https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11392

 **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI** **FAMILY DIVISION** **SUCESSION CAUSE NO. E1352 OF 2022** **PUBLIC TRUSTEE ADMINISTRATION CAUSE NO. 972 OF 2021** **IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF GRACE WANJIRU** **MWANGI (DECEASED)** **MICHAEL MWANGI MWANIKI .………..………. 1ST APPLICANT** **DANIEL WAWERU MWANIKI .………………...…. 2ND APPLICANT** **VERSUS** **PATRICK MWANIKI KAMAU ….….………….. 1ST RESPONDENT** **THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE …………..……………… 2ND RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. Before this Court is the Chamber Summons dated **8th October 2025**, brought pursuant to Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules, in which the Applicant seeks the following orders: * 1. **Spent;** 2. **Spent;** 3. **That this Honourable Court be pleased to direct those proceeds of the Estate be deposited in Court until final and determination of the Application for revocation dated 18th December 2024.** 4. **That the 1st Respondent do provide a comprehensive audited accounts of the estate since August 2021.** 5. **That in the alternative the Court do direct that a qualified auditor be appointed by the parties to conduct a comprehensive report on the estate.** 6. **That the costs of this application be in cause.** 2. The application is supported by the Affidavit of Daniel Waweru, who deposes that the estate of Grace Wanjiru Mwangi (deceased) was administered through a grant of letters of administration issued to the 1st Respondent on 31st October 2022 and confirmed on 14th December 2023. He states that although the 2nd Respondent was granted a life interest in the estate properties to hold in trust for the beneficiaries, the 1st Respondent failed to disclose income generated from the estate, including rental income and revenue from two Safaricom boosters installed on Plot No. 308 Kariobangi South. 3. The Applicants further allege that several estate assets, including motor vehicle KCH 365A, the deceased's pension, SACCO savings, and shares in Mumias and Eveready, were omitted from the administration of the estate. 4. The 1st and 2nd Respondents filed Replying Affidavits dated **23rd January 2026** and **8th January 2026**, respectively, opposing the application. 5. The Applicants filed two Further Affidavits both dated **18th February 2026**, addressing the matters raised in the 1st and 2nd Respondents' Replying Affidavits. **Issues for determination** 6. I have considered the application, the supporting affidavit, the Replying Affidavits and the Further Affidavits filed herein. In my view, there is only one issue arising for determination; and that is, whether the assets alleged by the Applicants constitute assets of the deceased's estate and, if so, whether the Court should make orders for their inclusion, preservation, administration, or accounting. **Analysis and determination** 7. It is evident from the material on record that the day-to-day administration of the estate has largely been undertaken by the 1st Respondent. This is attributable, in part, to the fact that the 2nd Applicant resides and works overseas, the other beneficiary was still a student, and the 1st Applicant has faced personal challenges that had him institutionalized in a rehabilitation center. 8. It is common ground that the 2nd Respondent, being the Public Trustee, was appointed as the administrator of the deceased's estate under section 66 of the Law of Succession Act with the consent of all the beneficiaries. Consequently, a grant of Letters of Administration Intestate was issued to the 2nd Respondent on 31st October 2022 and was subsequently confirmed on 14th December 2023. 9. Although the 2nd Applicant did not execute the consent to the mode of distribution of the estate or the consent to the confirmation of the grant, he explains that he was away at work at the material time. However, the Court notes that despite not signing the said consents, the 2nd Applicant neither lodged any protest to the confirmation of the grant nor challenged the proposed mode of distribution before or shortly after the grant was confirmed. In the circumstances, the Court is persuaded that the present objection was raised belatedly and appears to be an afterthought. 10. On the issue of the alleged non-disclosure of the income-generating assets, namely the rental income, revenue from the two Safaricom boosters installed on Plot No. 308 Kariobangi South, motor vehicle KCH 365A, the deceased's pension, SACCO savings, and the alleged shares in Mumias and Eveready, I have considered the evidence on record together with the affidavits filed by the parties. I am not persuaded that the 1st Respondent deliberately concealed the existence of those assets. Rather, the evidence demonstrates that the beneficiaries were aware of their existence. The dispute instead arises from the absence of a clear agreement or direction on how the income and proceeds from those assets were to be managed, applied or distributed following the confirmation of the grant. 11. Additionally, this Court finds that the beneficiaries consented to the 1st Respondent receiving and managing the deceased's movable assets. In the absence of evidence of fraud, misrepresentation or breach of the agreed terms, the Applicants cannot challenge that arrangement merely because they are dissatisfied with how the assets have been utilized. Further, the allegation that the deceased owned shares in Eveready and Mumias is unsupported by any evidence and therefore remains unproved. 12. Accordingly, I find that the Applicants have not established that the 1st Respondent concealed material facts relating to the estate. Instead, I find that the real issue concerns the manner in which the income and proceeds from the disclosed assets have been administered. 13. Having found that the Applicants have failed to establish deliberate concealment of estate assets by either Respondent, I am satisfied that the dispute concerns the manner in which certain estate assets and the income derived therefrom have been managed following the confirmation of the grant. 14. Accordingly, I find that the appropriate remedy is neither the revocation of the grant nor an order directing the deposit of the disputed income into Court. Instead, the interests of justice will be best served by issuing appropriate directions to ensure that the 2nd Respondent, as the administrator of the estate, diligently completes the administration of the estate in accordance with the confirmed grant, and that the 1st Respondent, as trustee of the immovable properties, faithfully discharges his fiduciary obligations to the beneficiaries. 15. **Consequently, I direct as hereunder:** **a) The grant of Letters of Administration Intestate issued to the 2nd Respondent (Public Trustee) on 31st October 2022 and confirmed on 14th December 2023 shall remain in force.** **b) The 1st Respondent, in his capacity as trustee and life tenant of the immovable properties, shall within thirty (30) days render to the 2nd Respondent (Public Trustee) a full and accurate account of all income received from the estate properties since 14th December 2023, together with details of how such income has been applied.** **c) Upon receipt of the said accounts, the 2nd Respondent (Public Trustee) shall examine the same and, where necessary, require such further information or supporting documents as may be necessary to satisfy itself that the estate has been administered in accordance with the confirmed grant.** **d) The 2nd Respondent (Public Trustee) shall thereafter convene a meeting of all the beneficiaries within sixty (60) days for the purpose of recording and formalising an agreement on the future management, application and accountability of all income generated from the estate properties during the subsistence of the 1st Respondent's life interest.** **e) In the event the beneficiaries fail to reach agreement, the 2nd Respondent (Public Trustee) shall file an appropriate application before this Court seeking directions regarding the management and application of the income generated from the estate properties.** **f) Pending such agreement or further orders of the Court, the 1st Respondent shall continue to hold the estate properties strictly as trustee and shall not alienate, charge, dispose of or otherwise deal with the trust property in a manner inconsistent with the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant.** **g) The 2nd Respondent (Public Trustee) shall continue to supervise the administration of the estate and ensure compliance with the confirmed grant and its statutory obligations under sections 79 and 83 of the Law of Succession Act.** **h) Costs in the cause.** **Dated signed and delivered via video link at Nairobi this** **23rd day of July, 2026.** **H.K. CHEMITEI** **JUDGE, FCIArb.**