[2018] KEHC 8702 (KLR)
The court found that Joshua Mugambi M’Mauta was not a legitimate beneficiary as he was not identified by the Assistant Chief or included in the initial list of beneficiaries. The court further held that neither the petitioner nor the objectors provided a justified or equitable basis for their proposed modes of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 8702 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jerusha Mwoimea M’Ethabu; Respondent: Andriano Mutuma; Respondent: Silas Mungathia
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 334 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- Estate to be distributed equally among the widow and three sons; each to receive one quarter share. Each party to bear own costs. Certificate of confirmation to issue accordingly.
- Legal Topics
- Succession and Inheritance, Distribution of Estate, Equal Shares Among Beneficiaries, Life Interest, 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
Jerusha Mwoimea M’Ethabu
Applicant
Andriano Mutuma
Respondent
Silas Mungathia
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Joshua Mugambi M’Mauta is a rightful beneficiary of the estate.
- 2 What is the appropriate and lawful mode of distribution of the deceased's estate among the beneficiaries.
- 3 Whether the proposed modes of distribution by the petitioner and objectors are equitable and justified.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that Joshua Mugambi M’Mauta was not a legitimate beneficiary as he was not identified by the Assistant Chief or included in the initial list of beneficiaries. The court further held that neither the petitioner nor the objectors provided a justified or equitable basis for their proposed modes of distribution. Applying the principle of equality among beneficiaries under the Law of Succession Act, the court ordered that the estate be distributed equally among the widow and the three sons of the deceased, each receiving one quarter of the estate. The court declined to award costs, ordering each party to bear their own, and directed that a certificate of confirmation issue...
Court Disposition
Estate to be distributed equally among the widow and three sons; each to receive one quarter share. Each party to bear own costs. Certificate of confirmation to issue accordingly.
Orders
- The estate shall be distributed equally between the widow and the three sons of the deceased, each receiving one quarter share.
- Certificate of confirmation of grant to issue as per the above distribution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT KENYA AT MERU
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 334 OF 2014
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE ITHABU KIRINGO - DECEASED
JERUSHA MWOIMEA M’ETHABU .......................PETITIONER
VS
ANDRIANO MUTUMA......................................1ST PROTESTER
SILAS MUNGATHIA........................................2ND PROTESTER
JUDGEMENT
Jerusha Mwoimea M’ethabu obtained grant of Letters of Administration to the estate of Ithabu Kiringo on 23rd day of May 2013 in Maua Chief Magistrates Court Sucession Cause No. 3 of 2013 and by an application dated 28th February 2014 sought for confirmation of the said grant which consent was given by Vigilus Ntoitha M’Ethabu only. Andriano Mutuma and Silas Mungathia didn’t give consent to confirmation and mode of Distribution. When on 15. 4.2014 parties appeared in court and didn’t agree on mode of distribution, the magistrate on 20th May 2014 referred the matter to the High court for hearing and determination for reason the value of the estate exceeded the jurisdiction of the court.
An order transferring the cause to the High court at Meru was granted on 25. 6.2014 in Misc. Appl. No. 171 of 2014.
The Petitioner again filed application for confirmation of grant made to her at Maua court and in her affidavit proposed mode of distribution. Andriano Mutuma and Silas Mungathia filed objection to mode of Distribution on 18. 2.2016 dated 15. 2.2016.
They did propose on 13. 9.2016 that L.R. No Ithima/Ntunene/272 adjudication section which forms the entire estate be distributed equally among the sons at 2. 16 acres each and the Mother to get 0. 20 acres.
In the their mode of Distribution dated 18. 4.2017 and filed on 24. 4.2017 they have changed and said that their mother should have life interest on 0. 44 acres and upon her demise the said portion to distributed equally among the sons.
That the sons to get 2. 08 acres each. They said their mothers mode of distribution is not equitable and there is no reason Virigilus Ntoitha should get 3 acres where as the other 2 brothers are getting 1. 5 acres each.
They also objected to Joshua Mungambi M’Mauta being given any shares from the estate as he is a stranger and if any beneficiary should land to him they should give him their shares.
The objectors counsel filed submission dated 28th July 2017. The Petitioners counsel said they were relying on petitioners affidavit in support of the application for confirmation.
This court finds that the letter from office of Assistant Chief Ntunene Sublocation identifies only Jerusha Mwoimea, Andriano Mutuma, Silas Mungatia and Vigilus M’Itha as beneficiaries to the estate and therefore Joshua Mugambi M’Mauta is a stranger in this estate and this court can’t make distribution of the estate to him.
It has not been explained why the Petitioner included him as one to benefit in the affidavit which his name is not in the initial list given by the Assistant Chief.
Regarding the manner of distribution neither the Petitioner nor the objectors have explained criteria used to arrive at proposed mode of distribution by them.
I do find that the law treats everyone equally and therefore the estate will be distributed equally between the widow of the deceased and the 3 sons of the deceased. That means that each get ¼ of the estate. Each party will bear own costs. Certificate of confirmation to issue to that effect.
RULING SIGNED, DELIVERED AND DATED 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018.
HON. A.ONG’INJO
JUDGE
In the presence of:
M/S Nelima Advocate holding brief for Nyenyire Advocate for Petitioner
Mr Ondiek Advocate for Objector – N/A
HON. A.ONG’INJO
JUDGE