1. This succession cause relates to the estate of the Late Kiragu Stanley John, who died intestate on 30 th July, 2021.
2. Following his demise, Dalphine Kagwiria Gitonga (petitioner)petitioned the Court for a Grant ad colligenda bona. On 9th August, 2021, the Court allowed the petition and ordered that the special limited grant be issued in favour of the petitioner, valid for 90 days and limited to collecting and receiving the estate pending issuance of a full grant. The petitioner stated in her petition that she is the widow of the deceased and a beneficiary of his estate, along with Eric Bobby Maina and Tiffany Mawia Munyao, who are the deceased’s children.
3. On 11 th August, 2021, Eric Bobby Maina (1 st applicant) filed a summons seeking the revocation of the limited grant. In the summons, Eric stated that he is the only surviving beneficiary of his late father’s estate, as both his mother, Priscilla W. Macharia, who was the deceased’s wife, and his brother, Kenneth M. Kiragu, are also deceased. He refuted the claim that Dalphine was the deceased’s widow. He also averred that he was a co-owner with the deceased of several assets that Dalphine had cited as belonging to the estate.
4. The matter was thereafter fixed for viva voce hearing of the summons for revocation. The 1 st applicant testified and called two other witnesses. He closed his case on 11 th May, 2022. The petitioner’s case is yet to be taken, but two witnesses had testified in her case (petitioner’s).
5. As the matter was pending further hearing, two additional applications were filed seeking revocation of the limited grant. The second application is dated 21 st November, 2025, filed by Elisabeth Wanjiku Njuguna (2 nd applicant), who states that she is a widow of the deceased and the third application is similarly dated 21 st November, 2025 and filed by Joseph Osoro (3 rd applicant) who states that he is a son of the deceased.
6. The court gave directions that the matter proceed from where it had reached and that trial bundles be filed.
7. The present ruling is on two applications filed by the 2 nd and 3 rd applicants seeking orders that the matter starts afresh (de novo).
8. The second applicant, in her application dated 16th March 2026, states her desire to cross-examine the witnesses who have testified. The third applicant’s application, dated 19th March 2026, seeks similar orders, contending that he too did not take part in the earlier proceedings.
9. The petitioner opposed the applications and filed a replying affidavit dated 30 th March, 2026.
10. The 1 st applicant is not opposed to the applications for a de novo hearing.
11. I have reviewed the applications and the affidavits on record. Although the three applications for revocation all seek the same outcome (revocation of the limited grant), they are filed by three different parties and contain separate claims. Each party is asserting independently and not on behalf of or in conjunction with the others.
12. I have also taken into consideration that the matter has been in court since 2021, and the parties are still litigating over the limited grant. This grant does not administer or distribute the estate of the deceased; it is solely focused on collecting and receiving the assets. As such, the substantive succession proceedings for the main grant in relation to the estate have not yet commenced.
13. I have also considered that, at the point when the 2nd and 3rd applicants joined the proceedings, the petitioner’s case had not yet been taken. The 2nd and 3rd applicants still have an opportunity to present their case before the petitioner’s case can proceed further.
14. Given the above circumstances, I do not consider it necessary at this stage to commence de novo. Such an action would likely result in unnecessary delays in the resolution of the case, which would not serve the interests of justice. No party is prejudiced, as each still has an opportunity to present their case. It is in the best interests of all parties involved to continue with the current proceedings rather than commence de novo.
15. The applications dated 16 th March, 2026 and 19 th March, 2026 are dismissed. Costs of the two applications shall abide by the outcome of the case.
16. On 3 rd February, 2026, leave was granted to the applicants to file Further Affidavits. As none are on record, the court exercises its discretion and allows them to file the Further Affidavits, together with any additional documentation, within 21 days.
17. Orders accordingly.
DATED, DELIVERED and SIGNED at NAIROBI on this 31st day of JULY, 2026.
C. KENDAGOR
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Court Assistant: Beryl
Ms. Nabende Advocate for the Petitioner
Ms. Ms. Amwama Advocate for the 1 st Applicant
Mr. Buluma Advocate for the 2 nd Applicant
Ms. Korir Advocate for the 3 rd Applicant
2. Following his demise, Dalphine Kagwiria Gitonga (petitioner)petitioned the Court for a Grant ad colligenda bona. On 9th August, 2021, the Court allowed the petition and ordered that the special limited grant be issued in favour of the petitioner, valid for 90 days and limited to collecting and receiving the estate pending issuance of a full grant. The petitioner stated in her petition that she is the widow of the deceased and a beneficiary of his estate, along with Eric Bobby Maina and Tiffany Mawia Munyao, who are the deceased’s children.
3. On 11 th August, 2021, Eric Bobby Maina (1 st applicant) filed a summons seeking the revocation of the limited grant. In the summons, Eric stated that he is the only surviving beneficiary of his late father’s estate, as both his mother, Priscilla W. Macharia, who was the deceased’s wife, and his brother, Kenneth M. Kiragu, are also deceased. He refuted the claim that Dalphine was the deceased’s widow. He also averred that he was a co-owner with the deceased of several assets that Dalphine had cited as belonging to the estate.
4. The matter was thereafter fixed for viva voce hearing of the summons for revocation. The 1 st applicant testified and called two other witnesses. He closed his case on 11 th May, 2022. The petitioner’s case is yet to be taken, but two witnesses had testified in her case (petitioner’s).
5. As the matter was pending further hearing, two additional applications were filed seeking revocation of the limited grant. The second application is dated 21 st November, 2025, filed by Elisabeth Wanjiku Njuguna (2 nd applicant), who states that she is a widow of the deceased and the third application is similarly dated 21 st November, 2025 and filed by Joseph Osoro (3 rd applicant) who states that he is a son of the deceased.
6. The court gave directions that the matter proceed from where it had reached and that trial bundles be filed.
7. The present ruling is on two applications filed by the 2 nd and 3 rd applicants seeking orders that the matter starts afresh (de novo).
8. The second applicant, in her application dated 16th March 2026, states her desire to cross-examine the witnesses who have testified. The third applicant’s application, dated 19th March 2026, seeks similar orders, contending that he too did not take part in the earlier proceedings.
9. The petitioner opposed the applications and filed a replying affidavit dated 30 th March, 2026.
10. The 1 st applicant is not opposed to the applications for a de novo hearing.
11. I have reviewed the applications and the affidavits on record. Although the three applications for revocation all seek the same outcome (revocation of the limited grant), they are filed by three different parties and contain separate claims. Each party is asserting independently and not on behalf of or in conjunction with the others.
12. I have also taken into consideration that the matter has been in court since 2021, and the parties are still litigating over the limited grant. This grant does not administer or distribute the estate of the deceased; it is solely focused on collecting and receiving the assets. As such, the substantive succession proceedings for the main grant in relation to the estate have not yet commenced.
13. I have also considered that, at the point when the 2nd and 3rd applicants joined the proceedings, the petitioner’s case had not yet been taken. The 2nd and 3rd applicants still have an opportunity to present their case before the petitioner’s case can proceed further.
14. Given the above circumstances, I do not consider it necessary at this stage to commence de novo. Such an action would likely result in unnecessary delays in the resolution of the case, which would not serve the interests of justice. No party is prejudiced, as each still has an opportunity to present their case. It is in the best interests of all parties involved to continue with the current proceedings rather than commence de novo.
15. The applications dated 16 th March, 2026 and 19 th March, 2026 are dismissed. Costs of the two applications shall abide by the outcome of the case.
16. On 3 rd February, 2026, leave was granted to the applicants to file Further Affidavits. As none are on record, the court exercises its discretion and allows them to file the Further Affidavits, together with any additional documentation, within 21 days.
17. Orders accordingly.
DATED, DELIVERED and SIGNED at NAIROBI on this 31st day of JULY, 2026.
C. KENDAGOR
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Court Assistant: Beryl
Ms. Nabende Advocate for the Petitioner
Ms. Ms. Amwama Advocate for the 1 st Applicant
Mr. Buluma Advocate for the 2 nd Applicant
Ms. Korir Advocate for the 3 rd Applicant