[2019] KEHC 12154 (KLR)
The court declined to determine the Summons for Confirmation of Grant due to procedural and substantive deficiencies. Specifically, the absence of signed consents from all beneficiaries on the proposed mode of distribution, the lack of title documents or search certificates to establish ownership of the estate's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 12154 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Isaac Kiprono Busienei; Applicant: Philiph Kipngeno Kirui; Applicant: Erick Kiprotich Langat; Applicant: Andrew Kipchirchir Langat; Respondent: Eunice Cheptorus Chelule
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 45 of 1993
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Confirmation of Grant
- Outcome
- Summons for Confirmation of Grant not determined; matter stood over for mention.
- Judges
- GMA Dulu
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Confirmation of Grant, Mode of Distribution, Beneficiary Consent, Land Asset 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
Isaac Kiprono Busienei
Applicant
Philiph Kipngeno Kirui
Applicant
Erick Kiprotich Langat
Applicant
Andrew Kipchirchir Langat
Applicant
Eunice Cheptorus Chelule
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Confirmation of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Summons for Confirmation of Grant is ripe for determination in the absence of signed consents from all beneficiaries.
- 2 Whether the proposed modes of distribution are valid without supporting title documents or search certificates for the estate assets.
- 3 Whether the court can proceed to confirm the grant amidst unresolved disputes regarding asset ownership and beneficiary entitlements.
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined to determine the Summons for Confirmation of Grant due to procedural and substantive deficiencies. Specifically, the absence of signed consents from all beneficiaries on the proposed mode of distribution, the lack of title documents or search certificates to establish ownership of the estate's land assets, and unresolved disputes regarding asset entitlement and participation of certain parties rendered the application premature. The court emphasized that confirmation of grant is not merely a function of the petitioners but requires the active consent and participation of all beneficiaries. Without addressing these omissions, the court held that it could not proceed to...
Court Disposition
Summons for Confirmation of Grant not determined; matter stood over for mention.
Orders
- The matter will be mentioned on a date to be fixed to confirm regularisation of the issues raised and for further orders or directions.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KERICO
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 45 OF 1993
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF SAMWEL KIPLANGAT CHESIMET (DECEASED)
ISAAC KIPRONO BUSIENEI..............................................................................1ST PETITIONER
PHILIPH KIPNGENO KIRUI..............................................................................2ND PETITIONER
ERICK KIPROTICH LANGAT............................................................................3RD PETITIONER
ANDREW KIPCHIRCHIR LANGAT...................................................................4TH PETITIONER
AND
EUNICE CHEPTORUS CHELULE...............................................................................OBJECTOR
RULING
1. Before me is a Summons for Confirmation of Grant dated 17th March 2014 filed by Ms Migiro & Company Advocates on behalf of the 1st petitioner Isaac Kiprono Busienei, in this matter where the petitioners are four in number. It was brought under section 71 of the Law of Succession Act (cap.160).
2. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the 1st petitioner Isaac Kiprono Busienei on 17th March 2014. The application was also filed with an affidavit on the proposed mode of distribution of the assets signed by Isaac Kiprono Busienei, Philip Kipngeno Kirui and Erick Kiprotich Langat, three of the petitioners proposing the mode of distribution of the assets among four (4) household, as the deceased appears to have had 4 wives. Andrew Kipchirchir Langat the 4th petitioner, and the beneficiaries did not sign this affidavit on the proposed mode of distribution.
3. The 4th petitioner Andrew Kipchirchir Langat in response to the above proposed mode of distribution of the assets filed an affidavit of protest against Confirmation of Grant which he swore on 19th March 2014 claiming that some assets listed by his co-petitioners did not belong to the deceased and also challenged the mode of distribution proposed by the other petitioners and proposed a different mode of distribution. None of the first three (3) petitioners or the 4th petitioner however, filed copies of searches or title documents of assets to their proposed mode of distribution of the assets.
4. Eunice Cheptorus Chelule the protestor filed an affidavit of protest claiming to be a wife of a nephew of the deceased claiming 10 acres of land which according to her were allocated to her late husband.
5. Counsel for the petitioners filed written submission and on the hearing date which was 8th May 2019, Mr. Migiro for the 1st Petitioner, Mr. Mwita for 2nd petitioner and Ms Sitati for the 4th petitioner elected not to highlight the written submissions filed and left it to the court to make its ruling on the Summons for Confirmation of Grant. The protestor neither filed written submissions nor attended court.
6. In my view, even though all counsel who appeared before me asked the court to give its decision on the Summons for Confirmation of Grant, the said Summons is not ripe for a ruling. The first reason is with regard to the contents of the proposed mode of distribution.
7. The proposed two modes of distribution were opposed by an affidavit of protest sworn on 11th July 2014 and filed by Eunice Cheptarus Chelule claiming that the deceased was her uncle, and that she was entitled to inherit part of the three (3) land assets. The same Eunice Cheptorus Chelule filed another affidavit of protest she swore on 9th July 2015 through Koech J. K. & Company Advocates, but it is not clear whether she or her advocates knew that ruling was now being sought.
8. Again though by consent, parties’ counsel filed written submissions in the application, the surviving beneficiaries who are required to sign the consents on the proposed mode of distribution did not sign, instead only petitioner signed. Such is not a function of only the appointed petitioners, and since no such consent to the various modes of distribution was signed by the beneficiaries this court cannot determine the Summons for Confirmation of Grant as it is.
9. The second reason is that there has been raised a dispute as to ownership of the land assets of the estate, by the 4th petitioner and Eunice Cheptorus. It was thus imperative for title documents or search certificates in respect of the land assets to be filed which was not done. Thus this court cannot proceed to determine the Summons for Confirmation of Grant.
10. The third reason is that this court cannot give its decision without knowing the position with regard to the 3rd petitioner and Eunice Cheptorus Chelule the protestor, who does not appear to be aware of the progress of proceedings so far.
11. In my view, the above omissions must be addressed before the court can be asked to give a ruling on the Summons for Confirmation of Grant herein.
12. I thus order that the matter will be mentioned on a date I will fix hereafter, to confirm regularisation of the matters raised in paragraph 7 to 10 8 herein above, and for any further orders or directions.
Dated and delivered at Kericho this 9th December 2019.
George Dulu
JUDGE