https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/12725

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI** **FAMILY DIVISION** **MILIMANI LAW COURTS** **SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. E1566 OF 2021** **IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KIRAGU KAMAU STANLEY JOHN – DECEASED** **ERIC BOBBY MAINA ……………………...……………… 1ST APPLICANT** **ELISABETH WANJIKU NJUGUNA ……………..……… 2ND APPLICANT** **JOSEPH OSORO ……………………….………………….. 3RD APPLICANT** **VERSUS** **DALPHINE KAGWIRA GITONGA ……………………… RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. This succession cause relates to the estate of the **Late Kiragu Stanley John**, who died intestate on 30th July, 2021. 2. Following his demise, Dalphine Kagwiria Gitonga (petitioner) petitioned the Court for a Grant *ad colligenda bona*. On 9th August, 2021, the Court allowed the petition and ordered that the special limited grant be issued in favour of the petitioner, valid for 90 days and limited to collecting and receiving the estate pending issuance of a full grant. The petitioner stated in her petition that she is the widow of the deceased and a beneficiary of his estate, along with Eric Bobby Maina and Tiffany Mawia Munyao, who are the deceased’s children. 3. On 11th August, 2021, Eric Bobby Maina (1st applicant) filed a summons seeking the revocation of the limited grant. In the summons, Eric stated that he is the only surviving beneficiary of his late father’s estate, as both his mother, Priscilla W. Macharia, who was the deceased’s wife, and his brother, Kenneth M. Kiragu, are also deceased. He refuted the claim that Dalphine was the deceased’s widow. He also averred that he was a co-owner with the deceased of several assets that Dalphine had cited as belonging to the estate. 4. The matter was thereafter fixed for *viva voce* hearing of the summons for revocation. The 1st Applicant testified and called two other witnesses. He closed his case on 11th May, 2022. The petitioner’s case is yet to be taken, but two witnesses had testified in her case (petitioner’s). 5. As the matter was pending further hearing, two additional applications were filed seeking revocation of the limited grant. The second application is dated 21st November, 2025, filed by Elisabeth Wanjiku Njuguna (2nd applicant), who states that she is a widow of the deceased and the third application is similarly dated 21st November, 2025 and filed by Joseph Osoro (3rd applicant) who states that he is a son of the deceased. 6. The Court gave directions that the matter proceed from where it had reached and that trial bundles be filed. 7. The present ruling is on two applications filed by the 2nd and 3rd Applicants seeking orders that the matter starts afresh (*de novo*). 8. The second Applicant, in her application dated 16th March 2026, states her desire to cross-examine the witnesses who have testified. The third Applicant’s application, dated 19th March 2026, seeks similar orders, contending that he too did not take part in the earlier proceedings. 9. The petitioner opposed the applications and filed a replying affidavit dated 30th March, 2026. 10. The 1st Applicant is not opposed to the applications for a *de novo* hearing. 11. I have reviewed the applications and the affidavits on record. Although the three applications for revocation all seek the same outcome (revocation of the limited grant), they are filed by three different parties and contain separate claims. Each party is asserting independently and not on behalf of or in conjunction with the others. 12. I have also taken into consideration that the matter has been in Court since 2021, and the parties are still litigating over the limited grant. This Grant does not administer or distribute the estate of the deceased; it is solely focused on collecting and receiving the assets. As such, the substantive succession proceedings for the main Grant in relation to the estate have not yet commenced. 13. I have also considered that, at the point when the 2nd and 3rd Applicants joined the proceedings, the Petitioner’s case had not yet been taken. The 2nd and 3rd Applicants still have an opportunity to present their case before the Petitioner’s case can proceed further. 14. Given the above circumstances, I do not consider it necessary at this stage to commence **de novo.** Such an action would likely result in unnecessary delays in the resolution of the case, which would not serve the interests of justice. No party is prejudiced, as each still has an opportunity to present their case. It is in the best interests of all parties involved to continue with the current proceedings rather than commence de novo. 15. The applications dated 16th March, 2026 and 19th March, 2026 are dismissed. Costs of the two applications shall abide by the outcome of the case. 16. On 3rd February, 2026, leave was granted to the Applicants to file Further Affidavits. As none are on record, the Court exercises its discretion and allows them to file the Further Affidavits, together with any additional documentation, within 21 days. 17. Orders accordingly. **DATED, DELIVERED** and **SIGNED** at **NAIROBI** on this **31ST** day of **JULY, 2026.** **……………………….** **C. KENDAGOR** **JUDGE** **In the presence of:** Court Assistant: Beryl Ms. Nabende Advocate for the Petitioner Ms. Ms. Amwama Advocate for the 1st Applicant Mr. Buluma Advocate for the 2nd Applicant Ms. Korir Advocate for the 3rd Applicant