[2015] KEHC 103 (KLR)
The court found that the respondents, as administrators, failed in their duty to execute the confirmed grant for the benefit of all beneficiaries, and no sufficient reason was provided for their non-cooperation. The 1st respondent's claim of unauthorized rectification was unsupported by evidence, as there was no...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 103 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Maina Chuma Minji; Applicant: Edith Njeru Kimingi; Applicant: Margaret Kaguyu Muriuki; Applicant: Peter Muriuki Chuma; Respondent: Mwangi Chuma Minji; Respondent: Hellen Wanjiku Chuma
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 181 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Execution of Confirmed Grant
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Administration of Estates, Confirmation of Grant, Execution of Grant, Distribution of Estate
- 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
Maina Chuma Minji
Applicant
Edith Njeru Kimingi
Applicant
Margaret Kaguyu Muriuki
Applicant
Peter Muriuki Chuma
Applicant
Mwangi Chuma Minji
Respondent
Hellen Wanjiku Chuma
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Execution of Confirmed Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should authorize the Deputy Registrar to execute transfer documents in place of the administrators for parcel Mwerua/Kanyokora/371.
- 2 Whether the Land Registrar should be ordered to dispense with documents required from uncooperative administrators.
- 3 Whether the OCS should provide security during the subdivision of the estate land.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondents, as administrators, failed in their duty to execute the confirmed grant for the benefit of all beneficiaries, and no sufficient reason was provided for their non-cooperation. The 1st respondent's claim of unauthorized rectification was unsupported by evidence, as there was no record of rectification proceedings or alteration of the beneficiaries' shares. The confirmed grant dated 25/2/2013 remained valid and unchallenged. The court held that, in the face of persistent non-cooperation by the administrators, it was just and lawful to authorize the Deputy Registrar to execute all necessary documents to effectuate the grant. The court further held that the...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The Deputy Registrar High Court is authorized to execute all necessary documents for execution of the grant confirmed on 25/2/2013.
- The Land Registrar, Kirinyaga County is ordered to dispense with the original title, if need be, in execution of the grant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
40 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 181 OF 2010
In the matter of the Estate of CHUMA MINJI (Deceased)
MAINA CHUMA MINJI
EDITH NJERU KIMINGI
MARGARET KAGUYU MURIUKI
PETER MURIUKI CHUMA............................................................APPLICANTS
VERSUS
MWANGI CHUMA MINJI
HELLEN WANJIKU CHUMA.....................RESPONDENTS/ADMINISTRATORS
R U L I N G
This is a ruling on the application dated 13/6/2015 seeking that the court be pleased to authorize the Executive Officer to execute all necessary transfer documents in respect of parcel No. Mwerua/Kanyokora/371 in place of the respondent/administrators to enable the transfer to be effected as per the confirmation of grant dated 25/2/2013. The applicant also seeks that the Land Registrar Kirinyaga County be ordered to dispense with the production of any documents required to be produced or executed by the respondents and that the OCS Baricho police station be ordered to provide security on the day of the subdivision. The application is supported by the affidavit of Edith Njeri Kimingi.
In the supporting affidavit it is stated that the 2nd applicant has authority to swear the affidavit on behalf of the other applicants. A grant was issued on 24/10/2011 and confirmed on 25/2/2013. According to the said grant each of the beneficiaries got a share out of Mwerua/Kanyokora/371. The respondents who are the administrators have refused to execute the necessary transfer documents. The applicants argue that the court should authorize the Executive Officer to execute the relevant transfer documents. It is contended further that there is no possibility of the respondents herein availing copies of their personal identification numbers to the lands registry or any other personal documents relevant for registration purposes due to their unco-operative tendencies hence the prayer to dispense with such production.
In the replying affidavit the 1st respondent stated that during rectification of grant, the applicants changed the mode of distribution without his knowledge and altered what was agreed upon. The rectification was only intended to change the reference number of the land parcel No. Mwerua/ Mukure/371 to read Mwerua/Kanyokora/371 but not to change the mode of distribution. After rectification of certificate of grant, the 1st respondent was given 2 acres instead of 2. 7 acres. The applicants proceeded to execute the new certificate of confirmation without 1st respondent’s knowledge and registered Forms 7 and 19 in land registration. The co-administrator Hellen Wanjiku Chuma proceeded with the case without the 1st respondent's his knowledge or consent. He came to learn about change of the distribution after he was served with this application. The applicants and co-administrator have never approached him to decide how the estate should be distributed. Maina Chuma Minji a beneficiary who had been given land by the deceased has a share in the grant contrary to the deceased will.
The 2nd respondent indicated that he was not opposing the application. Parties agreed that the court should rely on their affidavits.
According to the original confirmed grant dated 25/2/2013 Mwerua/Kanyokora/371 was to be shared as follows;
Mwangi Chuma Minji - 2 acres
Maina Chuma Minji - 0. 5 acres
Edith N. Kimingi - 0. 5 acres
Margaret Kanguyi - 0. 5 acres
Peter Muriuki Chuma - 1. 5 acres
Hellen Wanjiku Chuma - 1. 7 acres
The 1st respondent claims that the grant was rectified without his consent. He did not attach any evidence to his replying affidavit to show that the grant was rectified. The court file does not contain any proceedings for rectification. In the absence of any such evidence, the 1st respondent has not demonstrated any sufficient reason as to why the orders sought should not be granted.
All the beneficiaries except the 1st respondent/administrator are in agreement that the grant ought to be executed in accordance with the law. It was confirmed on the 25/2/2013 which is more than two years ago. The administrators/ respondents have a duty to ensure that the grant is executed for the benefit of all the beneficiaries. None of the respondents have explained the delay.
It is not in dispute that the 1st administrator has been unco-operative and has held the execution of the grant in abeyance. The contents of the confirmed grant in regard to the shares of the beneficiaries, has not changed. There is no evidence in the court record that the applicants have filed any application for rectification of grant regarding the shares of the beneficiaries or the change of the land reference number as alleged by the 1st respondent.
The issue of the share of Maina Chuma Minji should have been raised before the confirmation of the grant. The 1st respondent jointly with the co-administrator, applied for confirmation of the grant and bequeathed a portion of 0. 5 acres to the said beneficiary and the grant was confirmed in those terms. It seems that the 1st respondent changed his mind after the grant was confirmed and took no steps to reverse the situation. He has shown no good reason why the grant should not be executed.
The applicants seek for an order that the Land Registrar dispenses with production of any documents that may be required. This court may only grant the prayer limited to original title that may be held by a party who is not willing to surrender them. However, the production of identification documents of the beneficiaries must be produced for the execution of the grant.
In regard to prayer 1 the Registrar High Court is the authorized person to assist the parties in the execution of the grant as opposed to the Executive Officer.
I find the application merited and it is hereby allowed in the following terms:-
That the Deputy Registrar High Court executes all the necessary documents for execution of the grant confirmed on the 25/2/2013.
That the Land Registrar, Kirinyaga County is hereby ordered to dispense of the original title, if need be, in execution of the grant.
That the OCS Baricho provides security during the sub-division of LR. MWERUA/KANYOKORA/371.
It is hereby so ordered.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT EMBU THIS 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015.
F. MUCHEMI
J U D G E
In the presence of:-
1st, 2nd, 3rd Applicants
Respondents present