In re Estate of Rakita Akach (Deceased) [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Kisumu
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
T. W. Cherere
Judgment Date
October 21, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
2
Explore the case summary of In re Estate of Rakita Akach (Deceased) [2020] eKLR, addressing key legal issues and outcomes related to estate management and inheritance rights. Discover insights and implications of the ruling.

Case Brief: In re Estate of Rakita Akach (Deceased) [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: In the Matter of the Estate of Rakita Akach (Deceased)
- Case Number: Succession Cause No. 301 of 2013
- Court: High Court of Kenya
- Date Delivered: 21st October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): T. W. Cherere
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issue in this case revolves around the rightful ownership of land LR. EAST GEM/URANGA/405 and whether the deceased, Rakita Akach, was erroneously registered as a co-owner of the property.

3. Facts of the Case:
Rakita Akach passed away on 29th September 1982, leaving behind an estate that included half of LR. EAST GEM/URANGA/405. He was married to two women, Dorina Nyamulo and Leonida Anyango, with the latter having two children. The estate also included descendants from Lucas Otiendo Rakita, who was the son of Leonida Anyango. The Petitioners/Respondents, Esther Nyapela Etanda and Ireen Akinyi Otieno, are the daughter-in-law and granddaughter of the deceased, respectively. Letters of administration were granted to them on 30th May 2014. A protest was filed by Wilson Oloo Obanya, the Protestor/Applicant, who claimed that the deceased’s name was incorrectly recorded as a co-owner of the land in question.

4. Procedural History:
After the issuance of letters of administration, the Petitioners filed for confirmation of the grant on 17th April 2019. The Protestor filed a protest on 7th May 2019, asserting that the deceased was not a co-owner of LR. EAST GEM/URANGA/405. The court directed that the matter be resolved through viva voce evidence, leading to the hearing of testimonies from both parties.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court referenced Section 26 of the Land Registration Act, Act No. 3 of 2012, which outlines that a certificate of title is prima facie evidence of ownership and can only be challenged under specific circumstances, such as fraud or illegal acquisition.
- Case Law: Previous cases on land registration were considered, emphasizing the protection afforded to registered titles and the burden of proof on the party challenging the title. The court noted that the Protestor did not provide evidence of fraud or misrepresentation.
- Application: The court evaluated the evidence presented by both parties. The official search indicated that LR. EAST GEM/URANGA/405 was co-owned by Rakita Akach and Ombonya Mbai. The Protestor failed to substantiate his claim that the registration was erroneous or fraudulent, leading the court to favor the Petitioners.

6. Conclusion:
The High Court ruled against the Protestor, disallowing the objection and affirming that half of LR. EAST GEM/URANGA/405 is available for distribution among the beneficiaries of Rakita Akach. The court ordered the Petitioners to ascertain the respective beneficial entitlements of all beneficiaries within 30 days.

7. Dissent:
There was no dissenting opinion noted in the judgment; the ruling was unanimous in favor of the Petitioners.

8. Summary:
The case concluded with the court affirming the rightful ownership of the deceased's estate, particularly LR. EAST GEM/URANGA/405, in favor of the Petitioners. This ruling underscores the legal protections afforded to registered land titles in Kenya and reinforces the burden of proof required to challenge such titles. The decision has significant implications for future succession disputes involving land ownership and registration.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

This is the end of the summary preview.