Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Francisca Munini Mbithe v Georgina Mwende Mutunga & 1 other

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI MILIMANI LAW COURTS FAMILY DIVISION SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 2548 OF 2002 IN THE MATTER OF PETER MUTUKU KYONGO (DECEASED) FRANCISCA MUNINI MBITHE...............................PETITIONER VERSUS GEORGINA MWENDE MUTUNGA..............1ST RESPONDENT TABITHA KALEE KYONGO.........................2ND RESPONDENT RULING 1. The deceased Peter Mutuku Kyongo died intestate on 26th April 2002. Before his death, he was working in the Kenya Air force as a Senior Sergeant. He left two widows (the applicant Francisca Munini Mbithi and the 1st respondent Georgina Mutune Mutunga) and mother Tabitha Kalee Kyongo (2the nd respondent). On 22nd April 2014 this Court determined that the three were the only beneficiaries to the estate of the deceased. The Court directed that each should have an equal share in the estate. 2. The applicant has shown that the deceased’s death benefits amounting to Kshs.391,880/65 were deposited into A/C No. 3520651 at Barclays Bank of Kenya, Moi Avenue, by the Ministry of Finance to await the determination on the beneficiaries and their respective shares. Now that this has been determined, she sought that the amount be shared. The application was served on the respondents who did not respond. 3. I allow the application and order that the Kshs.391,880/05 (and all the interest that has accrued) held at the Barclays Bank of Kenya, Moi Avenue, A/C No. 352065, be shared equally among Francisca Munini Mbithi, Georgina Mwende Mutunga and Tabitha Kalee Kyongo. A certificate of confirmation shall accordingly issue. DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 9th December 2015. A.O. MUCHELULE JUDGE

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.