[2017] KEHC 2660 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the parcels of land in question formed part of the estate of the deceased. The applicant did not annex search certificates or other documents to prove proprietary rights over the parcels. The respondent's evidence indicated...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 2660 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: Winfred Nkirote Muthuri; Applicant: Winnie Mukiri; Respondent: Rosemary Kanario Terah
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 345 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Inhibition
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to respondent
- Legal Topics
- Inhibition Orders, Proof of Proprietary Rights, Estate Administration
- 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
Winfred Nkirote Muthuri
Petitioner
Winnie Mukiri
Applicant
Rosemary Kanario Terah
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Inhibition
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has established sufficient grounds for the grant of an inhibition order against the specified parcels of land pending determination of the succession cause.
- 2 Whether the applicant has proved that the subject parcels form part of the estate of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the parcels of land in question formed part of the estate of the deceased. The applicant did not annex search certificates or other documents to prove proprietary rights over the parcels. The respondent's evidence indicated that the parcels were registered in the name of Muguna Investment Ltd or had been transferred to third parties. Without proof of the deceased's ownership or the parcels forming part of the estate, the court held that there was no basis for granting an inhibition order. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to respondent
Orders
- The application for inhibition is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 345 OF 2006
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF TERAH MUGUNA ANDREW (DECEASED)
WINFRED NKIROTE MUTHURI...........................PETITIONER
WINNIE MUKIRI....................................................APPLICANT
VS
ROSEMARY KANARIO TERAH......................RESPONDENT
RULING
Application dated 12th October 2015 was brought by applicants counsel M/S F.K.Gitonga and Company Advocates seeking that the court be pleased to grant an older of inhibition against land parcels No. Nyaki/Kithoka/2100, Ntima/Igoki/6696, Ntima/Igoki/6648 prohibiting any sale, transfer, lease, subdivision or any other form of interference whatsoever, pertaining to the aforementioned pieces of land pending the hearing and determination of this cause.
The application near based on grounds on face of application and supporting affidavit Winfred Nkirote sworn on 12th October 2015. Applicant said that some of the beneficiaries of the deceased were in the process of sub dividing parcels of land in the estate and there were potential buyers and if allowed they would disinherit the rest of the beneficiaries.
Application for confirmation dated 29th January 2015 by the administrator Winfred Nkirote Muthuri but before the application was he and she also filed application for inhibition.
The applicant didn’t annex search certificate and or any documents to prove that parcels of land No. Nyaki/Kithoka/2100, Ntima/Igoki/6696 and Ntima/Igoki/6648 forms part of the estate of the late Terah Muguna Andrew. The deceased died on 9th October 2000 and according to annextures RKT1 to Rosemary Kanario Terahs Replying Affidavit shown on 16th January 2016 parcel No. Nyaki/Kithoka/2100 was registered in the name of Muguna Investment Ltd on 5th September1997and 30th December 2014 it was transferred to Hodge Mutwiri Muguna. Parcel No. Ntima/Igoki/6696 is shown in search no 194/5 dated 14th May 2015 was registered in the name of Muguna Investment Ltd on 28. 6.2004.
The applicant has not proved why inhibitions shared be lodged in the parcels of land in question without proof of propriety rights.
In the circumstances application is dismissed with costs to respondents.
Ruling Signed, Delivered and Dated this 31st Day of August 2017.
HON. A.ONG’INJO
JUDGE
In the presence of:
C/A Penina
Petitioner:- N/A
Applicant:- N/A
Respondent:-N/A
DR to notify parties of the Ruling
HON. A.ONG’INJO
JUDGE