[2014] KEHC 8421 (KLR)
The court declined the application to sell the estate property because the applicant failed to present any new evidence or demonstrate any mistake or error that would justify revisiting the previous decision. The court emphasized its duty to protect the legacy of the minor beneficiaries, noting that the applicant...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 8421 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Josephine Chepkoech; Respondent: Jane Macbeth; Respondent: Florence Atieno Okeyo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 1107 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Sell Estate Property
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- AO Muchelule
- Legal Topics
- Succession of Estates, Minor Beneficiaries, Administration of Estates, Sale of Estate Property
- 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
Josephine Chepkoech
Applicant
Jane Macbeth
Respondent
Florence Atieno Okeyo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Sell Estate Property
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the administrators should be granted leave to sell the estate property for the benefit of minor beneficiaries.
- 2 Whether there is new evidence or error to warrant review of the previous court decision refusing the sale.
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined the application to sell the estate property because the applicant failed to present any new evidence or demonstrate any mistake or error that would justify revisiting the previous decision. The court emphasized its duty to protect the legacy of the minor beneficiaries, noting that the applicant had only a life interest in the property and that the minors should be allowed to reach maturity before any decision is made regarding the property. The court found the renewed push to sell the property, despite the applicant's ability to acquire or develop other properties, to be suspect and not in the best interests of the minors.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application to sell the estate property is dismissed.
- The status quo regarding the estate property is to be maintained.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
FAMILY DIVISION
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 1107 OF 2003
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF
SULEIMAN ONYANGO OUMA (DECEASED)
AND
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY JOSEPHINE CHEPKOECH
RULING
The deceased SULEIMAN ONYANGO OUMA died intestate on 18th December 2002 in Nairobi. The grant that was issued was confirmed to the applicant, JANE MACBETH and FLORENCE ATIENO OKEYO. In the certificate that was issued on 3rd December 2007 the two minor daughters of the deceased namely SHEILA KIWATSU OUMA and STELLA KIKA OUMA were ordered to each receive 50% of undivided share of all parcel subdivision No. 8370 (original No. 304/46) section 1 Mainland North – Mombasa and insurance policy No. 171946/0 held at Jubilee Insurance Company. The applicant, with the consent of the other administrators, on 10th June, 2011 entered into agreement to sell this parcel of land to BENSON THIONGO MUTHAMA and KHADIJA HAMISI MADA for Kshs.1,950,000/=. They state that they were seeking to have the proceeds used to invest in Nairobi for the benefit of the two minor children.
It is not in dispute that a similar application was made by the administrators and refused in a ruling delivered on 10th November 2011. At that time, the administrators were saying that they intended to use the proceeds to buy 3 plots measuring 1/8 of an acre each in Mavoko town. The court observed that:-
“There is no plausible reason advanced in paragraph 8 of the affidavit sworn on 13th October 2011 by the widow for the intended sale. It is not shown how the beneficiaries will stand to gain by selling a developed property in exchange of an underdeveloped plot...”
The court was not amused by the fact that the applicant had entered into the sale without the sanction of the court and was only coming for it later after being unsuccessful with the transaction.
The applicant states that her previous advocates had failed to advise her that she needed court’s permission to sell the plot. She also explained that the plot was in fact not developed.
During the confirmation of the grant, the applicant was given only a life interest in this property. She works at Kenya Airways and has her own properties which she says will benefit the minors ultimately. This court has the responsibility to protect the legacy of these minors. They have to be allowed to grow until they are of age to be able to make an election on what to do with the legacy. The applicant had the opportunity to persuade the Court on the need to deal in this property, but was unsuccessful. There is no new evidence that is being placed before court that could not be reasonably obtained. There is no mistake or error that is sought to be corrected by this court. In fact, the push to sell this property when the applicant is able to raise money to buy or develop whatever properties is suspect. I will not allow the application.
DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 1st October 2014.
A.O. MUCHELULE
JUDGE