https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8391

In re Estate of Mwaura (Deceased) (Succession Cause E004 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 8391 (KLR) (Family) (16 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8391 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nyandarua Family Succession Cause E004 of 2023 KW Kiarie, J June 16, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF: SALOME WANJIRU MWAURA……DECEASED Between Joseph Gitau Mwaura 1st Petitioner Tirus Mwaura Elima 2nd Petitioner and Jemimah Wambui Wafula Objector Ruling 1.Jemimah Wambui Wafula, the objector/applicant herein, moved the court by way of a Notice of Motion dated the 24th day of February 2026. The application is seeking to reinstate the application for revocation dated 30th October 2024, which was dismissed on the 3rd day of February 2026 for want of prosecution. 2.The application was premised on the following grounds:a.That on 3rd February 2026, this honourable court dismissed the applicant's summons for revocation of the grant for want of prosecution.b.That prior to the dismissal, counsel had prepared submissions and instructed a cyber assistant to e-file the same, but was misled into believing that the filing had been successfully affected.c.That on the material date, when the matter was dismissed, counsel experienced technical challenges joining the virtual court session.d.That the failure to prosecute the application was not deliberate but arose from an honest mistake and technical difficulties beyond counsel's control.e.That the applicant is a biological child and beneficiary of the deceased and stands to suffer grave prejudice if locked out of the succession proceedings.f.That the estate is yet to be confirmed, and the matter is scheduled for confirmation, and unless this application is allowed, the estate may be distributed before the applicant’s claim is heard.g.That upon reinstatement, it is necessary that the Applicant be granted leave to amend summons for revocation of grant so as to fully place before this honourable court all issues in dispute, including the validity of the alleged will and the existence of the properties purportedly bequeathed.h.That it is in the interest of justice that the application be allowed. 3.The application was opposed on the following grounds:a.The application is incompetent, and has neither substance nor merit and is just an abuse of the court process.b.The application has been brought with inordinate delay, taking note that the application being sought to be revived was dismissed on the 3rd day of February 2026, and this matter was mentioned on the 2nd day of March 2026 for confirmation of grant, and the instant application had yet to be filed.c.That whereas the applicant attributes the dismissal of her application for revocation of the grant to the fact that she had prepared submissions and gave the same to cyber-personnel to assist with the filing, no evidence has been led in support of this assertion.d.That, moreover, the applicant alleges that after filing her submissions in support of her application for revocation of the grant, she instructed her advocate to hold her brief. In addition to the aforesaid, she attempted to join the court virtually but was not let in. No explanation is given as to whether her advocate was instructed to hold a brief, attend court, or what steps were taken immediately; she failed to log in to the virtual platform.e.That no explanation has been adduced as to why the said firm that drew up the said submissions failed to lodge the same on the online platform. Moreover, court records would bear me witness that it is the same law firm that appeared in court on the 19th day of January 2026 and confirmed the said filing of submissions dated and served on us on the 4th day of February 2026.f.That in the event the applicant seeks to introduce new issues, I verily believe that the court procedure dictates that a fresh application be filed. In any event, the new issue being allegedly sought to be introduced is on the validity of the will, which I believe is an afterthought, and in any event, no grounds have been adduced towards challenging the validity of the will.g.That moreover the instant applicant has approached this court with unclean hands having intermeddled in the affairs of the estate to the extent of utilizing the deceased properties without proper authority or consent from the beneficiaries or administrators of the estate.h.The application dated the 24th day of February 2026, which I believe is incompetent and a sheer waste of the court's scarce resources of time, abusive of court process, scandalous, misconceived, illegal and bad in law and ought to be dismissed with costs to the defendant. 4.Although the respondent has argued that the applicant took a long time to file the application, I do not find this to be the case. The reasons advanced for failure to file submissions and attend court are plausible. 5.This is a matter of succession. To resolve all disputes prior to estate distribution, it is fair to permit the application. This guarantees that no unresolved disputes remain at the distribution stage. The application is therefore allowed. 6.This being a family dispute, each party will bear its own costs. DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT NYANDARUA, THIS 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2026KIARIE WAWERU KIARIEJUDGE