https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8026

In re Estate of Ngeno (Deceased) (Succession Cause E018 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 8026 (KLR) (10 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8026 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Bomet Succession Cause E018 of 2024 JK Ng'arng'ar, J June 10, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF PATRICK KIPLANGAT NGENO (DECEASED) Between Betsy Chepkirui Petitioner and Geoffrey Langat 1st Objector Wilfridah Cherono Kimeto 2nd Objector Joseph Langat 3rd Objector Benard Kipkoech Ngeno 4th Objector Fransiscah Cherotich 5th Objector Gilbert Kibet 6th Objector Peter Kipkirui Ngeno 7th Objector Abednego Kipyegon 8th Objector Ruling 1.In this matter, a Grant was issued to the Petitioner on 23rd September 2024. The Petitioner then filed an Application for the confirmation of the Grant dated 11th April 2025 where she stated that the deceased was survived by the following: -1st Householdi.Wilfridah Cherono Kimeto Widowii.Joseph Langat Soniii.Geoffrey Langat Soniv.Fransiscah Cherotich Daughterv.Gilbert Kibet Sonvi.Peter Kipkirui Ngeno Sonvii.Abednego Kipyegon Son2nd Householdi.Betsy Chepkirui Widowii.Collins Kiprono Soniii.Dorcas Chepngetich Daughteriv.Elvis Kiokoech Son 2.The Petitioner stated that the deceased’s estate comprised of the following: -i.Kericho/Kipsonoi S.S/6xxii.Kericho/Silibwet/30xxiii.Kericho/Silibwet/39xxiv.Kericho/Silibwet/15xxv.Kericho/Silibwet/15xxvi.Kericho/Itembe/14xxvii.Kericho/Itembe/14xxviii.Shares at Kapkoros Tea Factoryix.Equity bank Account Number 02801xxxxxxxxx.Motor Vehicle Registration Number KBB xxxHxi.Motor Vehicle Registration Number KAP xxxDxii.Kericho/Silibwet/10xxxiii.Kericho/Silibwet/16xxxiv.Kericho/Silibwet/16xx 3.The Petitioner’s proposed mode of distribution was as follows: - 1. Betsy Chepkirui (to hold in trust for herself and the children of the 2nd house) Kericho/Kipsonoi S.S/6xx Whole parcel 2. Wilfridah Cherono Kimeto (to hold in trust for herself and the children of the 1st house) Kericho/Silibwet/30xx Whole parcel 3. Wilfridah Cherono Kimeto (to hold in trust for herself and the children of the 1st house) Kericho/Silibwet/39xx Whole parcel 4. Wilfridah Cherono Kimeto (to hold in trust for herself and the children of the 1st house) Kericho/Silibwet/10xx Whole 5. Betsy Chepkirui (to hold in trust for herself and the children of the 2nd house) Kericho/Itembe/14xx 3.5 acres 6. John Kipsang Bii Kericho/Itembe/14xx 0.1 acre 7. Wilfridah Cherono Kimeto (to hold in trust for herself and the children of the 1st house) Kericho/Silibwet/15xx 0.265 hectares 8. Betsy Chepkirui (to hold in trust for herself and the children of the 2nd house) Kericho/Silibwet/15xx 0.265 hectares 9. Betsy Chepkirui (to hold in trust for herself and the children of the 2nd house) Kericho/Itembe/14xx Whole parcel 10. Wilfridah Cherono Kimeto (to hold in trust for herself and the children of the 1st house) Kericho/Silibwet/15xx 0.20 hectares 11. Betsy Chepkirui (to hold in trust for herself and the children of the 2nd house) Kericho/Silibwet/15xx 0.20 hectares 12. Wilfridah Cherono Kimeto (to hold in trust for herself and the children of the 1st house) Kericho/Silibwet/16xx Whole 13. Betsy Chepkirui (to hold in trust for herself and the children of the 2nd house) Kericho/Silibwet/16xx Half 14. Wilfridah Cherono Kimeto (to hold in trust for herself and the children of the 1st house) Kericho/Silibwet/16xx Half 15. Geoffrey Langat Motor Vehicle Registration Number KAP xxxD 16. Betsy Chepkirui (to hold in trust for herself and the children of the 2nd house) Shares at Kapkoros Tea Factory Half 17. Wilfridah Cherono Kimeto (to hold in trust for herself and the children of the 1st house) Shares at Kapkoros Tea Factory Half 18. To pay school fees for children of the 2nd household namely Collins Kiprono, Dorcas Chepngetich and Elvis Kipkoech Equity Bank Account Number 02801xxxxxxxx Whole 13. To be sold and proceeds shared equally between the two houses Motor Vehicle Registration Number KBB xxxH Summons for Revocation 4.The Objectors filed their Application for revocation of the Grant dated 13th May 2025. Through his Supporting Affidavit even dated, the 1st Objector stated that the deceased had settled the two households in their respective portions of land during his lifetime. That since the deceased’s death, the Petitioner had been hostile towards the 2nd household. The 1st Objector further stated that the Petitioner did not involve them in the proceedings before she obtained the Grant. 5.It was the 1st Objector’s case that the Objector did not obtain the consent of all the beneficiaries when obtaining the Grant. It was the 1st Objector’s further case that the deceased sold Kericho/Silibwet/30xx and Kericho/Itembe/14xx to Benard Kipngeno Kimeto and John Kipsang Bii respectively. That the Petitioner omitted Motor Vehicle Registration Number KAP xxxD which was owned by the deceased. 6.The 1st Objector’s proposed mode of distribution was as follows:1st HouseholdKericho/Silibwet/10xx.Wilfridah Cherono Kimeto 0.55 hectaresGeoffrey Langat 1.6325 hectaresAbednego Kipyegon 1.307 hectaresPeter Kipkirui Ngeno 1.2605 hectaresKericho/Silibwet/15xxGilbert Kibet 0.53 hectaresKericho/Silibwet/39xxWilfridah Cherono Kimeto 0.079 hectaresKericho/Silibwet/15xxBenard Kipkoech Ngeno 0.4 hectaresKericho/Silibwet/16xxGilbert Kibet 0.025 hectaresKericho/Silibwet/16xxFransiscah Cherotich 0.034 hectaresJoseph Langat 0.017 hectaresMolo South/Lagweda Block 4/1xxJoseph Langat 6.25 hectaresWilfridah Cherono 2 acres2nd HouseholdKericho/Kipsonoi S.S/6xxBetsy Chepkirui 12 acresKericho/Itembe/14xxCollins Kiprono 3.5 acresKericho/Itembe/14xxDorcas Chepngetich 4.3 acresKamgogoso Tea Estate and LandElvis Kipkoech 4 acres. 7.It was the 1st Objector’s further proposal that the money held in Equity Bank Account Number 02801xxxxxxxx, shares at Kapkoros Tea Factory and the proceeds of the sale of Motor Vehicle Registration Number KBB xxxH be shared equally among the two households. It was the 1st Objector’s further case that Motor Vehicle Registration Number KAP xxxD be given to Geoffrey Langat. 8.Through their written submissions dated 30th April 2026, the Objectors submitted that the Petitioner obtained the Grant fraudulently as she did not provide a full inventory of the deceased’s property. The Objectors further submitted that the Petitioner included Kericho/Silibwet/30xx as part of the deceased’s estate yet the same had been sold by the deceased in his lifetime. 9.It was the Objectors’ submission that the Grant was obtained unprocedurally as the Petitioner failed to obtain the consent of all the beneficiaries contrary to Rule 26 (1) and (2) of the Probate and Administration Rules. It was the Objectors’ further submission that the 1st Objector ought to be appointed as a co-administrator as he was the deceased’s biological son. They relied on section 66 of the Law of Succession Act. That his appointment as an administrator would not frustrate or delay the administration of the estate. Response 10.Through her Replying Affidavit dated 30th April 2026, the Petitioner stated that prior to instituting the present succession proceedings, she coted the cited the 1st household and she was allowed to institute the present succession proceedings when the 1st household neglected to petition for the Letters of Administration Intestate. That the present Application was an afterthought and would prejudice the administration of the estate. The Petitioner further stated that the law did not mandate that all beneficiaries or the widows had to be appointed as administrators of a deceased’s estate. 11.It was the Petitioner’s case that the 1st Objector’s proposed mode of distribution was skewed and was prejudicial to the 2nd household. It was the Petitioner’s further case that the deceased only sold Kericho/Itembe/14xx and she had catered for the purchaser in her proposed mode of distribution. 12.The Petitioner stated that Molo South/Lagwenda Block 4/1xx did not belong to the deceased and the 1st Objector had failed to produce evidence on the same. 13.I have gone through the entire record and the only issue for my determination was whether the Grant dated 23rd September 2024 should be revoked. 14.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. 15.The 1st Objector stated that the Grant was obtained unprocedurally as the Petitioner failed to obtain consent of all the deceased’s beneficiaries. On the other hand, the Petitioner stated that she cited the Objectors prior to filing the present succession proceedings but failed to do so. The Petitioner was of the view that the present Application was an afterthought and that there would delay the distribution of the estate. 16.I have looked at and considered Form 38 where the Petitioner had included everyone from both houses. However, I note that out of the whole two houses, only four people from the second house i.e. Betsy Chepkirui, Collins Kiprono, Dorcas Chepngetich and Elvis Kipkoech signed the Consent form. No one from the first household signed the Consent form. Rule 26 (1) and (2) of the Probate And Administration Rules provides that: -(1)Letters of administration shall not be granted to any applicant without notice to every other person entitled in the same degree as or in priority to the applicant.(2)An application for a grant where the applicant is entitled in a degree equal to or lower than that of any other person shall, in default of renunciation, or written consent in Form 38 or 39, by all persons so entitled in equality or priority, be supported by an affidavit of the applicant and such other evidence as the court may require. 17.The effect of the above provisions is that where a person is applying for a Grant of Letters of Administration Intestate, one must get consent from persons of equal or lower priority than him. In the present case, the Petitioner and the 2nd Objector as widows of the deceased had equal priority in the claim against the deceased’s estate. 18.The question then becomes, is the lack of Consent from all the beneficiaries listed in Form 38 fatal? In re Estate of Eston Nyaga Ndirangu (Deceased) [2021] KEHC 5065 (KLR), Njuguna J. held that: -“………..I have perused the court record and I note that consent to the making of a grant of letters of administration intestate which was filed contemporaneously with the petition was only made by two beneficiaries (being Joyce Ngithi Nyaga and Julius Kinyu) and wherein they were giving the consent to one John Ndii Nyaga, Kennedy Nyaga and Lucy Wanjiku Nyaga (3rd respondent). There is no consent as to the other brothers and sisters having consented to the grant being given to the 1st and 2nd respondent. It is my view therefore that the said grant was obtained pursuant to proceedings which were defective in substance. The respondents ought to have obtained consent from all the other brothers and sisters. In Antony Karukenya Njeru –vs- Thomas M. Njeru [2014] eKLR, a grant of letters of administration was revoked as persons with equal priority did not consent to the petitioners therein applying for grant of letters of administration. (See also In the Matter of the Estate of Muriranja Mboro Njiri, Nairobi H.C. Succ. Cause No. 890 of 2003).It is my considered view therefore that the failure by the respondents more so the 1st and 2nd respondents to obtain the consents from the other siblings makes the proceedings of obtaining the same to be defective in substance and the said grant ought to be revoked and a new grant issued to the applicants.” 19.Similarly, in re Estate of Jeremiah Njoroge (Deceased) (2021) eKLR, Onyiego J. held that: -“From the above case law, it is appreciated that consent from the requisite beneficiaries was not sought. Is this a ground for revocation of the grant? The answer is in the affirmative……” 20.Flowing from the above, I am persuaded by the above authorities and in accordance with Rule 26 of the Probate and Administration Rules, it is my finding therefore that the Grant dated 23rd September 2024 was defective in substance as the Petitioner did not obtain Consent all the beneficiaries to the estate of the deceased. I disagree with the Petitioner’s contention that she did not require the consent of the 1st household as they had failed to take out Letters of Administration despite being cited. Citation only related to filing of the succession proceedings and did not interfere with the Petition once it had been lodged. As stipulated by Rule 26 of the Probate and Administration Rules, the Petitioner ought to have sought consent from all the deceased’s beneficiaries. 21.In the end, I make the following orders: -I.The Grant dated 23rd September 2024 is hereby revoked.II.A fresh Grant be issued in the names of Betsy Chepkirui and Geoffrey Langat.III.This being a family matter, there will be no orders as to 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 AssistantsNandi for the Applicants