https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8045

In re Estate of Rono alias Chelule A Rono (Deceased) (Succession Cause E005 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 8045 (KLR) (10 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8045 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Bomet Succession Cause E005 of 2023 JK Ng'arng'ar, J June 10, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL CHELULE RONO ALIAS CHELULE A. RONO (DECEASED) Between Elizabeth Chepkemoi Rono 1st Petitioner Simion Kirotich 2nd Petitioner and Ebinah Chepkorir Rono 1st Objector Alfred Cheruiyot Ngeno 2nd Objector Leah Chepkirui Rono 3rd Objector Johnstone Kiprotich Ngeno 4th Objector Juliana Chemutai Koech 5th Objector Joseph Kiptoo Ngeno 6th Objector Ruling 1.In this matter, a Grant was issued to the Petitioners on 19th July 2023. The Petitioners filed an Application dated 19th January 2024 for the confirmation of the Grant. They proposed the deceased’s estate which comprised of Kericho/Kipsonoi S.S/23 and motor vehicle registration number KLU 695 be distribute as follows: - 1. Ebinah Chepkorir Rono Half share of Kericho/Kipsonoi S.S/23 to hold in trust for her children 2. Elizabeth Chepkemoi Rono 1.2625 ha to her and to hold trust for Simion Kiprotich Ngeno, Harrison Kipsang Ngeno and Kennedy Kipchirchir Ngeno 3. Simion Kiprotich Ngeno 1.2625 ha 4. Harrison Kipsang Ngeno 1.2625 ha 5. Kennedy Kipchirchir Ngeno 1.2625 ha 6. Motor Vehicle Registration Number KLU 695 To be sold and proceeds be shared equally between Ebinah Chepkorir Rono and Elizabeth Chepkemoi Rono. Objection 2.Through the Affidavit of Protest dated 19th September 2024, the 7th Objector stated that the deceased was the Objectors’ father and that he had two houses. That the Objectors were not aware of the succession proceedings and only became aware when they were served with a court orders dated 23rd January 2024. The 7th Objector stated that they hailed from the first house and did not have an administrator to protect their interests. 3.It was the 7th Objector’s case that as per section 29 of the Law of Succession Act, the 1st Objector who was the deceased’s widow ought to have been considered in priority before the 2nd Petitioner. That the Petitioners did not seek his consent before filing their Application for confirmation. It was the 7th Objector’s further case that the Petitioners had wrongly included Motor Vehicle Registration Number KLU 695 as the same was registered in his name. 4.The 7th Objector stated that the deceased left behind a Will on how he wished his estate to be sub divided. The 7th Objector further stated that it was only fair that the Grant be amended to include the 1st Objector’s name and further that the estate be administered by both widows. That the Petitioners hid material facts from the court necessitating the revoking of the Grant. 5.Through his Further Affidavit dated 22nd November 2024, the 7th Objector attached the said Will. 6.Through their written submissions dated 29th April 2026, the Objectors submitted that the deceased died testate. That the Petitioners did not question the capacity of the deceased when he made the Will dated 20th February 2008. They relied on re Estate of Gatuthu Njuguna (Deceased) (1998) eKLR and Trust Bank Ltd vs Paramount Universal Bank Limited & 2 others (2009) eKLR. The Objectors further submitted that they had presented to this court the Will for scrutiny and propoundment. 7.It was the Objectors’ submission that the present succession proceedings ought to be stopped and the Grant annulled to pave way for testate proceedings. That a Will could not be contested in intestate proceedings and neither would subsequent meetings discussing the distribution of the deceased’s property Response 8.Through his Replying Affidavit dated 20th May 2025, the 2nd Petitioner stated that the Objectors came to court with unclean hands. That their Objection was frivolous and bad in law. The 2nd Petitioner further stated that the Objectors were aware of the succession proceedings and were involved. 9.It was the 2nd Petitioner’s case that the 7th Protestor refused to take out Letters of Administration and refused to sign the consent. That the consent was signed by 7 members of his family. It was the Petitioner’s further case that the 1st Objector (1st widow) requested to be represented by Regina Chepngeno while the others refused. 10.The 2nd Petitioner stated that the deceased did not sell Motor Vehicle Registration Number KLU 695. That the witnesses for the Sale Agreement presented by the 7th Objector were his wife and brother who were against taking out of succession proceedings. The 2nd Petitioner further stated that in the Sale Agreement, the seller executed the Agreement on 2nd August 2018 while the buyer executed the Agreement on 2nd August 2022 which was 4 years later. 11.It was the 2nd Petitioner’s case that the deceased was not in his right frame of mind and did not have capacity to execute anything because of his illness. It was the 2nd Petitioner’s further case that the deceased had orally apportioned bot wives their respective parcels of land and they were separated by barbed wire. 12.Through his Further Affidavit dated 18th August 2025, the 2nd Petitioner stated that the deceased did not leave behind any Will. That prior to his death, the deceased held several meetings with instructions on how to subdivide his properties and it was agreed that the properties ought to be subdivided equally. The 2nd Petitioner further stated that the attached Will was a forgery. That the deceased normally executed documents by signing and not thumb printing. 13.It was the 2nd Petitioner’s case that Johanna Kipngetich Rono swore an Affidavit dated 30th July 2025 stating that sometime in the year 2025, Johnstone Ngeno alias Paul duped him into giving him his ID. It was the 2nd Petitioner’s further case that the second attesting witness in the Will reported to the Chief’s Office and stated that he never attested or witnessed the Will. 14.The 2nd Petitioner stated that the executor of the Will who was the Objectors’ uncle was not aware of the said Will and the same was reported to Chebole Police Station. The 2nd Petitioner further stated that in the year 2019, the deceased gave the logbook of Motor Vehicle Registration Number KLU 695 to Harrison Ngeno for safe keeping and the said Harrison was still in possession. 15.Through their written submissions dated 2nd December 2025, the Petitioners submitted that the Objectors were aware of the present succession proceedings and were involved in the same. That the 7th Objector refused to take out Letters of Administration and sign the consent. The Petitioners further submitted that the 1st Objector requested to be represented by her daughter. They relied on section 51 (2) (g) of the Law of Succession Act. 16.It was the Petitioners’ submission that they did not oppose the inclusion of the 1st Objector as an administrator. It was the Petitioners’ further submission that the 7th Objector did not have the authority to institute proceedings on behalf of the other Objectors. They relied on Order 1 Rule 13 and Order 4 Rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules. 17.The Petitioners submitted that the alleged Will was a forgery and was not presented at the time of his death or made known to any other family member and was thus an afterthought. That the said Will did not include all of the deceased’s properties especially Motor Vehicle Registration Number KLU 695. The Petitioners further submitted that the Will’s authenticity was contested and the Objectors had the burden of proving its validity. They did not. They relied on re Estate of G.K.K (deceased) (2017) eKLR. 18.It was the Petitioners’ submission that the transfer of Motor Vehicle Registration Number KLU 695 to the 7th Objector was not valid. 19.I have gone through the entire record, the Petitioners’ written submissions dated 2nd December 2025 and the Objectors written submissions dated 29th April 2026. The only issue for my determination was whether the Grant dated 19th July 2023 should be revoked on account of the existence of a Will. 20.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. 21.The Objectors stated that the Grant should be revoked because the deceased died testate. The Objectors attached a written Will as “JKN-1”. On the other hand, the Petitioners were adamant that the deceased died intestate and that the attached Will was a forgery. 22.From the record, I have noticed that the Objectors admitted that the said Will had not been propounded. It is trite law that once a Will has been declared valid, then intestate proceedings become defective and cannot continue. In the present case, the court cannot declare the present succession proceedings defective as the Will has not been propounded. It is only upon the completion of the process of propounding that a court can effectively declare a Will valid or invalid. 23.Having considered the circumstances of this case as a whole, I consider it prudent that the validity of the Will be determined in the requisite manner first before the issue of revocation of the Grant of Letters of Administration Intestate is determined. In the interest of justice, I make the following orders: -i.The Objectors to petition the court for probate of Will within 30 days of this Ruling.ii.The current succession proceedings are stayed pending the determination of the Probate of Will.iii.If the Objectors fail to abide by the strict timeline of order (i) above, the Petitioners are at liberty to move this court for appropriate orders.iv.Each party to bear their 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 AssistantsMorate for the Objectors