https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8637

In re Estate of Karanja (Deceased) (Succession Cause E014 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 8637 (KLR) (22 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8637 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kitale Succession Cause E014 of 2023 RK Limo, J June 22, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES MUIGAI KARANJA (DECEASED) Between Jesseh Njoroge Muigai 1st Applicant Margaret Wangui Gathuru 2nd Applicant and Agnes Kaguri Mutegi Respondent Ruling 1.The applicant, Jesseh Njoroge Muigai and Margaret Wangui Gathuru have moved this court vide a Notice of Motion dated 19/5/2025 for the following prayers namely;i.The order issued on 23/9/2024 be set aside/vacated or reviewed.ii.That the Grant issued on 24/9/2024 be revoked and the one issued on 18/9/2023 be reinstated. 2.The applicants have listed the following grounds namely;a.That Agnes Kaguri Mutegi is not an administrator of the estate of James Muigai Karanja.b.That the applicants are the rightful administrators of the estate herein as per Grant issued on 18/9/2023.c.That the court revoked the Grant issued to the applicants without their knowledge or that of family members.d.That the respondent herein stole a match by applying to be an administrator in this cause without the knowledge of the entire family.e.That the respondent’s relationship with the administrators is the claim that she is a wife to the late Evans Mwaura Muigai who was married to Lydia Gathoni.f.That there is a dispute over representation of the estate of Evans Mwaura Muigai which should not be brought to this cause in order to avoid confusion.g.That the inclusion of the respondent as an administrator in this cause will cause confusion in the administration of the estate.h.That the respondent is unknown to the beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased herein. 3.The applicants through a joint affidavit sworn on 19/5/2025 supported their application where they have majorly reiterated the above grounds. 4.According to the applicants the inclusion of the respondent as an administrator in this cause will bring confusion in the administration of the estate of the deceased in this cause and that of the late Evans Muigai Mwaura. 5.They submit that whether or not the respondent is a wife to the late Evans Mwaura Muigai is an issue that cannot be determined in this cause but in the estate of Evans Mwaura Muigai. 6.They submit that their application has reached the threshold for review and rely on the decision of Takaful Insurance of Africa –vs. County Government of Garissa & 2 Others where the court reiterated the grounds upon which an order or decree can be reviewed. 7.Agnes Kaguri Mutegi, has opposed this application through a replying affidavit sworn on 9/6/2025, a further affidavit sworn on 28/8/2025 and written submissions dated 15/10/2025. 8.The respondent avers that she is the sole widow to the late Evans Mwaura Muigai and she is in this cause to safeguard the interests of her late husband. 9.She avers that she had 2 children with the deceased and adopted 2, one from her previous relationship and the other from deceased’s previous relationship. 10.She avers that she had lived with the late Evans Mwaura Muigai and established their matrimonial home in 2017 at Suwerwa within the estate of deceased herein. 11.She further depones that she is known and acknowledged as a widow to the late Evans Mwaura Muigai who was a son of the deceased in this cause. 12.She disputes the allegation that the late Evans Mwaura Muigai was married to Lydia Gathoni stating that she does not know her. 13.She claims that the estate of the deceased was subdivided and her late husband was given approximately 6.9 acres. 14.She avers that she made an oral application to be included as an adminstratrix in this cause and the court granted her application on 24/9/2024. 15.She contends that the application before court is an afterthought aimed at disinheriting her and her daughters. 16.That she is recognized by the area chief as the wife of the late Evans Mwaura Muigai and has exhibited a letter from the Chief to back up her claims. 17.She further avers that she is the appointed administrator ad litem of the estate of the late Evans Mwaura Muigai having been appointed by the Chief Magistrate’s Court, Kitale. 18.That due to her appointment she has legitimate interest in protecting the share due to her late husband. 19.In her written submissions dated 15/10/2025 she contends that the applicants have not demonstrated any error or new evidence to warrant review of the grant of letters of administration where she was appointed the 3rd administrator in this cause. 20.She submits that the application now before court is meant to delay the finalization of this cause adding that administration of the estate requires joint efforts for fairness and transparency. 21.This court has laid out both the applicants’ case and the response made. This is an application for review and the provisions of Order 45 (1) Civil Procedure Rules is applicable. Order 45 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Rules provides;“(1)Any person considering himself aggrieved—(a)by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or(b)by a decree or order from which no appeal is hereby allowed, and who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree or order, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order without unreasonable delay”.Going by the above provisions, application for review can be entertained or granted in the following circumstances;i.Upon discovery of a new and important fact or evidence not within the knowledge of the applicant at the time the order sought to be reviewed was made and there is some rider to this requirement. An applicant should demonstrate the new matter or evidence that was not within his/her knowledge upon exercise of due diligence.ii.Existence of an inadvertent mistake or error apparent on the record.iii.For good cause or sufficient reason. 22.The applicants have anchored their application for review on sufficient cause or reason and the reasons given are basically three;i.That the respondent was appointed co-administratrix without their knowledge.ii.That the respondent’s position as a widow to the late Evans Mwaura Muigai is contested.iii.That the estate in issue here is the estate of James Muigai Karanja (deceased). 23.This court has perused through the proceedings of Justice Mrima on 23/9/2024 and it is apparent that the respondent orally applied in court to be made a joint administratrix of the estate of the late James Muigai Karanja (deceased). There is no record to show whether the other beneficiaries including the applicants were present or were made aware that an application of such nature was being prosecuted. 24.The applicants’ averment that the oral application made by the respondent was made without their knowledge is well grounded. 25.Secondly and more importantly is that the subject matter in this cause is the estate of the late James Muigai Karanja. The respondent’s interest if any is subject to the estate of the late Evans Mwaura Muigai which I find distinct from the estate in this cause. It is also apparent going by the pleadings placed before this court in this application that there is a dispute regarding the administration of the estate of the late Evans Mwaura Muigai. That means that the dispute has to be canvassed separately in a different cause and not in this cause because as the applicants correctly point out, doing so within this cause will not only convolute issues but cause unnecessary delays to disposition of this cause. 26.This court finds that the applicants have demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant review of the 3rd respondent’s position as an administratrix of the estate of the late James Mwaura Muigai. She does not need to be an administratrix as such to protect the share of the estate going to the late Evans Mwaura Muigai. That estate will be subject to a separate succession cause and will be handled accordingly. 27.In the premises this court finds merit in the application dated 19/5/2025 and it is allowed in terms of prayer (2). I direct the 2 applicants/administrators to keep all the beneficiaries and interested parties including the respondent updated. They are at liberty to move the court for confirmation of grant as soon as practicable. I make no order as to costs. conclusionsDELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT KITALE THIS 22ND DAY OF JUNE , 2026.HON JUSTICE R.K. LIMOKITALE HIGH COURTRuling delivered in open courtIn the presence ofOmbaso holding brief for Atudo for the applicantNo appearance for the respondentDuke-court assistant