[2025] KEHC 10161 (KLR)
The court held that the application for rectification of the amended certificate of confirmation of Grant could not be granted because the proposed inclusion of Land Parcel number Eldoret Municipality Block 14/1210 and its registration in the name of Samuel Kiplagat Maina as sole beneficiary amounted to a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 10161 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Samuel Kiplagat Maina; Respondent: Roseline Chepkurui Maina; Respondent: Peter Kipkorir Maina
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause E265 of 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Rectification of Grant
- Outcome
- Application for rectification of grant declined; parties directed to attend conferencing for further directions.
- Judges
- RN Nyakundi
- Legal Topics
- Rectification of Grant, Distribution of Estate, Probate and Administration, Omission of Asset
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Samuel Kiplagat Maina
Applicant
Roseline Chepkurui Maina
Respondent
Peter Kipkorir Maina
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Rectification of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court can rectify the amended certificate of confirmation of Grant to include a previously omitted asset and register it in the name of one administrator as sole beneficiary.
- 2 Whether the proposed changes amount to a fundamental redistribution of estate assets beyond the scope of rectification under the Law of Succession Act.
- 3 Whether the absence of consent from other administrators renders the application procedurally defective.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the application for rectification of the amended certificate of confirmation of Grant could not be granted because the proposed inclusion of Land Parcel number Eldoret Municipality Block 14/1210 and its registration in the name of Samuel Kiplagat Maina as sole beneficiary amounted to a fundamental redistribution of estate assets. Such a change is not a clerical correction within the meaning of Section 74 of the Law of Succession Act and Rule 43(1) of the Probate and Administration Rules. The proper procedure for such a substantive alteration is an application for review of the confirmation orders, not rectification. Furthermore, the absence of consent from the other...
Court Disposition
Application for rectification of grant declined; parties directed to attend conferencing for further directions.
Orders
- The application dated 18th June, 2025 is declined.
- Administrators are to attend conferencing on 28th July, 2025 for further directions.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
In re Estate of Chepkonga Maina (Deceased) (Succession Cause E265 of 1996) [2025] KEHC 10161 (KLR) (15 July 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 10161 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Eldoret
Succession Cause E265 of 1996
RN Nyakundi, J
July 15, 2025
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF CHEPKONGA MAINA - (DECEASED)
Ruling
1. The Grant of Letters of Administration to the deceased herein was originally issued to Willie Kibet Maina and Paul Chemugo Chelimo on 21st March, 2002. The said Grant was subsequently revoked and reissued to Samuel Kiplagat Maina, Roseline Chepkurui Maina and Peter Kipkorir Maina vide an amended certificate of confirmation of Grant issued on 12th March, 2024.
2. The administrators have yet again approached this court vide an application dated 18th June, 2025 in which they seek rectification of the impugned Grant in the following terms:a.That Land Parcel number Eldoret Municipality Block 14/1210 be included and the same be registered in the names of Samuel Kiplagat Maina as a sole beneficiary of the same.
3. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Samuel Kiplagat Maina, who is both an administrator and son of the deceased. In his affidavit, he deposes that Land Parcel number Eldoret Municipality Block 14/1210, which was registered in the name of the deceased, was erroneously omitted from the rectified Grant issued on 12th March, 2024. He therefore prays that the impugned Grant be further rectified to include the said land parcel and that it be transmitted and registered in his name as beneficiary.
Decision 4. I have considered the application in question and the primary issue that needs determination is whether this court can rectify the amended amended certificate of confirmation of Grant issued on 12th March, 2024. The answer is in the negative. I find that the intended alterations go beyond the scope of rectification as prescribed in Section 74 of the Law of Succession and 43 (1) of the Probate and Administration Rules. By filing this summons the administrator is proposing to make fundamental and far reaching changes to the grant under the guise of rectification.
5. In Re Estate of Charles Kibe Karanja (Deceased) [2015] eKLR the Court held as follows:“…If a party wishes to have the assets of the estate redistributed or there is discovery of new assets that were not available or had not been discovered at the time of distribution, among others; it would be imprudent to seek for rectification or alteration or amendment of the certificate of confirmation of grant. Such changes are fundamental, not superficial. They go to the core of the distribution. They cannot be effected without touching the orders made by the court at the distribution of the estate. Consequently, such changes cannot and should not be effected through a mere amendment of the certificate of confirmation of grant. The proper approach ought to be an application for review of the orders made at the confirmation of the grant. The remedy of review of court orders is not directly provided for in the Law of Succession Act and the Probate and Administration Rules, but it is imported into probate and practice by Rule 63 of Probate and Administration Rules, which has adopted a number of procedures from the Civil Procedure Rules.”
6. The application does not meet the requisite standard in that the proposed changes would fundamentally alter the character of the grant, and a mere rectification cannot cure this deficiency. The inclusion of Land Parcel number Eldoret Municipality Block 14/1210 and its registration in the name of Samuel Kiplagat Maina as sole beneficiary constitutes a substantial redistribution of estate assets that goes beyond clerical correction.
7. Furthermore, I note with concern that there is no consent from the other administrators, namely Roseline Chepkurui Maina and Peter Kipkorir Maina, to the proposed changes. This is a material omission that renders the application procedurally defective.
8. In the circumstances, the administrators are hereby called for conferencing on 28th July, 2025 for further directions.
9. Orders accordingly.
DATED SIGNED AND PUBLISHED VIA CTS AT ELDORET THIS 15TH DAY OF JULY 2025. ...........................R. NYAKUNDIJUDGE