1. Before this Court is a Summons for Annulment of Grant dated 23rd May 2023 filed pursuant to Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act and Rule 44(1) of the Probate and Administration Rules seeking annulment of the Grant of Letters of Administration made to Salome Njambi Njenga.
2. The Summons is supported by the affidavit of Mr. Lewis Muchene Njenga, the objector/applicant herein, sworn on 23rd May 2023. Mr. Muchene averred that Ann Wairimu Njenga alias Ann Wairimu Tchoreret died on 27th December 2017 and a Certificate of Confirmation of Grant was issued on 22nd February 2022 to the Administrator. He contended that the Administrator distributed the deceased’s Estate to strangers unknown to the family as they reside outside the country, and they have never been introduced to the family. He further contended that they are nationals of other countries, whose identity have not been properly ascertained and verified. He claimed that they have not proved their existence, and that the Administrator fraudulently filed the petition and the Grant of Letters of Administration Intestate was obtained on concealment of material facts.
3. He stated that the Administrator concealed that some of the properties forming part of the deceased’s Estate did not exist when the Certificate for confirmation of Grant was issued. He urged the Court to annul the said Grant and order for the assets of the deceased to remain under the custody of the Administrator until the Court issues further orders.
4. In opposition to the application, Ms Salome Njambi Njenga, the Administrator herein, filed a replying affidavit sworn on 19th June 2024. She deposed that the deceased and the objector are her siblings and that the 2nd objector is their mother. She stated that the deceased was married and had children in Canada, where she also died and was buried. Ms Njenga stated that the rightful persons to petition for a Grant of Letters of Administration were the deceased’s spouse and children, who fully participated in the succession process. She averred that it was agreed by all, that she petitions for the said Grant since she understood Kenyan law and Court dynamics.
5. The Administrator denied that the objector is a beneficiary of the deceased’s Estate and stated that he has the burden to show that the beneficiaries of the deceased’s Estate,being her husband and children are non-existent as claimed. She also stated that the objector has not proved the allegations of fraud, and averred that the assets of the deceased are existent since the objector, the Administrator and the deceased had inherited them from their late father’s Estate in Nairobi HCFP&A 378 of 1997, whose Grant has never been annulled, set aside or revoked. She blamed the objector for being ignorant of the existence of the deceased’s husband and children. She urged the Court to dismiss the Summons.
6. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The law firm of Grace Associates & Co Advocates for the objector filed undated submissions, whereas the law firm of J. M. Njenga & Co Advocates LLP for the Administrator filed written submissions dated 21st October 2025.
7. Ms Mwaura, learned Counsel for the objector, submitted that the objector has the locus standi to file the instant application because he was the Administrator of their late father’s Estate, from which the assets in this case arise. She cited the case of Kirui & another (Suing in their Capacities as the Personal Representatives of Musa Kipkirui Chumo alias Kipkirui arap Chumo alias Musa K Chumo (Deceased)) v Nyamara & 9 others [2025] KEELC 5330 (KLR), which quoted the decision of Julian Adoyo Ongunga & another v Francis Kiberenge Bondeva (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Fanuel Evans Amudavi, Deceased) [2016] eKLR, to support of her position.
8. Counsel asserted that the objector has a valid application under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act and Rule 44(1) of the Probate and Administration Rules. She stated that the objector desires to be appointed the Administrator of his deceased sister’s Estate since the Administrator concealed material facts. Ms Mwaura cited the case of In the Matter of the Estate of L.A.K. (Deceased) [2014] eKLR and in the case of Re Estate of Julius Nduvi Javan (Deceased) [2018] eKLR in support of her claim.
9. In praying for costs of the application, she stated that costs follow the event, and relied on the case of Joseph Oduor Anode V Kenya Red Cross Society [2012] eKLR.
10. Mr. Njenga, learned Counsel for the Administrator, submitted that the objector being the brother of the deceased did not have locus standi to file the application herein, since the deceased had a husband and children who rank higher than him in succession hierarchy under Sections 66, 37, 38 and 39 and Part V of the Law of Succession Act. He stated that the application is a non-starter and prayed for it to be struck off.
11. Counsel submitted that there are no sustainable grounds to revoke the Grant of Letters of Administration on the basis that the objector does not know the deceased’s family. He stated that whether the deceased’s family members are Kenyans is immaterial, as there is no law that bars them from inheriting. He emphasized that the deceased’s husband and their children had on 22nd February 2022, availed in Court their identification documents, being their passports and birth certificates, during the confirmation hearing and during the hearing of objection proceedings on 18th June 2025.
12. He submitted that the assets in issue are the deceased’s rightful shares of her late father’s Estate in Nairobi HCFP&A 378 OF 1997, whose Certificate for confirmation of Grant has never been revoked or set aside. He stated that the objection proceedings lack merits and should be dismissed.
The hearing
13. The Court directed the summons to proceed by way of viva voce evidence. PW1, Lewis Muchene Njenga who is the Objector herein, testified that the administrator and the deceased are his sisters. He stated that the administrator has lived in the USA since 1970s together with the deceased who lived in West Africa prior to her demise. He stated that he does not know the deceased’s children or her husband. He stated that he does not have a good relationship with the administrator who feels like she is more learned and more superior to him. He stated that he does not know his late sister’s children.
14. In cross examination by Mr. Jeremy, he stated that he was not aware of the confirmed grant as he has not read the file. He stated that the deceased died in 2017 and had not seen her since she left the country which was a long time ago which was close to 20 years but could not recall well. He stated that he is the caretaker of the land left by his late father. He testified that he was not aware that the deceased was married as he was not close to her. He stated that he had never met Kevin, deceased’s son and he does nor have anything to prove that he is the deceased’s son. He stated that he does not know the deceased’s daughter called Melisa who has the name ‘Wanjiku’ which is similar to his mother but he had never met her. He confirmed that the deceased left Kenya many years ago. He stated that the deceased’s children had no obligation to look for him. He stated that he did not know the deceased had a husband as he thought he was only a friend. He stated that he is not a beneficiary of the deceased but he is the first born of the family so the portion of his sister is his share. He stated that if the deceased did not have children he would have been a beneficiary. He stated that he was not involved in the administration of the estate of the deceased.
15. He stated that even though the deceased had a husband and children, he is challenging his right to have been involved. He stated that what is due to family of the deceased should not be given to him. He stated that the property known as Redhill farm which was given to everyone but it is not okay for the administrator to administer the estate.
16. In re-examination by Miss Mwaura, he stated that he has not perused the Court documents. He stated that he is the administrator of his late father’s estate. He stated that he is willing to transfer the deceased’s property to the known children of the deceased if they are her children. He stated that he could not vouch the passports of children of the deceased.
17. The Administrator, DW1 Salome Njambi Njenga testified that she is the administrator of her late sister’s estate. She stated that she filed a response to the summons of revocation of grant filed by the objector through her replying affidavit sworn on 19th June 2024. She stated that the children of the deceased chose her as they are close to her. She stated that she comes to Kenya thrice a year and when she was here in 2019 she took all the children to Court.
18. In cross examination by Miss Mwaura, she stated that the objector is her brother who is the administrator of her late father’s estate who has the responsibility of transferring the share to the beneficiaries. She stated that the deceased lived abroad for many years and she even brought her children when they were young to Kenya and they spent two months here and she was certain that they met other family members. She stated that the deceased’s children are now adults and that they chose her to be administrator she did not approach them. She stated that the objector had seen the children and communicated with them but they stopped communication after their mother died. She stated that there is no bad blood in the family only that the objector thinks that she has bad attitude. She added that the deceased’s children used her because they did not understand Kenyan laws or the procedures because when they come to Kenya there is minimum connection with social media and their cousins.
19. In re-examination by Mr Jeremy, she stated that their father’s estate was to be transferred to all beneficiaries and the Grant had specified the beneficiaries. She maintained that she does not have bad blood with the objector as they are still siblings. She stated that she was last in Kenya in 2019 when they discussed the Court matters and the Objector said that the land was divided up and was going to sell it. She stated that the deceased used to visit Kenya more frequently which shows that the objector is lying to the Court by stating that he does not know the deceased’s children. She stated that they all used to visit Kenya including their Gabon grandmother. She maintained that the decision of her appointment as an administrator was made by the deceased’s husband and children and they are happy with the decision.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
20. I have considered the Summons for annulment of Grant dated 23rd May 2023 and the affidavit in support thereof, and the replying affidavit of the Administrator. I have also considered the written submissions filed by Counsel for both parties and the viva voce proceedings of 18th June 2025. The issues for determination are:
a) Whether the objector had the locus standi to file the instant application; and
b) Whether the Grant of Letters of Administration should be annulled.
Whether the objector had the locus standi to file the instant application?
21. Locus standi is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary 9th Edition (page 1026) as “the right to bring an action or to be heard in a given forum”. It is critical for a party to have locus standi before filing an application or suit, as without it, such a matter would be considered as a non-starter. See the case of Julian Adoyo Ongunga & another v Francis Kiberenge Bondeva (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Fanuel Evans Amudavi, Deceased) [2016] eKLR, where the Court held as follows-
“Further the issue of locus standi is so cardinal in a civil matter since it runs through to the heart of the case. Simply put, a party without locus standi in a civil suit lacks the right to institute and/or maintain that suit even where a valid cause of action subsists. Locus standi relates mainly to the legal capacity of a party. The impact of a party in a suit without locus standi can be equated to that of a Court acting without jurisdiction since it all amounts to null and void proceedings. It is also worth-noting that the issue of locus standi becomes such a serious one where the matter involves the estate of a deceased person since in most cases the estate involves several other beneficiaries or interested parties.”
22. This Court will first address the second issue in order to establish whether the objector had locus standi to file the instant application.
Whether the Grant of Letters of Administration should be annulled.
23. The law for revocation of Grant of Letters of Administration is enshrined in Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act which provides as follows-
“Revocation or annulment of Grant 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;
iii. or 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.”
24. The objector herein faulted the Administrator for concealing material facts in the issuance of the Grant of Letters of Administration. He argued that the Administrator listed beneficiaries who are unknown to the family and their identities could not be ascertained, and that the listed assets were non-existent. This Court has gone through the entire record and finds that the initial letter from the Area Chief of Tigoni Location, Mr Peter K. Njogu dated 25th August, 2020 listed the beneficiaries of the Estate of the deceased who had died on 27th December 2017, as follows:
a) Charles Tchoreret – Husband
b) Sally Jane Tchoreret - Daughter
c) Melissa Yvette Wanjiku - Daughter
d) Kevin Alton Tchoreret - Son
25. This Court notes that the four beneficiaries executed the Consent Form P&A 38 dated 12th September 2020 and consented to the appointment of Salome Njambi Njenga as the Administrator of the deceased’s Estate. This Court also notes that the only assets listed for the deceased were the inheritance of her late father’s Estate in Nairobi HCFP&A 378 OF 1997 (Estate of Jonathan Njenga (deceased), to which the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant dated 18th January 2016 was attached. The said Certificate confirmed that some of the assets were to be divided into equal shares between the deceased, her mother and siblings (the Administrator of the Estate therein and the objector herein). It was only Dagoretti/Uthiru/283 and 324, that were bequeathed absolutely to their mother, the 2nd objector herein.
26. This Court notes that the Grant of Letters of Administration was subsequently issued on 13th May 2021 and the Administrator filed Summons for confirmation of Grant, with a proposal for the Estate of the deceased to be distributed to the children of the deceased in equal shares, and this was consented to by the husband and children of the deceased, in Form 37 dated 10th August 2021 and a Certificate of Confirmation of Grant dated 22nd February 2022 was issued in those terms.
27. The said issuance then culminated in the filing of the present Summons dated 23rd May 2023 seeking annulment of the Grant. This Court has outlined the chronology of this succession cause so as to demonstrate that the Administrator herein followed the requisite procedure in obtaining the Grant. It is my finding that there was no concealment of material facts as alleged by the objector, as from the onset, it was clear who the beneficiaries of the deceased’s Estate were, and the assets of the deceased were ascertained.
28. Having found that the Confirmed Certificate of Grant was procedurally obtained, this Court finds no reasons to revoke the same. The claim that the objector is an Administrator in the Estate of their father in Nairobi HCFP&A 378 OF 1997 and had the locus standi to apply for revocation of the Grant herein, cannot be further from the truth. This is because his duties as an Administrator in their late father’s Estate was only limited to the said Estate and he does not have any rights in the Estate of his sibling, the deceased herein.
29. This Court acknowledges the existence of the husband and children of the deceased and their powers to appoint the Administrator, renounce their rights and to petition for the Grant. It is immaterial whether or not the objector is known to them or knows them, as there is sufficient documentary evidence which supports their relationship to the deceased, as husband and children of the deceased. As such, the objector did not have the requisite locus standi to file the instant application.
30. For that reason, this Court finds that the Summons for Annulment of Grant dated 23rd May 2023 lacks merits. It is hereby dismissed with costs.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED IN KIAMBU on 22ND day of MAY, 2026. Ruling delivered through Microsoft Teams Online platform.
NJOKI MWANGI
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Ms Mwaura for the objector/applicant
Ms Kimani h/b for Mr. Njenga for the Administrator/respondent
Ms Julia – Court Assistant.
2. The Summons is supported by the affidavit of Mr. Lewis Muchene Njenga, the objector/applicant herein, sworn on 23rd May 2023. Mr. Muchene averred that Ann Wairimu Njenga alias Ann Wairimu Tchoreret died on 27th December 2017 and a Certificate of Confirmation of Grant was issued on 22nd February 2022 to the Administrator. He contended that the Administrator distributed the deceased’s Estate to strangers unknown to the family as they reside outside the country, and they have never been introduced to the family. He further contended that they are nationals of other countries, whose identity have not been properly ascertained and verified. He claimed that they have not proved their existence, and that the Administrator fraudulently filed the petition and the Grant of Letters of Administration Intestate was obtained on concealment of material facts.
3. He stated that the Administrator concealed that some of the properties forming part of the deceased’s Estate did not exist when the Certificate for confirmation of Grant was issued. He urged the Court to annul the said Grant and order for the assets of the deceased to remain under the custody of the Administrator until the Court issues further orders.
4. In opposition to the application, Ms Salome Njambi Njenga, the Administrator herein, filed a replying affidavit sworn on 19th June 2024. She deposed that the deceased and the objector are her siblings and that the 2nd objector is their mother. She stated that the deceased was married and had children in Canada, where she also died and was buried. Ms Njenga stated that the rightful persons to petition for a Grant of Letters of Administration were the deceased’s spouse and children, who fully participated in the succession process. She averred that it was agreed by all, that she petitions for the said Grant since she understood Kenyan law and Court dynamics.
5. The Administrator denied that the objector is a beneficiary of the deceased’s Estate and stated that he has the burden to show that the beneficiaries of the deceased’s Estate,being her husband and children are non-existent as claimed. She also stated that the objector has not proved the allegations of fraud, and averred that the assets of the deceased are existent since the objector, the Administrator and the deceased had inherited them from their late father’s Estate in Nairobi HCFP&A 378 of 1997, whose Grant has never been annulled, set aside or revoked. She blamed the objector for being ignorant of the existence of the deceased’s husband and children. She urged the Court to dismiss the Summons.
6. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The law firm of Grace Associates & Co Advocates for the objector filed undated submissions, whereas the law firm of J. M. Njenga & Co Advocates LLP for the Administrator filed written submissions dated 21st October 2025.
7. Ms Mwaura, learned Counsel for the objector, submitted that the objector has the locus standi to file the instant application because he was the Administrator of their late father’s Estate, from which the assets in this case arise. She cited the case of Kirui & another (Suing in their Capacities as the Personal Representatives of Musa Kipkirui Chumo alias Kipkirui arap Chumo alias Musa K Chumo (Deceased)) v Nyamara & 9 others [2025] KEELC 5330 (KLR), which quoted the decision of Julian Adoyo Ongunga & another v Francis Kiberenge Bondeva (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Fanuel Evans Amudavi, Deceased) [2016] eKLR, to support of her position.
8. Counsel asserted that the objector has a valid application under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act and Rule 44(1) of the Probate and Administration Rules. She stated that the objector desires to be appointed the Administrator of his deceased sister’s Estate since the Administrator concealed material facts. Ms Mwaura cited the case of In the Matter of the Estate of L.A.K. (Deceased) [2014] eKLR and in the case of Re Estate of Julius Nduvi Javan (Deceased) [2018] eKLR in support of her claim.
9. In praying for costs of the application, she stated that costs follow the event, and relied on the case of Joseph Oduor Anode V Kenya Red Cross Society [2012] eKLR.
10. Mr. Njenga, learned Counsel for the Administrator, submitted that the objector being the brother of the deceased did not have locus standi to file the application herein, since the deceased had a husband and children who rank higher than him in succession hierarchy under Sections 66, 37, 38 and 39 and Part V of the Law of Succession Act. He stated that the application is a non-starter and prayed for it to be struck off.
11. Counsel submitted that there are no sustainable grounds to revoke the Grant of Letters of Administration on the basis that the objector does not know the deceased’s family. He stated that whether the deceased’s family members are Kenyans is immaterial, as there is no law that bars them from inheriting. He emphasized that the deceased’s husband and their children had on 22nd February 2022, availed in Court their identification documents, being their passports and birth certificates, during the confirmation hearing and during the hearing of objection proceedings on 18th June 2025.
12. He submitted that the assets in issue are the deceased’s rightful shares of her late father’s Estate in Nairobi HCFP&A 378 OF 1997, whose Certificate for confirmation of Grant has never been revoked or set aside. He stated that the objection proceedings lack merits and should be dismissed.
The hearing
13. The Court directed the summons to proceed by way of viva voce evidence. PW1, Lewis Muchene Njenga who is the Objector herein, testified that the administrator and the deceased are his sisters. He stated that the administrator has lived in the USA since 1970s together with the deceased who lived in West Africa prior to her demise. He stated that he does not know the deceased’s children or her husband. He stated that he does not have a good relationship with the administrator who feels like she is more learned and more superior to him. He stated that he does not know his late sister’s children.
14. In cross examination by Mr. Jeremy, he stated that he was not aware of the confirmed grant as he has not read the file. He stated that the deceased died in 2017 and had not seen her since she left the country which was a long time ago which was close to 20 years but could not recall well. He stated that he is the caretaker of the land left by his late father. He testified that he was not aware that the deceased was married as he was not close to her. He stated that he had never met Kevin, deceased’s son and he does nor have anything to prove that he is the deceased’s son. He stated that he does not know the deceased’s daughter called Melisa who has the name ‘Wanjiku’ which is similar to his mother but he had never met her. He confirmed that the deceased left Kenya many years ago. He stated that the deceased’s children had no obligation to look for him. He stated that he did not know the deceased had a husband as he thought he was only a friend. He stated that he is not a beneficiary of the deceased but he is the first born of the family so the portion of his sister is his share. He stated that if the deceased did not have children he would have been a beneficiary. He stated that he was not involved in the administration of the estate of the deceased.
15. He stated that even though the deceased had a husband and children, he is challenging his right to have been involved. He stated that what is due to family of the deceased should not be given to him. He stated that the property known as Redhill farm which was given to everyone but it is not okay for the administrator to administer the estate.
16. In re-examination by Miss Mwaura, he stated that he has not perused the Court documents. He stated that he is the administrator of his late father’s estate. He stated that he is willing to transfer the deceased’s property to the known children of the deceased if they are her children. He stated that he could not vouch the passports of children of the deceased.
17. The Administrator, DW1 Salome Njambi Njenga testified that she is the administrator of her late sister’s estate. She stated that she filed a response to the summons of revocation of grant filed by the objector through her replying affidavit sworn on 19th June 2024. She stated that the children of the deceased chose her as they are close to her. She stated that she comes to Kenya thrice a year and when she was here in 2019 she took all the children to Court.
18. In cross examination by Miss Mwaura, she stated that the objector is her brother who is the administrator of her late father’s estate who has the responsibility of transferring the share to the beneficiaries. She stated that the deceased lived abroad for many years and she even brought her children when they were young to Kenya and they spent two months here and she was certain that they met other family members. She stated that the deceased’s children are now adults and that they chose her to be administrator she did not approach them. She stated that the objector had seen the children and communicated with them but they stopped communication after their mother died. She stated that there is no bad blood in the family only that the objector thinks that she has bad attitude. She added that the deceased’s children used her because they did not understand Kenyan laws or the procedures because when they come to Kenya there is minimum connection with social media and their cousins.
19. In re-examination by Mr Jeremy, she stated that their father’s estate was to be transferred to all beneficiaries and the Grant had specified the beneficiaries. She maintained that she does not have bad blood with the objector as they are still siblings. She stated that she was last in Kenya in 2019 when they discussed the Court matters and the Objector said that the land was divided up and was going to sell it. She stated that the deceased used to visit Kenya more frequently which shows that the objector is lying to the Court by stating that he does not know the deceased’s children. She stated that they all used to visit Kenya including their Gabon grandmother. She maintained that the decision of her appointment as an administrator was made by the deceased’s husband and children and they are happy with the decision.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
20. I have considered the Summons for annulment of Grant dated 23rd May 2023 and the affidavit in support thereof, and the replying affidavit of the Administrator. I have also considered the written submissions filed by Counsel for both parties and the viva voce proceedings of 18th June 2025. The issues for determination are:
a) Whether the objector had the locus standi to file the instant application; and
b) Whether the Grant of Letters of Administration should be annulled.
Whether the objector had the locus standi to file the instant application?
21. Locus standi is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary 9th Edition (page 1026) as “the right to bring an action or to be heard in a given forum”. It is critical for a party to have locus standi before filing an application or suit, as without it, such a matter would be considered as a non-starter. See the case of Julian Adoyo Ongunga & another v Francis Kiberenge Bondeva (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Fanuel Evans Amudavi, Deceased) [2016] eKLR, where the Court held as follows-
“Further the issue of locus standi is so cardinal in a civil matter since it runs through to the heart of the case. Simply put, a party without locus standi in a civil suit lacks the right to institute and/or maintain that suit even where a valid cause of action subsists. Locus standi relates mainly to the legal capacity of a party. The impact of a party in a suit without locus standi can be equated to that of a Court acting without jurisdiction since it all amounts to null and void proceedings. It is also worth-noting that the issue of locus standi becomes such a serious one where the matter involves the estate of a deceased person since in most cases the estate involves several other beneficiaries or interested parties.”
22. This Court will first address the second issue in order to establish whether the objector had locus standi to file the instant application.
Whether the Grant of Letters of Administration should be annulled.
23. The law for revocation of Grant of Letters of Administration is enshrined in Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act which provides as follows-
“Revocation or annulment of Grant 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;
iii. or 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.”
24. The objector herein faulted the Administrator for concealing material facts in the issuance of the Grant of Letters of Administration. He argued that the Administrator listed beneficiaries who are unknown to the family and their identities could not be ascertained, and that the listed assets were non-existent. This Court has gone through the entire record and finds that the initial letter from the Area Chief of Tigoni Location, Mr Peter K. Njogu dated 25th August, 2020 listed the beneficiaries of the Estate of the deceased who had died on 27th December 2017, as follows:
a) Charles Tchoreret – Husband
b) Sally Jane Tchoreret - Daughter
c) Melissa Yvette Wanjiku - Daughter
d) Kevin Alton Tchoreret - Son
25. This Court notes that the four beneficiaries executed the Consent Form P&A 38 dated 12th September 2020 and consented to the appointment of Salome Njambi Njenga as the Administrator of the deceased’s Estate. This Court also notes that the only assets listed for the deceased were the inheritance of her late father’s Estate in Nairobi HCFP&A 378 OF 1997 (Estate of Jonathan Njenga (deceased), to which the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant dated 18th January 2016 was attached. The said Certificate confirmed that some of the assets were to be divided into equal shares between the deceased, her mother and siblings (the Administrator of the Estate therein and the objector herein). It was only Dagoretti/Uthiru/283 and 324, that were bequeathed absolutely to their mother, the 2nd objector herein.
26. This Court notes that the Grant of Letters of Administration was subsequently issued on 13th May 2021 and the Administrator filed Summons for confirmation of Grant, with a proposal for the Estate of the deceased to be distributed to the children of the deceased in equal shares, and this was consented to by the husband and children of the deceased, in Form 37 dated 10th August 2021 and a Certificate of Confirmation of Grant dated 22nd February 2022 was issued in those terms.
27. The said issuance then culminated in the filing of the present Summons dated 23rd May 2023 seeking annulment of the Grant. This Court has outlined the chronology of this succession cause so as to demonstrate that the Administrator herein followed the requisite procedure in obtaining the Grant. It is my finding that there was no concealment of material facts as alleged by the objector, as from the onset, it was clear who the beneficiaries of the deceased’s Estate were, and the assets of the deceased were ascertained.
28. Having found that the Confirmed Certificate of Grant was procedurally obtained, this Court finds no reasons to revoke the same. The claim that the objector is an Administrator in the Estate of their father in Nairobi HCFP&A 378 OF 1997 and had the locus standi to apply for revocation of the Grant herein, cannot be further from the truth. This is because his duties as an Administrator in their late father’s Estate was only limited to the said Estate and he does not have any rights in the Estate of his sibling, the deceased herein.
29. This Court acknowledges the existence of the husband and children of the deceased and their powers to appoint the Administrator, renounce their rights and to petition for the Grant. It is immaterial whether or not the objector is known to them or knows them, as there is sufficient documentary evidence which supports their relationship to the deceased, as husband and children of the deceased. As such, the objector did not have the requisite locus standi to file the instant application.
30. For that reason, this Court finds that the Summons for Annulment of Grant dated 23rd May 2023 lacks merits. It is hereby dismissed with costs.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED IN KIAMBU on 22ND day of MAY, 2026. Ruling delivered through Microsoft Teams Online platform.
NJOKI MWANGI
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Ms Mwaura for the objector/applicant
Ms Kimani h/b for Mr. Njenga for the Administrator/respondent
Ms Julia – Court Assistant.