https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10686

In re Estate of Mwaura (Deceased) (Succession Cause E890 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 10686 (KLR) (Family) (16 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10686 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Family Succession Cause E890 of 2023 HK Chemitei, J July 16, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JOEL NDOHO MWAURA (DECEASED) Between Isaiah Mwaura Ndoho Applicant and Emily Wambui Ndoho 1st Respondent Irene Nungari Ndoho 2nd Respondent Rebeccah Wanjiru Ndoho 3rd Respondent Ruling 1.Before me for determination is summons for Revocation of Grant dated 20th November 2025 brought under Section 76 of Laws of Succession Act and Rule 44(1) of the Probate and Administration Rules. 2.The Applicant prays for orders that:a.Spent;b.The certificate of confirmation of Grant issued on 31st October 2024 in respect of the Estate of Joel Ndoho Mwaura (Deceased), be revoked on the ground that this Honourable Court confirmed it erroneously vide its ruling by allowing an application filed in absentia of all beneficiaries hence the mode of distribution was not fair, further not all beneficiaries had consented to the mode of distribution;c.Upon revocation of the said Grant, a fresh Certificate of Confirmation of Grant be issued distributing all the properties of the deceased equally to all the beneficiaries and suit property KABETE/NYATHUNA/102 to Full Gospel Churches of Kenya Kabete Local Church upon payment of KES 40,000/=;d.An injunction to issue restraining the Respondents by themselves, agents, servants or in any other manner whatsoever from dealing in any way whatsoever with the Estate of Joel Ndoho Mwaura pending the hearing and determination of this application.e.This Court be pleased to issue any other orders and directions to meet protect the deceased estate and meet ends of Justice.f.The Costs be provided for. 3.The Application was supported by the supporting affidavit of Isaiah Mwaura Ndoho, on the grounds that the Applicant, Isaiah Mwaura Ndoho is one of the administrators of the deceased's estate but that the Summons for Confirmation of Grant dated 20th March 2024 was filed and prosecuted without his knowledge or consent, as he neither signed nor executed the application. He contends that the confirmation of the Grant in his absence was prejudicial to his interests and that the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant dated 31st October 2024 ought to be revoked. 4.Further that the confirmed Grant unfairly distributed the estate by allocating the prime income-generating properties to the Respondents while assigning him properties that generate no income. In particular, he states that L.R. No. 36/V/154 (Original No. 36/V/4/37), which has a residential house generating approximately KES 300,000 per month, was allocated solely to Emily Wambui Ndoho, contrary to the wishes of the beneficiaries. He maintains that the income from the property had always been shared equally among all the beneficiaries and that it should continue to be shared to avoid future disputes. 5.The deponent agrees with the Court's decision to allocate KABETE/NYATHUNA/102 to the church upon payment of KES 40,000. However, he seeks the revocation of the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant and a fresh redistribution of all the estate properties so that each beneficiary receives an equal share, contending that such an order would serve the interests of justice. 6.The Respondents opposed the Application by filing a Replying Affidavit dated 9th March 2026 where she deponed that the Applicant was well aware of the summons for confirmation of the grant but he chose to ignore instead. 7.That all along the respondent had been difficult and uncooperative and therefore it is not true that he was not aware of the application and attendance of the court during the hearing of the summons. Issues For Determination 8.I have considered the application, the affidavit in support thereof, the Replying Affidavit, the Further Affidavit, and the submissions filed by the parties, where applicable. In my view, the following issues arise for determination:a.Whether the Applicant has established sufficient grounds for the revocation of the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant dated 31st October 2024.b.If the answer to the first issue is in the affirmative, whether the estate should be redistributed as proposed by the Applicant. Analysis And Determination 9.The central issue for determination is whether the Applicant 's application meets the threshold for revocation of grant within the meaning of Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. For avoidance of doubt, section 76 states:”“ 76.Revocation or annulment of grantA grant of representation, whether or not confirmed, may at any time be revoked or annulled if the court decides, either on application by any Interested Party or of its own motion—a.that the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance;b.that the grant was obtained fraudulently by the making of a false statement or by the concealment from the court of something material to the case;c.that the grant was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant notwithstanding that the allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently;d.that the person to whom the grant was made has failed, after due notice and without reasonable cause either —i.to apply for confirmation of the grant within one year from the date thereof, or such longer period as the court order or allow; orii.to proceed diligently with the administration of the estate; oriii.to produce to the court, within the time prescribed, any such inventory or account of administration as is required by the provisions of paragraphs (e) and (g) of section 83 or has produced any such inventory or account which is false in any material particular; ore)that the grant has become useless and inoperative through subsequent circumstances.” 10.In the present Application, the Applicant, Isaiah Mwaura Ndoho, contends that he is one of the administrators of the deceased's estate but that the Summons for Confirmation of Grant dated 20th March 2024 was filed and prosecuted without his knowledge or consent, as he neither signed nor executed the application. He further avers that the confirmation of the Grant in his absence was prejudicial to his interests and, consequently, seeks the revocation of the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant dated 31st October 2024 on that ground. 11.The Respondents, Emily Wambui Ndoho, Irene Nungari Ndoho and Rebecca Wanjiru Ndoho, opposed the Application through a Replying Affidavit dated 9th March 2026 sworn by Emily Wambui Ndoho on her own behalf and on behalf of the other Respondents. They maintain that the Applicant had knowledge of the Summons for Confirmation of Grant dated 20th March 2024 and deny his allegation that the application was filed and prosecuted without his knowledge or consent. 12.From the evidence on record, this Court is satisfied that the Applicant was aware of the said application, and consequently finds that his assertion that it was filed and prosecuted without his knowledge is not supported by any evidence. 13.There is evidence that on 3rd July 2024 when the matter was mentioned the Applicant requested for time to respond and the court directed that he files his objection by 5th July 2024. 14.When the matter came up on 18th September 2024 his counsel apologized and requested for three days to file the objection as.“He was waiting for instructions from our client. We pray for three days. We apologies to the court.” 15.The Applicant ’s opposed the application for adjournment and the court set the date of the ruling for 31st October 2024. 16.At the time of delivering the ruling the Applicant it appears had not filed the objection. Even then it is clear that the Applicant had between 3rd July 2024 and 18th September 2024 to object to the application. These were about two months or thereabouts. 17.On the issue of consent, the evidence on record demonstrates that the Applicant deliberately declined to consent to the Summons for Confirmation of Grant dated 20th March 2024. The material before the Court shows that his refusal was based on his contention that his co-administrator, Emily Wambui Ndoho, had allocated to herself the prime income-generating properties of the estate and had failed to disclose other estate assets. These grievances are expressly set out in the Applicant's Summons for Revocation of Grant dated 4th December 2024. 18.In regards to property known as L.R NO.36/V/154 (ORIGINAL NO. 36/V/4/37) the court finds that the Applicant has failed to attach any evidence to substantiate his claim that her co-administrator pockets KES 300,000/- monthly to the detriment of the other beneficiaries. 19.I agree with the Respondent's submission that the Applicant ought to have filed an Affidavit of Protest setting out his proposed alternative mode of distribution. However, he failed to do so. 20.The Court of Appeal, in Matheka and Another vs. Matheka (2005) 2 KLR 455, laid down the following guiding principles:“i.A grant may be revoked either by application by an interested party or by the court on its own motion.ii.Even when the revocation is by the court upon its own motion, there must be evidence that the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance, or that the grant was obtained fraudulently by the making of a false statement or by concealment of something material to the case or that the grant was obtained by means of untrue allegation of facts essential in point of law or that the person named in the grant has failed to apply for confirmation or to proceed diligently with the administration of the estate.” 21.In Re Estate of Mburu Gitau (deceased) [2002] eKLR, the court stated as follows:“Distribution of the estate comes during the proceedings to confirm the relevant grant and a party dissatisfied with the distribution may not necessarily be dissatisfied with the grant of letters of administration and vice versa. That being the position, it becomes unreasonable for a person dissatisfied with the distribution of the estate only to proceed to ask for the revocation of annulment of the grant which, as in this case, has nothing wrong.While Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act should therefore be relied upon to revoke or annul a grant it is not proper to use the same section where the objector is challenging the distribution only. There are relevant provisions to be used for that purpose and section 76 is not one of them.” 22.From the evidence on record, it is clear that the Applicant has not satisfied the requirements for the revocation or annulment of a grant under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. The Court record demonstrates that the Applicant fully participated in both the revocation and confirmation proceedings. He was therefore fully aware of the manner in which the estate was proposed to be distributed, and this Court afforded all the parties an opportunity to be heard before determining the issues raised in those applications. 23.The matters now raised by the Applicant were either canvassed or ought to have been canvassed during those proceedings. Consequently, the Applicant has failed to establish any of the statutory grounds warranting the annulment or revocation of the grant under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act, and the application for revocation is therefore devoid of merit and cannot be granted. 24.In the premises the application dated 20th November 2025 is hereby dismissed. 25.Costs in the cause. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA VIDEO LINK AT NAIROBI THIS 16TH DAY OF JULY 2026.H.K. CHEMITEIJUDGE, FCIArb.