https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9626

In re Estate of Ochido (Deceased) (Probate & Administration E015 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 9626 (KLR) (3 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9626 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kisumu Probate & Administration E015 of 2021 A Mabeya, J July 3, 2026 Between Philipa Amulo Ochido Applicant and Margaret Achieng Kaseje Respondent Ruling 1.By a ruling dated 30/1/2024, Aburili J marked Succession Cause No. E753 of 2013 as closed and directed that a fresh petition for the estate of the late Luke Owuor Ochido be lodged. 2.In arriving at that decision, the Court observed that all the properties of the estate had since reverted to the estate. That all that remained was for Philipa Amula Ochido (‘the applicant herein’) to give account of what she had done with the estate during her administration. The Court directed that those accounts be given in the fresh Petition that would be filed for the estate. Before making those directions, the Court inquired from the parties if they had any objection to such an order, and the counsels appearing for them indicated that they had none. 3.By a Motion on Notice dated 8/10/2025, the applicant sought for the review and setting aside of the said order of 30/1/2024. She further sought that the said Succession Cause No. E753 of 2013, upon being reinstated, be consolidate with this Cause. 4.The Motion was expressed to be brought under, inter-alia, Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, section 47 of the Law of Succession Act, Rules 49,63 and 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. 5.The grounds for the Motion were set out in its body and the supporting Affidavit of Philipa Nyamulo Ochudo sworn on 8/10/2025. These were that; the said E752 of 2013 was ordered closed on 30/1/2024. That there has been attempts to file a fresh Cause but the current e-filing system in the judiciary did not permit the use of the same death certificate of the deceased for a fresh Petition. That she had prepared all the necessary documents for the fresh Petition but the system had declined their lodgment. That it was therefore necessary that the orders sought be granted. 6.The Motion was opposed vide Grounds of Opposition dated 7/11/2025. That the said E753 of 2013 had been closed and the applicant herein adjudged to be an intermeddler. That the Court had asked the beneficiaries to work out a formula of distribution of the estate and the respondent was amenable to such positivity within this Cause. That the applicant had failed to render accounts and had become the cause of the delay. That in any event, the respondent was seeking to pursue the matter of the estate in accordance with law. 7.The parties filed their respective submissions dated 8/1/2026 and 12/3/2026, respectively. These were ably highlighted by Learned Counsel. The Court has considered the respective parties’ contestations and the submissions on record. 8.No doubt this Court has jurisdiction to review its orders. That jurisdiction had properly been invoked. According to Mr. Salah, Learned Counsel for the applicant, the Motion had been brought on the basis of sufficient cause, which is the 3rd limb of Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. That rule provides: -“(1)Any person considering himself aggrieved—(a)by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or(b)by a decree or order from which no appeal is hereby allowed, and who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree or order, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order without unreasonable delay.” 9.The sufficient cause was stated to be the inability of the current e-filing system of the Judiciary which has rejected the lodging of a new Petition by use of the same death certificate that had already been used in the previous Cause, to wit, Cause No. 754/2013. 10.Mr. Mwenesi, Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the applicant was an intermeddler. She had delayed the administration by failing to account. That the Court should consider his Grounds of Opposition dated 7/11/2025. 11.In its ruling of 17/4/2023 in the said E753 of 2013, this Court (Aburili J) held: -“ 8.Accordingly, the Summons for confirmation of grant dated 16th November, 2020 are incapable of being heard and considered in this file. The same is struck out and this file is closed. 9.The court shall proceed to consider the matter of the estate of the deceased vide Succession Cause No. E15 of 2021 and make appropriate orders as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice. 10.However, for purposes of institutional memory on what had initially transpired in respect of the estate of the deceased, this file shall be placed in Succession Cause No. E15 of 2021 henceforth. 11.File closed.” 12.It is clear from the foregoing that the intention of the Court as early as 17/4/2023, was to have Succession Cause No. 753 of 2013 closed because it had been used to intermeddle with the estate of the deceased. The Court closed that file on 17/4/2023. Re-opening the same would, in this court’s view, amount to an abuse of the Court process. 13.The Court had given the parties a way out by urging them to agree on a mode of distribution whereby appropriate orders could be made, but it would seem the applicant would hear none of that. The difficulty she finds herself in is her own making. 14.Even if the difficulties in opening a new Succession Cause was to be a sufficient cause, there is no evidence on record to show that the applicant had contacted the ICT department, Kisumu to liaise with the Principal Registry on the challenges she is facing. She should have produced evidence to show that she had presented that department and the Principal Registry with the aforesaid Rulings of Aburili J and show that the response by those departments was that nothing could be done. Such evidence missing, this Court is not satisfied that any sufficient cause has been shown. The only evidence produced was the CTS response to the attempts of lodgment of the fresh Petition. No formal communication to the two offices I have alluded to above was produced. 15.In view of the foregoing, I find the application dated 8/10/2025 to be without merit and order the same dismissed.It is so ordered. DATED AND DELIVERED AT KISUMU THIS 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2026.A. MABEYA, FCI ArbJUDGE