https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/12501

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT AT NYERI** **SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. E003 OF 2023** **IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES KIGERA NGUNGA alias JAMES GEOFFREY KIGERA NGUNGA (DECEASED)** ## **ELSIE JANE NJERI………........................................................... APPLICANT** **VERSUS** ## **CATHERINE WAIRIMU KIGERA………........................ ADMINISTRATOR** **RULING** 1. This Ruling is in respect of the Summons for Revocation of Grant filed by the Applicant dated 12.1.2026. 2. The Summons seeks for the following reliefs: 3. Spent 4. Spent 5. Spent 6. The Court be pleased to revoke the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant issued on 17.12.2025. 7. The application is supported by the Affidavit of the Applicant sworn on 12.1.2026 premised on the following grounds: 8. The Applicant was a beneficiary of the estate. 9. The Applicant’s consent was not sought prior to rectification of the grant. 10. The Administrator failed to disclose that the mother of the Applicant, one Julia Njoki Kigera, now deceased, was entitled to half of LR No. Nanyuki/B12/2/2787/XII/40 and B4/31/2787/XII/64 which had a lease agreement with a third party. 11. The rectified grant was obtained fraudulently through concealment of material facts. 1. The Administrator responded to the summons by way of a replying affidavit sworn on 23.2.2026 by which it was deposed in material as follows: 2. The alleged lease was unlawful having been created without invoking her as co-owner, and it was now subject to litigation in Nanyuki MCELC Suit No. E013 of 2023. 3. The certificate of confirmation of grant issued on 7.5.2018 was superseded by the one issued on 16.10.2023 in which she was the sole administratrix. 4. The grant in Nyeri HCFP&A No. E005 of 2023 was issued jointly to the Administrator herein, and the Applicant and the Applicant cannot deny knowledge of the proceedings. 5. The Applicant being a grandchild of the deceased cannot directly benefit from the estate of the deceased and lacks locus standi to bring this application. 6. Winfred Nyakinyua Muchiri was duly appointed as co-trustee without objection by the Applicant. 7. The Applicant has not disclosed a ground under section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. Submissions 1. The Applicant filed submissions dated 6.3.2026. It was submitted in material that the Administrator failed to disclose that the mother of the Applicant, one Julia Njoki Kigera, now deceased was entitled to half of LR No. Nanyuki/B12/2/2787/XII/40 and B4/31/2787/XII/64, which had a lease agreement with a third party. 1. Based on the above, the Applicant submitted that she had proved section 76 of the Law of Succession Act as follows: 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. 1. The Applicant relied on the case of in *re estate of Prisca Ong’ayo Nande (Deceased)* based on which it was submitted that she had satisfied the conditions to revoke the grant. 2. On the part of the Administrator, she filed undated submissions. She submitted that the Applicant had no *locus standi* to file the application as she was not a direct beneficiary by being a grandchild of the deceased. Reliance was placed on the case of **Re Estate of Mute Karuirii alias Mute S/O Karuirii (Deceased**) (Succession Cause 642 of 2012) [2023] KEHC 25718 (KLR), where the Court dismissed a similar application by a grandchild to revoke a grant and held thus: **“The applicant herein was not a beneficiary to the deceased’s estate and therefore lacks the capacity to challenge the action of the 1st respondent. As such, I am of the considered view that the applicant has failed to satisfy the court on any of the grounds for revocation of grant under Section 76 of the Act.”** 1. Further, she submitted that the Applicant had not satisfied any ground under section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. Reliance was placed on the case of **In re Estate of Samwel Muiruri Nganga (Deceased) [2025] KEHC 179 (KLR**), where the court at paragraph 47 held thus: **“Based on the totality of evidence, I find that the Objector has failed to establish any grounds under Section 76 that would warrant revocation of the grant.”** Analysis 1. The Administrator raised an issue as to locus standi of the Applicant. It is common position of the parties that the Applicant is a daughter of the deceased Julia Njoki Kigera who is daughter of the deceased herein. She is as such a granddaughter of the deceased. On who may apply for revocation of the grant, Section 76 of the [Law of Succession Act](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/1972/14) 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…** 1. Such interested parties who may apply for revocation have been held to include creditors. The Applicant herein is entitled to the estate of her late mother and is a granddaughter of the deceased. I find no reason to bar her on the basis of locus standi which I hold that she has in the estate of her grandfather. I am fortified by the reasoning of Gikonyo J in [**In re Estate of Julius Ndubi Javan (Deceased) [2018] eKLR**](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2018/8523/eng%402018-02-12) as follows: *Locus standi of applicant* 7. A kind of objection has been taken out by the petitioners; that the applicant lacks locus standi to file an application for revocation or annulment of grant. Section 76 of the [Law of Succession Act](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/1972/14) is very clear 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…[Underlining mine] 8. Details have emerged that there was an agreement between the Applicant and the deceased for the sale of the suit land. Although, challenges to the said agreement and objection to the jurisdiction of this court to try such claims have been raised, one thing is clear- and this is alluded to by the petitioners- that money may have passed to the deceased which is recoverable as debt. Accordingly, at the very least, the Applicant could be treated as a creditor, thus, an interested party for purposes of section 76 of the [Law of Succession Act](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/1972/14). Therefore, he is within his right to apply for revocation of grant as he has done. 1. The next issue is whether the grant confirmed herein should be revoked or annulled to enable the Applicant be provided for as a dependant of the estate of the deceased. The grounds for revocation or annulment of grant of Letters of Administration are set out in Section 76 of the [Law of Succession](http://resolver.caselaw.kenyalaw.org/resolver/akn/ke/act/1972/14) as follows: *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.* 1. The Applicant maintained that the Administrator concealed a material fact that the mother of the Applicant, one Julia Njoki Kigera, now deceased, was entitled to half of LR No. Nanyuki/B12/2/2787/XII/40 and B4/31/2787/XII/64. The Administrator’s position is that there is no concealment because the fact that the deceased Julia Njoki Kigera was entitled to half share was disclosed. The court has had occasion to peruse the Amended Certificate of Confirmation of Grant dated 17.12.2025. It is clear that Nanyuki Land parcel No. B4/31/2787/XII/64 was wholly given to the estate of Julia Njoki Kigera, being the Applicant herein and Marissa Wairimu Njoki while LR No. Nanyuki/B12/2/2787/XII/40 was given to the Administrator absolutely. 1. The court has to find basis for nullifying the amended grant herein that was confirmed on 17.12.2025. Whereas it is not factually correct as deposed by the Applicant that the Administrator disinherited the estate of Julia Njoki Kigera from Nanyuki Land parcel No. B4/31/2787/XII/64, the Administrator also misled this court in her replying affidavit that her share in LR No. Nanyuki/B12/2/2787/XII/40 was one half. I find no basis upon which the Applicant alleged that the Administrator disinherited the estate of the late Julia Njoki Kigera. The contest was on the named two plots which I find were fairly bequeathed. In the case of **Jamleck Maina Njoroge v Mary Wanjiru Mwangi (2015) eKLR** the court discussed circumstances when a grant can be revoked. The court observed: **“11. The circumstances that can lead to the revocation of grant have been set out in Section 76 Law of Succession. For a grant to be revoked either on the Application of an interested party or on the court’s own motion there must be evidence that the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance, or that the grant was obtained fraudulently by making of false statement, or by concealment of something material to the case, or that the grant was obtained by means of untrue allegations of facts** essential in point of law.” 1. The reason the court would be convinced that the Amended Grant should be revoked is if the proposal therein was that LR No. Nanyuki/B12/2/2787/XII/40 goes to the Administrator absolutely while she also shares 50% in Nanyuki Land parcel No. B4/31/2787/XII/64. That was not the case. I find this odd and worthy remedy by Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. 1. I am not persuaded to exercise my discretion to revoke the Amended Grant. In the case of **Albert Imbuga Kisigwa v Recho Kavai Kisigwa, Succession Cause No.158 of 2000**, the Court stated as follows: **“[13] Power to revoke a grant is a discretionary power that must be exercised judiciously and only on sound grounds. It is not discretion to be exercised whimsically or capriciously. There must be evidence of wrong doing for the court to invoke section 76 and order to revoke or annul a grant. And when a court is called upon to exercise this discretion, it must take into account interests of all beneficiaries entitled to the deceased’s estate and ensure that the action taken will be for the interest of justice.”** 1. Based on the above, I find no difficulty in holding that the application is not supported and must fail. I dismiss it. Determination 1. In the upshot, I make the following orders: 2. The Summons for Revocation of Grant dated 12.1.2026 lacks merit and is dismissed *in limine*. 3. Each party shall bear its own costs. **DELIVERED, DATED** and **SIGNED** at **NYERI** on this **30th** day of **July, 2026**. Ruling delivered through Microsoft Teams Online Platform. **KIZITO MAGARE** **JUDGE** **In the presence of: -** No appearance for the Applicant Mr. Wanjohi for the Administrator Court Assistant – Timothy