[2006] KEHC 269 (KLR)
The court found that the objector failed to prove any of his allegations, including forgery of signatures or collusion by the petitioner with outsiders. The evidence showed that the objector himself facilitated the completion of the consent forms and did not provide any credible evidence of forgery or improper...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 269 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Sofia Muthoni Mugo; Respondent: Peter Nyaga Mugo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Succession Cause 155 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- Objection dismissed. Grant of representation confirmed to the widow.
- Legal Topics
- Grant of Representation, Priority of Administration, Forgery Allegations, Consent of Beneficiaries
- 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
Sofia Muthoni Mugo
Applicant
Peter Nyaga Mugo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petitioner lawfully obtained consent from all beneficiaries to petition for grant of representation.
- 2 Whether the signatures on consent form 38 were forgeries.
- 3 Whether the petitioner colluded with outsiders to the detriment of the estate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the objector failed to prove any of his allegations, including forgery of signatures or collusion by the petitioner with outsiders. The evidence showed that the objector himself facilitated the completion of the consent forms and did not provide any credible evidence of forgery or improper dealings. The court emphasized the statutory priority given to the widow under section 66 of the Law of Succession Act, noting that all children are adults and had initially consented to the petition. The court concluded that the objection lacked merit and that the widow was entitled to the grant of representation, to be confirmed within six months.
Court Disposition
Objection dismissed. Grant of representation confirmed to the widow.
Orders
- The objection by Peter Nyaga Mugo is dismissed.
- The widow, Sofia Muthoni Mugo, is confirmed as the rightful petitioner.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU Succession Cause 155 of 2005
IN THE MATTER OF ESTATE OF MUGO NDWIGA……….DECEASED
SOFIA MUTHONI MUGO…………………….………………..PETITIONER
VERSUS
PETER NYAGA MUGO …………………….....................……OBJECTOR
JUDGMENT
The deceased, Mugo Ndwiga died possessed of:
1. Plot No. Ngandori/Kiriari/2093
2. Plot No. Ngandori/Kiriari/2092
3. Plot No. Ngandori/Kiriari/2246
After his death his widow petitioned for a grant of representation she listed as beneficiaries her eight (8) children. On 9/6/2005 all the children including the protestor consented to their mother the petitioner be issued with grant of representation. This was in order and incompliance with the order of priority set out under section 66 Succession Act Cap. 160.
However on 21/7/2005 the Objector Peter Nyaga Mugo a son of the deceased, filed Objection stating that:-
1. That the children of deceased did not consent to the Petition of Petitioner to be representative of their father’s estate.
2. That the signatures in the consent form 38 were forgeries.
3. That the Petitioner has filed this Petition in corroboration with outsiders and objector and other brothers are convinced that there were fishy dealings between their mother and these persons.
Both the Objector and Petitioner gave evidence.
It appears that the dispute hinges on a building known as Tea Centre which is erected on the deceased land. These people calling themselves TR 8 KERIA Tea Buying Centre are not beneficiaries of the estate. They may have a claim against the estate but they must lodge their claim in the normal way.
When the objector gave evidence he did not prove his allegations that the signatures and particularly his own were forged. PW2 the daughter who gave evidence said that the girls were requested by Objector to give their (I.D) Cards and that he is the one who completed the forms. He did not offer any evidence that anyone committed forgery which is criminal offence. Neither has he proved that his mother the Petitioner has distributed the deceased land to strangers.
I therefore do not find any merit in the Objection. The widow, Petitioner herein has priority over all children to take a grant especially where they are all adults or unless it is so desired. As it is the Objector wants to petition for the grant himself. He is not the eldest child and it is clear there would be many disputes if he was to be joined as administrator.
I therefore dismiss the Objection and confirm that the widow is the rightful petitioner. Grant of representation shall issue to her to be confirmed within 6 months from today.
Dated this 28th day of February 2006.
J. N. KHAMINWA
JUDGE