[2021] KEHC 3395 (KLR)
The court found that the protestor failed to provide evidence that the properties in question were registered in the name of the deceased, Paul Kipngeno Chumo, at the time of his death. Without such evidence, the court could not direct that the properties be included in the estate for purposes of confirmation of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 3395 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kimeto Kibet Peter; Respondent: Christine Chemutai Ngeno; Respondent: Zacharia Kipkorir Ngeno
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 133 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Protest to Confirmation of Grant
- Outcome
- protest dismissed
- Judges
- AN Ongeri
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Confirmation of Grant, Estate Distribution, Fraudulent Transfer of Property
- 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
Kimeto Kibet Peter
Applicant
Christine Chemutai Ngeno
Respondent
Zacharia Kipkorir Ngeno
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Protest to Confirmation of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the properties listed by the protestor form part of the estate of the deceased and should be included in the confirmation of grant.
- 2 Whether there is evidence of fraudulent transfer or allocation of the properties by the administrators or other beneficiaries.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the protestor failed to provide evidence that the properties in question were registered in the name of the deceased, Paul Kipngeno Chumo, at the time of his death. Without such evidence, the court could not direct that the properties be included in the estate for purposes of confirmation of grant. The court also found no evidence to support the allegations of fraudulent transfer or allocation of the properties by the administrators or other beneficiaries. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
protest dismissed
Orders
- The objection dated 16/9/2020 is dismissed.
- The protest dated 17/9/2020 to be dealt with by way of viva voce evidence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT
AT KERICHO
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 133 OF 2007
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF PAUL KIPNGENO CHUMO (DECEASED)
ZACHARIA KIPKORIR NGENO………………..…….………1ST PROTESTOR
VERSUS
CHRISTINE CHEMUTAI NGENO……………….………….......RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The protest coming for consideration in this ruling is dated 16/9/2020 filed by KIMETO KIBET PETER who is a grandson to SAMWEL KIPKEMOI NGENO.
2. The protestor has deposed in the said Affidavit of protest that the grant of letters of administration issued to CHRISTINE CHEMUTAI NGENOandZACHARIA KIPKORIR NGENO on 22/7/2020 should not be confirmed for reasons that the two Administrators failed to inform the court that the issuance of the confirmation of grant was made fraudulently by means of alterations of facts essential on the part of law to justify the grant.
3. The protestor deposed that JOHN KIRUI A. NGENO illegally and without consent transferred land parcel No. L.R NO KERICHO/KIPKELION/BARSIELE Block 1(KAULA) 209and277 to himself.
4. Further that ROROGU CHERUIYOT illegally and without consent allocated himself land parcel L.R NO.KERICHO/KIPKELION/BARSIELE BLOCK 1 (KAULA)220 to himself.
5. The protestor also deposed that the administrators failed to inform the court that ZAKARY KIPKORIR NGENO illegally and without consent allocated himself the parcel of land LR NO.KERICHO/KAPKATET/1743 to himself and sold it.
6. The protestor further deposed that the said parcels of land belonged to his grandfather (PAUL KIPNGENO CHUMO (the deceased herein) who had two wives and 13 children.
7. The parties were directed to file written submissions in the protest dated 16/9/2020 by KIMETO KIBET PETER, a grandson of the deceased herein PAUL KIPNGENO CHUMO (deceased). I find that the protestor has not provided evidence that the said properties are registered in the name of the deceased.
8. In the circumstances, this court cannot direct that the said properties be included in the Estate of the deceased herein. If indeed any beneficiary had benefited from the Estate of the deceased during his life time, the said issue should be considered during confirmation of grant.
9. The court in its ruling dated 18/6/2019 said that the said issue should be raised during confirmation stage. I find that there is no evidence to support the allegations that the properties were transferred fraudulently.
10. I accordingly dismiss the objection dated 16/9/2020. The protest dated 17/9/2020 to be dealt with by way of viva voce evidence.
11. The parties to file their respective witnesses’ statements within 30 days of this date and to take date for mention in the Registry for purposes of fixing a hearing date.
Delivered, signed and dated at Kericho this 1st day of October 2021
A. N. ONGERI
JUDGE