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

In re Estate of Justus Buuri (Deceased) (Succession Cause 111 of 2019) [2024] KEMC 90 (KLR) (26 January 2024) (Judgment)

[2024] KEMC 90 (KLR) Magistrate's Courts
Read PDF
Court
Magistrate's Courts
Case number
90
Citation
[2024] KEMC 90 (KLR)
Decided
26 January 2024
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeSuccessionPostureAppeal from original trialCoramHON. T. A. SITATI, SENIOR PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE, GITHONGO LAW COURTS
Holding

The court finds that there was no written will admissible in law for the purposes of the succession of the estate. The deceased's wishes were expressed orally and openly, and the court upholds the objection by Martin Kabori Buuri, ordering the estate to be distributed as per the deceased's wishes.

Facts

The deceased, Justus Buuri, had two parcels of land, Abothuguchi/Kithirune/150 and Abothuguchi/Kithirune/1767. The petitioners, Naomi Mukiri Buuri and Arnold Mutuma Buuri, sought to confirm the grant of letters of administration and proposed a distribution ratio. Martin Kabori Buuri objected, claiming his father had verbally and openly expressed his wishes for the land distribution.

Issues

  1. Non-existence of a Will
  2. Mode of distribution of the Estate

Reasoning

There is no evidence of a written will. The deceased expressed his wishes orally and openly, and the court upholds the objection, distributing the estate as per the deceased's wishes.

Outcome

Appeal upheld, objection by Martin Kabori Buuri is granted

Orders

  • The estate shall be distributed as per the deceased's wishes

Remedies

  • Each party shall bear its own costs

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Evidence Act
Cases cited (1)
  • In the circumstances, I find that the deceased established his wishes on how his two parcels of land were to be divided during his lifetime...the proposed mode of distribution of the petitioners respects the wishes of the deceased.
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