[2012] KEHC 3617 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent, Japhew Wanyama Makira, failed to establish any relationship to the deceased and did not provide evidence of being a beneficiary entitled to L.R. NO. KABRAS/KILIBOTI/114. The court noted that there was no pending suit regarding the parcel and that previous litigation had been...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 3617 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Japhew Wanyama Makira; Applicant: Patrick Were Wetiba; Respondent: Kerestina N. Wetiba & 6 Others
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Citation Cause 853 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Citation Cause / Ruling on Summons for Confirmation of Grant and Protest
- Outcome
- Protest struck out; estate to be distributed as per applicant's proposal; each party to bear own costs.
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Distribution of Estate, Confirmation of Grant, Protest to Distribution
- 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
Japhew Wanyama Makira
Respondent
Patrick Were Wetiba
Applicant
Kerestina N. Wetiba & 6 Others
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Citation Cause / Ruling on Summons for Confirmation of Grant and Protest
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent, Japhew Wanyama Makira, is entitled to a share of L.R. NO. KABRAS/KILIBOTI/114 as a beneficiary of the deceased's estate.
- 2 Whether the distribution of L.R. NO. KABRAS/KILIBOTI/114 should be held in abeyance pending resolution of other disputes.
- 3 Whether the proposed distribution of the estate by the applicant should be confirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent, Japhew Wanyama Makira, failed to establish any relationship to the deceased and did not provide evidence of being a beneficiary entitled to L.R. NO. KABRAS/KILIBOTI/114. The court noted that there was no pending suit regarding the parcel and that previous litigation had been concluded. The respondent's request to hold the distribution in abeyance was deemed unreasonable. Consequently, the protest was struck out and the estate was ordered to be distributed as proposed by the applicant in the summons for confirmation of grant dated 18th July, 2011.
Court Disposition
Protest struck out; estate to be distributed as per applicant's proposal; each party to bear own costs.
Orders
- The protest by Japhew Wanyama Makira is struck out.
- The estate of the deceased shall be distributed in accordance with the affidavit in support of summons for confirmation of grant dated 18th July, 2011.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
44 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT
AT KAKAMEGA
Citation Cause 853 of 2007
JAPHEW WANYAMA MAKIRA .............................................................. CITOR
A N D
KERESTINA N. WETIBA & 6 OTHERS ................................................ CITEES
RULING
This cause initially began by a Citation dated 19. 10. 07 filed by JAPHEW WANYAMA MAKIRA who was issued with a grant of letters of Administration dated 29. 1.09. The said grant was confirmed on 19. 11. 09.
Following the filing on 27. 4.10 of the Summons for revocation and/or annulment of grant dated 26. 4.10, the grant of letters of Administration confirmed on 19. 11. 09 was revoked and a new grant issued jointly in the names of JAPHEW WANYAMA MAKIRA and PATRICK WERE WETIBA.
Thereafter, PATRICK WERE WETIBA, on 5. 9.11 filed the Summons for confirmation of grant dated 18. 7.11. The applicant, PATRICK WERE WETIBA proposed to distribute the estate of the deceased, WETIBA WERE as follows:-
“(a) PATRICK WERE WETIBABUNYALA NAMIRAMA/788 8. 028 ACRES
(b) BENSON NABISWA WETIBA“ “ “ 5 ACRES
(c) MOSES WANJUZI WETIBA“ “ “ 5 ACRES
(d) PATRICK NAVISWA WETIBA “ “ “ 5 ACRES
(e) DAVID BARASA WETIBA “ “ “ 2¼ ACRES
(f) JANE KHALEMESI WETIBA “ “ “ ½ ACRE
(g) ALICE NAWANJAYA “ “ “ ½ ACRE
(h) CHRISTINE NAKHUMICHA WETIBA “ “ “ ¼ ACRE
(i)JANE NASIKE WERE BUNYALA/NAMIRAMA/784 WHOLE
(j)JOHNSON UKHEVI WETIBA PLOT NO. 176 CHEKATA/SIKAONE 6 ACRES
(k) GILBERT OKHALO WETIBA “ “ “ “ 8 ACRES
(l) NELSON WETUNDU WETIBA PLOT NO. 174(347)
MOISBRIDGE –CHEKATA/SIKAONE 10 ACRES
(m) MARK NANDI“ “ “ 2 ACRES
(n) SHADRACK OKOVA WETIBAPLOT NO. 173 (348)
MOISBRIDGE – CHEKATA/SIKAONE 14. 4 ACRES
(o) DAVID BARASA WETIBA“ “ “ 6. 4 ACRES
(p) GILBORD WETIBAPLOT NO.172 (239)
MOISBRIDGE-CHEKATA-SIKAONE 6 ACRES
(q) WICKLIFFEE WERE WETIBA“ “ “ 4 ACRES
(r) GEOFREY WETIBAPLOT NO. 171 (352)
MOISBRIDGE-CHEKATA-SIKAONE 5 ACRES
(s) ELIAS LUBAVU WETIBA“ “ “ 5 ACRES
(t)SIMON LANG’AYO ANDEMA “ “ “ 1½ ACRES
(u) MARK SIKUTWAN/KABRAS/KILIBOTI/114 WHOLE”
The Respondent, JAPHEW WANYAMA MAKIRA objected to the proposed distribution. In his affidavit of protest, the Respondent avers that he is a beneficiary of the estate of the deceased and that he is the one entitled to L.R. NO. KABRAS/KILIBOTI/114. That one MARK SHIKUTWA who is named as the beneficiary of L.R. NO. KABRAS/KILIBOTI/114 is a stranger to the estate of the deceased. That the distribution of L.R. NO. KABRAS/KILIBOTI/114 should be held in abeyance pending the conclusion of other disputes emanating from the said parcel of land. The Respondent has no objection to the proposed distribution of the rest of the estate.
The Applicant, PATRICK WERE WETABA, filed a supplementary affidavit stating that the respondent is not a son or relative of the deceased. That the Respondent has not disclosed his relationship with the deceased. That Kakamega HCCC. 167 OF 1985 was dismissed in 1996 and that judgment still stands. That an Appeal filed in Kisumu Court of Appeal, Civil Appeal No. 304 of 1998 was struck out in the year 2000.
I have considered the affidavits and the submissions. The affidavit evidence that the Respondent is not a son or relative to the deceased is not contested. The Respondent stated in his affidavit that he is a beneficiary to L.R. NO. N/KABRAS/KILIBOTI/114 but did not state his relationship with the deceased.
The Respondent proposed that the distribution of KABRAS/KILIBOTI/114 be held in abeyance. That is not reasonable because there is no evidence of any suit that is pending in relation to the said parcel of land. Consequently, the protest is struck out. The estate of the deceased shall be distributed in accordance with the affidavit in support of summons for confirmation of grant dated 18th July, 2011 and filed in court on 5th September, 2011.
Taking into account the history of this cause, each party to bear his own costs.
Delivered, dated and signed at Kakamega this 13th day of June, 2012
B. THURANIRA JADEN
J U D G E