https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11418

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MILIMANI** **FAMILY DSIVISION** **SUCCESSION CAUSE NO.2177 OF 2013** **IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KAMAU NJOROGE** **(DECEASED)** **BEATRICE NYAMBURA WANJOHI ………………. 1st APPLICANT** **PETER NJOROGE WANJOHI ………………. 2nd APPLICANT** **Versus** **GEORGE MUUGI KAMAU ……………. 1st RESPONDENT** **REGISTRAR OF LANDS, KIAMBU ……………2nd RESPONDENT** **RULING** **Introduction** 1. This matter relates to the estate of Kamau Njoroge (deceased) who died intestate on 10th October, 2011. The grant of letters of administration was issued on 3rd February, 2014 to George Muugi Kamau, confirmed on 2nd November, 2023 and rectified on 27th February, 2025. The Applicants filed summons for revocation of grant (present application) dated 21st January, 2026, supported by the following grounds; 1. That the proceedings to obtain the Grant of Letters of Administration Intestate herein, were defective in substance, in that the 1st Respondent, who is the Administrator of the Estate herein, failed to involve the Applicants herein in the succession proceedings. 2. That despite the fact that the deceased under the Estate herein, had written his wish on how his properties should be shared among his children and also stating each child's share, the Administrator who is the 1st Respondent herein, deliberately ignored his late father's wish and proceeded to distribute the said Estate contrary to his late father's wish. 3. That the 1st Respondent also proceeded to forge the signatures of the Applicants herein, in the filed consent to the mode of distribution and therefore denying the Applicants herein, who are also lawful beneficiaries, of the deceased estate, the chance of participating in the succession proceedings of their deceased father. 4. That the Grant of Letters of Administration Intestate was obtained by means of untrue allegations of a fact essential in point of law to justify the Grant of Letters of Administration Intestate, the said allegation having been made deliberately. 5. That the Grant of Letters of Administration Intestate was made fraudulently by the making of a false statement or by the concealment from the court of something material to the case. 6. That the 1st Respondent failed to notify the court that parcel of land Title Number: Kabete/Karura/709, which forms part of the deceased estate had already been distributed to four beneficiaries namely:- George Muugi Kamau, Geoffrey Nganga Wanjohi, Beatrice Nyambura Wanjohi and Peter Njoroge Wanjohi respectively, by their deceased father before his demise and some of the beneficiaries herein, even proceeded to build permanent homes in the respective portions that their father distributed to them before his demise. 7. That the said concealment and/or non- disclosure tainted the proceedings and the confirmation of the Grant in favor of the 1st Respondent herein, who despite being aware of the respective portions of his siblings' portion as distributed by their deceased father proceeded to survey and sub- divide the land contrary to the deceased proposed distribution and therefore, they ought to be revoked and/or annulled in the interest of justice. 8. That unless the orders sought herein are granted, the Applicants risk suffering irreparably since they will not only lose out on their lawful share in the deceased estate, but some of them will also be forced to demolish their permanent homes already built on their respective portions lawfully issued to them by their deceased father before his demise. 9. That the balance of convenience tilts in favor of grant of the orders sought herein, and no prejudice will be suffered by the 1st Respondent herein, by grant of temporary orders pending the hearing and determination of the summons for revocation and/or annulment of grant. 2. The present application was supported by an affidavit sworn by Beatrice Nyambura Wanjohi on 21st January, 2026, where she expounded on the grounds of the application. 3. The 1st Respondent filed a replying affidavit dated 18th February, 2026 opposing the present application as false and intended to mislead the court. He deponed that the Applicants were involved in all the succession proceedings from being named in the chief’s letter and petition for letters of administration as the deceased’s children. He further deponed that the Applicants were named n the summons for confirmation of grant, served and that they filed a protest proposing their preferred mode of distribution. 4. The 1st Respondent further deponed that the deceased left no written will contrary to the Applicant’s assertions and that the same has been subjected to the court’s determination before. 5. The present application was canvassed by way of written submissions. **Applicant’s submissions** 1. In their written submissions dated 14th May, 2026, the Applicants argued that the Grant of Letters of Administration issued to the 1st Respondent on 3rd February 2014, confirmed on 2nd November 2023, and rectified on 27th February 2025 should be revoked because they were obtained fraudulently through false statements and concealment of material facts. 2. The Applicants submitted that the proceedings were defective in substance under Section 76(a) of the Law of Succession Act, as the 1st Respondent failed to involve the Applicants in the succession proceedings despite them being lawful beneficiaries. They argued that the 1st Applicant was never invited to the Chief's office before commencement of the succession process, and the 1st Respondent forged the Applicants' signatures in the consent documents, thereby denying them the chance to participate. They further submitted that the Grant was obtained fraudulently under Section 76(b) by the making of false statements and concealment of material facts, and under Section 76(c) through untrue allegations of facts essential to justify the Grant. They argued that the 1st Respondent failed to notify the court that the deceased had already distributed the suit land to the beneficiaries before his demise, and that some beneficiaries had built permanent homes on their portions. They submitted that the concealment tainted the proceedings and the confirmation of the Grant, and that the 1st Respondent proceeded to survey and subdivide the land contrary to the deceased's wishes without involving the Applicants. 3. The Applicants prayed for the Grant to be revoked and/or annulled, for cancellation of the transmission process of Title Number Kabete/Karura/709, for the Registrar of Lands to recall and cancel the title issued and reinstate the deceased as the owner, for injunctive and inhibitory orders to be issued, for the 2nd Respondent to be enjoined as an interested party, and for costs of the application. **1st Respondent’s submissions** 1. The Respondent in his written submissions dated 2nd June, 2026, opposed the Applicants' Summons for Revocation of Grant dated 21st January 2026 and contends that the application is without merit and is a disguised attempt by the Applicants to have a second bite at the cherry and relitigate matters already settled by this court in its ruling dated 2nd November 2023. 2. On whether the Grant should be revoked, the Respondent submitted that the Applicants' claim that they were not involved in the succession case is plainly false, as they were not only listed in the Chief's letter, petition, and summons for confirmation of grant, but they even filed a protest which the court determined after hearing the parties. He argued that the allegation that the deceased left a will or known wishes is not new but was raised by the Applicants in their protest and dismissed by the court in its ruling. He further submitted that the claim that the Applicants' homes risk being demolished is false, as the administrator has already fully administered the estate as ordered by the court, considering how the parties were settled on the ground, and hence no building will be demolished. He relied on several judicial decisions including ***Albert Imbuga Kisigwa v Recho Kavai Kisigwa* [2016] eKLR, *In re Estate of Prisca Ong'ayo Nande* (Deceased) [2020] eKLR and *Estate of Njiru Rundie* (Family Appeal No. E001 of 2025)**, to support his position. 3. The Respondent submitted that the Applicants seek revocation of the Grant issued to him yet do not seek making of a grant to anybody including themselves, meaning that if the court revokes the Grant, the estate shall remain un administered, prone to wastage, and without anyone accountable to the court. He argued that the estate is already fully administered and distributed among the beneficiaries as ordered by the court, and the application is unmerited and entirely unwarranted. He prayed for the application to be dismissed. **Analysis and determination** 1. I have considered the grounds set out on the face of the summons plus the facts deposed in the affidavits filed in support and against the summons. I have further considered the rival submissions and I find the only issue for determination being whether the present application is merited. 2. The statutory framework governing the revocation or annulment of a grant of representation is codified under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act (Cap 160). The Section provides as follows: ***76. Revocation or annulment of grant*** ***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—*** 1. ***that the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance;*** 2. ***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;*** 3. ***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;*** 4. ***that the person to whom the grant was made has failed, after due notice and without reasonable cause either-*** 5. ***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*** 6. ***to proceed diligently with the administration of the estate; or*** 7. ***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***](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/1972/14/eng%402022-12-31#section%2083)***or has produced any such inventory or account which is false in any material particular; or*** 8. ***that the grant has become useless and inoperative through subsequent circumstances.*** 9. An applicant can move a court for revocation of grant on any or combination of the above listed grounds. It is also important to note, that a court can on its own motion pursuant to the provisions of Section 76 and revoke a grant whether or not confirmed. 10. Before analyzing the substance of the present application, I reiterate the statement of Mwita J. in [Albert Imbuga Kisigwa v Recho Kavai Kisigwa [2016] KEHC 1528 (KLR)](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2016/1528/eng%402016-11-15), where he stated as follows; ***13. Power to revoke a grant is a discretionary power that must be exercised judiciously and only on sound grounds. It is not a discretion to be exercised whimsically or capriciously. There must be evidence of wrong doing for the court to invoke section 76 and order to revoke or annul a grant. And when a court is called upon to exercise this discretion, it must take into account interests of all beneficiaries entitled to the deceased’s estate and ensure that the action taken will be for the interest of justice. [Emphasis added]*** 1. The Applicants have invoked Section 76(a), (b), and (c) of the Act. Their case is built on three main pillars: (i) that they were not involved in the proceedings; (ii) that the deceased left a written will which was ignored; and (iii) that the 1st Respondent forged their signatures on the consent to the mode of distribution. 2. On the first ground of lack of involvement, the evidence on record contradicts the Applicants' assertion. The Chief's letter lists the Applicants as beneficiaries and children of the deceased. The court record shows that the Applicants were named in the petition for letters of administration. More importantly, I have looked at the Affidavit of Protest filed by the Applicants themselves on 25th February 2022 indicating that they are beneficiaries of the deceased and protestors in the application. I find this to demonstrate that Applicants were not only aware of the succession proceedings but actively participated in them by filing their objections to the proposed mode of distribution. The Applicants actively participated in those proceedings, presented their proposed mode of distribution, and ventilated their grievances before this court. After hearing all parties, this court rendered a considered Ruling on 2nd November 2023 (delivered by E.K. Ogola J.), confirming the grant and ordering equal distribution among all surviving children pursuant to Sections 38 and 40 of the Law of Succession Act. Therefore, the allegation that the proceedings were defective in substance for lack of involvement fails. 3. Second, the Applicants contend under Section 76(b) and (c) that the 1st Respondent obtained the grant fraudulently by concealing that the deceased had left written or oral wishes/a will distributing land parcel Kabete/Karura/709 to four specific children. Upon reviewing the record, it is evident that this identical issue was previously presented, argued, and decided by this court. 4. The Applicants did not appeal against the Ruling of 2nd November 2023, nor did they file an application for review. Instead, they have brought the present application for revocation seeking to reopen the exact same question. 5. Where a party is aggrieved by a confirmation order or the court's decision on distribution, the proper legal remedy is an appeal or a review, not an application to revoke the grant. This ground of application also fails. 6. Third, regarding the allegation that the 1st Respondent forged the Applicants' signatures on the consent form, two key points must be emphasized. To begin with, the distribution of the deceased's estate was not executed pursuant to a consent form, but pursuant to a binding judicial ruling delivered on 2nd November 2023 following a contested protest. 7. Additionally, an allegation of forgery is a serious claim that carries a heavy burden of proof which the Applicants must discharge. Under Sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act (Cap 80), the legal burden rests squarely on the party asserting the affirmative. In the present case, the Applicants have merely made oral assertions of forgery without presenting any forensic handwriting examiner's report or documentary evidence to substantiate the claim. This ground of application also fails. 8. Having considered all the evidence and submissions, I find that the Applicants have failed to prove any of the grounds for revocation under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. 9. The application is hereby dismissed. 10. Each party to bear their own costs. 11. It is so ordered. Right of appeal 28 days. Dated, signed and delivered, vide TEAMS platform at Nairobi on this 24th day of July, 2026. ………………………….. **ROSELINE OGANYO** **JUDGE** In the Presence of; - Court Assistant…E, Sana Mr. Kamau for the Admin/Resp Miss Achieng for Objectors/Applicants