1. I have considered the application dated 5 th June 2026 together with the affidavit in support and the reply. The same seeks a fresh and current detailed account of the status of the estate prior to the confirmation of grant.
2. Counsel argued that in 2023 the court ordered the respondent to provide supporting documents. He stated that this was never done owing to a stay of proceedings issued by the court of appeal. Counsel pointed out that for 8 years the objectors has not received any payment, and has not benefitted from the estate. In his view, the amounts earned by the estate ought to be ascertained and its value established.
3. In response Counsel for the respondent pointed out that the administrator has already complied with the orders of the court, and that this fact was confirmed by Justice Mutahi in his ruling. In Counsels view, the orders in the present application are spent; the accounts are already before the court; and the application is res judicata. Finally, Counsel stated that the application is intended solely to delay the proceedings relating to confirmation.
4. I note that based on the ruling issued in this matter on 5 th May, 2025 and the judgment issued on 12 th Mach 2026 read together, the same shows that Mutahi, J. considered this very same issue and found that the valuation and account on record was sufficient. He directed that the grant be set down for confirmation expeditiously.
5. The applicant is aware of this direction. However, noting that beneficiaries are entitled to know how the estates assets are being dealt with, and may, from time to time apply to the court for such accounts (where the same are not forthcoming from an administrator) I find that the application was not made in bad faith. However, that process, of rendering accounts should not occasion delay to the administration of the estate or to prevent its completion. That appears to be the case here.
6. I am not persuaded that this court ought to re hear the same application seeking the very same relief, namely for valuation and accounts, within only one year of the previous ruling, where that court already found that the accounts and valuation on record are sufficient.
7. I find that the application is premature and will unduly delay the efforts of the administrator to confirm the grant and to incorporate a trust company, which is their stated intention as per the previous judgment issued by Mutahi, J.
8. Noting that application was not made in bad faith, but is premature, I find that the application is without merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. Each of the parties shall bear their own costs.
9. Confirmation of grant is scheduled for: 4 th November 2026
2. Counsel argued that in 2023 the court ordered the respondent to provide supporting documents. He stated that this was never done owing to a stay of proceedings issued by the court of appeal. Counsel pointed out that for 8 years the objectors has not received any payment, and has not benefitted from the estate. In his view, the amounts earned by the estate ought to be ascertained and its value established.
3. In response Counsel for the respondent pointed out that the administrator has already complied with the orders of the court, and that this fact was confirmed by Justice Mutahi in his ruling. In Counsels view, the orders in the present application are spent; the accounts are already before the court; and the application is res judicata. Finally, Counsel stated that the application is intended solely to delay the proceedings relating to confirmation.
4. I note that based on the ruling issued in this matter on 5 th May, 2025 and the judgment issued on 12 th Mach 2026 read together, the same shows that Mutahi, J. considered this very same issue and found that the valuation and account on record was sufficient. He directed that the grant be set down for confirmation expeditiously.
5. The applicant is aware of this direction. However, noting that beneficiaries are entitled to know how the estates assets are being dealt with, and may, from time to time apply to the court for such accounts (where the same are not forthcoming from an administrator) I find that the application was not made in bad faith. However, that process, of rendering accounts should not occasion delay to the administration of the estate or to prevent its completion. That appears to be the case here.
6. I am not persuaded that this court ought to re hear the same application seeking the very same relief, namely for valuation and accounts, within only one year of the previous ruling, where that court already found that the accounts and valuation on record are sufficient.
7. I find that the application is premature and will unduly delay the efforts of the administrator to confirm the grant and to incorporate a trust company, which is their stated intention as per the previous judgment issued by Mutahi, J.
8. Noting that application was not made in bad faith, but is premature, I find that the application is without merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. Each of the parties shall bear their own costs.
9. Confirmation of grant is scheduled for: 4 th November 2026