https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8664

In re Estate of Nyachae (Deceased) (Succession Cause E1780 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 8664 (KLR) (Family) (19 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8664 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Family Succession Cause E1780 of 2021 RA Oganyo, J June 19, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF SIMEON NYACHAE (DECEASED) Between Charles Ayako Nyachae Applicant and Leon Nyachae 1st Respondent Grace Nyachae 2nd Respondent Eric Maina Nyachae 3rd Respondent Angela Nyarangi Nyachae 4th Respondent Ruling Background 1.The background of this matter is that the deceased, Simeon Nyachae, died testate on 1st February 2021. He left behind a valid last Will and Testament dated 9th September 2015. In the said Will, the deceased had appointed the Applicant, the 3rd Respondent, and the 4th Respondents as joint Executors of his estate. 2.On 9th May 2022, this Court (Justice Maureen Odero) issued a Grant of Probate to the three joint Executors named in the Will. It is annexed as CN -2. A dispute has since arisen between the Applicant and his co-executors regarding the management of the deceased’s rental properties, currently overseen by Sansora Group of Companies. 3.Before the administration of the estate could be concluded, the Applicant filed the Originating Summons dated 13th July 2022, which is the subject of this Ruling. The Application 4.The Summons seeks substantive orders as follows:i.Spent.ii.An order of injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Respondents from administering, managing, or collecting rents from the deceased's properties.iii.An order directing the 1st and 2nd Respondents to provide a full and proper account of all rental income scollected since 21st February 2021 and to deposit such sums into Court.iv.An order to appoint Ark Consultants Ltd as the independent estate agent to manage the properties.v.Mandatory orders compelling the 1st and 2nd Respondents to release all keys, tenancy agreements, and records to the newly appointed agent.vi.An injunction restraining the 3rd and 4th Respondents from "abdicating their responsibilities" or "aiding and abetting" the alleged intermeddling. 5.The Application is expressed to be brought under the provisions of Sections 45, 47, and 83(h) of the Law of Succession Act, and Rules 49, 59, 63, and 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules. It is supported by the affidavit of Charles Ayako Nyachae sworn on 13th July 2022. Deponents' Cases 6.In his Supporting Affidavit, the Applicant deposes that the 1st and 2nd Respondents have "illegally taken over" the administration of the estate, collecting "colossal" sums of rent without authority. He contends that upon the issuance of the Grant of Probate, management must vest exclusively in the joint Executors to the exclusion of private companies. He further alleges that his Co-Executors (the 3rd and 4th Respondents) are aiding these acts of intermeddling. 7.The Application is opposed by the Respondents. The 1st Respondent, Leon Nyachae, deposes that Sansora Group Limited is not an interloper but an agent appointed by the deceased himself via a written Agency Agreement dated 1st December 2015. He avers that the company has managed these properties for over five years prior to the deceased’s death and continues to do so with the majority consent of the Executors. 8.The 4th Respondent, Angela Nyachae, swore a Replying Affidavit on behalf of herself and of the 3rd Respondent, confirming that the current management structure has their "full knowledge and consent". They rely on Clause 16 of the Will, which empowers a majority of executors to make valid and effectual decisions. They further deposed that the estate maintains a 94% occupancy rate and that net rental income is held in interest-earning accounts awaiting distribution. Submissions 6.The Application was canvassed by way of written submissions. Counsel for the Applicant, submitted that any dealing with the estate without a confirmed grant constitutes intermeddling. They argued that the "Doctrine of Relation Back" vests management solely in the Executors and that the pre-existing company mandates do not override statutory vesting. 7.Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Applicant failed to meet the evidentiary threshold for intermeddling. They argued that the Respondents acted under "authority of law" provided by the 2015 Agreement and the majority-rule provision in the Will at clause. 16. Issues for Determination 6.From the pleadings and submissions, the Court frames the following issues:i.Whether the Respondents have intermeddled with the estate under Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act.ii.The legal effect of Clause 16 of the Will (Majority Decision) and the 2015 Agency Agreement.iii.Whether the Applicant is entitled to the injunctive orders and a court-ordered accounting. Analysis and Determination 12.On the question of intermeddling under Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act, this Court reasons that the central question is not merely whether acts of administration occurred—which both parties acknowledge—but whether Sansora Group Limited was acting under legitimate authority. This Court distinguishes between a "bare stranger" or interloper dealing with estate property and a company holding a written management mandate from the Deceased himself, established via the Agency Agreement dated 1st December 2015. Following the principle in Re Estate of Mangera (Deceased) (Probate & Administration E013 of 2025) KEHC 2783 (KLR), allegations of intermeddling must be supported by "parcel-specific or independent evidence" demonstrating that assets have been wasted, alienated, or placed at risk, which is entirely absent in the present case. Furthermore, as these actions were ratified by the majority Executors pursuant to the powers granted under Clause 16 of the Will, the existence of this lawful framework defeats the Section 45 argument as its foundation. 13.Regarding the Respondents' authority, this Court is guided by the fundamental distinction between an administrator in an intestate estate and an Executor appointed under a Will. As held in Re Estate of Lawrence Nginyo Kariuki (Deceased) eKLR, an Executor’s title springs from the Will and exists from the moment of death; the Grant of Probate is merely legal authentication of that pre-existing title. This 'springing' authority is codified in Section 80(1) of the Law of Succession Act, which mandates that the Grant of Probate relates back to the date of death and 'renders valid all intermediate acts of the Executor' consistent with their duties. 14.In this context, the Deceased died on 1st February 2021. From that date, the executors possessed the power to manage the estate. Consequently, the 3rd and 4th Respondents, acting as the duly constituted majority executors under Clause 16 of the Will, exercised their valid authority to maintain the Agency Agreement dated 1st December 2015 with Sansora Group Limited. Their written ratification dated 23rd May 2022 confirmed that the company acted with their 'full knowledge and consent'. Because this authority relates back to the date of death under Section 80(1) of LSA, the management of the properties is a lawful intermediate act of administration and cannot, by law, constitute intermeddling under Section 45 of LSA, and I find so. 15.On Clause 16 of the Will, this Court reasons that testamentary freedom is paramount. The testator, having anticipated the possibility of disagreement among his executors, made express provision for majority rule. To override this clause on the application of a single dissenting executor would be to defeat the testator's clear intention. In re Estate of Mutuma Mugambi (Deceased) [2024] eKLR, decisions made through such established mechanisms are binding unless fraud is proven, which the Applicant has not done. 16.On accountability, the Court notes that the majority executors have already provided audited Statements of Affairs from HLB Cezam and Associates. The existence of these accounts and interest-bearing holding accounts, demonstrates that the majority executors are discharging their fiduciary duties well. 17.In Re Estate of Daudi Owino Olak (Deceased) (Succession Cause 944 of 2019) [2022] eKLR, the Court identified that the estate was in a critical transition period where the executors held the property in trust but had not yet received the final authority to distribute capital assets. 18.The beneficiary raised concerns regarding the "general state of affairs" and the "net worth" of the estate. The Judge reasoned that under Section 83(h) of the Law of Succession Act, the Court must satisfy itself that the executors have "faithfully dealt with the estate "before it grants them the power to distribute assets through a confirmed grant. The executors argued that they should only provide a full statement of account after the grant was confirmed and distribution was complete. The Court rejected this, holding that accountability is a tool used to monitor dealings during the administration process, not just at its conclusion. 19.The scenario in this case is however different from that of the aforesaid case. In the instant case, the grant was confirmed on 2nd June, 2026. Learned Counsel Ndirang’u’s oral submissions in court then that once the grant would be confirmed it would then render the current application as overtaken by events holds water and I am in concurrence based on the foregoing case law. 20.I agree that executors are trustees who owe an absolute duty to account to beneficiaries at any time. The Applicant’s right to information as a co-executor is a separate and enforceable right that exists regardless of his substantive management objections. 21.In the overall balance, the Court's role is not to manage the estate in place of the executors, but to supervise. Where the Will provides a mechanism for resolving disagreement and that mechanism has been properly invoked, the Court should respect it as is the case herein. 22.Having provided audited accounts before the confirmation of grant, in my view meets the expectation of the Applicant in the current application and upon the grant being confirmed on 2nd June, 2026 the Respondents owe no further duty to provide the said information of accounts as the applicant has not proved that the estate was intermeddled with in the face of the said audit reports. 23.In the end, I hereby order as follows:i.The prayer for an injunction to restrain the Respondents from managing the properties and the prayer to appoint Ark Consultants Ltd are hereby dismissed.ii.The management of the properties in Schedule C shall continue under Sansora Group of companies Limited as authorized by the majority of the executors under Clause 16 of the Will.iii.Pursuant to Section 83(h) of the Law of Succession Act, the majority Executors already provided audit reports and after the confirmation of grant on 2nd June, 2026 are no longer obliged to do so but to go ahead and distribute the estate as already established.iv.Overall this application stands as dismissed.v.This being a family matter, each party shall bear their own costs.It is so ordered.Right of appeal 30 days. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.R. A. OGANYOJUDGE.In the presence of; -Court Assistant…E, SanaMiss Awuor for 3rd and 4th RespondentsMiss Rachier for the ApplicantMiss Ndirang’u for the 1st and 2nd Respondent