[2015] KEHC 3274 (KLR)
The court found that the petitioner, as the widow and dependant of the deceased, was entitled to a separate and independent share of the estate, rather than being lumped together with her son, Peter Nambaka Munyasa, especially given the breakdown in their relationship. The court held that the original consent to the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 3274 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kelesensia Akumu Munyasa; Respondent: Peter Nambaka Munyasa
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 1090 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation and Redistribution of Confirmed Grant
- Outcome
- confirmed grant revoked; fresh certificate of grant to issue as per new distribution; each party to bear own costs
- Judges
- SJ Chitembwe, AT Sitati
- Legal Topics
- Succession and Inheritance, Grant Revocation, Distribution of Estate, Dependants Rights
- 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
Kelesensia Akumu Munyasa
Applicant
Peter Nambaka Munyasa
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Revocation and Redistribution of Confirmed Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the confirmed grant should be revoked due to alleged misrepresentation or duress in obtaining consent for distribution.
- 2 Whether the petitioner is entitled to a separate and independent share of the deceased's estate as a dependant.
- 3 How the estate of the deceased should be equitably distributed among the beneficiaries.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the petitioner, as the widow and dependant of the deceased, was entitled to a separate and independent share of the estate, rather than being lumped together with her son, Peter Nambaka Munyasa, especially given the breakdown in their relationship. The court held that the original consent to the mode of distribution was not validly obtained, as the petitioner was misled and her interests were not adequately protected. The court further determined that the distribution proposed by both parties was inequitable, particularly in the allocation of large shares to certain sons. The court exercised its discretion to redistribute the estate, reducing the shares of Maurice...
Court Disposition
confirmed grant revoked; fresh certificate of grant to issue as per new distribution; each party to bear own costs
Orders
- The certificate of confirmed grant issued on 12th November, 2013 is revoked.
- A fresh certificate of grant shall be issued to the petitioner reflecting the new distribution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KAKAMEGA
PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 1090 OF 2012
IN THE MATTER OF: THE ESTATE OF ANDREW MUNYASA NAMBAKO(Deceased)
AND
KELESENSIA AKUMU MUNYASA …...........................................PETITIONER
RULING
The late Andrew Munyasa Nambaka died on 6th November, 1989 aged 83 years. A grant of Letters of Administration was issued to his widow on 22nd January, 2013. The grant was confirmed on 12th November, 2013. The Petitioner is now seeking the revocation of the grant contending that she was duped to sign a consent on distribution which is contrary to her proposed mode of distribution. Parties herein agreed that the only issue is distribution and respective affidavits were filed giving each party's proposal.
I have gone through the Petitioner's affidavit on distribution as well as the submissions by her advocate. I have also gone through the submissions by M/s Gabriel Fwaya, Advocates for the Respondent. The only major difference is that the Petitioner was included in the share of Peter Wambaka Munyasia. She contends that Peter has chased her away. She would like to be given 0. 62Hectares. I have also noted that the certificate of confirmation of grant distributed 0. 22hectares to St. Kizito Lusumu Catholic Church as well as 0. 15hectares to Diocese of Kakamega Shisokhe Parish. The two bodies seem to be the same entity. The St. Kizito church wrote on 18th November, 2013 indicting that its claim is for 0. 15 hectares that is contained in the share of the Diocese of Kakamega Shisokhe Parish. The petitioner has also raised the issue of Mulembe Church which bought 0. 10 hectares from the deceased.
According to the Respondents, the Petitioner should have life interest. Since the Petitioner is having difficulties in living with Peter and she is also the deceased's dependant, I do find that she is entitled to her own share as an independent unit. I have seen the proposed mode of distribution by the Respondents and I had the advantage of trying to reconcile the parties herein. I do find that lumping the Petitioner together with Peter will not resolve the problem. The beneficiaries should understand that the Petitioner is their mother and she could have in one way or another contributed to the acquisition of the suit land.
The distribution models by both parties is not on equal basis. I will reduce the two large shares of Maurice Munyasa Mukobi (1. 142Ha) and Juma Munyasa (1. 142Ha) and give them 1. 10Hectares each. I will also give Peter Nambaka Munyasa 1. 10Hectares. This will leave a combined total of 0. 302Hactares that will constitute the Petitioner's share. In the end, the deceased estate shall be distributed as follows:
Plot Number BUNYALA/SIDIKHO/248
Kelesensia Akumu Munyasa 0. 302Ha.
Corineri Odhiambo Munyasa 0. 042Ha
John Munyasa 0. 942Ha.
Maurice Munyasa Mukobi 1. 10 Ha
Juma Munyasa 1. 10 Ha.
Saimon Barasa Munyasa 0. 572Ha
Peter Nambaka Munyasa 1. 10 Ha
Francis Sakwa Munyasa 0. 572 Ha
Diocese of Kakamega –Shisokhe Parish 0. 15Ha
Mulembe Church 0. 10Ha
Road 0. 22Ha.
In the end, the certificate of confirmed grant issued on 12th November, 2013 is hereby revoked. A fresh certificate shall be issued to the Petitioner on the above terms. I do further order that the share of the Petitioner shall be curbed out from the place where she resides before the other shares of the sons and the buyers are established. Each party to meet his/her own costs.
Dated and signed this 25th day of February, 2015
Said J. Chitembwe
JUDGE
Delivered and countersigned on this 19th day of March 2015
Ruth Sitati
JUDGE