[2024] KEHC 13460 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 13460 (KLR)

The court found that, although the objector claimed a portion of the estate property was sold to his father, there was no valid, duly executed agreement presented to confirm the sale, nor was there sufficient evidence regarding the size or price of the alleged transaction. The court noted that the property was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 13460 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Sabina M Musila; Applicant: Simon N Muindi; Applicant: Urbanus Kioko Muli; Objector: Urbanus Kioko Muli
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 781 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Judgment
Outcome
Estate to be distributed into three equal portions among the beneficiaries as per the 2003 minutes; Sabina M Musila's portion to be reallocated to her and her family; estate to be surveyed and report filed within 90 days; each party to bear their own costs.
Judges
MW Muigai
Legal Topics
Intestate Succession, Distribution of Estate, Trusteeship of Beneficiaries, Land Subdivision, Validity of Sale Agreements
Source Language
en
Family and Children Land and Property Intestate Succession Distribution of Estate Trusteeship of Beneficiaries Land Subdivision Validity of Sale Agreements

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sabina M Musila

Applicant

Simon N Muindi

Applicant

Urbanus Kioko Muli

Applicant

Urbanus Kioko Muli

Objector

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the deceased's estate should be distributed in accordance with the proposed mode of distribution.
  2. 2 Whether the alleged sale of a portion of land to the objector's father should affect the distribution of the estate.
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although the objector claimed a portion of the estate property was sold to his father, there was no valid, duly executed agreement presented to confirm the sale, nor was there sufficient evidence regarding the size or price of the alleged transaction. The court noted that the property was subdivided in 1976 into four portions, three given to the deceased's sons and one retained by the deceased and his wife. Subsequent family meetings and minutes corroborated the subdivision and occupation of the respective portions. The court held that it was only engaged in the administration and distribution of the deceased's portion, not her late husband's, and that the agreed...

Court Disposition

Estate to be distributed into three equal portions among the beneficiaries as per the 2003 minutes; Sabina M Musila's portion to be reallocated to her and her family; estate to be surveyed and report filed within 90 days; each party to bear their own costs.

Orders

  • The beneficiaries of the estate are Sabina M Musila, Simon N Muindi, and Urbanus Kioko Muli, who will hold the properties in trust for their families.
  • The beneficiaries shall be entitled to three equal portions of the deceased's division as per the minutes of 2003.