Woman, granddaughter embroiled in fight for Sh100m property
Ms Christine Narumu Lapedo, the widow of Briton Harrold William Blunt alias Harry Blunt, is embroiled in a court battle with his granddaughter Michaela Cherret over what she claims is her matrimonial property.
A woman is fighting her granddaughter over a prime piece of land in Nakuru City worth millions of shillings.
Ms Christine Narumu Lapedo, the widow of Briton Harrold William Blunt alias Harry Blunt, is embroiled in a court battle with his granddaughter Michaela Cherret over what she claims is her matrimonial property.
The property is estimated to be worth more than Sh100 million.
Ms Cherret is the daughter of Mr Peter Blunt, who is the son of Harry Blunt from his previous marriage in the UK.
Ms Narumu is trying to defend her claim to the land, which she says belonged to her late husband.
This is after Ms Cherret went to court and obtained a judgment against Ms Narumu declaring her the owner of the property.
After the judgment was delivered in 2021, Ms Narumu went to court to seek a stay of its execution to allow her to file her defence.
Ms Narumu claimed the judgment had been issued without giving her an opportunity to give her side.
She said her lawyer from Kale, Maina and Bundotich Company Advocates, had failed to keep her properly informed of court proceedings after failing to attend court.
She further claimed that the Covid-19 pandemic, which put the country into lockdown, made it impossible for her to attend the court registry to establish the status of the case.
She only learnt of the matter from her relative four months after the judgment had been issued.
She claimed to be facing imminent eviction if the orders of the judgment are executed.
According to the woman, Ms Cherret obtained the judgment and the decree through deceit by referring to her as a caretaker when she knew that she was the widow and a legal representative of the estate of the late Blunt.
“That execution of such orders against the defendant/applicant will leave the family of Harry Blunt (deceased) destitute as that was her matrimonial home,” stated Ms Narumu.
In response, Ms Cherret accused Ms Narumu of misleading the court by claiming that she was not aware of the case in court.
She argued that her step-grandmother was properly served with the case and was well aware of its progress.
Ms Cherret said the firm that was representing Ms Narumu was notified of all processes in the suit, including hearing, mention and applications, but the defendant chose not to defend the suit.
She termed Ms Narumu’s claims as an afterthought, adding that no evidence of her inquiries or any legal action against the said advocates for default was exhibited or reason offered as to why their services were discontinued.
Owing to the foregoing the defendant was given an opportunity to be heard; that no explanation is given for default to file defence or court attendance; and the judgment and decree of the court is regular and proper and was obtained without deceit, she added.
Justice Mwangi Njoroge, however, in his ruling on June 14, agreed to set aside the judgment to allow Ms Narumu to file her defence ahead of a full trial.
“This court finds that since the defence has strong statements, which raise triable issues, the judgment delivered in this matter ought to be set aside to enable the suit to be set down for trial on its merits, and it needs not conduct a mini trial at the present juncture.
Ms Cherret had moved to court, accusing Ms Narumu of trespass on the land she claimed to own.
She claimed to have bought the land from her father and she became the registered owner on July 18, 2005 and she later sold it in September 2021.
The court heard that Harry Blunt was allowed by Peter Blunt to live in the house on the land and upon his death, his son offered to sell the land to Ms Narumu, who declined to buy it.
Ms Cherret said her father decided to sell the property to her.
She argued that Ms Narumu was left as the caretaker of the property upon the death of Harry Blunt before she vacated the house. Furthermore, a complaint of trespass and forcible detainer was made to the police against Ms Narumu, which contributed to her vacating it.
Ms Narumu, on the other hand, claims the property is part of her matrimonial property and she only vacated it after she learnt that her life and those of her children were in danger.
