In re Estate of Ramadhan Kweyu Amulabu (Deceased) [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Kakamega
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
W. Musyoka
Judgment Date
October 16, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of In re Estate of Ramadhan Kweyu Amulabu (Deceased) [2020] eKLR, detailing key legal findings and implications for estate management.

Case Brief: In re Estate of Ramadhan Kweyu Amulabu (Deceased) [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Republic of Kenya in the High Court of Kenya at Kakamega Succession Cause No. 302 of 2002 in the Matter of the Estate of Ramadhan Kweyu Amulabu (Deceased)
- Case Number: Succession Cause No. 302 of 2002
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Kakamega
- Date Delivered: 16th October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): W. Musyoka
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues the court must resolve include:
- Whether the first and second applicants have standing to challenge the confirmation of the grant and seek a review based on alleged new evidence.
- Whether the transactions claimed by the applicants regarding the estate of the deceased were valid under the Law of Succession Act and the Land Control Act.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to determine the ownership and title issues related to the land in question.

3. Facts of the Case:
The case revolves around the estate of Ramadhan Kweyu Amulabu, who passed away in 1997. Lydia Namusia Silas and Jane Njeri Njenga were confirmed as administratrices of the estate on 31st October 2019. Beneah Chimeleni Nyapolah and Pamela Nawire Kulupi (the applicants) filed applications seeking to review the confirmation orders, asserting that they had valid claims to portions of the estate based on alleged purchases of land from the deceased. The first applicant claims to have bought a portion of East Wanga/Isongo/385, while the second applicant asserts her late husband purchased six acres from the same estate.

4. Procedural History:
The High Court confirmed the grant of letters of administration on 31st October 2019. The first application was filed on 19th June 2020, seeking a review of the confirmation order, claiming new evidence was not presented due to the negligence of her advocate and challenges posed by Covid-19. The second application was filed on 29th June 2020, with similar claims. The administratrices opposed both applications, arguing lack of privity of contract and jurisdictional issues. The court directed written submissions for both applications, leading to the ruling delivered on 16th October 2020.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered the Law of Succession Act, Cap 160, particularly sections 45 and 79 concerning intermeddling and the vesting of property in personal representatives. The Land Control Act, Cap 302, was also relevant regarding the validity of land transactions.
- Case Law: Previous decisions were cited, including Gitau v. Wandai (1989) and Kasyoki v. Kieti (2001), which established the principle that actions taken without a grant of representation are nullities, affecting the standing of the applicants to pursue their claims.
- Application: The court found that both applicants lacked standing as they were not heirs of the deceased and had not obtained grants of representation to pursue claims on behalf of their late spouses. The court emphasized that the transactions they relied upon were void for failing to comply with the Land Control Act, which requires consent from the Land Control Board for agricultural land transactions. The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to determine title issues related to land, which fall under the purview of the Environment and Land Court.

6. Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the applications by Beneah Chimeleni Nyapolah and Pamela Nawire Kulupi, ruling that they lacked standing and that their claims were void under the Law of Succession and Land Control Acts. The decision highlights the importance of obtaining proper legal representation and compliance with statutory requirements in land transactions.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions in this case as it was a ruling made by a single judge.

8. Summary:
The High Court of Kenya dismissed the applications for review by the first and second applicants concerning the estate of Ramadhan Kweyu Amulabu. The court found that the applicants did not have legal standing to challenge the confirmation of the grant and that their alleged land transactions were invalid under the Law of Succession Act and the Land Control Act. The ruling underscores the necessity of adhering to legal protocols in matters of succession and property rights.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • In-re-Estate-of-Ramadhan-Kweyu-Amulabu-Deceased-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2255_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries