[2018] KEHC 5510 (KLR)
The court, upon reviewing its earlier judgment, found that errors had occurred in the distribution of the deceased's estate, specifically the omission of a beneficiary and the failure to allocate a portion of property among the houses of the deceased. Exercising its powers under Section 47 of the Law of Succession...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 5510 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Loice Mwari M’Miriti; Respondent: Margaret M’Miriti; Respondent: Anne Mwari M’Miriti
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Succession Cause 408 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Succession Cause / Ruling on Review and Correction of Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment reviewed and corrected; estate distribution amended as per the ruling.
- Judges
- A Mabeya
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Estate Distribution, Grant Revocation, Polygamous Estates
- 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
Loice Mwari M’Miriti
Applicant
Margaret M’Miriti
Respondent
Anne Mwari M’Miriti
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Succession Cause / Ruling on Review and Correction of Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court can correct errors in its previous judgment regarding distribution of a deceased's estate.
- 2 Whether the distribution of the estate should be in accordance with Section 40 of the Law of Succession Act for a polygamous estate.
- 3 Whether the omission of a beneficiary and failure to distribute a portion of property can be rectified by the court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court, upon reviewing its earlier judgment, found that errors had occurred in the distribution of the deceased's estate, specifically the omission of a beneficiary and the failure to allocate a portion of property among the houses of the deceased. Exercising its powers under Section 47 of the Law of Succession Act and Article 159 of the Constitution, the court determined that it could correct these errors to ensure a just and equitable distribution of the estate. The court further held that, since the deceased was polygamous, the distribution should be in accordance with Section 40 of the Law of Succession Act, which governs the distribution of estates among multiple houses. The...
Court Disposition
Judgment reviewed and corrected; estate distribution amended as per the ruling.
Orders
- The previous judgment is recalled and reviewed to correct errors in the distribution of the estate.
- Distribution of the estate to be in accordance with Section 40 of the Law of Succession Act.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
54 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
MISCELLENOUS SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 408 OF 2007
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF STEPHEN
M’MIRITI M’MUNGANIA (DECEASED)
LOICE MWARI M’MIRITI................PETITIONER
VERSUS
MARGARET M’MIRITI.................1ST OBJECTOR
ANNE MWARI M’MIRITI............2ND OBJECTOR
RULING
1. On 11th May, 2017, I delivered a judgment whereby I distributed the estate of the deceased amongst his three houses. I have again looked at the said judgment and discovered that it has several errors. Those are errors that this court committed and if they are corrected they will cause no prejudice to any of the parties.
2. Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act, Cap 160 of the Laws of Kenya, (“the Act”) permits the court to revoke a grant either on its own or on application on the grounds set out thereunder. Section 47 of the Act gives this Court discretion and jurisdiction to pronounce decrees and make orders as may be expedient for the ends of justice.
3. In this regard, I have noted the following errors in the said judgment.
a. In paragraph 9(e), it is indicated that since the deceased was polygamous, Section 42 of the Act applies;
b. In paragraph 10(i) when distributing Plot No. 27 Nanyuki to the 3rd house of Loise Mwari Miriti, the name of Eunice Kathambi M’Miriti was inadvertently left out.
3. In paragraph 10 (j) when distributing plot No. 2787/1550, Nanyuki, while the property was divided into three (3) in accordance with the houses, only two portions were distributed to two houses leaving one portion out undistributed and one house out.
4. Accordingly, under Section 47 of the Act and Article 159 of the Constitution Act and in order to perfect the said judgment, I hereby recall that judgment review the same and correct the said errors as follows: -
a. The distribution is to be in accordance with Section 40 of the Act;
b. Plot No. 27 Nanyuki is distributed to: -
i. Loise Mwari Miriti
ii. Martin Murithi M’ Miriti
iii. Moses Munene M’Miriti
iv. Fridah Karambu M’Miriti Equal shares
v. Caroline Kagwiria M’Miriti
vi. Mercy Nkatha M’Miriti
vii. Joseline Kagwiria M’Miriti
viii. Eunice Kathambi M’Miriti
c. Plot No. 2787/1550, Nanyuki Town.
Left hand side as one faces away from the building-25X100ft
i. Margaret M’Miriti
ii. Julius Mutwiri M’Miriti
iii. Peter Kithinji M’Miriti Equal shares
iv. Gladys Nkirote M’ Miriti
v. Mbaya M’ Miriti
d. Backside of the building -25X50ft
i. Loise Mwari Miriti
ii. Martin Murithi M’ Miriti
iii. Moses Munene M’Miriti
iv. Fridah Karambu M’Miriti Equal Shares
v. Caroline Kagwiria M’Miriti
vi. Mercy Nkatha M’Miriti
vii. Joseline Kagwiria M’Miriti
viii. Eunice Kathambi M’Miriti
e. Right hand side as one faces away from the building -25X50 ft
i. Julius Mwebia M’Miriti
ii. Jane Gacheri M’ Miriti
iii. Joshua Mwenda M’Miriti Equal shares
iv. Doris Makena M’Miriti
v. Mary Gakii M’Miriti
It is so ordered.
Dated and Delivered this 16th day of July, 2018
A. MABEYA
JUDGE