In the Estate of RODAH MUMO MUEMA

1. Rhoda /Roda     Mumo   Muema   died   on 8/6/2018 at Bishop Kioko Hospital.  Her death   triggered   a  burial  dispute   between   the objector   who said   he  was  her  husband   by customary    law, and  the  petitioners; her  mother  and elder  sister  who said  that he  was simply  a  boyfriend;  and  if he  was   a  husband, that the   deceased  had ,  before  she  died -  instructed  that the customary goat ( mbui ya ulee)  that symbolizes   divorce   among  the  Akamba   be  delivered   to his home.
2. The burial    dispute    culminated   in the suit Machakos CMCC No.  368/2018   wherein,  the learned    magistrate found that  there  was  a  sustaining  customary  marriage    between  the  deceased   and the objector   and that he  had  the priority  to bury    his  wife  -  and released the body to him for burial vide  judgment  delivered   on 23/8/2018. 
3. On    25/10/2019, the petitioners filed this cause   as sister and mother of the deceased. They  presented  a letter  from the chief   Wote  Location  dated  5/9/2018  to the effect  that  Rodah  Mumo  Muema   was a single   mother  of  the sole  survivor -  Shadrack    Muema   Mumo   aged  14  years  then at that time. 
4. They also    set  out in form P &  A 5  the   assets  of the estate  which included   a13.8Acres  from  Makueni/Kikumini/265    a  share from  the Estate  of one  James   Kisyula    Kauta   alias Kisyula  Kauta ( deceased)  in Machakos High Court Succession  Cause  522/10 (certificate of confirmation of  grant made  on 23/10/2015.)
5. Grant  of  letters  of  Administration  Intestate  was made  on 6/9/2019  to Josephine   Munyiva   Kasyeki  and Luis   Kavindu  Muema. 
6. On 7/1/2020  the objector  filed summons  for  revocation of the grant  on the ground that it was obtained  fraudulently  by making   of  a  false   statement,  misrepresentation  of  concealment  of materials facts  and in that  through  Machakos   CMCC  365/2018  his  status  as  the  lawful  husband of  deceased   was confirmed; that  the  chief’s  letter  saying that  deceased  was unmarried  was an illegality.
7. There  was a  response   vide  the  replying  affidavit  of  Josephine  Munyiva    Kasyeki  filed on  16/2/2021   to the effect that they had  come  to this  court  seeking  to secure the interest  of the sole  surviving  child  of the deceased.  She  deponed   that  at  the material   time  the child  was 16  years  old,   in class 8  at  Tala Township Primary   School,  and was living   with her;   that  the  objector/applicant  was not the biological  father of the child  and upon  the  demise  of his   mother, the objector   had  not bothered  with the child  hence  their  move  to  secure  his  interests. She annexed a certificate of birth showing    that the objector was not the child’s father. 
8. The  objector  filed  a  further  affidavit  on  30/8/2021 where  he  confirmed   that deceased had  three  children -  two  of  whom  were deceased   leaving  Shadrack  Muema. He annexed   another certificate   of birth with an entry showing   himself   to be the father of the child.
9. That  the 1st  petitioner/respondent  had  transferred  the child  to an  unknown  school from  ACK  Boarding   School  without   his  knowledge  after  the demise  of the child’s  mother,  and that  he   had  been denied   access to the child/any communication   with the  child. 
10. That he  was married  to  the  deceased    in 2007,    that  they established  a  home  at  Westland in Wote  which home   became  in accessible  due   to the frustration of the  1st  petitioner/respondent. 
11. That at the  same  time   the child  was born in Kikumini, that  the letter  from the chief  Wote  location  was  an illegality  because   the letter  from  the chief  Kikumini  which  indicated  that he  and the deceased’s  son were  the only  beneficiaries  of her    estate  was the correct  one. 
12. The    objection was heard by way of oral evidence.  The matter    was part  heard by the Hon  Dulu J,  who  heard three  of  the objectors  4 witnesses   and  I heard  one witness for the objector ad   the petitioners  and  their witnesses. Thereafter, parties filed written   submissions. 
13. The only   issue from determination   is whether   the grant    herein   is up for revocation on the grounds set out   by the objector – fraud   and  concealment of material facts. 
14. Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act   sets out the grounds upon     which a grant    ought to be revoked.  It  is submitted   for objector that   he was   recognized  as the husband   of  the deceased  in  Machakos   CMCC 368/2018  a  judgment  which he petitioners  never appealed  against;  that  he has  never  refused to take  care of  his  children  and that the grant  be revoked and  issued  in his  name.  He  relies   on Estate  of   L.A.K(deceased)  [2014]  eKLR  on the application  of Section 76  of  the  Laws  of  Succession   Act  and Albert  Imbuga  Kisigwa  vs  Recho  Kavai  Kisigwa Succ Cause  158/2000 -   on    the fact  that    revocation   of grant is   a discretion   power  to  be  exercised  judiciously.
15. For the    1st  &  2nd  Petitioners   it is  submitted   that the deceased  had  instructed   her  relatives  to  deliver  the goat  signifying  her divorce  from the objector  because she  could  not  do it  personally  due to illness  and that  if  indeed   Akamba    customary  law did  not  allow  for  the alternative   where  a  person out of     disability  could  not  deliver    the goat  personally, and that any other  form of   delivery  was unacceptable that   position  would  be contrary to Article  45(2) of the Constitution  and going  by Article  2(5)  of the Constitution. That to that end that   that custom in is contra the Constitution  and   calls for its invalidation.
16. It was also submitted   that the letter from the chief   that    the deceased was single mother,   survived by her son Shadrack   Muema   who was left   in the guardianship of the petitioners,    was the true position.    The petitioners also relied   on Albert Imbuga  Kigwa.
17. The matter presents a peculiar  set of facts. 
18. The  deceased  was married    to  someone  else, with whom   she had  children  - and  only  one survived  -  Shadrack  Muema. 
19. Her marriage    to the objector    was denied by the family of the deceased. There is evidence   that   a goat -  Mbui  ya  ulee   was delivered  by a relative  to the  home  of  the  objector albeit in her life  time , while  she was ailing.
20. Upon her demise her son was taken  up  by her  maternal  aunt  the 1st  petitioner -  and  the objector    never  followed  up on  child.
21. I  have    to spend    sometime    on this  issue  - because   it is  at  the center of  the petitioner’s  petition -    that  the reasons   they filed  this  cause    was  to  take  care  of   the interest   of their     sisters  and daughter’s son  respectively.  The objector presented   himself   as the father of the Shadrack during   the burial   dispute, and even presented certificates of birth bearing his name as the father.  He presented   other  documents  where  he had  indicated   that the deceased  was his wife   and her  children , his  children . But  it was evident during the hearing of the protest that  after he   got  to bury   Rhoda’s body,  he never   fought    for  Rhodah’s child Shadrack. He never  fought  for his custody, or maintenance, never  did anything  at  all for the child as would be expected   with the same  vigour   he fought  for the body  of Rodah.  Why?
22. If ,  as  he  stated  in burial  dispute, he  had taken  over  Rodah’s  children to be his, why  is it that there is not a  single  demand letter, or summon  to the chief,  or the children’s  office,  or report  to the police or  anything   at all to demonstrate  that   after  the demise  of Rodah, and her burial  he still valued  her child?. To  that  end  and to  the  fact  that one  year  after  the burial    he had  not followed  up on the child , and  to date    -  6  years  after  her  demise -  he  has  not taken  any responsibility  over  the child, the petitioners cannot be faulted for filing this cause and stating that the said shadrack was the sole beneficiary of his mother’s estate. The picture drawn by the objector’s failure is that he had no interest in Rodah’s child and may have fought for her body on the belief that Kenyans hold albeit mistakenly, when you bury the body the deceased’s property is yours. That the   child is now an adult having been born on 3/12/2004. 
23. The other peculiar factor  is that the dispute  as  to whether  the deceased  was married to the respondent – despite  the findings of  the subordinate  court – has  arisen   in this cause.
24. It  is  true  that  the petitioners  did  not appeal against  the finding   that the deceased  was married  to the objector,  hence   the  release  of the  body   to him.
25. The petitioner’s  contend  before this  court  that it is  not denied  in the  proceedings  before  me   that  a  goat -  Mbui  ya ulee   was  taken to the home   of the objector  by  a member of the  family  - The  objector  did state - 
“A goat was brought but not by the deceased - she was very sick.”
26. The  1st  petitioner/respondent  testified   that  to her  knowledge  the deceased  was not married  to the objector   -  but  during  her  sickness   she told   them to take  a goat  - Mbui  ya  ulee  to the home of the objector   and they  took the goat.
27. Evidently the deceased was aware of her relationship   with objector. She gave instruction that Mbui  ya  Ulee be taken to  the objector.  The goat was taken there – hence   there is no question about it that - Mbui  ya ulee  was  delivered  but  not by the deceased    herself. 
28. It’s  submitted    that the deceased    expressed  the intention  not  to remain  married  to the objector  through  that    act  and   that  intention  ought  to be respected  because  she had  a constitutional right  to do so – and by the Akamba   customs    denying  her that    right -  simply because  she could  not  herself   deliver  the goat  personally -  then   it is  inconsistent  with   the Constitution.  Article   2(5)   of the Constitution  states; Any  law  including   customary  law that is  inconsistent  with this  Constitution   is  void   to the extent  of that  inconsistency  and any act  or  omission of this Constitution  is invalid.
29. It is my view the issue has been raised here as an issue of a custom that violates the deceased’s right to choose her partner in marriage and whether or not denying her that right just because the custom says the goat must be delivered in person, is a violation of that right. It  is  my considered view that   both parties  need  to address  the court  substantially   on the same    to enable   the court make  a proper  determination.  Right  now other than  counsel’s submission there is no other submission.  This being    an  Akamba   customary law    issue  - the court   will  require  substantive submissions on the issue and the   the input  of  experts  on Akamba   Customary  Law  on the issue  of Mbui  ya ulee- on the  significant   if at , of  who  delivers  it .
It would not be proper  for this court to proceed   on the single  submissions  to declare  that alleged   requirement  invalid.
30. Back to the grant. The objector is saying that because the court recognized him as the husband of the deceased , then he is entitled to the administration of the estate.
31.  Section   66 of the Law of  the law of Succession  Act  provides   the court  with a  guide   as to who ought    to  have priority in the administration of  the estate of  a deceased    who died intestate:
a.   surviving   spouse/spouses  without the association of  other beneficiaries 
b. Other   beneficiaries entitled    on intestacy with priority according to their respective beneficial interest as per part V.
c. Public   trustee
d.  creditors
32. The  law   however  recognizes that circumstances may arise where those persons with priority may not represent the best interests of all the beneficiaries of the estate. It states that that the court shall have a final discretion as to the person/persons  to whom a  grant  of  letters  of  administration shall be made – in the  best  interest  of all those  concerned. 
33. The objector has told this court that he has another family with whom he lives. Evidently the deceased’s son is not considered by himself as part of his family. I would be reluctant to put him in charge of the estate of the deceased because of these facts.
34. But more importantly the petitioners proceeded on the ground that their nephew was the sole survivor of his mother. The Chief Wote knew her as such and that how he presented her to this court. The petitioners knew of the existence of the objector but did not consider him a beneficiary of the deceased’s estate. However, they did not present themselves as beneficiaries and hence there was no fraud. They ought to have let the court decide whether or not the objector was beneficially entitled to the estate especially after the decision of the subordinate court.
35. The purpose of  this  court  is  to  distribute  the estate of a  deceased   person   and where  the  deceased  died intestate  to appoint  the administrators  and ensure  they act in compliance with the  law;  they  ought  to   identify the proper  beneficiaries  and  their  shares  and distribute the estate  accordingly.  To achieve this court is required to have personal   representatives of the estate.
36. In this   case the deceased left   a minor   child   who is    now an adult.  Her    “estranged” husband   is the step father   of that child.  He has no relationship with the said child.  He has his own wife and children and grandchildren.  There appears to be a  dispute as to whether he bought the property   or deceased bought the property issues for another court.
37. The  petitioners  brought   this  cause  to secure   the  interests  of  the only  child   of   the  deceased  and they  have  said   so in their papers. They  do  not    trust  the  objector,  and he has  not  acted  towards  the boy  in  a  manner  to draw  any trust  towards  him.  In the   circumstances -  and in the exercise  of  the  inherent  powers  of this  court  under  Rule  73  of  the P & A -  to  ensure   the  ends  of  justice :The grant made on to the petitioners  be  and   is  hereby revoked   and a  fresh   grant to issue jointly to ;
1) The objector Sylvester Kilatya Nzinguli
2) Shadrack Muema Mumo and
3) The  1st petitioner/respondent: Josephine Munyiva Kasyeki
38. The administrators to;  within  21  days  of  issuance  of the grant  file  summons  for  confirmation  of grant either  jointly/individually.
39. Upon    filing,  if  not  filed  jointly  ;   to  serve  upon  the others   within  7  days  of   filing.
40. Upon  service; The administrator who is not satisfied with the  proposed distribution   to file   and    serve   their    affidavit of  protest  within  14  days  of  service.
41. Mention for compliance  of the first step before   Deputy Registrar on 10th September 2024 
42. No orders   as to costs.

Dated, signed and delivered via CTS 20/8/ 2024

Mumbua T Matheka

Judge