1. This matter was initially filed in the Chuka High Court as Succession Cause No. E011 of 2025 by the applicant herein. The petition for a limited grant ad colligenda bona was dated 23rd September 2025. The applicant sought the said grant for the purposes of collecting and preserving the deceased person’s gratuity and other employment-related terminal benefits, collecting and preserving the deceased’s shares, deposits, dividends and other benefits at Bandari DT Sacco, and restricting the release of the deceased’s pension gratuity and other employment-related terminal benefits at KPA, as well as his shares, deposits, dividends and other benefits held at Bandari DT Sacco, until the grant of representation is issued by the Court.
2. In the grounds in support of the application before the Chuka High Court, the applicant averred that the deceased was an employee of the Kenya Port Authority at the time of his death and was entitled to pension, gratuity and other employment-related benefits. He was a member of Bandari DT Sacco.
3. The applicant identified herself, Michelle Kendi Mutegi, and Elvis Njagi Mutegi, as the only dependants of the deceased. She denied that Mary Nungari Muiruri was the deceased's wife and accused her of fraudulently obtaining a letter from the chief stating that Mary was a beneficiary of the deceased's estate, together with Michelle and Elvis, and that the applicant was excluded.
4. The application was opposed by the objectors. They filed a Notice of Motion dated 3rd October 2025, in which they objected to the territorial jurisdiction of the Chuka High Court. Alternatively, they sought to have the matter transferred to the Mombasa High Court. The application was compromised on 7th October 2025, when, with the parties' consent, the Court transferred the matter to Mombasa.
5. While the Petition was pending, the objectors filed a petition for a special limited grant dated 9th December 2025, supported by the joint affidavit of Ms Mary Nungari Muiruri and Michelle Kendi Mutegi, for the purpose of meeting and settling the school fees for the deceased’s 2 children and their upkeep. The application was allowed by this Court on 11th December 2025. A special limited grant under section 54 and the 5th Schedule of the Law of Succession Act was issued on 14th January 2026.
6. When the Petitioner became aware of the issuance of the special limited grant, she filed the Notice of Motion dated 11th February 2026 seeking to have it revoked on the grounds that the grant was obtained secretly, without disclosure of all the beneficiaries; that reliance was placed on the contested Chief’s letter; and that the proceedings leading to the issuance of the grant were defective in substance and involved concealment of material facts.
7. The summons was opposed by Mary Nungari Muiruri, who deposed to an affidavit on 10th March 2026, wherein she defended the grant issued to her. She averred that school fees were required. She stated that the Kenya Ports Authority had not released the funds to her, and as a result, one of the children was at risk of being sent away from school.
8. The petitioner filed written submissions dated 19th March 2026 in support of the Summons for Revocation of Grant dated 11th February 2026.
9. The petition for grant ad colligenda was also canvassed by way of written submissions. The petitioner's submissions are dated 14th January 2026. Those of the objector are dated 23rd January 2026.
10. I have considered the two applications before me, the responses thereto, and the written submissions of the parties. It would appear to me to be incontrovertible that:-
1. The deceased died intestate;
2. He held 2 children, Michelle and Elvis. Elvis is a minor
3. The deceased was survived by a mother, the applicant herein;
4. The applicant contends that Mary wasn’t the wife of the deceased.
11. I note that in the petition for a special limited grant dated 9th December 2025, no mention was made of the fact that this matter is contentious by the applicants. The applicants had a duty to disclose all material information, including, in particular, the contestation between the deceased's mother and Mary, so that the Court could consider the matter with the benefit of full knowledge. In my view, the objectors misled the Court into issuing a special, limited grant in their favour.
12. Under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act, the Court can revoke a grant which was issued fraudulently by the making of a false statement or the concealment from the Court of something material to the case. The power to revoke a grant may be made upon an application by any interested party or by the Court upon its own motion. In my view, the Court must revoke the grant issued on 14th January 2026, as it was so clearly sought by the applicants to steal a march on the applicant.
13. I rely on the decision of Musyoka 3 in the case of re Estate of Prisca Ong’ayo Nande (deceased) [2020] eKLR wherein he stated at paragraph 8 that:
“Under section 76, a court may revoke a grant so long as the grounds listed above are disclosed, either on its own motion or on the application of a party. A grant of letters of administration may be revoked on three general grounds. The first is where the process of obtaining the grant was attended by problems. The first would be where the process was defective, either because some mandatory procedural step was omitted, or the persons applying for representation was not competent or suitable for appointment, or the deceased died testate having made a valid will, and then a grant or letters of administration intestate was made instead of a grant of probate, or vice versa. It could also be that the process was marred by fraud and misrepresentation or concealment of matter, such as where some survivors are not disclosed, or the Applicant lies that he is a survivor when he is not, among other reasons. The second general ground is where the grant was obtained procedurally, but the administrator, thereafter, got into problems with the exercise of administration, such as where he fails to apply for confirmation of grant within the time allowed, or he fails to proceed diligently with administration, or fails to render accounts as and when required. The third general ground is where the grant has become useless and inoperative following subsequent circumstances, such as where a sole administrator dies leaving behind no administrator to carry on the exercise, or where the sole administrator loses the soundness of his mind for whatever reason or even becomes physically infirm to an extent of being unable to carry out his duties as administrator, or the sole administrator is adjudged bankrupt and, therefore, becomes unqualified to hold any office of trust.”
14. Clearly, there was non-disclosure of all material information. The objectors failed to disclose the existence of the matter now before the Court or the applicant's status. In my view, the conditions set out in section 76 of the Law of Succession Act have been met.
15. What of the application for a special limited grant? It is apparent to me that the applicant does not recognise the 1st objector as the deceased's spouse and seeks to exclude her, despite the chief's letter stating otherwise. She, like the 1st objector, seeks to gain an advantage by filing a petition for grant ad colligenda and by “creating facts” which the Court must subsequently validate. Allowing her application would muddy the waters and further complicate the matter.
16. Under those circumstances, I decline to allow the application. The interests of justice would be served by filing the petition for the full grant so that the beneficiaries' shares can be ascertained by the Court.
17. The orders that commend themselves to me are:-
1. I revoke the grant issued on 14th January 2026;
2. I decline to issue a grant ad colligenda bona to the applicant as sought in the petition dated 23rd September 2025;
3. I order and direct that the petitioner, Ratisia Kanake, and Mary Nungari Muiruri jointly file a petition for letters of administration intestate, listing themselves, Michelle and Elvis Mutegi as the beneficiaries of the estate. The petition shall be filed within 30 days of the date hereof; and
4. The matter to be mentioned before Visram J on 24th June 2026 for further directions.
18. As this is a family matter, I am of the view that an order as to costs would not be helpful. Consequently, I order that each party shall bear its own costs.
19. It is so ordered.
Dated and signed this 17th day of April 2026. Delivered virtually through Microsoft TEAMS.
2. In the grounds in support of the application before the Chuka High Court, the applicant averred that the deceased was an employee of the Kenya Port Authority at the time of his death and was entitled to pension, gratuity and other employment-related benefits. He was a member of Bandari DT Sacco.
3. The applicant identified herself, Michelle Kendi Mutegi, and Elvis Njagi Mutegi, as the only dependants of the deceased. She denied that Mary Nungari Muiruri was the deceased's wife and accused her of fraudulently obtaining a letter from the chief stating that Mary was a beneficiary of the deceased's estate, together with Michelle and Elvis, and that the applicant was excluded.
4. The application was opposed by the objectors. They filed a Notice of Motion dated 3rd October 2025, in which they objected to the territorial jurisdiction of the Chuka High Court. Alternatively, they sought to have the matter transferred to the Mombasa High Court. The application was compromised on 7th October 2025, when, with the parties' consent, the Court transferred the matter to Mombasa.
5. While the Petition was pending, the objectors filed a petition for a special limited grant dated 9th December 2025, supported by the joint affidavit of Ms Mary Nungari Muiruri and Michelle Kendi Mutegi, for the purpose of meeting and settling the school fees for the deceased’s 2 children and their upkeep. The application was allowed by this Court on 11th December 2025. A special limited grant under section 54 and the 5th Schedule of the Law of Succession Act was issued on 14th January 2026.
6. When the Petitioner became aware of the issuance of the special limited grant, she filed the Notice of Motion dated 11th February 2026 seeking to have it revoked on the grounds that the grant was obtained secretly, without disclosure of all the beneficiaries; that reliance was placed on the contested Chief’s letter; and that the proceedings leading to the issuance of the grant were defective in substance and involved concealment of material facts.
7. The summons was opposed by Mary Nungari Muiruri, who deposed to an affidavit on 10th March 2026, wherein she defended the grant issued to her. She averred that school fees were required. She stated that the Kenya Ports Authority had not released the funds to her, and as a result, one of the children was at risk of being sent away from school.
8. The petitioner filed written submissions dated 19th March 2026 in support of the Summons for Revocation of Grant dated 11th February 2026.
9. The petition for grant ad colligenda was also canvassed by way of written submissions. The petitioner's submissions are dated 14th January 2026. Those of the objector are dated 23rd January 2026.
10. I have considered the two applications before me, the responses thereto, and the written submissions of the parties. It would appear to me to be incontrovertible that:-
1. The deceased died intestate;
2. He held 2 children, Michelle and Elvis. Elvis is a minor
3. The deceased was survived by a mother, the applicant herein;
4. The applicant contends that Mary wasn’t the wife of the deceased.
11. I note that in the petition for a special limited grant dated 9th December 2025, no mention was made of the fact that this matter is contentious by the applicants. The applicants had a duty to disclose all material information, including, in particular, the contestation between the deceased's mother and Mary, so that the Court could consider the matter with the benefit of full knowledge. In my view, the objectors misled the Court into issuing a special, limited grant in their favour.
12. Under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act, the Court can revoke a grant which was issued fraudulently by the making of a false statement or the concealment from the Court of something material to the case. The power to revoke a grant may be made upon an application by any interested party or by the Court upon its own motion. In my view, the Court must revoke the grant issued on 14th January 2026, as it was so clearly sought by the applicants to steal a march on the applicant.
13. I rely on the decision of Musyoka 3 in the case of re Estate of Prisca Ong’ayo Nande (deceased) [2020] eKLR wherein he stated at paragraph 8 that:
“Under section 76, a court may revoke a grant so long as the grounds listed above are disclosed, either on its own motion or on the application of a party. A grant of letters of administration may be revoked on three general grounds. The first is where the process of obtaining the grant was attended by problems. The first would be where the process was defective, either because some mandatory procedural step was omitted, or the persons applying for representation was not competent or suitable for appointment, or the deceased died testate having made a valid will, and then a grant or letters of administration intestate was made instead of a grant of probate, or vice versa. It could also be that the process was marred by fraud and misrepresentation or concealment of matter, such as where some survivors are not disclosed, or the Applicant lies that he is a survivor when he is not, among other reasons. The second general ground is where the grant was obtained procedurally, but the administrator, thereafter, got into problems with the exercise of administration, such as where he fails to apply for confirmation of grant within the time allowed, or he fails to proceed diligently with administration, or fails to render accounts as and when required. The third general ground is where the grant has become useless and inoperative following subsequent circumstances, such as where a sole administrator dies leaving behind no administrator to carry on the exercise, or where the sole administrator loses the soundness of his mind for whatever reason or even becomes physically infirm to an extent of being unable to carry out his duties as administrator, or the sole administrator is adjudged bankrupt and, therefore, becomes unqualified to hold any office of trust.”
14. Clearly, there was non-disclosure of all material information. The objectors failed to disclose the existence of the matter now before the Court or the applicant's status. In my view, the conditions set out in section 76 of the Law of Succession Act have been met.
15. What of the application for a special limited grant? It is apparent to me that the applicant does not recognise the 1st objector as the deceased's spouse and seeks to exclude her, despite the chief's letter stating otherwise. She, like the 1st objector, seeks to gain an advantage by filing a petition for grant ad colligenda and by “creating facts” which the Court must subsequently validate. Allowing her application would muddy the waters and further complicate the matter.
16. Under those circumstances, I decline to allow the application. The interests of justice would be served by filing the petition for the full grant so that the beneficiaries' shares can be ascertained by the Court.
17. The orders that commend themselves to me are:-
1. I revoke the grant issued on 14th January 2026;
2. I decline to issue a grant ad colligenda bona to the applicant as sought in the petition dated 23rd September 2025;
3. I order and direct that the petitioner, Ratisia Kanake, and Mary Nungari Muiruri jointly file a petition for letters of administration intestate, listing themselves, Michelle and Elvis Mutegi as the beneficiaries of the estate. The petition shall be filed within 30 days of the date hereof; and
4. The matter to be mentioned before Visram J on 24th June 2026 for further directions.
18. As this is a family matter, I am of the view that an order as to costs would not be helpful. Consequently, I order that each party shall bear its own costs.
19. It is so ordered.
Dated and signed this 17th day of April 2026. Delivered virtually through Microsoft TEAMS.