[2022] KEHC 677 (KLR)
The court found that the original distribution of the estate, which excluded the daughters, was discriminatory and contrary to the principles of equality enshrined in the Constitution and the Law of Succession Act. The court noted that all children, regardless of gender, are entitled to inherit from their parents....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 677 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: John Muthuri Manene; Appellant: Zipporah Nancie M’imanene
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 88 of 1991
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons to Terminate Life Interest and Redistribute Estate
- Outcome
- Application allowed as prayed.
- Judges
- PJO Otieno
- Legal Topics
- Succession of Estates, Life Interest Termination, Gender Discrimination Inheritance, Distribution of Estate, Beneficiaries 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
John Muthuri Manene
Petitioner
Zipporah Nancie M’imanene
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons to Terminate Life Interest and Redistribute Estate
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant's life interest in the four parcels of land should be terminated and the property transferred to her daughters.
- 2 Whether the original distribution of the estate, which excluded the daughters, was discriminatory and contrary to the law.
- 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to retain one parcel absolutely and transfer the others to her daughters.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the original distribution of the estate, which excluded the daughters, was discriminatory and contrary to the principles of equality enshrined in the Constitution and the Law of Succession Act. The court noted that all children, regardless of gender, are entitled to inherit from their parents. Since the daughters were content to receive the shares currently held by their mother, the court allowed the application to terminate the applicant's life interest and transfer three parcels to her daughters, with the applicant retaining one parcel absolutely. The court rejected the administrator's argument that the property should revert to the sons, holding that such a...
Court Disposition
Application allowed as prayed.
Orders
- The applicant's life interest in the four parcels of land is terminated.
- Three parcels to be transferred to the applicant's three daughters.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
In the Matter of Estate of Manene Mwitu (Deceased) (Succession Cause 88 of 1991) [2022] KEHC 677 (KLR) (25 May 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 677 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Meru
Succession Cause 88 of 1991
PJO Otieno, J
May 25, 2022
Between
John Muthuri Manene
Petitioner
and
Zipporah Nancie M’imanene
Appellant
Ruling
1. The Applicant, Zipporah Nancie M’imanene by a Summons dated 20. 9.2021 sought orders that being a beneficiary with a life interest in the four parcels of land known as Nkuene/mikumbune 2904, 2905, 2906 and 2907, her life interest be terminated and of the four parcels of land, three be transferred to her three daughters while she retains one.
2. The grounds of the application disclosed on its face and on the Affidavit sworn in support thereof were to the effect that she wishes to terminate the life interest and transfer the property to the daughters who were not provided for in the scheme of distribution of the estate. She contends that the Administrator had applied to terminate her life interest, the application was allowed but the grant was not rectified to the same effect adding that all the children had consented to the application and annexed an Affidavit by the Administrator to that effect.
3. Unexpectedly, the application was opposed by the Administrator by the Replying Affidavit sworn on the 13. 12. 2021. The major contention in the affidavit is that the life interest upon the applicant when terminated would yield the property reverting to the sons, that none of the sons had consented to the proposal to give the parcels to the daughters and because and because some of the daughters have children with unknown fathers who stay on the land and it is those children who deserve getting the land. The Administrator takes its view that the application was a machinations by the daughters called Monica Nduru and Isabela Nceri and not the applicant who is now very old.
4. What comes out conspicuously from the application and the rival affidavits filed is that the deceased was survived by three daughters who were totally left out by the Administrator at the point of distribution. That is what the Kenyan Courts now consider retrogressive, negative and discriminative patriarchy. It is not made better that a daughter is shunned but her children, whether girls or boys, are recognized in her place. If repetition would make it clearer, all children irrespective of gender are entitled to equality, to inherit from the parents. This would thus have been a case for outright revocation of the certificate of grant and fresh redistribution had the Court be moved. However it would appear, when the Court interviewed the daughters that they are content to get the shares currently held by the mother.
5. On account of the outright discriminative distribution done in this file way back on the 2nd April 1992, and the fact that the three daughters are content with the mother’s proposal, I do allow the application dated 20. 9.2021 as prayed.
6. I note that there is an information by the Administrator that the life interest of the mother was intended to revert to the boys. I see that to be a perpetuation of the discrimination on account of gender and direct that the parcel to be retained by the mother/applicant shall be so retained in her own right and absolutely bereft of any encumbrances and that she shall be at liberty to deal with the property during her life time as she shall deem fit and expedient.
7. I make not orders as to costs.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KAKAMEGA, ONLINE, THIS 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2022. ………………………P.J.O. OTIENOJUDGEIn the presence of:No appearance for the PetitionerNo appearance for the Applicant