[2024] KEHC 11666 (KLR)
The court found no sufficient reason to deny confirmation of the grant to the applicant, noting that the objector's mistrust and request for co-administration were not substantiated by evidence of failure or misconduct by the applicant. The court held that the proposed mode of distribution—equal sharing among the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 11666 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Angela Wambui Nderitu; Respondent: John Kangethe Nderitu; Respondent: Florence Auma Nderitu; Respondent: Elizabeth Wariara Nderi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 307 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Amended Summons for Confirmation of Grant
- Outcome
- Application for confirmation of grant allowed as prayed.
- Judges
- HK Chemitei
- Legal Topics
- Confirmation of Grant, Distribution of Estate, Appointment of Administrator, Valuation of Estate 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
Angela Wambui Nderitu
Applicant
John Kangethe Nderitu
Respondent
Florence Auma Nderitu
Respondent
Elizabeth Wariara Nderi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Amended Summons for Confirmation of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the grant of letters of administration intestate made to the applicant should be confirmed.
- 2 Whether the estate should be distributed as proposed by the applicant.
- 3 Whether the objector should be appointed as co-administrator.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found no sufficient reason to deny confirmation of the grant to the applicant, noting that the objector's mistrust and request for co-administration were not substantiated by evidence of failure or misconduct by the applicant. The court held that the proposed mode of distribution—equal sharing among the three family branches, with the house of Martin Mathenge represented by the 2nd respondent and her daughters taking a third as a block—was reasonable and consistent with prior rulings. The court further directed that any property proposed for sale, particularly IMS/316 Mombasa, must be professionally valued before disposal to ensure fairness. The application for confirmation of...
Court Disposition
Application for confirmation of grant allowed as prayed.
Orders
- The grant of letters of administration intestate made to Angela Wambui Nderitu on 28th August 2015 is confirmed.
- The deceased’s estate shall be distributed as per the proposal in the supporting affidavit of Angela Wambui Nderito.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
In re Estate of Peter Charles Nderito (Deceased) (Succession Cause 307 of 2006) [2024] KEHC 11666 (KLR) (Civ) (3 October 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 11666 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Civil
Succession Cause 307 of 2006
HK Chemitei, J
October 3, 2024
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE PETER CHARLES NDERITO (DECEASED)
Between
Angela Wambui Nderitu
Applicant
and
John Kangethe Nderitu
1st Respondent
Florence Auma Nderitu
2nd Respondent
Elizabeth Wariara Nderi
3rd Respondent
Ruling
1. The Amended summons for confirmation of grant dated August 8, 2022 seeks the following orders:-a.That the grant of letters of administration intestate made to Angela Wambui Nderito on 28th August 2015 be confirmed.b.That the deceased’s estate be distributed as per the proposal in the supporting affidavit of Angela Wambui Nderito filed herewith.c.Costs in the cause.
2. The application is based on the supporting affidavit of the Applicant sworn on even date.
3. The application has been opposed by one Tania Wariara Nderito who is the deceased granddaughter and the daughter of the 2nd Respondent as well as the deceased late son vide her affidavit sworn on 2nd February 2024.
4. The issues herein are relatively clear and the same have been deduced well in the rival affidavits and submissions.
5. The late Peter Charles Nderito died on 9th February 1999 intestate. He left behind the following, Elizabeth Nderito, the widow, Angela Wambui Nderito daughter, John Kangethe Nderito son and Tanya Wariara Nderito and Wambui Nderito who are the grandchildren and the children to the 2nd Respondent who she seared with the late Martin Mathenge the son to the deceased respectively.
6. The deceased left behind the properties well enumerated under paragraph 6 of the affidavit in support of the application.
7. The Applicant/administratrix of the estate has explained extensively on how the estate ought to be distributed which in essence is an equal distribution between the beneficiaries.
8. The objector Tanya Nderito position is that she ought to be appointed as a co administrator for the simple reason that she does not believe that the Applicant will be fair to her and her sister. She gave a chronology of events that took place on 22nd December 2022 where they were attacked by goon’s courtesy of the Applicant herein.
9. She further contented that the properties ought to be valued before being disposed and she single out the Mombasa property namely LR No. IMS/316 measuring 0. 75 acres.
10. I have perused the history of this matter, the ruling of my sisters Muigai J, Ongeri J and Odero J which is on record. I think the issues of the Kitusuru properties, that is, LR No. 7741/285 and 286 was sorted out by the said decisions. In effect LR No. 286 was to be divided between the Applicant and her brother the 1st Respondent herein. The other one LR No. 285 was to go to the 2nd Respondent and her two daughters.
11. Other than the issue of not trusting the Applicant and the need to value the properties especially the Mombasa one there is none in my view any other plausible reason why the grant should not be confirmed. I do not find it necessary at this penultimate time to bring in the objector, who apparently is a grandchild of the deceased at this juncture. The Applicant ought to be allowed to complete the estate.
12. Removing a court appointed administrator of an estate ought to be done sparingly and with cogent and satisfactory reasons as provided under Cap 160. In this case I do not think she has failed to discharge her responsibilities.
13. The issues surrounding any intermeddling with the Kitusuru property namely No. 7741/286 by either of the parties will be laid to rest once the grant is confirmed. I do agree with the Applicant that with this kind of animosity witnessed for almost twenty years between the parties it is only fair that the estate be distributed and each of them takes away their respective entitlement.
14. Looking at the mode of distribution under paragraph 9 of the supporting affidavit I find the same reasonable in the circumstances. All the properties are to be shared equally, that is each is to take a third, with the house of Martin Mathenge, who is represented by the 2nd Respondent and her two daughters taking a third as a block. Of course they shall be at liberty thereafter to divide their portion among themselves.
15. To allay the fears of the objector and to be fair to all the parties herein it is necessary to value any of the assets which has been proposed to be sold and the proceeds to be shared out. The Applicant shall therefore seek an input from a professional valuer to carry out a valuation of any of the properties and more in particular IMS/316 MOMBASA before disposing it.
16. In view of the above observations the application dated 8th August 2022 is allowed as prayed.
17. Costs shall be in the cause.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA VIDEO LINK THIS 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2024. H K CHEMITEIJUDGE