https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7011

In re Estate of Kithyo (Deceased) (Succession Cause E986 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 7011 (KLR) (Family) (21 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7011 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Family Succession Cause E986 of 2024 HK Chemitei, J May 21, 2026 IN THE MATTER THE ESTATE OF KATA MATEMU KITHYO (DECEASED) Between Arianne Rose Okong’o 1st Objector Billy Nzuma Kata 2nd Objector and Prisca Mukethe Kithyo 1st Respondent Mark Muinde Kithyo 2nd Respondent Ruling 1.This ruling relates to the application dated 4th September, 2024 filed by the Applicants, Arianne Rose Okong’o and Billy Nzuma Kata; seeking for an order that that the grant of Letters of Administration erroneously/wrongly/unlawfully and illegally granted to Prisca Mukethe Kithyo and Mark Muinde Kithyo issued on 11th June, 2025 be revoked. 2.The application is based on the grounds thereof and supported by affidavit sworn by Martha Arianne Rose Okong’o on 4th September, 2024. 3.She avers inter alia that the impugned grant was obtained fraudulently and through concealment of material facts, despite the existence of an earlier grant issued on 23rd August, 2024 in Nairobi High Court Succession Cause No. E367 of 2024 to Agnes Murorunkweru Kata, Melany Mwelu Kithyo, Ariane Rose Okong’o and Billy Nzuma Kata as co-administrator. 4.She maintains that the earlier succession cause and grant were validly instituted and that the Respondents knowingly filed a parallel succession cause without disclosure of the earlier proceedings. 5.She deposes that the deceased died intestate on 18th April, 2024 and was survived by his widow Agnes Murorunkweru Kata and several children. She avers that the original petition filed on 14th May, 2024 disclosed all beneficiaries and listed the deceased’s assets, including parcels of land in Mombasa, Machakos, Kwale and Nairobi, several bank accounts, company shares, motor vehicles and livestock. The estate was estimated at approximately Kshs. 100 million. 6.She annexes copies of the petition, the original grant, the chief’s letter identifying beneficiaries, the death certificate, guarantees by personal sureties, and consents executed by family members supporting the appointment of the original Administrators. 7.She asserts that the Respondents secretly filed Nairobi High Court Succession Cause No. E986 of 2024 on 31st October, 2024 and procured a second grant through false representations. She states that the Respondents were fully aware of the earlier proceedings because their advocates had already participated in the first succession cause through a summons for revocation dated 20th December, 2024. 8.According to Applicants, the second petition deliberately omitted material information regarding the existing grant and failed to disclose that the deceased’s estate was already under administration. 9.They further accuse the Respondents and their advocates of abuse of the court process, forum shopping and misrepresentation aimed at excluding lawful beneficiaries from the estate administration. 10.She further contends that Prisca Mukethe Kithyo was divorced from the deceased pursuant to a decree absolute issued in Nairobi SPMCC Divorce Cause No. 37 of 1995 and was therefore not entitled to petition for letters of administration as a surviving spouse. She annexes the decree absolute and maintain that the Respondents concealed the dissolution of the marriage from the court. 11.She argues that under Section 66 of the Law of Succession Act, a divorced spouse ranks outside the order of priority for appointment as administrator and is therefore unqualified to administer the estate. The supporting documents attached to the Applicants’ pleadings include the original grant issued on 23rd August, 2024, the petition for grant filed by the original Administrators, affidavits justifying the proposed Administrators, guarantees by personal sureties, the Chief’s introductory letter identifying beneficiaries, the death certificate of the deceased and consents by some family members supporting the appointment of the original Administrators. These documents are relied upon to demonstrate that the first succession proceedings were properly instituted and supported by the deceased’s immediate family members. 12.The record also contains proceedings from Succession Cause No. E367 of 2024 filed by Melany Mwelu Kithyo seeking revocation of the grant issued on 23rd August, 2024. In her application and affidavit, Melany Mwelu Kithyo alleges that the grant was procured through fraud and concealment of material facts by Agnes Murorunkweru Kata, Ariane Rose Okong’o and Billy Nzuma Kata. She contends that Ariane Rose Okong’o is not a biological child of the deceased but merely an ex-girlfriend who never lived with or depended on the deceased. 13.She further alleges that Billy Nzuma Kata was born out of wedlock, resides in Australia and lacks the necessary involvement in the deceased’s affairs to qualify as administrator. She also states that Agnes Murorunkweru Kata resides in Canada and is therefore unable to effectively administer the estate. 14.Melany Mwelu Kithyo further deposes that the signatures and consents relied upon in the original petition were obtained fraudulently and that some beneficiaries, including herself, Ruth Kivinya Kithyo and Mark Muinde Kithyo, neither consented to nor participated in the earlier proceedings. She alleges that the proceedings were orchestrated by Mumo Matemu and Ariane Rose Okong’o to exclude the deceased’s lawful children and to take control of the estate. 15.She also claims that the grant issued on 23rd August, 2024 was being used to harass and intimidate family members, including causing the arrest of her mother at Mavoko Police Station. Melany Mwelu Kithyo additionally asserts that the Chief’s letter relied upon by the original Petitioners had earlier been disowned by the Deputy Registrar after the area chief indicated that the listed beneficiaries should not be acted upon until DNA tests were conducted to confirm paternity. 16.She maintains that the succession proceedings were commenced with unusual haste and were founded upon forged or misleading documentation. On that basis, she seeks suspension and revocation of the original grant issued on 23rd August, 2024 pending full hearing of the dispute. 17.The later pages contain the second grant issued on 11th June, 2025 to Prisca Mukethe Kithyo and Mark Muinde Kithyo, together with supporting documents including another Chief’s letter and the decree absolute dissolving the marriage between Aaron Kata Kithyo and Prisca Mukethe Kithyo. There is also a cross-petition and answer filed by Ariane Rose Okong’o and Billy Nzuma Kata opposing the second petition. She reiterates that the deceased was survived by Agnes Murorunkweru Kata and seven children, all of whom rank equally in priority to administer the estate. She accuses the Respondents of attempting to exclude lawful beneficiaries and of filing a parallel cause to undermine the original Administrators and seize control of the estate. 18.The application is opposed vide replying affidavits sworn by Prisca Mukethe Kithyo and Mark Muinde Kithyo on 24th October, 2025 and 5th December, 2025. 19.Prisca Mukethe Kithyo describes herself as the widow of the deceased, having allegedly married him in 1974 and states that the 2nd Respondent, Mark Muinde Kithyo, is her biological son with the deceased. She disputes the status of the Objectors, asserting that Ariane Rose Okong’o is not a biological child of the deceased but merely one of the deceased’s former girlfriends, while Billy Nzuma Kata, though allegedly the deceased’s son, never lived with or depended upon the deceased during his lifetime. 20.She explains that she only became aware of Nairobi High Court Succession Cause No. E367 of 2024 after her daughter, Melany Mwelu Kithyo, informed her about it. She avers that the said succession proceedings were part of a fraudulent scheme orchestrated by Mumo Matemu, whom she identifies as the deceased’s younger brother and an advocate of the High Court. According to her, the Applicants herein were aware that the earlier grant issued on 23rd August, 2024 had already been challenged by Melany Mwelu Kithyo through revocation proceedings filed in December 2024. 21.She therefore contends that the Applicants cannot claim exclusive rights over the estate or rely on the earlier grant as though it were uncontested. She further denies allegations that she or her co-petitioner knowingly concealed the existence of the earlier succession cause when filing the present petition. She maintains that neither she nor Mark Muinde Kithyo had been invited to sign consents authorizing the Applicants to petition for administration of the estate in Cause No. E367 of 2024. 22.She also argues that the existence of revocation proceedings against the earlier grant demonstrates that the validity of that grant remains disputed and unresolved. In her view, the present succession cause was therefore lawfully instituted and does not amount to abuse of the court process. She denies being a divorced wife of the deceased. Although a decree nisi absolute issued in 1996 exists, she contends that the issue of the validity and effect of the alleged divorce should be determined substantively by the court after hearing all parties. 23.She states that she only learnt of the divorce allegations from Mumo Matemu during the deceased’s burial preparations. She further dismisses the allegations in the Applicants’ affidavit as emotional accusations unsupported by evidence and maintains that no proof has been produced to establish the assertions made concerning the alleged February 2025 court proceedings. 24.The annexed pleadings from Succession Cause No. E367 of 2024 contain an application by Melany Mwelu Kithyo seeking revocation or annulment of the grant issued on 23rd August, 2024 to Agnes Murorunkweru Kata, Ariane Rose Okong’o and Billy Nzuma Kata. In that application, Melany alleges that Agnes Murorunkweru Kata is a convicted criminal residing in Canada and therefore incapable of administering the estate. She also claims that Ariane Rose Okong’o was merely an ex-girlfriend of the deceased and not his biological daughter, while Billy Nzuma Kata was born out of wedlock, resides in Australia and never participated in the deceased’s affairs. 25.She therefore argues that the Administrators appointed under the earlier grant are unsuitable and unqualified under Section 83 of the Law of Succession Act. Melany Mwelu Kithyo further avers that she and her siblings were not consulted before the filing of the earlier petition and that signatures and supporting affidavits used in the proceedings were procured fraudulently by Mumo Matemu while the family was still grieving the deceased. 26.She contends that the proceedings were part of a conspiracy between Mumo Matemu and Ariane Rose Okong’o to disinherit the deceased’s lawful beneficiaries. She also accuses Mumo Matemu of using the impugned grant to interfere with estate properties and to harass her mother and siblings, including causing the arrest and detention of her mother at Mavoko Police Station. 27.The annexures attached to the replying affidavit include copies of the original grant issued on 23rd August, 2024, affidavits of justification by proposed Administrators and sureties, guarantees by personal sureties, the petition filed by Ariane Rose Okong’o, the Chief’s letters identifying beneficiaries, and consents executed by certain family members. The documents are relied upon by the Respondents to demonstrate inconsistencies in the earlier succession proceedings and to challenge the authenticity and propriety of the documents filed by the original Administrators. 28.Additional annexures comprise correspondence from advocates and local administration relating to collection of rent from estate properties and disputes over control of the deceased’s assets. Some letters accuse Mumo Matemu and the Applicants of unlawfully collecting rental income and interfering with tenants, while others warn tenants against paying rent to unauthorized persons. These documents are intended to show that the dispute extends beyond administration of the estate to active control and management of estate properties, with competing factions within the deceased’s family asserting authority over the assets. 29.Mark Muinde Kithyo identifies himself as a biological son of the deceased, Kata Matemu Kithyo and states that the 1st Respondent, Prisca Mukethe Kithyo, is his mother. He disputes the status of the Applicants/Objectors, asserting that Ariane Rose Okong’o is neither a biological daughter nor a dependant of the deceased, but merely a woman who had a relationship with him. 30.He further states that although Billy Nzuma Kata may be the deceased’s biological son, he never lived with or depended on the deceased during his lifetime. Mark Muinde Kithyo denies the allegation that he or the 1st Respondent consented to the filing of Nairobi High Court Succession Cause No. E367 of 2024 by the Applicants. He states that neither of them executed or were invited to execute any consent authorizing the Applicants to petition for administration of the estate. 31.He further avers that when the present petition was filed on 27th November, 2024, he and the 1st Respondent were completely unaware of the existence of the earlier succession cause, which he describes as having been secretly filed. He acknowledges that his sister, Melany Mwelu Kithyo, filed revocation proceedings in Succession Cause No. E367 of 2024 challenging the validity of the grant issued on 23rd August, 2024. He states that those proceedings exposed alleged fraud perpetrated by persons acting in concert with Mumo Matemu, whom he identifies as the deceased’s younger brother. 32.In his view, because the earlier grant is already under challenge, the Applicants cannot rely on it as a basis for revoking the grant issued in the present succession cause. He further disputes the Applicants’ contention that they rank higher in priority than the Petitioners for purposes of administration under Section 66 of the Law of Succession Act. He maintains that the Applicants have not demonstrated any superior legal entitlement to warrant revocation of the grant. He also denies allegations that the current petition constitutes an abuse of the court process, insisting that it was properly filed in accordance with the law. 33.With regard to the alleged divorce between the deceased and Prisca Mukethe Kithyo, he states that he is unaware of the decree nisi absolute allegedly issued in Nairobi SPMC Divorce Cause No. 57 of 1997. He contends that the alleged divorce was unknown to the family and only emerged during burial disputes in mid-2024 after the deceased’s death. He therefore disputes the reliance placed on the alleged divorce decree by the Applicants. 34.He dismisses the allegations contained in paragraphs 8 to 12 of the Applicants’ affidavit as speculative, emotional and unsupported by evidence. He also contends that no evidence has been produced to substantiate claims regarding what the court allegedly recorded in February 2025. On that basis, he urges the court to dismiss the summons for revocation of grant with costs. 35.The Applicants have filed written submissions dated 3rd December, 2025. They argue that the impugned grant was procured fraudulently, unlawfully and through concealment of material facts despite the existence of an earlier and valid grant issued on 23rd August, 2024 in Nairobi High Court Succession Cause No. E367 of 2024 to Agnes Murorunkweru Kata, Melany Mwelu Kithyo, Ariane Rose Okong’o and Billy Nzuma Kata as co-Administrators of the estate of the late Kata Matemu Kithyo. 36.They maintain that the Respondents were fully aware of the earlier proceedings because their advocates had already filed summons for revocation in the original succession cause on behalf of Melany Mwelu Kithyo. 37.The Applicants contend that the present succession cause, being Nairobi High Court Succession Cause No. E986 of 2024, constitutes a parallel and abusive process that should be struck out with costs. They submit that all issues concerning the estate ought to be dealt with exclusively in Succession Cause No. E367 of 2024, where the original grant was issued and where confirmation proceedings were already pending. 38.According to them, the Respondents and their advocates knowingly misled the court by filing a second petition despite full knowledge that the estate was already under administration. 39.The Applicants further submit that the 1st Respondent, Prisca Mukethe Kithyo, was divorced from the deceased pursuant to a decree nisi absolute issued on 20th September, 1996 in Nairobi SPMC Divorce Cause No. 57 of 1997 and therefore lacks legal capacity to administer the estate under Section 66 of the Law of Succession Act. They argue that a divorced spouse is not recognized as a surviving spouse for purposes of intestate succession and cannot rank in priority as administrator. 40.They also assert that the Respondents are untrustworthy and unsuitable to administer the estate because they allegedly sought to exclude the lawful beneficiaries and deprive them of their inheritance. The Applicants reiterate that the original petition filed on 14th May, 2024 disclosed all beneficiaries of the estate, including the Respondents and their siblings and was supported by the deceased’s chief’s letter dated 29th April, 2024. 41.They emphasize that the original grant lawfully included all eight beneficiaries and was issued in accordance with Section 66 of the Law of Succession Act. They therefore argue that the Respondents’ later petition was unnecessary, fraudulent and intended solely to undermine the existing Administrators. 42.They also accuse the Respondents and their advocates of forum shopping and deliberate abuse of court process. They argue that after unsuccessfully seeking revocation of the earlier grant through Melany Mwelu Kithyo, the Respondents improperly initiated a second succession cause to obtain a fresh grant over the same estate. They further claim that the second grant was prematurely issued before expiry of the mandatory six-month period required under Section 71 of the Law of Succession Act, thereby demonstrating procedural irregularity and bad faith. 43.In support of their legal arguments, the Applicants rely heavily on the decision in re Estate of Fredrick Rephas Omukoko (Deceased) [2025] KEHC 1575 (KLR). They cite the court’s holding that a divorced spouse cannot be regarded as a surviving spouse for purposes of intestate succession, although such a former spouse may seek reasonable provision under Section 26 of the Law of Succession Act. They also rely on Justice William Musyoka’s commentary in The Law of Succession, which states that divorced spouses have no rights to an intestate estate as surviving spouses. 44.The Applicants submit that because Prisca Mukethe Kithyo had allegedly divorced the deceased before his death, she cannot lawfully administer or inherit from the estate as a widow. They further argue that the 2nd Respondent, Mark Muinde Kithyo, is already adequately represented in the administration through his sister, Melany Mwelu Kithyo, who was appointed one of the original co-Administrators under the grant of 23rd August, 2024. They therefore contend that the original grant sufficiently accommodated all beneficiaries and there was no justification for commencing parallel proceedings. 45.The Applicants conclude by urging the court to revoke the grant issued on 11th June, 2025, strike out Succession Cause No. E986 of 2024 for abuse of process and direct that all matters concerning the estate be determined solely within Succession Cause No. E367 of 2024. They also pray that the Respondents bear the costs of the proceedings, which they describe as unnecessary and founded on fraud, concealment and multiplicity of suits. 46.Agnes Murorunkweru Kata, described as the 3rd objector, has filed written submissions dated 12th February, 2026. She identifies herself as the lawful surviving spouse of the deceased and supports the position taken by the 1st and 2nd Objectors in its entirety. 47.She argues that the grant of letters of administration issued on 11th June, 2025 to Prisca Mukethe Kithyo and Mark Muinde Kithyo was obtained in circumstances that violated both the letter and spirit of the Law of Succession Act. She submits that before the impugned grant was issued, there already existed another succession cause, namely HCFPA E367 of 2024, in which a grant had been lawfully issued on 23rd August, 2024 to four Administrators representing the different houses of the deceased. She maintains that the earlier proceedings recognized all beneficiaries, including herself as the surviving spouse and therefore the Respondents’ decision to institute a parallel succession cause amounted to concealment of material facts and abuse of court process. 48.According to her, the 1st Respondent falsely represented herself as the widow of the deceased despite the existence of a decree absolute dissolving their marriage. She contends that by presenting herself as a surviving spouse, the 1st Respondent misled the court on a material issue affecting priority in administration under Section 66 of the Law of Succession Act. 49.She further argues that the Respondents deliberately excluded the lawful surviving spouse and several beneficiaries from the petition, thereby rendering the proceedings defective and liable to revocation under Section 76 of the Act. She emphasizes that succession proceedings demand utmost good faith and full disclosure. She submits that failure to disclose all beneficiaries and the existence of the prior succession cause was not a mere procedural omission but a fundamental defect going to the root of the proceedings. 50.She therefore argues that the impugned grant was obtained fraudulently through false statements, concealment and material non-disclosure within the meaning of Section 76 (b) and (c) of the Law of Succession Act. 51.In support of her submissions, she relies on the decision in Matheka & Another v Matheka [2005] eKLR, where the court held that a grant obtained through concealment of material facts or failure to disclose rightful beneficiaries is liable to revocation. She also cites Ndinya & Another v Abuya & 3 Others [2023] KEHC 22618 (KLR), where the court revoked a later grant after the petitioner failed to disclose the existence of earlier succession proceedings and a subsisting grant over the same estate. 52.She submits that the present matter is even more aggravated because the Respondents not only concealed the existence of prior proceedings but also misrepresented the 1st Respondent’s marital status and excluded lawful beneficiaries from the estate. She argues that two grants cannot lawfully subsist over the same estate and that permitting parallel grants would expose the estate to confusion, conflicting administration and prejudice to beneficiaries. 53.The submissions conclude that the impugned grant issued on 11th June, 2025 should be revoked in the interests of justice and orderly administration of the estate. She urges the court to allow the summons for revocation in its entirety so that the estate may continue to be administered under the earlier grant issued in HCFPA E367 of 2024, where all houses and beneficiaries of the deceased are represented. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION 54.I have gone through the application, the responses thereto and the rival submissions. 55.The issues that arise for determination are: whether the grant of letters of administration issued on 11th June, 2025 to Prisca Mukethe Kithyo and Mark Muinde Kithyo was obtained through defective proceedings, concealment of material facts or untrue allegations within the meaning of Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act; whether the existence of Nairobi High Court Succession Cause No. E367 of 2024 and the earlier grant issued therein rendered the subsequent proceedings untenable; and what orders ought to issue. 56.In re Estate of Joshua Githiari Kibui (Deceased) [2021] eKLR the court stated as follows:“18.For avoidance of doubt, Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act states as follows:a.“76.Revocation or annulment of Grantb.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—20.Further, In the Matter of the Estate of L A K – (Deceased) [2014] eKLR the court held that;(a)Revocation of grants in governed by Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. The relevant portions of Section 76 are paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) since the issues raised relate to the process of the making of a grant. A grant may be revoked where the proceedings leading up to its making were defective, or were attended by fraud and concealment of important matter, or was obtained by an untrue allegation of a fact essential to the point.32.The court in the case of Jamleck Maina Njoroge v Mary Wanjiru Mwangi (2015) eKLR at paragraph 11 of its ruling in revoking a grant reiterated the grounds upon which a grant can be revoked. It stated as follows:-a.“11.The circumstances that can lead to the revocation of grant have been set out in Section 76 Law of Succession. For a grant to be revoked either on the Application of an interested party or on the court’s own motion there must be evidence that the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance, or that the grant was obtained fraudulently by making of false statement, or by concealment of something material to the case, or that the grant was obtained by means of untrue allegations of facts essential in point of law.”33.In the case of Matheka and Another vs Matheka [2005] 2KLR 455 the Court of Appeal laid down the following guiding principles as to revocation of grants.(a)“i.A grant may be revoked either by application by an interested party or by the court on its own motion.(b)ii.Even when revocation is by the court upon its own motion, there must be evidence that the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance, or that the grant was obtained fraudulently by the making of a false statement or by concealment of something material to the case or that the grant was obtained by means of untrue allegation of facts essential in point of law or that the person named in the grant has failed to apply for confirmation or to proceed diligently with the administration of the estate.” 57.The guiding principles on consolidation of suits were well established in Omoke v Kenyatta & 83 others [2021] KESC 27 (KLR) where the court pronounced itself as follows:“…[8]We now therefore opine as follows:i.The jurisdiction to consolidate appeals in this court is conferred by rule 21 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2021, which stipulates that;“The court may, upon application by any party or on its own motion, where satisfied that the issues involved in any two or more proceedings are similar, order that the proceedings be—a.consolidated, on such terms as the Court may determine…”ii.Consolidation of suits or appeals will be ordered where there are common questions of either law or fact in two or more suits or appeals and where it is desirable that all the related matters be disposed of at the same time.iii.When considering an application for consolidation, this court will bear in mind the guiding principles it pronounced in the case of the Law Society of Kenya v Centre for Human Rights & Democracy & 12 others, SC Petition No 14 of 2013, [2014] eKLR, that:“The essence of consolidation is to facilitate the efficient and expeditious disposal of disputes and to provide a framework for a fair and impartial dispensation of justice to the parties. Consolidation was never meant to confer any undue advantage upon the party that seeks it, nor was it intended to occasion any disadvantage towards the party that opposes it.”iv.Through consolidation, costs, time and other resources are saved and multiplicity of proceedings avoided. All the three petitions before this court arise from the same set of facts; the same subject matter; they raise similar issues of law; involve the same parties who were before the two superior courts below; and ensue from the same judgment…” 58.Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act empowers this court to revoke a grant where the proceedings to obtain it were defective in substance, where it was procured fraudulently through concealment of material facts or false statements, or where it was founded on untrue allegations essential in law. 59.Succession proceedings demand utmost candour, full disclosure and inclusion of all beneficiaries. A party petitioning for representation bears a legal duty to disclose any prior succession proceedings touching on the same estate and to notify all persons ranking in equal or prior degree. The material on record demonstrates that before the impugned grant of 11th June, 2025 was issued, there already existed Nairobi High Court Succession Cause No. E367 of 2024 in respect of the same estate, in which a grant had been issued on 23rd August, 2024 to Agnes Murorunkweru Kata, Melany Mwelu Kithyo, Ariane Rose Okong’o and Billy Nzuma Kata. 60.The Respondents contend that they were unaware of the earlier succession cause and that the earlier grant itself is contested through revocation proceedings filed by Melany Mwelu Kithyo. However, the existence of disputes regarding the validity of the earlier grant did not entitle the Respondents to institute parallel succession proceedings over the same estate without disclosure to the court. 61.The proper recourse would have been to prosecute the pending revocation application within Succession Cause No. E367 of 2024. The institution of a second succession cause resulted in two competing grants issued by courts of concurrent jurisdiction over the same estate, thereby creating uncertainty, confusion and risk of conflicting administration. This court takes judicial notice that succession proceedings are proceedings in rem and there cannot lawfully subsist parallel grants over one estate unless the earlier grant has first been revoked, annulled or set aside. Concealment of an existing succession cause and subsisting grant constitutes a fundamental defect warranting revocation. 62.The issue regarding the marital status of Prisca Mukethe Kithyo and the validity or effect of the alleged decree absolute raises substantive factual disputes that may ultimately require viva voce evidence. Nevertheless, for purposes of the present application, the court need not conclusively determine whether the 1st Respondent remained a lawful spouse at the time of the deceased’s death. Even assuming that question remains unresolved, the Respondents were still under a mandatory obligation to disclose to the court the existence of the prior succession proceedings and the earlier grant issued on 23rd August, 2024. 63.Equally material is the fact that several beneficiaries and interested parties had already been identified in the earlier cause. The omission of these matters from the subsequent petition amounted to concealment of material facts within the meaning of Section 76 (b) and (c) of the Law of Succession Act. 64.I am also persuaded that the interests of justice and orderly administration of the estate would best be served by having all disputes relating to the estate ventilated within one succession cause instead of multiple parallel proceedings because consolidation and centralized determination of related disputes promotes efficiency, consistency and avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings. 65.Accordingly, I find that the proceedings leading to the issuance of the grant dated 11th June, 2025 were defective in substance and attended by material non-disclosure. 66.In the premises the Court makes the following orders:a.The summons for revocation dated 4th September, 2025 is hereby allowed and the grant of letters of administration intestate issued to Prisca Mukethe Kithyo and Mark Muinde Kithyo on 11th June, 2025 in Nairobi High Court Succession Cause No. E986 of 2024 is hereby revoked and annulled.b.All disputes touching on the estate of the deceased shall henceforth proceed within Nairobi High Court Succession Cause No. E367 of 2024, wherein the pending applications for revocation, confirmation and beneficiary status may be comprehensively determined.c)Each party to bear its own costs. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA VIDEO LINK AT NAIROBI THIS 21ST DAY OF MAY 2026.H K CHEMITEIJUDGE