[2015] KEHC 7753 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had, in fact, consented to the petition for the grant of letters of administration, as evidenced by the signed consent on record. Regarding the distribution of the estate, the court acknowledged the applicant's concerns about the allocation of more valuable parcels to her brothers...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 7753 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Winnie Wanjiru Kinuthia; Respondent: Judith Wanjiku Kinuthia
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 33 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- Application for confirmation of grant allowed; estate to be distributed as per respondent's proposal.
- Judges
- AO Muchelule
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Distribution of Estate, Grant of Letters of Administration, Beneficiary Rights
- 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
Winnie Wanjiru Kinuthia
Applicant
Judith Wanjiku Kinuthia
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant was properly consulted and consented to the petition for grant of letters of administration.
- 2 Whether the proposed distribution of the estate by the respondent was fair and equitable among all beneficiaries.
- 3 How the graveyard and dam reserve should be registered and held for the benefit of the estate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had, in fact, consented to the petition for the grant of letters of administration, as evidenced by the signed consent on record. Regarding the distribution of the estate, the court acknowledged the applicant's concerns about the allocation of more valuable parcels to her brothers and the respondent, but noted that all other beneficiaries agreed with the respondent's proposal. The court considered the shape and nature of the land, concluding that perfect equality was not practically attainable. The court therefore confirmed the grant and allowed the distribution as proposed by the respondent, with the graveyard and dam reserve to be registered in the...
Court Disposition
Application for confirmation of grant allowed; estate to be distributed as per respondent's proposal.
Orders
- The grant of letters of administration is confirmed as proposed by the respondent.
- The estate shall be distributed according to the respondent's map and proposal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
FAMILY DIVISION
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 33 OF 2014
IN THE MATTER OF KIAMBU PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE’S COURT SUCCESSION CAUSE NO 83 OF 2007
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF STEPHEN KINUTHIA KIBERU (DECEASED)
AND
WINNIE WANJIRU KINUTHIA.............APPLICANT
VERSUS
JUDITH WANJIKU KINUTHIA...........RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The deceased Stephen Kinuthia Kiberu died intestate on 30th April 1992. He was survived by a widow (the respondent) and nine (9) children who included the applicant. The respondent petitioned the Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court at Kiambu for the grant of letters of administration intestate. This was in Cause No. 83 of 2007. The grant was issued to her on 12th June 2007. Because the value of the estate of the deceased was in excess of the jurisdiction of the subordinate court, on 1st October 2013 the Cause was transferred to this Court. By the time, the respondent had filed summons dated 4th May 2009 for the confirmation of the grant issued to her. The said summons was consented to by all her children, except the applicant who protested to the same. One of the issues raised in the protest was that she was not consulted when the respondent petitioned the court for the grant of letters of administration. That contention was denied by the respondent who stated that all her children, including the applicant, had consented to the filing of the petition. Indeed, the record shows that on 25th April 2007 a consent to the making of a grant of administration intestate to a person of equal or lesser priority under rule 26(2) of the Probate and Administration Rules was filed by the respondent. It showed that all the beneficiaries, including the applicant, had signed the document. Each had given his/her identity card number. I find no merit in the applicant’s contention that she was unaware of the petition.
The applicant’s main concern related to the mode the respondent had proposed to share the estate. Her quarrel was that in the proposed distribution her two brothers Daniel Munderu Kinuthia and Peter Kimani Kinuthia had each been allocated 0. 0952 Ha. when she had got only 0. 0476 Ha. Secondly, that her brothers had been given parcels that were most proximate to the road and therefore prime in relation to hers. Thirdly, that the portions allocated to her brothers and to the respondent were on fairly flat land while the rest of the parcels, including hers, were on a slope. Lastly, she wanted indication in whose name(s) the graveyard (0. 0476 Ha.) and dam reserve (0. 0930 Ha.) would be registered. She gave her own proposal of how the estate should be shared. It is material that the proposal included graveyard (0. 0476 Ha.) and dam reserve (0. 0930 Ha.). She asked that the graveyard be registered in the name of the respondent to hold in trust of the beneficiaries. In the proposal she asked that all the children of the deceased get 0. 0476 Ha. each, the respondent gets 0. 0465 Ha., the other five daughters jointly get two portions each measuring 0. 0476 Ha.
In the respondent’s proposal she was to get 0. 465 Ha. and the graveyard of 0. 0476 Ha., the applicant was to get 0. 0476 Ha. and her sisters were to share 0. 0952 Ha. It is in that proposal that Peter Kimani Kinuthia and Daniel Munderu Kinuthia were to each get two parcels each measuring 0. 0476 Ha. Each was to finally get 0. 0952 Ha.
The respondent filed a map (sheet) showing the portions and their distribution as proposed by her. The portions are A to K. A is nearest the road and is most valuable. The values decrease from A to K. K is the least valuable. It is clear that all the beneficiaries, except for the applicant, agree with the respondent’s proposal. In this proposal plots B and D will go to Daniel and C and E to Peter. The respondent gets A. It is clear that Daniel and Peter will get the most valuable portions of the estate. The applicant has reason to complain. However, unlike her other five sisters, who will share two plots each measuring 0. 0476 Ha. she will get 0. 0476 Ha. alone. I will allow the application for confirmation on the basis of the proposal by the respondent. I have taken into consideration the shape of the parcel left by the deceased, and also that it is not practically possible to attain equality in the circumstances. I ask that the graveyard and the dam reserve (both being common utilities) be registered in the name of the respondent to hold in trust for all the beneficiaries.
DATEDandDELIVEREDthis8thday ofSeptember 2015.
A.O. MUCHELULE
JUDGE