[2019] KEHC 12002 (KLR)
The court found that the respondents, as administrators, failed to act diligently and did not complete the administration of the estate by transferring the parcel of land to the rightful beneficiary. While this could justify revocation of the grant, the court determined that the most effective remedy was not to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 12002 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Mburu Mwaura; Respondent: Joseph Mwangi Thairu; Respondent: Peter Njoroge Thairu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 123 of 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant and Transfer of Property
- Outcome
- Application allowed in part. Grant not revoked. Deputy Registrar ordered to effect transfer.
- Judges
- AO Muchelule
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Grant Revocation, Administration of Estate, Intestate Deceased, Trusts in Estate, Land Transfer
- 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
Peter Mburu Mwaura
Applicant
Joseph Mwangi Thairu
Respondent
Peter Njoroge Thairu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation of Grant and Transfer of Property
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents failed to diligently administer the estate of the deceased as required by law.
- 2 Whether the grant of letters of administration should be revoked due to the respondents' failure to transfer the parcel of land to the rightful beneficiary.
- 3 What is the most effective remedy to ensure the transfer of the parcel to the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondents, as administrators, failed to act diligently and did not complete the administration of the estate by transferring the parcel of land to the rightful beneficiary. While this could justify revocation of the grant, the court determined that the most effective remedy was not to revoke the grant but to order the Deputy Registrar to sign all necessary documents to effect the transfer of 1.68 acres of Ndarugu/Gacharage/1589 to the applicant, who would hold it in trust for the estate of the deceased beneficiary. This approach would ensure the completion of the administration without unnecessary delay or disruption to the estate's management.
Court Disposition
Application allowed in part. Grant not revoked. Deputy Registrar ordered to effect transfer.
Orders
- The Deputy Registrar of the court shall sign all necessary papers to effect the transfer of 1.68 acres of Ndarugu/Gacharage/1589 to the applicant Peter Mburu Mwaura, to be held in trust for the estate of the deceased Mwaura Kamau.
- Costs shall be borne by the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
FAMILY DIVISION
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 123 OF 1996
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MUSA THAIRU MWANGI ALIAS THAIRU MWANGI alias MUSA THAIRU - (DECEASED)
PETER MBURU MWAURA.....................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
JOSEPH MWANGI THAIRU.........................................1ST RESPONDENT
PETER NJOROGE THAIRU.........................................2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The facts of this application are not in dispute.
2. The deceased Musa Thairu Mwangi alias Thairu Mwangi alias Musa Thairu died intestate on 9th December 1994. The respondents Joseph Mwangi Thairu and Peter Njoroge Thairu were two of his children. They petitioned this court for, and were granted, letters of administration intestate. The grant was confirmed on 3rd October 1997.
3. According to the certificate of confirmation Daniel Mwara Kamau was to get 1. 68 acres of Ndarugu/Gacharage/1589. To the time the present application dated 6th November 2003 was filed, the respondents had not transferred the parcel of land to Daniel Mwara Kamau. It turned out that the correct names of Daniel Mwara Kamau were Mwaura Kamau. He requested the respondents to apply to correct the names and to transfer the parcel, to no avail. In this application he sought the revocation of the grant for him to take over the administration of the estate and to transfer the parcel to himself. He died while the application was pending. His son Peter Mburu Mwaura (the applicant) successfully applied to take over the matter.
4. The application was served on the respondents who did not respond.
5. It is true that the respondents have not acted diligently and have failed to complete the administration of the estate. This could be a ground for revocation.
6. However, the most effective way to deal with the application is not to revoke the grant (and set aside the certificate of confirmation). The most effective way is to order, which I hereby do, the Deputy Registrar of this court to sign all the necessary papers to effect the transfer of 1. 68 acres of Ndarugu/Gicharage/1589 to the applicant Peter Mburu Mwaura who shall hold it in trust for the estate of the deceased Mwaura Kamau.
7. Costs shall be borne by the respondents.
DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 18TH NOVEMBER 2019.
A.O. MUCHELULE
JUDGE