https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10891

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET** **SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. E006 OF 2020** **IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE SHANTILAL PITAMBER JESHANG RADIA (DECEASED)** **RADIA SANJAY SHANTILAL……PETITIONER/1ST ADMINISTRATOR/APPLICANT** **VERSUS** **SUJEET SHANTILAL PITAMBER RADIA.............OBJECTOR-2ND ADMINISTRATOR** **AND** **BHABUBHAI CHAGANBHAI PATEL..................INTERESTED PARTY-RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. This Ruling is in respect to the Objector’s Notice of Motion dated25/08/2025 basically, seeking cancellation of the titles for two parcels of land currently registered in the name of the Interested Party, said to have been excised out of the sub-division of a mother title, which was, at all material times, registered in the name of the deceased whose estate is the subject of these proceedings. 2. I captured the background to this matter in my earlier Ruling rendered on 24/05/2024 by which I permitted the Interested Party to join these proceedings to the limited extent stated therein. I captured the background in the following terms: ***“2. This Succession Cause relates to the estate of the*** ***late Shantilal Pitamber Jeshang Radia who died on 29/07/2018 at the age of 81 years. On 23/10/2020, the Petitioner, in his declared capacity of being the executor of the Will and also a son of the deceased, filed the Petition dated 22/10/2020 seeking Grant of Probate of the Written Will and which Grant was then given on 21/06/2021. According to the Will, the deceased bequeathed his entire estate exclusively to the Petitioner and only should the Petitioner predecease the deceased would the estate then devolve to a grandson and a daughter-in-law of the deceased.*** ***3. However, on*** ***10/08/2021 through Messrs Nyairo & Co. Advocates and before an Application for Confirmation of the Grant could be filed, the Objector, in his capacity as also a son of the deceased, filed Summons seeking revocation of the Grant. The Application also sought*** ***interim conservatory orders restraining the Petitioner from interfering or intermeddling with the estate herein. The grounds of the Summons included the allegation that the Petitioner failed to declare all beneficiaries of the estate, failed to declare that there was already in existence another prior filed Cause relating to the same estate,*** ***namely, Eldoret Chief Magistrates Court Probate & Administration Cause No. 79 of 2019, and that the Will cited by the Petitioner is suspicious and invalid in any case. By the order made on 18/08/2021, the interim conservatory orders restraining the Petitioner from interfering or intermeddling with the estate was granted.*** ***4. On 29/10/2021, the Objector filed a second Summons seeking orders*** ***that the said*** ***Eldoret Chief Magistrates Court Probate & Administration Cause No. 79 of 2019, be transferred to this Court and be consolidated with this instant Cause. This Application, not being opposed, was allowed on 31/01/2021.*** ***5. On 28/06/2022, the Objector filed a third Summons this time seeking orders that the Will be declared a forgery and be invalidated.*** ***6. The aforesaid 1st and 3rd Applications filed by the Objector, namely Summons dated 10/08/2021 and 28/06/2022, respectively, are yet to be heard although by the directions given on 18/07/2022, it was ordered that the two Applications be heard together and by the further directions given on 19/05/2023, it was also ordered that the two be heard by way of viva voce oral evidence.”*** 1. The instant Application dated 25/8/2025 aforesaid, filed through **Messrs Nyairo & Co. Advocates** in more particularized detail, seeks orders as follows: 2. A declaration that the subdivision of **Eldoret Municipality Block 13/762**, the transfer and registration of the resultant land parcel numbers **Eldoret Municipality Block 13/890** and **Eldoret Municipality Block 13/891** in favour of **Bhabubhai Chaganbhai Patel** as the owner amount to intermeddling with the deceased's estate and is null and void. 3. An order for cancellation of all entries made in the register in respect of land parcel numbers **Eldoret Municipality Block 13/890** and **Eldoret Municipality Block 13/891** in favour of **Bhabubhai Chaganbhai Patel**. 4. An order for restitution to restore the registration particulars of land parcel numbers **Eldoret Municipality Block 13/762** in the name of and /or to reflect and/or revert to the name of the deceased, **Shantilal Pitamber Jesang Radia**. 5. Costs of the Application be borne by the Interested party/Respondent. 6. In his Affidavit sworn in support of the Application, the Objector deponed that while filing **Eldoret Chief Magistrates Court Probate & Administration Cause No. 79 of 2019**, in which he applied for Letters of Administration to manage the estate of the deceased, is late father, he listed the parcel of land of **Eldoret Municipality Block 13/762** as one of the properties owned by the deceased for distribution, and in which the Magistrate’s Court issued to him such Letters of Administration. He deponed that the Interested Party, upon getting wind of the said Succession Cause, filed Summons for Revocation dated 28/05/2020 claiming purchaser’s interest over the said parcel of land but which was not prosecuted and subsequently in January 2022, the Cause was transferred to this High Court and consolidated with this instant Cause. He stated that in August 2021, he filed an Application seeking conservatory orders of the assets belonging to the deceased, including the said parcel of land, which orders were granted on 18/08/2021, and which is what prompted the Interested Party to file an Application in September 2023 seeking to be joined to this Cause and for the conservatory orders to be vacated on the ground that they affected his ownership of the parcels of land **Eldoret Municipality Block 13/890** and **Eldoret Municipality Block 13/891** which, the Interested Party claimed to be resultant sub-divisions of the said mother parcel of land of **Eldoret Municipality Block 13/762**. 7. He deponed that this development came as a surprise to him given that he was not aware of the alleged purchase or sub-division since the moment a Succession Cause is filed, the property of the concerned deceased person can only thereafter be transacted upon after distribution by the Succession Court. He thus contended that the sub-division and registration of the resultant parcels of land in the name of the Interested Party after the demise of the deceased amounted to an act of intermeddling with the estate and was fraudulent, and that the Interested Party obtained the orders he relied on in registering the resultant parcels of land by concealing material facts to sanitize his illegal actions. He termed the registration as illegal, null and void considering that, from the documents produced by the Interested Party, the registration was made almost 3 years after demise of the deceased, during subsistence of the injunctive orders issued by this Court on 18/08/2021 in this Cause, which Cause the Interested Party was privy to having filed the Application seeking to revoke the Grant in 2020. He asserted that this Court possesses the power to grant the orders sought. 8. In opposing the Application, the Interested Party, through **Messrs RGO Advocates**, filed the Grounds of Opposition dated 29/09/2025, the Preliminary Objection dated 29/10/2025, and the Replying Affidavit he swore on the same 29/09/2025. In the Grounds of Opposition and Preliminary Objection, it was basically contended that this Court is bereft of jurisdiction to determine ownership of the parcels of land, or to cancel the titles thereof pursuant to establishment of the **Environment and Land Court** and also pursuant to **Articles 162(2)(b)** and **165(5)(b)** of the **Constitution**. 9. In the Replying Affidavit, the Interested Party reiterated the challenge on jurisdiction, and confirmed the sub-division and ownership of the resultant parcels of land. He then deponed further that the sub-division was commissioned by the deceased who filled and executed the necessary documents, and also recited the background to the transaction by deponing that on 23/09/2016, the deceased and himself recorded an Agreement touching on the parcels of land and the sub-division, the gist whereof is that the deceased acknowledged to be indebted to the Interested Party and undertook to settle the debt before 28/02/2017, that it was mutually agreed that the mother parcel of land **Eldoret Municipality Block 13/762** was be sub-divided into 3 portions and 2 thereof were to be registered in favour of the Interested Party as security for the debt, and the deceased would furnish the necessary documents to facilitate transfer of the sub-divisions. He deponed further that, at that time, the mother parcel of land **Eldoret Municipality Block 13/762** was encumbered by a loan facility issued by the Bank of Baroda, that the deceased and the Interested Party also entered into the further Agreement dated 3/10/2016, that the Agreements stipulated that they were binding upon the parties thereto as well as their personal representatives and assigns, and that pursuant thereto, the deceased initiated the sub-division and it was covenanted that the in the event the deceased would fail to settle the debt, the 2 resultant parcels of land would be transferred to the Interested Party. He asserted further that he serviced the loan advanced to the deceased to the tune of Kshs 3,782,785/- to facilitate discharge of the mother parcel of land for purposes of the sub-division, which was then effected in 2016 when the Registry Index Map was amended to reflect the same. He contended further that it was covenanted in the Agreement dated 23/09/2016 that the title documents for the resultant sub-division parcels of land would be released into the custody of **Messrs Morgan Omusundi Law Firm**, and that a Professional Undertaking was then executed by **Messrs Mathai Maina & Co. Advocates** to facilitate registration of the resultant parcels of land in favour of the Interested Party and to be released to **Messrs Morgan Omusundi Law Firm**. He also deponed that the Professional Undertaking was not honoured resulting into filing of **Eldoret ELC Case No. 83 of 2019** seeking enforcement thereof, which case was referred to Mediation resulting into a Partial Settlement Agreement. 1. The Objector then, with leave of the Court, filed the Supplementary Affidavit he swore on 14/11/2023 in which he reiterated that at the time of filing of this Succession Cause, the mother parcel of land **Eldoret Municipality Block 13/762** was still registered in the name of the deceased and that, as such, the transaction conducted thereon amounted to intermeddling. He also asserted that contrary to the Interested Party’s assertions, this Court, by virtue of **Section 43** of the **Law of Succession Act**, is properly seized or empowered to handle any dealings relating to the property and make appropriate orders thereon, including cancellation of a title obtained illegally. He also pointed out that the Interested Party’s own exhibited documents show that communication was made in the month of April 2016, well before the Agreement alleged. He further contended that despite urging that the Agreements bound the personal representatives of the parties’ thereto, the Interested Party did not notify the personal representatives of the deceased of the alleged indebtness of the deceased, and that the Interested Party has also not explained why he abandoned the Objection he filed in the Magistrate’s Court Successioon Cause. **Hearing of the Application** 1. While taking directions on the hearing of the Application, the Petitioner’s Counsel, **Mr. Kihungi**, informed the Court that the Petitioner will not file any response to the Application or file Submissions as he supported the position advanced by the Objector. Nonetheless, I gave all the parties the liberty to file and exchange written Submissions. Pursuant thereto, the Objector-Applicant filed the Submissions dated 14/11/2025, while the Interested Party filed the Submissions dated 17/11/2025. **Objector-Applicant’s Submissions** 1. In respect to jurisdiction, **Ms. Odwa**, Counsel for the Objector, cited **Section 45** of the **Law of Succession Act** which prohibits “***intermeddling***” with the property of a deceased person, which action she accused the Interested Party of since, according to her, the mother parcel of land **Eldoret Municipality Block 13/762** was still registered in the name of the deceased at the time of his death. She also cited **Section 47** and **Rule 73** of the **Probate and Administration Rules**. She then reiterated that the Objector did petition for Grant of Letters of Administration in **Eldoret Chief Magistrate Succession Cause No. 79 of 2019** in which he listed the said mother parcel of land **Eldoret Municipality Block 13/762** as one of the properties of the deceased available fordistribution, which Grant was then issued to the Objector on 24/1/2020, but that the Interested Party, by way of an Objection, contested and applied for its revocation on the basis that he held a purchaser's interest over the mother parcel of land. She submitted that however, the Interested Party quietly abandoned the Objection and in breach of the ***lis pendens*** rule, caused the said mother parcel of land to be sub-divided and the two resultant portions excised out of it, transferred to him, which actions were done on 11/11/2021 when the Succession proceedings were still ongoing, and without the authority or sanction of this Court as the Court mandated in law to deal with the properties of the deceased. 2. Counsel contended that the mere fact that the deceased may have had an agreement with the Interested Party over transfer of the parcels of land did not give him any right to deal with the property as the persons mandated to do so were the Court appointed Legal Representatives, and the least that the Interested Party ought to have done was to either move this Court as he did through the Objection Application and agitate whatever interest he had over the deceased's property as a Creditor to the estate, or to sue the Legal Representatives at the **Environment and Land Court (ELC**) or any other Court to enforce the agreement or recover the amount he lent the deceased, but not to unilaterally deal with the deceased's property as he pleased. Regarding the Interested Party’s argument that the process leading to the transfer in his favour was done by the Court by way of a Partial Mediation Settlement Agreement, Counsel submitted that the only agreement reached therein was for release of the title deed in respect of the mother parcel of land and that **Environment and Land Court Case No. 83 of 2019 (OS)** be withdrawn, and further, that in any event, the Interested Party was not a party to the Mediation proceedings or the said **Eldoret ELC Case No. 83 of 2019(OS**), and no specific order was made allowing him to sub-divide the mother parcel of land and transfer any portion thereof or the resultant parcels to his name. 3. As regards **Eldoret Chief Magistrate’s Court Miscellaneous Application No E108 of 2021**, in which the Interested party sought orders for the Executive Officer of the Court to sign the necessary transfer documents to his name, she pointed out that the Legal Representative of the estate of the deceased were not joined as parties, and also that there is nothing to show that the death of the deceased and the pending Succession Cause were brought to that Court's attention. Counsel therefore asserted that that there was a deliberate effort by the Interested Party to subvert justice as none of the Administrators or beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased were notified of any Court proceedings or transactions involving the parcels of land, and they dare say that were it not for the injunctive order issued by this Court, they shudder to think how far the Interested Party would have dealt with the property. She also cited several authorities in support of the various limbs of her Submissions. **Interested Party’s Submissions** 1. On his part, **Ms. Ogongo**, Counsel for the Interested Party, basically argued the jurisdictional challenge, and submitted that the reliefs sought relate to ownership and registration status of the resultant parcels of land registered in favour of the Interested Party, and as such, those parcels do not form part of the estate of the deceased. He then contended that, should the Court find that it has jurisdiction, still, the sub-division was initiated by the deceased voluntarily, that the Petitioner has all along been aware of the steps the deceased took to cause the properties to be registered in favour of the Interested Party as he was a witness to the transactions, and that his silence as regards the canvassing of the instant Application implies guilt and acknowledges the legitimacy of the transactions. He revisited the issue of jurisdiction and submitted that the authorities relied on by the Objector in respect thereto, are pre-2010 Constitution cases before establishment of the **Environment and Land Court** (**ELC**) in 2012. He, too, cited several authorities in support of the various limbs of his Submissions. **Determination** 1. The issues that call for determination are evidently the following: 2. **Whether this Probate Court possesses the jurisdiction to** **cancel and/or annul, and revert to the estate of the deceased, titles to parcels of land currently registered in the name of the Interested Party but excised from a mother parcel of land owned by the deceased, on the ground that** **sub-division of that mother title and transfer to the Interested Party was irregularly conducted subsequent to the death of the deceased.** 3. **Whether this Court should therefore cancel and/or annul the titles and sub-division, and revert the mother title to the estate of the deceased.** 4. In respect to the need for the Court to first determining whether it has jurisdiction to determine an issue before moving further, the Supreme Court, in the case of [**Samuel Kamau Macharia and Another v. Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & 2 others**](http://resolver.caselaw.kenyalaw.org/resolver/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2012/2) **[2012] eKLR, Application No. 2 of 2011**, held that: **“[68]. A Court’s jurisdiction flows from either the Constitution or legislation or both. Thus, a Court of law can only exercise jurisdiction as conferred by the Constitution or other written law. It cannot arrogate itself jurisdiction exceeding that which is conferred upon it by law.”** 1. That the issue of jurisdiction needs to be determined in priority is therefore not in doubt, Indeed, in the celebrated case of **The Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian’s” -V- Caltex Oil Kenya Ltd [1989] KLR 1**, **Nyarangi J.A**. held as follows: **“…... a question of jurisdiction ought to be raised at the earliest opportunity and the court seized of the matter is then obliged to decide the issue right away on the material before it. Jurisdiction is everything, without it, a court has no power to make one more step. Where a court has no jurisdiction, there would be no basis for continuation of proceedings pending other evidence. A court of law downs tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds that it is without jurisdiction.”** 1. In my said earlier Ruling declining to lift the conservatory orders issued herein, I briefly touched on the jurisdictional question of whether the challenge on the validity of the titles to the parcels of land in question can be determined by this Probate Court, or whether it is a preserve of the **Environment** and **Land Court (ELC)**. In doing so, I commented as follows: ***“23. Regarding the second issue, namely, “whether the conservatory orders should be varied or set aside”, I agree with the Objector’s observation that the Applicant has not explained or demonstrated how he acquired the said properties which were at all material times registered in the name of the deceased. I also note the Objector’s observation that on the face of the evidence presented, the Certificates of Lease for the properties were registered in the name of the Applicant on 11/11/2021, almost 3 years after the demise of the deceased on 29/07/2018. This is not to say that I have not observed that the process of sub-division and issuance of the titles seems to have commenced much earlier and way before the demise of the deceased. However, in the absence of any explanation or documentation at all on how the Applicant acquired the property viz-a-viz the questions raised on the bona fides of the acquisition, I find that it will be unsafe for the Court to lift the conservatory orders at this stage. Lifting the preservatory orders may lead the Applicant to place the properties out of the reach of the Court and the parties herein before the Court makes a conclusive determination on whether indeed the properties are not part of the estate herein and consequently, unavailable for distribution.*** ***24. ……………………………………………………………………………………..*** ***“25. As I pen off, I reiterate my earlier caution that ordinarily, a Succession Court will not delve into making determinations on the legality or otherwise of title deeds relating to properties alleged to comprise the estate of a deceased but claimed by a third party. That is a preserve of the Environment & Land Court (ELC). There are of course acceptable situations under the Law of Succession Act pursuant to which a Succession Court may be entitled to declare the transfer of properties of a deceased person to a third party unlawful and revert the same to the estate of the deceased. One such situation is, for instance, where it is demonstrated that such properties exchanged hands subsequent to the death of the deceased and thus obviously irregularly and therefore amount to intermeddling which is prohibited under Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act. In this case, the question that will arise is; at what point did the Applicant “acquire” the properties? Was it before the demise of the deceased or was it after?*** ***“26. As aforesaid, the reason why this Court has allowed the joinder of the Applicant hereto is because some of the properties alleged to comprise the estate are in fact registered in the name of the Applicant and may therefore not be available for distribution herein. If therefore any party wishes to challenge the registration of the properties in the name of the Applicant when such registration is demonstrated to have occurred before the demise of the deceased, then I believe that the above caution will guide his next step.”*** 1. As observed above therefore, under the **Law of Succession Act**, the High Court has powers to invoke **Section 47** which vests the Court with wide protective powers over a deceased’s estate, along with **Section 45**, which prohibits intermeddling, to cancel or nullify title deeds. Where estate property is found to have been unlawfully transferred, sub-divided, or sold before a Certificate of Confirmation of Grant has been issued, the High Court has the powers to declare such transactions to amount to "***intermeddling***" under **Section 45** and thus void. Invoking **Section 47** donating its inherent jurisdiction, the High Court can then cancel those titles and order the parcels of land to revert to the estate of the deceased. This power is read together with **Sections 26** and **80** of the **Land Registration Act** (**No. 3 of 2012**), which allow for rectification of the Land Register on grounds of fraud, mistake, or illegalities. 2. Regarding “***intermeddling***” with the estate of a deceased person, **Section 45** of the **Law of Succession Act** provides as follows: **(1) Except so far as expressly authorized by this Act, or by any other written law, or by a grant of representation under this Act, no person shall, for any purpose, take possession or dispose of, or otherwise intermeddle with, any free property of a deceased person.** **(2) Any person who contravenes the provisions of this section shall—** **(a) be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand shillings or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding one year or to both such fine and imprisonment; and** **(b) be answerable to the rightful executor or administrator, to the extent of the assets with which he has intermeddled after deducting any payments made in the due course of administration.”** 1. **Gikonyo J**, in the case of **Re Estate of M’Ngarithi M’Miriti [2017] eKLR**, extensively described the phrase “***intermeddling***” in the following terms: **“Whereas there is no specific definition provided by the Act for the term intermeddling, it refers to any act or acts which are done by a person in relation to the free property of the deceased without the authority of any law or grant of representation to do so. The category of the offensive acts is not heretically closed but would certainly include taking possession, or occupation of, disposing of, exchanging, receiving, paying out, distributing, donating, charging or mortgaging, leasing out, interfering with lawful liens or charge or mortgage of the free property of the deceased in contravention of the Law of Succession Act. I should add that any act or acts which will dissipate or diminish or put at risk the free property of the deceased are also acts of intermeddling in law. I reckon that intermeddling with the free property of the deceased is a very serious criminal charge for which the person intermeddling may be convicted and sentenced to imprisonment or fine or both under section 45 of the Law of Succession Act. That is why the law has taken a very firm stance on intermeddling and has clothed the court with wide powers to deal with cases of intermeddling and may issue any appropriate order(s) of protection of the estate against any person.”** 1. **Section 47 and Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules** grant a Succession Court inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the Court process. It is now generally agreed that such powers, read with **Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act,** includes cancellation of title deeds obtained irregularly, or through by fraud from the estate of the deceased before distribution of the estate. This position has been reiterated in many Court cases. For instance, in the case of**Santuzza Bilioti alias Mei Santuzza (Deceased) vs Giancarlo Falasconi (2014) eKLR**, the following was stated: **“……. the succession court has powers to order a title deed to revert to the names of a deceased person. This in effect amounts to cancellation of the title deed. Further, a succession court can order a cancellation of a title deed if a deceased’s property is being fraudulently taken away by non-beneficiaries such as where the property is being sold before a grant is confirmed.”** 1. Further, **Section 82(b)(ii) of the Law of Succession Act** is also clear that **“*no immovable property shall be sold before confirmation of grant*.”** In regard thereto, it was held in the case of **Njoki Gacheru Ndiuni vs** **Dadson Githenji Wahome & 3 Others [2016] eKLR** that: **“The effect of this is that property of a dead person cannot be lawfully dealt with by anybody unless such a person is authorized to do so by law. Such authority emanates from a grant of representation, and any such person who handles estate property without authority is guilty of intermeddling. The law takes a very serious view of intermeddling and makes it a criminal offence.”** 1. It is therefore clear that there would be nothing whatsoever to impede this Court from cancelling or nullifying the impugned title deeds or sub-division challenged herein and revert the land to the estate of the deceased should it find that the titles were irregularly obtained from the estate of the deceased. The Preliminary Objection on jurisdiction therefore fails 2. **The power of the High Court, sitting as a Succession Court, to nullify and/or cancel a title deed and revert land to the estate of the subject deceased person, does not at all conflict with the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court (ELC)**. This is because Kenyan jurisprudence draws a clear distinction between the roles of both Courts based on their core objectives. While the **ELC** holds exclusive jurisdiction over “**land ownership disputes”**, the Succession Court retains wide statutory powers to “**protect and administer the estate**” of a deceased person. 3. Looking at this matter however, I find that there is need to grant the parties an opportunity to canvass at full trial, the issue of validity of the impugned titles, cancellation thereof and reverting of the subject parcels of land to the estate of the deceased. I say so because the manner in which the Interested Party obtained the titles after the death of the deceased requires to be more closely interrogated before a conclusive determination on the matter is made. Land is a very emotive issue in Kenya and it is not advisable to rush to make a far-reaching determination as the one sought herein before the Court makes a conclusive finding on the relevant facts such as the dates and timelines of the sub-division and issuance of the titles. In my view, such determination can only be made after the taking of evidence under oath, and cross-examination thereon to properly test the rival versions given by the parties, which testing can only be sufficiently undertaken at a full trial, not on the basis of mere Affidavits. **Final Orders** 1. In the end, I decline to grant, at this stage, the prayers seeking cancellation and/or nullification of the impugned title deeds as sought in the Objector’s Summons dated 25/08/2025. I however declare and order as follows: 2. It is re-affirmed, for avoidance of doubt, that this Court possesses the jurisdiction and/or powers under the provisions of **Section 47** of the **Law of Succession Act**, as read with **Section 45 and Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules,** to cancel and/or nullify title deeds where parcels of land registered in the name of a deceased person is found to have been unlawfully transferred, sub-divided, or sold, after his death, and before distribution of the estate has been made by the Court, as such transactions amount to "intermeddling" with the estate of a deceased person. 3. However, in this case, determination of whether the titles to the parcels of land number **Eldoret Municipality Block 13/890** and **Eldoret Municipality Block 13/891** currently registered in the name of the Interested Party but which were excised out of the mother parcel of land **Eldoret Municipality Block 13/762** pursuant to a sub-division exercise, and which mother parcel was at all material times registered in the name of the deceased should be cancelled, nullified and reverted to the estate of the deceased herein, shall be subjected to a full ***viva voce*** trial. 4. The Judge handling this matter shall be at liberty to direct whether the above issue of cancellation of titles and reverting of the parcels of land to the estate of the deceased shall be heard and determined alone and/or prior to determination of other pending issues in the case, including distribution, or whether all issues shall be subsumed and canvassed at once in one trial. 5. The preservatory or conservatory or injunctive orders given in this case on 18/08/2021 relating to the parcel number **Eldoret Municipality Block 13/762**, **Eldoret Municipality Block 13/890** and **Eldoret Municipality Block 13/891** shall continue in force until and unless the Court makes other or further orders thereon. 6. The costs of this Application shall be in the Cause. **DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT ELDORET THIS 17TH DAY OF JULY 2026** **………..…………..** **WANANDA JOHN R. ANURO** **JUDGE** **Delivered in the presence of:** | | | | --- | --- | | **Mr. Odwa for the Objector-2nd Administrator-Applicant** | | | **Mr. Munene h/b for Mr. Koech for the 1st Administrator** | | | **Mr. Ogongo for Interested Party** | | | **Mr. Waiyaki h/b for Mr. Muumbi for the Protester** | | | **Court Assistant: Brian Kimathi** | |