In re Estate of Samuel Kiplagat Terer (Succession Cause 328 of 2013) [2026] KEHC 5694 (KLR) (24 April 2026) (Judgment)

In re Estate of Samuel Kiplagat Terer (Succession Cause 328 of 2013) [2026] KEHC 5694 (KLR) (24 April 2026) (Judgment)

The Objector failed to demonstrate that her advocate acted without authority or contrary to her instructions in entering the consent dated 22/06/2021. There was no evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake to warrant setting aside the consent. The consent order is valid and binding, and the estate shall be distributed equally between the two houses as per the consent. The Grant is rectified to include the alias name of the deceased, but not to add new administrators.

Citation
[2026] KEHC 5694 (KLR)
Parties
1st Petitioner: Esther Jepkering Terer; 2nd Petitioner: Lawrence Limoh Kirwa; Objector: Hellen Jebichy Terer
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
24 April 2026
Case Number
Succession Cause 328 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed in part, allowed in part
Legal Topics
Revocation of Grant, Rectification of Grant, Consent Orders, Distribution of Estate, Polygamous Succession
Source Language
English
Succession Law Revocation of Grant Rectification of Grant Consent Orders Distribution of Estate Polygamous Succession

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Esther Jepkering Terer

1st Petitioner

Lawrence Limoh Kirwa

2nd Petitioner

Hellen Jebichy Terer

Objector

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the consent order dated 22/06/2021 should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether the Grant should be revoked or rectified to include additional administrators and alias name
  3. 3 How the estate should be distributed

Ratio Decidendi

The Objector failed to demonstrate that her advocate acted without authority or contrary to her instructions in entering the consent dated 22/06/2021. There was no evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake to warrant setting aside the consent. The consent order is valid and binding, and the estate shall be distributed equally between the two houses as per the consent. The Grant is rectified to include the alias name of the deceased, but not to add new administrators.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed in part, allowed in part

Orders

  • Prayer to set aside the consent order dated 22/06/2021 is disallowed; the consent is upheld as valid and in force.
  • The estate is to be distributed equally between the two houses: 35 acres of arable land and 25 acres of rocky/hilly land to each house.