[2025] KEHC 6178 (KLR)
The court found that there was a clear and self-evident error in the judgment delivered on 23rd August 2024. While the body of the judgment dismissed the protest and the protestor's proposed mode of distribution, the final orders erroneously confirmed the grant in accordance with the protestor's proposal. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 6178 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Esther Nyaguthii Gitau; Respondent: Wangui Gitau
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 1030 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Review and Rectification of Grant Confirmation
- Outcome
- Application for review allowed; judgment and confirmation of grant rectified to reflect administrators' mode of distribution.
- Judges
- SN Riechi
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Confirmation of Grant, Rectification of Grant, Error on Face of Record
- 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
Esther Nyaguthii Gitau
Applicant
Wangui Gitau
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Review and Rectification of Grant Confirmation
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment delivered on 23rd August 2024 regarding the mode of distribution of the deceased's estate.
- 2 Whether the court should review and rectify the orders confirming the grant to reflect the administrators' proposed mode of distribution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there was a clear and self-evident error in the judgment delivered on 23rd August 2024. While the body of the judgment dismissed the protest and the protestor's proposed mode of distribution, the final orders erroneously confirmed the grant in accordance with the protestor's proposal. The court held that this was an error apparent on the face of the record, which did not require argument to establish. Accordingly, the court exercised its power of review to rectify the orders, confirming the grant in accordance with the administrators' proposed mode of distribution, as originally intended and found equitable by the court.
Court Disposition
Application for review allowed; judgment and confirmation of grant rectified to reflect administrators' mode of distribution.
Orders
- The judgment issued on 23rd August 2024 is reviewed.
- The confirmation of grant is rectified to reflect the administrators' proposed mode of distribution as set out in the ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
In re Estate of Wildred Gitau Munge - (Deceased) (Succession Cause 1030 of 2008) [2025] KEHC 6178 (KLR) (Family) (15 May 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 6178 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Family
Succession Cause 1030 of 2008
SN Riechi, J
May 15, 2025
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF WILFRED GITAU MUNGE - (DECEASED)
Ruling
1. This is an application dated 4. 10. 2024 by the applicant Esther Nyaguthii Gitau seeking the following orders; 1. That there be a review of this Honourable Court's Judgment issued on the 23rd of August 2024.
2. That upon granting prayer 1, there be an order rectifying the orders and the terms of the confirmation of the grant issued on the 23rd of August 2024 as follows:a.That the grant be confirmed with the following mode of distribution:NAME DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTIES SHARE OF HEIRS
1. The estate of Edwin Ndichu Gitau2. The estate of Kenneth Mwathi Gitau3. The estate of Lincoln Mumira Gitau ¾ of the Upper Portion ofDagoretti/Mutuini/ 189 Jointly in equal shares
The families of the six daughters of the deceased will jointly own the portion. These are:1. The estate of Winfred Nyokabi Kimani2. Wangui Gitau3. Leah Gachiku Mulokwa4. The estate of Irene Njoki Gitau5. Joan Karungari Njoroge6. Nancy Ruguru Kinuthia ¼ of the Upper Portion ofDagoretti/Mutuini/189 where their mother the late Sybilla Wanjiru Gitau (deceased) residence stands Jointly in equal shares
1. The estate of Winfred Nyokabi Kimani2. The estate of Edwin Ndichu Gitau3. The estate of Kenneth MwathiGitau4. Wangui Gitau5. Leah Gachiku Mulokwa6. The estate of Irene Njoki Gitau7. Joan Karungari Njoroge8. The estate of Lincoln Mumira Gitau9. Nancy Ruguru Kinuthia The lower part ofDagoretti/Mutuini/189 To be sold and the proceeds to be shared equally among all the beneficiaries or their surviving families.
2. The grant for the application is that there is an error apparent on the face of the record, as the Judgment in its body dismissed the protest and the Protestors mode of distribution. However, in the conclusion the Judgment distributed the property as per the Protested mode of distribution instead of the distribution by the administrators. Applicant contends that this was an error which this court can correct by review of the Judgment.
3. This is an application to this court to review the Judgment delivered in as there is an error apparent in record. A review can be granted whenever the court considers that it is necessary to correct an apparent error or omission in the part of the court. The error or omission must be self-evident and should not require argument to be established.Order 45 CPR (Par 10)(Wainaina Vs Busheki & 2 others C.A 9/2018 2024 KEHC 12791 KCR (Nakuru)Par. 16, 17
4. The Court upon hearing the parties on the protest by the protestor required both the administrators and the Protestor to file their preferred proposed mode of distribution. Both complied. The Court Considered the evidence. By the administrators and the Protest Wangui Gitau. The court found the administrators mode of distribution equitable. The court dismissed the protest. When the court confirmed the grant, the protestors mode of distribution which had been dismissed is the one indicated. This is clearly an error which is apparent on the face of record.
5. In the body of judgement, the Protest was dismissed together with her mode of distribution. It therefore follows that it is the administrators’ proposal that was accepted. The typing of the protestors mode of distribution as in the confirmation was an error which error is self evidence and does not require argument to establish. I therefore review the judgment on distribution and distribute the estate of the deceased as hereunder:NAME DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTIES SHARE OF HEIRS
1. The estate of Edwin Ndichu Gitau2. The estate of Kenneth Mwathi Gitau3. The estate of Lincoln Mumira Gitau ¾ of the Upper Portion ofDagoretti/Mutuini/ 189 Jointly in equal shares
The families of the six daughters of the deceased will jointly own the portion. These are:1. The estate of Winfred Nyokabi Kimani2. Wangui Gitau3. Leah Gachiku Mulokwa4. The estate of Irene Njoki Gitau5. Joan Karungari Njoroge6. Nancy Ruguru Kinuthia ¼ of the Upper Portion ofDagoretti/Mutuini/189 where their mother the late Sybilla Wanjiru Gitau (deceased) residence stands Jointly in equal shares
1. The estate of Winfred Nyokabi Kimani2. The estate of Edwin Ndichu Gitau3. The estate of Kenneth MwathiGitau4. Wangui Gitau5. Leah Gachiku Mulokwa6. The estate of Irene Njoki Gitau7. Joan Karungari Njoroge8. The estate of Lincoln Mumira Gitau9. Nancy Ruguru Kinuthia The lower part ofDagoretti/Mutuini/189 To be sold and the proceeds to be shared equally among all the beneficiaries or their surviving families.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 15TH DAY OF MAY, 2025…………………………..S. N. RIECHIJUDGE