NATARINA WANGERWE MUNYI v MARGARET WANJIRA JOSEPH [2004] KEHC 164 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT EMBU SUCCESSION CAUSE 500 OF 2002

In the matter of the estate of

MUNYI MARAGWA ………….........................................…………….( DECEASED )

BETWEEN

1. NATARINA WANGERWE MUNYI …............................................….PETITIONER

2. MARGARET WANJIRA JOSEPH…….........................................….PROTESTER

RULING

1.   The Petitioner herein is Natarina Wangerwe wife of Munyi Maragwa, (deceased).  She was granted letters of administration to the estate of the deceased on 14th September 2001.  When she applied for the grant of letters to be confirmed, her co-wife Margaret Wanjira protested and objected to the intended manner of distribution of the estate.

2. The estate has two parcels of land viz; Ngariama/Ngiriambu/125 and Ngariama/Mirichi/295.  The Petitioner intended that each of the families should have one-half of each of the two parcels.  The Objector wishes that each house should have a separate parcel of land.  Her children who all appeared in court took her side as did the Petitioner’s children who also sided with her.  It apparently transpired that all parties live on land parcel number Ngariama/Mirichi/295.  Two sons, one from each house occupy Ngariama/Ngiriambu/125.  On its own motion, this court summoned Duncan Mutwiri  to give evidence.  The said Duncan Mutwiri is a brother of the deceased and it was his duty at a family level to bring his brother’s family to an agreement on the distribution of the deceased’s estate.

3.  Duncan Mutwiri gave very clear and candid  evidence.  Upon his brother’s demise, he sat down with his family and they all agreed that Ngariama/Ngiriambu/125 which is 10 acres should be divided into two and each house gets 5 acres. As regards Ngariama/Mirichi/295, no agreement was reached on sub-division but there was an agreement that it be resurveyed first.  He testified however that the deceased wished that the parcel of land measuring 13 acres be sub-divided (like the one at Mirichi) so that each house gets 6 ½ acres.

4.   I have listened to all parties and in my view the objection is baseless and no cogent reasons were given for the proposition that each house takes a different parcel of land.  The evidence of Duncan Mutwiri is consistent with the intended distribution by the petitioner.

6.  Accordingly, the objection is dismissed and this court orders that the Summons for confirmation of grant dated 16. 4.2003 be and is hereby allowed and the distribution of the estate as proposed therein does proceed.

5.    I shall make no order as to costs.

Orders  accordingly.

Dated and delivered in open court on this   16th  day  of November 2004.

I.LENAOLA

AG. JUDGE

Parties present

I.LENAOLA

AG. JUDGE