https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10487

In re Estate of Kimuge (Deceased) (Succession Cause 12 of 2012) [2026] KEHC 10487 (KLR) (14 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10487 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Eldoret Succession Cause 12 of 2012 RN Nyakundi, J July 14, 2026 Between Beatrice Jerono Kibiwot & 2 others Petitioner and Micah Kimaiyo Cherono 1st Objector Benusa Chepkeitany Cheserem 2nd Objector Gladys J Cherono 3rd Objector Ruling Background 1.This Succession Cause was initiated before the CM’s Court at Eldoret on 23rd day of November 2016. Thereafter a grant of letters of administration intestate estate was issue in 6th day of June 2017 with the following declarations:Be It Known That on the 6th Day of June 2017 Letters of Administration intestate of all the Estate of Taprantich Kimuge Cherono (Deceased) late of Kaptik Location, Uasin Gishu County who died domiciled in Kenya on the 9th July 2015 at Moi Teaching &Referral Hospital which by law devolves to and vests in his personal representative were granted by this Court to Beatrice Jebiwott Cherono Of P. O Box 59, Moiben who having undertaken faithfully to administer such Estate according to law and to render a just and true account thereof whenever required by law so to do. 2.This grant was finally confirmed on 25th April 2018 through a certificate of confirmation of grant which declared as follows:I, hereby certify that the above-written grant of representation to the estate of the late Taprantich Kimuge Cherono Issued To Beatrice Jebiwot Cherono therein named has this 24TH day of APRIL 2018 been confirmed by this Court pursuant to the provisions of section 71 (1) and (3) of the Law of Succession Act. Dated at Eldoret this 25th day of April 2018. No. Name Discription Of Property Share Of Heirs Beatrice Jebiwot CheronoCherono Winnie Jebet AndEvanskipkoechcherono Meibeki/meibeki Block5(meibeki) /141 Jointly In Equal Shares Beatrice Jebiwot CheronoCherono Winnie Jebet AndEvanskipkoechcherono Sasitwa Farm Plot No.101 Jointly In Equal SharesHon N. WairimuDistrict Registrar 3.Before the ink on the certificate of confirmation of grant would dry up the High Court was moved by way of summons of revocation or annulment of grant under Section 76 of Law of Succession Act and Rule 44 P&A Rule by the objector Micah Kimaiyo Cherono seeking the following orders that the certificate of confirmation of grant made on 6th June 2017 be revoked/annulled on following grounds:a.Spentb.That the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance.c.That the Petitioner/respondents herein be and hereby restrained from intermeddling with the estate of the deceased by wasting, subdividing, ploughing, cultivating planted or selling the proceeds on LR NO. Meibeki/Meibeki Block 5 (Meibeki) 141 Sasitwo Farm Plot No. 10, Plot No101.d.That the Petitioners under a false representation and fraudulently presented documents of birth alleging to be children of the deceased which is false.e.That the estate be preserved and proceeds from or emanating from the estate including maize planted on Meibeki/Meibeki Block 5. (Meibeki) 141 Plot No.10, Plot No 101, be put in a common joint account awaiting the hearing and determination of this objection and distribution of the estate of the deceased by this honourable Court.f.That the respondents be and hereby condemned to pay costs of this application. 3.The application is based on the following grounds:a.The grant was obtained by making a false statement and concealment from the Court of some material fact in the case.b.That the Petitioner and the listed beneficiaries are not her or children of the deceased.c.That the Petitioner did not disclose the real and correct beneficiaries.d.That the Petitioner and other strangers are middling with the estate of the deceased.e.That letter from the area chief is not truthful.f.That the grant of letters of administration issued on 6th June, 2017 is obtained after the Petitioner made false representation and false statement. 4.In support of the application is an affidavit sworn by Micah Kimaiyo Cherono who deponed as follows:a.That I am the applicant/objector herein male adult individual of sound mind hence competent to swear this affidavit.b.That the above named Taprandich Kimuge Cherono died in the year 2015 and the said grant of letters of administration intestate made to; i) Beatrice Jebiwott ii) On the 6th June, 2017 by this honourable Court Annexure Marked MKC I obtained after false representation to the Court.c.That the said proceedings were defective in substance in that there was no consent and involvement of the beneficiaries and dependants of the deceasedd.That the Applicants intend to demonstrate that the Petitioners are not daughters of the late Taprandich Kimuge Cherono as alleged and the said birth certificates are fraudulently obtained after tendering false information.e.That the Petitioners intend to lock out the Objectors from this succession cause.f.That the deceased left behind the Objectors as the beneficiaries.g.That the Petitioners do not live on the parcel of land Meibeki/Meibeki Block 5 (Meibeki) 141 registered in the name of the deceased.h.That the Petitioners are long married and live in their properties elsewhere and therefore cannot claim the estate of the deceased.i.That the mother of the Petitioner Beatrice Jebiwott and Winnie Jeptanui is Petaline Karia daughter of Mwalimu Arap Robin and she is alive even their father.j.That they are not entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased because their relationship is not near than me and the other Objectors.k.That the said Evans Koech also is not entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased since he is also a stranger and his mother is Esther Jeptum and she is alive.l.That the deceased is my step mother and she had no children and there were no proceedings whatsoever adopting the Petitioner and the purported beneficiaries.m.That the birth certificates are all forgeries and I am praying the area chief Meibeki and the assistant chief one Charles Kibet and Paul K. Kiplagat be summoned to come and explain why they lied and wrote a letter saying the alleged beneficiaries are the children of the deceased yet they are very much aware that they are not the children of Taprandich Kimuge Cherono (deceased).n.That I am also praying that the registrar of births to be summoned to explain under what circumstance did he give them birth certificates even when the said Taprandich K.Cherono had passed on.o.That the farm proceeds/produce be harvested and put in a common account awaiting the determination of this case.p.That I and Harun A.K.E. Kenei have been very close to the deceased.q.That Harun A.K.E. Kenei is the one who has been taking care of Taprandich Kimuge Cherono until she passing on.r.That he used also to farm the parcels of land LR NO. Meibeki/Meibeki Block5 (meibeki)141 partly for himself until 2016.s.That the parents of the Petitioner and the alleged beneficiaries Winnie and Evans be summoned to Court to attest to their parental aspects.t.That the grant of letters of administration issued on 6th June,2016 be revoked/cancelled and in its place my name be replaced as the Petitioner.u.That the deceased left behind the following assets. i) Meibeki/Meibeki Block 5 (Meibeki)141 ii) Sasitwa Farm Plot No. 10 had been long sold to Harun AK.E. Kenei.v.That the Petitioners are not daughters and son of the late Taprandich Kimuge Cherono and the said birth certificates are not genuine.w.That it is therefore imperative that the grant be revoked/annulled and a fresh grant be issued to the right beneficiaries that is me. 5.The litigation did not stop there as evidenced by Notice of Motion expressed to be brought under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 and Section 70 of the Law of Succession Act Cap 160 Laws of Kenya and all other enabling provisions of the law. The Applicant seeks the following orders:a.Spent.b.That this honourable Court be pleased to order that the Respondent Beatrice Jebiwot, Winnie Jebet and Evans Kipkoech Cherono and other named beneficiaries of the estate Taprandich Kimuge Cherono deceased be investigated on the false allegation that they are the children of deceased.c.That the application be served upon the OCS Naiberi Police Station where the complaint was lodged for investigation and to file the report in Court. 6.The application is grounded on the following grounds:a.That the Respondent and the purported beneficiaries have forged documents namely birth certificates purporting to be the children of the deceased Taprandich Kimuge Cherono.b.That the complaint has been reported to Naiberi Police Station and investigation is on-going.c.That the applicant and other persons have recorded statements with the police.d.That the respondent and the other purported beneficiaries of the estate of Taprandich Kimuge Cherono (deceased) have their parents a life.e.That it is prudent if the police report is filed and cross examination be done to establish the whole truth.f.That if the said Beatrice Cherono is cross examined only on her own affidavit the whole truth may not be established.g.That the Respondent will not suffer any prejudice if this application is allowed. 7.The application is supported by affidavits sworn by several individuals. First is Micah Kimaiyo Cherono who deponed as follows:a.That I am 1st applicant herein hence competent to swear this affidavit.b.That I have decided that truth on this matter has to be established.c.That since the Respondent and the other purported beneficiaries have their parents-a life I have decided to report the issue to the Police for investigation.d.That I am praying that the police do investigate and bring a report to this honourable Court to arrive at a fair judgement where all facts have been brought to Court.e.That Naiberi Police Station is with the matter and the number of occurrence book is OB/08/26/06/2018. Annexure herein are the Birth Certificates & Chiefs Letter Marked MKC AA.f.That I have recorded my statement and a number of others who are well aware of all circumstance.g.That I am praying that the cross-examination of the Respondent Beatrice Jebiwott be done when the report from the Police is availed in Court. 8.The second is Benusa J. Cheserem stated as follows:a.That I am one of the Objector/Applicant herein hence competent to swear this affidavit in support of the application that the orders issued on 6th June, 2017 and the confirmation of grant issued on 24th April, 2018 be revoked.b.That I have read and was explained of the affidavit of Beatrice Jebiwott sworn on 21st May, 2018 and do hereby state that the said Beatrice Jebiwott did not say the truth and she is not born of Taprandich Kimuge Cherono deceased hence she is committing perjury and she should be punished for that.c.That the said Beatrice Jebiwott is the Petitioner in the Eldoret Chief Magistrate Court Succession Cause No. 345 of 2016 and Winnie Jebet her sister and one Evans Kipkoech Cherono named as beneficiaries.d.That as I stated earlier that Beatrice and Winnie Cherono are sister and they have parents and now they stay with their mother Petaline Karia and Evans Kipkoech’s Mother is Esther Jeptum and I know them.e.That I further state that the said Taprandich Kimuge Cherono (deceased) was married to Cherono Kipsholum Chepkun (deceased) and she was not blessed with any child.f.That I now proceed to name the brothers and sisters of Taprandich Kimuge Cherono (deceased) who died when she was over 80 years of age.a.Brothers i) Morris Robin Chelanga (deceased) ii) Rotich Kipkoskos Chelanga (timtimor) (a life)b.Sisters i) Kimoi Chelanga Chepkieny (deceased) ii) Kimoi Chelanga Kenei (deceased) iii) Kimoi Chelanga - Kop Jeruto (deceased)g.That Kimoi Kenei Chelanga was my mother and the mother of Harun A.K.E. Kenei we Applicants herein among others.h.That I now proceed to name the children of the brothers and sisters to make this issue very clear.a.Children Of Kimoi Kenei Chelanga i) John Ego Kenei ii) Constantine Kenei iii) Joseph Cheruyot Kenei iv) Harung A.K.E Kenei - Applicant v) Mary Kenei vi) Benusa J. Kenei (Me) Applicant vii) Andrew Kenei viii) Salina Keneib.Children Of Kiborus Robin Chelanga (Deceased) i) Elijah Kiborus ii) Joseph Kiplagat Kiborus iii) Esther Kiborus iv) Annah Kiborus v) Jethro Kiborus vi) Petaline Jepkemoi Karia Kiborus (mother to Beatrice Jebiwott & Winnie Jebet)c.Children Of Kimoi Chelanga Chepkiyeny (deceased) i) Irene Chepkieny ii) Lenah Chepkieny iii) Kimutai Chepkienyd.Children Of Kimoi Chelanga (Kop Jeruto) i) Cosma Cheptum ii) Joseph Cheptum iii) Mary Cheptum iv) Esther Cheptum (mother to Evans Kipkoech) v) Philip Cheptumi.That the above information is the truth and Taprandich Kimuge Cherono (deceased) has a surving brother though he is now very old is one Rotich Kipkosgei Chelanga and he can be called to Court to testify.j.That when Beatrice Jebiwott swears that they are the children of Taprandich Kimuge Cherono (deceased) then she is lying.k.That what I know is that when I was married away since I was staying with them and got married while in that home of cherono then distant great grant children came to help her including Beatrice and Evans who came much later when Taprandich Cherono were very old.l.That the birth certificates are forgeries and not genuine and must be investigated and still cannot make them the children of Taprandich Kimuge Cherono or Cherono Kipsholum Chepkun both (deceased)m.That the said Cherono Kipsholum Chepkun was having other wives and are mother to the other Applicants Micah Kimaiyo Cherono, Salina Jepkosgei Kiprotich, Rebecca Jerotich Cherono and Gladys J. Cherono who equally stayed with Taprandich K. Cherono and her husband Cherono Chepkun both (deceased).n.That I wish to further states that the person who really took care of the said Taprandich Kimuge Cherono until her demise as their own child was Harun A.K.E. Kenei.o.That he paid all the medical bills in Eldoret and in Nairobi and this is the truth of the matter and non is objecting to this fact.p.That the property of Taprandich Kimuge Cherono accordingly to the Marakwet customs and traditions must be inherited by cherono’s family including Micah Kimaiyo Cherono and his sisters and others but will accept what the Court will say. 9.The third one is Harun A.k.e. Kenei who stated as follows:a.That I am the 2nd Objector/applicant hence competent to swear this affidavit.b.That i wish to state strongly that the said Beatrice Jebiwot and Winnie Jebet and Evans Kipkoech Cherono are not the children of Taprandich Kimuge Cherono (deceased) as I had earlier stated in my supporting affidavit sworn on 3rd August, 2017.c.That the birth certificates showing that their mother was Taprandich Kimuge Cherono and Cherono Kipsholim Chekun are all forgeries and needs to be investigated.d.That the letter of the respondent marked BJC (2) stating that the late Taprandich Kimuge Cherono left; i) Beatrice Jebiwot Cherono ii) Cherono Winnie Jebet and iii) Evans Kipkoech Cherono written by the office of the chief is false.e.That the said Beatrice Jebiwot needs to be investigated for swearing false affidavit that she and the other listed beneficiaries are the children of Taprandcih Kimuge Cherono which is false misrepresentation indeed.f.That I do hereby attach the affidavits of Philip Kipruto Chepkun and Joseph Chemoiywo Koilege who knows the family and the respondents.g.That I am in agreement with the contents and all that is stated in the further affidavit of Benusa J. Cheserem. 10.The fourth one is Joseph Chemoiywo Koilege who stated as hereunder:a.That I am a male adult of sound mind hence competent to swear this affidavit.b.That I was born in the year 1949 at Simbewet in Marakwet.c.That my mother was sister to Cherono Kipsolim Chepkun and all have passed on.d.That later on I come to live in our farm at Kaptick Village where Mzee Cherono Chepkun had also land and he was with his family.e.That I know very well that Taprandich Kimuge Cherono was not blessed with a child until her demise in 2015 and therefore anybody claiming born of her is a lie.f.That I was schooling with Petaline Jepkemoi Karia Kiborus the mother of Beatrice Jebiwot and Winnie Jebet and she was neither born by Taprandich Kimuge Cherono nor Evans Kipkoech.g.That I wish to state that before I came to Kaptick farm I lived together with Taprandich Kimuge Cherono and Cherono Kipsolim Chepkun in Simbewet.h.That I stayed with them for more than fifteen (15) years hence I knew them very well.i.That I am ready to come and testify in Court of the truth. 11.The fifth one is Philip Kipruto Chepkun stated as hereunder.a.That I am a male adult of sound mind hence competent to swear this affidavit.b.That I am the brother of the late Cherono Kipsolim Chepkun who married Taprandich Kimuge Cherono in 1946 as his first wife.c.That they were not blessed with any child hence Taprandich Kimuge Cherono (deceased) had no child until she passed on in 2015.d.That I know my brother purchased the land in 1960s plot no. 141 Meibeki.e.That I am making this affidavit that Beatrice Jebiwott and Winnie Jebet are sisters and their mother is Petaline Karia and she is a life and they are not the children of Taprandich K. Cherono deceased.f.That Evans Kipkoech’s mother is Esther Cheptum and she is a life.g.That I am ready to come and testify on this issue when called. 12.The sixth one is MICAH KIMAIYO who deponed as follows:a.That I am the 1st Objector/Applicant herein hence competent to swear this affidavit.b.That in support to my earlier affidavit sworn on 3rd August, 2017 I further wish to make this affidavit and state very strongly that the respondent herein Beatrice Jebiwot Cherono has sworn false affidavit on 21st May, 2018.c.That in the said replying affidavit on paragraph 4 it is stated that the deceased herein Taprandich Kimuge Cherono was their mother and died leaving the following children; i) Beatrice Jebiwott Cherono ii) Evans Kipkoech Cherono iii) Winnie Jebet Cheronod.That I hereby still repeat and state strongly that Taprandich Kimuge Cherono had no children since she was not blessed with any child in her life time and the respondent has sworn a false affidavit and she needs to be investigated.e.That Beatrice Jebiwott and Winnie Jebet are sisters and they have their parents who are alive and kicking and right now they stay with their mother one Petaline Karia hence they should not claim any property from the estate of Taprandich Kimuge Cherono (deceased) whom I stayed with her even at her demise I stayed with her as my step mother.f.That the birth certificates annexed with their affidavit are all obtained fraudulently and needs to be investigated and the concern summoned to this honourable Court including the chief who wrote a letter lying that the deceased Taprandich Kimuge Cherono had children.g.That Evans Kipkoech Cherono came much later as a distant relative to help the ageing Taprandich K. Cherono hence he cannot purport to be the child of the deceased Taprandich Cherono.h.That the Respondents herein with their husbands threaten every person including the beneficiaries and even turning violent and they have assaulted me and I was almost dying since they want to take the land by force and annexure is the medical report marked MKC (AA).i.That there is no way Beatrice registers birth certificate on 6/10/2015 long after the death of Taprandich Kimuge Cherono who passed on, on 9th July, 2015 and Cherono Kipsholum Chepkun passed on in the year 2013.j.That Winnie Jebet Cherono birth certificate obtained on 3rd April, 2012 is not genuine since by then the said Winnie was married and employed as a teacher hence all are calculated to falsify documents and for the purposes of obtaining letters of administration concerning the genuine beneficiaries.k.That the certificate of birth of Evans Kipkoech Cherono shows he was born in Iten District Hospital hence there must be documents showing the parents and the same needs to be called including the registration of births Elgeiyo Marakwet County to shade light on this issue of birth certificates.l.That the parents of Evans are a life and kicking and her mother is Esther Cheptum and is a life.m.That the issues of inheritance on succession matters are clear and those entitled to the portion of the properties of the deceased person in the absence of children in respect of the family tree should be followed, a fact given to me by my advocates which fact I verily belief to be true.n.That the deceased had sisters and brothers whom some of them are still a life.o.That I am praying that the concerned including those family members who know the history and the life of the deceased and her husband be called to came and give evidence for the fairness and justice to be arrived at. 13.The Court presided over by Sewe J on 16th July 209 pronounced itself as following on the notice of motion dated 17th July 2018:a.Thus, having given due consideration to the application, the Supporting Affidavit and the written submissions filed by the Applicant’s Counsel, there is no gainsaying that serious allegations of forgery have been made herein against the Respondent, namely, that she fraudulentlyb.obtained Grant of Letters of Administration Intestate in respect of the estate of the deceased, Taprandich Kimuge. The Applicants have further demonstrated that a complaint to that effect was filed at Naiberi Police Station for investigations. All they now seek before their application for revocation of grant can be disposed of is that the police report on the result of investigations into their complaint be made to the Court.c.In the result, I find merit in the application and would allow it with no order as to costs. It is ordered therefore that.a.The OCS Naiberi Police Station be and is hereby ordered to file herein his report in respect of the outcome of the investigations carried out into the complaint filed by the Applicants against the Respondent in respect of the administration of the estate of the late Taprandich Kimuge;b.The said report to be filed within 15 days from the date hereof. 14.From this decision, an application for revocation of grant is yet to be disposed off by any competent Court. This Court has not been given any reasons as to why subsequent applications as enumerated herein below were initiated by the Applicants seeking divergent orders in contravention of the final judgment by the learned trial Magistrate in the adjudicatory process before the subordinate court. As can be appreciated from the orders being sought and the affidavit evidence in support there were issues of locus standi and subject matter in which the High Court lacked the requisite jurisdiction. First in this sequence is a motion dated 21st February 2025 which was expressed to be brought under Section 1A, 3, 3A and 63 of the CPA 2010 Rule 3 and 7 of the CPR, Section 19(1) of the ELCA and all other enabling provisions of the law seeking the following orders:a.The orders of 13/02/2025 dismissing the Plaintiff’s suit be set aside and the suit be re-instated for hearing on merit.b.The Objectors be and are hereby granted an opportunity to tender his evidence and submissions.c.Costs be in the cause. 15.Upon the grounds that:a.The Petitioner’s and Objectors’ advocates were both not in Court on 23/1/2025 when the matter was mentioned and a hearing date given.b.The both the Petitioner’s and Objectors’ Counsels were not in Court on 13/2/2025 when the matter was called for hearing.c.Counsel for the Objectors together with the Objectors arrived soon after the dismissal ready to proceed with the matter.d.The Objectors have a good claim with high chances of success and should be given an opportunity to be heard.e.The absence of the Objectors’ counsel was not occasioned by the Objectors and should not be used to punish them.f.The Petitioner shall not be prejudiced in any way if the Objectors are heard on merit and in any case the Petitioner’s advocate shall be granted an opportunity to cross-examine the Objectors in the hearing thereof. 16.The application is supported by the annexed affidavit of Micah Kimaiyo Cherono who deponed as follows:a.That I am the 1st Objector herein and I am well aware of the suit before this honourable Court and therefore competent to swear this affidavit.b.That I was informed by my advocate that on 23/1/2025 this suit was scheduled for hearing on 13/2/2025.c.That on that particular day when the suit was dismissed, I together with the other Objectors herein visited the advocate’s offices and we were ready to prosecute the matter, my advocate sent his office clerk to look for an advocate to inform Court that he was ready to proceed and to ask for time allocation.d.That I am informed by my advocate that unfortunately, the said clerk arrived in Court a bit late when the matter had been mentioned and dismissed for non-attendance.e.That when we arrived in Court together with my advocate, we were informed by the clerk that the matter had been dismissed for non-attendance.f.That non-attendance on our part together with our counsel was not deliberate as he had sent his clerk well in advance to attend Court and inform Court that we were ready to prosecute the matter.g.That our non-attendance was not deliberate.h.That I am desirous of proceeding with this suit expeditiously.i.That I am aware that I have a strong and meritorious case against the Petitioner and further that no prejudice will be suffered by the Petitioner if the suit is reinstated.j.That the suit is a family succession matter and therefore, it should be allowed to proceed as it raises serious and triable issues which can only be determined if the dismissal order is set aside.k.That we have approached the Court with clean hands and that any delay caused was not deliberately meant to delay the trial or otherwise obstruct the case.l.That mistake of an advocate ought not to be visited upon an innocent client.m.That we stand to suffer great prejudice, financial hardship and exposure to unnecessary detriment, a denial to access to justice and their right to have this dispute that can be resolved by allowing the reinstatement of the suit for purposes of hearing being heard on merit.n.That the Petitioner shall not be prejudiced should this application be reinstated. 17.The beneficiaries and Administrators in this estate continue filing multiple applications outside the decision of the Magistrate’s Court in which the original proceedings were initiated for identification of the beneficiaries and the net estate as evidenced by this latest motion herein under; 18.Whereas in the same scope of litigation is a Notice of Motion dated 23rd day of February 2026, expressed to be brought under Order 40 Rule 1, Order 51 Rule 1 and 4 Of Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Chapter 21 Laws of Kenya, and all other enabling provisions of the law. The Applicant seeks the following orders:a.Spent.b.That this honourable Court do issue temporary injunction restraining the Respondents either by themselves or through their agents, servants or anyone acting on their authority from digging, planting cultivating and/or in any way interfering with the suit parcels NO.’s Meibeki/meibeki/ Block 5(meibeki) 141 Measuring Approximately 10 Acres And Sositwo Farm Plot No. 10 measuring approximately 5.5 acres pending hearing of this application inter parties.c.That this honourable Court do issue temporary injunction restraining the Respondents either by themselves or through their agents, servants or anyone acting on their authority from digging, planting cultivating and/or in any way interfering with the suit Plot No.’s Meibeki/meibeki/ Block 5(meibeki) 141 Measuring Approximately 10 Acres And Sositwo Farm Plot No. 10 measuring approximately 5.5 acres pending hearing of this objection cause.d.That costs be in the cause. 19.The application is anchored on the following grounds: -a.That the respondents are in the process of digging the suit parcel in preparation for planting this season.b.That the Applicants stand to suffer great loss and damage.c.That this matter is yet to be fully heard and determined on merit.d.That no prejudice will be suffered by the Respondents should the orders sought be granted.e.That this application has been made in good faith. 20.The Application is supported by the annexed affidavit of Micah Kimaiyo Cherono who deponed as follows:a.That I am a male adult of sound mind and one of the Objectors /Applicants herein, hence competent and duly authorized to swear this affidavitb.That the succession cause is still pending before the honourable Court and we are ready for hearing by way of viva-voce evidence.c.That the Petitioners /Respondents have started preparing the disputed parcels of land known as Plot No.’s Meibeki/Meibeki/ Block 5(meibeki) 141 Measuring Approximately 10 Acres And Sositwo Farm Plot No. 10 measuring approximately 5.5 acres for planting without any consent from the Objectors / Applicants. (annexed are the copies of the photograph marked MKC II (a), (b) and (c)).d.That unless the Petitioners /Respondents together with their agents, servants or anyone acting on their authority are restrained from preparing, digging, planting, cultivating and /or in any way interfering with the suit parcel, the Applicants shall suffer great loss and damage.e.That an order of injunction is very necessary at this juncture so as to enable parties maintain the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the objection.f.That I and the other Applicants are at a great loss in that the Respondents are taking advantage of the objection still pending to defeat justice.g.That nobody shall be prejudiced if the application is allowed as prayed.h.That the application is in respect to the 15.5 acres within Plot No’s. Meibeki/Meibeki/ Block 5(Meibeki) 141 measuring approximately 10 acres and Sositwo Farm Plot No. 10 measuring approximately 5.5 acres.i.That this application is made in good faith for justice and fairness to prevail.j.That it is my humble submission the instant application be allowed as prayed. 21.Notice of Preliminary Objection:a.That the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application and grant the orders sought.b.That the application offends provisions of Section 82 of the Law of Succession Act as observed in Makueni High Court Succession No. 103 of 2017 involving the estate of Mathew Mulavu Musyimi between Millicent Mbatha Mulavu and Another versus Annah Nunge Mulavu & others In Mks HC Succ. Cause No. 80 of 2011; and in Alexander Mutunga Wathome -Vs- Peter Lavu Tumbo & Anor (20150 eKLR, the Court stated as follows;“In law, one can only represent the estate of the deceased person when a grant of representation has been made in respect of the estate of such deceased person under the Law of Succession Act. In addition, Section 82 of the Law of Succession Act provides that it is the personal representative who has the powers to enforce, by suit or otherwise, all causes of action which by virtue of any law survive the deceased. A personal representative is defined under section 3 of the Act as the executor or Administrator, as the case may be, of a deceased person. The Applicant has in this respect not produced evidence to show that he has been given such a grant of representation with respect to the 2nd protestor's estate and cannot therefore be substituted in the place of the 2nd protestor”.c.That the Applicants lack locus standi to institute proceedings on behalf of the estate of Taprandich Kimuge.d.That the Applicants have not met conditions for granting of orders of injunction. Decision 22.This Court has traced the history of this litigation which was commenced way back before the Magistrate’s Court on 23rd November 2016 and the petition on the succession cause was appropriately gazetted on 13th April 2017 as Cause No. 345 of 2016. The primary Court at the time proceeded in earnest to issue a grant of letters of administration intestate dated 6th June 2017. As the law obligates probate Courts to comply with the timelines on confirmation of grant as at 25th April 2018 a certificate of confirmation of grant was duly issued detailing the identification of the beneficiaries and the net estate survived of the deceased which was declared to be shared jointly in equal shares. 23.It is apparent that one Micah Kimaiyo Cherono moved the Court on 3rd August 2017 seeking revocation/annulment of grant of letters of administration issued to the Petitioner. The record is crystal clear that the proceeding on revocation of grant seems to have been filed earlier before even the certificate of confirmation of grant came into existence. However, the same High Court record shows that another application was placed before Olga Sewe J as she then was which predominantly focused on allegations of forgery which demanded for a Court order directing the investigative agencies of Naiberi Police Station to proceed within their mandate to investigate complain in respect of the administration of the estate of the late Taprantich Kimuge. In the same ruling the said report was to be filed within 15 days from the date of the ruling which is indicated as 15th July 2019. This is July 2026, I have scrutinized the record of the High Court Succession Cause No. 12 of 2017 and I find no material evidence that the orders of the session Judge Olga Sewe J as she then was were ever complied with by the parties. The decision by the Judge coordinate also did not determine the summons for revocation on the merits and in her own words she pronounced herself as follows: That all they now seek before the application for revocation of grant can be disposed of is that the police report of the result of investigation into their compliant be made to the Court. 24.In my considered view this litigation is an abuse of the Court process and I think litigants should be penalized for filing multiple or successive applications for the same relief which is an abuse of the judicial process. The Court views this as a frivolous tactic to delay execution, bypass final judgments and harass the opposing party, routinely dismissing such pleas should attract exemplary costs. The Applicants in this matter before the High Court continued to file repeated miscellaneous applications to modify or recall a final judgment duly issued by a competent Court dated 25th April 2018. This certificate of confirmation of grant has never been revoked or set aside under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. It is still the final judgment in the matter of the estate of Taprantich Kimuge Cherono (deceased). The legal position thus, is that if the interlocutory application is filed with intent to deceive the Court or one made with an intention to defraud, the same would be contempt on the face of the record as it is meant to interfere with the administration of justice. 25.If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs., (1917) 1 KB 486: 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA) is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and "clean breast" cannot hold a writ of the Court with "soiled hands". Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the Court, the Court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the Court does not reject the petition on that ground, the Court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court." 26.The second limb of the submissions by the Applicants is whether in the absence of an order or decision on the merits on revocation or annulment of the certificate of confirmation of grant issued by the CM’s Court dated 25th April 2018, this Court would be seized of jurisdiction to entertain any dispute arising from Succession Cause No. 345 of 2016. The answer to me is in the negative. Now it is well settled that a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. 27.It cannot be gainsaid that every litigant approaching the Court seeking justice is expected to make full and correct disclosure of material facts and that every advocate being an Officer of the Court, though appearing for a particular party, is expected to assist the Court fairly in carrying out its function to administer the justice. It hardly needs to be emphasized that a very high standard of professionalism and legal acumen is expected from the advocates of the High Court as provided for under Art 50(2) (g)(h) of the Constitution. The prayers in the present Succession Cause No. 12 of 2017 in any of the application filed should have arisen unless the Applicants move the Court on appeal or for any other reason for the High Court to assume both personal and subject matter jurisdiction. That is what John Beecroft Saunders in his treatise Words and Phrases Legally defined Vol. 3, at page 113 reiterates the latter definition of the term ‘jurisdiction’ as follows:“By jurisdiction is meant the authority which a Court has to decide matters that are litigated before it or to take cognisance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. The limits of this authority are imposed by the statute, charter or commission under which the Court is constituted, and may be extended or restricted by like means. If no restriction or limit is imposed, the jurisdiction is said to be unlimited. A limitation may be either as to the kind and nature of the actions and matters of which the particular Court has cognizance or as to the area over which the jurisdiction shall extend, or it may partake both these characteristics…. Where a Court takes upon itself to exercise a jurisdiction which it does not possess, its decision amounts to nothing. Jurisdiction must be acquired before judgment is given”. 28.Similarly, the seminal cases on this subject matter clearly being in Phoenix of E.A. Assurance Company Limited v S. M. Thiga t/a Newspaper Service [2019] KECA 767 (KLR) the Court of Appeal held as follows:“Jurisdiction is primordial in every suit. It has to be there when the suit is filed in the first place. If a suit is filed without jurisdiction, the only remedy is to withdraw it and file a complaint one in the Court seized of jurisdiction. A suit filed devoid of jurisdiction is dead on arrival and cannot be remedied. Without jurisdiction, the Court cannot confer jurisdiction to itself… In another locus classicus in this subject, this Court pronounced; Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd. (1989):“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 a continuation of proceedings pending other evidence. A Court of law downs its tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction….Where a Court takes it upon itself to exercise jurisdiction which it does not possess, its decision amounts to nothing. Jurisdiction must be acquired before judgement is given.” 29.Based on the above analysis, this Court cannot answer the Objector’s grievances on directing the criminal investigations to be commenced by the National Police Service as under Art 244 as read with 245 of the Constitution. It is a process which is well defined in law on how an aggrieved victim on an offence which has been committed can initiate the process and it is to run independently unless the Court seized of jurisdiction holds a strong view that under the doctrine of necessity there is need to invite another constitutional organ to shed lights in some issues so as to meet the end of justice. The jurisdiction of a Probate Court is to identify the beneficiaries under Section 29 of the Law of Succession Act and the net estate survived of the deceased. This Court on the dawn of the new Constitution has no jurisdiction to entertain revocation applications on matters which have heard and determined by the subordinate Courts. That is the provision of these forums as per the law establish governing their respective jurisdiction. There can be no doubt that the High Court only awaits to hear and determine appeals from the subordinate Court on succession matters. Unfortunately, this Court has entertained some of the issues in the matter of this estate of the deceased and it was an oversight for the jurisdictional parameters were never favorable to assume jurisdiction. The proceedings entertained by this Court are therefore voidable from the word go in the first instance. 30.In view of the findings outlined above, the doctrine of res judicata under Section 7 of the CPA does readily apply to all those interlocutory applications filed post final judgment by the Magistrate’s Court when a certificate of grant was issued on 25th April 2018. The Courts in Kenya rely on several authorities to interpret and apply this doctrine as demonstrated herein below: Identity of Parties and Cause of Action: In Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & another v Muiri Coffee Estate Limited & 3 others [2016] KESC 6, the Supreme Court of Kenya affirmed that res judicata is a doctrine of substantive law. The Court established that to uphold the plea, there must be identical parties, the same subject matter, and the same cause of action in both the former and subsequent suits. The "Could Have/Should Have" Rule: In the celebrated local precedent Mburu Kinyua v Gachini Tuti [1978] KLR 69, Justice Madan outlined that the doctrine extends beyond just the points the Court was actually required to decide. It applies to every point that properly belonged to the litigation and that the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, could have and should have brought forward at the time. Extension to Interlocutory Applications: In John Florence Maritime Services Limited & another v Cabinet Secretary for Transport and Infrastructure & 3 others [2015] eKLR, the Court of Appeal cemented the application of res judicata to both final and interlocutory applications, emphasizing the need to protect parties from repetitive litigation, conserve judicial resources, and prevent the abuse of the Court process. Application to Constitutional Matters: In cases like Samuel Kahiu and Others, the High Court has applied res judicata to constitutional petitions. The Courts generally rule that Petitioners cannot circumvent previous adverse judgments by simply recasting their complaints as constitutional rights violations, though Courts may exercise discretion if there is a real potential for substantial injustice. 31.Section 7 of the CPA contains comprehensive principles to finality of litigation and it lays down the principles if res judicata which resets on the famous legal maxims, interest republicae ut sit finis lituim means that it is in the interest of the State that there be a limit to litigation and nemo debet bis vexaari pro una et eadem causa means that no one should be vexed twice on the same cause of action. The truth is the doctrine of res judicata applies equally to the decision as a question of limitation as in the case of a decision or any other point which cannot be re-litigated at various forums expecting to get a different decision. What happened here the estate was re-litigated with finality in Succession Cause No. 345 of 2016 before the CM’s Court and that certificate of confirmation is not the subject of discussion as of now before this Court. Let us as assume revocation is an issue between the parties, this Court would not be seized by law of jurisdiction safe for the originator of that impugned certificate of confirmation of grant which is the Court below. 32.The comparative Court with whom we share a common law jurisprudence in Daryao & others v State of U.P. and Others (1962) 1 SCR 574 at 583-584 put it very well in it said:“In considering the essential elements of res judicata one inevitably harks back to the judgment of Sir William De Grey (afterwards Lord Walsingham) in the leading Duchess of Kingston’s case [2 Smith Lead. Cas. 13th Ed. pp. 644, 645]. Said William De Grey, (afterwards Lord Walsingham) “from the variety of cases relative to judgments being given in evidence in civil suits, these two deductions seem to follow as generally true: First, that the judgment of a Court of concurrent jurisdiction, directly upon the point, is as a plea, a bar, or as evidence, conclusive between the same parties, upon the same matter, directly in question in another Court; Secondly, that the judgment of a Court of exclusive jurisdiction, directly upon the point, is in like manner conclusive upon the same matter, between the same parties, coming incidentally in question in another Court for a different purpose”. As has been observed by Halsbury, “the doctrine of res judicata is not a technical doctrine applicable only to records; it is a fundamental doctrine of all Courts that there must be an end of litigation [Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd Ed., 3 Vol. 15, para. 357, p. 185]”. Halsbury also adds that the doctrine applies equally in all Courts, and it is immaterial in what Court the former proceeding was taken, provided only that it was a Court of competent jurisdiction, or what form the proceeding took, provided it was really for the same cause (p. 187, paragraph 362). “Res judicata”, it is observed in Corpus Juris, “is a rule of universal law pervading every well regulated system of jurisprudence, and is put upon two grounds, embodied in various maxims of the common law; the one, public policy and necessity, which makes it to the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation — interest republicae ut sit finis litium; the other, the hardship on the individual that he should be vexed twice for the same cause — nemo debet bis vexari pro eadem causa” [Corpus Juris, Vol. 34, p. 743]. In this sense the recognised basis of the rule of res judicata is different from that of technical estoppel. “Estoppel rests on equitable principles and res judicata rests on maxims which are taken from the Roman Law” [Ibid p. 745]. Therefore, the argument that res judicata is a technical rule and as such is irrelevant in dealing with petitions under Article 32 cannot be accepted.” 33.The proceedings before the High Court in Succession Cause No. 12 of 2017 are void in consonant with the doctrine of res judicata and the Applicants/Objectors are estopped from initiating any such litigation before this forum unless it is an appeal. What that entails all such any applications on record awaiting to be determined by this Court are struck out for being incompetent for want of jurisdiction by this Court. This Court is a forum of non-conveniens for the Magistrate’s Court is better suited to hear all such matters arising post certificate of confirmation of grant in the matter of the estate of the late Taprantich Kimuge Cherono. Orders accordingly and I make no orders as to costs. DATED, DELIVERED AND PUBLISHED VIA CTS THIS 14TH DAY OF JULY 2026.…………………………………R. NYAKUNDIJUDGE