[2001] KEHC 736 (KLR)
The court found that the objector failed to prove that any property in the deceased's estate was held in trust for him or that he was entitled to a share beyond what was already allocated to him under their father's will. The petitioner, as widow, had the consent of the deceased's children and only claimed her late...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2001] KEHC 736 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kartar Kaur Matheru; Respondent: Bhopinder Singh Matheru
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 1150 of ??
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Objection to Grant of Letters of Administration
- Outcome
- objection dismissed with costs to the petitioner
- Legal Topics
- Grant of Letters of Administration, Succession Disputes, Estate Distribution
- 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
Kartar Kaur Matheru
Applicant
Bhopinder Singh Matheru
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Objection to Grant of Letters of Administration
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the objector is entitled to be appointed as sole or joint administrator of the deceased's estate.
- 2 Whether the deceased held any property in trust for the objector.
- 3 Whether the petitioner is entitled to a grant of letters of administration for the deceased's estate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the objector failed to prove that any property in the deceased's estate was held in trust for him or that he was entitled to a share beyond what was already allocated to him under their father's will. The petitioner, as widow, had the consent of the deceased's children and only claimed her late husband's share of the property. The objector's claim was unsupported by evidence, as the will and grant of probate showed a clear division of property between the brothers. The objection was therefore without merit and dismissed, with costs awarded to the petitioner.
Court Disposition
objection dismissed with costs to the petitioner
Orders
- The objection to the grant of letters of administration is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the petitioner/widow.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 1150 OF 2000
(IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF SOHAN SINGH MATHERU
(DECEASED)
R U L I N G
Bhopinder Singh Matheru, a brother to the late Sohan Singh Matheru (deceased) objected to the deceased’s wife, Mrs. Kartar Kaur Matheru, petition for a Grant of Letters of Administration to the deceased’s estate. The deceased died on 9th January, 2000, and the widow, petitioned for the Grant on 13th March, 2000.
The deceased children relinquished their shares in favour of their mother. They also gave her consent to petition for the Grant.
The deceased’s brother filed an objection dated 25th August, 2000. His grounds of objection include the fact that him and the deceased who is his brother inherited gold, ornaments and other valuable from their parents and they had not divided the items. The objector also claimed that he was the one, who administered their father’s estate, as such, it would be fair for him to administer his deceased brother’s estate as well.
In court during submission the objector stated that his deceased brother was holding valuables in trust for him so if he is not made an administrator, he will suffer. He prayed that he be made the sole administrator or a joint administrator. He said further that both himself and his brother own the family house jointly, that is why he must be an administrator. He also wanted to have a share of the deceased’s personal belongings.
Whilst being questioned by the petitioner’s counsel, he admitted that his father’s property was divided between him and his deceased’s brother in a will, but he still felt that he wanted a share of his brother’s property. The petitioner identified the objector as his brother in law, and stated that all the properties he listed in her petition belong to her husband the deceased.
The petitioner recalled that her father in law left a will and his property was divided and inherited as per the will. She denied that she had claimed any of the objector's property. She only claimed what belonged to her husband. She produced as an exhibit the Grant of Probate with will annexed of her late father in law, and said that his property was divided amongst his sons, her husband being one of them.
Having listened to the objector’s submissions and the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner widow, I find that the objector has not proved that his half share of property was in his deceased brother’s estate.
The Grate of Probate of the objector’s father divided property to the objector, and the deceased Sohan Singh. The will does not make the deceased Sohan Singh a trustee for all the property. Each son was given his rightful share. I read the list of properties in form P&A 5. This is the list given by the petitioner widow, Mrs. Kartar Kaur Matheru. The list simply consists of shares in various insurance companies, and in respect of the family property being L.R No.209/2489/34, the petitioner only claimed ½ share, which belonged to her husband. This means that the objector has the other half.
I have considered the objection but find that it has no merit and I proceed to dismiss the same with costs to the petitioner/widow.
Dated at Nairobi this 18th day of June, 2001.
JOYCE ALUOCH
PUISNE JUDGE