[1] Before the Court for determination is the Summons for Revocation of Grant dated 14 th October 2019. It was filed by the two applicants pursuant to the provisions of Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act, Cap 160 of the Laws of Kenya and Rule 44 of the Probate and Administration Rules for orders that:
[a] Spent
[b] the Grant of Letters of Administration Intestate made to the respondent, Joel Kibiwott Kongwalei , on the 15 th August 2017 and confirmed on 18 th September 2019 be revoked and or annulled.
[b] That the respondent be restrained from intermeddling with the estate of the deceased by wasting or subdividing land Parcel No. NANDI/LESSOS/315 measuring approximately 24 Hectares.
[c] Costs of the application be provided for.
[2] The application was predicated on the ground that the grant was obtained by concealing important facts or without full disclosure to the beneficiaries of the estate. The applicants further contended that the court that issued and confirmed the Grant lacked the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Accordingly, the applicants prayed that the said Grant be revoked to pave way for an equitable distribution of the estate. They also complained that the respondent has been disposing of portions of the estate property without the knowledge or consent of the other beneficiaries; hence their prayer for preservation.
[3] The application was premised on the Supporting Affidavit sworn on 14 th October 2019 by the 1 st applicant, Catherine Jepkoror Njehia , in which the applicants expounded on the grounds aforementioned. They annexed copies of the impugned Grant, the Petitioner filed before the Principal Magistrates Court at Kapsabet in Succession Cause No. 27 of 2017, Certificate of Confirmation issued in Kapsabet Succession Cause No. 27 of 2017 as well as a copy of the Title Deed for Land Parcel No. NANDI/LESSOS/315.
[4] The application was opposed by the respondent vide his Replying Affidavit sworn on 25 th October 2019. He averred that all the family members of the deceased were aware of his intention to file Kapsabet Succession Cause No. 27 of 2017 and participated in those proceedings by giving consent and attending court during the hearing of the application for confirmation of Grant. He denied that he forged the consent of the applicants and averred that the applicants failed to adduced credible evidence in support of their allegations of forgery. Accordingly, the respondent prayed for the dismissal of the application with costs.
[5] This matter was initially filed at Eldoret High Court as Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2019 . Directions were given for the application to be canvassed by way of written submissions but stagnated because the lower court’s Succession No. 27 of 2017 had not been availed for perusal as ordered herein on 8 th March 2021. Needless to mention that the law at the time provided that applications for revocation of grant issued by subordinate courts be filed before the High Court. Hence, Section 48(1) of the Law of Succession Act, provided that:
‘Notwithstanding any other written law which limits jurisdiction, but subject to the provisions of section 49 of this Act, a Resident Magistrate shall have jurisdiction to entertain any application other than an application under section 76 of this Act and to determine any dispute under this Act and pronounce such decrees and make such orders therein as may be expedient in respect of any estate the gross value of which does not exceed one hundred thousand shillings:
Provided that for the purpose of this section in any place where both the High Court and a Resident Magistrate’s Court are available, the High Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to make all grants of representation and determine all disputes under this Act.’ (emphasis added).
[6] The above provision was amended i n 2015 by the Magistrates’ Court Act, Act No. 26 of 2015 . Section 23 of the Act amended Section 48(1) of the Law of Succession Act to read as hereunder:
Notwithstanding any other written law which limits jurisdiction, but subject to the provisions of section 49, a magistrate shall have jurisdiction to entertain any application and to determine any dispute under this Act and pronounce such decrees and make such orders therein as may be expedient in respect of any estate the gross value of which does not exceed the pecuniary limit prescribed under section 7 (1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 2015.’ (emphasis added).
[7] That explains why this application for revocation of grant was filed before the High Court at Eldoret. Although the applicants contended at the time that the Magistrate’s court did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Succession Cause, that jurisdiction has been significantly enhanced. For instance, Section 7(1) of the Magistrates Courts Act provides that:
A magistrate's court shall have and exercise such jurisdiction and powers in proceedings of a civil nature in which the value of the subject matter does not exceed—
(a)twenty million shillings, where the court is presided over by a chief magistrate;
(b)fifteen million shillings, where the court is presided over by a senior principal magistrate;
(c)ten million shillings, where the court is presided over by a principal magistrate;
(d)seven million shillings, where the court is presided over by a senior resident magistrate; or
(e)five million shillings, where the court is presided over by a resident magistrate.
[8] In the absence of a valuation report indicating that the current value of the property is in excess of Kshs. 20,000,000/= the interests of justice demand that the application be determined by the lower court as that is the Court whose Grant is sought to be revoked. It is also notable that the lower court filed is yet to be availed for perusal.
[9] Accordingly, the Summons dated 14 th October 2019 is hereby transferred to the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Kapsabet for consolidation with Kapsabet Succession Cause No. 27 of 2017 for purposes of hearing and determination.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 7 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2026
[a] Spent
[b] the Grant of Letters of Administration Intestate made to the respondent, Joel Kibiwott Kongwalei , on the 15 th August 2017 and confirmed on 18 th September 2019 be revoked and or annulled.
[b] That the respondent be restrained from intermeddling with the estate of the deceased by wasting or subdividing land Parcel No. NANDI/LESSOS/315 measuring approximately 24 Hectares.
[c] Costs of the application be provided for.
[2] The application was predicated on the ground that the grant was obtained by concealing important facts or without full disclosure to the beneficiaries of the estate. The applicants further contended that the court that issued and confirmed the Grant lacked the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Accordingly, the applicants prayed that the said Grant be revoked to pave way for an equitable distribution of the estate. They also complained that the respondent has been disposing of portions of the estate property without the knowledge or consent of the other beneficiaries; hence their prayer for preservation.
[3] The application was premised on the Supporting Affidavit sworn on 14 th October 2019 by the 1 st applicant, Catherine Jepkoror Njehia , in which the applicants expounded on the grounds aforementioned. They annexed copies of the impugned Grant, the Petitioner filed before the Principal Magistrates Court at Kapsabet in Succession Cause No. 27 of 2017, Certificate of Confirmation issued in Kapsabet Succession Cause No. 27 of 2017 as well as a copy of the Title Deed for Land Parcel No. NANDI/LESSOS/315.
[4] The application was opposed by the respondent vide his Replying Affidavit sworn on 25 th October 2019. He averred that all the family members of the deceased were aware of his intention to file Kapsabet Succession Cause No. 27 of 2017 and participated in those proceedings by giving consent and attending court during the hearing of the application for confirmation of Grant. He denied that he forged the consent of the applicants and averred that the applicants failed to adduced credible evidence in support of their allegations of forgery. Accordingly, the respondent prayed for the dismissal of the application with costs.
[5] This matter was initially filed at Eldoret High Court as Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2019 . Directions were given for the application to be canvassed by way of written submissions but stagnated because the lower court’s Succession No. 27 of 2017 had not been availed for perusal as ordered herein on 8 th March 2021. Needless to mention that the law at the time provided that applications for revocation of grant issued by subordinate courts be filed before the High Court. Hence, Section 48(1) of the Law of Succession Act, provided that:
‘Notwithstanding any other written law which limits jurisdiction, but subject to the provisions of section 49 of this Act, a Resident Magistrate shall have jurisdiction to entertain any application other than an application under section 76 of this Act and to determine any dispute under this Act and pronounce such decrees and make such orders therein as may be expedient in respect of any estate the gross value of which does not exceed one hundred thousand shillings:
Provided that for the purpose of this section in any place where both the High Court and a Resident Magistrate’s Court are available, the High Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to make all grants of representation and determine all disputes under this Act.’ (emphasis added).
[6] The above provision was amended i n 2015 by the Magistrates’ Court Act, Act No. 26 of 2015 . Section 23 of the Act amended Section 48(1) of the Law of Succession Act to read as hereunder:
Notwithstanding any other written law which limits jurisdiction, but subject to the provisions of section 49, a magistrate shall have jurisdiction to entertain any application and to determine any dispute under this Act and pronounce such decrees and make such orders therein as may be expedient in respect of any estate the gross value of which does not exceed the pecuniary limit prescribed under section 7 (1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 2015.’ (emphasis added).
[7] That explains why this application for revocation of grant was filed before the High Court at Eldoret. Although the applicants contended at the time that the Magistrate’s court did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Succession Cause, that jurisdiction has been significantly enhanced. For instance, Section 7(1) of the Magistrates Courts Act provides that:
A magistrate's court shall have and exercise such jurisdiction and powers in proceedings of a civil nature in which the value of the subject matter does not exceed—
(a)twenty million shillings, where the court is presided over by a chief magistrate;
(b)fifteen million shillings, where the court is presided over by a senior principal magistrate;
(c)ten million shillings, where the court is presided over by a principal magistrate;
(d)seven million shillings, where the court is presided over by a senior resident magistrate; or
(e)five million shillings, where the court is presided over by a resident magistrate.
[8] In the absence of a valuation report indicating that the current value of the property is in excess of Kshs. 20,000,000/= the interests of justice demand that the application be determined by the lower court as that is the Court whose Grant is sought to be revoked. It is also notable that the lower court filed is yet to be availed for perusal.
[9] Accordingly, the Summons dated 14 th October 2019 is hereby transferred to the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Kapsabet for consolidation with Kapsabet Succession Cause No. 27 of 2017 for purposes of hearing and determination.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 7 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2026