https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11425

In re Estate of Shariff (Deceased) (Succession Cause 2924 of 2003) [2026] KEHC 11425 (KLR) (Family) (23 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 11425 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Family Succession Cause 2924 of 2003 HK Chemitei, J July 23, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF FEROZ BIBI MOHAMED SHARIFF (DECEASED) Between Ferdos Sultana Cockar Applicant and Hussein Bano 1st Respondent The Registrar of Companies 2nd Respondent The Chief Land Registrar 3rd Respondent Ruling 1.Before this Court for determination is the Chamber Summons dated 10th April 2025, brought pursuant to Sections 45 of the Law of Succession Act, Section 73 of the Land Registration Act and Order 40 & 51 of the Civil procedure Rules, in which the Applicant seeks the following orders:a.Spent;b.That this Honourable Court do and hereby issue summons compelling the 1st Respondent to appear before this Court;c.That this Honourable Court do hereby issue an order directing the 1st Respondent to render a true and accurate records of how the whole Estate of Feroz Bibi Mohamed Shariff has been administered to date;d.That the court be deemed to order any other orders that it may deem necessary in the interest of justice.e.That costs of this application be in the cause. 2.The Application is supported by the supporting affidavit of FERDOS SULTANA COCKAR on the grounds that although the High Court in this matter issued Grant of Letters of Administration Intestate to one HUSSEIN BANO MOHAMED SHABBIR SHARRIF CHAUDHRY on 31st December 2003 and later confirmed the same on 2nd November 2005 , vesting the estate in the deceased's children in equal shares, the 1st Respondent ( also the Administrator of the Estate) herein fraudulently transferred the property known as Nairobi/Block 38/110 to herself and her four daughters without the knowledge or consent of the other beneficiaries and contrary to the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant issued on the said 2nd November 2005. 3.The Applicant alleges that this unlawful transfer deprived the rightful beneficiaries off their beneficial interests and seeks orders compelling the 1st Respondent to render a full and accurate account of her administration of the estate, asserting that the beneficiaries will suffer irreparable prejudice unless the Court grants the reliefs sought. 4.The 1st Respondent opposed the Application vide Replying Affidavit dated 25th May 2025, contending that LR No. 209/15/366 (now Nairobi/Block 38/110) never formed part of the estate of the late Feroze Bibi Mohammed Sharif. She deponed that the property was originally owned by Mohammed Sharif, son of Nizan Din, who sold it to New Market Meat Supply Company Limited through an agreement dated 27th May 1960. 5.Following Succession Cause No. 337 of 1966, letters of administration intestate were issued to Feroze Begum with authority to transfer the property to the purchaser, and the transfer was duly registered on 2nd December 1972. 6.Consequently, she maintained that since the property had been transferred over two decades before Feroze Bibi Mohammed Sharif's death on 11th March 1994, it could not have formed part of the deceased's estate. She further asserted that the application was founded on inaccurate facts and was merely intended to interfere with her lawful enjoyment of the property. Issues For Determination 7.I have considered the application, the affidavit in support thereof, the Replying Affidavit and the Submissions filed by Parties herein. In my view, the following issues arise for determination:a.Whether the application is procedurally competent before the Court.b.Whether the Applicant is entitled to an order compelling the 1st Respondent, as the administrator of the estate, to render a full and accurate account of the administration of the estate. Analysis And Determination 8.The 1st Respondent has questioned the competence of the application on the basis of the manner in which it was commenced and the delay in bringing the same. This Court has also noted that the Applicant has invoked statutory provisions which do not directly relate to the relief sought. 9.Be that as it may, I am guided by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution, which enjoins Courts to administer justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities. Further, Section 47 of the Law of Succession Act confers upon this Court wide jurisdiction to entertain any application and determine any dispute arising under the Act and to make such orders as may be expedient. 10.In the circumstances, I do not find that the mode of commencement of the application or the statutory provisions cited are, by themselves, sufficient to render the application incompetent. I shall therefore proceed to determine the application on its merits. 11.The evidence on record shows that the property known as L.R. No. Nairobi/Block 38/110 (hereinafter "the suit property") was transferred by New Market Meat Supply Company Limited to the 1st Respondent, Hussein Bano Mohamed Shabirr Shariff, jointly with Rasia Mohamed Shabirr Shariff, Aasiya Nerine Mohamed Shabirr Shariff, Tanzim Mohamed Shabirr Shariff and Shazia Mohamed Shabirr Shariff, whom the Applicant describes as the 1st Respondent's daughters. The Court further notes from the documents produced that the directors of the vendor company were the 1st Respondent and Rasia Mohamed Shabirr Shariff. 12.However, the documentary evidence also establishes that the suit property was originally owned by Mohamed Shariff s/o Nizam Din, who sold it to New Market Meat Supply Company Limited during his lifetime through an agreement dated 27th May 1960. Following Succession Cause No. 337 of 1966, letters of administration intestate were issued to Feroz Begum (the deceased herein), who, pursuant to the powers vested in her as administratrix, transferred the suit property to the said company. A title deed was thereafter issued in the name of New Market Meat Supply Company Limited on 2nd December 1972. 13.It is not disputed that the deceased, Feroze Bibi Mohammed Sharif, died on 11th March 1994, approximately twenty-two years after the suit property had already been registered in the name of New Market Meat Supply Company Limited. There is no evidence before this Court to demonstrate that the decease retained any proprietary interest in the suit property at the time of her death or that any dispute regarding its ownership arose in any way or form. 14.Equally, no evidence has been placed before the Court to show that the inclusion or exclusion of the suit property from the estate was challenged during the succession proceedings culminating in the confirmation of the grant on 2nd November 2005, or at any time during the ensuing twenty years after the estate was distributed. 15.It therefore falls upon this Court to determine whether the delay has been satisfactorily explained and whether, in the circumstances of this case, the Applicant is entitled to the equitable relief sought notwithstanding the considerable lapse of time. 16.Although the Applicant has stated that some of the beneficiaries resided outside the country, no satisfactory explanation has been offered as to why neither the Applicant nor the other beneficiaries sought accounts or questioned the administration of the estate during the intervening period. I therefore find that the delay in bringing the present application is inordinate and unexplained. 17.Further, apart from the allegation relating to the suit property, the Applicant has neither identified any other estate asset alleged to have been concealed nor produced any evidence demonstrating that the 1st Respondent mismanaged the estate or failed to administer it in accordance with the confirmed grant. In the absence of such evidence, and bearing in mind that the estate was distributed approximately twenty years ago, I find that the Applicant has failed to establish sufficient grounds to warrant an order compelling the 1st Respondent to render accounts. 18.To grant the orders sought in the circumstances would not only be unsupported by the evidence on record but would also undermine the equitable doctrine of laches and the principle of finality of litigation, both of which militate against reopening a succession dispute that has long been concluded without sufficient cause. 19.An order compelling an administrator to render accounts is not granted as a matter of course. An applicant must place before the Court sufficient material demonstrating that the administrator has failed to properly administer the estate, has omitted estate assets, has misapplied estate property, or has otherwise breached the duties imposed upon a personal representative. Mere suspicion or unsubstantiated allegations are insufficient to warrant the reopening of an administration that was concluded many years ago. 20.Section 83(e) and (g) of the Law of Succession Act provides as follows concerning the duties of personal representatives:“(d)……..(e)Within six months from the date of the grant, to produce to the court a full and accurate inventory of the assets and liabilities of the deceased and a full and accurate account of all dealings therewith up to the date of the account;(f)………(g)within six months from the date of confirmation of the grant, or such longer period as the court may allow, to complete the administration of the estate in respect of all matters other than continuing trusts and to produce to the court a full and accurate account of the completed administration.(h)…….” 21.While the duty to account is a statutory obligation, and the Court is empowered by virtue of the above Section to make an order for accounts against an administrator at any time before or after confirmation of a grant, it is the Court’s view that a person seeking accounts ought to apply within reasonable time, while providing sufficient pertinent details and not give an impression that he is on a fishing expedition. The same position was reiterated by C.W Meoli J, in re-Estate of Stephen Marigi Gathigi (Deceased) [2025] KEHC 14999 (KLR). 22.In the circumstances, I find that the Applicant has failed to establish any sufficient legal or factual basis for the orders sought. 23.Accordingly, the application dated 10th April 2025 is hereby dismissed. 24.Costs in the cause. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA VIDEO LINK AT NAIROBI THIS 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2026.H.K. CHEMITEIJUDGE, FCIArb.