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
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 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
In re Estate of Mavole (Deceased) (Succession Cause 258 of 2017) [2026] KEHC 12841 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Judgment)
The protest failed because the protestor did not prove, on a balance of probabilities, that she was lawfully married to Jasper Mutuku Mavole or otherwise entitled as his dependant. With no evidence of marriage, cohabitation, children, or other objective proof, the court found the protest hollow and dismissed it. The court nonetheless declined to confirm the grant immediately because all beneficiaries had not signed consent to the proposed distribution; it ordered the administrators to file a signed beneficiary list before confirmation.
Source excerpt
Wambugu v Wambugu (Succession Appeal E023 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12537 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the trial court correctly applied section 40 of the Law of Succession Act in a polygamous intestacy, considered the factual circumstances including the deceased’s lifetime settlement and existing occupation of the land, and the appellant’s house was not disinherited since the second wife received three properties. No basis existed to disturb the status quo or interfere with the distribution ordered below.
Source excerpt
In re Estate of Gichuki (Deceased) (Succession Cause 1303 of 2011) [2026] KEHC 12502 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Judgment)
The protestor’s claim arose from an alleged purchase from a deceased beneficiary, not from the deceased’s estate itself, and the succession court lacked jurisdiction to validate that sale or redistribute the estate to a non-beneficiary. The protest was therefore dismissed, and the grant was confirmed as proposed by the applicant.
Source excerpt
In re Estate of Muriithi (Deceased) (Succession Cause 367 of 2004) [2026] KEHC 11961 (KLR) (27 July 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that the remaining estate should be distributed equitably after accounting for prior benefits already received by the petitioner and other family members, and that the circumstances justified each party bearing its own costs rather than applying the default costs-follow-the-event rule.
Source excerpt
In re Estate of Ochana (Deceased) (Succession Cause E002 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 10314 (KLR) (14 July 2026) (Ruling)
The protest failed because the protestor did not establish locus standi as a beneficiary or dependant of the deceased's estate, and he relied on properties that were either not in the deceased's name or were disputed and therefore not available for distribution in succession proceedings. The court treated the protest as an attempt to delay confirmation and dismissed it, while allowing the summons for confirmation of grant.
Source excerpt
In re Estate of Mauchu (Deceased) (Succession Cause 348 of 2008) [2026] KEHC 10094 (KLR) (10 July 2026) (Judgment)
The court found that Jane Nyaguthii Kariuki was not a daughter of the deceased but his grandchild through Lucy Wanjiru, a living daughter of the deceased. Because the mother was alive and had not renounced her interest, the protestor had no direct entitlement to inherit the estate. She also failed to prove dependency under section 29 of the Law of Succession Act, and the issue had already been settled in the earlier revocation judgment. Accordingly, the protests failed.
Source excerpt
In re Estate of Gatoro (Deceased) (Family Appeal E034 of 2022) [2026] KEHC 8986 (KLR) (26 June 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the record showed that the appellant was not denied a hearing: he filed the summons for confirmation, the protest was heard with his counsel present, and the claim of custody was unsupported for the relevant period. The appellant also failed to demonstrate any misdirection, irrelevant considerations, or legal error by the trial magistrate in adopting the distribution. Given the elapsed time and completed administration, there was no lawful basis to disturb the ruling.
Source excerpt
In re Estate of Mwalyo alias Simon Kimeu Mwalyo (Deceased) (Succession Cause 729 of 2010) [2026] KEHC 9709 (KLR) (25 June 2026) (Judgment)
The court accepted the evidence of the 1st Administrator and his independent witnesses that the deceased had another wife, Tabitha Nduume, and that Alice was her daughter, making Alice a beneficiary. The court further held that the 1st Administrator failed to prove any entitlement to a larger share of the estate merely because he had educated siblings or assisted in purchasing family land. The contested properties were therefore allocated to Alice and Esther Mwelu Simon as found fit by the evidence.
Source excerpt
Explore more
