https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7584

In re Estate of John Amboga Embalo (Deceased) (Succession Cause 248 of 2004) [2026] KEHC 7584 (KLR) (4 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7584 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kitale Succession Cause 248 of 2004 RK Limo, J June 4, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN AMBOGA EMBALO- DECEASED Between Johnstone Ambago Embalo Applicant and Feba Andesia Embalo Respondent Ruling 1.Johnstone Amboga Embalo, the applicant herein has moved this court through summons for revocation of grant dated 20/6/2024 for the following prayers/relief;i.That the grant issued to Feba Andesia Ambalo on 7/4/20005 be revoked.ii.Spent.iii.That the following beneficiaries be included in this cause;a.Johnstone Amboga Embalob.Shem Embaloc.Everline Embaloiv.That the following assets be included in the estate;a.Land parcel No.North Maragoli/Chavakali/1675.b.North Maragoli/Chavakali/1676 2.The applicant has raised the following grounds to support his application namely;a.That the grant was obtained by untrue allegations, concealment of material facts and fraudulently. 3.In his affidavit sworn on 20/6/2024, the applicant avers that he is one of the sons of the deceased in this cause. 4.He avers that the deceased had 2 wives namely the respondent herein and Rose Embalo, his (deceased) mother. 5.That his mother passed on on 29/6/2016. 6.He avers that the estate of the deceased comprised the following;i.Kakamega/Lugari/158ii.Kakamega/Nzoia/73 andiii.North Maragoli/Chavakali/1675 and 1676 7.He avers that they reside in Kakamega/Lugari/158 though according to him 8 acres were sold. 8.That the respondent did not include all assets in the cause. 9.That the 2nd house are entitled to 10 acres in Kakamega/Nzoia/73. 10.In his oral evidence in court, he testified that members of the 2nd house were not notified about the succession cause and never participated. 11.He contended that the 2nd house was given 10 acres while the 1st house has 70 acres. 12.In cross-examination he conceded that he had sold 8 out of 10 acres in Lugari adding that the 3 members of the 2nd house are now settled in 2 acres. 13.The respondent, Feba Andesia Embalo on the other hand has opposed this application through a replying affidavit sworn on 2/12/2024. 14.She contends that the deceased was married to her and Rose Mideva the 2nd wife (now deceased). That the deceased settled the 1st house in Kakamega/Nzoia/73 where she currently lives while the 2nd house was settled in Kakamega/Lugari/158. 15.She avers that after the demise of the deceased, each house stayed in their respective portions and maintained their respective houses without any problem. 16.She expresses surprise that the applicant has now come after a long time to claim part of Parcel Kakamega/Nzoia/73 after disposing all the parcel in Lugari. 17.That she kept her share secure without selling and that it would be unjust and unfair for the applicant to come and ask for a share after selling his share. 18.She further avers that she is unaware that parcel numbers North Maragoli/Chavakali/1675 and 1676 forms part of the estate. 19.This court has considered the application for revocation of grant and the response filed. The applicant has moved this court under the provisions of Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act which clearly provides grounds upon which a grant can be revoked. 20.The applicant has hinged his application mainly on the ground of concealment. In his application he cites fraud and misrepresentation but he tendered no evidence or facts to prove that the respondent was either fraudulent in her dealings with the estate or misrepresented facts. 21.The respondent in her sworn affidavit and oral evidence in court stated that the deceased was indeed married to 2 wives and that the wives were settled in their respective portions namely Kakamega/Lugari/158 for the 2nd wife and Kakamega/Nzoia/73 for the 1st house (respondent). 22.It is apparent from the conduct of parties that they were well aware of that arrangement and that perhaps explains why the 2nd wife Rose Mideva Embalo in her lifetime after the deceased had passed on, never raised any issue. 23.The applicant conceded under cross-examination that the 2nd house was settled on 10 acres belonging to the deceased in this cause and that he has sold 8 acres out of the 10 acres remaining with only 2 acres. 24.It is apparent that after disposing the 8 acres for reasons best known to him, the applicant has approached this court for revocation of grant as an afterthought. This is a matter that was settled in 2007 and for him to approach the court for revocation of grant after 23 years without plausible reasons is a demonstration of bad faith where was he for all that time? It is undesirable to interfere with peaceful enjoyment of the rights of the respondent and her children simply because they were responsible and did not dispose off their parcel, unlike the applicant. 25.The applicant has also failed to demonstrate that parcel numbers North Maragoli/Chavakali/1675 and 1676 were part of the estate.In the premises this court finds no merit in the application dated 20/6/2024. The same is disallowed but I make no order as to costs. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT KITALE THIS 4THDAY OF JUNE, 2026.HON JUSTICE R.K. LIMOKITALE HIGH COURTRuling delivered in open courtIn the presence ofAuta holding brief for Munialo for RespondentRispa for the applicantDuke/Chemosop – court assistants