https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8029

In re Estate of Segem (Deceased) (Succession Cause 51 of 2018) [2026] KEHC 8029 (KLR) (10 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8029 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Bomet Succession Cause 51 of 2018 JK Ng'arng'ar, J June 10, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KIMISIONG SEGEM (DECEASED) Between Johnstone Kipkoech Simotwo Petitioner and Naomi Chemutai 1st Objector Elizabeth Cherono 2nd Objector Ruling 1.In this matter, a Grant was issued to the Petitioner on 26th February 2019 and thereafter a Certificate of Confirmation of Grant was issued on 7th November 2019 in respect of the deceased’s estate (Kericho/Kyogong/350). Summons for Revocation 2.The Objectors filed their Application for revocation of the Grant dated 29th October 2021. Through his Supporting Affidavit even dated, the 1st Objector stated that they were the deceased’s daughters in law. That the Grant was confirmed without full disclosure of all the deceased’s beneficiaries. The 1st Objector further stated that the Petitioner did not obtain consent from the rightful heirs of the deceased. 3.It was the 1st Objector’s case that she was unaware of the current succession proceedings and this led her to file another succession cause in relation to the same estate in the Magistrate’s court being Succession Cause Number 11 of 2019. That the Petitioner was listed as one of the beneficiaries and when the matter came up for mention, the Petitioner refused to come to court knowing that he had secretly obtained another Grant without informing them. It was the Objector’s further case that she was served with an Application dated 16th September 2021 seeking to evict them from the deceased’s estate. 4.The 1st Objector stated that the Petitioner had already obtained the title for Kericho/Kyogong/350 and wanted to evict them. The 1st Objector further stated that the Petitioner was adopted by the deceased’s wife in the year 1979 and was chased away and went back to his original home after he misbehaved. That the Petitioner’s true place of abode was Goitab Silibwet. 5.It was the 1st Objector’s case that the Petitioner had alienated the deceased’s assets and converted them for his own use. 6.Through her Supplementary Affidavit dated 22nd July 2025, the 1st Objector stated that the Petitioner had filed an ELC matter at the lower court being ELC Case Number E027 of 2021 where he wanted to evict them. That the case was dismissed. The 1st Objector further stated that she had lived and utilized part of the deceased’s estate since the year 1999 when she was married and that she had capacity to file the present objection. 7.Through their written submissions dated 29th September 2025, the Objectors submitted that they were the deceased’s daughters in law having married the deceased’s sons. That they attached the Chief’s Letter showing their relationship to the deceased. The Objectors further submitted that the deceased failed to include them as the deceased’s beneficiaries. 8.It was the Objectors’ submission hat their husbands put up houses where they had been shown by the deceased and the Petitioner disregarded their presence and went ahead to file the present proceedings as the sole beneficiary of the deceased’s estate. They relied on Rule 26 of the Probate and Administration Rules. It was the Objectors’ further submissions that they did not sign the consent for confirmation of Grant. Response 9.Through his Replying Affidavit dated 24th November 2021, the Petitioner stated that they were not the deceased’s daughters in law but were daughters in law of Kipngerechi Arap Segem who was the deceased’s brother. That the Objectors had not provided any evidence to prove their claim to the deceased’s estate. The Petitioner further stated that during confirmation of the Grant, his two sisters Wiliter Tesot and Rusi Chemangei were present in court. 10.It was the Petitioner’s case that the Objectors had no right to be informed of the succession proceedings since they were strangers to the deceased’s estate. It was the Petitioner’s case that he filed a Protest in the Objectors’ succession cause in the Magistrate’s court. 11.The Petitioner stated that he had obtained a title deed on the parcel. The Petitioner further stated that he had no problem having the 1st Objector added as a co-administrator even though she had been disinterested in the proceedings all along. 12.The Petitioner also filed a Preliminary Objection stating that the Objectors did not have locus standi to make the Application and that this court did not have jurisdiction to handle the matter raised in the Application. 13.Through his written submissions dated 19th May 2025, the Petitioner submitted that the Objectors had not met any grounds for the revocation of Grant under section 76 of the Law of Succession. The Petitioner further submitted that the Objectors had no locus standi as they were not direct beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate. That under the law, only spouses, children, parents, siblings or the deceased’s dependants had a right to the deceased’s estate. 14.It was the Petitioner’s submission that he did not conceal material facts from this court during the confirmation of the Grant. That he fully disclosed all the deceased’s beneficiaries. It was the Petitioner’s further submission that the present Application was an abuse of the court process. 15.I have gone through the entire record, the Petitioner’s written submissions dated 19th May 2025, the Objectors’ written submissions dated 29th September 2025. Two issues that arise for my determination are: -i.Whether the Preliminary Objection dated 24th November 2021 has merit.ii.If the answer in (i) is in the negative, whether the Grant dated 26th February 2019 and confirmed on 7th November 2019 should be revoked. i. Whether the Preliminary Objection dated 24th November 2021 has merit. 16.On the issue of jurisdiction, the Objectors sought for revocation of the Grant due to non-disclosure of material facts. The Petitioner on the other hand stated that this matter ought to be handled by the Environmental and Land Court as he had already acquired the title to the deceased’s estate being Kericho/Kyogong/350. The Application as I have understood it challenged the process of obtaining the Grant and did not question the ownership of Kericho/Kyogong/350. This court is clothed with jurisdiction to hear and determine matters that concern a deceased’s estate, as is the present case. Section 47 of the Law of Succession Act provides: -The High Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any application and determine any dispute under this Act and to pronounce such decrees and make such orders therein as may be expedient:Provided that the High Court may for the purpose of this section be represented by Resident Magistrates appointed by the Chief Justice. 17.Flowing from the above, it is my finding that this court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Objectors’ Application for revocation. 18.On the issue of locus standi, the Supreme Court in Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 others [2014] KESC 6 (KLR) held: -“…..The issue of locus standi raises a point of law that touches on the jurisdiction of the Court, and it should be resolved at the earliest opportunity…..” 19.Similarly, in Njau & 5 others v City Council of Nairobi [1983] KECA 56 (KLR), the Court of Appeal held: -“The term locus standi means a right to appear in Court and, conversely, as is stated in Jowitt’s Dictionary of English Law, to say that a person has no locus standi means that he has no right to appear or be heard in such and such a proceeding…..” 20.The Objectors stated that they were the deceased’s daughters in law by virtue of being married to the deceased’s sons. The Petitioner on the other hand stated that the Objectors were strangers to the deceased’s estate as they were not the deceased’s beneficiaries. Contrary to the Petitioner’s assertion that the Objectors did not avail evidence to prove their relationship with the deceased, the Objectors attached a Chief’s Letter as “NC-3”. The importance of Chief’s Letters in identifying the deceased’s kin has been stated in several authorities which include; In re Estate of Stanley Mathenge Ruriga (Deceased) [2018] KEHC 4522 (KLR), the court held: -“……. The purpose of the Chief letter is to ensure that the right party files succession………. 21.Similarly, in re Estate of Mutaba Kioko alias Michael Mutava Kioko (Deceased) [2025] KEHC 8434 (KLR), the court held: -“…..This Court takes judicial notice of the important role played by Chief’s letters in succession proceedings. When one files for letters of administration intestate, one of the crucial documents that is required is a letter from the chief. In the case of Ayako v Oronje [2024] KEHC 7641 (KLR) the court held that;“I should point out that the act of issuing a chief’s letter or that of local Administration in succession proceedings is Administrative, not legal, on the part of the local Administrator.The courts, traditionally, require the chiefs to assist the court to ascertain the immediate kindred of a Deceased person. The chiefs are considered reliable, as it is expected that he/she is well acquainted with the residents of his location. However, there is no law that binds the chiefs to issue such a letter (s).” 22.In Stephen Kivuti Kiura v Anastacia Murugi Muthui & another [2021] KEHC 3694 (KLR), the court held: -“……. It is trite law that dependency is a matter of fact and evidence has to be adduced to prove the same. Though the respondents listed the dependants, no birth certificates were produced or at the very least, a letter from the chief to show that the children exist.” 23.I have looked at the Chief’s Letter dated 10th September 2018 and I have noted that the Petitioner and the Objectors were listed as the deceased’s beneficiaries as the deceased’s son and daughters in law respectively. Flowing from the above, I am satisfied that the Objectors proved that they were the deceased’s daughters in law. It is my finding therefore that the Objectors had locus standi to bring the Application for revocation as they were the deceased’s dependants as provided for under section 29 of the Law of Succession Act. 24.This then brought forward the question as to whether the Grant ought to be revoked. The law on revocation of Grants is provided for in Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act which states that: -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. 25.Having earlier found that the Objectors were the deceased’s beneficiaries, I have looked at the pleadings and I have noted that the Petitioner neither listed them (Objectors) as part of the deceased’s beneficiaries nor provided for them while distributing the estate. This amounted to material non-disclosure of facts to the court and this was a ripe case for revocation of the Grant. 26.Having been satisfied that the Objectors met one of the grounds for revocation as encapsulated under section 76 of the Law of Succession Act, I hereby revoke the Grant dated 26th February 2019 and confirmed on 7th November 2019. 27.It became clear from the pleadings that the Petitioner had already acquired a title deed to the deceased’s estate being Kericho/Kyogong/350. What happens to the said title? In Santuzzabilioti alias Mei Santuzza (deceased) vs Giancarlo Felasconi (2014) eKLR, the court held: -“This cannot be the case as the succession court has powers to order a title deed to revert to the names of a deceased person. This in effect amounts to cancelation of the title deed. Further, a succession court can order a cancelation of title deed if a deceased’s property is being fraudulently taken away by non beneficiaries such as where the property is being sold before a grant is confirmed.” 28.Similarly, inre Estate of Leah Wanguii Nding'uri (Deceased) [2020] KEHC 5505 (KLR), Wendoh J. held: -“In this case, the respondents filed this cause and brought themselves under the provisions of the Law of Succession Act. The grant that was issued to the respondents was revoked. It means that, all actions taken by the respondents including the registration of the deceased’s property in their names was rendered a nullity………….. this court has jurisdiction to order cancelation of the said titles so that the land can revert back to the deceased’s names………” 29.Further, in re Estate of Muturi Katumuta [2022] KEHC 2396 (KLR), Gitari J. held: -“In succession matter, the High Court has jurisdiction to issue any orders including cancellation of title deeds where the grant is revoked.” 30.Flowing from the above, it is evident that a probate court has the power to cancel titles which emanate from a revoked Grant. 31.In the end, I make the following orders: -I.The Grant dated 26th February 2019 and confirmed on 7th November 2019 is hereby revoked.II.The title deed to Kericho/Kyogong/350 is hereby cancelled.III.A new Grant in the joint names of Johnstone Kipkoech Simotwo and Naomi Chemutai to issue.IV.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:absentObjectors:present