/2018