1. Vide an application for Rectification dated 4th December 2025, the Administrators; Nancy Wairimu Munyua, Catherine Wanjiku Leiyan and Sarah Mumbi Kariuki, of the Estate of Naom Njeri Kariuki (Deceased) have made an application seeking one prayer; that the Grant of Letters of Administration Intestate made to them on 14th April 2022 and confirmed on 27th March, 2023 be rectified as provided for by Rule 43(1) of the Probate and Administration Rules to have the schedule amended, to include 2214 shares held by the deceased in KCB Group Plc and the shares to be distributed to the named beneficiaries, as indicated in the supporting affidavit herein.
2. The grounds are set out in the joint supporting affidavit sworn by Administrators herein. These grounds can be summarised as follows;
• The Grant of Letters of Administration Intestate made to Nancy Wairimu Munyua, Catherine Wanjiku Leiyan and Sarah Mumbi Kariuki on 14th April 2022 and confirmed on 27th March, 2023 as evidenced by a copy of the certificate of confirmation of Grant.
• At the time of the application for Grant of Letters of Administration and the confirmation of the Grant, the deceased’s 2214 shares in KCB Group Plc were omitted as evidenced by a letter from Image Registrars.
• The shares should be distributed as hereunder among the beneficiaries;
• Peter Kariuki Kamau-277 shares.
• Nancy Wairimu Munyua-276 shares.
• Willy Ribiru Kariuki-277 shares.
• Ruth Wambui Kiriu-277 shares.
• Catherine Wanjiku Leiyan-276 shares.
• Jimmy Gichinga Kariuki-277 shares.
• Mary Kagure Kariuki-277 shares.
• Sarah Mumbi Kariuki-277 shares.
3. Equally, annexed to the application for rectification is Consent to the mode of distribution of the Estate wherein all the beneficiaries have appended their signatures on 4th December, 2025.
Analysis and Determination:
4. In this matter, the Administrators are seeking to amend the Grant to include a property which was omitted, in error. Ideally, such an amendment would bring substantial changes to the certificate of confirmation of Grant as it would onboard a property not reflected in the confirmation of the Grant.
5. In Re-Estate of Charles Kibe Karanja (deceased) [2015] eKLR, the court said that, if a party wishes to have the assets of the estate redistributed or there is discovery of new assets that were not available or had not been discovered at the time of distribution, among others; it would be imprudent to seek rectification or alteration or amendment of the certificate of confirmation of Grant. Such changes are fundamental, not superficial. They go to the core of the distribution. They cannot be affected without touching the Orders made by the Court at the distribution of the Estate. Consequently, such changes cannot and should not be effected through a mere amendment of the certificate of confirmation of Grant. The proper approach ought to be an application for review of the orders made at the confirmation of the Grant. The remedy of review of Court orders is not directly provided for in the Law of Succession Act and the Probate and Administration Rules, but it is imported into probate practice by Rule 63 of Probate and Administration Rules, which has adopted a number of procedures from the Civil Procedure Rules. Where known assets are omitted from the schedule of the property to be distributed or the name of a known beneficiary or heir is inadvertently left out of the confirmation application, an application ought to be made for review of the confirmation orders to accommodate the said assets or beneficiaries on the basis that the said assets or heirs were left out by mistake or error. Where assets are discovered after the Court has confirmed the Grant or a heir or survivor of the deceased who had previously been unheard or materializes after distribution, the Court may review its orders made at the point of confirming the grant on the ground of discovery of new and important evidence that was not available at the time the grant was being confirmed. New assets cannot be introduced and distributed by merely rectifying the certificate of confirmation of grant. That calls for going back to the distribution orders, so as to have them altered or revised. It is only after review or revision of the said orders that an altered certificate of confirmation of grant can issue.
6. The issue of rectification of grant has been addressed in various decisions in the High Court which I have considered here as persuasive authorities. In the matter of the Estate of Hasalon Mwangi Kahero [2013] Eklr, the court said that an error is essentially a mistake. For the purposes of Section 74 and Rule 43, it must relate to a name or description or time and place of the deceased’s death, or the purpose of a limited grant. Is an omission of a name or in the description of a thing an error? It would be an error if say, a word in the full name of a person is omitted or a word or number or figure in a description is omitted. But where the full name of a person or a full description of a thing or property is omitted, it would be stretching the meaning of the word “error” too far to say that that would amount to the error or mistake envisaged in Section 74 and Rule 43.
7. Similarly, In the Matter of the Estate of Geoffrey Kinuthia Nyamwinga (Deceased) [2013] eKLR, the court said that the law on rectification or alteration of grants is Section 74 of the Law of Succession Act and Rule 43 of the Probate and Administration Rules….What these provisions mean is that errors may be rectified by the court where they relate to names or descriptions, or setting out the time or place of the deceased’s death. The effect is that the power to order rectification is limited to those situations, and therefore the power given to the court by these provisions is not general….Where a proposed amendment of a grant cannot be dealt with under the provisions of Section 74 of the Law of Succession Act, the applicant ought to approach the court under order 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules. A review under Order 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules may be sought upon discovery of new and important matter or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any sufficient reason. The applicant in this case should have moved the court under this provision-Order 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and on the ground that there exists a sufficient reason for review of the certificate of the confirmation of the grant.
8. In this application, the Petitioners have made an application under Rule 43(1) of the Probate and Administration Rules. This rule is read together with section 74 of the Law of Succession Act. These two provisions govern rectification and alteration of Grant. Section74 provides that errors in names and descriptions, or in setting out the time and place of the deceased’s death, or the purpose in a limited grant, may be rectified by the court. Rule 43(1) of the Probate and Administration Rules enacts that where the holder of a grant seeks pursuant to the provisions of section 74 of the Act rectification of an error in the grant as to the names or descriptions of any person or thing or as to the time or place of the death of the deceased, or in the case of a limited grant, the purpose for which the grant was made, he shall apply by summons.
9. It is clear that under rectification, it does not include a property that was left out either by omission or in error during the confirmation of the Grant. This sounds like a technicality but the hard fact of life is, that is how the law provides for devolution of a deceased’s property. Additionally, I may say, introduction a new asset into a certificate of confirmation of Grant, one has to make a formal application for review under Order 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules as read together with Rule 63 of Probate and Administration Rules.
10. In respect to the matter at hand, I have perused the proceedings having been instituted in the year 2021 and the file keeps on growing in volume and yet there is no protest in the file. In the premises, and taking into consideration that, the mode of distribution is not in issue, this court is enjoined to bring the agony the family members have undergone since the death of the deceased, to an end. I do hereby find that under Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules, it is only fair that the orders sought in the summons dated 4th December, 2025 be granted which I do hereby grant.
11. It is so ordered.
Delivered virtually this 9th June, 2026 in the presence of the Administrators, beneficiaries and Brian-Court Assistant.
2. The grounds are set out in the joint supporting affidavit sworn by Administrators herein. These grounds can be summarised as follows;
• The Grant of Letters of Administration Intestate made to Nancy Wairimu Munyua, Catherine Wanjiku Leiyan and Sarah Mumbi Kariuki on 14th April 2022 and confirmed on 27th March, 2023 as evidenced by a copy of the certificate of confirmation of Grant.
• At the time of the application for Grant of Letters of Administration and the confirmation of the Grant, the deceased’s 2214 shares in KCB Group Plc were omitted as evidenced by a letter from Image Registrars.
• The shares should be distributed as hereunder among the beneficiaries;
• Peter Kariuki Kamau-277 shares.
• Nancy Wairimu Munyua-276 shares.
• Willy Ribiru Kariuki-277 shares.
• Ruth Wambui Kiriu-277 shares.
• Catherine Wanjiku Leiyan-276 shares.
• Jimmy Gichinga Kariuki-277 shares.
• Mary Kagure Kariuki-277 shares.
• Sarah Mumbi Kariuki-277 shares.
3. Equally, annexed to the application for rectification is Consent to the mode of distribution of the Estate wherein all the beneficiaries have appended their signatures on 4th December, 2025.
Analysis and Determination:
4. In this matter, the Administrators are seeking to amend the Grant to include a property which was omitted, in error. Ideally, such an amendment would bring substantial changes to the certificate of confirmation of Grant as it would onboard a property not reflected in the confirmation of the Grant.
5. In Re-Estate of Charles Kibe Karanja (deceased) [2015] eKLR, the court said that, if a party wishes to have the assets of the estate redistributed or there is discovery of new assets that were not available or had not been discovered at the time of distribution, among others; it would be imprudent to seek rectification or alteration or amendment of the certificate of confirmation of Grant. Such changes are fundamental, not superficial. They go to the core of the distribution. They cannot be affected without touching the Orders made by the Court at the distribution of the Estate. Consequently, such changes cannot and should not be effected through a mere amendment of the certificate of confirmation of Grant. The proper approach ought to be an application for review of the orders made at the confirmation of the Grant. The remedy of review of Court orders is not directly provided for in the Law of Succession Act and the Probate and Administration Rules, but it is imported into probate practice by Rule 63 of Probate and Administration Rules, which has adopted a number of procedures from the Civil Procedure Rules. Where known assets are omitted from the schedule of the property to be distributed or the name of a known beneficiary or heir is inadvertently left out of the confirmation application, an application ought to be made for review of the confirmation orders to accommodate the said assets or beneficiaries on the basis that the said assets or heirs were left out by mistake or error. Where assets are discovered after the Court has confirmed the Grant or a heir or survivor of the deceased who had previously been unheard or materializes after distribution, the Court may review its orders made at the point of confirming the grant on the ground of discovery of new and important evidence that was not available at the time the grant was being confirmed. New assets cannot be introduced and distributed by merely rectifying the certificate of confirmation of grant. That calls for going back to the distribution orders, so as to have them altered or revised. It is only after review or revision of the said orders that an altered certificate of confirmation of grant can issue.
6. The issue of rectification of grant has been addressed in various decisions in the High Court which I have considered here as persuasive authorities. In the matter of the Estate of Hasalon Mwangi Kahero [2013] Eklr, the court said that an error is essentially a mistake. For the purposes of Section 74 and Rule 43, it must relate to a name or description or time and place of the deceased’s death, or the purpose of a limited grant. Is an omission of a name or in the description of a thing an error? It would be an error if say, a word in the full name of a person is omitted or a word or number or figure in a description is omitted. But where the full name of a person or a full description of a thing or property is omitted, it would be stretching the meaning of the word “error” too far to say that that would amount to the error or mistake envisaged in Section 74 and Rule 43.
7. Similarly, In the Matter of the Estate of Geoffrey Kinuthia Nyamwinga (Deceased) [2013] eKLR, the court said that the law on rectification or alteration of grants is Section 74 of the Law of Succession Act and Rule 43 of the Probate and Administration Rules….What these provisions mean is that errors may be rectified by the court where they relate to names or descriptions, or setting out the time or place of the deceased’s death. The effect is that the power to order rectification is limited to those situations, and therefore the power given to the court by these provisions is not general….Where a proposed amendment of a grant cannot be dealt with under the provisions of Section 74 of the Law of Succession Act, the applicant ought to approach the court under order 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules. A review under Order 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules may be sought upon discovery of new and important matter or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any sufficient reason. The applicant in this case should have moved the court under this provision-Order 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and on the ground that there exists a sufficient reason for review of the certificate of the confirmation of the grant.
8. In this application, the Petitioners have made an application under Rule 43(1) of the Probate and Administration Rules. This rule is read together with section 74 of the Law of Succession Act. These two provisions govern rectification and alteration of Grant. Section74 provides that errors in names and descriptions, or in setting out the time and place of the deceased’s death, or the purpose in a limited grant, may be rectified by the court. Rule 43(1) of the Probate and Administration Rules enacts that where the holder of a grant seeks pursuant to the provisions of section 74 of the Act rectification of an error in the grant as to the names or descriptions of any person or thing or as to the time or place of the death of the deceased, or in the case of a limited grant, the purpose for which the grant was made, he shall apply by summons.
9. It is clear that under rectification, it does not include a property that was left out either by omission or in error during the confirmation of the Grant. This sounds like a technicality but the hard fact of life is, that is how the law provides for devolution of a deceased’s property. Additionally, I may say, introduction a new asset into a certificate of confirmation of Grant, one has to make a formal application for review under Order 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules as read together with Rule 63 of Probate and Administration Rules.
10. In respect to the matter at hand, I have perused the proceedings having been instituted in the year 2021 and the file keeps on growing in volume and yet there is no protest in the file. In the premises, and taking into consideration that, the mode of distribution is not in issue, this court is enjoined to bring the agony the family members have undergone since the death of the deceased, to an end. I do hereby find that under Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules, it is only fair that the orders sought in the summons dated 4th December, 2025 be granted which I do hereby grant.
11. It is so ordered.
Delivered virtually this 9th June, 2026 in the presence of the Administrators, beneficiaries and Brian-Court Assistant.