[2014] KEHC 6662 (KLR)
The court found that the respondents, as widows of the deceased, were lawfully entitled to file the succession cause. The applicant, being the deceased's father, is entitled to prove his dependency but should not interfere with the respondents' use of the estate before such dependency is established. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 6662 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mary Irusa Rovoni; Respondent: Mary Chepkongailel
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 475 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction and Inhibition
- Outcome
- Application partly allowed.
- Judges
- SJ Chitembwe
- Legal Topics
- Succession of Estates, Dependant Rights, Injunctions, Land Inhibition, Intermeddling With 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
Mary Irusa Rovoni
Applicant
Mary Chepkongailel
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction and Inhibition
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant, as the deceased's father, is entitled to an injunction and inhibition over the suit land pending determination of objection proceedings.
- 2 Whether the respondents, as widows of the deceased, were lawfully entitled to file the succession cause.
- 3 Whether the applicant is interfering with the respondents' use of the deceased's estate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondents, as widows of the deceased, were lawfully entitled to file the succession cause. The applicant, being the deceased's father, is entitled to prove his dependency but should not interfere with the respondents' use of the estate before such dependency is established. The court directed the applicant not to interfere with the respondents' occupation and cultivation of the suit land, as such interference would amount to intermeddling with the estate. The application for injunction and inhibition was granted only to the extent of registering a caution against the specified plots, while the rest of the prayers were dismissed. The respondents are to be left in...
Court Disposition
Application partly allowed.
Orders
- Application dated 14/12/2012 is granted in terms of prayer (d) for registration of a caution against plot numbers KAKAMEGA/MAUTUMA/2360, 2163 and 138.
- The rest of the prayers in the application are dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT KAKAMEGA
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO: 475 OF 2005
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF CHRISPLE KIHARANGWA LIADEMA..................DECEASED
AND
MARY IRUSA ROVONI............................................................PETITIONER
VERSUS
MARY CHEPKONGAILEL........................................................OBJECTOR
R U L I N G
The application dated 14/12/2012 seeks orders of injunction and inhibition in relation to plot numbers KAKAMEGA/MAUTUMA/2360,2163 AND 138 respectively.
The application is supported by the applicant’s affidavit sworn on 14/12/2012. The applicant is the deceased’s father while the two respondents are the deceased’s widows.
The applicant contends that he is the deceased’s dependant. He used to cultivate the suit land jointly with his son. He was not consulted when the succession cause was filed. The applicant would like to have the respondents restrained from dealing with the suit land pending the determination of the objection proceedings.
On their part, the second respondent seems to be partly supporting the application in her replying affidavit sworn on 2/7/2012, she contends that she is not aware of what is happening as the 1st respondent seems to have taken control of the estate. The 2nd respondent contends that the applicant was the deceased’s dependant.
On her part, the 1st respondent objects to the application. She contends that the applicant has prevented them from using the land and he authorized the widows to file succession.
From the pleadings herein, it is clear that the two respondents are the widows of the deceased while the applicant is the deceased’s father. The application seeks to restrain the respondents from sub-diving alienating, selling or disposing off the suit land. I do find that the respondents were lawfully entitled to file this succession cause being the deceased’s widows. The applicant is entitled to prove his dependency on the deceased. However before that is done, he should not chase away the respondents from the suit land nor interfere with the respondent’s use of the deceased’s estate. The applicant is hereby directed not to interfere with the respondents’ use including cultivation and occupation of the suit land as that is tantamount to intermeddling with the deceased’s estate. The application dated 14/12/2012 is granted in terms of prayer (d) in relation to the registration of a caution against plot number KAKAMEGA/MAUTUMA/2360, 2163 and 138. The rest of the prayers are hereby dismissed. The respondents to be left alone in their utilization of their late husband’s land.
Dated, signed and Delivered at Kakamega this 27th day of February 2014.
SAID J. CHITEMBWE
JUDGE