Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Kenya decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The High Court allowed a review application in a succession cause, set aside the confirmation order to the extent necessary, and ordered fresh confirmation, but declined to revoke the grant.
The High Court allowed amendments to the succession petition, corrected the beneficiary and asset schedule, and issued an amended certificate of confirmation of grant.
In re Estate of Kitai (Succession Cause 3B of 2023) [2026] KEMC 851 (KLR) (2 September 2026) (Ruling)
The court allowed joinder in administration, appointing Samwel Gitau as co-administrator with Joyce Nekesa and rejecting a claim to sole control based on male gender.
In re Estate of Odhiambo (Deceased) (Succession Cause E030 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 13222 (KLR) (1 September 2026) (Judgment)
The High Court at Nakuru held that Nakuru Municipality Block 29/41 was not proved to be part of the deceased’s estate and excluded it from distribution.
In re Estate of the Late Ondieki (Deceased) (Succession Cause E015 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12908 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court found that the summons, supporting affidavits, distribution schedule, and signed consent by all beneficiaries justified confirmation of the grant, and therefore confirmed it and ordered completion of administration within 90 days.
Source excerpt
Bernard v Mbithi (Family Appeal E008 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12917 (KLR) (19 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the appellant herself put distribution in issue, the evidence supported the finding that the deceased had settled the two houses in separate properties at Lukenya-Mavoko and Masii-Vyulya, and the trial court was entitled to adopt those factual circumstances in determining equitable distribution. The challenge to pecuniary jurisdiction was rejected because it was not raised in the lower court. The sale of Mavoko Town Block 3/2779 was upheld as family-authorized and used to facilitate subdivision of the estate.
Source excerpt
In re Estate of Chemung’ani (Deceased) (Succession Cause E258 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 551 (KLR) (18 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Protester failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the deceased gave him 4 acres from the suit property. The supporting oral evidence was contradicted, the sale agreements showed the Protester had already disposed of portions of the alleged share, and no land surveyor’s report was produced to establish his current acreage or the exact extent of the alleged gift. The protest therefore failed, and the grant was confirmed in accordance with the consent mode of distribution.
Source excerpt
In re Estate of Munyora (Deceased) (Succession Cause 13 of 1997) [2026] KEHC 13120 (KLR) (18 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court found that the green card showed LR No. NKUENE/KATHERA/738 was subdivided into only two parcels, LR Nos. 3370 and 3372, and that no evidence proved any breach of the confirmed grant or malice by the respondent. Since the alleged parcel 3371 did not exist as a direct subdivision of the original parcel, the application had no merit.
Source excerpt
In re Estate of Karobia (Deceased) (Probate & Administration E013 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12855 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court held that the alleged land gifts were not perfected or completed because the transfer documents were either incomplete or unsigned and no registration had occurred, so the parcels remained part of the estate; Regina Nyakairu Ndiritu was not proved to be a dependant; and, given the contested family circumstances, the estate should be distributed equally among the beneficiaries. The protest was therefore dismissed and the amended summons for confirmation of grant allowed.
Source excerpt
In re Estate of Wachira (Deceased) (Succession Cause 708 of 2012) [2026] KEHC 12796 (KLR) (11 August 2026) (Judgment)
The applicants were not beneficiaries or dependants but alleged purchasers, and the dispute centered on ownership of two land parcels. The probate court could not determine ownership; that question belonged in the Environment and Land Court. Because the applicants had no locus standi in the succession cause and the protest was merited, the improperly obtained grant had to be revoked and the estate left to be administered by the widow for distribution to the genuine beneficiaries.
Source excerpt
Explore more
