[2008] KEHC 1738 (KLR)
The court found that although the applicants were present in court during the confirmation of grant, their failure to make their presence known could be attributed to intimidation or unfamiliarity with court procedures. The court held that justice demands all parties be heard on the mode of distribution. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 1738 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Murimi Githinji; Applicant: Wambui Maina; Applicant: Gichohi Gathigia; Applicant: Beatrice Wanjiru; Respondent: James Murimi Githinji
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Succession Cause 231 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Confirmation of Grant
- Outcome
- Application to set aside the confirmation of grant allowed.
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Confirmation of Grant, Customary Law Vs Statute, Distribution of Estate
- 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
Murimi Githinji
Applicant
Wambui Maina
Applicant
Gichohi Gathigia
Applicant
Beatrice Wanjiru
Applicant
James Murimi Githinji
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Confirmation of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the confirmation of grant and the mode of distribution of the estate should be set aside due to lack of consent by some beneficiaries.
- 2 Whether distribution of the estate should be governed by Kikuyu Customary Law or the Law of Succession Act, given the date of death of the deceased.
- 3 Whether dissatisfied parties can challenge only the distribution without seeking revocation of the grant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the applicants were present in court during the confirmation of grant, their failure to make their presence known could be attributed to intimidation or unfamiliarity with court procedures. The court held that justice demands all parties be heard on the mode of distribution. The court was persuaded by precedent that a party dissatisfied with distribution may challenge it without seeking revocation of the grant. Since the distribution was done according to Kikuyu Customary Law despite the deceased having died after the enactment of the Succession Act, the court found it appropriate to set aside the confirmation of grant and allow the applicants to file their...
Court Disposition
Application to set aside the confirmation of grant allowed.
Orders
- The order made on 4th December 2007 confirming the grant is set aside and the confirmed grant is cancelled. The petitioner shall return the confirmed grant to the court within 14 days of the ruling.
- The applicants shall file their affidavit of protest within 7 days of the ruling. The matter shall be mentioned before court on 18th April 2008 for further orders.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NYERI
Succession Cause 231 of 2005
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF GITHINJI GICHOHI ……….. DCD
AND
JAMES MURIMI GITHINJI …….………………….…………… PETITIONER
RULING
The Applicants Murimi Githinji, Wambui Maina, Gichohi Gathigia and Beatrice Wanjiru have moved this court by a summons dated 7th January 2008. That summons is brought under Rules 49 and 73 of Probate and Administration Rules. The applicants seek that the order confirming the grant issued by the court on the 4th December 2007 be set aside and the confirmed grant be recalled. These applicants state that they had not consented to the mode of distribution suggested in the application for confirmation dated 5th November 2007. They however confirmed in their supporting affidavit that they were served with that application. When the same came up for hearing on 4th December 2007 they attended court. Their intention on that day was to seek for an adjournment to enable them file an affidavit of protest. They deponed that when the matter was called out only the name of the petitioner was called out by the court. Because their names were not called out they did not make their presence known. They deponed in the affidavit that they do not object to the grant being issued to the petitioner but they object to the mode of distribution. It is that mode that they seek to set aside. The distribution made when the grant was confirmed they stated was in accordance to the Kikuyu Customary Law whereas the deceased died on 11th February 1998. This was after the enactment of the Succession Act. They therefore argued that distribution should have been in accordance with that act. The application was opposed by the petitioner. In his opposition he stated that the estate property was to be divided according to the houses. That he was the only one representing his mother’s house. He confirmed that the applicants did attend court on 4th December 2007 and when asked by the court they indicated that they had no objection to the confirmation of grant.
I have considered the submissions made before me and the application the subject of the present ruling. Although it was argued by the respondent to the application that the grant having been confirmed the same could not be set aside I find that I am persuaded by the decision of the Hon. Justice Khamoni in the case of In Re Estate of Gitau (Deceased) [2002] 2 KLR. The Hon. Judge held as follows;-
“Distribution of the estate comes during the proceedings to confirm the relevant grant and a party dissatisfied with the distribution may not necessarily be dissatisfied with the grant of letters of administration and vice versa. That being the position, it becomes unreasonable for a person dissatisfied with the distribution of the estate only to proceed to ask for the revocation or annulment of the grant which, as in this case, has nothing wrong. While section 76 of the Law of Succession Act should therefore be relied upon to revoke or annual a grant, it is not proper to use the same section where the objector is challenging the distribution only.”
I am conscious that parties get daunted by the appearance of the court and it is possible that the applicants did attend court on 4th December 2007 but were not free to make their presence known perhaps fearing being found to be out of order by the court. I have looked at the mode of distribution confirmed on that day and I am of the view that the interest of justice demands that all parties be heard on that distribution. Accordingly the orders of this court are;-
1. That the order made herein on 4th December 2007 be and is hereby set aside and the grant issued therefore is hereby cancelled. The petitioner shall return that confirmed grant to the court within 14 days of the reading of this ruling.
2. The applicants shall file their affidavit of protest within 7 days of the reading of this ruling. This matter shall be mentioned before court 1 on 18th April 2008 for further orders.
3. There shall be no orders as to costs in respect of the summons dated 7th January 2008.
Dated and delivered at Nyeri this 9th day of April 2008.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE