https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8238
The court declined to revoke the grant at this stage because revocation would not resolve the core controversy on the real beneficiaries of the estate, including whether the late Miriam Ali Chepkoech was a daughter of the deceased and whether the Applicants were grandchildren. Given the death of key family members,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 8238 (KLR)
- Parties
- 1st Applicant: Maimuna Juma Ramadhani; 2nd Applicant: Zeinab Lalubhai Patel; 1st Respondent: Abud Juma Waziri; 2nd Respondent: Fatihiya Juma Abdalla; 3rd Respondent: Haji Abdi Maalim
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 420 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause; Directions on Application for Revocation of Grant / Directions
- Outcome
- Application for immediate revocation declined; matter set for oral hearing with further case-management directions.
- Judges
- ["HK Chemitei"]
- Legal Topics
- Revocation of Grant, Determination of Beneficiaries, Oral Evidence, Accountability by Administrators, Consolidation of Succession Causes, Estate Administration, Disputed Ownership of Estate Property
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Maimuna Juma Ramadhani
1st Applicant
Zeinab Lalubhai Patel
2nd Applicant
Abud Juma Waziri
1st Respondent
Fatihiya Juma Abdalla
2nd Respondent
Haji Abdi Maalim
3rd Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause; Directions on Application for Revocation of Grant / Directions
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the grant should be revoked at this stage
- 2 Who the real beneficiaries of the estate are
- 3 Whether the Applicants are grandchildren of the deceased through the late Miriam Ali Chepkoech
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined to revoke the grant at this stage because revocation would not resolve the core controversy on the real beneficiaries of the estate, including whether the late Miriam Ali Chepkoech was a daughter of the deceased and whether the Applicants were grandchildren. Given the death of key family members, the unresolved ownership and beneficiary issues, and the existence of a related pending succession cause, the court ordered oral hearing, continued administration under the rectified grant, mandatory accounting, and consolidation of the related cause.
Court Disposition
Application for immediate revocation declined; matter set for oral hearing with further case-management directions.
Orders
- The current Administrators shall continue managing the estate under the rectified grant dated 23rd May 2022.
- The Administrators shall provide accounts twice yearly to all beneficiaries and copied to the Court on the management of proceeds from LR No. 209/2111, commencing immediately.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
In re Estate of Salim (Deceased) (Succession Cause 420 of 2001) [2026] KEHC 8238 (KLR) (Family) (11 June 2026) (Directions) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8238 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Family Succession Cause 420 of 2001 HK Chemitei, J June 11, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE FATUMA ALI SALIM (DECEASED) Between Maimuna Juma Ramadhani 1st Applicant Zeinab Lalubhai Patel 2nd Applicant and Abud Juma Waziri 1st Respondent Fatihiya Juma Abdalla 2nd Respondent Haji Abdi Maalim 3rd Respondent Directions 1.The Court has perused the application dated 19th March 2024 by the Applicants seeking raft of orders including the revocation of the grant issued to the 1st and 2nd Respondents. 2.The substance of the application has to do with the deceased property known as LR No. 209/2111. 3.I have perused the replying affidavit by the Respondent sworn on 5th December 2024 and interestingly the said parcel of land is now registered in the names of Said Abud Maalim, Halima Abud Maalim, Haji Abud and Miriam Ali Chepkoech. 4.There is a pending succession cause No. E134 of 2023 in respect to the estate of the late Miriam Ali Chepkoech. 5.The contention by the Respondent in their replying affidavit is that the transfer to the late Miriam Ali Chepkoech so as to be a joint owner of the above parcel of land was suspect and fraudulently undertaken. 6.In my view therefore, there is need first of all to determine who are the real beneficiaries of the estate herein. The Will of the deceased clearly appointed the two Executors who have passed on and much has taken place in the estate. Most of the parties and or children of the deceased have also died. 7.The Court will only arrive at a fair determination if it hears the parties orally. It seems most of them are now the deceased grandchildren. 8.Revoking the grant at this juncture is superfluous noting that it will not resolve the issues of who are the real beneficiaries and specifically whether the late Miriam Ali Chepkoech was indeed the daughter to the deceased and consequently the Applicants are the grandchildren. 9.More importantly is the determination of the succession case No. E134 of 2023 mentioned above as they are intertwined. 10.In the premises I direct that:(a)The current Administrators shall continue carrying out the management of the estate as per the rectified grant dated 23rd May 2022.(b)They shall provide accounts twice in a year to all the beneficiaries and copied to this Court indicating how they have managed the proceeds from the property namely LR NO. 209/2111 and the same to begin immediately.(c)The revocation application herein be heard by way of oral evidence and the parties granted leave to file further affidavits, if need be, within 30 days from the date herein.(d)Succession Cause Number E134 of 2023 be consolidated with this cause for purposes of determination.(e)Costs in the cause, DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA VIDEO LINK AT NAIROBI THIS 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.H K CHEMITEIJUDGE, FCIArb.