REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI MILIMANI LAW COURTS Succession Cause 444 of 2011 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF DAMARIS NDUTA GITAU DECEASED RACHEL EUNICE NJERI GITAU..................................................................................................APPLICANT -ANDEDWIN MUCHENE GITAU................................................................................PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT RULING I have perused the Applicant’s summons dated 20.9.2011 and the Replying Affidavit sworn by the Respondent, Edwin Muchene Gitau. I have also duly considered the submissions made by Mrs. A. W. Kinuthia, the learned counsel for the Applicant and by Mr. A. M. Khan, the learned counsel for the Respondent. It is clear from the application and from the submissions made by advocate A. M. Khan and advocate A. W. Kinuthia that the sum of Shs.216,600/= demanded by the Applicant as her share is being withheld because she is using the name of Rachel Eunice Njeri Gitau and not Rachael Eunice Njeri Gatabazi. This is the only reason why the share of her entitlement has not been released to her. It is not for the Respondent to dictate what name the Applicant should use. The Applicant has exhibited a copy of her national identity card which shows that her name is Rachel Njeri Gitau. In these circumstances, the Applicant is entitled to use and sign as her name Rachel Njeri Gitau and to receive money in that name. In the result, I allow the application dated 20.9.2011 and grant orders in terms of prayers 1, 2 and 3. Dated at Milimani Law Courts, Nairobi, on this 20th day of January 2012. G.B.M. KARIUKI, SC JUDGE COUNSEL APPEARING Mrs. A. W. Kinuthia of A. W Kinuthia & Co. Advocates, for the Applicant Mr. A. M. Khan Advocate for the Respondent Mr. David Mutisya – Court Clerk
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.