[2023] KEHC 19679 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent, having been appointed administrator with the consent of the beneficiaries, was obligated to distribute the estate properties in accordance with the confirmed grant. Nearly twenty years after confirmation, the respondent had not transmitted the properties to the beneficiaries, nor...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 19679 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mustafa Munyi; Respondent: John Karari Kingori
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 333 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Distribution and Accounting
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- HK Chemitei
- Legal Topics
- Administration of Estates, Distribution of Property, Revocation of Grant
- 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
Mustafa Munyi
Applicant
John Karari Kingori
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Distribution and Accounting
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent, as administrator, has failed to transmit the estate properties to the beneficiaries as required.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order compelling the respondent to account for the estate and distribute the properties.
- 3 Whether failure to distribute the estate warrants revocation of the grant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent, having been appointed administrator with the consent of the beneficiaries, was obligated to distribute the estate properties in accordance with the confirmed grant. Nearly twenty years after confirmation, the respondent had not transmitted the properties to the beneficiaries, nor provided any satisfactory explanation or evidence of having done so. The court held that this failure was a breach of the administrator's duties under the Law of Succession Act. While the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support an order for accounting of rental income, the court determined that the primary relief—distribution of the estate—was merited. The...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The respondent is directed to distribute Mahiga Munyange 223 and Plot No. 260 New Pangani Phase III to the beneficiaries within 60 days from the date of the ruling.
- In default of compliance, the grant issued to the respondent shall stand revoked and any beneficiary may apply for administration.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
In re the Late Njambi Kingori (Deceased) (Succession Cause 333 of 2004) [2023] KEHC 19679 (KLR) (4 July 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 19679 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nakuru
Succession Cause 333 of 2004
HK Chemitei, J
July 4, 2023
ESTATE OF THE LATE NJAMBI KINGORI(DECEASED)
Between
Mustafa Munyi
Applicant
and
John Karari Kingori
Respondent
Ruling
1. The application dated 31st January 2022 prays for the following orders;(a)That this court does order the administrator /respondent to give account of the estate herein from the year 2002. (b)That the respondent does transmit the applicants shares in land parcels numbers Mahiga Munyange 223 and plot number 260 new Pangani phase III to the applicant and in default the grant issued to him be revoked.
2. The application is supported by the applicants sworn affidavit and further affidavit sworn on 26 July 2022.
3. The respondent vide his replying sworn on 30th March 2022 opposed the application arguing that the same was misconceived as the applicant was enjoying the benefits accruing from the premises on the said property.
4. The issues herein are very clear. On 18th November 2005 the respondent was granted letters of administration and the aforestated properties transmitted to him and one Joseph Simon Kingori who has since passed on.
5. It appears from the application for confirmation of grant dated 20th September 2005 that the applicant and his other siblings gave their consent to have the respondent act as the administrator and hold the assets of the estate in trust for them.
6. From the evidence on record it appears that after the grant was confirmed nothing has been undertaken thereafter to effect the grant. In other words, the respondent has not transmitted the same to the beneficiaries who included the applicant.
7. Without belabouring the point, I find the application meritorious for the simple reason that if indeed the respondent held the properties in trust then there is no reason why almost twenty years later he is yet to do what his role as an administrator entailed.
8. At this juncture there is no material placed before me to suggest taking of accounts as the applicant has not demonstrated what kind of premises is contained in the properties. Nothing has been shown exhibiting whether the same is commercial, residential or otherwise and attracting any tenants and therefore some rent accruing.
9. Nonetheless, the assets left behind by their mother must be transmitted not only to the applicant but all the affected parties or beneficiaries as shall be agreed by the family.
10. In the premises, the application is hereby allowed as follows;(a)The respondent is hereby directed to distribute the properties namely Mahiga Munyange 223 and Plot No. 260 new Pangani Phase III to the beneficiaries within 60 days from the date herein and in default the grant issued to him shall stand revoked and any other beneficiary shall be at liberty to apply.(b)costs shall be in the cause.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU VIA VIDEO LINK THIS 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2023H. K. CHEMITEIJUDGE