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

Joseph Thuranira v David Birithia Lauri [2018] KEHC 1971 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 1971 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
1971
Citation
[2018] KEHC 1971 (KLR)
Decided
29 November 2018
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from a judgment of the Chief Magistrate's CourtCoramA. MABEYA
Holding

The appeal is dismissed as the trial court's decision was in accordance with the provisions of the Law of Succession Act, and the distribution of the estate was in accordance with the wishes of the beneficiaries.

Facts

The deceased, M’Mucheke M’Anaiba, died intestate on 26th November, 2015. He left behind a wife, Sabina Kauki M’Mucheke, and five children. The estate comprised ITHIMA/ANTUAMBUI/2448, ITHIMA/ANTUAMBUI/495, and ITHIMA/ANTUAMBUI/3671. The appellant, Joseph Thuranira, petitioned for letters of administration intestate, while the respondent, David Birithia Lauri, filed an objection. The estate was distributed by the trial court, with the appellant's proposed mode of distribution reviewed and corrected.

Issues

  1. the mode of distribution of the estate
  2. the signature appearing in the consent to the filing of the petition was a forgery

Reasoning

The court found that the deceased had transferred ITHIMA/ANTUAMBUI/2448 to the respondent during his lifetime and that the respondent had developed the property. The court also noted that the widow was in agreement with the proposed distribution of the estate.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appellant is ordered to bear the costs of the respondent in this appeal

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Law of Succession Act, Cap 160 of the Laws of Kenya
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