https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9396

In re Estate of Maramba alias Stephen Malanda (Deceased) (Succession Cause 430 of 2013) [2026] KEHC 9396 (KLR) (1 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9396 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kakamega Succession Cause 430 of 2013 S Mbungi, J July 1, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE STEPHENE MARAMBA MARAMBA alias STEPHEN MALANDA (DECEASED) Between Martha Amboko Maramba Objector and Inviolata Khabetsa Maramba Petitioner Ruling 1.Before the court is the Objector/Applicant’s Summons for Revocation or Annulment of Grant dated 9th June 2025 brought under section 76 of the Law of Succession Act, Cap. 160 Laws of Kenya, Rule 44 of the Probate and Administration Rules and all other enabling provisions of the law. 2.The Applicant, Martha Amboko Maramba, seeks orders;a.That the application be certified urgent;b.That the grant and certificate of confirmation of grant issued to the Petitioner be revoked;c.That all registrations relating to Land Parcel No. Butsotso/Shikoti/389 be cancelled; that the Chairman of the Lurambi Land Control Board be restrained from issuing any consent in respect of the said property;d.That the matter be set down for fresh confirmation of the grant; ande.That costs be provided for. 3.The application is founded on the grounds appearing on its face and the supporting affidavit sworn by the Applicant. She avers that she is the widow of the late Robert Maramba, a son of the deceased. 4.She further avers that although this court, on 13th December 2018, ordered that she be included among the beneficiaries of the estate, the Petitioner has deliberately excluded her from the implementation of the confirmed grant. 5.She contends that the Petitioner has proceeded with transmission and registration of the estate property in favour of the other beneficiaries while denying her participation, thereby depriving her of her lawful share. 6.The Applicant further deposes that unless this court intervenes, the estate property may be completely transmitted to other beneficiaries, rendering the court’s earlier orders nugatory. Issue For Determination 7.The principal issue for determination is whether the Applicant has established sufficient grounds to warrant revocation or annulment of the grant under section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. Analysis And Determination 8.The application is brought pursuant to section 76 of the Law of Succession Act which provides that a grant may be revoked or annulled;i.where the proceedings to obtain it were defective in substance;ii.where it was obtained fraudulently by making false statements or by concealment from the court of material facts;iii.where it was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of essential facts;iv.where the administrator has failed to proceed diligently with the administration of the estate; orv.where the grant has become useless and inoperative through subsequent circumstances. 9.The principles governing revocation of grants was settled In Matheka & Another v Matheka [2005] eKLR, the Court of Appeal held that revocation of a grant is not automatic and can only be ordered where one or more of the statutory grounds set out under section 76 have been established. The jurisdiction to revoke is discretionary and must be exercised judicially upon proof of the statutory requirements. 10.Likewise, In re Estate of Julius Ndubi Javan (Deceased) [2018] eKLR, the High Court held that concealment of the existence of a beneficiary or failure to involve such beneficiary in succession proceedings amounts to concealment of a material fact capable of justifying revocation of a grant where such omission affects the administration and distribution of the estate. 11.The duty imposed upon administrators to disclose all beneficiaries was emphasized in re Estate of G.K.K. (Deceased) [2017] eKLR, where the court observed that succession proceedings must be conducted in utmost good faith and that every person beneficially entitled to an estate ought to be disclosed to the court before confirmation of the grant. 12.Further, in Rono v Rono & Another [2005] eKLR, the Court of Appeal reiterated that the court’s overriding duty in succession matters is to ensure fairness and equity among all beneficiaries and that no beneficiary should be unjustifiably excluded from inheritance. 13.The court has carefully considered the application, the affidavit in support and the court record. It is apparent that the Applicant’s principal complaint is not directed at the manner in which the grant issued on 9th October 2013 was obtained. Rather, her grievance is that despite the order of this court made on 13th December 2018 directing that she be included among the beneficiaries, the Petitioner has allegedly failed to implement that order by excluding her from the process of transmission and registration of Land Parcel No. Butsotso/Shikoti/389. 14.The existence of the order of 13th December 2018 is not disputed. Once the court recognized the Applicant as a beneficiary, it became incumbent upon the administrator to faithfully implement that order. 15.A personal representative administers an estate in a fiduciary capacity and owes equal duties of fairness, transparency and accountability to all beneficiaries. 16.However, the court must also bear in mind that revocation of a grant is a drastic remedy. As was observed in Matheka & Another v Matheka [2005] eKLR, the remedy should only issue where the statutory grounds under section 76 have been sufficiently established. 17.The material presently before the court demonstrates that the dispute primarily concerns the implementation of the confirmed grant rather than the legality of the grant itself. 18.The court also adopts the reasoning in re Estate of Mwaura Mutungi alias Mwaura Gichina (Deceased) [2019] eKLR, where it was held that where the dispute concerns the implementation of a confirmed grant, the court should first consider whether preservation of the estate, compliance with previous court orders, rectification or review would adequately address the grievance before resorting to the drastic remedy of revocation. 19.In the circumstances of this case, the interests of justice will be better served by preserving the estate pending compliance with the orders issued on 13th December 2018 rather than immediately revoking the grant. 20.Accordingly, the court makes the following orders:a.The prayer for revocation or annulment of the grant and certificate of confirmation of grant is declined at this stage.b.Pending further orders of this court, there shall be no further dealings, transfers, subdivisions, registrations or other disposition of Land Parcel No. Butsotso/Shikoti/389.c.The Petitioner shall, within thirty (30) days of this ruling, file and serve an affidavit setting out the current status of the administration of the estate, including the status of the transmission and registration of Land Parcel No. Butsotso/Shikoti/389, and shall explain the steps taken to comply with the orders of this court made on 13th December 2018.d.Upon compliance with Order (c) above, the matter shall be mentioned for further directions, including whether rectification or review of the certificate of confirmation of grant is necessary to give effect to the orders of 13th December 2018.e.The costs of the application shall be in the cause.f.Right of Appeal 30 days explained.g.Mention on 12.11.2026. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT KAKAMEGA THIS 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026.S.MBUNGIJUDGEIn the presence of:-CA: Velma/Zilda.Parties present.