[2007] KEHC 1859 (KLR)
The court found that, as a general rule, all four sons of the deceased are entitled to equal shares of the estate. There was insufficient evidence to support Kithuka's claim that Ronald had previously received parcels 3024 and 1256 from the deceased as inheritance. The green cards confirmed Ronald's registered...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 1859 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: Kithuka M’Muguongo; Applicant: Ronald Kirianki Muguongo; Kirema M’Muguongo; Mutuma M’Muguongo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Succession Cause 424 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Distribution of Estate
- Outcome
- Estate distributed equally among the four sons; each party to bear own costs.
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Estate Distribution, Intestate Succession, Beneficiary Entitlement
- 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
Kithuka M’Muguongo
Petitioner
Ronald Kirianki Muguongo
Applicant
Kirema M’Muguongo
Mutuma M’Muguongo
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Distribution of Estate
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the estate of the deceased should be distributed equally among the four sons.
- 2 Whether Ronald Kirianki Muguongo was previously given parcels of land by the deceased that should be considered in the distribution.
- 3 Whether the proposals by Ronald and Kithuka for distribution are equitable.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, as a general rule, all four sons of the deceased are entitled to equal shares of the estate. There was insufficient evidence to support Kithuka's claim that Ronald had previously received parcels 3024 and 1256 from the deceased as inheritance. The green cards confirmed Ronald's registered ownership of those parcels, but did not prove they were inherited. Both Ronald's and Kithuka's proposals for distribution were found to be inequitable. The court therefore ordered an equal distribution of the estate among the four sons, with specific acreages allocated to each, ensuring fairness and compliance with the law of succession.
Court Disposition
Estate distributed equally among the four sons; each party to bear own costs.
Orders
- Kithuka to receive Njia/Burieruri/431 (0.27 acres) and 0.78 acres of Njia/Burieruri/2449.
- Mutuma to receive 1.05 acres of Njia/Burieruri/2449.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
39 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
Succession Cause 424 of 2004
KITHUKA M’MUGUONGO.............................................PETITIONER
VERSUS
RONALD KIRIANKI MUGUONGO..................................APPLICANT
RULING
The dispute here involves distribution of the estate of the deceased person in this cause. The deceased left two parcels of land, Njia/Burieruri/431 measuring approximately 0. 27 acres and Njia/Burieruri/2449 measuring approximately 3. 95 acres.
The deceased was survived by 4 sons;
(i) Ronald Kirianki Muguongo
(ii) Kithuka M’Muguongo Thoa
(iii) Kirema M’Muguongo, and
(iv) Mutuma M’Muguongo
Ronald and Kithuka are the co-administrators of the estate. Both have filed affidavits on the distribution which are at variance, hence this ruling.
Ronald’s proposal is as follows;
(1). Njia/Burieruri/431 to Kithuka(whole) = 0. 27 acres
(2) Njia/Burieruri/2449
-Mutuma – 1 acre
- Kirema – 1 acre
- Ronald – 1. 95 acres
Kithuka has opposed this proposal arguing that the deceased had given Ronald two parcels of land, being Njia/Burieruri/3024 measuring 1. 48 acres and Njia/Burieruri/1256 measuring 0. 25 acres which Ronald sold, on 9th January, 2003 to Arnold Mung’athia Alaine.
Ronald in a supplementary affidavit has challenged these averments maintaining that the parcels are his and not inherited from the deceased. I have considered these averments.
As a general rule all the four sons of the deceased are entitled to equal share of the estate. It is therefore improper for Ronald to insist that while Mutuma(deceased) and Kirema get 1 acre each and he gets 1. 95 acres, Kithuka should only get the portion occupied by him, measuring 0. 27 acres. That is unconscionable. Kithuka on the other hand has not satisfied me that the deceased passed to Ronald parcel Nos.3024 and 1256. The green cards annexed not only confirm that Ronald is the registered proprietor of 3024 but was also the registered proprietor of 1256 before he transferred it. While Kithuka has no issue with the proposed distribution of 1 acre each to Mutuma and Kirema, he suggests that Ronald should get 0. 35 of parcel No.2449 while he (Kithuka) gets the whole of No.431 and 1. 6 acres of No.2449. This again is not equitable. The trouble is between Kithuka and Ronald.
It is now ordered that the estate shall be distributed as follows;
(i) Kithuka:
(a) Njia/Burieruri/431(whole) = 0. 27
(b) Njia/Burieruri/2449 = 0. 78 acres
(ii) Mutuma:
Njia/Burieruri/2449 = 1. 05 acres
(iii) Kirema:
Njia/Burieruri/2449= 1. 05 acres
(iv) Ronald:
Njia/Burieruri/2449 = 1. 05 acres
The joint administrators to set in motion the process of survey and registration immediately. Each party to meet own costs.
Orders accordingly.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2007
W. OUKO
JUDGE