Sarah Jelangat Sieley v Reuben Kipngeno Sang & 3 others [2020] KEELC 2796 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court ordered buyers off inherited land because you cannot lawfully buy a deceased person's property in Kenya before succession is confirmed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Validity of pre-confirmation sales by beneficiaries
The sales were invalid as the sellers were beneficiaries, not legal representatives, and the sales preceded confirmation of grant in 2013
The court held that under Section 82(b)(ii) of the Law of Succession Act no immovable property shall be sold before confirmation of grant. The beneficiaries who sold portions to the defendants had no legal capacity to transact, and the defendants, who knew no titles existed and succession was incomplete, acquired no enforceable interest. The purchasers should have sought inclusion in the succession proceedings but did not.
Applicability of Section 93 of the Law of Succession Act
Section 93 does not protect the defendants because it applies only to transfers by a holder of a grant later revoked
The court read the section contextually, noting its side note concerns validity of transfers not affected by revocation of representation. It presupposes a transfer by a personal representative pursuant to a grant. Here no transfer had occurred and the sellers were not legal representatives, so the defendants derive no benefit from the provision.
Intermeddling with the estate
The selling beneficiaries intermeddled contrary to Section 45(1) of the Law of Succession Act
By disposing of free property of the deceased without authority of a grant or written law, the grandchildren wittingly or unwittingly intermeddled, offending Section 45(1). The authorities cited by the plaintiff, including the estates of Kaburu Marete and Kakua Kioko, spelled out the same legal position and applied to the matter.
Plaintiff's entitlement to eviction and the counterclaim
The plaintiff's claim was proved on a balance of probabilities and the counterclaim failed
The court found merit on the plaintiff's side and granted prayer (a) of the plaint, ordering eviction. The counterclaim for compulsory transfer of portions had no legal foundation given the invalidity of the underlying sales. Nonetheless the court tempered the outcome on costs, blaming the plaintiff's prolonged failure to distribute the estate.
Legal principles established
#- No immovable property forming part of a deceased's estate may be sold before confirmation of grant
- Sale of estate property by beneficiaries before grant confirmation constitutes intermeddling under Section 45(1) of the Law of Succession Act
- Section 93 of the Law of Succession Act protects only transfers made by a personal representative under a grant subsequently revoked, not sales by beneficiaries
Court orders
#- 1.An order of eviction against the defendants, their agents, servants and employees from L.R. No. Kericho/Silibwet/664 (prayer (a) in the plaint granted)
- 2.Dismissal of the defendants' counterclaim
- 3.Each party to bear its own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under Article 162(2) of the Constitution (land dispute; suit for eviction from land parcel Kericho/Silibwet/664)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sarah Jelangat Sieley v Reuben Kipngeno Sang & 3 others [2020] KEELC 2796 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). ELC Case No. 69 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2796/eng@2020-04-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.