Wekunda v Murunga & another
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the High Court judge properly exercised her discretion in distributing the suit property among the beneficiaries
Yes; the judge addressed the law properly and considered all relevant factors, including the consent order cancelling the subdivisions and the surveyor's report on acreage, so the Court of Appeal would not interfere.
The Court noted the consent order of 7th June 2004 cancelling titles 1498, 1499 and 1500 to revert to the original title, and the surveyor's report of 17th April 2015 fixing the acreage at approximately 100.4 acres. The judge considered the parties' distribution proposals, the acreage and the law before apportioning the land. The Court found the discretion sound and correct and declined to disturb it.
Whether land distributed by the deceased during his lifetime (under section 42 of the Law of Succession Act) was excluded from the estate
The argument failed because the parties had, by consent in the succession proceedings, cancelled the very titles said to have been distributed inter vivos, reverting them to the original title.
The appellant relied on section 42 of the Law of Succession Act, contending his father had been settled on parcel 1498 by the deceased before death. However, the record contained a consent order dated 7th June 2004 in which the parties agreed that titles 1498, 1499 and 1500 be cancelled to revert to the original title No. EAST BUKUSU/WEST SANGALO/681, undermining the claim of lifetime distribution.
Legal principles established
#- On a first appeal, the Court of Appeal respects findings of the lower court unless it misapprehended the facts, misdirected itself in law, took into account irrelevant matters, failed to consider relevant matters, or its decision was plainly wrong.
- An appellate court will not interfere with a trial judge's exercise of discretion in distributing a deceased's estate where the judge addressed herself properly on the law and took into account all relevant factors.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed with costs
- 2.As Mumbi Ngugi and Tuiyott, JJA agree, it is so ordered
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Bungoma
- Succession Cause No. 64 of 1998
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal under the Law of Succession Act / Court of Appeal jurisdiction (leave to appeal noted as not sought by counsel)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wekunda v Murunga & another", Case Analysis (2022). Civil Appeal 142 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2022/435/eng@2022-03-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.