[2010] KEHC 2707 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants were served with the application for eviction but failed to appear, resulting in ex-parte orders. The purported sale of shares in Plot No. 34 by beneficiaries before the distribution of the estate was unlawful and amounted to intermeddling with the estate under section 45 of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 2707 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Maxwell Mwonga Mutisya; Applicant: Joseph Musyoka Mutisya; Respondent: Peter Musyimi Mulwa; Respondent: Jackson Kitonga Mulwa
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Probate & Administration 164 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Probate and Administration / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Eviction Order
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Intermeddling With Estate, Distribution of Estate, Eviction Orders, Letters of Administration
- 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
Maxwell Mwonga Mutisya
Applicant
Joseph Musyoka Mutisya
Applicant
Peter Musyimi Mulwa
Respondent
Jackson Kitonga Mulwa
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Probate and Administration / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Eviction Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the ex-parte eviction order against the applicants should be set aside.
- 2 Whether the applicants lawfully acquired interests in Plot No. 34 Lukenya Ranching & Farming Co-operative Society Ltd as purchasers from beneficiaries.
- 3 Whether the sale of estate property by beneficiaries prior to distribution constitutes intermeddling under section 45 of the Law of Succession Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants were served with the application for eviction but failed to appear, resulting in ex-parte orders. The purported sale of shares in Plot No. 34 by beneficiaries before the distribution of the estate was unlawful and amounted to intermeddling with the estate under section 45 of the Law of Succession Act. The estate had not been distributed, and no beneficiary, including the vendors, had been allocated any part of it. The applicants' remedy, if any, lay against the vendors and not the estate. The court held that setting aside the ex-parte orders would serve no lawful or useful purpose, as the orders were properly issued and the applicants were in breach of...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application dated 20.7.2009 is dismissed with costs.
- The ex-parte eviction orders issued on 15.6.2009 remain in force.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MACHAKOS
Probate & Administration 164 of 2006
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF NZISA MULWA MUTOO (DECEASED)
VERSUS
1. MAXWELL MWONGA MUTISYA
2. JOSEPH MUSYOKA MUTISYA …………………………………………………………APPLICANTS
versus
1. PETER MUSYIMI MULWA
2. JACKSON KITONGA MULWA …..………………………………… PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT
RULING
1. On 15. 6.2009, I allowed an application by one Peter Musyimi Mulwa and Jackson Kitonga Mulwa ,and issued orders inter-alia that one MwongaMutisya Katiti should vacate parcel No. 34 Lukenya Ranching & Farming Co-operative society Ltd within 60 days of thedate of the order.The order was made ex-parte because the Respondent did not appear at the hearing.By his summons dated 20. 7.2009 Mwonga Mutisya seeks orders that the said order be set aside.
2. It is his case that on diverse dates between 18. 7.2008 and 27. 2.2009, he purchased the shares belonging to Dorcas Ndunge Mutuku and Alfonce Mutua Mulwa in Plot No. 34 Lukenya Ranching and Framing Ltd.The shares, in land value, totaled 16 acres and that the vendors were “beneficiaries of the estate of Nzisa Mulwa Mutoo (deceased), with equal preference with the Petitioners.” That the Petitioners were aware of the sale and that one Philip Kilonzo Mulwa, eldest son of the deceased was aware of the same and “supervised” the transaction.
3. That when the orders of eviction were issued, the Applicant and his brother, Joseph Musyoka Mutisya, were unaware of the Application for adverse orders against them and they were therefore condemned unheard.
4. In his Replying Affidavit, Peter Musyimi Mulwa states that Plot No. 34 in Lukenya Ranching and Co-operative Society is part of the estate of the deceased and that the whole estate has yet to be distributed and therefore the purported purchase of part of the estate is unlawful.
5. When I granted the ex-parte orders on 15. 6.2009, I noted that the Respondent had been served but chose not to appear.However, I am certain that even if he had appeared, the orders given are lawful and setting aside will serve no lawful or useful purpose.I say so, with respect, because in the Petition dated 1. 3.2006, one of the properties listed in the schedule of assets is Plot No. 34 Lukenya Co-operative Society.Letters of administration were then issued to Peter Musyimi Mulwa and Jackson Kitonga Mulwa on 17. 9.2008 and to-date the estate has not been distributed and no beneficiary, including Dorcas Ndunge and Alfonce Mulwa has been allocated any part of it.Their conduct in purporting to sell 16 acres out of parcel No. 34 amounts to intermeddling with the estate of a deceased person contrary to section 45 of the Law of Succession Act.That section provides as follows:-
“(1)Except so far as expressly authorized by this Act, or by
any other written law, or by a grant of representation under this Act, no person shall, for any purpose, take possession or dispose of or otherwise intermeddle with, any free property of a deceased person.
(2)Any person who contravenes the provisions of this section
shall-
a)be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand shilling or to a term of imprisonment, not exceeding one year or to both such fine and imprisonment; and ;
b)be answerable to the rightful executor or administrator to the extent of the assets with which he has intermeddled after deducting any payments made in the due course of administration.”
6. A clear reading of the section would show that the purported sale was in fact a criminal offence and if the Applicants have put up houses on the suit land, the same is a clear breach of the law and this court cannot countenance such action.
7. In a nutshell what I am saying is that the Applicants were served with the Application dated 11. 5.2009 but they chose not to oppose it hence the ex-parte orders.Further, from the evidence before me, the applicants are in the wrong and the orders issued are lawful.Their answer lies in proceedings against Dorcas Ndunge and Alfonce Mulwaas well as their “supervisor”, Philip Mulwa.
8. The application dated 20. 7.2009 therefore has no merit and is dismissed with costs.
9. Orders accordingly.
Dated this 23rd day of May 2010.
ISAAC LENAOLA
JUDGE
Countersigned and delivered at Machakos this 23rd day of May 2010.
H.P.G. WAWERU
JUDGE