Wachira v Kinge’rui & another (Succession Cause 212 of 2006) [2026] KEHC 11766 (KLR) (24 June 2026) (Ruling)

Wachira v Kinge’rui & another (Succession Cause 212 of 2006) [2026] KEHC 11766 (KLR) (24 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 11766 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nyeri Succession Cause 212 of 2006 M Muya, J June 24, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF DAUDI WACHIRA NJUI (DECEASED) Between Margaret Wangui Wachira Applicant and Francis Njui Kinge’rui 1st Respondent Teresa Nduta Githaiga 2nd Respondent Ruling 1.A petition for letters of administration was filed by his brothers Francis Njui Kinge’rui And Joseph Gathaiga Njui (now deceased) 2.On 22nd May, 2007 the applicant Margaret Wangui filed an application for revocation of the grant on the grounds that she was a wife of the deceased Daudi Wachira married under African Christian and Divorce Act and that they were blessed with two (2) children Alice Nyamai And Joseph Njuguna. 3.Section 76 of the Law on Succession Act provides;‘‘A 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 untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant notwithstanding that the allegation was made in ignorance or in-ardvertently.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 (1) 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 accounts of administration as is required by the provisions of paragraph (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’’. Issues for Determinationi.Whether the applicant was married to the deceased under African Christian Marriage Act or under any other recognizable law.ii.Whether the applicant has met the threshold for revocation of grant within the meaning of section 76 of Law of Succession Act. 4.In her affidavit in support of summons for revocation of grant the applicant at paragraph 2 deposes that she was married under African Christian and Divorce Act by the deceased. She did NOT attach the certificate of marriage to her affidavit neither did she produce it in court. 5.In her further evidence she contends that she was married to the deceased under Kikuyu customary law. Further, that one Ephantus Ndegwa Mburu and Peter Munuhe Wanderi were present when dowry was taken to her parents in the form of an Ewe and a goat. 6.The evidence on the alleged dowry ceremony is quite sketchy. The several stages and items to be included in the payment of dowry for a kikuyu customary marriage have not clearly been elaborated. The court has not been told of who was present to represent the family of the deceased. The applicant has listed two of her children Alice Nyamai And Joseph Njuguna as children of her marriage with the deceased. She produced birth certificates tending to show that the father of those two children was the deceased. These documents were send to the District Civil Registrar’s office. The District Registrar responded to the effect that birth certificate entry No. LO67xxxxx15/10 and LO67xxxxx16/10 were not issued from an existing register in their office and the authenticity of those documents could not be verified. 7.It is instructive to note that the naming of those two children does not align itself with that practised under kikuyu customary law. 8.The letter of the chief dated 30th July, 2007 indicates that he had consulted with the deceased family and had come to the conclusion that the applicant and her two children were the beneficiaries of the deceased Estate. It came to light during cross-examination that the Chief had not consulted widely but only relied on the word of the applicant. 9.The introductory letter by the assistant chief does not list the applicant as a beneficiary of the Estate but the respondents. 10.The evidence by the applicant and her witnesses is inconsistent and wanting. It does not meet the threshold for revocation of a grant. 11.The application has no merit and it is dismissed with costs. RULING DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.........................MARTIN M. MUYAJUDGEIn the Presence of:Wambui Mwau for the 2nd Respondent and holding brief for Wahome GikonyiKingori for the ApplicantCourt assistant – Isaack Molu