In re Estate of Mukesh Billing alias Manjit Billing (Deceased) (Succession Cause 1792 of 2016) [2026] KEHC 7531 (KLR) (Family) (4 June 2026) (Ruling)

In re Estate of Mukesh Billing alias Manjit Billing (Deceased) (Succession Cause 1792 of 2016) [2026] KEHC 7531 (KLR) (Family) (4 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7531 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Family Succession Cause 1792 of 2016 HK Chemitei, J June 4, 2026 IN THE MATTER THE ESTATE OF MUKESH BILLING alias MANJIT BILLING alias M. BILLING alias MUKESH (MANJIT) BILLING (DECEASED) Between Kihiko N & M Law Advocates LLP Applicant and Patricia Hanaman Billing 1st Respondent Karina Billing 2nd Respondent and Rajinder Billing 1st Interested Party Mutunga & Company Advocates 2nd Interested Party Access Bank PLC (Formerly Trans National Bank Limited) 3rd Interested Party Ruling 1.This ruling relates to the application dated 10th March, 2025 filed by the Applicant, Daniel Kihiko Njoroge; seeking for ORDERS THAT:1.This Honourable Court be pleased to order the 3rd Interested Party to unfreeze the six deposit joint accounts held in the name of Guram & Company Advocates and Mutunga & Company Advocates.2.The Honourable Court be pleased to order the 3rd Interested Party to provide a statement of account for the six deposit joint accounts held in the name of Guram & Company Advocates and Mutunga & Company Advocates.3.The Honourable Court be pleased to order the 1st and 2nd Respondents, as Administrators of the estate of the deceased, to transfer the amounts held in the six deposit joint accounts in the name of Guram & Company Advocates and Mutunga & Company Advocates into a joint bank account to be opened in the name of Kihiko N & M Advocates LLP and Mutunga & Company Advocates.4.The Honourable Court be pleased to order the 1st Interested Party to facilitate the transfer of funds held in the six deposit joint accounts in the name of Guram & Company Advocates and Mutunga & Company Advocates into the joint account to be opened in the name of Kihiko N & M Advocates LLP and Mutunga & Company Advocates.5.Costs of this application be provided for.6.The Honourable Court be pleased to issue any further or other orders it deems just and appropriate in the circumstances. 2.The application is based on the grounds thereof and supported by affidavit sworn by Daniel Kihiko Njoroge on 10th March, 2025. 3.He avers inter alia that he is the Managing Partner of Kihiko N & M Law Advocates LLP. He explains that the dispute traces its origins to Milimani CMCC No. 1165 of 2009, in which the Plaintiffs were represented by Mutunga & Company Advocates while the defendants were represented by Guram & Company Advocates, then operated by the late Mukesh Billing Advocate. 4.Following judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs, the defendants lodged Milimani HCCA No. 589 of 2010 and sought a stay of execution pending appeal. The Court granted the stay on condition that the decretal sum be deposited in a joint interest-earning account in the names of counsel for both parties. In support of this assertion, the deponent annexes a copy of the ruling in Milimani Miscellaneous Application No. 176 of 2011, which demonstrates that the stay order was conditional upon the deposit of the decretal amount into a joint account maintained by the advocates for the parties. 5.He further avers that in compliance with the Court order, Salamtak Hauliers Limited, the defendants’ employer, forwarded the requisite funds to Guram & Company Advocates for deposit into a joint interest-earning account in the names of Guram & Company Advocates and Mutunga & Company Advocates. He annexes a forwarding letter dated 23rd August, 2011, evidencing the remittance of the funds and confirming that the monies were deposited pursuant to the Court’s directive. 6.He states that the appeal was subsequently heard and determined in favour of the Respondents, following which the successful parties became entitled to execute the decree. However, before the deposited funds could be released, Mukesh Billing Advocate passed away, thereby creating difficulties in accessing and operating the joint accounts in which the decretal sums had been secured. 7.According to him, following the death of Mukesh Billing Advocate, Salamtak Hauliers Limited instructed his firm, then known as Muthee Kihiko Soni & Associates LLP, to assume conduct of the matter on behalf of the defendants. He annexes a Notice of Change of Advocates, a consent between the parties and the resultant consent order adopted by the Court, showing that his firm was formally placed on record in substitution for Guram & Company Advocates. 8.Thereafter, the parties recorded a further consent directing Access Bank PLC, formerly Trans National Bank Limited, to provide statements for the six fixed deposit accounts and to substitute him as a signatory in place of the deceased advocate. The annexed consent was adopted as an order of the Court on 23rd November, 2022. He states that despite forwarding the Court order to the bank and requesting implementation thereof, Access Bank responded by letter dated 29th November, 2022, informing him that the accounts had been frozen pursuant to orders issued in Succession Cause No. 1792 of 2016, concerning the estate of the late Mukesh Billing Advocate, and that the bank could not transact on the accounts pending further directions. 9.He contends that since receiving the bank’s response, he has made numerous efforts to resolve the matter. He wrote to the advocates handling the succession proceedings, namely Judy Thongori & Company Advocates and Kihanga & Company Advocates, requesting intervention and facilitation of the release of the funds. He also notes that Salamtak Hauliers Limited had previously written to Guram & Company Advocates seeking an update on the status of the decretal sums and accrued interest held in the joint accounts. Despite these efforts, no substantive response was received. 10.He further states that Rajinder Billing Advocate, who had been appointed by the late Mukesh Billing Advocate to manage the affairs of Guram & Company Advocates in the event of his death, likewise failed to facilitate the release or transfer of the funds despite repeated requests. He relies on the annexed correspondence addressed to Rajinder Billing Advocate together with a letter from the Law Society of Kenya confirming his appointment to take over management of the deceased advocate’s practice. 11.It is his position that the monies held in the six joint deposit accounts are not assets belonging to the estate of the late Mukesh Billing Advocate but rather decretal funds deposited pursuant to a Court order for the benefit of the litigants in Milimani CMCC No. 1165 of 2009. 12.He avers that the continued freezing of the accounts has prevented compliance with the Court orders and frustrated the release of monies lawfully due to the successful litigants. He further states that Mutunga & Company Advocates has threatened execution against the defendants notwithstanding the existence of the deposited funds, thereby exposing Salamtak Hauliers Limited to unnecessary prejudice. 13.Consequently, he urges the Court to intervene by unfreezing the accounts, directing the provision of statements, facilitating the transfer of the funds into a new joint account operated by Kihiko N & M Advocates LLP and Mutunga & Company Advocates, and granting such further orders as may be necessary to safeguard the interests of the parties and prevent injustice. 14.The application is opposed vide replying affidavit sworn by Elisha Nyikuli on 16th December, 2025. He avers inter alia that he is the Head of Legal and Company Secretariat at Access Bank (Kenya) PLC, the 3rd Interested Party. He states that he is duly authorized and sufficiently conversant with the facts of the application to depose on behalf of the bank. 15.Having considered the application dated 10th March, 2025, in which the Applicant seeks orders compelling the bank to unfreeze six joint deposit accounts held in the names of Guram & Company Advocates and Mutunga & Company Advocates, provide statements relating to those accounts and facilitate the transfer of the funds therein, he sets out the bank’s position on the matter. 16.He states that Access Bank does not oppose the request to unfreeze the six joint deposit accounts. He further confirms that the bank equally has no objection to providing statements of account relating to the said deposit accounts. According to the bank, it has no proprietary or beneficial interest in the funds held in those accounts and is prepared to comply with any lawful directions or orders that the Court may issue concerning them. The bank therefore adopts a neutral position in the dispute and expresses its willingness to abide by the Court’s determination. 17.However, he explains that the bank is presently unable to take the steps sought by the Applicant because it has not been furnished with sufficient information to identify and trace the six deposit accounts in question. He points out that following the transition of accounts from Transnational Bank Limited to Access Bank Kenya PLC, the bank requires specific account details in order to conduct proper verification and retrieval of the relevant records. He notes that the application merely refers to six joint deposit accounts without identifying the account numbers or providing particulars capable of enabling the bank to ascertain the exact accounts that are the subject of the orders sought. 18.In the bank’s view, the application lacks the requisite specificity to permit effective tracing and verification of the accounts. Consequently, the Applicant ought to furnish the account numbers and other relevant details relating to the six joint deposit accounts to facilitate the bank’s compliance. 19.In conclusion, the deponent reiterates that Access Bank neither claims nor asserts any interest in the dispute or in the funds held in the accounts. The bank’s only concern is the practical difficulty of identifying the accounts in the absence of adequate particulars. Subject to the provision of the necessary account information and any directions that may be issued by the Court, the bank remains ready and willing to cooperate and comply with the orders of the Court. 20.The parties have not filed written submissions. Analysis and Determination 21.I have considered the application dated 10th March, 2025, the supporting affidavit, the replying affidavit filed by the 3rd Interested Party and the annexed documents. 22.The undisputed evidence demonstrates that the funds in question were deposited pursuant to a Court order issued in Milimani Miscellaneous Application No. 176 of 2011 as a condition for stay of execution pending appeal. The monies were deposited in joint interest-earning accounts held in the names of Guram & Company Advocates and Mutunga & Company Advocates. The documentary evidence further shows that the funds were not deposited for the personal benefit of the late Mukesh Billing Advocate but were held by the advocates in their professional capacities as stakeholders pending the determination of the dispute between their respective clients. 23.Consequently, prima facie, the funds constitute stakeholder monies held pursuant to a Court order and do not form part of the free property of the deceased available for administration under the Law of Succession Act. 24.The Applicant has also demonstrated that following the death of Mukesh Billing Advocate, a consent was recorded and adopted as an order of the Court substituting the Applicant’s firm in place of Guram & Company Advocates and further directing the bank to furnish statements and recognize Daniel Kihiko as a signatory in place of the deceased advocate. The evidence placed before the Court shows that despite the existence of those orders, the bank declined to act on them after discovering that the accounts had been frozen pursuant to orders issued in the present succession cause. 25.While the freezing orders may have been issued in an effort to preserve assets associated with the deceased advocate, there is no evidence before this Court that the six joint deposit accounts contain estate assets. On the contrary, the material presented points to the conclusion that the monies belong beneficially to third parties and are only held by the advocates as custodians. To continue treating such stakeholder funds as estate property would unjustly impede the enforcement of Court orders issued in separate proceedings and occasion prejudice to litigants who are strangers to the succession dispute. 26.The position taken by the 3rd Interested Party is equally significant. Access Bank has expressly stated that it does not oppose the unfreezing of the accounts or the provision of statements and does not claim any interest in the funds. Its only reservation is that the application does not specify the account numbers or sufficient particulars to enable the bank to trace the accounts following the transition from Transnational Bank Limited to Access Bank PLC. That concern is legitimate. 27.A Court order directing a financial institution to act in respect of specific accounts must identify those accounts with sufficient precision to facilitate compliance. It would therefore be imprudent to grant blanket orders affecting unspecified accounts without first ensuring that the accounts can be properly identified and verified. The Applicant, being the party seeking relief, bears the obligation of providing the necessary particulars to facilitate implementation of any orders that may be granted. 28.In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Applicant has established sufficient grounds for the release of information relating to the six stakeholder accounts and for the lifting of any restrictions imposed solely by virtue of the succession proceedings, provided the accounts are properly identified. The interests of justice require that funds deposited pursuant to a Court order be made available for the purpose for which they were intended and that litigants should not be denied access to such funds merely because one of the advocates named as a signatory subsequently died. 29.Accordingly, I hold that the application be allowed to the extent that the 3rd Interested Party shall, upon being furnished with the account numbers or other sufficient identifying particulars of the six joint deposit accounts, provide statements of account and facilitate the operation of those accounts in accordance with the consent orders previously issued by the Court. The Administrators of the estate and the 1st Interested Party shall cooperate in providing any information necessary to identify the accounts and effectuate the substitution of signatories. 30.In the premises the application is allowed as follows:a)The application dated 10th March, 2025 is allowed and the Applicant shall furnish Access Bank PLC with the account numbers or such other particulars as may be necessary to identify the six joint deposit accounts held in the names of Guram & Company Advocates and Mutunga & Company Advocates.b)Upon receipt of the requisite particulars, Access Bank PLC shall provide certified statements of account for the identified accounts and shall give effect to the consent orders issued on 23rd November, 2022 within 30 days.c)For avoidance of doubt, the funds held in the six identified joint accounts shall not be treated as assets of the estate of the deceased unless otherwise determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction.d)The Administrators of the estate, the 1st Interested Party and all relevant parties shall cooperate in facilitating the implementation of these orders.e)Each party to bear its own costs. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI VIA VIDEO LINK THIS 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.H K CHEMITEIJUDGE, FCIArb.