[2020] KEHC 4464 (KLR)
The court found that the administrator, Edith/Judith Muturi, was only entitled to 0.7 acres of the subject land as per the confirmed grant and prior judgments. Any sale by her in excess of this entitlement was unlawful and based on a void document, as the relevant grant had been revoked. The applicant's claim,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 4464 (KLR)
- Parties
- Administrator: Kamau Gatuku alias Paul Kamau; Administrator: Edith Wanjiku Muturi; Applicant: David Mwangi Gachunga
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 717 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Joinder of Interested Party
- Outcome
- application declined with costs
- Judges
- A Ali-Aroni
- Legal Topics
- Joinder of Parties, Fraudulent Conveyance, Administration of Estates, Distribution of Estate
- 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
Kamau Gatuku alias Paul Kamau
Administrator
Edith Wanjiku Muturi
Administrator
David Mwangi Gachunga
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Joinder of Interested Party
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be enjoined as an interested party in the succession proceedings.
- 2 Whether the sale of land by the administrator exceeded her entitlement under the confirmed grant.
- 3 Whether the applicant's claim is properly against the estate or the administrator personally.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the administrator, Edith/Judith Muturi, was only entitled to 0.7 acres of the subject land as per the confirmed grant and prior judgments. Any sale by her in excess of this entitlement was unlawful and based on a void document, as the relevant grant had been revoked. The applicant's claim, therefore, is not against the estate but against the administrator personally for fraudulently selling land she did not own. The court held that joining the applicant as an interested party in the succession proceedings was unnecessary and would amount to an abuse of court process. The applicant was advised to pursue his claim against the administrator in an appropriate forum.
Court Disposition
application declined with costs
Orders
- The application for joinder is declined with costs to the applicant.
- The applicant is at liberty to sue the administrator in an appropriate cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 717 OF 1998 CONSOLIDATED WITH P&A NO. 2747 OF 2004
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MUTURI GATUKU (DECEASED)
KAMAU GATUKU ALIAS PAUL KAMAU.................ADMINISTRATOR
EDITH WANJIKU MUTURI.........................................ADMINISTRATOR
AND
DAVID MWANGI GACHUNGA.......PROPOSED INTERESTED PARTY
RULING
1. The application before court is dated 11th July, 2018 and seeks mainly one order as the others are spent ; mainly for the applicant David Mwangi Gachunga to be enjoined to the suit.
2. The application is based on grounds that the applicant bought a subdivision of L.R. No. Loc. 2/Kangari/1154 from the 2nd administrator Edith (Judith) Wanjiku Muturi. As proof, he annexed a sale agreement dated 29th May, 2017 and a title deed in his name dated 4th July, 2017.
3. This land subject matter has a chequered history, which initially pitted the deceased herein Muturi Gatuku, Paul Kamau and the deceased own brother Mwangi Philip Kiguta.
4. Musyoka J rendered a judgment on this matter on 3rd October, 2014 wherein the Judge upheld the orders made on 18th September 2001 in HCSC No. 717 of 1998 distributing the estate of the deceased between Mwangi Philip Kiguta, Paul Kamau Gatuku and Judith Muturi.
5. In line with the above judgment Ougo J in her ruling of 1st July 2016 reiterated that:
i. a fresh grant was issued by Musyoka J to Mwangi Philip Kiguta, Paul Kamau Gatuku and Judith Wanjiku Muturi.
ii. the suit property was distributed as follows:
a. Mwangi Philip Kiguta – 1 acre
b. Paul Kamau Gatuku – 1. 6 acres
c. Judith Wanjiku – 0. 7 acres
6. Therefore, pursuant to the judgment and ruling above all made prior to the time the applicant entered into a sale agreement Edith/Judith Wanjiku Muturi, she was only entitled to 0. 7 acres of the land subject matter and that is the only portion to her name to deal as she pleases.
7. If Judith (Edith) Muturi sold more than 0. 7 acres and subdivided the property; the earlier grant having been revoked, her actions were unlawful and must be all means be framed upon and particularly because she has continuously refused and/or failed to obey court orders.
8. Further it is not lost to court that she fraudulently sold more than she was entitled to in a bid to defeat the ends of justice which must be condemned. At any rate court orders not made in vain.
9. Applicant’s counsel rightly submitted that the Law of Succession Act empowers the court to enjoin every person who is interested in an estate to enable the court ascertain the claim against the estate.
However, the said provision of the law ought to be read with within context. The Applicant’s claim is against an administrator; Edith/Judith Muturi who sold him land and not the estate.
10. The said administrator acted fraudulently, obtained money purporting to sale what she did not have and based on a void document the same having been set aside way in 2014.
Joining the Applicant in an already concluding matter is unnecessary and tantamount to being an abuse of court process.
11. Consequently, the application is declined with costs. The applicant be at liberty to sue the party in an appropriate cause.
Dated and Delivered in Nairobi on this 2ND day of JULY, 2020.
ALI-ARONI
JUDGE