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

Ahmed Abbas Edin & Abdinasir Adan Somo v Hassan Abdul Adan [2018] KEHC 7456 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 7456 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
7456
Citation
[2018] KEHC 7456 (KLR)
Decided
18 April 2018
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from a Kadhi's Court judgmentCoramS. CHITEMBWE
Holding

The Kadhi's Court's jurisdiction was valid, and the estate was distributed according to Islamic law and the children's shares.

Facts

The deceased, Fatma Abdi Adan, died in 2006. Her estate, including Plot No.211 at Biashara street in Moyale, was the subject of a suit filed by her children in 2012. The Kadhi's Court distributed the estate in 2016, but the appellants appealed, disputing the Kadhi's jurisdiction and the distribution.

Issues

  1. Kadhi's Court's jurisdiction
  2. Distribution of the deceased's estate
  3. Validity of the consent judgment

Reasoning

The Kadhi's Court had jurisdiction over the case. The estate was distributed based on the children's shares as per Islamic law, and the consent judgment was upheld.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The estate of the deceased Fatma Abdi Adan shall be distributed as follows: Hassan Abdi Adan, Abdinasir Adan Somo, Neemo Adan Somo, Safia Haji Edin, Ahmed Abbas Edin, Mohamed Edin, and Halima Adan each receive 18.18% of the estate.
  • The appellants, along with the respondent and one of their sisters, are appointed as administrators of the estate.
  • Any transfer of Plot No.211 in favour of the respondent or any other person is canceled, and the plot reverts to the deceased's name and is transferred to the four administrators.

Remedies

  • Distribution of the estate according to the children's shares as per Islamic law

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Civil Procedure Act
  • Government, Land Act
  • Evidence 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 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case