https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11170

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BOMET** **SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 29 OF 2018** **IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KIPLANGAT TEMORIGI (DECEASED)** **ESTHER CHERANGAT CHUMO ………………………. 1ST APPLICANT** **ANNAH CHEPKOECH LABOSO ………………………. 2ND APPLICANT** **VS** **JOYCE CHEBII …………………………………………..… RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. In this matter, a Grant was issued to the Respondent on 20th December 2018. The same was revoked through this court’s Ruling dated 7th May 2025. 2. Through an Application dated 20th June 2025, the Applicants sought to be appointed as administrators of the deceased’s estate. 3. Through the Supporting Affidavit even dated, the 1st Applicant stated that this court revoked the Grant issued to the Respondent on 7th May 2025 and did not name or appoint the administrators to the deceased’s estate. That they (Applicants) were well placed to be appointed administrators as they were the deceased’s daughters and had a higher priority than the Respondent who was the deceased’s granddaughter. 4. It was the Applicants’ case that they intended to administer the estate as per the law and had brought the present Application in good faith. 5. The Respondent failed to put in his response despite being directed to do so by this court on 28th April 2026. The Applicants filed an Affidavit of Service dated 28th April 2026 indicating that they had served the Respondent with the present Application. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Respondent was duly served with the Application and failed to respond to it. 6. Additionally, on 28th April 2026, this court directed that the Application would be canvassed by way of written submissions. At the time of writing this Ruling, neither party had filed their written submissions. 7. Having gone through the record and the present Application, the only issue for my determination was whether the Applicants ought to be appointed as administrators of the deceased’s estate. 8. The Applicants stated that they were the deceased’s daughters and the Respondent was the deceased’s granddaughter. That they ranked higher in priority as beneficiaries than the Respondent. This fact was not challenged by the Respondent. 9. The law on the preference of issuing a Grant Intestate is found in **section 66 of the Law of Succession Act** which provides: - **When a deceased has died intestate, the court shall, save as otherwise expressly provided, have a final discretion as to the person or persons to whom a grant of letters of administration shall, in the best interests of all concerned, be made, but shall, without prejudice to that discretion, accept as a general guide the following order of preference—** **(a) surviving spouse or spouses, with or without association of other beneficiaries;** **(b) other beneficiaries entitled on intestacy, with priority according to their respective beneficial interests as provided by Part V;** **(c) the Public Trustee; and** **(d) creditors:** **Provided that, where there is partial intestacy, letters of administration in respect of the intestate estate shall be granted to any executor or executors who prove the will.** 1. In the end, the Application dated 20th June 2025 has merit and is allowed. I hereby direct that a fresh Grant be issued in the joint names of Esther Cherangat Chumo and Annah Chepkoech Laboso. **Ruling delivered, dated and signed at Bomet this 23rd day of July, 2026.** **.................................** **HON. JULIUS K. NG’ARNG’AR** **JUDGE** **Ruling delivered in the presence of:** **Siele/Zachary (Court Assistants)**