https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10033

In re Estate of Wanjiku (Deceased) (Succession Cause E106 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 10033 (KLR) (6 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10033 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nakuru Succession Cause E106 of 2025 JM Nang'ea, J July 6, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE NAW (DECEASED) Between ERN Applicant and JNM Respondent Ruling 1.For determination is a Summons dated 12/11/2025 for Revocation or Annulment of Grant of Letters of Administration herein brought by one EWN (“the Applicant’’). She seeks reliefs as hereunder;1.Spent2.Spent3.Spent4.Spent5.That this Honourable Court be pleased to revoke and/or annul the Grant of Letters of Administration Intestate issued to JNM On 29Th September 2025 In Respect Of The Estate Of The Late AWN Alias AWN Alias AWN Alias AWN Alias AWN Alias AWN Alias AWN Alias AWN Alias AWN (deceased) on the grounds that the same was procured by misrepresentation, concealment of material facts and failure to comply with the statutory rules on notice and priority under the Probate & Administration Rules.6.That upon revocation of the said grant, this Honourable Court be pleased to appoint the Applicant, ERN, As Administratrix Of The Estate Of The Late AWN Alias AWN Alias AWN Alias AWN Alias AWN Alias AWN Alias AWN Alias AWN Alias AWN (deceased), or in the alternative make such directions as to the administration of the estate as the Court may deem fit.7.That this Honourable Court do issue such further or other orders as the Court may deem fit and just in the circumstances. 2.The Applicant swore an affidavit in support of the Application stating that she is the biological mother of the deceased herein. As per copy of the Concerned Chief's letter exhibited, the deceased is said to have left the Applicant and two others as her dependants. 3.The Applicant further avers inter alia that the Respondent who was issued with Grant of Letters of Administration over her daughter's Estate, is a stranger to her. She believes that the Respondent obtained the Grant without full disclosure of all material facts to the Court. In particular, it is claimed that all the deceased's dependants were not disclosed. According to the Applicant, she ranks in priority to any other person as to be entitled to Grant of Letters of Administration in respect of her deceased daughter's Estate. 4.The Applicant continues to contend that the Respondent presented conflicting documents regarding her relationship to the deceased. One document purportedly describes the Respondent as a spouse of the Applicant's grandchild while another refers to her as a child of the deceased and sole beneficiary of the Estate. 5.It is also pointed out that the Petition for Grant of Letters of Administration filed by the Respondent alludes to existence of a minor who is a beneficiary of the Estate. For protection of the interests of the child, the Applicant suggests appointment of a guardian or Joint Administrator as the Respondent failed to address the need. 6.The Applicant informs the Court that the Respondent's Advocates had written to her and her other relatives demanding that they vacate property forming part of the deceased’s Estate. The Court is told that the Applicant and her family members were unaware of the deceased having given away any of her properties. 7.It is further averred that prior to filing of this Application, the Applicant had commenced the process of taking out Grant of Letters of Administration of the deceased's Estate. She in the premises states that the Respondent obtained the Grant irregularly, hence this Application. 8.The Respondent opposes the Application vide her affidavit in reply purportedly sworn on 20/11/2025. She claims to be “suing strictly as the mother and next friend" T.N and she has no personal interest in the deceased's Estate. According to the Respondent the Applicant has not demonstrated legal dependency on the deceased, adding the biological relationship on its own is not proof of dependency. 9.According to the Respondent, the deceased was survived by two sons named PN and CNN who are also deceased. Only T.N has been left behind to inherit his grandmother's Estate. It was P who instituted the Succession proceedings before he died, the Respondent further deposes, since he was the deceased's only surviving child. T. N then stepped in as the next in line under the Law of Succession following demise of his father. 10.The Respondent dismisses the Applicant's purported demand for subjection of T.N to DNA analysis to establish his paternity as speculative and unsupported by prima facie evidence. 11.The Respondent maintains that P lawfully filed the Succession Cause being the only surviving child of the deceased as confirmed by the concerned Chief through a letter filed herein. Upon P’ death, the Chief allegedly wrote another contradictory letter listing the Applicant as the sole deceased's dependant, enabling her to file Petition for Grant of Letters of Administration over the Estate subject of these proceedings. 12.The Respondent informs the Court that the Grant earlier issued in favour of the Applicant was revoked for want of jurisdiction on the part of the Court that issued it among other grounds. 13.The Respondent in the premises contends that the Applicant is not forthright and has failed to prove her dependency on the deceased warranting issuance of Grant of Letters of Administration in her name. 14.The other averments in the Respondent's long affidavit relate to many legal issues that are better left to Counsel submissions. Affidavits are generally required to be confined to matters of fact within the personal knowledge of the deponent. 15.The Applicant put in a rejoinder by means of a further affidavit sworn on 27/11/25, underscoring her contentions. She maintains that the deceased left her son (P) with her but he also passed on in February 2025. It is reiterated that the Respondent is a stranger to the Applicant and she is not entitled to administer the deceased's Estate. 16.The parties filed written submissions through their Advocates. The Applicant submits that the Respondent has not proven dependency on the deceased so as to be entitled to a share of her Estate by dint of Section 29 (b) of Law of Succession Act. The Applicant’s Advocates further submit that parents also qualify as dependants if maintained by their deceased children at the time of death. The Applicant thus qualifies as a dependant being the biological mother of the deceased, maintains the Applicant. 17.The court is referred to Re Estate of Lenah Wanjiku Gachuri (Deceased) [2021] where it was held that dependency is a question of fact provable by evidence of maintenance. More reliance is placed on Re Estate of Veronica Njoki Wakagoto (Deceased) (2013) eKLR, in which it was observed that parents are automatic dependants of their children and also qualify under Section 29 (b) Law of Succession Act if they prove maintenance by their deceased child. Grandchildren do not, however, inherit directly from a grandparent unless they prove dependency under Section 29 (b) Law of Succession Act or inherit by representation through their deceased's parent's share , {( see Re Estate of M'Ngarithi M'Muinti (Deceased) (2017) eKLR) alluded to by Counsel.] 18.The Applicant’s Advocates continue to submit citing the judicial determination in Re Estate of G.K.K (Deceased) (2017) eKLR, that where a person with a prior right is excluded from representation without consent or notice, the Grant is liable to be revoked. 19.I am also referred to Section 58 of the Law of Succession Act which provides that existence of a minor beneficiary gives rise to a continuing trust, a circumstance requiring appointment of more than one Administrator of the Estate of a deceased person. 20.The court is in the premises urged to allow the Application. 21.The Respondent maintains in her submissions that the deceased P had initiated Succession Proceedings before his death as the deceased's only surviving child. His son (T.N) is therefore entitled to take over representation of his deceased grandmother's Estate. 22.In the opinion of the Respondent’s Advocates, dependency cannot be determined under Section 29 (b) of the Law of Succession Act without also applying Section 26 of the Law of Succession Act that requires reasonable provision for dependants of a deceased person. The judicial decision in Re Estate of G.K.C (deceased) (2017) eKLR is cited and relied upon in support of this submission. 23.Learned Counsel also pitch tent on Section 24 of the Law of Succession Act which enacts that grandchildren can inherit the share of their parents' inheritance as underscored in Re Estate of Mary Karugi Mwangi (Deceased) (2018) eKLR among other decisions cited). 24.The Respondent further contends that the Applicant intermeddled with Estate contrary to Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act. 25.There is no dispute that the Applicant is the deceased's biological mother and the grandmother of P (deceased) who was the father of the minor subject of this Application. The deceased herein was predeceased by all her children including P. 26.By dint of Section 58 of the Law of Succession Act as pointed out by Counsel, there is need for an additional Administrator of the Estate in light of the involvement of a minor. There is no doubt that the minor is entitled to the share of his deceased’s father in the Estate of his grandmother. 27.The issue of dependency is, however, a very contested matter that requires proper ventilation by oral evidence rather than affidavit evidence as the parties adopted herein. This issue shall not therefore be determined on merits in this Application but may be considered, if later raised, by oral evidence. In any event, none of the reliefs sought in this Application relate to dependency. 28.As the Applicant is the mother of the deceased herein, she is hereby appointed as co-Administratix of the Estate alongside the Respondent. The Grant dated 29/9/2025 issued to the Respondent herein is accordingly revoked to this extent only. 29.To preserve the Estate, status quo is ordered to be maintained until final transmission of the Estate. The order of 14/11/2025 restraining the Respondent from evicting the Applicant from part of the Estate she occupies also remains in force until conclusion of this Cause. 30.The parties shall bear their own costs of the Application. RULING, DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026.J. M. NANG’EA, JUDGE.In the presence of:Ms Kilonzo Advocate for the Applicant.Ms Matilda Advocate for the Respondent.Mr. Kimani Advocate for a Creditor.Court Assistant (Jeniffer).