https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8706

In re Estate of Mbithi (Deceased) (Succession Cause 24 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 8706 (KLR) (12 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8706 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Machakos Succession Cause 24 of 2021 RC Rutto, J June 12, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE CHRISTOPHER MBITHI (DECEASED) Between Amos Mulei Mbithi 1st Petitioner Dorothy N. Mbithi 2nd Petitioner Stephen Mbindyo Mbithi 3rd Petitioner and Eunice Nduku Mwololo Objector Ruling 1.Before this Court is a Summons for Revocation of Grant dated 8th July, 2024, seeking the following orders:a.Spentb.Spentc.That the grant of letters of administration confirmed on 26th April 2023 be revoked on grounds that;i.The proceedings to obtain grant were defective in substance.ii.The grant was obtained fraudulently in making false statements or by the concealment from the court of something material to the case.iii.The grant was made by untrue allegations of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant notwithstanding that the allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently.iv.The Applicant Eunice Nduku Mwololo who is a daughter in law of the deceased be included as an administrator of the estate together with her mother in law and brothers in law.v.The grant be rectified and all assets of the deceased be included namely Land Parcels No. LR 2698, 2264, 2365, 2059, 2153, 2200, 2902, 2262, 2298, 4036, 4064, 4137, 2299, 2692, 3351, 3350, 3352 all owned by the deceased and whose titles are in custody of the petitioners.vi.That the schedule of distribution be set aside and fresh distribution be made by this honourable court.vii.Any other relief the court may deem fit and just. 2.The application is supported by the affidavit of the Objector/Applicant. The crux of her application is that the Petitioners petitioned for and obtained letters of administration in respect of the estate of the deceased father-in-law without disclosing to the court the Objector’s existence as a daughter-in-law, having allegedly been married to the deceased’s first born son, Timothy Maundu Mbithi, who died on 21st December, 2017. 3.She further deposes that during his lifetime, her deceased husband supported her financially and after his death, the Petitioners continued such support at the instance of their father, the deceased. She relies on a letter from the area Chief dated 5th March, 2021, confirming that the deceased had a son, Timothy Maundu Mbithi, now deceased. 4.She avers that she was excluded from the distribution of the estate, which was shared among the Petitioners and a company registered in their names. That there is a likelihood the estate properties may be disposed of to her detriment. 5.She seeks to be included as the fourth administrator in addition to her mother-in-law and two brothers-in-law. She therefore seeks the preparation of a fresh schedule of distribution recognizing her as a beneficiary and rectification of the grant to include omitted properties, namely LR Nos. 2698, 2264, 2365, 2059, 2153, 2200, 2902, 2262, 2298, 4036, 4064, 4137, 2299, 2692, 3351, 3350 and 3352. 6.The Petitioners oppose the application through a Replying Affidavit sworn on 6th July, 2024, by the 1st Petitioner. They contend that the Applicant was merely their late brother’s girlfriend and not his wife. They deny the existence of any marriage, whether customary or otherwise. 7.They deny that the deceased or their late brother maintained the Applicant. That any assistance, financial or social, extended to the Applicant after their brother’s death, was out of sympathy and not indicative of any legal obligation or familial relationship. 8.The Petitioners maintain that the Applicant does not qualify as a beneficiary under the Law of Succession Act and even if she were a daughter-in-law, the law does not provide her with a direct claim against her father-in-law’s estate. 9.They further depose that the distribution was carried out fairly, taking into account their mother’s life interest and jointly owned properties. 10.The Objector filed a supplementary affidavit dated 12th August, 2024, in response to the Petitioners’ replying affidavit reiterating that her relationship with the deceased’s son culminated in a valid Kamba customary marriage. The Petitioners also filed a further affidavit in response dated 22nd August, 2024. 11.The application proceeded by way of viva voce hearing, during which the Objector called five witnesses and the Petitioners called three witnesses. Objector’s case 12.The Objector, Eunice Nduku Mwololo (OW1), testified that she was the lawful wife of the late Timothy Maundu Mbithi, having married him in 2017 under Kamba customary law. She stated that a Ntheo ceremony was conducted on 14th October, 2017, and attended by members of both families, during which customary rites were performed, including the slaughter of a goat, exchange of gifts, and formal handing over of the bride. That thereafter, they cohabited as husband and wife until Timothy’s demise in December 2017. 13.She further testified that she was publicly recognized as Timothy’s wife during his funeral and as a daughter-in-law of the deceased during her father-in-law’s funeral, as reflected in burial documents and obituary notices. That the family accepted and treated her as a daughter in law and continued to support her financially after Timothy’s demise. She produced documentary evidence including bank and Mpesa statements to support this claim. 14.She further relied on her membership in a local self-help group associated with the deceased’s family and her continued participation in family and community activities as evidence of her recognition as a daughter-in-law. She contended that she was not informed of the succession proceedings relating to her father-in-law’s estate and only became aware of them later. 15.On cross-examination, she conceded that no marriage certificate was issued but maintained that they were customarily married. She also acknowledged that both her children were not Timothy’s biological children and the birth certificate issued indicating Timothy as the father of her son was obtained after his death. She admitted that she had not taken out letters of administration in respect of Timothy’s estate. 16.OW2, Benson Mwaka Mbithi, a brother of the deceased, testified that the Ntheo ceremony was conducted on 14th October, 2017, and that it constituted a valid customary marriage under Kamba customs. He stated that the Objector was treated as a wife within the family and participated in family activities. 17.OW3, Paul Mwololo Katiku, the Objector’s father, corroborated the occurrence of the Ntheo ceremony and testified that the deceased’s family formally visited his home and fulfilled customary requirements. He confirmed that the Objector was recognized as Timothy’s wife and later as a daughter-in-law of the deceased. 18.OW4, Peter Muasa Mbithi, also a brother of the deceased similarly testified that the Ntheo ceremony took place and that the Objector was accepted as a member of the Mbithi family, living within the family home and participating in its affairs. 19.OW5, Pastor Agnes Mutio Musyoki, confirmed that she attended the Ntheo ceremony at the invitation of the deceased and offered prayers and blessings. She testified that following the ceremony, the Objector was recognized within the community and church as Timothy’s wife. 20.Collectively, the Objector’s case is that a valid Kamba customary marriage existed between herself and the deceased’s son; that she was accepted and treated as a daughter-in-law within the family; and that she is therefore entitled to recognition as a beneficiary to the estate of the deceased. Petitioners’ case 21.The Petitioners’ case was primarily advanced through the testimony of PW1, Amos Mulei Mbithi, and PW3, Stephen Mbindyo Mbithi, who are sons of the deceased, together with PW2, an independent witness. 22.PW1, Amos Mulei Mbithi, testified that the deceased was his father and that his late brother, Timothy Maundu Mbithi, died unmarried and without children. He maintained that although Timothy had a relationship with the Objector from about April 2017, no marriage, whether customary or statutory, was ever concluded. He described the event held on 14th October, 2017, as a mere introductory visit between the two families rather than a Ntheo or customary marriage ceremony, asserting that no requisite customary rites, such as the formal presentation of goats, were performed. 23.PW1 further testified that Timothy resided with him and their brother in Westlands, Nairobi, until shortly before his death and that the Objector never cohabited with Timothy either in Nairobi or at the family home. He denied that the Objector had any established residence within the Mbithi family homestead or that she possessed keys or a designated room therein. He also challenged the authenticity of a birth certificate issued in 2020 naming Timothy as the father of the Objector’s child, asserting that it was procured posthumously and therefore invalid. 24.On the issue of financial support, PW1 admitted that he and his brother extended monetary assistance to the Objector after Timothy’s death, including rent and school fees, but maintained that such support was purely voluntary and motivated by compassion rather than any legal or familial obligation. He also testified that the deceased advanced the Objector Kshs.150,000/= as a loan toward a land purchase and denied that any property was gifted to her. 25.PW1 acknowledged that funeral documents for both Timothy and the deceased referred to the Objector as a wife and daughter-in-law respectively. However, he maintained that such descriptions were inaccurate and were included by the funeral committees without consultation due to the emotional circumstances surrounding the deaths. He further testified that Timothy had intended to marry the Objector in a church wedding planned for 2018, which never materialized due to his death. 26.PW2, Josphat Muindi Mutua, a caretaker at Elixiv Apartments in Westlands, testified that Timothy resided there with his brothers from 2016 until his death and that no woman lived with them during that period. He stated that he never saw the Objector at the premises and was unaware of Timothy having a wife. 27.On cross-examination, he conceded that he could not conclusively account for all visitors or confirm Timothy’s marital status. 28.PW3, Stephen Mbindyo Mbithi, corroborated PW1’s evidence, testifying that Timothy and the Objector were merely engaged and had not married. He described the 14th October, 2017, event as an introductory meeting and denied that any customary marriage rites were performed. He admitted that family members, including himself, attended the event and that food was shared and money given for hospitality, but maintained that no goats were presented thus no valid customary marriage took place. 29.He also acknowledged that funeral programs described the Objector as Timothy’s wife and as a daughter-in-law, but dismissed these as inaccurate representations made for purposes of according the deceased dignity. He maintained that the Objector never cohabited with Timothy and that her children were not related to the Mbithi family. 30.PW3 also alluded to broader family disputes, involving ancestral property, being the reason that may have influenced the present claim by disgruntled relatives. The Petitioners maintained that all property comprising the estate belonged exclusively to the deceased, and that the Objector has no lawful claim thereto. 31.After the close of the Parties’ case, parties filed their respective submissions. Objector’s submissions 32.The Objector submits that she contracted a valid Kamba customary marriage with the late Timothy Maundu Mbithi in 2017 following their introduction and subsequent cohabitation. She contends that all the essential elements of a customary marriage were satisfied at the ceremony conducted on 14th October, 2017, which was a Ntheo ceremony. In support, she referred to documentary evidence including the Ntheo programme, a written agreement and its translation, photographs of the ceremony, and witness testimonies, which she argued collectively established the existence of the marriage. 33.She further submitted that following the ceremony, she cohabited with the deceased at Shiloh Apartments in Machakos until his death in December 2017. She relied on rental receipts and asserts that the deceased died in that residence, thereby corroborating their cohabitation. 34.The Objector submitted that the funeral announcements and programmes constituted independent and public acknowledgment by the deceased’s family of her status as a wife. 35.She submits that she continued to be treated as a member of the deceased’s family after the demise of her husband. This was evidenced by her participation in family affairs, residence in the family home, and continued financial support from the Petitioners and the deceased. That such support was given pursuant to family recognition rather than charity. 36.It was her submission that the deceased’s acts, such as assisting her to purchase land and personally witnessing the transactions, demonstrated acceptance into the family as a daughter-in-law. 37.The Objector submitted that she had proved cohabitation, performance of customary rites, family acknowledgment, and public recognition of the marriage and any discrepancies in her testimony were minor typographical errors. 38.She further relied on corroborative testimony from her witnesses, who confirmed the occurrence of the Ntheo ceremony, the performance of customary rites, and her acceptance within the family and community. That the Petitioners also admitted attending the October 2017 ceremony, continued financial support, and the use of terms such as “wife” and “daughter-in-law” in funeral documents. 39.The Objector submitted that the repeated use of such terms in official and public documents was a deliberate acknowledgment of her marital status. She argues that she has discharged the burden of proof under Section 107 of the Evidence Act by demonstrating intention to marry, family consent, performance of customary rites, cohabitation, and public recognition. 40.On registration of the marriage, it was her submission that failure to register the marriage did not invalidate an otherwise valid customary union. 41.Finally, she invoked the constitutional principles under Articles 2(4), 45, and 159 of the Constitution, as well as the Supreme Court decision in MNK v POM & Another Petition No. 9 of 2021 which recognized presumption of marriage of unregistered unions in certain circumstances. 42.She urged the Court to find that a valid customary marriage existed, that she is the deceased son’s lawful widow and a daughter-in-law of the deceased, thus entitled to recognition in the administration and distribution of the estate. Petitioner’s submissions 43.The Petitioners submitted that the application is devoid of merit and should be dismissed with costs. They framed the dispute around four issues: whether a valid marriage existed between the Objector and the deceased’s son, whether the Objector qualifies as a beneficiary, whether grounds for revocation have been established, and who should bear costs. 44.On the question of marriage, the Petitioners relied on the provisions of the Marriage Act, 2014, particularly Section 59, to argue that proof of marriage requires formal registration or documentary evidence such as a marriage certificate or a certified register entry. 45.They submitted that after enactment of the Marriage Act, the doctrine of presumption of marriage had been narrowed. They cited several authorities CWN v DK [2021] KEHC 12535 (KLR), TMN v PKW [2021] KEHC 13019, EMM v PMK [2023] KEMC 11 and Ndunda v Mutunga, Civil Appeal No. 47 of 2018 to support the proposition that absence of registration invalidated the Objector’s claim of marriage to the deceased’s son. 46.It was the Petitioners’ submission that the ceremony held on 14th October, 2017, was merely an introductory visit between the two families and not a customary marriage ceremony. 47.They submitted that the Objector’s documents, including the ceremony programme and agreement, lacked proper authentication. It was their submission that the photographic evidence produced by the Objector was contrary to Sections 78A and 106B of the Evidence Act, thus were inadmissible. Reference was made to the cases of Equity Traders Limited v John & 2 Others [2024] KEELC 1668 (KLR) and The Speaker, Kisumu County Assembly v The Clerk, Kisumu Assembly Service Board & 6 Others [2015] eKLR. 48.Further, that the description in funeral documents and events of the Objector as a wife or daughter-in-law, were made out of sympathy and for purposes of according dignity to the deceased and did not constitute legal proof of marriage. 49.They further submitted that there was no adequate proof of essential customary rites such as payment of dowry, or performance of required ceremonies under Kamba custom. That while Timothy may have intended to marry the Objector, that intention alone did not constitute a valid marriage and no cohabitation or matrimonial home was established. 50.On the claim of presumption of marriage, the Petitioners submitted that the necessary elements, including prolonged cohabitation and public reputation as husband and wife, were not demonstrated. They relied on the case of MNK v POM & Another (Supra) and Hortensiah Wanjiku Yawe vs The Public Trustee Civil Appeal 13 of 1976 to argue that for a presumption of marriage to arise there must be long cohabitation, capacity to marry, mutual intention, consent, and public reputation as husband and wife. 51.They argued that the Objector and Timothy lived separately, lacked a shared residence, and did not establish a matrimonial relationship recognizable in law. 52.The Petitioners submitted that even if the Objector were to be considered a wife, she would not have a direct claim against the estate of the deceased as a daughter-in-law. They relied on the case of re Estate of Francis Andachila Luta (Deceased) [2022] KEHC 16900 (KLR), to submit that a daughter-in-law can only claim through her deceased husband’s estate after obtaining letters of administration which the Objector had not obtained and therefore lacked locus standi for the deceased’s estate. 53.They further contended that the Objector’s child, not being a biological child of the deceased’s son, was not a beneficiary of the estate. 54.On the question of revocation, the Petitioners submitted that none of the statutory grounds under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act had been established. That the grant was properly obtained by the deceased’s widow and surviving sons, and no material facts were concealed since the Objector was not a beneficiary. 55.Finally, they submitted that costs should follow the event and urged the Court to dismiss the application with costs, maintaining that the Objector’s claim was legally untenable and constituted an abuse of the succession proceedings. Analysis and Determination 56.Having carefully considered the pleadings, the viva voce evidence, the documentary evidence placed before this Court, the rival written submissions and the applicable law, the following issues arise for determination: -a.Whether the Objector was married and a wife to the late Timothy Maundu Mbithi under Kamba customary law or otherwise.b.Whether the Objector is a beneficiary and/or dependant of the estate of the deceased Christopher Kioko Mbithi.c.Whether the grant issued and confirmed in favour of the Petitioners ought to be revoked or rectified under section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. Whether the Objector proved the existence of a valid marriage between herself and the late Timothy Maundu Mbithi under Kamba customary law or otherwise. 57.The central issue in this dispute is whether the Objector established that she was married to the deceased’s son, one Timothy Maundu Mbithi (herein after the deceased’s son). The application substantially turns on this question because the Objector’s claim to the estate of the deceased is predicated on her status as a daughter in law and widow of the deceased’s son. The Petitioners, on the other hand, maintain that no marriage, whether customary, statutory or presumed ever crystallized between the Objector and their deceased brother. 58.The law relating to customary marriages in Kenya is now fairly settled. Section 6 of the Marriage Act recognizes customary marriages as one of the valid forms of marriage in Kenya. Section 6(1)(c) thereof specifically recognizes customary marriages celebrated in accordance with the customs of the communities of one or both of the parties. 59.Section 43(1) of the Act further provides that a customary marriage shall be celebrated in accordance with the customs of the communities of one or both parties to the intended marriage. Section 43 (2) on its part provides that where the payment of dowry is required under the customary law of the parties, the payment of a token amount shall be sufficient to prove the existence of a customary marriage. 60.On whether there was a marriage between the Objector and the deceased’s son, it was held by the Court of Appeal in the case of Hortensiah Wanjiku Yawe v Public Trustee (Supra) that the onus of proving a customary law marriage is generally on the party who claims it; that the standard of proof is on a balance of probability and that the formalities required for a customary marriage must be proved to that standard. 61.Therefore, the burden was on the Objector to prove on a balance of probabilities that the essential rites of a Kamba customary marriage were performed, or there were circumstances giving rise to a presumption of marriage. 62.The Objector’s evidence was that she met Timothy in 2017 and their relationship progressed culminating in a Ntheo ceremony conducted on 14th October, 2017 (material day) at her parents’ home in Masii. Her testimony on the ceremony was corroborated in material particulars by OW2, OW3, OW4 and OW5. 63.OW2, OW3 and OW4 all testified to having participated in the ceremony held on the material day and gave detailed evidence on the activities preceding the ceremony, attendance of family members, the ceremony itself. They testified to the fact that all Kamba customary rites for marriage were performed during the ceremony. That dowry payments were made, goats slaughtered, traditional gifts exchanged and a written agreement documenting the Ntheo ceremony prepared. 64.The Petitioners on their part, particularly PW1 Amos Mbithi and PW3 Stephen Mbithi, admitted that indeed a ceremony took place on the material day at the Objector’s home. They did not dispute the occurrence of any of the activities as claimed by the Objector to have taken place. However, their point of departure is that the event was merely a family introduction and not a customary marriage ceremony as no dowry rites were performed. 65.From the evidence, it is clear that there was a ceremony at the Objector’s home and that several rites were carried out, the question therefore is whether the rites evident from the ceremony met the threshold of a Kamba customary marriage. 66.Unfortunately, neither party testified as to the essential elements that must happen for a marriage to be contracted under Kamba customary law. I am therefore forced to turn to other judicial proceedings where evidence was adduced on the issue of marriage under Kamba customary law. 67.In Re Estate of Stephen Kimuyu Ngeki (1998) eKLR J.W Mwera, J. (as he then was) stated that, “Akamba customary marriage follows an elaborate course and emphasis seems to lie more with payment by the groom of 3 traditional goats called Mbui Sya Ntheo.” 68.Similarly, in Andrew Manunzyu Musyoka (deceased) [2005] eKLR, Steven Mututu Mutisya (DW2), testified as an expert on Kamba customary law. He said that, “a marriage is contracted when goats of “Ntheo” are paid to the girl’s parents and that even if dowry is not paid, “Ntheo” has to be paid and concludes a marriage.” 69.In Re Estate of James Simu Nthiwa [2005] eKLR there was a contestation as to whether the deceased was married. The Objector was the deceased’s mother, she averred that he was not married as he had never informed her of it nor had any dowry been paid in accordance with Kamba customary law, where goats called “Mbui sya ntheo” are taken to the girl’s parents and one is slaughtered. 70.The Objector’s witnesses gave a vivid description of the ceremony held at the Objector’s home. Negotiations preceded the ceremony, five (5) goats were exchanged, one goat was slaughtered and shared between the members of the two families, and traditional gifts were presented. It is my opinion that these rites fit into the essentials of a Kamba customary law marriage as described in the precedents cited above. The Petitioners’ characterization of the event as a mere visitation is difficult to reconcile with the totality of the evidence placed before the Court. I thus find that, on a balance of probability, the Objector sufficiently proved that she was married to the deceased’s son under the Kamba customary law. 71.The Petitioners further urged the Court to find that pursuant to the Marriage Act, 2014, proof of marriage can only be demonstrated through registration and issuance of a marriage certificate. 72.Section 96 of the Marriage Act provides as follows;(2)Parties to a marriage contracted under customary law, the Hindu Marriage and Divorce Act (Cap. 157) (now repealed) or the Islamic Marriage and Divorce Registration Act (now repealed) before commencement of this Act, which is not registered shall apply to the Registrar or County Registrar to assistant Registrar for the registration of that marriage under this Act within three years of the coming to force of this Act.(3)The parties to a customary marriage shall register such a marriage within three years of the coming to force of this Act.(4)The Cabinet Secretary may extend the registration period under this section by notice in the Gazette. 73.The law on registration of customary marriages came into force on 1st August, 2017. Therefore, having regard to Section 96 of the Marriage Act my interpretation is that the three (3) years period within which the marriage should have been registered started running on 01/08/2017. The Customary marriage in the instant case occurred on 14/10/2017 and the deceased’s son died soon thereafter in December of the same year. Consequently, the argument about non-registration of the marriage falls. 74.Further, the evidence demonstrates that after the death of the deceased’s son, the Objector was recognized as a wife. There is also the funeral programme of the deceased recognizing her as a daughter-in-law. The Petitioners attempted to explain away these descriptions by alleging that funeral committees inserted the descriptions merely to accord Timothy dignity in death. However, I find that explanation implausible. The repetition and consistency of those descriptions substantially weaken the Petitioners’ assertion that the references were mere emotional embellishments. 75.Equally significant is the undisputed evidence that the Objector continued receiving substantial financial support from the deceased and the 1st and 2nd petitioners long after Timothy’s demise. Additionally, the Objector participated in family events, had access to the family home, and was publicly acknowledged as a daughter in law. These circumstances strongly support the Objector’s assertion that she continued being a member of the deceased’s family even after Timothy’s demise. 76.The Petitioners further argued that the Objector never petitioned for letters of administration for Timothy’s estate. While that may be so, the absence of succession proceedings relating to the deceased son’s estate does not extinguish an otherwise valid marriage. 77.I have also considered the inconsistencies highlighted by the Petitioners, including the typographical errors regarding dates in the Objector’s affidavits. In my view, those inconsistencies are not sufficiently material to dislodge the otherwise overwhelming evidence demonstrating that the Objector was married to the deceased’s son and was thereafter recognized as a wife. 78.The totality of the foregoing is that there was a valid Kamba Customary Marriage between the Objector and the deceased’s son, one Timothy Maundu Mbithi. Whether the Objector qualifies as a beneficiary and/or dependant of the estate of the deceased Christopher Kioko Mbithi. 79.The Petitioners argued that even if the Objector was to be considered Timothy’s wife, the Law of Succession Act does not recognize daughters in law as beneficiaries of an estate. 80.Section 29 of the Law of Succession Act defines dependants to include wives, children and such persons as were being maintained by the deceased immediately prior to his death. Further, Sections 35, 38 and 41 of the Act contemplate representation of deceased children through their surviving spouses and children. Indeed, where a child of the deceased dies before distribution of an estate, that child’s entitlement ordinarily devolves upon his or her own estate or surviving household. In Re Estate of Veronica Njoki Wakagoto (Deceased) [2013] eKLR, Musyoka J observed that grandchildren inherit their deceased grandparent’s estate through representation of their deceased parent. The same reasoning extends to a surviving spouse of a deceased child where dependency and representation are demonstrated. 81.In the present matter, Timothy Maundu Mbithi was the deceased’s eldest son. Had he been alive at the time of distribution, there is no contention that he would have been entitled to a share of the estate. The Objector, having proved that she was his widow, and having also demonstrated long continued dependency and maintenance by the deceased and the Petitioners, cannot simply be wished away as a stranger to the estate. 82.The evidence before Court further established that the deceased supported the Objector financially, included her in family activities and acknowledged her as a daughter-in-law. In my view, that evidence sufficiently demonstrates dependency within the meaning of Section 29 of the Law of Succession Act. This Court therefore finds that the Objector qualifies both as Timothy Maundu Mbithi’s widow and as a dependant of the deceased. Whether the grant ought to be revoked 83.Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act empowers the court to revoke or annul a grant where the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance, where the grant was obtained fraudulently by concealment of material facts or through false statements, or where the grant was obtained by untrue allegations of essential facts. It provides as follows;76.Revocation or annulment of grantA 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.…e.… 84.The evidence before the Court demonstrates that the Petitioners petitioned for and obtained the grant without disclosing the existence of the Objector. They omitted the existence of Timothy’s household and excluded the Objector from the succession proceedings altogether. The Petitioners attempted to justify the omission by asserting that the Objector was merely a girlfriend thus a stranger to the estate. Having found otherwise, it follows that the omission was material. Succession proceedings are founded on utmost good faith and full disclosure. Persons with a legitimate claim or interest in an estate must be disclosed to the court to enable fair and lawful administration. 85.Further, the Objector raised concerns regarding omission of several assets allegedly belonging to the estate. While the evidence concerning ownership of all the listed properties was not exhaustively interrogated during the hearing, the omission of a lawful beneficiary alone is sufficient ground to interfere with the confirmed grant. 86.In the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the Objector has established sufficient grounds under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act to warrant revocation of the confirmed grant. 87.Accordingly, I make the following orders:-a.The grant of letters of administration intestate issued to the Petitioners and confirmed on 26th April, 2023, is hereby revoked.b.The Objector is hereby recognized as a beneficiary and dependant of the deceased’s estate.c.The administrators shall within sixty days file a full inventory of all assets and liabilities of the estate and a proposed schedule of distribution taking into account the interest of the household of the late Timothy Maundu Mbithi.d.Any dispute regarding ownership or inclusion of specific assets shall be determined at confirmation stage upon production of documentary evidence. 88.In view of the nature of the dispute being a family dispute, each party shall bear their own costs. 89.Orders accordingly. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED VIRTUALLY THIS 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026RHODA RUTTOJUDGEIn the presence of;Court Assistant: SelinaMr. Odero holding brief for Mutua Makau for the RespondentMs. Kemunto holding brief for Ms. Kamau for Protestor