REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 195 OF 2010 (IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KARIUKI MUIGUA alias KARIUKI MUIGWA alias KARIUKI S/O MUIGUA (DECEASED) CHARITY WANJUGU KAROKI alias CHARITY WANJUGU KARIUKI……PETITIONER/APPLICANT VERSUS FESTUS MUIGUA KARIUKI……………………1ST RESPONDENT ISAAC NJUGUNA KARIUKI……………………2ND RESPONDENT WINROSE WANJIRU KARIUKI………………3RD RESPONDENT MOSES KARIUKI NDIRANGU………………...4TH RESPONDENT CHARLES MUNENE……………………………..5TH RESPONDENT RULING By an application dated 13th June, 2014 the applicant sought for an order from this court to authorise the deputy registrar to sign the transmission documents in respect of land parcel referred to as LR. No. RUGURU/GACHIKA/65 and to dispense with the original title in respect of this parcel of land inorder to facilitate the distribution of the estate. In the affidavit in support of application, she swore that the grant was made to her on 4 th January, 2011. Apart from the 3rd respondent who is her niece, the rest of the respondents are the applicant’s siblings. The latter protested against the confirmation of the grant but their protest was dismissed and the grant confirmed on 23rd August, 2013. While confirming the grant the court, in its judgment delivered on 23rd August, 2013, ordered that land parcel LR. No. RUGURU/GACHIKA/65 be shared equally amongst the applicant and the protestors. As I understand the applicant, it has been impossible to transfer and register the respective shares of the land in issue as directed by the court because the respondents have refused to sign the transmission form and release the original title.
page 1 of 2
The application was served on the respondents on 14 th April, 2015 but as the time it came up for hearing on 18th May, 2015, none of them had filed any sort of response to the application. Mr Mugo who held brief for Mr Mwaura for the respondents sought for an adjournment to file a response; in the absence of any reason for the respondents’ apparent inaction, I declined to grant the application for adjournment. Accordingly, the application was unopposed. The judgment in this cause was delivered way back in August, 2013. There is nothing to suggest that it was challenged and even if it was, no order for stay of its execution was ever given. It follows, therefore, that there is no reason why the judgment should not be executed in terms of the confirmed grant. I would in the circumstances allow the applicant’s application dated 13 th June, 2014. Parties will bear their own costs. Signed, dated and delivered in open court this 2nd day of October, 2015 Ngaah Jairus JUDGE
page 2 of 2