[2019] KEHC 9538 (KLR)
The court found that the application to rectify the grant lacked merit because the issue of equal sharing among all children of the deceased, including daughters, had already been addressed in the previous determination. The court had established that the protesters' earlier proposal had excluded the deceased's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 9538 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Rael Kaari M’Anampiu; Applicant: Elias Gitonga M’Anampiu; Respondent: Stanley Mathiu Anampiu; Respondent: Benjamin Kanyinyiu Anampiu; Respondent: Peter Gitonga M’Anampiu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 91 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Rectify Grant
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Distribution of Estate, Rectification of Grant
- 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
Rael Kaari M’Anampiu
Applicant
Elias Gitonga M’Anampiu
Applicant
Stanley Mathiu Anampiu
Respondent
Benjamin Kanyinyiu Anampiu
Respondent
Peter Gitonga M’Anampiu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Rectify Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Letters of Administration should be rectified to redistribute LR No. Nyaki/Munithu/290 and LR Nyaki/Kithoka – Mwanika/26 equally among all heirs as per the confirmed grant.
- 2 Whether the previous distribution unfairly excluded the deceased's daughters from the estate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application to rectify the grant lacked merit because the issue of equal sharing among all children of the deceased, including daughters, had already been addressed in the previous determination. The court had established that the protesters' earlier proposal had excluded the deceased's daughters, and the final distribution was made to correct this. The applicants' current claim for equal distribution was considered an afterthought, as it was not raised during the hearing of the protest. The court held that there was no error or omission in the confirmed grant that warranted rectification, and the application was therefore dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 1st August 2018 is dismissed.
- No orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 91 OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF ESTATE OF SIMON ANAMPIU M’MURUGU (DECEASED)
RAEL KAARI M’ANAMPIU................................PETITIONERS
ELIAS GITONGA M’ANAMPIU
VERSUS
STANLEY MATHIU ANAMPIU
BENJAMIN KANYINYIU ANAMPIU..................PROTESTERS
PETER GITONGA M’ANAMPIU
RULING
Application dated 1st August 2018 was brought by the protesters herein seeking that Letters of Administration issued to Elias Gitonga M’Anampiu and Florence Mukethi be rectified as follows:-
a) That LR No. Nyaki/Munithu/290 be redistributed equally among all heirs to the estate of the deceased as captured in confirmed grant.
b) That LR Nyaki/Kithoka – Mwanika/26 be distributed equally amongst heirs to the estate of the deceased as listed in confirmed grant.
Directions were taken that application be canvassed by way of written submissions. However as at 18th February 2019 no submissions had been filed. Th court therefore reverted to the affidavits sworn by applicant Peter Mutayia in support of the application on 1. 8.2018 and Benjamin Kanyinyiu sworn on 29th October 2018 to determine the application.
This court has considered the affidavits sworn by the applicant and Benjamin Anampiu as well as the reason as to why distribution was done in the manner that it appears in the certificate of confirmation and it is the view of this court that that determination was reached after the court established that the protesters
were distributing the estate to their cousins and left out the daughters of the deceased. It was established as shown in the ruling that LR. No. Nyaki/Kithoka/26 was being occupied and utilised by Cecilia Mukuba’s mother and Benjamin Kanyinyiu confirmed that Rose Kananu also stayed on LR. Kithoka/26.
They confirmed that Stanleys son, Joshua Muriki was the other person who occupied a portion of LR Kithoka/26. The court therefore said that that portion occupied by Joshua should be identified so it is transmitted to him.
The issue of deceased persons wishes that his children share the estate equally never arose at the hearing of the protest and in fact the protesters proposal left out the deceased persons daughters and that claim can only be treated as an afterthought. The applicants seems to feel that they are more entitled than the deceased persons daughters.
I find no merit in the application dated 1st August 2018 and the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
HON. A.ONG’INJO
JUDGE
RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN COURT ON 26TH FEBRUARY 2019.
In the presence of:
C/A: KINOTI
Petitioner:- Mr Ringera Advocate for 1st Petitioner N/A
2nd Petitioner –Present in person
Protester:- Mr Kithinji holding brief for Munene for applicants.
Court:
Copies of ruling to be supplied upon payment of copying charges
HON. A.ONG’INJO
JUDGE