[2014] KEHC 2917 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 2917 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the respondent had intermeddled with the estate of the deceased. The only evidence presented, photographs, did not assist the court, and the respondent's explanation that the applicant was allowed to enter the land for campaign...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KEHC 2917 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Godfrey Muthee Ngochi; Respondent: Ephantus Wachira Ngochi; Respondent: Gladys Nyaguthii Karanja
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 1281 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Intermeddling and Confirmation of Grant
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
J Wakiaga
Legal Topics
Succession, Confirmation of Grant, Intermeddling, Distribution of Estate
Source Language
en
Family and Children Succession Confirmation of Grant Intermeddling Distribution of Estate

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Godfrey Muthee Ngochi

Applicant

Ephantus Wachira Ngochi

Respondent

Gladys Nyaguthii Karanja

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Intermeddling and Confirmation of Grant

  1. 1 Whether the respondent intermeddled with the estate of the deceased contrary to section 45 of the Law of Succession Act.
  2. 2 Whether the application for restraining orders against the respondent is merited.
  3. 3 Whether the proposed mode of distribution of the estate is just and equitable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the respondent had intermeddled with the estate of the deceased. The only evidence presented, photographs, did not assist the court, and the respondent's explanation that the applicant was allowed to enter the land for campaign purposes was not rebutted. The court held that mere possession by the applicant did not exclude the rights of the other beneficiaries. As such, the application for a finding of intermeddling and for restraining orders was without merit and was dismissed. The court emphasized that administrators, by virtue of their role, cannot be considered intermeddlers when identifying and...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 26th February 2014 is dismissed.
  • Costs to be in the cause.