In re Estate of Edward Syalo Lutilo (Deceased) [2020] KEHC 2741 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET

SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 253 OF 2003

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD SYALO LUTILO (DECEASED)

ROBAI SYALO LUTILO.................................1ST ADMINISTRATOR

JOSEPHINE LUTILO.....................................2ND ADMINISTRATOR

RULING

Background:

What was pending before the court is the filing of valuation reports of the three properties that form the estate of the EDWARD SYALO LUTILO (deceased) for the purposes pf the court making final orders on the distribution of the estate. there was judgment on the matter but there had been no directions given as to distribution.

1ST PETITIONER’S CASE

The 1st petitioner (ROBAI SYALO LUTILO) referred to the valuation reports of the properties were filed on 15th May 2017. As regards the undeveloped plot; KITALE MUNICIPALITY RESIDENTIAL PLOT NO. 10/94/58, she relied on the documents filed in court on 15th May 2017 showing purchase of the property by the deceased, pointing out that the family of the deceased is in occupation of that parcel. The 1st administrator is ready and willing to transfer possession to the family after succession is complete.

She reiterated the position in their submissions filed on 10th December 2012, which proposed that the 1st administrator ought to get KITALE MUNICIPALITY LR NO. 2116/25/IV and (JOSEPHINE LUTILO) the 2nd administrator be given KITALE RESIDENTIAL PLOT NO. 10/94/58 and plot no. MATUNDA MARKET M.B BLOCK 1/4018 respectively.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

1. Distribution of the estate

DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTATE

There is no opposition to the proposed mode of distribution by any party. The issue that had arisen as per the record of the court on 25th March 2019 was the ownership of the undeveloped plot; KITALE MUNICIPALITY RESIDENTIAL PLOT NO. 10/94/58. It was not clear as to whether it formed part of the estate. The 1st petitioner filed a sale agreement dated 4th February 2002 as proof of the ownership of the property. She also attached proof of payment of instalments for the property although some are not clear. I find that on a balance of probabilities the deceased purchased the property and it formed part of the estate.

Since that there is no opposition to the proposed mode of distribution I see no reason to disturb the same. The property should be distributed as proposed.

Delivered on line and dated this 4th Day of May 2020 upon written consent of all counsel

H.A. OMONDI

JUDGE