https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8046

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BOMET** **SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 11 OF 2019** **IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KIPLANGAT ARAP MAINA (DECEASED)** **NELSON SANG (being the legal representative of the** **estate of Alice Chepkorir Birir (Deceased) ……………. APPLICANT** **VERSUS** **TAPUTANY CHEPKOSGEI** **KOROS ……………………………..… 1ST PETITIONER/RESPONDENT** **PAUL KIPLANGAT LANGAT………2ND PETITIONER/RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. In this matter, a Grant was issued to the Petitioners on 5th March 2020 and thereafter a Certificate of Confirmation of Grant was issued on 11th November 2025 in respect of the deceased’s estate. **Summons for Revocation** 1. The Applicant filed his Application for revocation of the Grant dated 16th December 2025. Through his Supporting Affidavit even dated, the Applicant stated that he was the legal representative of the estate of Alice Chepkorir Birir (Deceased) who was his mother and who was the daughter of Kiplangat Arap Maina (Deceased). That his mother was not married and that Kiplangat Arap Maina (Deceased) took care of her and her children (Robert Kipkorir Sang, Nelson Sang, Vicoty Chelangat and Joan Chepkemoi) during his lifetime. The Applicant stated that they were dependants of the deceased’s estate. 2. It was the Applicant’s case that they had been residing and utilizing a portion of the deceased’s estate known as KERICHO/MANARET S.S/164 since birth to date and that the Petitioners concealed this fact from the court. That the Petitioners fraudulently confirmed the Grant and locked them out of the estate, KCB shares and KETRACO compensation. It was the Applicant’s further case that the Grant was obtained by untrue allegations and through fraudulent means. 3. The Applicant stated that the Petitioners were registering the Grant in Bomet Lands Office and they risked being evicted. 4. Through his Supplementary Affidavit dated 5th March 2026, the Applicant stated that the 1st Petitioner had not disputed the fact that they occupied part of the deceased’s estate and only dealt with the issue of *res judicata.* 5. Through his written submissions dated 14th April 2026, the Applicant submitted that his siblings and him were beneficiaries and dependants of the deceased’s estate within the meaning of **sections 3** and **29 of the Law of Succession Act**. That the Protestors had not disputed the fact that they occupied part of the deceased’s estate. The Applicant further submitted that they were maintained by the deceased during his lifetime. He relied on **Obilo v Roo & Another (Civil Appeal 38 of 2017) (2024) KECA 40 (KLR) (25 January 2024).** 6. It was the Applicant’s submission that the issues raised in the present Application were distinct with previous Applications and were not *res judicata.* **Response** 1. Through her Replying Affidavit dated 14th February 2026, the 1st Petitioner stated that the Application was a deliberate attempt to reopen the proceedings concerning substitution, an issue that had been conclusively heard and determined by this court in its Ruling dated 2nd April 2025. That a Protest dated 29th May 2025 raised similar issues and was dismissed by this court on 11th November 2025. The 1st Petitioner further stated that the Applicant had not demonstrated discovery of any new or previously unavailable material evidence. 2. It was the 1st Petitioner’s case that this court was *functus officio* in regards to substitution and further that the Application was *res judicata*. That the Application was speculative and was intended on delaying the lawful administration and distribution of the estate. 3. Through her written submissions dated 10th April 2026, the 1st Petitioner submitted that the allegation that the Grant was obtained through concealment of material facts was not proved. That they (Petitioners) disclosed all the beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate and that there was no indication of deliberate omission or misrepresentation. The 1st Petitioner further submitted that there was no evidence that the proceedings were defective. She relied on **re Estate of Kirima (Deceased) (2020) eKLR et.al.** 4. It was the 1st Petitioner’s submission that the issue of dependency did not meet the threshold under **section 29 of the Law of Succession Act**. That the same had to be proved by evidence and the Applicant had not provided such. It was the 1st Petitioner’s further submission that the allegation that the Applicant resided on part of the deceased’s estate did not confer any legal right to inheritance and that occupation could not override succession proceedings. 5. I have gone through the entire record and the only issue for my determination was whether the Grant dated 5th March 2020 and confirmed on 11th November 2025 should be revoked. 6. The law on revocation of Grants is provided for in **Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act** which states that: - **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 an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant notwithstanding that the allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently;** **(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 one year from the date thereof, or such longer period as the court order or allow; or** **(ii) to proceed diligently with the administration of the estate; or** **(iii) to produce to the court, within the time prescribed, any such inventory or account of administration as is required by the provisions of paragraphs (e) and (g) of section 83 or has produced any such inventory or account which is false in any material particular; or** **(e) that the grant has become useless and inoperative through subsequent circumstances.** 1. In the present case, the Applicant’s main contention was that the Petitioners obtained the Grant irregularly by failing to disclose to the court that they (Applicant and his siblings) were the deceased’s beneficiaries and further that the Petitioners failed to disclose to the court that they (Applicant and his siblings) resided on part of the deceased’s estate known as KERICHO/MANARET S.S/164. The Applicant further stated that Alice Chepkorir Birir (deceased) was their mother and daughter of Kiplangat Arap Maina (deceased), the subject of these succession proceedings. 2. This court in its earlier Ruling dated 2nd April 2025, this court found that the Applicant had not proved that he was a beneficiary of the deceased’s (Kiplangat Arap Maina). In another Ruling dated 11th November 2025, this court reiterated the same position as the Applicant had brought a similar Application intending to have his name substituted in place of his deceased’s mother. The said Rulings have neither been appealed nor reviewed. The sum total of the two Rulings was that the Applicant and his siblings were not beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate. I agree with the 1st Petitioner that the present Application was an attempt to relitigate matters that have already been determined. 3. This brings the issue of *locus standi*. The Supreme Court in **Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 others [2014] KESC 6 (KLR)** held: - ***“…..The issue of locus standi raises a point of law that touches on the jurisdiction of the Court, and it should be resolved at the earliest opportunity…..”*** 1. Similarly in **Njau & 5 others v City Council of Nairobi [1983] KECA 56 (KLR),** the Court of Appeal held: - ***“The term locus standi means a right to appear in Court and, conversely, as is stated in Jowitt’s Dictionary of English Law, to say that a person has no locus standi means that he has no right to appear or be heard in such and such a proceeding…..”*** 1. Having found that the Applicant was not a beneficiary of the deceased’s estate, it is my further finding that the Applicant lacked the *locus standi* to bring the present Application before this court. As a consequence, the prayer for revocation of the Grant fails. 2. I now turn to the pending Chamber Summons Application dated 14th February 2026 on record. The said Application is between the Petitioners. In light of the dismissal of the prayer for revocation of Grant and to facilitate the implementation of the confirmed Grant, the Chamber Summons Application dated 14th February 2026 is allowed. 3. In the end, I make the following orders: - 4. The Application for Revocation of Grant dated 16th December 2025 is dismissed. 5. The 2nd Petitioner is directed to execute the necessary documents required for processing and payment of compensation due from the Kenya Electricity Company Limited (KETRACO) relating to the estate property. 6. Should the 2nd Petitioner fail to execute the documents in (II) above, the Deputy Registrar of this court is authorized to execute the necessary documents on behalf of the 2nd Petitioner. 7. Each party to bear their own costs. **Ruling delivered, dated and signed at Bomet this 9th** **day of June, 2026.** **…………………………………….** **Hon. JULIUS K. NG’ARNG’AR** **JUDGE** **Ruling delivered in the presence of:** **Siele/Susan (Court Assistants).** **J.K. Koech for the Petitioners** **Koske for the Objectors**