[2004] KEHC 1247 (KLR)
The court found that the original judgment by Rimita J was final and binding on all parties, and no appeal was lodged. The house represented by Simon Gikanga Waithaka, including Lydia Wanjiku Gikanga, had already been provided for and expressed satisfaction with the distribution. The subsequent discovery that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 1247 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Elizabeth Gikanga; Respondent: Sarah Wambui Gikanga; Respondent: Lydia Wanjiku Gikanga; Respondent: Simon Gikanga Waithaka
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Succession Cause 286 of 1993
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Post Judgment Application for Further Distribution
- Outcome
- Application partially allowed; undistributed land apportioned between Elizabeth and Sarah; intervention by Lydia Wanjiku Gikanga disallowed.
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Distribution of Estate, Beneficiary Entitlement
- 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
Elizabeth Gikanga
Applicant
Sarah Wambui Gikanga
Respondent
Lydia Wanjiku Gikanga
Respondent
Simon Gikanga Waithaka
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Post Judgment Application for Further Distribution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the undistributed seven acres of Nyandarua/Upper Gilgil/138/1 should be apportioned between Elizabeth Gikanga and Sarah Wambui Gikanga.
- 2 Whether Lydia Wanjiku Gikanga is entitled to intervene or claim a share of the undistributed land.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the original judgment by Rimita J was final and binding on all parties, and no appeal was lodged. The house represented by Simon Gikanga Waithaka, including Lydia Wanjiku Gikanga, had already been provided for and expressed satisfaction with the distribution. The subsequent discovery that the land parcel Nyandarua/Upper Gilgil/138/1 was 22 acres instead of 15 acres constituted a material fact justifying further distribution. However, only Elizabeth Gikanga and Sarah Wambui Gikanga were entitled to the undistributed seven acres, as the other beneficiaries had no further claim. The court apportioned the extra seven acres, awarding four acres to Elizabeth and three acres...
Court Disposition
Application partially allowed; undistributed land apportioned between Elizabeth and Sarah; intervention by Lydia Wanjiku Gikanga disallowed.
Orders
- The extra seven acres of Nyandarua/Upper Gilgil/138/1 shall be divided as follows: Elizabeth Gikanga shall retain four acres and Sarah Wambui Gikanga shall get three acres.
- The estate of the deceased shall otherwise remain distributed as ordered by Rimita J.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 286 OF 1993
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF GIKANGA WAITHAKA
(DECEASED)
RULING
On the 17th of November 1998, Rimita J ordered the estate of the deceased to be distributed in accordance with his judgment. The judgment was not appealed against by any of the parties. The parties were satisfied with the judgment of the said court. In the said judgment Rimita J stated at page 1:
“Simon Gikanga Waithaka gave evidence as the represe ntative of the 2 nd house. He was more concerned with the Land Nyandarua/Upper Gilgil/138/1. He said that the land measured 22 acres. He wanted Elizabeth and her three sons to have 14 acres. 8 acres according to him should be shared amongst the 1 st and the 2nd house. He admitted that his father gave him 8 acres before he died. He agreed with the distribution of the plots in Nakuru.”
The said Learned Judge ordered that Sarah Wambui Gikanga be given 2 acres out of the parcel of land known as Nyandarua/ Upper Gilgil/138/1 . From the above judgment it is clear that the house represented by Simon Gikanga were not involved in the distribution of Parcel No. Nyandarua/Upper Gilgil/138/1. They had been provided for by the deceased and they were satisfied. As stated earlier, the decision of Rimita J was not appealed against the beneficiaries of the estate. They were satisfied. For the said Lydia Wanjiku Gikanga to purport to enter the dispute between Elizabeth Gikanga and Sarah Gikanga, yet she had already been provided for and the members of her family were satisfied, smacks of greed. I will disallow her intervention in this application. Her family represented by Simon Gikanga were provided for and were satisfied. She cannot use the back door to claim the parcel of land which can only rightly be claimed by Elizabeth Gikanga and Sarah Gikanga. Her claim for the said parcel of land fails.
The Applicant in this case states that after the said judgment was delivered, it was discovered that the land known as Nyandarua/Upper Gilgil/138/1measured twenty two acres instead of fifteen acres. Seven acres were not therefore distributed to either Sarah or Elizabeth. After reading the application filed and the affidavit filed in reply to the application and also after considering the submissions made by Counsel for Elizabeth and Counsel for Sarah, I hereby order the extra seven acres to be divided as follows: Elizabeth shall retain four acres of the said seven acres, while Sarah shall get three acres of the said extra acres. Otherwise the estate of the deceased shall remain distributed as ordered by Rimita J.
There shall be no orders as to costs.
DATED at NAKURU this 5th day of November, 2004.
L. KIMARU
AG. JUDGE