Please Wait. Searching ...
|Case Number:||Probate & Administration 14 of 1991|
|Parties:||VERONICA WANGOI KARARAHO v BETTY WANINI KARARAHO & ROBERT KARIUKI KARARAHO|
|Date Delivered:||13 Apr 2011|
|Court:||High Court at Eldoret|
|Judge(s):||Joseph Raphael Karanja|
|Citation:||VERONICA WANGOI KARARAHO v BETTY WANINI KARARAHO & another  eKLR|
|Disclaimer:||The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information|
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION CAUSE NO. 14 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF VERONICA WANGOI KARARAHO ...............................APPLICANT
BETTY WANINI KARARAHO..................................................................1ST RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The said grant was confirmed after the expiry of six (6) months on the 30th February 1992 as per the Court record. However, by consent of all the parties, the grant was amended by deleting the name of Nyambura Kararaho, Dorcas and substituting it with the names of Robert Kariuki Kararaho, Ann Wambui Kararaho, Susan Wangari Kararaho and Ryce Njeri Kararaho, all beneficiaries/administrators of the estate.
The consent was made on the 30th July 1996 and a fresh grant inclusive of the names of the aforesaid beneficiaries was issued on 12th September, 1996.
Unfortunately, Robert Kariuki Kararaho, died on 6th October 2003 and Susan Wangare Kararaho died on 26th May 2004.
However, the amended grant issued on 26th February 2008 reflects as administrators the names of Betty Wanini Kararaho, Ann Wambui Kararaho, Ryce Njeri Kararaho and Robert Kariuki Kararaho.
It would appear from the record that the distribution of the estate property and all that appertains thereto has been problematic and is the source of the various applications and changes in the legal representation of the administrators and/or beneficiaries of the estate.
Veronica is one of the beneficiaries and a sister to Betty. The application was served upon the first respondent and the second respondent Robert Kariuki Kararaho. An affidavit in reply was filed by the first respondent on the 9th March 2011 but at the hearing of the application, the first respondent failed to turn up.
Learned counsel, Mr. Omusundi, appearing for one of the beneficiaries indicated that they were not served with the application and were in any event not opposed to it. In essence, the application seeks orders that the first respondent be compelled to equitably share the proceeds of the estate with the applicant and that the first respondent do hand over a sum of Kshs.173,150/- to the applicant being her share entitlement accumulated from October 2008 to December 2009.
The applicant contends that she is entitled to a sum of Kshs.173,150/- received on her behalf by the first respondent being her share of the proceeds realized from property known as Eldoret Municipaliry Block 6/44 i.e. Stage View Guest House and property known as Aya Inn.
In her replying affidavit, the first respondent denies the allegations made against her by the applicant and contends that she has faithfully administered the estate as required by law and has not been solely receiving monies from the estate and holding in trust of the beneficiaries of the first house. The first respondent also contends that the applicant was removed from being an administrator due to her mismanagement of the estate and while the first respondent admits that the applicant is entitled to a share of proceeds from the stage view Guest house, the same is to be shared equally between them and has never been withheld from the applicant.
The first respondent contends that due to the mismanagement of the estate by the applicant, there was no accountability of the estate thereby leading to an accumulation of municipal rates to the tune of Kshs.1.5 million which was paid from proceeds collected by the first respondent after the council gave a waiver and allowed the payment of rates in the sum of Kshs.158,000/-.
The first respondent further contended that the applicant runs six shops at Sambusa Hotel and does not share any proceeds with any of the beneficiaries.
All in all, the contention by the first respondent is that the applicant is not entitled to the orders sought herein.
Having considered the application in the light of the supporting grounds and those in opposition thereto, the view of the court is that the application would not be necessary if only the administrators of the estate inclusive of the first respondent would account for all profitable and unprofitable proceeds emanating from the estate property and more so, those directly affecting the applicant and the first respondent and generally all the beneficiaries of the deceased’s first house. If proper account are rendered then the beneficiaries would have no reason to complain as they would know what happened to their share of the estate and why they cannot have it when required. The beneficiaries ought to know the purpose for which any proceeds are put and whether the same are for the benefit of the estate. The annexture marked AI to AVI contained in the first respondent’s replying affidavit indicate that a sum of approximately Kshs.131,360/- belonging to the estate was used for the payment of Municipal rates and a further Kshs.10,000/- was utilized for extension of lease (see Annexture marked “B(II)” contained in the replying affidavit).
From the annexture marked “C(II)” in the replying affidavit it would appear that the applicant was not made aware of the utilization of part of her share of the estate property towards the payment of the municipal rates or any other obligation. Such omission by the first respondent as the administrator representing the first house was a breach of the trust bestowed upon her by the beneficiaries and a reflection of the failure to properly and constantly account for the estates proceeds and more so, those affecting the applicant either positively or negatively.
It is the first respondent’s contention that the removal of the applicant as an administrator was due to her mismanagement of the estate property. Herein, the applicant alleges and implies that the first respondent as the current administrator is also mismanaging the estate.
It is sad to say that if the parties will not sit down as a family and amicably agree on the distribution of the estate property they will eventually find themselves in a situation in which they will no longer draw any benefits from the estate due to its wastage and destruction. Not to mention that the situation will create an everlasting bitter and bloody relationship between the family members.
The many applications presented in court pertaining to the administration of the estate were more or less prompted by greed and selfishness. They have served to protract this matter much to the detriment of both the administrators and the beneficiaries. This present application is not any better.
The duty to account would be such undertaking.
For all the foregoing factors, it would not be appropriate at this juncture for the court to grant or refuse to grant the present application in terms stated in prayers (2) and (3) unless, first and foremost, an account of all the proceeds for the period October, 2008 to December 2009 respecting the deceased’s first house and property known as stage view guest house as well as Aya Inn is rendered to the court through the Deputy Registrar by the first respondent within the next forty five (45) days from this date hereof. In default, the applicant be at liberty to apply for the discharge and/or substitution of the first respondent as an administrator representing the first house.
J. R. KARANJA