Esther Nyambura & Mary Nasubuga v Edward Gall Wango [2014] KEHC 46 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAKURU

SUCCESSION CAUSE  NO. 281 OF  1995

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF SAMUEL MATHAGA MANGO - DECEASED

ESTHER  NYAMBURA............................................1ST APPLICANT

MARY NASUBUGA................................................2ND  APPLICANT

VERSUS

EDWARD GALl WANGO............................................RESPONDENT

RULING

The application dated 28/01I 20 13 made pursuant to section 47  of the Probate and Administration Rules seeks that summons issue to EDWARD GALl WANGO (the respondent) to show cause why the caution he placed on Title  No. NjorojNgata Block 1/236 and Njoro  Block 1/237 now subdivided into Block 1/4248,  4246,  4228, 4237, 4251, 4239 and 4140 cannot be reviewed.

The applicant state that the Succession   Cause is finalised and only pending for distribution. There is a caution/ restriction placed on the titles and distribution cannot proceed without the  caution being reviewed.  The caution was placed by the respondent, who is one of the beneficiaries and who  moved to the USA sometimes back, so it   Is not possible  to serve  him personally  without incurring a lot of costs, which the  estate cannot pay.

In the affidavit sworn by Esther Nyambura  (1st applicant), she deposes that  when they  prepared  to distribute the  estate of the late  Samuel Mathaga Wango, they realised that  the respondent had placed a caution on  the  land, as a result of which the  distribution cannot proceed.

On  17/05/2012 the court directed that  the person who had  placed the caution be summonsed  to  show cause why  the caution should not  be removed.

In opposing  the   application,  the respondent  confirms that he placed the caution and points out that  despite this,  the  applicants  caused  the sale and subsequent transfer of Block 1/4237 to third parties.  Further that a search  carried out  disclosed that  Blocks 4138,  4139, 4141,  4142,  4143,  4249,  4250,  4252 and 4253  have been transferred and title   deeds issued in  the  course  of the  caution and/ or during the  stay period.

He describes the applicants as  being dishonest  about claims that he  is  the one halting distribution, yet she in cahoots with the other beneficiaries have masterminded transfers  and  issuance  of  titles  to   third  parties  - so distribution has actually taken place.  Further that none of the  other beneficiaries are  suffering and the applicant has  always had  a  selfish interest  in   misappropriating their late  father's estate.

He also explained his  inability to  attend court is due to the short notice which makes it difficult for  him  to secure a direct  flight. He annexed a response from   British Airways booking office which indicated that they required 90 days' notice, otherwise the  flight charges are punitive and way  beyond his  means.

In arguing the application, Mrs. Ndeda on behalf of the applicants contends that several of  the   titles which the respondent claims to  have been transferred during the existence of  the   caution, were actually transferred  prior to   the  caution being lodged.  She identifies these as Njoro/Ngata/Block 114140, whose title was issued  on 03/10/2006   whereas   the caution   was   placed   on 12/01/2007,  also Title No.114139  and 4141. She however concedes that some titles were transferred after caution  had  been placed.  However, applicant's counsel insists that even then, the transfer was to the  beneficiaries of the  estate, and caused no  prejudice. The respondent  is not   giving   any  reason  why   those titles should not  go  to  those who  are entitled.  She points out that  this matter was filed   in   1995 and  there  being no orders  restraining  distribution,  then   the application should be reviewed.

In opposing the application, Mrs. Mukira submits that removal of caution and  their placement   is   clearly provided under  section 71-73 of  the Land Registration Act of 2012. It is  argued that the applicant has not demonstrated any steps she  has  taken  to   remove the caution, so  the  application is premature.

Counsel further  submits  that  parcels  No.4248, 4246, 4228, 4237, 4251, 4239 and 4140 which are said to  have been sub-divided from the mother title are  not  affected by the caution,  according to  the   searches filed. She also points out that, the  court issued orders on  12th  February 2007  barring  any  transfer  of  the sub-divisions  to 3rd parties pending hearing and determination of the suit.

She also points out that some of  the titles e.g. 439 has been issued  to   Ahmed  Kiprono  Kirui,  who Is not a beneficiary to  the estate and the   search shows that no caution has been registered.  Parcel 4237 is described as non-existent as  disclosed by   a  search  at  the lands registry.

She   argues that  in a  number of  parcels  cited  by  the applicant, there are   no  cautions placed and  the  orders sought are  speculative and  there would be  no  basis  for the court  issuing  orders  for   assumed  cautions  to be removed.

Counsel submits that under section 71-73 of  the   Land Registration Act,  the  court has no  powers to summon the applicant to  show cause why  the caution should not   be removed.

In response to this, Mrs. Ndeda submits that since this is a Succession Cause, and since the matter affects distribution of  the estate then the proper  provisions to invoke are  under the  Law of Succession Act.

The  issues which arise for determination are:-

(a) Which parcel have  a caution lodged against them.

(b) Is there any reason why  the  caution placed should remain in  existence?

(c)What prov1s1on of the law should the applicant invoke to seek removal of the  caution?

I have  perused the  annextures and observe that:-

(a) Titles No.Njoro/Ngata Block 1/4140,  4139 and 4141 were issued long before the caution was lodged.

(b) Titles No.4248, 4228, 4237, 4150, 4251, 4149, 4152 and 4153 are  not  affected by  the  caution. (c)Title no.4237 according to the annexed search certificates, does not  exist.

(d) Title No.4246, 4140, 4139, 4141, 4142, 4143, 4147, have remarks barring any transfers to  third parties pending hearing of the  suit filed.

Why  did  the  respondent  place the  caution?  This doesn't seem to  be  disclosed from  the  replying affidavit, and the impression  I   get   from    the  said  affidavit  is that  the respondent is irked by what he  perceives to  be arrogance and selfishness on  the applicant's part.  A perusal of the court file  discloses that  the order  of  stay  were issued which had been earlier issued in  favour of the applicant was vacated on  4th  February 2011 by  Ouko J - which would then mean there  is no  other suit pending.  There was  an application made to  the court on 08/08/2012 by Mr. Gakinya concerning some attempt  at  eviction, but this doesn't seem to  have been pursued. So as far   as  what is  presented goes, there is  no  valid  reason why  the caution remains.

Question:

What is the  procedure of removal for a caution in  respect of the  estate of deceased, which has the effect  of stalling distribution  of  an  estate  under a  Succession Cause? Would   one   move   under Rule 47 of  the Probate & Administration Rules or  under section 71-73 of the  Land Registration Act?

Law applicable to the question

Section  2   of   Chapter   160   Laws   of   Kenya  (Laws   of Succession Act) provides:-

"2. (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided  in this Act    or  any  other written law, the  provisions of  this  Act shall constitute  the law  of  Kenya in respect of,  and shall have universal application to, all   cases of  intestate or testamentary succession to the estate of   deceased persons dying after  the commencement of  this Act   and to the administration  of   estates of   those persons."

Key words here are:-

"Except as otherwise expressly provided in the Act  (Law of  Succession Act) or any other written law,  the provisions of the Act  (Laws of Succession Act)  shall constitute the law   of  Kenya in respect of all  cases of  intestate or  testamentary succession to the estates of  deceased persons dying after the commencement of  the   Act  and to the administration of estate of those persons."

Section 97  thereunder gives  the  Rules Committee power to  make rules of procedure generally for  the carrying out of the  purposes and provisions of the  Act.

Rule 47 of   the P&A Rules,  made  pursuant   to   the provision of section 97  above, provides for  the procedure of moving the  court under section 61( 1) or 71 of the  Act.

It  is  noteworthy that the   procedure  provided under this rule  (r47)   is  in   respect  of  an  application for   grant   of probate  of  a  codicil discovered after  a  will   has  been proved.

Clearly the   application herein  not   being an  application for  pro bate of a codicil after grant, the  provisions of Rule 47  of the  P&A rules are  inapplicable.    However, it is noteworthy that  rule  49   thereunder provides that procedure for  moving the   court in  circumstances  where no  specific provisions are  provided for  under the rules. The rule provides as follows:-

"49. A person desiring to make an application to  the court relating to the estate of a deceased person for which no  provision is made elsewhere in  these Rules shall file  a  summons supported if necessary by affidavit."

It   is   also   noteworthy that  section  47   of   the  Law   of Succession Act,  as read with Rule   73 of  the   P&A  rules the  court has power  to entertain any  application and determine any dispute under  the  Act  and to  pronounce such   decrees   and   make   such   orders   as   may   be expedient.

Section 73 of the   RLA, on  the   other  hand,  provides for circumstances under which a caution registered under section 71  of the  Act (RLA) may be  removed.  The  section provides:-

"73. (1)  A caution may be  withdrawn by the  cautioner or  removed  by   order of the court or, subject to sub-section (2), by order of the Registrar."

(2)  The   Registrar, on  the application of any person interested, may serve notice on  the cautioner warning the cautioner that the caution will  be  removed at the expiration of  the time stated in  the notice."

(3) If a cautioner has  not raised any objection  at the expiry  of the time stated,  the Registrar may remove the caution.

(4) If  the cautioner  objects  to the removal  of the  caution,  the cautioner shall notify the Registrar, in  writing, of the objection within the time specified in  the notice, and   the Registrar shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of  being heard, make such order  as  the Registrar considers  fit,  and may in  the order  provide for the  payment of costs."

Section 73(1)  contemplates a situation  where  the process of removal of the caution was  initiated in  court, like in the  circumstances of this  case.

Whereas the applicants'  could also have moved the Registrar under  section 73(2)of   the RLA, in   their capacity as  the administrators of the estate  of   the deceased, I  find   nothing  in   that  section that  prevents them from  moving under the  Law of Succession  Act.

In  any  event, by dint  of the  provisions of section 2 of the Law  of Succession Act, the dispute regarding removal of the caution  herein,  1n  order  to facilitate  the administration of the  estate of the  deceased, is  governed by  the  provisions of  the  Law  of Succession Act  and not the  RLA.

In  view of  the foregoing,  I  hold   the   view  that the   right procedure for  moving the court for  removal of a caution with  the  effect  of stalling distribution of an estate under Succession Cause is  that contemplated under Rule  49  of the  P&A rules.

I therefore direct the Land Registrar Nakuru to remove the  caution as to  enable the  distribution of the  estate  to be concluded.

Delivered and dated this 31st day of July, 2014 at Nakuru.

H. OMONDI

JUDGE