[2009] KEHC 2753 (KLR)
The High Court found that the estate of Mue Kyau, including the disputed parcel of land, had already been distributed by a Certificate of Confirmation of Grant issued in H.C. Succ. Cause 97/1998 (Nairobi). The earlier reference to a Kitui succession cause was erroneous. The court held that the pending appeal to the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 2753 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Charles Mue (on behalf of Mue Kyau’s Family); Respondent: Makau Mue
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 89 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Final Judgment After Preliminary Judgment and Further Evidence
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed as prayed; each party to bear their own costs.
- Legal Topics
- Succession Disputes, Confirmation of Grant, Land Inheritance, Appeals Committee Proceedings
- 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
Charles Mue (on behalf of Mue Kyau’s Family)
Appellant
Makau Mue
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment After Preliminary Judgment and Further Evidence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the outcome of the respondent's appeal to the Provincial Appeals Committee affects the present appeal.
- 2 Whether the distribution of the estate of Mue Kyau (deceased), specifically title No. Matinyani/Kalindilo/156, has been conclusively determined by the High Court Succession Cause.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the estate of Mue Kyau, including the disputed parcel of land, had already been distributed by a Certificate of Confirmation of Grant issued in H.C. Succ. Cause 97/1998 (Nairobi). The earlier reference to a Kitui succession cause was erroneous. The court held that the pending appeal to the Provincial Land Appeals Committee did not preclude it from determining the present appeal, as the distribution of the estate had been conclusively settled by the High Court. Consequently, the appeal had merit and was allowed as prayed, with each party to bear their own costs.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed as prayed; each party to bear their own costs.
Orders
- The appeal is allowed as prayed.
- Costs of the appeal shall be borne individually by each party.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MACHAKOS
CIVIL APPEAL 89 OF 2002
MUE KYAU’S FAMILY LAND DISPUTE
Thro’ CHARLES MUE …………………….… APPELLANT
VERSUS
MAKAU MUE ……………….....…………. RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the Ruling of Honourable M.N. Gicheru P.M dated 9th August 2002 in Principal Magistrate Civil Case No. 49 of 2001)
JUDGMENT
1. On 22/9/2008, I delivered a preliminary judgment in this matter and left two issues to be addressed in this final judgement viz;
i. the outcome of the Appeal to the Provincial Appeals Committee by the Respondent in this Appeal;
ii.the status of PM’S Succ. Cause No. 97/1998 (Kitui).
2. I called for evidence on the two issues before I could conclude the judgment and I now have two documents before me;
a.Certificate of Confirmation of Grant issued in H.C.Succ. Cause 97/1998 (Nbi) relating to the estate of Mue Kyau (deceased). The earlier reference to PM’S Succ. Cause 97/1998 (Kitui) was therefore in error. The estate of the deceased was distributed in that Cause and one of the properties to be distributed was title No. Matinyani/Kalindilo/156 which was PARTLY the subject of the Appeal before me. Amongst the individuals to inherit that parcel of land was one Makau Mue, the present Respondent.
b. As regards Eastern Provincial Appeals Committee Appeal No. 102/2001, by letter dated 14/10/2008, one S.M. Kariuki visiting on behalf of the Provincial Commissioner, Eastern Province, the Appeal is still pending and no decision has been made in that regard.
3. Turning back to the judgment that I delivered on 22/9/2008, it would seem to me that I should conclude the whole Appeal by stating thus;
Inspite of the pendency of the Appeal to the Provincial Land Appeals Committee, the Appeal before me has merit and is allowed as prayed with costs to the Appellant. This final judgment must be read as part of the one delivered on 22/9/2008.
Costs of the Appeal shall be borne individually by each party.
4. Orders accordingly.
Dated and delivered at Machakos this 28thday of May2009.
ISAAC LENAOLA
JUDGE
In presence of: N/A for parties
ISAAC LENAOLA
JUDGE