https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6625

In re Estate of Taparosho alias Kiprono Kisaje (Deceased) (Succession Cause 209 of 2015) [2026] KEHC 6625 (KLR) (18 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 6625 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Bomet Succession Cause 209 of 2015 JK Ng'arng'ar, J May 18, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KIPRONO KISAJE TAPAROSHIO ALIAS KIPRONO KISAJE (DECEASED) Between Alice Chepkorir Kisaje 1st Petitioner Alfred Rono 2nd Petitioner and Simon Kipkurui Rono Objector Ruling 1.In this matter, a Grant was issued to the 1st Petitioner on 29th March 2016 and thereafter a Certificate of Confirmation of Grant was issued on 7th June 2018 in respect of the deceased’s estate known as Kericho/Kapsimbiri/651. Summons for Revocation 2.The Objector filed his Application for revocation of the Grant on 4th June 2024. Through his Supporting Affidavit dated 3rd June 2024, the Objector stated that he was the deceased’s son and the deceased’s estate comprised of Kericho/Kapsimbiri/651 which was to be shared equally amongst all the beneficiaries. The Objector further stated that the deceased died and left behind the following beneficiaries: -i.Alice Chepkorir Kisache Wifeii.Julius Kibet Rono Soniii.Simion Kipkirui Rono Soniv.Benard Rono Sonv.Julius Rono Sonvi.Samson Rono Sonvii.Alfred Rono Sonviii.Betty Chepkirui Rono Daughter in lawix.Mercy Chepkirui Daughterx.Daisy Cherono Daughterxi.Emmanuel Kipkirui Grandsonxii.Amos Rono Sonxiii.Samwel Rono Son 3.It was the Objector’s case that the Petitioners concealed true facts from this court while filing the succession cause. That the Petitioners failed to obtain consent or failed to involve all the beneficiaries when filing the cause. It was the Objector’s further case that the Petitioners violated the Succession Act when they failed to follow the due process. That the Petitioners filed the succession cause together with intermeddlers. 4.The Objector stated that they had been denied their rightful inheritance and wanted to be included as one of the Petitioners to safeguard the deceased’s estate. The Objector further stated that the delay in objecting to the Grant was caused by the Petitioners’ concealment of information. 5.Through his written submissions dated 16th December 2025, the Objector submitted that the consent used in confirming the Grant bore his forged signature. That he normally used his thumb print as he was illiterate. The Objector further submitted that the Grant was obtained fraudulently and should be revoked. He relied on section 76 of the Law of Succession Act and Matheka & another vs Matheka (2005) eKLR et.al. 6.It was the Objector’s submission that he did not give consent to the distribution of the estate and other beneficiaries were completely excluded from the confirmation process. He relied on Rule 40 (8) of the Probate and Administration Rules and re Estate of Gathungu Gathungu (Deceased) (1998) eKLR. 7.The Objector stated that purchasers intermeddled with the deceased’s estate in collusion with the 2nd Petitioner before lawful distribution. He relied on section 45 of the Law of Succession Act and re Estate of M’Ngarithi M’Miriti (Deceased) (2017) eKLR. Response 8.Through a Replying Affidavit dated 9th October 2025, the 1st Petitioner stated that she was the deceased’s legal wife and that the confirmation of Grant was done without her consent as her signature was forged. That the 2nd Petitioner colluded with intermeddlers in forging her signature. The 1st Petitioner further stated that she was illiterate and thumb printed documents. 9.Through a Replying Affidavit dated 25th March 2025, the 2nd Petitioner stated that the Application was a deliberate and calculated attempt to delay justice and frustrate the beneficiaries. That the Objector was abusing the court process and was being economical with the truth. 10.It was the 2nd Petitioner’s case that the Objector had been aware of the filing of the succession cause and was an active participant throughout. That the Objector signed the consent form and was listed as one of the deceased’s beneficiaries when the Grant was being confirmed. It was the 2nd Petitioner’s further case that when the matter came up on 7th June 2018 for hearing of the confirmation, the Objector was present in court and did not object to the distribution of the deceased’s estate. 11.The 2nd Petitioner stated that the Objector had not demonstrated any fraud or concealment of relevant facts by the Petitioners to justify the revocation of the confirmed Grant. That the revocation was filed 6 years after the Grant had been confirmed and had not offered any reason as to the delay. The 2nd Petitioner further stated that this matter was not ripe for revocation. 12.Through his written submissions dated 16th July 2025, the 2nd Petitioner submitted that the Objector had not proved any of the grounds for revocation of Grant as provided for under section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. That the Objector was aware of the succession proceedings. He relied on Jamleck Maina Njoroge vs Mary Wanjiru Mwangi (2015) eKLR. 13.I have gone through the entire record and the only issue for my determination was whether the Grant dated 29th March 2016 and confirmed on 7th June 2018 should be revoked. 14.The law on revocation of Grants is provided for in Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act which states that: -A grant of representation, whether or not confirmed, may at any time be revoked or annulled if the court decides, either on application by any interested party or of its own motion-(a)that the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance;(b)that the grant was obtained fraudulently by the making of a false statement or by the concealment from the court of something material to the case;(c)that the grant was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant notwithstanding that the allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently;(d)that the person to whom the grant was made has failed, after due notice and without reasonable cause either-(i)to apply for confirmation of the grant within one year from the date thereof, or such longer period as the court order or allow; or(ii)to proceed diligently with the administration of the estate; or(iii)to produce to the court, within the time prescribed, any such inventory or account of administration as is required by the provisions of paragraphs (e) and (g) of section 83 or has produced any such inventory or account which is false in any material particular; or(e)that the grant has become useless and inoperative through subsequent circumstances. 15.The Objector stated that the Grant was obtained fraudulently and that it should be revoked. That he did not sign the consent form and that the signature contained in the consent form was forged. The Objector’s mother (1st Petitioner) also stated the same. That her signature contained in the consent form was a forgery. 16.I have looked at the consent form and it bore the signatures of both the Objector and the 1st Petitioner. In proving the forgery, the 1st Petitioner bore the burden of proof. The 1st Petitioner did not lead such evidence. His claim of forgery without any proof rendered the claim an allegation. I agree with the court in ReThe Estate of Thomas Mutua Mukumbu – (Deceased) [2014] KEHC 7694 (KLR) where it was held: -“……..Forgery and fraud amount to criminality. The applicant is literally accusing the respondent of acting criminally. The standard of proof required to establish forgery and fraud is very high. Even in civil cases it is higher than balance of probability. The Court of Appeal had occasion to address its mind on this in Elizabeth Kamene Ndolo –vs- George Matata Ndolo (1995) LLR 390, albeit in a matter on forgery with respect to wills, when it stated that the charge of forgery or fraud is a serious one, and that the standard of proof required of the alleger is higher than that in ordinary civil cases, although not beyond reasonable doubt……” 17.Similarly, in Kinyanjui Kamau vs George Kamau (2015) eKLR, the Court of Appeal held that: -“...it is trite law that any allegations of fraud must be pleaded and strictly proved. See Ndolo Vs Ndolo [2008]1 KLR (G & F) 742 wherein the court stated that:“...we start by saying that it was the Respondent who was alleging that the will was a forgery and the burden to prove that allegation lay squarely on him. Since the Respondent was making a serious charge of forgery or fraud, the standard of proof required of him was obviously higher than that required in ordinary civil cases, namely proof upon a balance of probabilities; but the burden of proof on the Respondent was certainly not one beyond a reasonable doubt as in Criminal Cases...” 18.I have also noted that the Grant was confirmed on 7th June 2018. The court record shows that all the beneficiaries were present in court during the confirmation and there was no objection as to the distribution of the estate as proposed by the Petitioners. I agree with the 2nd Petitioner that objecting to the Grant six years later appeared suspect. I reject with the Objector’s submission that the delay was caused by the 2nd Petitioner concealing information from this court. 19.In the final analysis, it is my finding that the Objector did not prove that his signature was forged. He also failed to prove that the 2nd Petitioner colluded with intermeddlers during the distribution of the deceased’s estate. It is my further finding that the Objector did not meet the threshold for revoking of the Grant as provided for in section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. 20.In the end, the Application dated 3rd June 2024 has no merit and is dismissed. Each Party to bear their own costs. RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT BOMET THIS 18TH DAY OF MAY, 2026............................................HON. JULIUS K. NG’ARNG’ARJUDGERuling Delivered in the presence of;Susan/Siele Court AssistantRotich for RespondentLangat for Kadet for Objector/Applicant