[2010] KEHC 2343 (KLR)
The court found that the caution registered by the deceased cautioner was impeding the implementation of the confirmed grant and, since the cautioner was dead and no application for revocation or annulment of the grant had been made, there was no justification for maintaining the caution. The court therefore allowed...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 2343 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Benson Mugo King’au; Applicant: Daniel Maina King’au; Respondent: Peter Karani King’au
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 754 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Removal of Caution and Subdivision Orders
- Outcome
- Summons for removal of caution allowed; summons for subdivision and relocation/compensation dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Administration of Estates, Confirmation of Grant, Removal of Caution, Land Subdivision, Powers of Administrators
- 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
Benson Mugo King’au
Applicant
Daniel Maina King’au
Applicant
Peter Karani King’au
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Removal of Caution and Subdivision Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the caution registered against title No. Mutira/Kaguyu/123 should be removed to allow implementation of the confirmed grant.
- 2 Whether the objector, not being an administrator, can seek orders for subdivision of the estate property and relocation or compensation for developments.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the caution registered by the deceased cautioner was impeding the implementation of the confirmed grant and, since the cautioner was dead and no application for revocation or annulment of the grant had been made, there was no justification for maintaining the caution. The court therefore allowed the application for removal of the caution. Regarding the application for subdivision and relocation/compensation for developments, the court held that such powers rest with the administrators of the estate, not with the objector, and that the application was therefore incompetent, vexatious, and premature. The application for subdivision was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
Summons for removal of caution allowed; summons for subdivision and relocation/compensation dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The caution registered against title No. Mutira/Kaguyu/123 is to be removed.
- The summons dated 4th February 2010 seeking subdivision and relocation/compensation is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NYERI
Succession Cause 754 of 2008
[IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF SIMEON KINGAU MUGA alias SIMON K. MUGA (DECEASED)
AND BENSON MUGO KING’AU..….……..…....…………. 1ST PETITIONER
DANIEL MAINA KING’AU…..……….….…..……… 2ND PETITIONER
VERSUS PETER KARANI KING’AU...……………..………………… OBJECTOR
RULING
This ruling is the offshoot of two applications namely:-The summons dated4th December 2009and the summons dated4th February 2010. In the summons dated4th December 2009, Daniel Maina King’au, the 2nd petitioner herein, seeks to have the caution registered against title No. Mutira/Kaguyu/123 removed so that the terms of the certificate of the confirmed grant effected.In the summons dated4th February 2010, Peter Karani King’au, the objector herein, sought for the following orders interalia:
(i)The parcel known as L.R. Mutira/Kaguyu/123 be subdivided in accordance with the annexed sketch to take into account the developments made thereon by the beneficiaries.
(ii)The beneficiaries be given sufficient time to relocate their developments that may fall outside their portions or that they be compensated for the same.
I propose to begin by dealing with the summons dated4th December 2009. The summons is supported by the affidavit of Daniel Maina King’au sworn on4th December 2009. Peter Karani King’au filed a replying affidavit to oppose the summons.Basically, the applicant is seeking to have the caution removed.It is said the cautioner is dead and that the existence of the caution is impeding on the implementation of the terms of confirmed grant.Peter Karani King’au, opposed the summons on the basis that the same is frivolous, vexatious and premature.It is his submission that parties have not agreed on the demarcation.It is his argument that this application be stayed pending the out come of the summons dated4th February 2010.
I have considered the rival submissions.It is not denied that the person who lodged the caution i.e. Margaret Karuana King’au is dead.It is also not in dispute that the grant has been confirmed and no one has so far applied for the grant to be revoked and or annulled.In view of the aforegoing I do not see the need of sustaining the caution because the cautioner is dead.If the caution is maintained, it will impede the implementation of the certificate of confirmed grant.I find the summons to be well founded.I allow the summons as prayed.
Having concluded the summons dated4th December 2009, let me now turn my attention to the summons dated 4th February 20010. I have already set out the orders sought in the aforesaid summons.The application is supported by the affidavit of Peter Karani King’au.Daniel Maina King’au opposed the application by filing a replying affidavit.The applicant is seeking to have the parcel of land in dispute subdivided in accordance to the sketch map attached to the affidavit filed in support.The applicant has also sought for an order giving the beneficiaries time to relocate to their portions.The applicant has stated the developments he has done on his portion.The applicant has stated that the beneficiaries have not agreed on how the subdivisions should be carried out.Daniel Maina King’au opposed the application on the basis that since the confirmation of the grant the beneficiaries have agreed to occupy and continue developing their respective portions as well as retaining their developments therein.I have considered the rival submissions.I find the application curious.It is obvious that the grant was confirmed in the names of Benson Mugo King’au and Daniel Maina King’au.The duo are the administrators of the estate of Simeon King’au Muga alias Simon K. Mugo, deceased.The issue relating to the subdivision of the property in dispute is within the powers of the administrators.Peter Karani King’au is not one of the administrators.I expected such an application to be made by the administrators.I find the application to vexatious, incompetent and premature.The same has no merit in any event.I dismiss the summons dated4th February 2010with costs.
Dated and delivered this 14th day of May 2010.
J.K. SERGON
JUDGE