Introduction and Background
1. By way of the Summons dated 17 th December 2025, the Applicant (“Rose”) seeks orders to compel the Respondent (“Peter”) to sign all necessary documents to enable the transmission of the estate properties to the beneficiaries as per the Certificate of Confirmation of a Grant issued on 24 th January 2024 or in the alternative, that the Deputy Registrar of the court to signs those documents on behalf of Peter.
2. The application is supported by Rose’s affidavit sworn on 17 th December 2025 and it is opposed by Peter through his replying affidavit sworn on 22 nd June 2026. The application was canvassed by way of written and oral submissions by the parties’ respective counsel and I have considered the same together with the pleadings and I will make relevant references to them in my analysis and determination below.
Analysis and Determination
3. The main issue for the court’s determination is whether Peter should be compelled to execute the transmission documents or whether the Deputy Registrar should do so in the alternative. Rose depones that Peter has refused or failed to sign the required transmission forms despite repeated requests and that this refusal has frustrated Rose’s efforts to finalize the administration and transfer estate property to the beneficiaries. Rose accuses Peter of failing in his legal duty as a co-administrator under section 83 of the Law of Succession Act , that he has no lawful excuse for his non-cooperation and that it is in the interest of justice and the beneficiaries that the court intervenes.
4. In response, Peter depones that the application is brought in bad faith and that Rose is not entitled to the orders sought because she has intermeddled with the estate, concealed material facts and failed to account for estate properties. He contends that the transmission of the estate should be held in abeyance until these issues are resolved. He accuses Rose of selling Land Parcel ATHI RIVER/ATHI RIVER BLOCK 5/162 to AMM, that the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant lists AMM as the sole beneficiary of that property, yet he was not a creditor of the estate and that Peter and other beneficiaries propose that this land be divided equally among 8 beneficiaries and he set out a table of proposed shares in his deposition.
5. Peter also claims that Rose sold Land Parcel MACHAKOS/MATUU/114 to WMM and that she colluded with PMK who had originally sold the property to the deceased to transfer it directly to the buyer, bypassing the estate and that Rose deliberately omitted this property from the estate's assets. That she also concealed her dealings with AMM regarding the Athi River property and Peter reiterates that Rose is the main impediment to concluding the administration due to her dishonesty. He depones that other beneficiaries are ready to move the court to revoke/annul the confirmed grant because they feel discriminated against in the distribution.
6. Peter states that Rose has not come to court with clean hands, that the Summons is a coercive tactic to force the family to accept her unlawful sales, that the transmission of the estate should not proceed until the issues surrounding both land parcels are fully addressed, that Rose becomes transparent about the distribution and that a fair distribution among all beneficiaries is agreed upon. For these reasons, Peter urges the court to dismiss or strike out the Summons and allow the unresolved issues to be dealt with before any transmission takes place.
7. Going through the pleadings and submissions, I note that Peter has contended that there are two conflicting Certificates of Confirmation of Grant issued on the same date and that this was meant to conceal facts relating to the Athi River property. However, I am in agreement with Rose’s submission that as per the court’s record, the Grant was confirmed and was to be distributed “…as per para. 2 of the supplementary affidavit dated 23/1/2019..” and that the initial Certificate of Confirmation of a Grant annexed as PKM 1(a) carried a typographical error and the same was returned to Court for correction. Rose has submitted that the corrected Grant is the one that she seeks to implement and Peter has not shown that this corrected grant has been appealed, reviewed, or set aside. As the court held In re Estate of Munyasa (Deceased) [2026] KEHC 9877 (KLR) , “ Court orders remain binding upon all parties until lawfully set aside" and Peter cannot simply refuse to comply with a valid court order
8. As submitted by Rose and as the court record shows, Peter filed a summons for revocation of the confirmed grant, which was dismissed on 17 th October 2024 by the court. He then filed an application for review, which was dismissed on 13 th November 2025 by the court where it was found that no preliminary objection was ever properly raised or recorded. The Applicants therein, including Peter failed to establish any error apparent on the face of the record and it was noted that the application for review was a disguised appeal and was dismissed. Peter is now using the same arguments of concealment, intermeddling and sale of properties to block transmission, even though those issues were already considered and rejected in the revocation and review applications.
9. It should not be lost that the duty of personal representatives is clearly set out under section 83 of the Law of Succession Act which obligates administrators to complete administration of the estate diligently and distribute the estate to the beneficiaries without unreasonable delay. The Court of Appeal, in Trouistik Union International & another v Jane Mbeyu & another [1993] KECA 89 (KLR) emphasized that personal representatives hold estate property in trust for beneficiaries and are under a legal obligation to administer the estate in accordance with the law and In re Estate of Munyasa(supra) the court restated that administrators are fiduciaries and should not frustrate or delay implementation of a confirmed grant once distribution has been settled.
10. Peter’s conduct fits the pattern of a party trying to frustrate a confirmed grant through delay and non-cooperation He refuses to sign statutory prescribed forms, he refuses to provide his ID, KRA PIN, or passport photos, he raises the same defeated arguments repeatedly and he has not appealed the rulings against him. The court In re Estate of Muchuru Njeru (Deceased) [2026] KEHC 1007 (KLR) , a case cited by Rose, stated that “ Delay and wilful non-cooperation by one administrator should not be allowed to indefinitely hold up the entire process." Even if Peter genuinely believes Rose intermeddled or sold estate property, the proper course was to pursue revocation or review, which he did and lost. He cannot now use those same allegations as a basis to refuse to implement a valid court order and I find that his concerns about AMM or the Matuu property should have been raised and resolved before confirmation and they cannot be used now to block transmission.
11. In the end, I find that Peter is using procedural gamesmanship to avoid implementing a grant he disagrees with, despite having exhausted and lost his legal avenues to challenge it. The court has repeatedly affirmed the validity of the grant and Peter has no lawful basis to continue refusing to sign the transmission documents. It is also not lost to the court that this matter is now over 15 years old and it is time to bring it to a close and allow the beneficiaries to enjoy their inheritance.
Conclusion and Disposition
12. In the upshot, I now make the following dispositive orders:
1) The Summons dated 17 th December 2025 is allowed
2) The 2 nd Administrator/Respondent, PETER KIBWAA MUTHINI, is hereby compelled and directed to execute all necessary documents and/or instruments, including but not limited to the Form LRA 39 (Transfer to Personal Representative as Executor/Administrator); Form 42 (Transmission of Land);Land Control Board Consent Forms; Mutation Forms and; Any other documents required by the Land Registrar, Machakos County, or any other relevant authority; to facilitate the transmission of the estate of the late JOSEPH MUTHINI KIBWAA (Deceased) to the beneficiaries, strictly in accordance with the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant issued on 24 th January 2024.
3) The 2 nd Administrator/Respondent shall execute and deliver all the aforementioned documents to the 1 st Administrator/Applicant or her advocates within fourteen (14) Days from the date of this Order.
4) In in the event that the 2 nd Administrator/Respondent fails, refuses, or neglects to execute the said documents within the stipulated fourteen (14) Days, the Deputy Registrar of this Court is hereby authorized and directed to execute all the said documents and/or instruments on behalf of the 2 nd Administrator/Respondent, to facilitate the transmission of the estate to the beneficiaries in terms of the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant issued on 24 th January 2024.
5) The costs of the Summons shall be borne by the 2 nd Administrator/Respondent
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED virtually this 3 rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER
2026
............................................................................
J W W MONGARE
JUDGE
IN THE PRESENCE OF
1. N/A for the Applicant
2. N/A for the Respondent
3. Abdisalan- Court Assistant
2 | Page
1. By way of the Summons dated 17 th December 2025, the Applicant (“Rose”) seeks orders to compel the Respondent (“Peter”) to sign all necessary documents to enable the transmission of the estate properties to the beneficiaries as per the Certificate of Confirmation of a Grant issued on 24 th January 2024 or in the alternative, that the Deputy Registrar of the court to signs those documents on behalf of Peter.
2. The application is supported by Rose’s affidavit sworn on 17 th December 2025 and it is opposed by Peter through his replying affidavit sworn on 22 nd June 2026. The application was canvassed by way of written and oral submissions by the parties’ respective counsel and I have considered the same together with the pleadings and I will make relevant references to them in my analysis and determination below.
Analysis and Determination
3. The main issue for the court’s determination is whether Peter should be compelled to execute the transmission documents or whether the Deputy Registrar should do so in the alternative. Rose depones that Peter has refused or failed to sign the required transmission forms despite repeated requests and that this refusal has frustrated Rose’s efforts to finalize the administration and transfer estate property to the beneficiaries. Rose accuses Peter of failing in his legal duty as a co-administrator under section 83 of the Law of Succession Act , that he has no lawful excuse for his non-cooperation and that it is in the interest of justice and the beneficiaries that the court intervenes.
4. In response, Peter depones that the application is brought in bad faith and that Rose is not entitled to the orders sought because she has intermeddled with the estate, concealed material facts and failed to account for estate properties. He contends that the transmission of the estate should be held in abeyance until these issues are resolved. He accuses Rose of selling Land Parcel ATHI RIVER/ATHI RIVER BLOCK 5/162 to AMM, that the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant lists AMM as the sole beneficiary of that property, yet he was not a creditor of the estate and that Peter and other beneficiaries propose that this land be divided equally among 8 beneficiaries and he set out a table of proposed shares in his deposition.
5. Peter also claims that Rose sold Land Parcel MACHAKOS/MATUU/114 to WMM and that she colluded with PMK who had originally sold the property to the deceased to transfer it directly to the buyer, bypassing the estate and that Rose deliberately omitted this property from the estate's assets. That she also concealed her dealings with AMM regarding the Athi River property and Peter reiterates that Rose is the main impediment to concluding the administration due to her dishonesty. He depones that other beneficiaries are ready to move the court to revoke/annul the confirmed grant because they feel discriminated against in the distribution.
6. Peter states that Rose has not come to court with clean hands, that the Summons is a coercive tactic to force the family to accept her unlawful sales, that the transmission of the estate should not proceed until the issues surrounding both land parcels are fully addressed, that Rose becomes transparent about the distribution and that a fair distribution among all beneficiaries is agreed upon. For these reasons, Peter urges the court to dismiss or strike out the Summons and allow the unresolved issues to be dealt with before any transmission takes place.
7. Going through the pleadings and submissions, I note that Peter has contended that there are two conflicting Certificates of Confirmation of Grant issued on the same date and that this was meant to conceal facts relating to the Athi River property. However, I am in agreement with Rose’s submission that as per the court’s record, the Grant was confirmed and was to be distributed “…as per para. 2 of the supplementary affidavit dated 23/1/2019..” and that the initial Certificate of Confirmation of a Grant annexed as PKM 1(a) carried a typographical error and the same was returned to Court for correction. Rose has submitted that the corrected Grant is the one that she seeks to implement and Peter has not shown that this corrected grant has been appealed, reviewed, or set aside. As the court held In re Estate of Munyasa (Deceased) [2026] KEHC 9877 (KLR) , “ Court orders remain binding upon all parties until lawfully set aside" and Peter cannot simply refuse to comply with a valid court order
8. As submitted by Rose and as the court record shows, Peter filed a summons for revocation of the confirmed grant, which was dismissed on 17 th October 2024 by the court. He then filed an application for review, which was dismissed on 13 th November 2025 by the court where it was found that no preliminary objection was ever properly raised or recorded. The Applicants therein, including Peter failed to establish any error apparent on the face of the record and it was noted that the application for review was a disguised appeal and was dismissed. Peter is now using the same arguments of concealment, intermeddling and sale of properties to block transmission, even though those issues were already considered and rejected in the revocation and review applications.
9. It should not be lost that the duty of personal representatives is clearly set out under section 83 of the Law of Succession Act which obligates administrators to complete administration of the estate diligently and distribute the estate to the beneficiaries without unreasonable delay. The Court of Appeal, in Trouistik Union International & another v Jane Mbeyu & another [1993] KECA 89 (KLR) emphasized that personal representatives hold estate property in trust for beneficiaries and are under a legal obligation to administer the estate in accordance with the law and In re Estate of Munyasa(supra) the court restated that administrators are fiduciaries and should not frustrate or delay implementation of a confirmed grant once distribution has been settled.
10. Peter’s conduct fits the pattern of a party trying to frustrate a confirmed grant through delay and non-cooperation He refuses to sign statutory prescribed forms, he refuses to provide his ID, KRA PIN, or passport photos, he raises the same defeated arguments repeatedly and he has not appealed the rulings against him. The court In re Estate of Muchuru Njeru (Deceased) [2026] KEHC 1007 (KLR) , a case cited by Rose, stated that “ Delay and wilful non-cooperation by one administrator should not be allowed to indefinitely hold up the entire process." Even if Peter genuinely believes Rose intermeddled or sold estate property, the proper course was to pursue revocation or review, which he did and lost. He cannot now use those same allegations as a basis to refuse to implement a valid court order and I find that his concerns about AMM or the Matuu property should have been raised and resolved before confirmation and they cannot be used now to block transmission.
11. In the end, I find that Peter is using procedural gamesmanship to avoid implementing a grant he disagrees with, despite having exhausted and lost his legal avenues to challenge it. The court has repeatedly affirmed the validity of the grant and Peter has no lawful basis to continue refusing to sign the transmission documents. It is also not lost to the court that this matter is now over 15 years old and it is time to bring it to a close and allow the beneficiaries to enjoy their inheritance.
Conclusion and Disposition
12. In the upshot, I now make the following dispositive orders:
1) The Summons dated 17 th December 2025 is allowed
2) The 2 nd Administrator/Respondent, PETER KIBWAA MUTHINI, is hereby compelled and directed to execute all necessary documents and/or instruments, including but not limited to the Form LRA 39 (Transfer to Personal Representative as Executor/Administrator); Form 42 (Transmission of Land);Land Control Board Consent Forms; Mutation Forms and; Any other documents required by the Land Registrar, Machakos County, or any other relevant authority; to facilitate the transmission of the estate of the late JOSEPH MUTHINI KIBWAA (Deceased) to the beneficiaries, strictly in accordance with the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant issued on 24 th January 2024.
3) The 2 nd Administrator/Respondent shall execute and deliver all the aforementioned documents to the 1 st Administrator/Applicant or her advocates within fourteen (14) Days from the date of this Order.
4) In in the event that the 2 nd Administrator/Respondent fails, refuses, or neglects to execute the said documents within the stipulated fourteen (14) Days, the Deputy Registrar of this Court is hereby authorized and directed to execute all the said documents and/or instruments on behalf of the 2 nd Administrator/Respondent, to facilitate the transmission of the estate to the beneficiaries in terms of the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant issued on 24 th January 2024.
5) The costs of the Summons shall be borne by the 2 nd Administrator/Respondent
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED virtually this 3 rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER
2026
............................................................................
J W W MONGARE
JUDGE
IN THE PRESENCE OF
1. N/A for the Applicant
2. N/A for the Respondent
3. Abdisalan- Court Assistant
2 | Page