Gibson Gacheru Mwangi v Tabitha Wangari Mwangi [2014] KEHC 70 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAKURU

SUCCESSION CAUSE N0. 543 OF 2009

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE PHARIS MWANGI NGIGE [DECEASED]

GIBSON  GACHERU MWANGI .....................OBJECTOR/ APPLICANT

VERSUS

TABITHA  WANGARI MWANGI ...............PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

RULING

By an application dated 28/01/2013, the  applicant prays that   this   court   reviews  and/ or    varies   the   orders contained  on   the  judgment  dated  18th  May   2012   by ordering for  a different mode of  subdivision  which  will take   into  account   the    present   occupational  of   the property.   In  the   alternative, that the   court reviews the specific order relating to  the   mode of  subdivision of  the land known as Nyandarua/Kahuru/3343, and consider adopting the  mode proposed by the  applicant.

The  background to  the matter as set out by the applicant is  that,  following the demise of PHARIS  MWANGI NGIGE, letters of administration were  taken by his two  wives, PHYLLIS  KABURA and TABITHA  WANGARI  who as the administrators         of         the       estate, successfully oversaw the distribution of the deceased's   estate.   The parcel No.Nyahururu/Kahuru/ 104  measuring  64    acres  was subdivided  to   create  parcels  Nyahururu/ Kahuru/ 3243 and 3244, each measuring 32  acres.  Parcel No.3243 was allocated  to  the applicant's  respondent's  mother,  while parcel 3244 was  allocated to Tabitha Wangari Mwangi.

Phyllis Kabura subdivided parcels creating parcel 3345, 3346, 3347 and 3348.  However applicant contends  that the  subdivision was  undertaken by the  late PHYLLIS KABURA  and  her   three sons,  excluding the  applicant; and  subsequently  the    parcels  were    registered  in   the names of Phyllis Kabura, Sam Karuga Mwangi, Wilson Macharia Mwangi, and Gathura Wa  Mwangi respectively. The   applicant was   left  out of  the   decision to  subdivide and register the  portions of land.  His  complaint is  that, the   subdivision  would see   the demolition of  his   house, which would occasion him  great loss and damage - apparently the  house straddles parcel No.3345 and 3346 and had been so  even  before the  subdivision.

The   judgment  requires  the    applicant  to   transfer   plot 3345 to  his name, with   that  order, he  states that, the court was misled, and made an error in  concluding that he  wants his  brother's share of 8 acres in  addition to  his 8 acres.

Further that he should not  have been condemned to  pay the  costs because this was  a family  matter.

The applicant states that there is another  option, which would see   the   land  divided equally, fairly, conveniently and   would  not    occasion   him    to    argue.  The    mode proposed by the applicant, it is argued, will minimize translocational  costs  and  other  related  inconveniences and  losses  that  would arise  if  the  existing orders  are executed.

In his supporting affidavit, the applicant does not dispute that  the   property  was   to   be   shared  equally into  four portions  measuring  8  acres  each.  However the subdivision, which he  says was  carried out without involving him  (despite being the  eldest son in  that house) did   not   consider that,  he   had  built  his   house  on   his mother's land No.3345, and the  house also occupied part of parcel 3346.

When his mother died,   the  family arrangement was that he  takes over  the  portion registered in  his mother's name -which he  did,   and   he  continued to  occupy the   house he'd   build and cultivate the  portion of land he'd always cultivated.

He proposes that the land be subdivided horizontally and not  through the  middle, which will  enable all  of them to use an adjacent road, instead of creating another road in the  middle of the  farm.  He has engaged a surveyor who has prepared a proposal for  the  subdivision which would minimize the  loss and damage.

In  opposing  the    proposal  and  application  for   rev1ew, Gatura Wa  Mwangi (3rd Respondent) on  behalf of himself and the  other two  respondents deposes in  the replying affidavit that the sub-division of parcel 3243 was carried out  by   his. mother, with   the   knowledge  of   the   entire family and  applicant's allegations about  exclusion are contested on  grounds that he  never filed  any  suit against his    mother   during   her    lifetime,   to    stop  her    from subdividing the  parcel.

Whereas it is  acknowledged that the applicant built his house  on   parcel 3345,  which house  straddles  part  of 3346,  the   respondents insist that  this was deliberately done to  enable him   occupy and lay  claim to  the arable land or  portion,  leaving the   respondents to  occupy the lower  portion which is marshy and uninhabitable.   He explains that the  subdivisions that led  to  the  four parcels is such that each of the  four brothers occupy a portion of the  arable and a portion of the  marshy land.   This, they say is untenable, and unreasonable, and detrimental to the  other beneficiaries.

The respondents deny that the applicant has been living in   the   house  based  on   an  earlier agreement  with the family. The  respondents further contend, that whatever loss the  applicant will suffer as a result of the  demolition of the  house, is  mitigated by  the  fact  that since 1974, he has  single handedly  been  using  what  initially formed parcel No.3343 to  the  exclusion of the other beneficiaries of the  deceased's estate.

The application  was  disposed  of   by   way    of   written submissions,  while his  counsel states that the applicant had  no   idea that  his   already  established  home  would straddle part of  parcel No.3346; and  his action was not intended to disinherit his  brothers of their portion of land -so the court's finding that he  wanted the entire 8 acres belonging to his  brother was  erroneous.

The advantage of the  applicant's mode of subdivision is reiterated, and is described as being fair  and just.

The respondent's counsel submissions reiterates  what the   respondents  have deposed to. Counsel points out that by a letter dated 26/06/2012,  the  applicant through his   previous advocate indicated that  he  was   ready and willing to  abide by  the  agreement of up to  31st  December 2012 to  harvest his  crops and his  is  simply a delaying tactic.

The loss  that he  laments about can be  compensated  by the  fact  of applicant previous exclusive use of  the  entire property 3343 since 1974.

I  have  read  through  the   findings  by   this  court  dated

18/05/2012; and the observation made that it appeared as   though   the    applicant   wanted    16    acres.   That observation was  erroneous in  light  of what the applicant states  BUT it  does not   change the   consideration  made about  the    nature  of   the    other  portions  of   land,  the marshy  versus the arable  area.   The    issue of   the applicant's house straddling the  two  portions had been considered and a finding made in  the judgment.  I think this   application   simply confirms  to   me    what   the

I applicant demonstrated  in   court,  and what the  other family  members said   - that he  wants things done   his way,  or no way  at  all.   That kind  of arm  twisting has  no legal space, and  the  observation about his  desire to have 16 acres is corrected - that alone  does  not  and  would  not affect the judgment delivered on 18/05/2012.

The upshot is  that the  application has no  merit and  is dismissed with costs to respondents.

Obiter:    I am  not  aware of any  provision in  law  which requires that  when  litigation is between family  members, then the  court should not  condemn the  losing   party to costs.   This  is  not  a  public interest litigation and  costs follow  the  event  - I find   no  reason to  depart from  the earlier orders.

Delivered   and dated  this 11th day July, of 2014 at Nakuru.

H.A. OMONDI

JUDGE