https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6590

Ndegwa v Kanuri (Family Appeal E002 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 6590 (KLR) (13 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 6590 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nyahururu Family Appeal E002 of 2025 LN Mutende, J May 13, 2026 Between Anne Njeri Ndegwa Appellant and Anne Njoki Kanuri Respondent Judgment 1.This appeal emanates from the decision of Hon. Mogute SPM, in Nyahururu CMC’s Miscellaneous Succession Cause No. E037 of 2024, in the Estate of Joel Njuguna Kareri (Deceased). In the matter, Anne Njeri Ndegwa, the Appellant, petitioned for Grant of Letters of Administration Ad-Litem which were issued on 8th May, 2024 limited to the purpose of filing a Civil Suit seeking compensation for the death of the deceased as a result of a road traffic accident. 2.On 13th November, 2024, the Respondent approached the court through summons for revocation of grant. The application was premised on grounds that the grant was obtained through concealment of material facts in that the Applicant(Respondent) had filed a Citation Cause No. E032 of 2024 which was pending hearing and determination hence the grant was obtained through misrepresentation of facts that she was the only wife of the deceased. 3.The application was vehemently contested by the Appellant herein who urged that she petitioned for the Grant of Letters of Administration in her capacity as the wife of the deceased and other than the Probation Officer’s Report in a Traffic Case, no court had determined that the Respondent was the wife of the deceased. 4.The court considered evidential material placed before it and reached a finding that the Appellant herein failed to disclose all material facts at the time of seeking for the Grant of Letters of Administration Ad-Litem which made the proceedings defective in substance as the court was not informed of the Respondent, a second wife of the deceased with her two (2) children who have interest in the deceased’s estate. In the result the grant of Letters of Administration Ad-Litem issued on 8th May, 2024 was revoked. 5.Aggrieved, the Appellant filed the instant appeal based on grounds as follows;1.That the learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by revoking the limited grant issued to the Appellant on the basis that the Respondent was a second wife of the deceased whereas the status of the Respondent in relation to the deceased’s estate had not been established beforehand.2.That the learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by concluding that the Respondent was the second wife of the deceased merely on the basis of a chief’s letter which in itself cannot prove a marriage.3.That the learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to consider the fate of the suit for compensation the purpose for which the limited grant had been issued in spite of clear evidence that the Respondent’s intention behind seeking a revocation of the limited grant was to frustrate the suit for compensation.4.That the learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by allowing the Respondent’s application for revocation of the limited grant without any lawful basis and thereby allowed the court process to be abused by the tortfeasor who was liable for the accident that claimed the deceased’s life, to frustrate a legitimate suit for compensation.5.That the learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact that by failing to consider the prejudice that was bound to be occasioned to the deceased’s estate by allowing the revocation of the limited grant in the circumstances of this matter.6.That the decision of the learned trial Magistrate is against the law and weight of evidence on record. 6.The appeal was disposed through written submissions that I have considered alongside authorities cited. 7.This being a first appellate court, on the question of its duty, guidance is sought from the case of Abok James Odera & Associates v John Patrick Machira t/a Machira & Co. Advocates [2013] eKLR where the court stated thus;“This being a first appeal, we are reminded of our primary role as a first appellate court namely, to re-evaluate, re-assess and reanalyze the extracts on the record and then determine whether the conclusions reached by the learned trial Judge are to stand or not and give reasons either way. See the case of Kenya Ports Authority versus Kuston (Kenya) Limited (2009) 2EA 212 wherein the Court of Appeal held inter alia that:-“On a first appeal from the High Court, the Court of Appeal should reconsider the evidence, evaluate it itself and draw its own conclusions though it should always bear in mind that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses and should make due allowance in that respect. Secondly that the responsibility of the court is to rule on the evidence on record and not to introduce extraneous matters not dealt with by the parties in the evidence” 8.Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act (Act) provides thus;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. 9.Submissions by the Appellant considered the issues for determination as to whether the Respondent had locus standi to institute the application and whether the limited grant of letters of Administration Ad-Litem should have been revoked. 10.As pointed out by the Respondent the first issue was not a ground of appeal. Parties must be bound by their own pleadings. 11.The contention of the Appellant is that the grant Ad-Litem should not have been revoked because it was for a particular purpose to institute a claim for compensation; and, further, the Respondent’s allegation that she was a second wife to the deceased was unsubstantiated hence the Respondent ws not obligated to seek her consent. 12.In the matter of the Estate of Kiunga M’Abira (Deceased) it was stated as follows;“The grant intended to be revoked is a limited grant of letters of administration Ad Litem which was limited to the purpose of filing suit until further representation was granted by this court. I am aware that a limited grant could also be revoked if any or more of factors in Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act CAP 160 of the Laws of Kenya are present. I should think also that, it is potent ground in an application for revocation of limited grant to show that the grant has been used for a purpose other than the one for which it was granted. Or that the purposes for which the limited grant was issued has ceased to exist or has been spent. Or the time for which the limited was to subsist has lapsed. But, from the arguments presented in this case, I should determine whether:-(a)The proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance; or(b)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; or(c)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.” 13.This is a matter where the Appellant in petitioning for the grant ad-litem stated that she did so in her capacity as the wife of the deceased and she annexed a letter from the Chief that buttressed the fact that the deceased was married to “one wife Anne Njeri Ndegwa” … and ... “he was survived by two (2) children who were legal heirs of the deceased’s estate and any cash in the bank”. 14.The petition for grant ad-litem was dated 29th April, 2024. As at 18th April, 2024, the Respondent had legally notified the Appellant to take out letters of Administration intestate in Citation Cause No. E032 of 2024 a Citation Cause that was vehemently opposed. Therefore, at the point of filing the application for revocation of the grant ad-litem, the Respondent moved the court as a person with beneficial interest in the estate of the deceased. The basis of the application is that the Appellant concealed material facts that the Applicant had filed a Citation Cause No. E032 of 2024 which was at the time pending hearing. She averred that she had two (2) children sired by the deceased. She claimed to be his wife. 15.In re Estate of Kithumbu Nyaga Elijah (Deceased) [2019] eKLR the court delivered itself thus;“In any judicial proceeding, parties must make full disclosures to the court of all material facts to the case including succession cases. This general rule of law emphasizes utmost good faith (uberrimae fidei) from parties who take out or are subject of the court proceedings. The said responsibility is part of justice itself. Accordingly, non-disclosure of material facts undermines justice and introduces festering waters into the pure steams of justice; such must, immediately be subjected to serious reverse osmosis to purify the streams of justice, if society is to be accordingly regulated by law.” 16.Clearly, in the instant matter there was concealment of material factsfrom court. Arguments presented by the Appellants show that it was done deliberately. Failure to disclose what was within the knowledge of the Appellant demonstrated the fact of the Appellant having acted unethically and in bad faith. 17.The upshot of the above is that the finding of the trial court cannot be faulted. Therefore, I affirm the order revoking the grant ad-litem issued. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs to the Respondent. 18.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.……………………L.N. MUTENDEJUDGE