[2013] KEHC 4830 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent became registered as proprietor of part of the deceased's estate without following the mandatory succession process. The evidence showed that the deceased died before the transfer to the respondent was completed, and there was no proof that the deceased signed transfer forms...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 4830 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jethro Makamu; Respondent: Joseph Alusa Makamu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 1002 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Grant of Letters of Administration and Cancellation of Land Sub Division
- Outcome
- application granted
- Legal Topics
- Letters of Administration, Land Registration, Succession Without Will, Cancellation of Title, Subdivision of Land
- 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
Jethro Makamu
Applicant
Joseph Alusa Makamu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Grant of Letters of Administration and Cancellation of Land Sub Division
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant can petition for grant of letters of administration intestate without a letter from the Assistant Chief.
- 2 Whether the sub-division and transfer of plot number ISUKHA/VIRHEMBE/1000 to the respondent was lawful.
- 3 Whether the registration of the respondent as proprietor of plot number 1517 was done in accordance with succession law.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent became registered as proprietor of part of the deceased's estate without following the mandatory succession process. The evidence showed that the deceased died before the transfer to the respondent was completed, and there was no proof that the deceased signed transfer forms before his death. The absence of consent from the Land Control Board and lack of transfer documents further undermined the respondent's claim. The court concluded that the applicant's application was merited and granted the orders sought, as the registration of the respondent as proprietor was not in accordance with the law.
Court Disposition
application granted
Orders
- Permission granted to applicant to petition for grant of letters of administration intestate without a letter from the Assistant Chief.
- The sub-division of plot number ISUKHA/VIRHEMBE/1000 is cancelled.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Kakamega
Succession Cause 1002 of 2012 [if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
SW X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; line-height:115%; font-size:11. 0pt;"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE AMRAM MAKAMU SOLOSO... DECEASED
A N D
JETHRO MAKAMU ........................................PETITIONER/APPLICANT
V E R S U S
JOSEPH ALUSA MAKAMU ............................................ RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The applicant filed his application dated 17th September 2012 seeking permission to petition for a grant of letters of administration intestate without a letter from the Virhembe Assistant Chief, he is also seeking an order cancelling the sub-division of plot number ISUKHA/VIRHEMBE/1000 that belonged to the deceased herein as well as a stay of execution of the judgment in KAKAMEGA CMCC NO. 95 of 2011. The application is supported by the applicant’s affidavit and Mr. Kundu, counsel for the applicant, entirely relied and its supporting affidavit.
The applicant contends that the respondent is his brother and the deceased was their father who had died on 8th July 2008. By the time of his death, the deceased had not sub-divided land but the respondent divided the land and plot numbers ISUKHA.VIRHEMBE/1517 and 1518. He got himself registered as proprietor of plot number 1517 and would like to evict the respondent from that.
In his replying affidavit sworn on 8th October 2012, the respondent contends that his late father sub-divided his land while alive. Plot number 1517 was given to him while plot number 1518 remained in the names of the deceased. The applicant refused to assist in having plot number 1518 transferred into his names while their father was alive. The respondent obtained his title. He filed Kakamega CMCC NO. 95 OF 2011 and obtained eviction orders against his brother – the applicant. The respondent maintains that the applicant willfully agreed to vacate the plot and signed an agreement.
The record shows that the late AMRAM MAKAMU the parties’ father died on 8/7/2008. It is also established that as of 7/7/2008, the suit property was still registered in the names of the deceased. The respondent annexed a mutation form dated 4/7/2008 and two certificates of official search for the two sub-divisions – that is plot number 1517 and 1518. The respondent was registered as the proprietor of plot number ISUKHA/VIREHEMBE/1517 on 5th November 2008. The second search shows that the deceased was registered as the proprietor of plot number ISUKHA/VIRHEMBE/1518 on 7/7/2008.
If we are to go by the three official searches, it would mean that plot number ISUKHA/VIRHEMBE/1000 was sub-divided on 7/7/2008 and the sub-divisions were endorsed in the land register on the same day. The deceased died the following day, 8/7/2008. It is not clear who then signed the transfer forms in favour of the respondent that enabled him to become the registered owner of plot number 1517 on 5/11/2008. Ordinarily, after a sub-division is made, both plots are fist registered in the names of the original owner who thereafter would decide to transfer any portion of the subsequent sub-divisions as he wishes. There is no application for consent to sub-divide or transfer from the relevant Land Control Board annexed. The transfer forms that enabled the respondent to obtain his title are also not annexed.
From the pleadings herein, I am satisfied that the respondent got himself registered as the proprietor of part of the deceased’s estate without going through the mandatory succession process. It is not possible that the deceased signed transfer forms before his death and then the same were presented for registration after his death. I do find that the applicant’s application is merited and the same is fully granted as prayed. Parties are brothers and each will meet his own costs.
Delivered, dated and signed at Kakamega this 7th day of February, 2013
SAID J. CHITEMBWE
J U D G E