https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6836

In re Estate of K (Deceased) (Succession Cause E547 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 6836 (KLR) (Family) (21 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 6836 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Family Succession Cause E547 of 2024 HK Chemitei, J May 21, 2026 IN THE MATTER THE ESTATE OF CSOK (DECEASED) Between MANP 1st Objector GSK 2nd Objector and ENM 1st Respondent PNW 2nd Respondent Ruling 1.This ruling relates to the application dated 8th August, 2024 filed by the Applicants, MANP and GSK; seeking for orders that:1.Spent.2.This Honourable Court be pleased to order that the special limited grant with respect to the estate of CSOK (Deceased) issued on 29th July, 2024 by Justice H.K. Chemitei be and is hereby revoked.3.This Honourable Court be pleased to grant special limited grant with respect to the estate of CSOK (Deceased) jointly to the four known dependants of the Deceased; MANP, GSK, ENM and PNW.4.This Honourable Court be pleased to order that an estate account with respect to the estate of CSOK (Deceased) be opened in the joint names of MANP, GSK, ENM and PNW.5.Costs of this application be in the cause. 2.The application is based on the grounds thereof and supported by affidavit and further affidavit sworn by MANP on 8th August, 2024 and 2nd September, 2024. 3.She avers inter alia that she is one of the Objectors/Applicants and that the 2nd Objector, GSK, authorized her to swear the affidavit on his behalf. She avers that they are siblings of the deceased, CSOK, and annexes copies of their national identity cards and a letter from their Chief to demonstrate their relationship to the deceased. 4.She further deposes that the deceased catered for and maintained them throughout his lifetime and that the Respondents were well aware of their existence and dependency on the deceased. According to the deponent, the Respondents misled the Court into believing that only PNW and ENM were beneficiaries of the estate, despite knowing that the Applicants were also surviving dependants. 5.The affidavit further states that the Respondents secretly and without disclosure to the other beneficiaries obtained a special limited grant on 29th July, 2024 by allegedly concealing material facts from the Court . She contends that the grant was procured fraudulently through false representations that the Respondents were the only surviving beneficiaries of the deceased. She maintains that the Respondents failed to consult or seek the consent of the Applicants before petitioning for the grant, despite their status as siblings and dependants of the deceased. 6.She also refers to burial arrangements and proceedings before the lower Court in which the Respondents allegedly excluded the Applicants while advancing claims that they alone were entitled to administer and benefit from the estate. She further deposes that following the issuance of the special limited grant, the 1st Respondent, ENM, took over operations of the deceased’s businesses and began directing tenants to remit rental income and business proceeds into his personal account, thereby prejudicing the estate and excluding the Applicants from participation in the administration of the estate. 7.She expresses apprehension that unless the Court intervenes, the Respondents would dissipate or waste the estate assets, particularly because the estate largely consists of ongoing business enterprises. She alleges that the Respondents’ unilateral actions and control over the businesses threaten to cripple the operations of the deceased’s enterprises and permanently prejudice the rights of the other beneficiaries. 8.She further avers that the grant in question had not yet been confirmed and that the estate would suffer irreparable loss if the Respondents were allowed to continue acting solely under the impugned limited grant. She therefore urges the Court to revoke the grant issued on 29th July, 2024 and replace it with a joint special limited grant issued in the names of the four known beneficiaries, namely MANP, GSK, ENM and PNW, so as to safeguard and preserve the estate pending confirmation of grant. 9.She asserts that the Respondents would suffer no prejudice if the application were allowed and maintains that the application was brought in good faith and without undue delay. The annexures to the affidavit include copies of the Applicants’ identity cards, a Chief’s introductory letter confirming the familial relationship between the Applicants and the deceased, copies of proceedings and pleadings from Milimani CMCC proceedings concerning disputes over the deceased’s burial arrangements, witness statements and affidavits sworn by PNW, as well as a post-mortem report relating to the deceased. 10.The annexures collectively seek to demonstrate the existence of disputes regarding the deceased’s burial and administration of the estate, establish the Applicants’ relationship with the deceased and show that multiple persons claimed dependency and entitlement in respect of the deceased’s estate. 11.In the further affidavit she maintains that the Applicants only seek revocation of the impugned limited grant and the issuance of a fresh grant in the joint names of all four known beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate. She partially concedes the Respondents’ assertions regarding the nature of the deceased’s relationship with them but disputes the suggestion that the Respondents were known members of the deceased’s family prior to his death. 12.She avers that the deceased was buried at his ancestral home in Narok in accordance with his wishes and contends that the 1st Respondent’s lack of knowledge regarding the deceased’s ancestral home casts doubt on the closeness of his relationship with the deceased. According to the deponent, the need for DNA testing only arose because the Respondents were previously unknown to the deceased’s family and were only discovered after the 2nd Respondent filed proceedings seeking participation in the burial arrangements and DNA testing. 13.She further states that although DNA results confirmed the Respondents as biological children of the deceased, this did not negate the Applicants’ position as the deceased’s biological siblings and dependants who had been maintained by him throughout his lifetime. 14.The deponent disputes the Respondents’ allegations that they were close to the deceased, asserting that the deceased largely lived alone in Nairobi and only occasionally travelled to Narok and Naivasha for business. She maintains that she was the first family member to learn of the deceased’s death after unsuccessfully attempting to contact him and subsequently sending DLOP to check on him. She further argues that if the Respondents had indeed enjoyed a close relationship with the deceased, they would have known of his death earlier and would have taken the lead in funeral arrangements. 15.She also clarifies that DLOP and JLK acted on behalf of the Applicants, who were elderly and unwell, and not as beneficiaries in their own right. She contends that the Chief’s letter relied upon by the Respondents merely identified them as biological children of the deceased after DNA results became available, but did not designate them as the sole surviving beneficiaries. 16.The affidavit emphasizes that the Applicants do not dispute the Respondents’ biological relationship with the deceased, but insist that they themselves remained the deceased’s only surviving siblings and dependants who relied on him for support prior to his death. 17.Finally, she states that the application before the Court is not one for maintenance or disinheritance of the Respondents, but rather an application for revocation of grant intended to preserve the estate pending determination of the petition for a full grant. She urges the Court to revoke the initial special limited grant and issue a fresh grant jointly in the names of all four known beneficiaries in order to safeguard the estate from waste and mismanagement. She further maintains that the Respondents would suffer no prejudice if the application were allowed and reiterates that preservation of the estate is necessary pending full determination of the succession proceedings. 18.The application is opposed vide replying affidavit sworn by ENM on 21st August, 2024. He maintains that he lawfully obtained the grant after making full disclosure to the Court. He explains that the deceased, CSOK, died on 14th June, 2024 and was a licensed valuer and proprietor of various businesses and assets, including property in Naivasha, motor vehicles and companies such as [Particulars Withheld] & Co. Limited and [Particulars Withheld] Limited. 19.He states that following the deceased’s death, PNW moved to Court seeking orders to stop DL from removing the deceased’s remains for burial before DNA testing could be conducted. According to him, the Court subsequently ordered DNA testing, which confirmed that he and PNW were biological children of the deceased. He further avers that after the DNA results were released, the deceased was buried in Narok County and a death certificate was issued. 20.He states that due to the urgent need to preserve the estate and protect ongoing businesses and rental income, he filed an application for a special limited grant ad colligenda bona on 11th July, 2024. He explains that the estate included rental properties, company interests, motor vehicles and bank accounts and that immediate intervention was necessary because some persons were allegedly collecting rent and interfering with the estate without authority. 21.He also refers to correspondence from KTDA Management Services Limited requiring the deceased’s company to vacate premises and hand over vacant possession, which he says necessitated urgent administration of the estate. He maintains that at the time of filing the application for the limited grant, the only persons known to him and to the area Chief as beneficiaries of the estate were himself and PNW. He argues that the Objectors had not demonstrated dependency upon the deceased immediately prior to his death and had not furnished evidence showing that they were maintained by the deceased. 22.According to him, mere biological relationship does not automatically entitle a person to inherit from the estate unless dependency is established in accordance with the law. He further asserts that the Applicants’ claims emerged only after the DNA results confirmed him and PNW as the deceased’s biological children and contends that the Applicants are motivated by a desire to benefit from the estate while attempting to disinherit the deceased’s children. 23.The affidavit also denies allegations that the Respondent had diverted estate income into his personal account or intermeddled with the estate. He states that the monies collected were solely for purposes of preserving the estate and ensuring continuity of the deceased’s business operations pending issuance of a full grant. He avers that revocation of the limited grant would prejudice the lawful beneficiaries, namely himself and PNW, and disrupt preservation of the estate. He therefore contends that the application for revocation is incompetent, defective and without merit and urges the Court to dismiss it with costs. 24.The annexures to the replying affidavit include company registration records for [Particulars Withheld] & Co. Limited, pleadings and orders from the Milimani Chief Magistrate’s Court concerning burial and DNA testing proceedings, DNA sample receipts and the Government Chemist DNA report confirming ENM and PNW as biological children of the deceased, the deceased’s death certificate, burial programme, consent documents relating to the grant and copies of the pleadings and affidavits filed in support of the special limited grant. The annexures are relied upon to demonstrate the Respondents’ biological relationship with the deceased, the urgency surrounding preservation of the estate and the basis upon which the limited grant was issued. 25.The Applicants have filed written submissions dated 7th October, 2025. They inform the Court that the 2nd objector/applicant, GSK, had since passed away and maintain that the 1st Objector was a dependant of the deceased who had been maintained by him immediately prior to his death. They argue that the Respondents concealed material information from the Court by omitting the Objectors from the list of beneficiaries when obtaining the limited grant. 26.The submissions emphasize that a limited grant ad colligenda bona is only intended for preservation of a deceased’s estate where regular probate or administration cannot immediately be granted. The Applicants contend that the Respondents exceeded the scope and purpose of the limited grant by utilizing it for personal benefit rather than preservation of the estate. 27.It is submitted that the 1st Respondent began collecting and using rental income from the deceased’s properties for personal gain and took over the operations of the deceased’s companies, including [Particulars Withheld] & Co. Ltd and [Particulars Withheld] Ltd, without accounting to other beneficiaries. According to the Applicants, the conduct of the Respondents demonstrates abuse of the limited grant and justifies its revocation. 28.In addressing the issue of revocation, the Applicants rely heavily on Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act and argue that the grant was obtained fraudulently through concealment of material facts and false representations. They submit that the Respondents falsely represented to the Court that all beneficiaries had consented to the grant and concealed the existence of the Applicants as dependants and beneficiaries of the estate. 29.The Applicants further maintain that the Respondents’ actions fall squarely within the statutory grounds for revocation because the grant was obtained through concealment and was subsequently used for purposes beyond those contemplated under a limited grant ad colligenda bona. 30.The submissions also rely on several judicial authorities discussing the nature and scope of limited grants. The Applicants cite the decision in Morjaria v Abdallah [1984] KLR 490 for the proposition that a limited grant ad colligenda bona is meant only for collection and preservation of a deceased’s estate in situations of urgency. They also cite Re Estate of Hannah Wanjiru Kamau (Deceased) [2025] KEMC 22 (KLR), where the Court held that a limited grant may be revoked if it is used for purposes outside its intended scope. 31.Extensive extracts from appellate decisions are reproduced to illustrate that limited grants are temporary, preservation-oriented grants which do not confer full powers of administration or distribution. 32.Ultimately, the Applicants submit that the Respondents’ conduct undermines the estate, prejudices other beneficiaries and exposes the estate to wastage and dissipation. They therefore urge the Court to revoke the limited grant issued on 29th July, 2024 and replace it with a fresh grant issued jointly in the names of all surviving beneficiaries. They further pray that all proceeds from the estate be deposited into a joint interest-earning account operated by the beneficiaries pending determination of the succession proceedings. 33.The Respondents have filed written submissions dated 14th August, 2025. They argue that the application lacks merit and fails to satisfy the legal threshold for revocation of grant under the Law of Succession Act. 34.They identify two principal issues for determination: whether the Objectors qualify as dependants of the deceased, CSOK, and whether sufficient grounds have been established to warrant revocation of the grant. 35.On the issue of dependency, the Respondents submit that the 1st applicant’s claim is solely founded on her status as the deceased’s sister and her assertion that the deceased maintained her prior to his death. They contend that the only evidence tendered by the Applicants consists of a copy of the applicant’s national identity card and a Chief’s letter stating that the deceased had no immediate nuclear family at the time. 36.The Respondents maintain that subsequent DNA testing confirmed that the Respondents were the deceased’s biological children, thereby elevating them to primary beneficiaries under Section 29 of the Law of Succession Act. They argue that the Applicants failed to provide evidence demonstrating actual maintenance by the deceased immediately before his death and therefore cannot qualify as dependants merely by virtue of consanguinity. 37.The Respondents rely on authorities such as Cleopa Amutala Namayi v Judith Were [2015] KEHC 6000 (KLR) and Sarah Kanini Thigunku v Elizaphan Njuki Thigunku [2016] KEHC 6974 (KLR) to emphasize that proof of dependency is mandatory and that mere biological relationship does not automatically confer entitlement under Section 29 of the Act. 38.They further argue that allegations of fraud against the 1st Respondent are unsupported and unsubstantiated, noting that fraud must not only be specifically pleaded but also distinctly proved to a standard higher than ordinary civil claims. According to the Respondents, the Applicants failed to provide evidence proving that their omission from the petition for grant was fraudulent or deliberate. 39.Regarding the alleged misuse of the grant, the Respondents deny accusations that the 1st Respondent diverted rental income, wasted the estate or improperly took over the deceased’s businesses. They characterize those allegations as baseless innuendos unsupported by evidence. The Respondents maintain that the deceased’s companies remain operational and that no proof has been presented showing misappropriation or dissipation of estate assets. 40.They invoke Sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act to argue that the burden of proof lay squarely on the Applicants to establish the allegations on a balance of probabilities, which they failed to do. 41.In conclusion, the Respondents submit that the Applicants have failed to establish either dependency or valid grounds for revocation of the grant. They argue that the Applicants’ locus standi as beneficiaries remains unproven and urge the Court to dismiss the application with costs to the Respondents. Analysi and Determination 42.I have gone through the application, the response thereto and the rival submissions. 43.The issues for determination are whether the Applicants have established sufficient grounds for revocation of the limited grant issued on 29th July, 2024 and whether the Applicants have demonstrated that they are persons beneficially interested in the estate of the deceased so as to warrant inclusion in the administration of the estate. 44.In In re Estate of David Oduor Odhiambo (Deceased) [2024] KEHC 946 (KLR) the Court observed as follows:… 6.However, where special circumstances exist, the Law of Succession Act allows application for a limited grant of letters of administration ad colligenda bona for purposes of collecting and preservation of the estate. This is entrenched under Rule 36 of the Probate and Administration Rules which provides that: “Where owing to special circumstances the urgency of the matter is so great that it would not be possible for the Court to make a full grant of representation to the person who would by law be entitled thereto in sufficient time to meet the necessities of the case, any person may apply to the Court for the making of a grant of administration ad colligenda bona defunct of the estate of the deceased…” 45.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.” 46.A limited grant of letters of administration ad colligenda bona was issued on 29th July, 2024 to ENM for purposes of collecting and getting in and receiving the estate and doing such acts as may be necessary for the preservation of the same and until further representation be granted; and the same was not to be used to sign out any funds out of the estate. 47.A grant ad colligenda bona is a special and limited grant issued under Rule 36 of the Probate and Administration Rules for purposes of collecting, preserving and protecting the estate pending issuance of a substantive grant. Such a grant does not confer full powers of administration or distribution. 48.Equally, under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act, a grant may only be revoked where the proceedings to obtain it were defective in substance, where it was obtained fraudulently through concealment of material facts or false statements, or where the grantee has failed to properly administer the estate. The burden therefore rests upon the Applicants to demonstrate concealment, fraud, misuse of the grant or other conduct falling within the statutory grounds for revocation. 49.The Applicants’ principal complaint is that the Respondents concealed their existence as dependants and beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate when obtaining the limited grant. However, from the material placed before Court, the Respondents were at the time pursuing urgent preservation orders following confirmation through DNA testing that they were biological children of the deceased. The annexed proceedings further show that disputes had already arisen concerning burial arrangements, preservation of rental income and management of the deceased’s businesses. 50.The Respondents have also demonstrated that the grant was sought in circumstances of urgency to safeguard rental properties, company interests and ongoing business operations. In my view, the existence of urgency justified the issuance of a limited grant for preservation purposes. 51.Although the Applicants assert that they were dependants maintained by the deceased immediately prior to his death, no documentary evidence such as bank transfers, medical support, upkeep records or other proof of maintenance was tendered before the Court. Mere proof of sibling relationship, without more, is insufficient to establish dependency within the meaning of Section 29 of the Law of Succession Act. 52.The authorities cited by the Respondents correctly emphasize that dependency must be specifically proved and cannot be inferred merely from consanguinity. Consequently, at this interlocutory stage, the Applicants have not sufficiently demonstrated that they were dependants entitled to mandatory inclusion in the petition for the limited grant. 53.The Applicants also allege that the 1st Respondent abused the limited grant by collecting rent, taking over the deceased’s companies and utilizing estate proceeds for personal gain. However, beyond those allegations, no audited accounts, bank statements, tenancy records or independent evidence of misappropriation were placed before Court. 54.The limited grant expressly authorized the Respondent to collect and preserve estate assets pending further representation. In the absence of cogent evidence demonstrating dissipation, waste or conversion of estate assets for personal use, the Court is unable to conclusively find that the Respondent exceeded the scope of the grant or acted in a manner warranting revocation under Section 76 of the Act. 55.Nevertheless, given the evident contest regarding the beneficiaries of the estate and the competing claims surrounding administration of the deceased’s businesses and rental income, I am satisfied that safeguard ought to be put in place to preserve transparency and accountability pending determination of the substantive succession cause. 56.Preservation of the estate is paramount and all persons asserting beneficial interest ought to be accorded an opportunity to ventilate their claims during confirmation proceedings or through appropriate dependency proceedings under the Law of Succession Act. 57.In the circumstances, I find that the Applicants have failed to establish sufficient grounds to warrant revocation of the limited grant issued on 29th July, 2024 and the same is dismissed. 58.However, in order to safeguard the estate pending issuance of a full grant, it is hereby ordered that:-(a)The Respondents shall render to Court, within sixty (60) days, a full account of all rental income, business proceeds and expenditures undertaken pursuant to the limited grant issued in their favour.(b)All income derived from the estate henceforth shall be deposited into an estate account operated solely for preservation of the estate pending further orders of the Court.(c)The Respondents shall gazette the petition for letters of administration intestate dated 17th July, 2024 within thirty (30) days from the date hereof.(d)The application is otherwise dismissed with each party bearing their respective costs. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIDE VIDEO LINK AT NAIROBI THIS 21ST DAY OF MAY 2026.H K CHEMITEIJUDGE