Ruth Kairingo Mbugua,Mary Wangui Githoitho & Margaret nduta wahinya v Oliver Njihia Thandi [2014] KEHC 41 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU

SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 711 OF 2008

IN THE MATTER OF ESTATE OF ELIJAH MBUGUA WAHINYA (DECEASED)

RUTH  KAIRINGO MBUGUA

MARY WANGUI GITHOITHO

MARGARETNDUTAWAHINYA………… ADMINISTRATORS/ APPLICANTS

AND

OLIVER NJIHIA THANDI………………………………….….. RESPONDENT

RULING

The  notice of  motion dated  12th  July,  2013 seeks  to compel the  respondent to  hand over  title  No.IR  139605 created pursuant to a transfer registered on  IR 15683/23 for purposes of distribution of the  estate of the deceased. The  application is supported by  the  affidavit of  one  of the  administrators of  the  estate of  the deceased (Mary Wangui Githoitho) and is  premised on  the grounds that the  grant issued in  respect  of  the  deceased estate has already  been  confirmed;  that  it  is   not   possible  to distribute the  estate of the  deceased because respondent has refused to  release the  title  herein thus   making distribution of the  estate impossible.

In  the   affidavit  sworn  1n  support  of  the  motion,  the applicants  have deposed that  in  1988, respondent  had sued  the  deceased  (vide  Nakuru  HCCC  No.2  of  1988); that on  16. 9.2005 the  presiding judge, D. Musinga J., (as he  then  was)  decreed that  the  suit  property L.R  NO. 9265/2 grant No. L.R 15683 measuring 280 acres be divided into two equal parts. Unfortunately, the deceased herein died before the order of the court had been fully implemented.  Following the death  of  the  deceased  in 2007, the  applicants  filed  the  Succession cause  herein and obtained a grant of  letters of  administration  which was later on,  got  confirmed.

The applicants contend that upon the demise of the deceased, the respondent continued with the process of subdivision and processing of  titles to  the suit property without  involving them.  After  they  got  letters of administration,  the  applicants  wrote  to   the Commissioner of Lands requesting him  not  to  release the title  deed belonging to the deceased to the respondent.

Contrary to their request, the Commissioner released the deceased title  to  the respondent who  has refused and/ or neglected to  release the title to  them. The  respondent is said to  have refused to  release the  title  unless he  is paid Kshs.948,400/=being costs  he  incurred  in  subdivision and registration of the title.

The  applicants  have  deposed  that  they  visited  the respondent's  advocate's  office  and  confirmed that  the title  to  the suit  property is indeed in  the  name of  the deceased. Further that  the  respondent's  advocate  gave them a copy  of the  title  deed but declined to  release the original document explaining that  they·  had to  part with Kshs.948,400/= before he  could release it to them.

Explaining that the  respondent is out to  frustrate  their administration  of   the  estate  of   the    deceased,  the applicants have deposed that they are ready and willing to  pay  any reasonable costs incurred by  the respondent on   condition  that    the   respondent    produces  the necessary receipts.

The application is  opposed through the  respondent's replying affidavit sworn on 15th October, 2013. In  that affidavit the  respondent   has  deposed  that  he   is  a stranger to  the  estate of the  deceased; that he has been wrongly  enjoined in  the proceedings and that  following the  judgment and decree in  Nakuru HCCC  NO. 2 of 1988 the deceased refused to cooperate in  the  sub-division and registration of the  suit property. Consequently, he spent Kshs.l ,896,800/= to effect  the  sub-division. Further that he  informed the  applicants that the title  to  the property was  ready  and  could  be  collected  from  his  advocates upon payment of Kshs.948,400/=  being half  the cost he incurred in  subdivision of the  property.

Regarding the  applicants' contention that he  has refused to account for  the  costs, it is argued that the dispute concerning the  costs he  incurred in  obtaining  the  title cannot be  determined in  the  current cause but through a different suit.

When the application came up for hearing, the  parties agreed to dispose of the application by way  of written submissions.

Although, counsel for both sides informed the court that they had filed submissions, at  the  time of  writing this ruling, the only  submissions in  the  court file are those of the applicant.

In  the  submissions filed  on  behalf of the  applicants' it is reiterated  that  the  respondent  did   not   involve  the applicants in  the  subdivision  of  the  suit  property and that  the  applicants  are  ready and  willing to  pay  the respondent  such  expenses as  he  may   prove  to  have incurred in  obtaining the title.

Contending that the amount allegedly incurred by the respondent is inordinately high, the applicants have put the respondent's entitlement at Kshs.283,400f=. That notwithstanding, the applicants have expressed their willingness to pay any other costs that the respondent may prove to have incurred in procuring the title.

I have read and considered the rival arguments herein. The sole questions  for  determination  is  whether applicants  have made up  a  case  for  issuance  of  the orders sought.

It is  not  in  dispute that  the  respondent, through  his advocate, is holding the  title  which is the  subject matter of the  application herein. It is also not in dispute that the respondent has refused to hand over the title  unless he is  paid  Kshs.  948,400/= being the costs he allegedly incurred in  procuring the  title.

It is the applicants' case that, even though willing to pay the respondents' costs, no proper account has been given of the amount he claims. The applicants argue that they have done their calculations on what, in their view, is the respondent's  entitlement, being Kshs.283,400/=.

However, they are willing to pay  any additional money, upon prove.

On  his  part,  the  respondent contends that  the dispute concerning  the  amount  he  incurred  in  registering the suit property cannot be  settled under the current cause but through another suit for that purpose.

Although  the   respondent  has  a  genu1ne interest  in holding the   title  herein sought, in  resolving the dispute herein,  I  take  note  of  the  fact  that  the  respondent's action, even  though justified, is in  contravention of the provisions of Section 45( 1) of the  Law  of Succession  Act (LSA) which makes it illegal, for whatever purpose, to intermeddle with  any free  property of a deceased person.

The section provides:-

"45.   ( 1)   Except  so  far   as  expressly authorized by  this Act,  or  by  any other written  law,   or  by  a  grant  of representation  under  this   Act,  no person shall, for  any purpose, take possession or dispose of,  or otherwise intermeddle with, any free  property of  a deceased person.

(2)  Any person who contravenes the provisions of this section shall:-

a) be guilty of  an  offence and  liable to a  fine  not exceeding ten thousand year  or  to  both such fine  and imprisonment; and

b) be  answerable  to   the   rightful executor or  administrator to  the extent of  the  assets with which he has  intermeddled after  deducting any   payments  made   in   the   due course of administration."

The  term  ('free  property"   as  used  in   the  Law   of Succession  Act  is  defined under section 3 thereof as follows:-

"the  property of  which that person was legally competent freely to  dispose during  his  lifetime,  and  in  respect  of which  his  interest  has  not  been terminated by his  death."

It is not in dispute that the  property which is the subject matter of the  current application formed part of the  free property of  the  deceased.  Although  the   respondent claims that the  deceased's refused to  cooperate  with him to  get  the  judgment  and  decree of the  court  herein implemented,  he  has  not  annexed  any  evidence in support of  that fact. Be  that as it  may,  by  dint of  the provisions  of  Section  45(2)(b)  the  respondent having donated  to  himself power to   administer the deceased's estate, is  answerable  to  the  applicants concerning the said administration of the  estate. That section of the law only  allows  the  respondent  to    deduct  any  payments made in the  due  course of administration.

As pointed out  above, the  applicants have  not  refused to pay  the  respondent the  costs he  incurred in  registering the  title  herein. All what they seek is an  account,  which the  respondent has adamantly refused to tender.

In  my  view,  the  refusal by  the  respondent to  release the title  herein  which  is  required  to  complete  the administration of the  deceased's estate is  in  violation of the  provisions of Section 45 of Law of Succession  Act aforementioned.

Section 47  of the  Law  of Succession Act  gives  this court power to  entertain  any  application and determine any dispute under the  Act  and to  pronounce such  decrees and make such orders therein as it may  deem expedient.

Having found  the  conduct  of  the  respondent  to  be  in breach of the  provisions of Section 45  of the  LSA Act and taking  note of  the  provisions of  subsection  (2)  thereof which recognizes the  right of a person found to  have intermeddled with  a deceased person's estate to  recover the  costs incurred during the  course of  administration and further taking note of the  applicants' submissions, I allow  the  application on  condition that the  applicants  will forthwith pay  to  the  respondent Kshs.283,400/=,  being the  admitted costs of  the  respondent at  least within 14 days hereof.  I also  direct the  applicant's to  file  in  court an undertaking for  payment, subject to  proof  of any additional costs that the  respondent might have incurred in obtaining the title  herein.

Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nakuru this 25th day of July, 2014.

H.A. OMONDI

JUDGE