Margaret Wanja Njoroge & 1 other v Francis Kariuki Kamau

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MURANG’A SUCCESSION CAUSE NO 853 OF 2013 FORMERLY NYERI HC SUCCESSION CAUSE NO 303 OF 1998 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF PATRICK KABIRU NJUGUNA - DECEASED MARGARET WANJA NJOROGE.................2nd ADMIN/APPLICANT VERSUS FRANCIS KARIUKI KAMAU.....................1ST ADMIN/PROTESTOR JUDGMENT 1. On 10/05/1999 a grant of letters of administration intestate was made herein jointly to Francis Kariuki Kamau and Margaret Wanja Njoroge. They are respectively the father and widow of the Deceased herein, Patrick Kabiru Njuguna. The Deceased was survived also by two sons, Alex Njuguna Kabiru and Benjamin Njoroge Kabiru who were minors at the time of the Deceased’s death on 08/09/1998. They appear to have both attained majority now. 2. By an amended summons dated 14/01/2002 the 2nd Administrator (Margaret Wanja Njoroge) sought confirmation of the grant (issued on the same day it was made – 10/05/1999). In her proposed distribution appearing at paragraph 9 of her supporting affidavit she made provision of the 1st Administrator (Francis Kariuki Kamau) to get 25% of the proceeds in one of the Deceased’s bank accounts. The rest, along with other properties and assets of the estate, were to go to the 2 nd Administrator and her two sons with the Deceased. Those other properties included some five (5) parcels of land. 3. On 24/11/2004 the 1st Administrator filed an affidavit of protest. He counter-proposed that he should get the following from the Deceased’s estate – (a) 3 acres from land parcel L.R. Muthithi/Chumbiri/75 (b) The whole of land parcel L.R. Loc Mwerua/Kiandu/537 (c) All amounts awarded upon the claims pertaining to the accident (apparently that killed the Deceased) (d) 25% of the proceeds in the Deceased’s bank accounts. (e) Half of the Deceased’s Kenya Airways shares. 4. There is no explanation in the affidavit of protest why the 1 st Administrator should share in his late son’s estate when he was survived by a spouse and children. He is obviously not entitled as a matter of law or right to such share in these circumstances. However, in an affidavit he swore and filed on 31/01/2007 in reply to an application by the 2 nd Administrator to revoke the joint grant so that a grant can be made only to herself, the 1st Administrator stated that his claim in the Deceased’s estate is based on the fact that the Deceased was more like a business partner to him. 5. On 06/10/2015 when the application for confirmation of grant came up for directions the court was informed by the 1 st Administrator’s learned counsel that he laid claim only to one parcel of land owned by the Deceased upon the basis that he bought the land jointly with the Deceased. The immediate response of the learned counsel for the 2 nd Administrator was that the sale agreements in respect of all the Deceased’s parcels of land were in the name of the Deceased, and that his father did not participate in the purchases at all. 6. Both learned counsels were in agreement that the affidavit of protest did not raise any issue of fact that required trial by oral evidence. The

page 1 of 2