[2017] KEHC 6173 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 6173 (KLR)

The court found that the application for confirmation of grant was premature because not all beneficiaries had been identified or given consent to the proposed mode of distribution, as required by Rule 40(8) of the Probate and Administration Rules. The court also noted that there was no agreement among the parties...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 6173 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kibue Kamau; Applicant: Scholastica Waitherero Akwale; Respondent: Mary Ndundu Kamau; Respondent: Salome Ngunga Kamau
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 1865 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Confirmation of Grant
Outcome
Application for confirmation of grant postponed.
Judges
REA Ougo
Legal Topics
Succession, Confirmation of Grant, Distribution of Estate, Beneficiaries Consent, Intestate Estate, Administration of Estates
Source Language
en
Family and Children Succession Confirmation of Grant Distribution of Estate Beneficiaries Consent Intestate Estate Administration of Estates

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kibue Kamau

Applicant

Scholastica Waitherero Akwale

Applicant

Mary Ndundu Kamau

Respondent

Salome Ngunga Kamau

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Confirmation of Grant

  1. 1 Whether the application for confirmation of grant is premature in the absence of consent from all beneficiaries.
  2. 2 Whether all beneficiaries of the deceased's estate have been properly identified and included in the distribution.
  3. 3 Whether the parties have agreed on the mode of distribution and identification of shares for each beneficiary.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for confirmation of grant was premature because not all beneficiaries had been identified or given consent to the proposed mode of distribution, as required by Rule 40(8) of the Probate and Administration Rules. The court also noted that there was no agreement among the parties regarding the distribution of certain properties and that the identification and ascertainment of all estate assets had not been completed. In light of these deficiencies, the court exercised its discretion under Section 71(2)(d) of the Law of Succession Act to postpone confirmation of the grant. The parties were ordered to hold a meeting to resolve outstanding issues regarding...

Court Disposition

Application for confirmation of grant postponed.

Orders

  • Confirmation of grant is postponed.
  • Parties to hold a meeting to resolve issues on identification of beneficiaries, ascertainment of assets, and mode of distribution.