[2009] KEHC 1013 (KLR)
The court found that Justus Mutie Kioko did not acquire any lawful interest in the estate of Muoki Muasya by purchasing land from the deceased's sons, as they had no authority to dispose of estate property after the death of the deceased. The transaction was not sanctioned by a grant of representation, and thus, any...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 1013 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Justus Mutie Kioko; Respondent: Dennis Muoki; Respondent: Muli Muoki; Respondent: Mbwele Muoki; Respondent: Nzomo Mbutu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Probate & Administration 76 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Probate and Administration / Ruling on Beneficiary Claim
- Outcome
- Claim by Justus Mutie Kioko to be a beneficiary in the estate is dismissed.
- Judges
- I Lenaola
- Legal Topics
- Succession of Estates, Intermeddling With Estate Property, Sale of Land by Beneficiaries, Beneficiary Entitlement
- 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 Mutie Kioko
Applicant
Dennis Muoki
Respondent
Muli Muoki
Respondent
Mbwele Muoki
Respondent
Nzomo Mbutu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Probate and Administration / Ruling on Beneficiary Claim
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Justus Mutie Kioko has a valid claim to title no. Makueni/Unoa/58 as a beneficiary of the estate of Muoki Muasya.
- 2 Whether the sale of the land by Dennis Muoki and Muli Muoki to Kioko was lawful under the Law of Succession Act.
- 3 Whether Kioko's possession and occupation of the land amounts to intermeddling with the estate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that Justus Mutie Kioko did not acquire any lawful interest in the estate of Muoki Muasya by purchasing land from the deceased's sons, as they had no authority to dispose of estate property after the death of the deceased. The transaction was not sanctioned by a grant of representation, and thus, any such sale constituted unlawful intermeddling with the estate under section 45 of the Law of Succession Act. The court held that Kioko's only recourse is to seek a refund from those who illegally received the purchase money, as he cannot be recognized as a beneficiary of the estate.
Court Disposition
Claim by Justus Mutie Kioko to be a beneficiary in the estate is dismissed.
Orders
- Justus Mutie Kioko has no lawful interest in the estate of Muoki Muasya.
- Kioko may pursue a refund of his money from those who illegally received it.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MACHAKOS
Probate & Administration 76 of 2004
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MUOKI MUASYA ………… DECEASED
RULING
1. On 21. 7.2008, I ordered one Justus Mutie Kioko to give sworn evidence as to whether his claim to title no. Makueni/Unoa/58 is valid and whether therefore he should be a beneficiary in the estate of Muoki Muasya (deceased).
2. In his evidence, Kioko aforesaid stated that he purchased the land sometime in 1984 from one Dennis Muoki and his brother, Muli Muoki both sons of the deceased. He entered into a sale agreement with them on 14. 11. 1984 and paid Kshs. 3,000/= for the whole parcel of land. Thereafter, he entered and took possession by building a house with the help of the two brothers. On 25. 2.2000, one Nzomo Mbutu and Mbwele Muoki staked their claim to the land with Mbwele claming to be the second wife of the deceased and entitled to the land. The dispute went to the Makueni Land Disputes Tribunal and the Tribunal ordered that a succession cause be filed and the estate lawfully distributed.
3. Kioko admitted that he never bought the land from the deceased and so the matter is simple; section 45 of the Law of Succession Act provides as follows:-
“(1) except so far as expressly authorized by this Act,
or by any other written law, or by a grant of representation under this Act ,no person shall, for any purposes, take possession or dispose of, or otherwise intermeddle with, any free property of deceased person.
(2) Any person who contravenes the provisions of this section shall-
(a) be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand or to a term of imprisonment, not exceeding one year or to both such fine and imprisonment; and
(b) be answerable to the rightful executor or administrator to the extent of the assets with which he has intermeddled after deducting any payments made in the due course of administration.
4. Since neither Kioko, Dennis Muoki nor Muli Kioko had no lawful interest in the deceased’s estate any attempt at disposing any part of it, two years after his death (he died on 14. 10. 1982), is unlawful as it amounts to inter-meddling with it.
5. In the event, Justus Mutie Kioko has no lawful interest in this estate and he can pursue a refund of his money from those that illegally received it.
6. Orders accordingly.
Dated and delivered at Machakos this 9th day of October 2009.
Isaac Lenaola
Judge
In the presence of:: Mr.Makau h/b for Mr. Kitonga for Applicant
Mr.Kimuli for Respondent
Isaac Lenaola
Judge