[2009] KEHC 67 (KLR)
The court found that both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased registered proprietor, Kemunto Mokua. Since neither party had obtained letters of administration, they lacked legal standing to deal with or subdivide the estate. The court held that it would be improper to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 67 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Julius Akama Mokua; Defendant: George Morara Akama; Kemunto Mokua (deceased)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisii
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 100 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- Application dismissed with costs to the 1st defendant.
- Judges
- DK Musinga
- Legal Topics
- Temporary Injunction, Letters of Administration, Intestate Succession, Beneficiary 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
Julius Akama Mokua
Plaintiff
George Morara Akama
Defendant
Kemunto Mokua (deceased)
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit land pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff and 1st defendant have legal standing to deal with the estate of the deceased registered proprietor without letters of administration.
- 3 Whether the 1st defendant is unlawfully intermeddling with the estate of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased registered proprietor, Kemunto Mokua. Since neither party had obtained letters of administration, they lacked legal standing to deal with or subdivide the estate. The court held that it would be improper to grant the plaintiff's request for a temporary injunction to restrain the 1st defendant, who is also a beneficiary and has been living on the land. The proper course is for the parties to obtain letters of administration and proceed to distribute the estate lawfully. The application for injunction was therefore dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed with costs to the 1st defendant.
Orders
- The plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the 1st defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KISII
Civil Case 100 of 2009
JULIUS AKAMA MOKUA ………………………… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
GEORGE MORARA & 5 OTHERS …………….. DEFENDANTS
RULING
The plaintiff’s application dated 5th June,2009, prays for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees from entering into, cultivating, occupying, trespassing upon or in any manner interfering with the parcel of land known as West Mugirango/Bogichora/121, hereinafter referred to as “the suit land”, pending the hearing and determination of this suit.In his affidavit in support of the application the plaintiff deposed that sometimes in February and March 2009, the 1st to 5th defendants wrongfully and unlawfully entered the suit land and subdivided it and gave a portion of the same to the 1st defendant who has started putting up a semi permanent house thereon.The plaintiff reported the matter in Nyamira police station but was not given any assistance.The plaintiff further lamented that the 1st defendant had destroyed his crops and was also harvesting his tea leaves.He urged the court to restrain him from continuing with any further act of trespasses.The plaintiff filed a supplementary affidavit and claimed that the suit land belonged to his deceased mother.He annexed thereto a copy of the official search.The same shows thatKemunto Mokua is the registered proprietor of the suit land.The plaintiff further stated that his mother died intestate on14th December, 1984. Prior to filing this suit the plaintiff obtained letters of administration Ad Litem from this court.
The 1st defendant stated in his replying affidavit that the plaintiff herein is his biological father.He conceded that the suit land belonged to the late Kemunto Mokua, his grandmother.He added that the suit land was the only home known to him since his childhood and he is currently living there together with his wife and children.He said that both himself and the plaintiff and their respective family members were entitled to live on the suit land.In his view the rest of the defendants had wrongly been joined as defendants in this suit because all they did was to ensure that there was fairness in this dispute between the plaintiff and himself.He denied that he was intermeddling with the estate of his deceased grandmother and that he was destroying the plaintiff’s crops and harvesting his tea bushes.
From the material on record there is no dispute that the suit land, measuring 4. 8 hectares, is registered in the name of Kemunto Mokua who died on14th December, 1984. No letters of administration were obtained by anyone in respect of the deceased’s estate.There is also no dispute that the plaintiff herein is a son of the late Kemunto Mokua.The 1st defendant stated in his affidavit that although the plaintiff had referred to him as George Morara, his full name is George Morara Akama and is a son of the plaintiff.That was not denied by the plaintiff.
If indeed the 1st defendant is a son of the plaintiff and both of them have been living on the suit land all along it would be improper for this court to grant the orders sought by the plaintiff.What the plaintiff and the 1st defendant ought to do is to apply for letters of administration of the estates ofKemunto Mokua and thereafter proceed to subdivide the suit land among all the beneficiaries of the estate.I find no merits in this application and dismiss the same with costs to the 1st defendant.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KISII THIS 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009.
D. MUSINGA
JUDGE.
8/12/2009
Before D. Musinga, J.
Mobisa – cc
Mr. Momanyi for the Plaintiff
N/A for the Defendant
Court:Ruling delivered in open court on8th December, 2009.
D. MUSINGA
JUDGE.