https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/12722

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH OF KENYA AT NAIROBI** **FAMILY DIVISION** **MILIMANI LAW COURTS** **SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 1619 OF 2018** **IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF PRITAM SINGH PANESAR – DECEASED** **NILESHKUMAR MOHANLAL SHAH ………..………….. 1ST PETITIONER** **GUY SPENCER ELMS ………………………..……………. 2ND PETITIONER** **ANTHONY MICHAEL MWANZIA MULWA …………….……. APPLICANT** **RULING** 1. The Deceased, **Dr. Pritam Singh Panesar**, died on 28th July, 2018. The petitioners petitioned for a Grant of Probate based on the Written Will dated 5th July, 2005, which named them as executors. The Court issued them the Grant of Probate on 26th March, 2019 and the same was confirmed on 17th July, 2019. 2. The Applicant filed the instant application dated 16th September, 2025, seeking revocation of the Grant on grounds that the said Grant of Probate was obtained through fraudulent means. He swore an affidavit dated 16th September, 2025, in which he averred that the Deceased left no Will and that he (the Applicant) has obtained two reports from forensic document examiners indicating that the Will is a forgery. 3. The Petitioners filed a replying affidavit dated 26th November, 2025, in which they opposed the instant application. They averred that the Applicant is a busy body without any *locus* to institute or sustain the Application herein as he has neither been joined nor sought to be joined therein. They also denied the forgery allegations, averring that the forgery claims are uncorroborated hearsay. The Applicant filed a further affidavit dated 4th December, 2025, in which he averred that he is not a busy body. He argued that he has litigated against the Deceased and he was still in court litigating on a property located in Kwale County. 4. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. **Applicant’s written Submissions** 1. The Applicant submitted that the Grant should be revoked, arguing that the same was obtained through fraudulent means. He argued that a forensic examination of the signature in the Will opined that the Deceased did not execute the purported Will. He argued that two document analysts examined different documents signed by the Deceased and compared them to the signatures on the Will. He stated that the forensic examiners concluded that the signatures were dissimilar and distinguishable, hence not made by the same author. He also argued that there was no evidence that the Deceased had changed his signatures. 2. On the issue of *locus standi*, the Applicant submitted that he has *locus standi* to file the instant application. He argued that he was involved in Land and Environment Case No. ELC No. E002 of 2021 (OS) Mohamed Ruwa Maridadi, Anthony Michael Mwanzia Mulwa and Ahmed Ouma Randa v Pritam Singh Panesar, in which a judgment was delivered in his favour (and his co-Plaintiffs) on 21st April, 2022. He stated that, subsequently, the Petitioners filed an application in the said case claiming that they are the executors of the Deceased’s Will, as a result of which the judgment was set aside. 3. He submitted that he has now found out that the Will is fraudulent. He argued that only the Succession Court can determine whether the Will is valid. He submitted that it would be illogical to tell him to pursue his claim through the Environment and Land Court, arguing that the latter Court cannot determine the validity of the Will. He argued that once this Court determines the status of the Will, the Applicant will then pursue the Land and Environment Court. He concluded that all that the Court is being called upon to do is to confirm whether the executors were properly appointed. **Petitioners’ Written Submissions** 1. The Petitioners submitted that the application should be dismissed, arguing that the Application lacks merit. They submitted that the Applicant lacks *locus standi*, arguing that he has not demonstrated any legal or beneficial interest in the Estate. They argued that he is neither a beneficiary under the Will nor a dependent within the meaning of **Section 29** of the **Law of Succession Act**, nor a creditor of the Estate. They also argued that the Applicant has neither been joined nor sought to be joined in the succession cause. 2. In addition, they submitted that the forgery allegations are uncorroborated hearsay. They argued that neither the Applicant nor the alleged document examiners have laid a basis or explained their custody of the alleged private contracts used as known signatures of the Deceased, thus raising reasonable suspicion and presumption that the said documents were either obtained illegally or crafted by the Applicant for purposes of generating the examination reports. They submitted that the Court should not take the expert reports as conclusive evidence without looking at other relevant facts. **Issues for Determination** 1. Having carefully considered the application, the respective affidavits, and the parties’ respective submissions, I find that there are three issues for determination; 2. **Whether the Applicant has the *locus standi* to bring the instant application.** 3. **Whether the Applicant has substantiated the forgery claims.** **Whether the Applicant has the locus standi to bring the instant application** 1. The Petitioners submitted that the Applicant lacks *locus standi* to file an application for revocation or annulment of grant. **Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act provides 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…” [emphasis mine]*** 1. The Court of Appeal in **Ansazi Gambo Tinga & another v Nicholas Patrice Tabuche [2019] eKLR**, interpreted the phrase ‘any interested party’ in the context of identifying persons who have *locus* to institute revocation of a grant under **Section 76** of the **Law of Succession Act**. It held that the phrase ‘interested party’ under **Section 76** is not restricted to beneficiaries or persons entitled to inherit the estate. It observed as follows; ***“[17] As stated by this Court above and as rightly pointed out In Re Estate of Shongo Omedo [2018] eKLR; persons with locus standi to seek revocation of grant includes any person with a right or expectancy to the estate. It therefore follows that an ‘interested person’ under section 76 does not only envision the heirs enumerated under Section 66 of the Act; rather, it includes a person who can show an interest in the estate. Consequently, the allegation that the respondent lacked the locus standi to seek revocation of grant herein, fails.”*** 1. The Court in **In re Estate of Misoi (Deceased) (Succession Cause 14 of 2009) [2026] KEHC 11136 (KLR)** relied on the above Authority of the Court of Appeal and held as follows; ***“Although that appeal did not concern a purchaser, the principle enunciated by the Court of Appeal (in Ansazi Gambo Tinga & another v Nicholas Patrice Tabuche) is of general application. It affirms that locus standi under Section 76 is determined not by one's status as a beneficiary but by the existence of a legally recognizable interest capable of being affected by the administration of the estate.”*** 1. This Court is being invited to determine whether the Applicant has a legally recognizable interest capable of being affected by the administration of the estate. 2. The Applicant averred that he sued the Deceased in Land and Environment **Case No. ELC No. E002 of 2021 (OS)** **Mohamed Ruwa Maridadi, Anthony Michael Mwanzia Mulwa and Ahmed Ouma Randa v Pritam Sighn Panesar,** in which a judgment was delivered in his favor (and his co-Plaintiffs) on 21st April, 2022. He stated that, subsequently, the Petitioners filed an application in the said case claiming that they are the executors of the Deceased’s Will, as a result of which the judgment was set aside. 3. The Applicant also averred that the Petitioners sued him in **ELC No. E014 of** **2024 (OS)** before Kwale Law Courts, in which they obtained interim orders against him. The Petitioners, in their replying affidavit, acknowledged that there has been a land ownership dispute between them and the Applicant in relation to Kwale/Msabweni/A/3390. They also stated that the said dispute is still pending final determination before the Kwale Law Courts. 4. The Applicant claims that he has since discovered that the Will, on which basis the Petitioners derive their authority, is a forgery. He argues that only the Succession Court can determine whether the said Will is a forgery. 5. I have seen some of the court documents regarding the case at the Kwale Law Courts. It is **Case Number ELC No. E014 of 2024 (OS)** - wherein the Petitioners have sued the Applicant. The documents show that the Petitioners have obtained some orders against the Applicant. They also show that the subject matter of the dispute at the Kwale Law Courts is parcel Kwale/Msabweni/A/3390, which is part of the Estate of the Deceased. 6. Based on this analysis, I am persuaded that the Applicant has a legally recognizable interest capable of being affected by the administration of the estate. Clearly, a determination on whether the said Will is valid or not goes to the root of the proceedings at the Kwale Law Courts. In particular, the Petitioners’ legal authority to sue the Applicant and sustain those proceedings against him (in their capacity as the executors) is derived from the validity of the said Will, under which they claim to have been appointed executors. 7. Consequently, I find that the Applicant has the requisite *locus standi* to seek revocation of the grant under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. **Whether the Applicant has substantiated the forgery claims** 1. The Applicant submitted that the Will was a forgery. I have seen his supporting affidavit dated 16th September, 2025, in which he outlined the alleged forgery. To support his claims, the Applicant attached two reports prepared by different forensic document examiners. 2. The first report is dated 8th July, 2020 and is signed by one Emmanuel Kenga, who described himself in the report as a forensic document examiner. In the report, Mr. Kenga states that he examined and compared the questioned signature (the one on the Will) with the known signatures (of the Deceased). He opined that he found no agreement between the signatures, and that there were no similarities on the signatures to indicate that they are from a common origin. In conclusion, the document examiner formed the opinion that the Will was signed by a different author. 3. The second report is dated 12th September, 2022, and is signed by one Alex Mathiu, who described himself in the report as a forensic document examiner. In the report, Mr. Mathiu stated that he examined and compared the disputed signature (the one on the Will) with known signatures (of the Deceased). He opined that the signatures are dissimilar and distinguishable, hence not made by the same author. 4. I have also seen the Petitioners’ replying affidavit dated 26th November, 2025, in which they denied the forgery claims. They averred that the alleged signatures of the Deceased were drawn from questionable documents which have not been annexed to the Application or the subject reports, thus making it doubtful whether the same documents were indeed signed by the Deceased or authored for the purposes of preparation of the reports. 5. They averred that the Applicant and the document examiners did not lay a basis or explain the custody of the alleged private contracts used as known signatures of the Deceased, thus raising reasonable suspicion that the said documents were crafted by the Applicant for purposes of generating the examination reports. 6. I note the seriousness of these forgery allegations and this Court is being required to make a special endeavour to unravel all the competing claims. I appreciate that this Court’s decision will have a far-reaching impact. 7. In **Vivo Energy Kenya Limited v. Maloba Petrol Station Limited & 3 Others, Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2014; [2015] eKLR**, the Court of Appeal observed that issues of alleged fraud can only be determined with finality during a proper trial and not on conflicting affidavit evidence. It held; ***“We would also wish to point out, as this Court stated in WESTMONTPOWER KENYA LTD V. FREDERICK & ANOTHER T/A CONTINENTAL TRADERS & MARKETING [2003] KLR 357, albeit in the context of an application for summary judgment, that issues of alleged fraud can only be determined with finality during a proper trial and not on conflicting affidavit evidence.”*** 1. In the circumstances of this case, therefore, I don’t find it prudent and judicious, considering the highly contentious nature of the claims and the circumstances of each of the numerous parties involved, to determine this matter by affidavit evidence only. The authors of the said affidavits and the forensic document examiners ought to be called and cross-examined to test the veracity of the affidavits and documentary evidence. To my mind, this will present the best available evidence for the Court to make its decision fairly. 2. Consequently, I find that this application should proceed by way of *viva voce* hearing. **Disposition** 1. The Applicant has the *locus standi* to initiate the Summons for Revocation application. 2. The Summons for Revocation dated 16th September, 2025, shall be canvassed by way of *viva voce* hearing. 3. Parties are invited to attend Court for directions for a *viva voce* hearing. 4. Orders accordingly. **DATED, DELIVERED** and **SIGNED** at **NAIROBI** on this **31ST** day of **JULY, 2026.** **……………………….** **C. KENDAGOR** **JUDGE** **In the presence of:** Court Assistant: Beryl Ms. Lyonah Advocate holding brief for Mr. Ngaruiya Advocate for the Applicant Mr. Litoro & Mr. Kinyanjui Advocates for the Executors/Respondents