In re Estate of Karomo Karanja (Deceased) (Succession Cause 1843 of 2002) [2025] KEHC 4174 (KLR) (Family) (3 April 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation:
[2025] KEHC 4174 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
Succession Cause 1843 of 2002
HK Chemitei, J
April 3, 2025
Ruling
1.This ruling relates to the application dated 22nd January, 2024 filed by Julius Orenge seeking for Orders that:-1.Spent.2.In order to give effect and implement orders given by this court on 11th March, 2022 the Chief Land Registrar be ordered/directed to register the said orders against titles L R. Nos. 10090/518, 10090 519, 10090/520, 10090/521, 10090/522, 10090/51/1 and the mother title L.R. No. 10090/55 in terms of clause (1) and (2) or orders of 11th March, 2022.3.Such other further orders the Honourable court shall deem fit to grant.
2.The application is supported by affidavit sworn by Julius Orenge on 22nd January, 2024 and further affidavit sworn by Margaret Wanjiru, Jennifer Waithera Karomo, Jacinta Karomo, Irene W. Karomo, Raphael Muiru, Dorcas W. Karomo and Judy Muthoni on 9th December, 2024.
3.They aver inter alia that the Applicants serve as both advocates and beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate. On 11th March, 2022, the court issued the following orders:-i)The titles for L.R. No. 10090/518, 10090/519, 10090/520, 10090/521, 10090/522, and 10090/51/1, along with their deed plans, were revoked.ii)The previous status was restored and L.R. No. 10090/55 was reverted to the deceased, Karomo Karanja.iii)A Government Surveyor was to resurvey and subdivide the suit property per the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant dated 14th September, 2016.iv)The Administrator was to proceed with transferring each beneficiary’s rightful share.v)Since this is a family matter, no costs were awarded.
4.The revoked title deeds remain in the Administrator’s custody. Despite being aware of the court ruling, the Administrator and their advocate have refused to return the titles for cancellation or revocation. Additionally, they have declined to provide copies to the Applicants' counsel, preventing the registration of the court order.
5.That attempts to register the order at the land office have been unsuccessful, as the land registry has insisted on the production of original or certified copies of the title documents. The Applicants' counsel has made two attempts to resolve the matter with the land registry at Ardhi House, but without success. The Land Registration Act permits the registration of court orders and decrees without additional conditions.
6)The aver that without a specific directive compelling the Chief Land Registrar to register the 11th March, 2022, order, the issue will persist, leading to further litigation. Furthermore, the Administrator and certain beneficiaries have been disposing of and transferring the disputed parcels to third parties.
7)That one beneficiary, Erick Kibe Karomo, has interfered with the estate by selling some plots to Paul Manthini Njoroge and Edwin Kigunda. He has also used one of the title deeds as collateral for a loan. His actions are aimed at disinheriting other beneficiaries and directly violate the court's ruling, of which he is fully aware. The requested orders are necessary to protect the estate and ensure that the court-mandated distribution is carried out properly.
8)The application is unopposed and no written submissions have been filed on it.
Analysis And Determination
9)I have looked at the applications above and the replies thereto and address them as follows:-
10.In the case of Katiba Institute v Attorney General & 9 others [2021] KESC 25 (KLR) the court stated as follows:
11.“18. Upon noting this court’s pronouncement in the decision of Gideon Konchellah v Julius Lekakeny Ole Sunkuli & 2 others [2018] eKLR where the Court expressed that: “…[10] Be that as it may, as a court of Law, we have a duty in principle to look at what the application is about and what it seeks. It is not automatic that for any unopposed application, the Court will as a matter of cause grant the sought orders. It behooves the Court to be satisfied that prima facie, with no objection, the application is meritorious and the prayers may be granted. The Court is under a duty to look at the application and without making any inferences on facts point out any points of law, such as any jurisdictional impediment, which might render the application a non-starter.”
12.In light of the foregoing, the application dated 22nd January, 2024 is allowed in terms of prayer 2
13.Costs of the application to the Applicants.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI VIA VIDEO LINK THIS 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025.H K CHEMITEIJUDGE