https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9141

In re Estate Gakunga (Deceased) (Succession Cause E011 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 9141 (KLR) (22 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9141 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Eldama Ravine Succession Cause E011 of 2025 TM Matheka, J June 22, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF IKEGU GAKUNGA (DECEASED) Between Koseph Ikegu 1st Applicant Kennedy Mbugua Ikegu 2nd Applicant and Christine Kabon Ikegu Respondent Ruling 1.Before me is the summons dated 19/12/2025 brought under Section 47 of the Laws of Succession Act. 2.It is brought by Joseph Ikegu and Kennedy Mbugua Ikegu. It is supported by the affidavit sworn on 19/12/2025, on his and on behalf of the 2nd applicant. 3.The are seeking an order appointing them as joint Administrators with the respondent who is their mother and grandmother, respectively, to the estate of her deceased husband. 4.According to the applicants, the respondent took over the estate before the grant of letters of administration, and even after the grant of letters of administration intestate but has done nothing about it and has handled the same with “high handedness, 0paqueness, arrogance and deliberate intention not to comply with the law relating to the fair dealing with estate property” 5.They state further that the petitioner has failed to deliver on her mandate and was unfit to be appointed as the sole administrator. 6.In her response in the replying affidavit sworn on 15/5/2026, the Respondent depones that Joseph Ikegu is one of her 9 children, and Kennedy Mbugua her grandson, son of Henry Ikegu Gakunga (deceased). 7.She said that she had held a meeting with the family that, that the applicants had no locus standi to make the application for the orders sought. 8.Parties proceeded through written submissions which submissions were highlighted by counsel. 9.It was submitted for the applicants that deceased died in 2013 – (12 years) to the date of filing of the matter – that the petitioner had failed to protect the estate and had brought in 3rd parties. 10.They contend that despite the applicants being below her in rank regarding the position of administrator, they have the right to participate, and if brought on board they will assist the petitioner to expedite the matter. 11.It is submitted for the respondent that the matter commenced by way citation by the applicants and a consent was entered into for this cause to be filed. 12.That the applicants have come to court even before the grant is out to seek to be joined as co-administrators. 13.That the petitioner is the widower of the deceased and nothing has been placed before court to demonstrate her inability to administrator the estate. 16.It is submitted that indeed the estate had some liabilities. 17.That one Joseph Ikegu has not been attending family meetings. That the grandchildren of the deceased will be provided for. 18.I have carefully considered the application, the affidavit and the submissions. 19.The issue for determination is whether the applicants ought to be jointed as co-administrators. 20.I note from the record that Ikegu Gakunga died on 9/11/2013 Christine Kabon Ikegu his widow was issued with grant of letters of administration intestate on 18/5/2026. 21.I have perused the documents in support of the cause, one of them is a record of minutes of a family meeting held on 29/5/2024. The meeting was attended by the widow and 7 of her children, among others. It was agreed that she would be the administrator, assisted by Simon Njogu Ikegu and that the deceased’s estate was Baringo/ Perkerra 101/1010-18. approximately 74HA. 22.ON 4/6/2024, the Chief Perkerra Location wrote to the Deputy County Commissioner about the deceased, his date of death, and those who survived him were listed. 23.The petition for letters of Administration was made and the form P & A5 dated 15/10/2025 lists 12 beneficiaries of the estate, Joseph Ikegu is included – and so are the deceased children of Ikegu Gakunga. 24.The estate was gazetted on 5/12/2025 vide Kenya Gazette Vol. CXXVII No.255 Gazette notice No. 17/861. 25.The question is- what is it that the petitioner has not done that she was required to do, that would persuade the court to give her additional co -administrators, where and what is the evidence of her unfitness as the administrator? 66.Preference to be given to certain persons to administer where deceased died intestateWhen a deceased has died intestate, the court shall, save as otherwise expressly provided, have a final discretion as to the person or persons to whom a grant of letters of administration shall, in the best interests of all concerned, be made, but shall, without prejudice to that discretion, accept as a general guide the following order of preference(a)surviving spouse or spouses, with or without association of other beneficiaries;(b)other beneficiaries entitled on intestacy, with priority according to their respective beneficial interests as provided by Part V;(c)the Public Trustee; and(d)creditors: Provided that, where there is partial intestacy, letters of administration in respect of the intestate estate shall be granted to any executor or executors who prove the will 26.It is evident from the law that that from the hierarchy of persons who may be appointed administrators in the event of the death of a person, the Act gives the spouse the priority and she is not required to act with others. The spouse can administer where deceased died intestate with or without association of other beneficiaries; Hence, unless there is evidence of wrong doing or unfitness on the part of the spouse, she has priority to administer the estate by herself. 27.At this early stage there is no indication of any discrimination of any beneficiary or any wrong doing on the part of the respondent. The process of administration is time bound and upon issuance of the grant time begins to run on the part of the administrator to do certain things. 28.And at the distribution of the estate the beneficiaries will have a chance to make their contribution. They will have the opportunity to participate as of right. 29.I have noted that the applicants did not attend the family meeting and did not sign the consent. They cannot fail to participate at that level without any reason and then accuse the respondent of failures not seen by those who attended the meeting and agreed to her appointment. 30.The applicants have not supplied to this court any evidence to support the alleged infractions that the respondent is said to have committed against the estate. 31.It is very clear that their application is based on mere allegations of ineptitude on the part of the administrator. 32.The application is clearly pre-mature as the petitioner could not have taken any action without the grant of letters of administration intestate. 33.The applicants must give the applicant the space to administer the estate and their cooperation is required. 34.Otherwise – I find the application to be pre-mature, without merit. 36.It is dismissed with costs to estate to be borne by the applicants. These costs will sit on their share of the estate. 37.The Respondent to proceed to file the Summons for Confirmation of the grant in accordance with the Law of Succession Act. Orders accordingly. RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT ELDAMA RAVINE ON 22/6/2026.MUMBUA T MATHEKAJUDGECourt Assistant – KaranjaTemba for the applicantsKitolel for Administrator.