Pelagia Kakuliremu v Paulini Manyindo (Civil Suit No. DR. MFP 26 90)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The court held that although the plaintiff was the sole surviving child of the deceased and entitled under succession law to apply for letters of administration, the deceased had validly made a gift intervivos of his land (Kibanja) to the defendant during his lifetime. The deceased was of sound mind when he made the gift in 1988 and 1989, acting voluntarily and with full intention. The gift was not made in expectation of death. The plaintiff was not entitled to letters of administration because the land had been lawfully transferred before death. The suit was dismissed with costs to the defendant.
Outcome
Plaintiff's application for removal of caveat dismissed; plaintiff not entitled to letters of administration to the estate
Facts
Joseph Kaijabohore died intestate in December 1989, leaving behind his daughter Pelagia Kakuliremu (the plaintiff) and his elderly widow Kwebiiha. The estate comprised a Kibanja (customary land), a house, and a cow, valued at one million shillings, located at Kitome village. The defendant Paulini Manyindo, a cattle trader and neighbour by clan affiliation not related to the deceased, became friendly with the deceased and provided assistance to the couple after they were attacked by thieves in the 1980s. The defendant cared for the deceased during illness, providing treatment, food, and water. On 23 August 1988 and 22 August 1989, the deceased executed written agreements transferring his Kibanja to the defendant as a gift. The cow was sold to the defendant during the deceased's lifetime. When the plaintiff applied for letters of administration, the defendant filed a caveat. The plaintiff contended the deceased was mentally unstable and the gift was void. The defendant claimed the transfers were voluntary gifts intervivos made by a person of sound mind in gratitude for assistance rendered.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff is the blood child of Joseph Kaijabohore the deceased and in that capacity whether she is the lawful person to obtain letters of administration to the estate of the deceased.
- Whether the defendant is a legitimate person to administer or obtain the administration of the estate of the deceased.
- Whether the late Kaijabohore disposed of his estate by way of gift intervivos to the defendant.
- Whether the letters of administration which were granted to the plaintiff under administration cause No. 7 of 1990 were validly granted and if not whether the same should be revoked.
Orders
- Suit dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the defendant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
- Succession Amendment Decree 22 of 1972 s.28(1)(a)IV
- Statutory Instrument 1972 No. 104 rule 9(1)
- Law of Evidence s.30
Cases cited (5)
- Kekewich v Manning (1851) 1 De G M & G 176
- Hall v Hall (1873) 8 Ch App 430
- Beverley's Case (1603) 4 Co Rep 123b
- Elliott v Ince (1857) De G M & G 475
- Re Walker [1905] 1 Ch 160
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.