[2023] KEHC 3663 (KLR)
The court determined that the conflicting and contradictory accounts regarding the properties forming the estate—specifically their identity, size, and ownership—make it impossible to proceed to a final determination of the mode of distribution. The court held that it is in the interest of justice to require the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 3663 (KLR)
- Parties
- Objector: Samson Lagat Kimitei; Respondent: Haron Cheboi Cherutich; Respondent: Selina Jeptanui Cherutich
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 33 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Preliminary Ruling on Mode of Distribution; Directions Issued for Further Affidavits
- Outcome
- Preliminary directions issued; final determination deferred pending further affidavits and evidence.
- Judges
- JRA Wananda
- Legal Topics
- Succession Disputes, Grant Revocation, Estate Distribution, Title Verification
- 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
Samson Lagat Kimitei
Objector
Haron Cheboi Cherutich
Respondent
Selina Jeptanui Cherutich
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Preliminary Ruling on Mode of Distribution; Directions Issued for Further Affidavits
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the properties described as Irong Block/67 and Irong Block/68 refer to the same or different parcels.
- 2 Whether Karuna (Sosiani Block 5 (Kambi Simba/41 and Karuna (Sosiani Block 4 (Cheplaskei/41 refer to the same or different parcels.
- 3 Whether Karuna/Sosiani Block 6 (Kaplolo) exists as part of the estate and its particulars.
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that the conflicting and contradictory accounts regarding the properties forming the estate—specifically their identity, size, and ownership—make it impossible to proceed to a final determination of the mode of distribution. The court held that it is in the interest of justice to require the parties to file further or supplementary affidavits, with supporting documents such as title deeds and search reports, to clarify whether the disputed property descriptions refer to the same or different parcels and to confirm the particulars of each asset. Only after such clarification can the court make a just and equitable distribution of the estate.
Court Disposition
Preliminary directions issued; final determination deferred pending further affidavits and evidence.
Orders
- Each party to file and serve, within 30 days, further or supplementary affidavits limited to clarifying the identity, ownership, and size of the disputed properties, with supporting documents.
- The court will deliver a final ruling after compliance with these directions.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
In re Estate of Paul Kimutei Cherutich (Deceased) (Succession Cause 33 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 3663 (KLR) (28 April 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 3663 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Eldoret
Succession Cause 33 of 2022
JRA Wananda, J
April 28, 2023
IN THE ESTATE OF THE LATE PAUL KIMUTEI CHERUTICH DECEASED
Between
Samson Lagat Kimitei
Objector
and
Haron Cheboi Cherutich
1st Respondent
Selina Jeptanui Cherutich
2nd Respondent
Ruling
1. On April 27, 2022, the petitioners obtained letters of administration intestate over the estate in this matter. however, subsequently, the objector applied for revocation of the grant on the ground that the same was obtained fraudulently.
2. Later, by a compromise the objector was appointed a co-Administrator and the parties were then given time to discuss and explore an amicable settlement.
3. The parties were however unable to agree. In the circumstances, the court directed them to file their respective modes of distribution after which the court would give a ruling. Pursuant thereto, the parties have presented their separate proposed modes of distribution and the court was now to interrogate the same and deliver a ruling.
4. However, in the course of preparing the ruling, I have noted the following matters:a.The 1st property referred to by the Petitioners is Karuna/Sosian Block 9 (Cheplasgei/50). The parties are agreed on its existence save that the petitioner places its size at 28. 6 acres while the objector places it at 20 acres. However, there is copy of a Title Deed in the record showing that the size of the property is 11. 45 Hectares. Converted accordingly, this translates to approximately 28. 3 acres. I will therefore refer to this property as Karuna/Sosian Block 9 (Cheplasgei/50) measuring 28. 3 acres.b.The 2nd property referred to by the Petitioners is Irong Block/68 whose size the Petitioners place at 11 acres. There is also a letter from the Chief in the record referring to Irong Block/68. On his part, the Objector refers to Irong Block/67 whose size he similarly places at 11 acres. The parties’ submissions on these property(ies) are strikingly similar. However, the Objector has exhibited a Search Report which refers to Irong Block/67 and shows the size as approximately 4. 4 acres.c.The 3rd property referred to by the petitioner is Karuna (Sosiani Block 5 (Kambi Simba/41 whose size the Petitioner places at 7 acres. On his part, the Objector refers to Karuna (Sosiani Block 4 (Cheplaskei/41 which he similarly places at 7 acres. However, none of the parties has presented a copy of any title document. The Chief’s letter on the other hand simply refers to Karura Sosiani Block 5. d.The Objector has referred to a 4th property namely, Karuna/Sosiani Block 6 (Kaplolo) measuring 20 acres. The Petitioner has not at all referred to this property nor mentioned anything about it.
5. The above accounts are clearly conflicting and contradictory and it will not be in the interest of justice for this court to finally decide this matter before the said facts are clarified. In the circumstances, I give directions herein in terms of a Preliminary Ruling as follows:i.The petitioners and the objectors are hereby directed to each file and serve, within 30 days from the date hereof, respective Further or supplementary affidavits limited to only the following:a.Whether the properties described as Irong Block/67 and Irong Block/68 refer to one and the same property or whether they are different. Additionally, the parties shall exhibit a copy or copies of the title document(s) and/or Search Reports or any other supporting document(s) confirming ownership, acreage and/or any other relevant particulars.b.Whether the properties described as Karuna (Sosiani Block 5 (Kambi Simba/41 and Karuna (Sosiani Block 4 (Cheplaskei/41 and which both parties place at 7 acres refer to one and the same property or whether they are different. Additionally, the parties shall exhibit a copy or copies of the title document(s) and/or Search Reports or any other supporting document(s) confirming ownership, acreage and/or any other relevant particulars.c.Regarding the property described as Karuna/Sosiani Block 6 (Kaplolo)33 referred to by the objector and stated by him to measure 20 acres, the parties shall exhibit a copy or copies of the title document(s) and/or search reports or any other supporting document(s) confirming ownership, acreage and/or any other relevant particulars.The court will then deliver a final ruling after the above directions have been complied with and the particulars stated submitted.It is so ordered.
DELIVERED, DATED & SIGNED AT ELDORET THIS 28THDAY OF APRIL 2023…………………..JOHN R. ANURO WANANDAJUDGE