[2016] KEHC 1636 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 1636 (KLR)

The court found that the law mandates equal distribution of an intestate estate among surviving children where there is no surviving spouse. The administrator's use of balloting to allocate assets was deemed unfair and archaic, as it exposed the protestor to prejudice and did not guarantee equality. The court held that all assets, including those initially omitted, must be included in the estate and distributed equally. The court directed that a registered valuer be engaged to value the relevant assets to facilitate equitable distribution and ordered that the costs of valuation and subdivision be shared equally among the beneficiaries.

Citation
[2016] KEHC 1636 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Simon Kinyua Gitaka; Respondent: Peter Karani Gitaka
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kerugoya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
12 October 2016
Case Number
Succession Cause 17 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Judgment
Outcome
Protest allowed in part; estate to be distributed equally among the seven surviving children.
Judges
BB Limo
Legal Topics
Intestate Succession, Distribution of Estate, Equal Shares Among Children, Confirmation of Grant, Valuation of Estate Assets
Source Language
English
Family and Children Intestate Succession Distribution of Estate Equal Shares Among Children Confirmation of Grant Valuation of Estate Assets

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Kinyua Gitaka

Applicant

Peter Karani Gitaka

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the estate of the deceased should be distributed equally among the surviving children as per the Law of Succession Act.
  2. 2 Whether the method of balloting used by the administrator for distribution was fair and lawful.
  3. 3 Whether all assets of the deceased were properly included in the estate for distribution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the law mandates equal distribution of an intestate estate among surviving children where there is no surviving spouse. The administrator's use of balloting to allocate assets was deemed unfair and archaic, as it exposed the protestor to prejudice and did not guarantee equality. The court held that all assets, including those initially omitted, must be included in the estate and distributed equally. The court directed that a registered valuer be engaged to value the relevant assets to facilitate equitable distribution and ordered that the costs of valuation and subdivision be shared equally among the beneficiaries.

Court Disposition

Protest allowed in part; estate to be distributed equally among the seven surviving children.

Orders

  • All listed estate assets to be divided equally among the seven surviving children.
  • A registered valuer to be engaged to value plots and assist in equitable distribution.