https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8047

In re Estate of Arap Soi (Deceased) (Succession Cause E054 of 2022) [2026] KEHC 8047 (KLR) (10 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8047 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Bomet Succession Cause E054 of 2022 JK Ng'arng'ar, J June 10, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KIPKOECH ARAP SOI (DECEASED) Between Koech David Kiprono Petitioner and Tabutany Chemutai Soi Objector Ruling 1.In this matter, a Grant dated 13th March 2024 was issued in the Petitioner’s name. Objection 2.The Objector stated that she was the deceased’s widow and came to know of the present succession proceedings when she was informed by her area Chief that surveyors had already subdivided the land. That the Petitioner concealed the names of other beneficiaries namely Hellen Chepngeno Mosonik and Cherotich. The Objector further stated that she did not consent to the Petition as she did not sign the consent. 3.It was the Objector’s case that she was old and could neither read nor write and that her signature was forged. It was the Objector’s further case that the Petitioner did not disclose the entire deceased’s estate which included: -i.Kericho/Mogogosiek/15ii.Commercial Polt No. 18 Situated In Mogogosiek Towniii.Motor Vehicle Registration Number KCA 542iv.Tractor Registration Number KTCB 452Nv.Shares at Sinendet Tea Multi-purpose Co-op Society.vi.Shares at Mau Tea Multi-purpose Co-op Society.vii.Shares at KCB. 4.Through her written submissions dated 27th April 2026, the Objector submitted that the Petitioner begun administering the deceased’s estate prior to the conclusion of the succession proceedings. That the Petitioner had concealed other properties and assets that formed part of the deceased’s estate. The Objector further submitted that this court was empowered under sections 49 and 76 of the Law of Succession Act and Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules to revoke the Grant. Response 5.Through his Replying Affidavit dated 25th November 2024, the Petitioner stated that the Objector was aware of the present succession proceedings as she consented to the making of the Grant. That he (Petitioner) had adhered to all the requirements as to the process of succession and that he included all the beneficiaries as listed in the Chief’s Letter. The Petitioner further stated that the Objector wanted to interfere with the deceased’s estate. 6.It was the Petitioner’s case that the claim that he forged the Objector’s signature was false and made in bad faith. It was the Petitioner’s further case that prior to filing the succession proceedings, the entire family had a meeting to try and resolve the issue of succession. 7.I have gone through the Petitioner’s written submissions dated 9th June 2025 and it contains the same arguments as above. 8.I have considered the entire record, the Petitioner’s written submissions dated 9th June 2025 and the Objector’s written submissions dated 27th April 2026. The only issue for my determination was whether the Grant dated 13th March 2024 should be revoked. 9.Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act provides: -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. 10.The Objector stated that the Grant was defective as she did not consent to its making and further that her signature was forged. I have looked at the consent form and I have noted that there was a signature beside the Objector’s name. The Petitioner stated that the Objector signed the consent form. 11.It is trite law that he that alleges must prove. The Objector had the burden of proving that the Petitioner forged her signature on the consent form. I have gone through the record and I have noted that the Objector did not adduce such evidence and consequently, this claim fails. 12.Another ground that the Objector relied on was that the Petitioner did not include other beneficiaries (Hellen Chepngeno Mosonik and Cherotich) and further, that he excluded other properties and assets which formed part of the deceased’s estate. I have gone through the record and I have noted that the Objector did not provide evidence to show how Hellen Chepngeno Mosonik and Cherotich were related to the deceased and further did not provide evidence that the deceased took care of them during his lifetime. Hellen Chepngeno Mosonik and Cherotich therefore cannot be beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate as envisioned in section 29 of the Law of Succession Act. In regards to the properties and assets listed by the Objector in her Supporting Affidavit dated 2nd September 2024 and allegedly owned by the deceased, the Objector similarly did not provide any evidence to show that the assets and properties were registered in the deceased’s name. Accordingly, this claim also fails. 13.The sum total of the above is that the Objector failed to satisfy the grounds for revocation of Grant under section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. 14.In the end, the Objection dated 2nd September 2024 has no merit and is dismissed. Each party to bear its own costs. RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT BOMET THIS 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.HON. JULIUS K. NG’ARNG’ARJUDGERuling Delivered in the presence of;Siele/Susan – Court AssistantPetitioner:presentObjector:absent