In Re Estate of NEWTON MUNGAI(DECEASED) [2011] KEHC 1582 (KLR)

REPUBLICOFKENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAKURU

SUCCESSION CAUSE NO 635 OF 2009

IN THE MATTER OF ESTATE OF NEWTON MUNGAI ( DECEASED)

MARION NJERI ……..............................…….PETITIONER/APPLICANT

VERSUS

JOYCE MUTHONI MUNGAI...........................RESPONDENT/OBJECTOR

R U L I N G

NewtonMungai Wachira (the deceased) died intestate on 4/10/09 . He left  behind his mother, Joyce Muthoni Mungai,   his widow   Marion   Njeri   and two minor children. Grant was issued to both   Joyce  Muthoni   and Marion Njeri on 12/5/2010

By a summons for confirmation of grant dated 24/11/2010, the widow,Marion Njeri sought   to have the grant issued to her and her mother in law confirmed. The main asset   of the estate comprises   cash in equity   Bank. Before the grant came up for confirmation, Joyce   Muthoni filed a replying   affidavit on 4/1/2011 objecting to the confirmation. Her only objection   is that at the time of his death, the deceased owed Ksh100,000/= for purposes of boosting   the deceased’s   business. The objector  annexed an agreement    purportedly   entered into between the deceased and   one Lucas   Njau, the lender.

The counselfor the parties filed   submissions. Mr Kahiga, counsel for the applicant, submitted that the objector had not  demonstrated that she is a beneficiary   of the estate   to deserve any  part of  the   estate . It was also argued that the alleged debt of Ksh 100,000/= is not genuine because Lucas Njau has not come to court   to claim   it and there is no evidence that the deceased acknowledged receipt of the money; that it   is the objector who   prepared   the P& A 5, she did not disclose any liability   to the estate of the deceased and   that it is an afterthought and a genuine claim but a ploy  by the Respondent to get money. As respects the allegation that the summons for confirmation was made prematurely, counsel urged that any person  can apply for confirmation  of grant so long as all concerned   are notified and that the petitioner   wants the only asset of the estate to be   released to her to hold in trust   for the benefit of the children of the deceased.

In reply, Mr Ayuka, counsel for the respondent/objector argued that what the respondent filed is an objection to theexclusion of the respondent from the application for confirmation.

There is no doubt that thetwo, Marion Njeru and Joyce   Muthoni are the   administrators of the deceased’s estate. The   summons for confirmation is made by only   Marion. Being two administrators,  it would be expected that both apply for confirmation of the  grant . This is not the case here. Marion Njeri   did not   disclose why   she moved the court for   confirmation to the exclusion of the respondent . The deceased’s children  are aged 2 and 3 years. The law requires that there be   two administrators of the estate of a deceased person in such a case, to ensure the interests of the minors is   protected. I note that   in the application,   the applicant prays   that the grant be confirmed in the name of both the applicant and respondent. It therefore means that the respondent was not excluded from the application. The grant could only be confirmed with the respondent’s consent.

It is the respondent who firstmoved this court for letters of administration . The applicant   was enjoined as an administrator   later on. In   form P & A 5, the respondent was supposed to list   the assets and   liabilities   of the deceased, but no liability   was indicated. The only   asset indicated was the cash in   Equity Bank. The question is why did the respondent not   include the said debt in the liabilities of the deceased,? why   does    the liability   arise so late in the day? No explanation   has been given   by the respondent   why the debt   has been brought  up at this stage when the petitioner   wants the grant confirmed . The loan agreement   is a contract and its validity   would need to be proved. It is only Lucas Njau who can do so.

Secondly ,why  has Lucas Njau who allegedly    lent money to the deceased not  come into these proceedings. The said Njao has not even sworn   an affidavit. Does he exist? The respondent has no business playing   advocate for the said Lucas Njao. I believe that is what the court held in Njeru Ngunjuranuo vr Njue Ngunjurano CA53/02 when the court said

…… There were other beneficiaries to this estates whose

presence was not noted a t the time of confirmation of the grant. Noneof these persons   have however raised any objection to the confirmation of the grant. The appellant cannot therefore be heard to complain for them”

I totallyagree   with the above   finding.  Since Njau had not complained,  the respondent has no business complaining   on his behalf.

I also agree with MrKahiga, the petitioner’s   counsel that if the respondent wanted to object to the confirmation, she should have filed an affidavit   of   protest   pursuant to Rule 40 (6) and the   protest should   be in form 10. Under Rule 41 (1) , the   court can hear any interested person   at the hearing of the application for confirmation .

The petitionerhas 2 minor children . The only   assets of the   estate is   the cash in Equity  Bank. The respondent says that she does not   need any of it. The petitioner   needs  the money for the upkeep and maintenance   of the children and there is no reason why   the grant can not be confirmed. Since the beneficiaries   are minors it is ordered   that the   funds held in Equity Bank be held jointly by the petitioner and respondent for the benefit   of the petitioner Marion Njeri and in trust for the deceased’s children whose portion should be invested. The grant is hereby confirmed in these terms. Each party bears to its own costs.

It is so ordered.

DATED AND DELIVERED THIS  24TH DAY OF JUNE 2011

R.P.V. WENDOH

JUDGE

Present

Mr Kadima holding brief for  Kahiga for applicant

Mr Simiyu holding brief for Kerongo for respondent

CC: Kennedy Oguma