[2007] KEHC 1861 (KLR)
The court found that neither of the proposals for distribution submitted by the joint administrators could be adopted at this stage because both failed to disclose the full identities and relationships of the listed beneficiaries to the deceased. The court also noted that the acreage proposed for distribution by...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 1861 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Julius Kithinji M’Ikirima; Respondent: Julieta Nduru Robert
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Succession Cause 235 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Distribution of Estate
- Outcome
- Further directions issued; distribution deferred pending identification of beneficiaries.
- Legal Topics
- Intestate Succession, Distribution of Estate, Identification of Beneficiaries
- 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
Julius Kithinji M’Ikirima
Applicant
Julieta Nduru Robert
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Distribution of Estate
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the lists of beneficiaries provided by the two administrators accurately reflect the rightful heirs of the deceased.
- 2 Whether the proposed modes of distribution comply with the law of intestate succession and the actual size of the estate.
- 3 Whether the administrators have made full disclosure of all beneficiaries and their relationships to the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that neither of the proposals for distribution submitted by the joint administrators could be adopted at this stage because both failed to disclose the full identities and relationships of the listed beneficiaries to the deceased. The court also noted that the acreage proposed for distribution by Julius exceeded the actual size of the estate. In light of these anomalies and the lack of clarity regarding the rightful beneficiaries, the court ordered that all individuals listed in both proposals must appear before the court with identification documents to establish their entitlement before any distribution can be ordered. The court emphasized the necessity of full...
Court Disposition
Further directions issued; distribution deferred pending identification of beneficiaries.
Orders
- All beneficiaries listed in the two proposals to appear before the court on 29th March, 2007 with their identification documents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
Succession Cause 235 of 1998
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MUSA KIRIMA KITHURE
JULIUS KITHINJI M’IKIRIMA……………………..1ST PETITIONER
VERSUS
JULIETA NDURU ROBERT………………………2ND PETITIONER
RULING
This ruling relates only to the distribution of the intestate property of the deceased,Musa Kirima Kithure, consisting single parcel of land known as Abothuguchi/Gitie/408, measuring approximately 4. 4. Hectares or 10. 87 acres.
The two joint administrators, Julius Kithinji M’Ikirima(Julius) and Julieta Nduru Robert(Julieta) have filed separate proposals suggesting the ratio of distribution to the eight beneficiaries. The two proposals do not agree and it was agreed by consent of counsel for both parties that the court proceeds to order distribution. The proposal by Julieta suggests distribution as follows;
1. Evangeline Kariungi – 1 acre
2. Florence Nyagera Kirima - 1 acre
3. Sarah Gakii - 1 acre
4. Robert Gitobu Mukindi - 1 acre
5. Erastus Kanini - 1 acre
6. Aireen Kanini - 1 acre
7. Stella Gachungi - 1 acre
8. Julius Kithinji M’Ikirima - 3. 87 acres.
On the other hand Julius proposal is as hereunder;
1. Geofrey Kooro Kithinji - 1 ½ acres
2. Charles Gituma - 1 ½ acres
3. Henry Muthui - 1 ½ acres
4. Gerald Gikunda - 1 ½ acres
5. Tarasira Mpandi - 1 ½ acres
6. Henry Gitonga Mburia - 1 ½ acres
7. Japheth Mburugu Mutemi - ½ acre
8. Margaret Gatabi - 1 acre
9. Julius Kithinji M’Ikirima - 1. 87 acres
Two issues stand out from the two lists of beneficiaries filed by Julieta and Julius. First, the only common name in the lists is that of Julius. The rest are persons whose fu ll identity and relationship with the deceased have not been disclosed. It is further observed that the initial affidavits of Marieta Mwari M’Ikirima, to whom the grant of letters of administration was issued, provide only her name and that of Julius as the only surviving beneficiaries.
Similarly Julius in an affidavit in support of his application dated 12th June, 2001 was categorical that the deceased, Musa Kirima Kithure had two wives and was survived by seven daughters and himself (Julius). That, of the seven daughters, five are married and two are living on the property, Abothuguchi/Gitie 408. That affidavit does not provide the names of the seven daughters. However, in his proposal, Julius has listed 9 beneficiaries including himself but excluding Julieta. Of the 9 beneficiaries, it is clear, at least from their names, that only two are ladies.
It is also of interest to note that in his application for confirmation of the grant, Julius sought orders vesting the said Abothuguchi/Gitie/408 to himself without disclosing the existence of the other beneficiaries.
The second point is that the property earmarked for distribution is estimated to measure 10. 89 acres, yet from Julius’ proposal this is exceeded.
To explain these anomalies it is ordered that all the beneficiaries listed in the two proposals to appear before the court on 29th March, 2007 with their identification documents.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2007.
W. OUKO
JUDGE