https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9877

In re Estate of Munyasa (Deceased) (Succession Cause 78 of 2012) [2026] KEHC 9877 (KLR) (6 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9877 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kakamega Succession Cause 78 of 2012 S Mbungi, J July 6, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF DANIEL MUNYASA (DECEASED) Between Florence Lihavi Luseno Applicant and Musa Akatsiva Munyasa Respondent Ruling 1.The Applicant, Florence Lihavi Luseno, moved this Court by the Notice of Motion dated 8th December 2025 brought under Rules 49 and 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules seeking, principally:a.That the application be certified urgent;b.That a fresh grant be issued in the names of Henry Munyasa, Musa Akatsiva D. Munyasa and Florence Lihavi Luseno;c.That the petitioners/respondents and all persons required be compelled to execute all documents necessary for transmission of Land Parcel No. Idakho/Shiseso/83;d.In default, that the Deputy Registrar be authorized to execute all documents necessary to effect transmission pursuant to the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant issued on 14th October 2015 and amended on 28th September 2021; ande.Costs. 2.The application is supported by the affidavit of Florence Lihavi Luseno sworn on 8th December 2025. 3.The respondents opposed the application through the replying affidavit sworn by Henry Munyasa and Musa Akatsiva D. Munyasa. Applicant’s Case 4.The applicant deposes that the grant was confirmed on 14th October 2015 and amended on 28th September 2021. She contends that despite the lapse of several years, the respondents have deliberately refused or neglected to execute the necessary transmission documents. 5.She further relies on this Court’s ruling delivered on 27th November 2025 directing that transmission proceeds in accordance with the confirmed grant subject only to the resolution of the access road dispute before the competent authority. 6.According to the applicant, no appeal, review or setting aside of that ruling has been undertaken. 7.She asserts that the continued refusal to sign the documents frustrates implementation of the confirmed grant and defeats the principle that litigation must come to an end. 8.She further states that she is elderly, unwell and financially constrained and therefore suffers prejudice from the continued delay. Respondents’ Case 9.The respondents oppose the application on the grounds that there exists an unresolved boundary dispute which must first be determined before transmission can be finalized. 10.They contend that survey has already been undertaken and beacons planted, but the applicant rejected the exercise, thereby occasioning the delay. 11.They further state that parties have already moved to the Environment and Land Court to resolve the boundary dispute and therefore the orders sought are premature. They also contend that issuance of a fresh grant is unnecessary. Issues For Determination 12.The issues arising are:i.Whether a fresh grant should issue.ii.Whether the respondents should be compelled to execute the transmission documents.iii.Whether in default the Deputy Registrar should execute the documents. Analysis And Determination 13.It is not disputed that a Certificate of Confirmation of Grant was issued on 14th October 2015 and subsequently amended on 28th September 2021.It is equally not disputed that on 27th November 2025 this Court rendered a ruling directing that transmission proceeds in accordance with the confirmed grant subject only to the resolution of the access road dispute before the competent authority. 14.The respondents have not demonstrated that the ruling of 27th November 2025 has been appealed against, reviewed or stayed. Consequently, the orders made therein remain binding upon all parties. 15.In Owners of the Motor Vessel ‘Lillian S’ v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd, the Court emphasized that court orders remain binding until lawfully set aside. 16.Likewise, the principle stated in Hadkinson v Hadkinson is that parties are obligated to obey court orders whether they consider them right or wrong until those orders are discharged by a competent court. 17.The respondents justify the delay on the existence of a boundary dispute. However, the Court’s previous ruling expressly contemplated that the issue of the access road or boundary dispute would be resolved before the competent authority. That issue cannot be converted into a basis for indefinitely suspending implementation of the confirmed grant where no order of stay exists. 18.The duty of personal representatives is clearly set out under Section 83 of the Law of Succession Act, which obligates administrators to complete administration of the estate diligently and distribute the estate to the beneficiaries without unreasonable delay. 19.The Court of Appeal in Trouistik Union International & another v Jane Mbeyu & another emphasized that personal representatives hold estate property in trust for beneficiaries and are under a legal obligation to administer the estate in accordance with the law. 20.Similarly, In re Estate of Mwaura Mutungi alias Mwaura Gichina (Deceased), the High Court reiterated that administrators are fiduciaries and should not frustrate or delay implementation of a confirmed grant once distribution has been settled. Whether a fresh grant should issue. 21.Regarding the prayer for a fresh grant, this Court is not persuaded that sufficient grounds have been laid. There is already a confirmed grant whose validity has not been challenged. 22.The applicant has not demonstrated death, incapacity, renunciation or any circumstance affecting the existing administrators that would necessitate issuance of a fresh grant. What appears to be outstanding is implementation of the existing grant rather than replacement of it. 23.The Court therefore declines to issue a fresh grant. Whether the respondents should be compelled to execute the transmission documents in default the Deputy Registrar should execute the documents. 24.Courts exercising succession jurisdiction possess inherent power under Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules to make such orders as are necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the court process this was also reiterated in re Estate of Prisca Ong’ayo Nande(Deceased) 25.Where an administrator or beneficiary deliberately refuses to execute documents necessary to implement a confirmed grant, the Court may authorize the Deputy Registrar to execute such documents in order to give effect to its judgment. 26.In re Estate of M’Mugambi M’Itunga (Deceased) the court authorized the execution of conveyancing documents by the deputy registrar after finding that an administrator had frustrated the implementation of a confirmed grant. 27.This Court is however mindful that its earlier ruling expressly preserved the determination of the access road dispute before the competent authority. Consequently, execution of the transmission documents should only proceed consistently with that earlier order. 28.Accordingly, the Court makes the following orders:a.The prayer seeking issuance of a fresh grant is declined.b.The respondents together with every beneficiary whose execution is required shall execute all documents necessary to facilitate transmission of Land Parcel No. IDAKHO/SHISESO/83 strictly in accordance with the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant dated 14th October 2015 as amended on 28th September 2021 and subject to the orders made by this Court on 27th November 2025 regarding the access road dispute.c.The respondents and all persons required to execute the documents shall do so within thirty (30) days from the date of the ruling on the access road dispute.d.In default of compliance within the prescribed period, the Deputy Registrar of this Court is hereby authorized to execute all transfer, mutation, consent and any other documents necessary to effect transmission of Land Parcel No. IDAKHO/SHISESO/83 in accordance with the confirmed grant and this Court’s previous orders.e.The Officer Commanding Station (OCS) of the relevant police station shall, if called upon, provide security during implementation of the court orders to ensure maintenance of peace.f.Each party shall bear his or her own costs, this being a family succession dispute.1.It is so ordered.2.Right of Appeal 30 days explained. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT KAKAMEGA THIS 6th DAY OF JULY, 2026.S.MBUNGIJUDGEIn the presence of:-CA: Velma/Zilda.Party absent.Court Assistant to upload the ruling in the CTS forthwith.