https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6739

In re Estate of Kamonye alias Daniel Kifuku Kamonye alias Daniel Kifuku alias Kifuku Kamonye (Deceased) (Succession Cause 314 of 2006) [2026] KEHC 6739 (KLR) (18 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 6739 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nakuru Succession Cause 314 of 2006 SM Mohochi, J May 18, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE DANIEL KIBUKU KAMONYE ALIAS DANIEL KIFUKU KAMOMYE ALIAS DANIEL KIFUKU ALIAS KIFUKU KAMONYE (DECEASED) Between Grace Wambui Kibuku Applicant and Jecintah Wairimu Kibuku Administrator Ruling 1.In a ruling dated 13th of March 2026, the court deferred to impose an appropriate sanction for contempt of court, upon Jecintah Wairimu Kibuku subject to the mitigation on the 17th April 2026. 2.The background stems from the court orders ruling dated 15th August 2025, directed at Jecintah Wairimu Kibuku to file the statement of account within the next Sixty (60) days from the date hereof. Subsequent thereto before full settlement of the estate the administrator shall account to the court and all parties after every six months. This means the first accounting in October 2025, the 2nd accounting in April 2026 and every six months until the estate is fully settled. 3.At the point of the ruling dated 15th August 2025, Jecintah Wairimu Kibuku in her sworn affidavit had indicated to the court that she had a team of accountants working on preparation of statement of account without a firm commitment on timelines to comply. 4.Subsequent thereto the administrator through her advocates filed rudimentary statements that triggered the application dated 17th December 2025 seeking to find and hold the administrator in contempt of court. 5.On the 17th April 2026 was reserved for mitigation, however the applicant through counsel Hari Gakinya protested the filing of a sworn affidavit dated 27th March 2026 by Jecintah Wairimu Kibuku, that the same was a justification for contempt, she was not remorseful, she had continued to disregard Court Orders and the same was rubbishing the court orders. 6.Advocate Gakinya further protested that, Jecintah Wairimu Kibuku’s attempt to account manifested misuse of estate income on vague line items such as “family affairs, “legal fees”, “management allowances” and an unknown “float”. 7.Advocate Gakinya summed it up and declared her unfit to administer an estate of this magnitude. Mitigation 8.Mr. Kisillah Advocate for Jecintah Wairimu Kibuku submitted that they had filed a sworn affidavit dated 27th March 2026 by Jecintah Wairimu Kibuku, that explains why she failed to comply with the court orders. 9.That she maintains that she never sought to be an administrator and was appointed “suo motu” by the court when the previous administrators failed in their duty. 10.That the administration of this estate was not her full-time job and that she had so far done a good job. That she had filed a summons for confirmation of the grant that is part-heard. 11.That this was not the 1st time a party was being found in contempt of court, but they were never punished. 12.That, Jecintah Wairimu Kibuku admits her failings and has provided three (3) statements of account and that they thus urged for orders leading to the conclusion of the administration and settlement of the probate as the best interests of the estate. 13.This ruling is intended to impose an appropriate sanction under the circumstances and for starters, it is important to recall the provisions of section 83 of the Law of succession Act on the duties of the personal representatives;Personal representatives shall have the following duties—a.to provide and pay out of the estate of the deceased, the expenses of a reasonable funeral for him;b.to get in all free property of the deceased, including debts owing to him and moneys payable to his personal representatives by reason of his death;c.to pay, out of the estate of the deceased, all expenses of obtaining their grant of representation, and all other reasonable expenses of administration (including estate duty, if any);d.to ascertain and pay, out of the estate of the deceased, all his debts;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.subject to section 55, to distribute or to retain on trust (as the case may require) all assets remaining after payment of expenses and debts as provided by the preceding paragraphs of this section and the income therefrom, according to the respective beneficial interests therein under the will or on intestacy, as the case may be;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.to produce to the court, if required by the court, either of its own motion or on the application of any interested party in the estate, 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;i.to complete the administration of the estate in respect of all matters other than continuing trusts and if required by the court, either of its own motion or on the application of any interested party in the estate, to produce to the court a full and accurate account of the completed administration. 14.Section 94 and 95 of the Law of Succession Act provides for instances of neglect or misapplication of assets by personal representatives and offences by personal representatives;“ 94.When a personal representative neglect to get in any asset forming part of the estate in respect of which representation has been granted to him, or misapplies any such asset, or subjects it to loss or damage, he shall, whether or not also guilty of an offence on that account, be liable to make good any loss or damage so occasioned. 95.(1)Any personal representative who, as regards the estate in respect of which representation has been granted to him—(a)wilfully or recklessly neglects to get in any asset forming part of the estate, misapplies any such asset, or subjects any such asset to loss or damage; or(b)wilfully fails to produce to the court any such inventory or account as is required by the provisions of paragraphs (e) and (g) of section 83;or(c)wilfully or recklessly produces any such inventory or account which is false in any material particular; or(d)knowing or having reason to believe that the estate will prove to be insolvent, continues to administer it without petitioning for administration thereof in bankruptcy, shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand shillings, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to both such fine and imprisonment.(2)Any personal representative who, as regards the estate in respect of which representation has been granted to him if at any time there is a continuing trust and he is the sole surviving administrator, wilfully fails to apply to the court within three months in accordance with section 75A for the appointment of further administrators shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to a fine not exceeding five thousand shillings.” 15.This court is persuaded that the administrator has not been diligent with high probability of contravening sections 94 and 95 of the Law of Succession Act, however this ruling was not for ascertaining as to whether Jecintah Wairimu Kibuku had neglected or misapplied assets forming part of the estate and as such the issue shall remain alive to be separately determined subject to the beneficiaries. 16.Law of contempt is expressly provided for under the Kenyan Law in section 5 of the Judicature Act cap 8 Laws of Kenya where it is provided that the High Court and the Court of Appeal shall have the same power to punish for contempt of court as is for the time possessed by the High Court of Justice in England and that power shall extend to upholding the authority and dignity of the subordinate courts. 17.In the case of Econet Wireless Kenya Ltd vs. Minister for Information & Communication of Kenya & Another [2005] 1 KLR 828 Ibrahim, J (as he then was) stated:“It is essential for the maintenance of the rule of law and order that the authority and the dignity of our courts are upheld at all times. The court will not condone deliberate disobedience of its orders and will not shy away from its responsibility to deal firmly with proved contemnors. It is the plain and unqualified obligation of every person against, or in respect of whom, an order is made by a court of competent jurisdiction, to obey it unless and until that order is discharged. The uncompromising nature of this obligation is shown by the fact that it extends even to cases where the person affected by an order believes it to be irregular or void.” 18.The court has equally taken note of the Affidavit dated 16th March 2026 by Dr. Stephen Karanja Kibuku who swears, vouching for his academic and managerial credentials and expertise offering himself to be appointed Administrator to steer the probate to conclusion. 19.Dr. Stephen Karanja Kibuku has offered to be diligent and fair in the administration of the estate, to be accountable, transparent and represent his other beneficiaries in a consultative manner and account to court every six months on the administration of the estate, faithfully in the best interest of the beneficiaries and the estate. 20.Jecintah Wairimu Kibuku having been afforded an opportunity to mitigate and the same being taken into consideration, I am inclined to make the following resultant orders.i.Jecintah Wairimu Kibuku shall pay a fine of Kshs 50,000/- to the court within the next thirty (30) days and in default shall serve an imprisonment of six (6) months.ii.The fine imposed herein shall not be drawn from the estate of the deceased but rather shall be payable by Jecintah Wairimu Kibuku.iii.The grant made on the 31 st May 2021 appointing Jecintah Wairimu Kibuku as the administrator of the deceased estate is hereby revoked and she is no longer the administrator of the deceased estate.iv.The summons for confirmation of grant by Jecintah Wairimu Kibuku is moot and academic.v.A fresh grant is hereby made and issued to Dr. Stephen Karanja Kibuku.vi.Dr. Stephen Karanja Kibuku, shall forthwith, within the next sixty (60) days file for summons for confirmation of grant.vii.Any value forming part of the deceased estate determined to have been misappropriated by any party/beneficiary, shall be deducted from the final share of such a party/beneficiary in distribution.viii.I shall grant costs of the application to the applicant assessed at Kshs 30,000/- payable not from the estate but by Jecintah Wairimu Kibuku.ix.Any party aggrieved has the leave of the Court to Appeal within the next thirty (30) days.x.This matter shall be mentioned for compliance before High Court Number 3 afterthirty (30) days from the date of this ruling.It is so directed. DELIVERED VIRTUALLY ON THE TEAMS PLATFORM, AT BUSIA ON THIS 18TH OF MAY, 2026.MOHOCHI S. M.PRESIDING JUDGE