[2015] KEHC 8028 (KLR)
The court found that the respondents failed to disclose the existence of the applicant, a lawful beneficiary, when petitioning for the grant of letters of administration. This non-disclosure constituted concealment of material facts, warranting revocation of the grant. The court held that the applicant is entitled...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 8028 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Margaret Wambui Ngigi; Respondent: Veronicah Gathoni Ngigi; Respondent: John Mbugua Ngigi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 1443 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- Grant revoked; fresh grant to be issued jointly to applicant and 1st respondent; estate to be preserved pending distribution; no order as to costs.
- Judges
- AO Muchelule
- Legal Topics
- Revocation of Grant, Beneficiary Exclusion, Intestate Succession, 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
Margaret Wambui Ngigi
Applicant
Veronicah Gathoni Ngigi
Respondent
John Mbugua Ngigi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the grant of letters of administration should be revoked for non-disclosure of a beneficiary.
- 2 Whether the applicant is a lawful beneficiary of the deceased's estate and entitled to a share of the estate.
- 3 How the estate should be distributed among the beneficiaries.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondents failed to disclose the existence of the applicant, a lawful beneficiary, when petitioning for the grant of letters of administration. This non-disclosure constituted concealment of material facts, warranting revocation of the grant. The court held that the applicant is entitled to a share of the estate as a child of the deceased. The court further directed that a valuation of all estate parcels be conducted to facilitate equitable distribution, and that a fresh grant be issued in the joint names of the applicant and the 1st respondent. The estate is to be preserved pending final determination, and no order as to costs was made due to the family nature...
Court Disposition
Grant revoked; fresh grant to be issued jointly to applicant and 1st respondent; estate to be preserved pending distribution; no order as to costs.
Orders
- The grant issued to the respondents and confirmed on 31/3/04 is revoked.
- A fresh grant shall be issued in the joint names of the applicant and the 1st respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
FAMILY DIVISION
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 1443 OF 2014
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES NGIGI MBUGUA (DECEASED)
MARGARET WAMBUI NGIGI.........................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
VERONICAH GATHONI NGIGI...........................1ST RESPONDENT
JOHN MBUGUA NGIGI......................................2ND RESPONDENT
JUDGEMENT
1. The deceased James Ngigi Mbugua died intestate on 25/1/2003. His widow Veronicah Gathoni Ngigi (1st respondent) and son John Mbugua Ngigi (2nd respondent) petitioned for the grant of letters of administration intestate in Kiambu Chief Magistrate’s Court Succession Cause No. 49 of 2003. The estate of the deceased was said to comprise L.R Gatamaiyu/Nyanduma/T.406, L.R Gatamaiyu/Nyanduma/T.333, Plot No.12- Kagwe Market and Gilgil/Gilgil Block 1/447. The grant was issued on 2/7/03 and confirmed on 31/3/04 in which all the property went to the 1st respondent.
2. The applicant Margaret Wambui Ngigi filed this application dated 26/5/14 seeking to have the grant revoked on the basis that she was a child of the deceased who had not been informed of the succession cause, had not been named as one of the beneficiaries and had not been provided for in the distribution. Her case was that the deceased had another family comprising her late mother Anne Wanjiru and herself, and that he had settled them on Gilgil/Gilgil Bolck 1/447, the other family having been settled at Kagwe. This information, she stated, was known to the respondents who had not involved her in the matter. The applicant’s mother had died on 13/10/05. She stated that she was a minor at the time the case was going on at Kiambu and was not made aware; that it was only subsequently that a neighbour called her to say that their land at Gilgil was being subdivided by unknown people. She checked to find the case had been heard and grant confirmed.
3. The 1st respondent’s case was that she was the statutory wife of the deceased who had left no other beneficiaries. She had seven (7) children with the deceased. They included the 2nd respondent. She had named all of them as beneficiaries in the affidavit sworn to support the petition and application to confirm the grant.
4. The applicant had provided a photograph of the family of the deceased taken during his burial, and it showed both families. In the replying affidavit sworn by the 1st respondent on 12/6/14 she stated:
“ 7. THAT though the applicant and her late mother were photographed together with other members of the family at the burial of my late husband, the same does not entitle them to be lawful beneficiaries to the estate herein.”
She (the 1st respondent) swore another replying affidavit on 23/7/15 which was filed on 27/7/15 and in which she stated as follows:
“ 4. THAT I have been advised by my advocates on record which advise I verily believe that MARGARET WAMBUI NGIGI is a lawful beneficiary to the estate and should be included in the distribution herein.”
5. ......................................................................
6. ......................................................................
7. ........................................................................
8. THAT I have been advised by my Advocates on record which advise I verily believe that since I have seven (7) children the total units of inheritance to this estate equals nine(9) and as such the applicant’s lawful share to the Gilgil land is 1/9 which is equivalent to 0. 56 Acres or thereabout.”
5. There is no dispute that the 1st respondent has since subdivided Gilgil/Gilgil Block 1/447 into several parcels which are Gilgil/Gilgil Block 1/11223,11224,11225,11226,11227,11228,11229,11230 and 11231.
6. Counsel filed written submissions which I have considered.
7. A grant is liable for revocation where the person who obtained it concealed material information from the court and excluded some of the survivors of the deceased (IN THE ESTATE OF EZEKIEL MULANDA MASAI, ELDORET HC Probate & Administartion Cause No.4 of 1992). The respondents did not disclose that the applicant was a daughter of the deceased and a beneficiary of his estate. I revoke the grant that was issued to the respondents and which was confirmed on 31/3/04.
8. It would appear that the 1st respondent has sold two acres of the 5 acres that comprised Gilgil/Gilgil Block 1/447. The applicant asked for the remaining three acres, but the 1st respondent stated that the parcel was more valuable when compared to the other parcels that the deceased left. I direct that the applicant and the 1st respondent do agree on a valuer to value all the parcels and plots left by the deceased and the valuation report(s) filed within 30 days to enable decision on distribution. The 1st respondent shall file the original sale agreement for the two acres. This should be done within 30 days. In the meantime, there shall be a fresh grant issued in the joint names of the applicant and the 1st respondent. The parties, or either of them, shall apply for the confirmation of the grant within 30 days from today. There shall be an order to preserve the estate of the deceased until the matter is heard and determined. I make no order as to costs as this is a family dispute.
DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 11th December 2015.
A.O. MUCHELULE
JUDGE