https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11287

In re Estate of Sahi (Deceased) (Succession Cause 547 of 2019) [2026] KEHC 11287 (KLR) (Family) (14 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 11287 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Family Succession Cause 547 of 2019 CJ Kendagor, J July 14, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF SARLA DEVI SAHI - DECEASED Between Alka Dhall Applicant and Rajeshwar Sahi Respondent Ruling 1.Sarla Devi Shah, died testate and appointed Rajeshwar Sahi and Alka Dhall his children as executors via a Written Will dated 11th January, 2018. 2.Alka Dhall petitioned for a Grant of Letters of Administration with a Written Will, and the Grant was issued in their two names on 26th July, 2019. The Grant was confirmed on 16th July, 2020. From the petition, the same was signed only by Alka. 3.The matter has now been revived by an application dated 30th April, 2025 filed by Alka (administrator/applicant) that cites the co-administrator as Respondent. In the application, the Applicant accuses the Respondent of frustrating the completion of the administration of the estate by retaining exclusive control over the assets, L.R No. 1870/24/V, L.R No. 37374/1032 and L.R No. 3734/81 (original number 3734/84). The Will captures this property as L.R No. 3734/81 (original number 3734/35). 4.According to the Applicant, the Respondent has continued to collect and receive rental income from the listed assets and has additionally retained the title instruments relating to those assets, hence frustrating any possible progress in the execution of the Grant of Probate. She asks the Court to order that the rental income be deposited in a joint interest-earning account, that the Respondent be ordered to furnish accounts for the income received and to be compelled to release the title documents, and that she be authorized to undertake any other process necessary for the administration of the estate. 5.The Respondent, in his replying affidavit dated 10th June, 202, on the other hand, maintains that he is not aware of the properties L.R No. 37374/1032 and L.R No. 3734/81 (original number 3734/84). He acknowledges the property L.R No. 1870/24/V. He asserts that he has discharged his role as an administrator. 6.From the pleadings filed by the parties, they both acknowledge that the rest of the assets, which included money in bank accounts, have been duly administered. 7.Under Section 83 of the Law of Succession Act, the administrators have a duty to, within six months from the date of the Grant, produce to the Court a full and accurate inventory of the assets and liabilities of the deceased and a full and accurate account of all dealings therewith up to the date of the account. 8.In this case, the petition for Letters of Administration was signed by Alka (Applicant) only, and so was the application for Confirmation of Grant. It was therefore upon the Applicant to confirm that the assets listed in the Will formed part of the estate. 9.In this case, the Respondent contests that he is not aware of the two properties or whether they form part of the estate. The property that he acknowledges was vested in him and his son. 10.As for L.R No. 3734/81, the Will vested the same in the Applicant and her sister Annil Nayar jointly. And L.R No. 37374/1032 is vested in the deceased’s grandchildren who are listed in the Will. 11.There is no proof availed by the Applicant confirming that these properties belong to the estate of the deceased as required under Section 83 of the Law of Succession Act. Although the Applicant was granted leave to file a further affidavit, that affidavit did not address the issues raised in the replying affidavit. The Will describes where the properties are situated, and the Applicant had an opportunity to provide this clarification in the further affidavit. 12.There is also no evidence either that the two properties are generating rental income or that the Respondent is the one exercising control of the properties. 13.With the different accounts by the Administrators and the lack of evidence to confirm the above, the orders in the application cannot issue. The application is struck out. 14.The court, however, notes that what presents itself is that the estate has not been fully administered. Section 47 of the Law of Succession Act and Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules grant the probate court broad inherent jurisdiction. Together, these provisions confer on the probate court broad inherent jurisdiction, enabling it to hear succession disputes and issue orders to prevent abuse of the Court process and to ensure justice. 15.In exercise of this inherent jurisdiction, the court issues the following orders;i.The applicant/administrator is granted time to obtain search certificates and any other documentation confirming that the properties L.R No. 37374/1032 and L.R No. 3734/81 (original number 3734/35) belong to the estate of the deceased;ii.Upon verification that the properties belong to the estate of the deceased herein, the applicant shall engage a government valuer to inspect the properties and confirm the status of the two properties.iii.The report shall be filed within 90 days;iv.Costs of the engagement and verification shall be borne by the applicant in the interim;v.The respondent/administrator is at liberty to also conduct his own search and verification and file the same with the court within the same time frame;vi.The matter shall be mentioned in the new term to confirm status;vii.Each party shall bear its own costs of the application. 16.Orders accordingly. DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THROUGH THE MICROSOFT TEAMS ONLINE PLATFORM ON THIS 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026.………………………C. KENDAGORJUDGEIn the presence of:Court Assistant: BerylMs. Karongo Advocate, holding brief for Ms. Gitau Advocate for the RespondentNo attendance for the Applicant