[2014] KEHC 1639 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had demonstrated a prima facie interest in the disputed land parcels by providing evidence of purchase agreements, long-term occupation, and development of the land. The respondents, as administrators, failed to disclose the applicant's interest when obtaining the grant, and their...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 1639 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Tabitha Ndungwa Kilonzo; Respondent: Wilfar Musyoka Kilonzo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 307 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Interlocutory Application for Injunction Pending Revocation Hearing
- Outcome
- interlocutory injunction granted pending hearing of revocation application
- Judges
- LN Mutende
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Probate and Administration, Beneficiary Omission, Land Transfer Disputes
- 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
Tabitha Ndungwa Kilonzo
Applicant
Wilfar Musyoka Kilonzo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Interlocutory Application for Injunction Pending Revocation Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to injunctive relief restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession of the disputed land parcels pending determination of the summons for revocation of grant.
- 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated a prima facie interest in the estate of the deceased as an omitted beneficiary or purchaser of the land.
- 3 Whether the agreements for transfer of land to the applicant were valid or procured under duress.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had demonstrated a prima facie interest in the disputed land parcels by providing evidence of purchase agreements, long-term occupation, and development of the land. The respondents, as administrators, failed to disclose the applicant's interest when obtaining the grant, and their subsequent agreement to transfer the land, though alleged to be under duress, was not challenged for several years. The applicant's possession and the respondents' threats of eviction established the risk of irreparable harm. The court concluded that the balance of convenience favored maintaining the status quo by restraining the respondents from interfering with the...
Court Disposition
interlocutory injunction granted pending hearing of revocation application
Orders
- Respondents/administrators are restrained from entering upon, cultivating, trespassing, alienating or interfering with Land Parcel Numbers Kalama/Iiuni/1058 and Kalama Iiuni/548 pending hearing and determination of summons for revocation.
- Respondents/administrators are restrained from interfering in any manner with the applicant’s entry, use, quiet enjoyment, and possession of the stated land parcels pending hearing and determination of summons for revocation.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
No. 400/14
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 307 OF 2003
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF TABITHA MUTAVE KILONZO
VERSUS
TABITHA NDUNGWA KILONZO………………………….1ST PETITIONER
WILFAR MUSYOKA KILONZO ..........................................2nd PETITIONER
RULING
The application dated 7th October, 2013, is brought pursuant to the provisions of Section 47 of the Lawof Succession Act and Rules 49 and 73 of the Probate Administration Rules and all enabling provisions of the Law.
The applicant seeks Orders that:-
The respondents/administrators be restrained from entering upon, cultivating, trespassing, alienating or in any other manner interfering with Land Parcel Numbers Kalama/Iiuni/1058 and Kalama Iiuni/548 pending hearing and determination of summons for revocation filed herein.
An order be issued restraining the Respondents/ Administrators from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the applicant’s entry upon the aforestated land, the use, quiet enjoyment thereof and possession pending hearing and determination of summons for revocation.
The application is based on grounds that the applicant purchased the land from the deceased. Thereafter he developed the land and has resided thereon for more than twenty five (25) years. The deceased died without transferring the land to him. The respondent applied for letters of administration and omitted him as a beneficiary of the estate. The grant was confirmed on 13th May 2003. On 20th October 2011 and 14th November, 2011, the respondent executed an agreement to transfer the land to him. Title deeds in that regard were issued in the name of the 1st respondent who was to transfer the land to the applicant. This was not done. Instead the respondents have threatened to evict him. Unless restrained the applicant stands to loose his home.
In an affidavit in support of the application the applicant reiterates what is stipulated in the grounds of the body of the application.
In a reply thereto, the 1st respondent stated that the deceased never sold land to the applicant. She dismissed sale agreements adduced by the applicant as forgeries. She denied the averment that the applicant has a permanent structure on the land. Further, she denied that the applicant has resided on the land for twenty (25) years. Denying having agreed to transfer the land, she stated that the annexed agreement in that respect was procured by means of threats and coercion.
In a supplementary affidavit the applicant reiterated that the grant was obtained fraudulently as the respondents failed to disclose his interest in the estate of the deceased. He has a house on the land and has cultivated the land. The respondents have interfered with the property and have even uprooted the boundary made of sisal. A complaint was lodged to the police which he however withdrew. The Chief presided over the complaint. He denied an allegation that the agreements were forgeries.
By way of affidavit evidence the applicant has demonstrated that the applicant purchased two (2) parcels of land from the deceased namely; Kalama/Iiuna 551and Kalama/Iiuni/548 in the years 1981 and 1986 respectively. The deceased passed on without transferring the land to him. It has been argued that he is not in occupation of the land but he has annexed evidence of a dwelling house, ploughed land and sisal plants that have been uprooted.
It is not in doubt that when the respondents took out letters of administration of the estate of the deceased there was no indication of any outstanding liabilities to the estate. The applicant was therefore omitted as a beneficiary of the estate of the deceased.
Parties herein entered into an agreement to have the land in issue transferred to the applicants, an agreement they alleged was made under duress. It is however; evident that since the year 2011 when the agreement was signed no complaint was raised to have it revoked.
The chief presided over the boundary dispute between parties herein who agreed to maintain their respective boundaries. The applicant has therefore demonstrated the need to have the respondents restrained from interfering with his possession of the land that he occupies pending hearing of the application for revocation of the grant issued herein.
I therefore grant the orders sought on condition that the application dated 17th September, 2013 be fixed for hearing within 21 days.
It is ordered.
DATED, SIGNEDand DELIVERED at MACHAKOS this 9TH day of OCTOBER, 2014.
L.N. MUTENDE
JUDGE