SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

R N M v R M N [2017] KEHC 1804 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 1804 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
1804
Citation
[2017] KEHC 1804 (KLR)
Decided
2 November 2017
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeSuccessionPostureAppeal from original trialCoramP. NYAMWEYA
Holding

The Court makes an order for the payment of a lump sum of Kshs 350,000/= to the Applicant by the Administrators of the Deceased's Estate from the joint account operated by the two Administrators, as provision for the Applicant's basic needs pending confirmation of the grant issued to the Administrators.

Facts

The Applicant and Respondent are both administrators of the estate of S M N (the Deceased). The Applicant is the wife of the deceased, while the Respondent is one of the Deceased's children from his first marriage. The Applicant filed a summons seeking orders for provision for urgent school fees and other needs from the estate of the deceased, and monthly maintenance provision in the sum of KShs. 50,000/= to the Applicant pending confirmation of the grant.

Issues

  1. whether provision should be made for the Applicant and her children from the Deceased's estate pending confirmation of grant
  2. the terms of such provision

Reasoning

The Court considers the Applicant's need for provision and her good faith in managing the estate, but also notes the need to ensure a fair and equitable distribution to all dependants and beneficiaries.

Outcome

The Applicant is granted a lump sum of Kshs 350,000/= pending confirmation of the grant.

Orders

  • Payment of a lump sum of Kshs 350,000/= to the Applicant by the Administrators of the Deceased's Estate from the joint account operated by the two Administrators

Remedies

  • Provision for the Applicant's basic needs pending confirmation of the grant

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Law of Succession Act
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case