[2017] KEHC 6955 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's challenge to the subdivision and distribution of the estate was without merit, as the process had been conducted pursuant to a consent order to which all parties, including the applicant, had agreed. The applicant failed to provide a valid reason for his absence during the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 6955 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Robert Kithinji; Respondent: Peter Kinoti
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 281 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Subdivision and Rectification of Records
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Legal Topics
- Succession of Estates, Confirmation of Grant, Distribution of Land, Consent Orders, Execution of Grant
- 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
Robert Kithinji
Applicant
Peter Kinoti
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Subdivision and Rectification of Records
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the subdivision of parcel LR. No. Ntima/Igoki/937 was conducted fraudulently or without proper notice to the applicant.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to rectification of records regarding the distribution of the estate.
- 3 Whether the application is res judicata in light of previous rulings and consent orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's challenge to the subdivision and distribution of the estate was without merit, as the process had been conducted pursuant to a consent order to which all parties, including the applicant, had agreed. The applicant failed to provide a valid reason for his absence during the subdivision, despite having consented to the date and the choice of surveyor. The court further held that the issues raised had already been conclusively determined in previous rulings, particularly by Justice Makau, and that the matter was res judicata. The applicant's continued litigation was deemed an abuse of court process, and the court emphasized the need for finality in...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application dated 24th February 2016 is disallowed.
- The applicant Robert Kithinji is condemned to pay costs of the application to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT KENYA AT MERU
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 281 OF 2009
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE IBUTU RINTURI - DECEASED
ROBERT KITHINJI ...............................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
PETER KINOTI ................................................. RESPONDENT
RULING
What is coming up for ruling is application dated 24th February 2016 filed by Robert Kithinji to when letters of grant were made on 23rd November 2009 and subsequently confirmed on 13th July 2011 by Hon Justice Lesiit who was satisfied that all beneficiaries had signed and consented to mode of distribution of the estate. By an application dated 7th September 2011 Peter Kinoti one of the beneficiaries to the estate applied that the court authorises the Executive Officer of the court to execute documents to enable the estate to be distributed as the Administrator had refused to execute the process of distribution of the estate as per Certificate of Confirmation mode on 13th July 2011.
Peter Kinoti claimed that by conduct of the Administrator it appears he now wanted the whole parcel land to himself. The application was settled by way of consent on 22. 11. 2011 where it was agreed that parcel No. Ntima/Igoki/937 be subdivided on the ground by M/S Geoland Surveys on 23rd November 2011 or so soon as is practical in the presence of the parties and that the surveyor to file mutation in court within 7 days of survey. On 30. 11. 2011 the mutation was filed in court and Mr Arithi Advocate said that it is clear the petitioner is not keen to have the grant concluded. Mr Muriuki Advocate for the petitioner concurred that his client was uncooperative.
Application dated 7th September 2011 was set down for hearing on 7th December 2011. Ruling whether the Executive Officer was to execute documents was set for 8th December 2011. In his ruling delivered on 8th December 2011.
My brother Justice J.A. Makau noted that the matter/cause herein has been finalized and there is no pending application save for implementation/execution of the confirmed grant. He held that the petitioner/Administrator was introducing new matters contrary to the mode of distribution consented to as the surveyor in the mutation form had spared the petitioners permanent house. He said the petitioner’s change of mind to deprive his sisters of their portions on the ground is contrary to the constitution. Judge Makau found there was no justification in delaying transmission of respective portions to the beneficiaries as per Geoland Surveys mutation form which was carried out with consent of the parties and on a date agreed in court.
The application dated 20th September 2011 was allowed and petitioner condemned to pay costs.
In the application dated 24th February 2016, the petitioner claims that there is an error apparent on the subdivision on the ground for want of fraud and that he was not notified of the surveyors’ attendance to do the subdivision. He also says that the respondent colluded and got bigger shares from parcel LR. No. Ntima/Igoki/93. He alleged that if records are not rectified it will cause him prejudice.
From the ruling of Justice Makau on 8th December 2011 this cause in my view is spent and the applicant is becoming unnecessarily litigious wasting a lot of judicial time on a matter that is res-judicate. From the ruling his house which encroached on portions that would have been inherited by Peter Kinoti were spared during subdivision.
He doesn’t say why he did not attend during the subdivision, when they consented to have this particular surveyor subdivide the land on a specific date.
Litigation must come to an end and until and unless the petitioner goes to the court of appeal to challenge the decision in this matter, I think that he has exhausted all his rights in this court. The application has no merit and same is disallowed. The applicant Robert Kithinji is condemned to pay costs of application dated 24th February 2016 to the respondents.
Ruling Delivered and signed on this 29th day of March 2017.
A.ONG’INJO JUDGE