In re Estate of Richard Kanampiu Nanchu (Deceased) [2019] KEHC 2250 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT CHUKA

SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 621 OF 2015

(FORMERLY SPM CHUKA SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 46 OF 2015)

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE RICHARD KANAMPIU NANCHU (DECEASED)

JULIA MUTHONI KITHAE.................................PETITIONER

VERSUS

HUMPHREY NGAI WAKITHAE......1ST INTERESTED PARTY

MERCY KARIMI NYAGAH..............2ND INTERESTED PARTY

JAMES MURIUNGU KITHAE..........3RD INTERESTED PARTY

R U L I N G

1. This cause relates to the late RICHARD KANAMPIU NANCHU  (deceased) who died on 13th August 2010 domiciled at Chogoria.  According  to the  introductory letter from the Area Chief dated 2nd February 2015, and  the petition (P&A 5) the deceased died and left the following dependant  namely:-

i Kithae, the petitioner herein listed the following properties as  comprising the estate namely:-

i. Julia Muthoni Kithae - widow

ii. Joyce Kangai Bore      children

iii. Humphrey Ngai Wakithae

iv. Andiel Njagi Kithae

v. Mercy Karimi Miriti

vi. Graham Mugendi Kithae       children

vii. Kimathi Kithae

viii. Eilshipha Waithera Ngang'a  - Daughter in law

ix. Martin Mutuma Kithae

x. Nickson Murithi Kithae

xi. Joanes Mwangi Kithae       Grandchildren

xii. Michel Ciru Kithae

xiii. James Muriungi Kithae

2. Julia Muthona) Mwimbi/Chogoria/2534

b) Mwimbi/Chogoria/2530

c) Mwimbi/Chogoria/3893

d) Mwimbi/Chogoria/2535

e) Mwimbi/Chogoria/3899

f) Mwimbi/Chogoria/3895

3. The proceedings show that  the petition was appointed the administratrix of  the estate of the deceased on 20th April 2015 and issued with letters of  administration on 17th June 2015.

4. Humphrey Ngai Wakithae, Mercy Karimi Nyagah and  James Muriungi  Kithae, the applicants herein have vide Summons for Revocation of Grant  dated 19th March 2018 have applied for the following orders namely:-

i. Spent

ii. That the Honourable court be pleased to order inhibition orders  against Parcels Nos. Mwimbi/Chogoria/2530, 2534, 2535, 6628, 6629, 6630, 6631, 6635, 6436, 6437, 2626, 6695, 6696, 3891, 3895, 3899, and 1885 pending the hearing of this application and until further orders.

iii. That this Honourable court be pleased to order District Land Registrar Meru South to cancel the following titles namely:  Mwimbi/Chogoria/6628, 6629, 6630, 6631, 6635, 6436, 6437, 2626, 6695 and 6696 and revert them to the name of the deceased herein.

iv. That this honourable court be pleased to revoke the grant issued to Julia  Muthoni Kithae on 17th June 2015.

The grounds upon which the above reliefs have been sought are as follows:-

a) That the Petitioner/Respondent has dealt with the estate without a confirmed grant of representation wherefore intermeddling with the same.

b) That the proceedings to obtain the grant herein were defective in substance.

c) That the grant was obtained fraudulently by the Petitioner.

4. This application is supported by affidavit of Humphrey Ngai Wakithae (the  first Applicant) sworn on 19th March 2018.  The deponent has deposed that  the petitioner is the widow to the deceased and his step mother.  He accuses  her for keeping the Applicants in  the dark in regard to the administration of  the estate of the deceased and that he was taken by surprise when he  noticed  strangers subdividing the estate herein.

5. The deponent further states that the consent that was filed by the petitioner  indicating that all beneficiaries had consented to the administration of the  estate is a forgery.

6. He further avers that the Petitioner/Respondent intermeddled with the estate  by transferring Mwimbi/Chogoria/3893 to Martin Mutuma Mwangi and  Nickson Murithi without confirmation of grant. He also depones that the  following assets similarly changed hands;

a) Mwimbi/Chogoria 6628 to Elias Kaburu Rithaa

b) Mwimbi/Chogoria/6630 to Martin Mutuma Mwangi

c) Mwimbi/Chogoria/6631 to Nickson Murithi

d) Mwimbi/Chogoria/6435 to Nickson Murithi

e) Mwimbi/Chogoria/6436 to Nicholas Mwenda Kimathi

f) Mwimbi/Chogoria/6437 to Kimathi Kithae

g) Mwimbi/Chogoria/2626 to Peter Murithi Kubai and Linet Nkirote Kimathi

h) Mwimbi/Chogoria/6695 to Julius Mutwiri M'Mwamba

i) Mwimbi/Chogoria/6696 to Nickson Murithi

7. The Applicants have expressed fears that the remaining properties  comprising  the estate may face the same fate.  He adds that a number of  dependants  were  not revealed by the Petitioner/Respondent and have listed  the following dependants as having been excluded:-

a) Prudence Gatune Kanampiu  and

b) Hidith Mukwaiti Richard Kanampiu

8. James Muriungi and Mercy Karimi Nyaga have also sworn affidavit in  support of the Summons for Revocation of Grant.  They both claim that they  were not involved despite being dependants.  Mercy Karimi has deponed  that Graham Mugendi's signature was also forged as he was in the UK at the  time.

9. In their written submissions the Applicants have pointed out the evidence  tendered by the District surveyor who explained the circumstances under  which the transfer  was done in 4th July 2017 when the deceased died on 18th  August 2010.  They submit that they were not informed of this cause in  order  to give consent or renounce their rights and that in their view meant  that the proceeding were defective and/or obtained fraudulently.  They have  as such asked this court to revoke the grant.

10. The Petitioner/Respondent in a Replying Affidavit sworn on 24th May 2018  has opposed this application.  She has averred that Prudence Gatune passed  away while Hidith Mukwaiti left the deceased in 1950s and got married to  the brother of the deceased known as Nabea.

11. The Respondent has deposed that she left the succession papers at the  Chief's office where the applicants and other beneficiaries went and signed.   She however concedes that Graham Mugendi never signed but allegedly  gave her permission to sign on his behalf and that he has not raised any  issue.

12. The Petitioner/Respondent further alleges  that Martin Mutuma Mwangi and  Nickson Murithi had transfers in their favour which were executed by  deceased prior to his death.

13. The Respondent concedes that Kimani Kithae got registered in parcel   No.3895 (later divided into 6435- 6437) and that she did not know that the  property (3895) formed part of the estate and believed that Kimani Kithae  also had an executed transfer from the deceased.

14. The Respondent admits selling parcel No.2626 to Peter Murithi Kubai and  Linet Nkirote Kimathi before the grant was confirmed.  She denies that  parcel No.3894 (later subdivided into parcel No.6695 to 6696) forms the  estate as she  believes that she was a joint owner with deceased and therefore   acquired it as right of survivorship. She concedes that exercising that right  she transferred parcel No.6695 and 6696 to Julius Mutwiri and Nicholas  Murithi respectively.

15. In her written submissions the Petitioner/Respondent has contended that the   Applicants have not met the threshold under Section 76 of the Law of  Succession Act. She submits that the Applicants have not demonstrated the  defect in the proceedings herein.  It is her contention that the Applicants  have not tendered expert evidence to show or prove that their signatures  were forged.

16. The Petitioner/Respondent contends that she had no role in the transfer of  parcels No.6629, 6631,and 3895.  She however concedes that she  wrongly dealt with parcels No.2626 and the title should be revoked.

17. This court has considered this Application and the response made.  This  court did summon on its own motion the Land Registrar Tharaka Nithi  County when it noted  the serious allegation made by the Applicants. The  Registrar  came and testified that parcels No. Mwimbi/Chogoria/2530, 2532  and 2535 are all registered in the  name of deceased.

18. The Registrar also testified that her records showed that parcels No.3893 and  3895 were transferred to other parties with parcel No.3893 being transferred  to Martin Mutuma and Nickson Murithi who then subdivided it into parcels  No.6629, 6630 and 6631.  She  testified that the registration was late but  justified the same stating that Land Control  Board consent supported the  transfer.  She was not aware that the owner had  passed on when the  transfer was effected stating that they deal with  documents presented to  them.  She had no records for parcels Nos. 3894,  6628, 6635 and 6636.

19. This court has considered the evidence by the Registrar and it is my  considered  view that in regard to parcels of land which were apparently  transferred by the deceased through execution of transfer documents and  obtaining  Land Control Board Consent, this court sitting as probate court is  not  seized  with the requisite jurisdiction to interrogate and determine the   validity of the said transfers.  This court can only exercise its jurisdiction  over estate of deceased persons as provided under Section 2 of the Law of  Succession Act.  The Applicants can only have legitimate basis to challenge  the validity of those transfer if they can show that the properties at the time  the deceased died formed part of his estate and were free property in terms  of Section (3(1) of Law of Succession  Act.

20. This court finds that the following properties does not form part of the  estate:-

(i) Parcels Numbers 6695, 6696, 6697 and 6628.

21. I have considered the response made by the Respondent particularly in  regard to the fact that she concedes that she unlawfully signed on behalf of a  beneficiary known as Graham Mugendi.  That is an admission of forgery  which renders her appointment as the administratrix herein defective and  fraudulent.   Rule 26 (2) of Probate and Administration Rulesrequired the  Applicant to obtain consent from all the beneficiaries in Form 38 of theAct  but she did not.  Her reasons that she left the succession papers to some  unnamed Chief for the other dependants to come and append their   signatures in my view appear suspect.  The unnamed Chief has not sworn an  affidavit affirming the beneficiaries who went to his  office and appended          their signatures.  I find that on a balance of probabilities, the Applicants

have established sufficient basis under Section 76 of Law of Succession Act

for this court to move and revoke the grant.  The beneficiary known as  Graham  Mugendi was required to swear an affidavit renouncing his rights  to benefit from the estate if he was not interested or alternatively agree to   the Petitioner/Respondent being appointed the administrator.

22. The Petitioner/Respondent has also conceded that she irregularly dealt with  the parcel No.2626 which forms part of the estate  contrary to Section 55  and 82 of Law of Succession Act and that admission in my  considered  view  on its own is sufficient to invoke the provisions of Section 76 of Law  of Succession Act and revoke the grant issued to her and revert the parcel  back to the deceased's name which I hereby do.

23. I have considered the evidence given by the Land Registrar in respect to  parcel No. Mwimbi/Chogoria/3894.  She told this court that the parcel was  in the  name of both the deceased and the Petitioner and because she was the  wife, the Registrar assumed that the two were joint owners and deleted the  name of the deceased leaving the Petitioner's name when she was presented with Death Certificate.

Section 118 of  Registration of Land Act Cap 300 Laws of Kenya (now  repealed) provided as follows:-

" If one of two or more joint proprietor of any land, lease or charge    dies, the Registrar on proof to his satisfaction of the death, shall    delete the name of the deceased from the Register."

Under the new law i.e Land Registration Act, similar provisions is provided  under  Section 91.  It is on the basis of the above that the  Respondents right   of survivorship means that she is the legitimate owner of that parcel    of land.  I am not persuaded therefore that parcel No.   Mwimbi/Chogoria/3894 now forms part of the estate because it is    not though the ownership of the two was not expressly indicated as    joint.  This court's position is in line with the following decisions:-

i. Re Estate Dirica Lumire Mapesa (deceased) [2018] eKLR and

ii. Isabel Chelangat -vs- Samuel Tiro Rotich and 5 Others [2012] eKLR.

In the latter case the court held inter alia:

" The register in respect of East/Wanga/Lubinu/66 did not indicate    whether the proprietorship was joint or in common.  However going    by what is stated in "Cheshire and Burn's Moder Law of real  Property. ..................... joint tenancy arises whenever land is    conveyed or devised to two or more persons without any words to    show  that they are to take distinct and separate shares.  I would    hold  that the deceased  Silas  Okumu Simeyo held East     Wanga/Lubino/66 as joint proprietors.  That is to say that a presumption would arise that  the tenancy is intended to be     joint...................................... it follows then that following her demise   on 6th February 1994, the principle of "Jus Accrescendi"(right of    survivorship) applied and her interest in the said property merged or united with that of the surviving joint tenant or joint proprietor,    Silas Okumu Simeyo.  The effect of this then would be that the said    property ceased to form part of the estate of the deceased and was    not available for distribution in her estate."

24. In regard to parcels No.6629 to 6831 the resultant subdivision of parcel No.  Mwimbi/Chogoria/3895, I have noted that the properties were in the name of  the deceased as of 2015 when this cause was filed. The said parcels changed  hands after the Succession Cause was filed.  The contention by the  Petitioner/Respondent that she knew little about the subdivision and transfer  appears suspicious because the persons in whose favour the parcels were  registered also appear as the dependants (Grandchildren to the deceased)  herein.  The Petitioner obviously knew of the transactions and the fact that  the two beneficiaries have not turned up in court to justify the transfer of the  parcels from the deceased to them 7 years after the demise of the deceased  shows those transactions are suspicious and irregular.   I at the same find  that the transfer of the parcel No.3895  (subdivided into  6435 to 6437) in  the name of Kimani Kithae another beneficiary suspect as it  happened  after the succession cause had been filed and before the confirmation of  grant.  Those transaction violated the provisions of Section 55  and 82 of  Law of Succession Act are to that extent null and void.  In the end this court  finds that Summons for Revocation of Grant date 19th March  2018  is  merited. The grant issued to the Petitioner/Respondent on 17th June  2015  is hereby revoked.  This court finds that in view of her admitted wrong  doing and in particular forgoing a signature of one of the beneficiaries and  facilitating of irregular transfers of some of properties forming the estate to  her preferred grandchildren,  she is not fit to be appointed as administratrix.   This court hereby appoints Humphrey Ngai Wakithae and Mercy Karimi  Nyagah as administrator and administratrix respectively of the estate of the  late Richard Kanampiu Nanchu (deceased).  The two are at liberty to move  this court for confirmation of grant before the expiry of 6 months statutory  period in view of the age of this cause.  I also grant prayer 2 save that  parcels No. 3891, 3895, 3899 and 1885 are excluded.  I also grant prayer 3   of the application save that parcels No.6695, 6696, 2662 and 6628 are  excluded for the reasons aforestated above.

Dated, signed and delivered at Chuka this 14th day of November, 2019.

R.K. LIMO

JUDGE

14/11/2019

Ruling signed, dated and delivered in the open court in presence of Murithi  holding brief for Kimathi for Respondent and in presence of Applicant in  person.

R.K. LIMO

JUDGE

14/11/2019