In re Estate of the Late Mukora (Deceased) (Succession Cause 383 of 1991) [2026] KEHC 8147 (KLR) (Family) (11 June 2026) (Judgment)

 **REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI** **SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 383 OF 1991** **IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE KIBUI KIMANI MUKORA (DECEASED)** **FREDRICK KUNG’U KABURI *(Suing on*** ***behalf of the estate of the late lucy Muthoni*** ***Kaburi)* ………………………………………………………….. APPLICANT** **VERSES** **SAMUEL MUIRU KIMANI (*Administrator*** ***of the estate of Margret Wanjiku Kimani alias*** ***Margaret Wakanyi kimani)* …………………………………… RESPONDENT** **JUDGEMENT** 1. The deceased herein died intestate on 5th July 1989 leaving behind two daughters namely Lucy Muthoni Kaburi and Margret Wakanyi Kimani. 2. The Applicant is a son to the late Lucy whereas the Respondent is the son to Margaret. 3. After the death of their mother, Margaret applied for letters of administration over her mother’s estate which was later rectified after her death so as to bring in Samuel Kimani her son. 4. It is the case of the Applicant that his mother’s house was left behind when the cause herein was filed and that is why he filed for revocation of grant vide the application dated 15th May 2023. 5. When the matter came up for directions the Court ordered the same to be determined by way of oral evidence. 6. **Pw1 Moses Njoroge** the area Chief Muchata sub location testified and produced a letter dated 13 October 2022 in relation to the estate herein and the late Margret Wakenya. 7. In his testimony he said that he was not leaning on either side but that his letters had nothing to do with the distribution of the estate herein but that the Applicant wanted it for purposes of utilizing it at a Sacco, Eastlegh which her deceased mother was a member. That the letter was not meant to introduce him as a beneficiary in the estate. 8. **Pw2 Fredrick Kaburi** testified that the deceased was her grandmother and that she was filing this objection on his own behalf and that of his late mother’s estate. 9. He said that the Respondent filed the cause without informing the rest of the beneficiaries and proceeded to subdivide the land as per the grant without their consent. 10. He further said that by virtue of his mother being a daughter to the deceased she and her estate had every right of claiming the same. 11. When cross examined, he said that his mother was married elsewhere although it was not far from their home, just about three hundred meters away. 12. He admitted that he filed his objection 34 years after his mother’s death. That his mother died in 1994 while he was in the United Kingdom. He denied any knowledge of these proceedings. 13. He admitted that land parcel number 1912 was no longer available since it has been subdivided into 10 portions. 14. He further said that he was fully aware that there were some members of his family who did not support his idea. 15. **Dw1 Samuel Kimani** testified that he was the son to the late Margaret and the Administrator of the estate herein after her demise. He relied on the pleadings on record including some rulings dating back to 1984 in which the deceased was given the portion of the land in question. He said that the grandmother got a smaller portion since he had only one daughter. 16. That the meeting which discussed the whole issue happened at the home of the Applicant and he was present as he was old enough, he further said that they had already subdivided the land and each of the beneficiaries had been given their respective titles. 17. He said that his cousins were all present when he undertook the survey work and they had no dispute except the Applicant who is the youngest of them all. He accused him of breaking the family bond since his side already have the land they inherited from their father. 18. **Dw2 Andrew Kaburi** the brother to the Applicant supported the line taken by the Respondent. He said that as far as their house was concerned, they were satisfied with what they inherited from their father and that their late mother all along did not want any share or inheritance from her mother. 19. That their mother told them to be satisfied with what they had been given or inherited from their father. 20. At the same time, he said that the two sisters that is Margret and Lucy never differed at all over the said land. 21. He also testified that he attended the land control board where the deceased transferred land to whoever she wished. 22. When cross examined, he said that they had appointed the Applicant to represent them on issues dealing with their father’s side and not their grandmother’s. 23. The parties were thereafter directed to file written submissions but on record it is only the Applicant who complied. 24. The Applicant submitted that lawful beneficiaries were left behind when the cause was filed and therefore under the provisions of Section 76 of the Succession Act the grant ought to be revoked. 25. The Applicant relied among others on the case of **RONO V. RONO (2005) EKLR and OLE NTUTU (2019) EKLR** in support of his case. **ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION** 26. Having carefully perused the pleadings herein together with the oral evidence as well as the above submissions by the Applicant, I find that the substantive question is whether the grant herein and the entire cause was filed surreptitiously and without the knowledge of the Applicant. 27. There is no doubt in my mind that the Applicant in terms of consanguinity has every right to inherit her grandmother’s estate just like the Respondent and their household. 28. It is clear as well that the Applicant’s mother Lucy was married and did not stay on her mother’s land but lived close by and about three hundred meters from her mother’s home. 29. It is therefore evident that whatever takes place at their home inferably all the two families should be able to know. For example, the issue of survey work being carried out at the suit property I believe was not done in secrecy and there is every possibility that the Applicant least of all his siblings would be in the know. 30. Further the Respondent’s mother despite her marriage generally came back home and it seems stayed with her mother. The Respondent and their families have stayed on the same land for over 53 years. 31. There is no evidence that the Applicant ever stayed on the suit land and that is why on record during cross examination he was unable to tell the Court the number of permanent houses therein among other details. 32. At the same time the Respondent’s brother Andrew was categorical that their late mother advised them all to be satisfied with whatever property their father had left for them. In my view therefore, if their mother was interested with the estate of her mother, she had the opportunity to enjoin herself in the estate for she died after the cause had been filed. 33. I am not persuaded that the Applicant was not in the picture that his cousins had occupied the land for the last 53 years. His claim that he was in the United Kingdom may be true but then his other siblings were aware of what was taking place including the meetings that were taking place as supported by the documents relied on by the Respondent. 34. As a matter of fact, his brother who appeared disturbed by the Applicant’s action claimed that they fundraised for the Applicant’s education in the United Kingdom only for him to come back and cause disunity in the two families. 35. The letter from the Chief **Pw1** in which the Applicant has made heavy weather on it was in my view explained well by the author. He clarified that the same was not meant to be used in Court but instead by some Sacco at Eastlegh in which the Applicant’s mother was alleged to have been a member. 36. It is also not lost to the Court that the chief’s letter just like any from the provincial administration is only utilized for the purposes intended and does not dissuade the Court from its legal mandate of determining who are the proper beneficiaries in an estate. 37. I have seen the land control board application form made in favour of the deceased herein transferring land parcel, number Kiamba/Thindigua /1912 to three persons namely George Njoroge, Nicholas Mukora Kimani and Samuel Muiri Wakanyi which consent was issued on 1st November 1984. The land was to be divided in equal shares. 38. There is no evidence that the deceased intended to share it out between her two daughters, Lucy and Margaret. If she intended then she would have applied. 39. In any case the said consent was never challenged and neither has it ever been set aside. 40. Cumulatively therefore I do not find merit in the objection herein. The Applicant feigned ignorance when he stated that he was never in the picture. Succession proceedings herein have been ongoing for the last 34 years. The Respondent and his side of the family have occupied the land for over 53 years, done development and carried out subdivision without any objection from their cousins living 300 meters away. 41. It appears to me that the Applicant is on his own mission. It is true that he has every legitimate right to claim her grandmother’s estate, but he was unable to explain why her mother in the first instance failed to object to her sister or her sisters’ children inheriting her mother’s estate. 42. To the Applicant I find the argument by her brother reasonable and plausible. He said that their mother warned them to be satisfied with their fathers’ estate. The Applicant is the youngest in their home. His elder siblings have not laid any claim in their nephews’ inheritance and I think his mission is to destabilase the status quo. 43. The Applicant has not brought himself within the confines of Section 76 of the Act which has elaborately laid grounds for revoking a grant. 44. **I do in the premises dismiss the objection proceedings herein dated 15th May 2023 with costs to the Respondent.** **Dated signed and delivered via video link at Nairobi this 11th day of June 2026.** **H K CHEMITEI** **JUDGE, FCIArb.**