[2009] KEHC 1119 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to substantiate claims of discrimination or exclusion from the estate properties. The respondent, as the sole surviving spouse, holds a life interest in the properties and relies on their income for her welfare and medical needs. There was no demonstrated basis for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 1119 (KLR)
- Parties
- MISSING: Peter Kigondu Wangi (Deceased); Applicant: [Applicant's Name Not Provided]; Respondent: [Respondent's Name Not Provided]
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Succession Cause 126 of 1993
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- CN Mugo
- Legal Topics
- Succession Act Section 35, Life Interest, Power of Appointment, 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
Peter Kigondu Wangi (Deceased)
MISSING
[Applicant's Name Not Provided]
Applicant
[Respondent's Name Not Provided]
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent, as the sole surviving spouse, should be compelled to exercise her power of appointment under section 35(2) of the Succession Act.
- 2 Whether the applicant has been discriminated against or unfairly excluded from the enjoyment of the estate properties.
- 3 Whether the respondent's use of her life interest in the estate properties can be restrained by the court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to substantiate claims of discrimination or exclusion from the estate properties. The respondent, as the sole surviving spouse, holds a life interest in the properties and relies on their income for her welfare and medical needs. There was no demonstrated basis for compelling her to exercise the power of appointment under section 35(2) of the Succession Act. The court held that the respondent cannot be restrained in the enjoyment of her life interest, and the application lacked merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application is dismissed.
- There is no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
Succession Cause 126 of 1993
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF PETER KIGONDU WANGI (DECEASED)
RULING
The applicant has moved the court under section 35(2) of the Succession Act praying that his mother, the sole surviving spouse of the intestate herein be ordered to exercise her power of appointment under the said section of the Act.
The applicant prays that, upon the exercise of the power of appointment he be given the following properties:
(a) 1. 2 acres out of land parcel No. Nyandarua/Kipipiri/81 measuring 7. 7 acres or thereabouts.
(b) 1 shop and 1 rear room in Nyandarua/Miharati T.15 with 7 developed shops.
The above two assets are held by the respondent who holds a life interest therein pursuant to a grant issued by the court on 16th June 1993. The applicant believes that there is need for the respondent to exercise the statutory power of appointment under section 35(2) and that her failure to do so is improper and unreasonable. The applicant contends that the respondent has discriminated against him when sharing the rental income she derives from the above properties with others and that she and other beneficiaries have been benefiting from the estate to his exclusion and detriment. He even compares his monthly income with that of the respondent whom she says earns about Shs 12,000/= against his Shs 10,000/=.
In her replying affidavit, sworn on 6th May 2006, the respondent depones that she has distributed the estate to all her children, including the applicant, equally and that she is dependent on the two properties claimed herein for her subsistence and livelihood, more so, the purchase of medication for diabetes. She depones further that the applicant does not assist her in any way and should await her demise, when her life interest will expire in any event and the two properties shared out among her surviving beneficiaries.
The applicant has not substantiated his claim that he has been sidelined and/or discriminated against in the enjoyment of the two parcels against which he lays a claim. The basis of his claim is also not demonstrated. I do not consider that the respondent can be restrained in the manner in which she uses or enjoys her life interest. That she is dependent on the income generated by the said properties for her general upkeep and welfare, is, in my considered view, a good enough reason not to exercise the power of appointment.
I see no merits in this application and hereby dismiss the same with no order as to costs.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nakuru this 5th day of August 2009
M. G. MUGO
JUDGE