[2010] KEHC 3889 (KLR)
The court found that there was no evidence that the respondents had refused to execute the necessary documents for the subdivision and issuance of title deeds for L.R. No. Kirimukuyu/Kiria/162. On the contrary, the respondents had taken steps to comply with the confirmed grant, including obtaining Land Control Board...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 3889 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mary Warima Kinyori; Applicant: Mercy Wangu Kinyori; Respondent: Harrison Muturi Kinyori; Respondent: Dadson Irura Kinyori; Respondent: Johnson Gatheru Kinyori
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 81 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Execution of Documents to Effect Partition and Issuance of Title Deeds
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Administration of Estates, Grant of Letters of Administration, Partition of Land, Probate and Administration Rules
- 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 Warima Kinyori
Applicant
Mercy Wangu Kinyori
Applicant
Harrison Muturi Kinyori
Respondent
Dadson Irura Kinyori
Respondent
Johnson Gatheru Kinyori
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Execution of Documents to Effect Partition and Issuance of Title Deeds
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents have refused to sign documents necessary for the subdivision and issuance of title deeds for L.R. No. Kirimukuyu/Kiria/162.
- 2 Whether the court should authorize the Deputy Registrar to execute documents in place of the respondents.
- 3 Whether the applicants or respondents are obstructing the execution of the confirmed grant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there was no evidence that the respondents had refused to execute the necessary documents for the subdivision and issuance of title deeds for L.R. No. Kirimukuyu/Kiria/162. On the contrary, the respondents had taken steps to comply with the confirmed grant, including obtaining Land Control Board consent. The court also found no evidence that the applicants had failed to cooperate. The dispute appeared to be a minor misunderstanding rather than a willful refusal by either party. Therefore, the court declined to exercise its discretion to authorize the Deputy Registrar to execute the documents and dismissed the summons, directing the parties to exchange and execute the...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The summons dated 11th November 2009 is dismissed.
- Each party shall bear its own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NYERI
Succession Cause 81 of 2005
ESTATE OF JUSTO KINYORI GATHERU - DCD
MARY WARIMA KINYORI
MERCY WANGU KINYORI……………….APPLICANTS
VERSUS
HARRISON MUTURI KINYORI
DADSON IRURA KINYORI
JOHNSON GATHERU KINYORO…… RESPONDENTS
RULING
Pursuant to rules 49, 59(5) and 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules, Mary Warima Kinyori and Mercy Wangu Kinyori, the applicants herein, took out the summons dated 11th November 2009 in which they applied for an order to authorize the Deputy Registrar of this court to execute all the necessary documents in place of the respondents namely Harrison Muturi Kinyori, Dadson Irura Kinyori and Johnson Gatheru Kinyori, to effect the partition and issue title deeds in respect of L.R. No. Kirimukuyu/Kiria/162 to the respective beneficiaries. The aforesaid summons is supported by the affidavit of Mary Warima Kinyori.
When served with the summons, the Respondents opposed the summons by filing the replying affidavit of Harrison Muturi Kinyori.
The background of the facts leading to the filing of this application can easily be traced from the affidavits of the parties herein. It is not in dispute that the grant of letters of administration intestate in respect of the estate of Justo Kinyori Gatheru alias Kinyori s/o Gatheru, deceased were issued in the joint names of Harrison Muturi Kinyori, Mercy Wangu Kinyori and Mary Warima Kinyori on 29th March 2006. the aforesaid grant was confirmed on 6th October 2008 subject to the following conditions:
iThat Parcel No. Kirimukuyu/Kiria/162 shall be shared equally among Harrison Muturi Kinyori, Johnson Gatheru Kinyori, Mercy Wangu Kinyori, Milka Ngunju Kinyori, Nancy Wanjira Mbote and Dadson Irura Kinyori.
iiGladys Nyachogora Kinyori shall solely inherit the share equivalent to one acre in Mwichuiri Farmers Co. Ltd.
iiiThe Protest is marked as withdrawn.
It is the submission of the applicants that the respondents have blatantly refused to sign the necessary documents to effect the subdivision and issuance of title deeds in respect of L.R. No. Kirimukuyu/Kiria/162. For the above reason, they were prompted to take out the aforesaid summons.
The Respondents have denied the applicants’ allegations. They (respondents) have in turn accused the applicants of refusing to sign the application for Land Control Board consent to enable them carry out the survey and subdivision of the aforesaid parcel of land. They have alleged that all other beneficiaries have signed the relevant forms except for Mercy Wangu and Milka Ngunju. They even annexed copies of the application for consent forms and the letter of consent to the replying affidavit. They urged this court to issue an order to compel the applicants to execute the necessary documents.
I have carefully perused the application and the affidavits filed for and against the application. The parties have exchanged accusations and counter-accusations. I have critically examined the annextures attached to the replying affidavit of Harrison Muturi Kinyori. Those documents include the application for consent of the Land Control Board from the Mathira Land Control Board and the consent duly issued by the chairman, Land Control Board on 4/11/2009. I am convinced that the Respondents have not refused to execute the necessary documents. In fact they have taken steps to comply with the terms of the order issued on 6/10/2008. There is no evidence also to show that the applicants have failed to cooperate in signing the relevant documents to subdivide L.R. No. Kirimukuyu/Kiria/162 into six equal portions. It would appear the parties are willing to execute the relevant documents save that they appear to have some little misunderstanding. For the above reason I do not think it is necessary for this court to exercise its discretion to grant the order. The summons is ordered dismissed with each party meeting its costs. The parties involved in this dispute are directed to exchange and execute relevant documents within 14 days. Mention on 28/1/2010 to confirm whether or not the parties have complied with the above directive.
Dated and delivered this 13th day of January 2010.
J.K. SERGON
JUDGE
In Open court in the presence of the parties.
J.K. SERGON
JUDGE