[2012] KEHC 2235 (KLR)
The court held that the Machakos Land Disputes Tribunal had already determined, after hearing the parties and examining the agreements, that the Objector purchased five acres and not five hectares from the Deceased. The Objector failed to provide evidence of a pending or successful appeal against that decision. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 2235 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Ngiki Muteti; Applicant: David Muteti; Respondent: Boniface Maweu Kaleli
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Succession Cause 340 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Succession Cause / Ruling on Distribution After Confirmation of Grant Application and Protest
- Outcome
- Grant confirmed as per Petitioners' proposal, with Objector to receive five acres.
- Judges
- DW Mbuteti
- Legal Topics
- Succession Distribution, Land Sale Disputes, Confirmation of Grant, Quasi Judicial Tribunals
- 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
Ngiki Muteti
Applicant
David Muteti
Applicant
Boniface Maweu Kaleli
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Succession Cause / Ruling on Distribution After Confirmation of Grant Application and Protest
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Objector purchased five acres or five hectares from the Deceased's estate.
- 2 Whether the court should revisit an issue already determined by the Machakos Land Disputes Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the Machakos Land Disputes Tribunal had already determined, after hearing the parties and examining the agreements, that the Objector purchased five acres and not five hectares from the Deceased. The Objector failed to provide evidence of a pending or successful appeal against that decision. The court found it improper to re-adjudicate an issue already decided by a competent quasi-judicial tribunal, especially where the Tribunal was better placed to interpret the original agreements in the local language and assess the parties' intentions. Accordingly, the Objector was entitled to five acres only, and the grant was confirmed on that basis.
Court Disposition
Grant confirmed as per Petitioners' proposal, with Objector to receive five acres.
Orders
- The grant is confirmed upon the terms of distribution proposed by the Petitioners, except that the Objector, Boniface Maweu Kaleli, shall get five acres of land from the estate of the Deceased.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
Miscellaneous Succession Cause 340 of 2001
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF OBED MUTETI NGUI (DECEASED)
1. NGIKI MUTETI
2. DAVID MUTETI............................................................PETITIONERS
AND
BONIFACE MAWEU KALELI.............................................OBJECTOR
RULING ON DISTRIBUTION
1. Letters of administration intestate to the estate of the Deceased herein, OBED MUTETI NGUI, were issued to the Petitioners jointly on 20th May 2002. The estate of the Deceased comprised essentially one parcel of land known as Plot No. 4, Kitunga measuring approximately 80 acres.
2. By summons dated 18th April 2005 the Petitioners applied for confirmation of the grant. In the proposed schedule of distribution annexed to the supporting affidavit, the Objector (or Protester) herein, BONIFACE MAWEU KALELI, was named as one of the beneficiaries to get 3 acres.
3. The said Objector then filed an affidavit of protest against the proposed distribution sworn on 19th October 2005. In it he deponed, inter alia, that before he died the Deceased had sold to him some five (5) hectares on 28th September 1993 to be excised from his land. He annexed various “agreements” to that effect. He also annexed the proceedings and award of the Machakos Land Disputes Tribunal in its Case No. 23 of 2002 (being a claim filed by the Deceased’s widow, NGIKI MUTETI, against the Objector. The Tribunal had ruled that the Objector had purchased from the Deceased five (5) acres and not five (5) hectares. He says that he appealed the said decision before the Provincial Land Disputes Appeals Committee at Embu, which appeal is pending. He did not provide any evidence of that appeal.
4. In subsequent proceedings herein the Petitioners indicated that they are prepared to give to the Objector five (5) acres. The Objector has insisted that he purchased five (5) hectaresand not five (5) acres, and that is what he wants from the estate of the Deceased.
5. Learned counsels appearing for the Petitioners and the Objector have agreed that the only issue to be determined in this application for confirmation of grant is whether the Objector purchased from the Deceased five (5) acres or five (5) hectares. His entitlement in the Deceased’s estate will be determined by the decision on that issue. This is not an idle issue. One hectare measures approximately 2. 7 acres. So, in effect the Objector is demanding to get 13. 5 acres from the estate of the Deceased as opposed to only five!
6. Learned counsels made written submissions, which I have duly considered. I have also perused the English translations of all the agreements annexed to the affidavit of protest. The original agreements were in Kikamba.
7. The issue whether the Objector bought from the Deceased and his sons five (5) acres or five (5) hectareswas taken before the Machakos Land Disputes Tribunal by the Deceased’s widow, NGIKI MUTETI, in early 2002 after the Deceased’s death. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties and after examining the various documents written in Kikamba language decided that the Objector purchased from the Deceased and his sons five (5) acres and not five (5) hectares as he claimed.
8. The proceedings before the Machakos Land Disputes Tribunal were quasi-judicial, and cannot simply be ignored. Though the Objector says that the appealed against the decision of the Tribunal to the Embu Provincial Appeals Committee, he did not provide evidence of such appeal, or the outcome thereof.
9. I do not think it would be proper for this court to adjudicate again an issue that has already been canvassed and decided by a quasi-judicial tribunal which was in a better position than this court to decide, given the circumstances of the parties before them, whether the land-sale transaction was likely to have been in terms of hectaresor acres.
10. In the circumstances I rule, just as the Machakos Land Disputes Tribunal did in Case No. 23 of 2002, that the Objector purchased from the Deceased and his sons five (5) acres and not five (5) hectares. He will therefore get five (5) acres from the estate of the Deceased.
11. The grant is thus confirmed upon the terms of distribution proposed by the Petitioners, except that the Objector, BONIFACE MAWEU KALELI, shall get five (5) acres of land from the estate of the Deceased. It is so ordered.
12. The delay in preparation of this ruling is deeply regretted. It was caused by my poor state of health the last few years. But thank God I have now regained my full health.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012
H. P. G. WAWERU
JUDGE
COUNTERSIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MACHAKOS THIS 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012
ASIKE-MAKHANDIA
………………………
JUDGE