[2018] KEHC 3456 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant, having sold a portion of his allocated share to third parties who have since developed the land, fundamentally altered the property and introduced third-party rights. This action precludes the possibility of a re-survey or rectification as sought, as it would affect the rights of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 3456 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jamlik Muriithi Samuel; Respondent: Cordina Mbae Samuel
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 358 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Rectification and Re Survey
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- A Mabeya
- Legal Topics
- Succession Administration, Distribution of Estate, Rectification of Grant, Land Survey Disputes
- 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
Jamlik Muriithi Samuel
Applicant
Cordina Mbae Samuel
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Rectification and Re Survey
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should order a re-survey of land parcel ABOGETA/L.KITHANGARI/617 as sought by the applicant.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to rectification of the distribution exercise conducted by the petitioner.
- 3 Whether the applicant's actions in selling part of the estate to third parties preclude the relief sought.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant, having sold a portion of his allocated share to third parties who have since developed the land, fundamentally altered the property and introduced third-party rights. This action precludes the possibility of a re-survey or rectification as sought, as it would affect the rights of bona fide purchasers. The court also noted that the distribution was alleged to have been in accordance with the deceased's wishes, and there was insufficient basis to intervene in the administrator's exercise. Consequently, the application lacked merit and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for rectification and re-survey is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 358 OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF SAMWEL
ITONGAMAITAI alias ITONGA MAITAI (DECEASED)
JAMLIK MURIITHI SAMUEL.............................PETITIONER
VERSUS
CORDINA MBAE SAMUEL.......................................OBJECTOR
R U L I N G
1. Before me is a Summons dated 14th December, 2017 for what the applicant calls ‘an order to rectify and order a re-survey of the estate property’.It is brought under section 3 &3A of the Civil Procedure Rules.The orders are sought in respect of parcel numberR.LABOGETA/L.KITHANGARI/617.
2. The gist of the application is that the petitioner wrongly surveyed the deceased’s parcel of land without consulting other members of the family. That the petitioner surveyed and gave the applicant a sloppy area whereas he enjoyed fertile land as evidenced by the sketch plan. The applicant further asked that the Court order the rectification of the petitioner’s exercise and the repeat of the survey as per the entire’s family wish.
3. The Application was opposed through a Replying Affidavit sworn by the petitioner on 24th February, 2018. He deposed that; as per the wishes of the deceased, the Interested Party got his share and even sold some portions to third parties; that the application is brought in bad faith and is meant to delay the fair distribution of the estate of the deceased. He urged the Court to dismiss the application with costs to him.
4. I have carefully considered the affidavits on record and the rival contentions by the parties. The court had ordered that the application be determined by way of written submissions. None of the parties had filed their submissions as at the time of writing this ruling.
5. I have considered the entire record and the issue for determination is whether this court should order a re-survey of land Parcel No. ABOGETA/L.KITHANGARI/617.
6. The question is whether this court has jurisdiction to direct an administrator on how to effect the distribution of the estate on the ground. Whereas the court has no adequate expertise to do so, where there is a proper and needy application, the court may intervene in order to render justice. This is because, even after the court has confirmed the grant, an administrator is still required to give an account to the court. Further, section 47 of the Law of Succession Act, Cap 160 of the Laws of Kenya gives the court power to give such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice.
7. In the present case, the applicant alleges that the applicant distributed to him a sloppy area while he parceled for himself a fertile area. On his part, the petitioner stated that the estate was divided according to the wishes of the deceased and that the applicant had already sold part of his land to a third party. He produced a sale agreement dated 12th July, 2012 to buttress this allegation. That the third party has already constructed a permanent house on the portion sold by the applicant.
8. I have seen the sale agreement between the applicant and Ceaser Ikunda and Catherine Ikunda dated 12th July 2012. They bought three acres from the applicant for Kshs.900,000/-. It was alleged that they had already constructed a permanent house thereon. How will the property be re-surveyed now when the applicant has by his own action fundamentally changed it by introducing third parties thereunto? How are we to deal with the third party whom he willingly brought to the estate property and now has entrenched rights.
9. In view of the foregoing, I find the application to be without merit and I hereby dismiss the same. I will make no order as to costs.
SIGNED at Meru
A.MABEYA
JUDGE
DATEDand DELIVEREDat Meru this 11th day of October, 2018.
A.ONG’INJO
JUDGE