1. The deceased, Fatuma El-Amin Mohamed, died on 19th March 2024 at the Coast General Hospital. At the time of her death, she was 75 years old. The death certificate no. 1873778 lists her residence at the time of death as Ganjoni.
2. Muhideen Sheikh Mohamed and Abdulkadir Jaylan Sheikh Mohamed Noor, both of P.O Box 16482 – 80100 Mombasa, petitioned the Court for the grant of letters of administration intestate on the ground that they were the sons of the deceased. They identified the following as the dependants of the deceased:
i. Sheikh Mohamed Noor – The deceased’s husband
ii. Mohamed Sheikh Noor – son
iii. Muhideen Sheikh Mohamed – son
iv. Hajra Sheikh Mohamed Noor – Daughter
v. Abdulkadir Jaylan Sheikh Mohamed Noor – son
The petitioners listed the deceased's properties, whose value was stated as Kes. 50,000,000. The petition was supported by a letter from the chief of Old Town Location, Mombasa, dated 5th April 2024.
3. The consent form dated 9 April 2024 was allegedly signed by 3 beneficiaries/dependants in support of the petitioners' appointment as administrators of the estate.
4. The petition was gazetted on 19th April 2024. There being no objection, and upon effluxion of 30 days from the date of gazettement, the grant was issued to Muhideen Sheikh Mohamed and Abdulkadir Jaylan Sheikh Mohamed Noor on 18th June 2024. The grant stated that the same was due for confirmation on 19th December 2024.
5. Vide summons dated 25th November 2024, Abdulrahman Mohamed Al-Amin objected to the grant and sought to have it revoked on 2 grounds; firstly, that the petitioners passed off the properties of the estate of Mohamed Mohamed Al-Amin as belonging to the deceased, and, secondly that they forged the signature of Mohamed Sheikh Noor purporting that he was aware and or consented to the petition for grant of representation. The said objector is the administrator of the estate of Mohamed Mohamed Al-Amin. He deposed in his affidavit that unless the grant was revoked the heirs of the estate of Mohamed Mohamed Al-Amin would be prejudiced. He contended that Mohamed Sheikh Noor's signature was forged.
6. The application was opposed by the administrators. In his affidavit, Muhideen Sheikh Mohamed conceded that his mother’s estate comprised a share in the estate of her deceased father, the late Mohamed Mohamed Al-Amin, not the whole of it. He contended that, contrary to what was stated by the objector/applicant, her brother had not renounced his signature on the petition. He insisted that the signature was that of Mohamed Sheikh Noor.
7. The summons was supported by Mohamed Sheikh Noor, who made a sworn deposition dated 4th December 2024, in which he denied signing the affidavit. In the stated deposition, he stated that the listed properties belonged to the estate of Mohamed Mohamed Al-Amin and that, at the time of her demise, their mother was a joint administrator with the objector. He prayed that the summons for the Revocation of the grant be allowed as prayed.
8. In response, Muhideen filed an affidavit, sworn on 12th February 2025, in which he accused his brother, Mohamed Sheikh Noor, of lying. He contended that all the issues regarding the administration of their mother’s estate were discussed in WhatsApp groups called “Mummy’s 4 Musketeers” and that Mohamed Sheikh Noor agreed with the proposal and signed the petition.
9. Sheikh Mohamed Noor, the spouse of the deceased, supported the petitioners and averred that his son, Mohamed Sheikh Noor, was lying
10. The matter proceeded by way of viva voce evidence.
11. The parties filed written submissions. Those of the objector/Applicant are dated 16th December 2026. On the other hand, those for counsel for Mohamed Sheikh Noor are dated 8th December 2025, while those of the petitioners are dated 20th January 2026. I have considered all the submissions carefully.
12. I will first set out the facts that aren’t in dispute:
1. The deceased was married to Sheikh Mohamed Noor, with whom he had 4 children, the 2 administrators, Mohamed Sheikh Noor and Hajra, the only daughter;
2. The deceased was a beneficiary of the estate of her father, Mohamed Mohamed Al-Amin, who is deceased; and
3. Her father’s estate has other beneficiaries, apart from the deceased. The estate of the deceased’s father owns the properties wrongly listed as belonging to Fatuma El-Amin Mohamed in the Petition for the grant of representation filed herein.
13. The applicant does not claim a share of the deceased’s estate, nor does he deny that her sister, Fatuma, was entitled to a share of the estate of Mohamed Mohamed Al-Amin. From what I can tell, his worry arises from the application made by Muhideen, by which he sought to be made a co-administrator of his grandfather’s estate. Abdulrahman is afraid that if that is done, the other beneficiaries of Muhideen’s grandfather’s estate may be prejudiced. Although his fears appear to me to be unfounded, as Muhideen would only take the role his mother had, I am of the view that succession matters must be treated with due sensitivity.
14. I note that this Court has the discretion to revoke grants under section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. It is necessary that I quote, in extenso, the said section so that it can be properly understood:
“A grant of representation, whether or not confirmed, may at any time be revoked or annulled if the court decides, either on application by any interested party or of its own motion—
(a)that the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance;
(b)that the grant was obtained fraudulently by the making of a false statement or by the concealment from the court of something material to the case;
(c)that the grant was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant, notwithstanding that the allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently;
(d)that the person to whom the grant was made has failed, after due notice and without reasonable cause, either-
(i)to apply for confirmation of the grant within one year from the date thereof, or such longer period as the court order or allow; or
(ii)to proceed diligently with the administration of the estate; or
(iii)to produce to the court, within the time prescribed, any such inventory or account of administration as is required by the provisions of paragraphs (e) and (g) of section 83 or has produced any such inventory or account which is false in any material particular; or
(e)that the grant has become useless and inoperative through subsequent circumstances.”
15. The power to revoke grants is an exercise of judicial discretion by the Court. Like with all exercises of discretion, the Court must act judiciously and not on whimsy or caprice. I am guided by what Mwita, J (as he then was) stated in the case of Albert Imbuga Kisigwa v Recho Kavai Kisigwa [2016] KEHC 1528 (KLR). In the said case, the learned judge succinctly stated as follows:-
“13. Power to revoke a grant is a discretionary power that must be exercised judiciously and only on sound grounds. It is not a discretion to be exercised whimsically or capriciously. There must be evidence of wrongdoing for the court to invoke section 76 and order to revoke or annul a grant. And when a court is called upon to exercise this discretion, it must take into account interests of all beneficiaries entitled to the deceased’s estate and ensure that the action taken will be for the interest of justice.”
16. The grounds upon which a grant may be revoked under section 76 of the Law of Succession Act have been discussed in a plethora of decisions. In the oft-cited case of In re Estate of Prisca Ong’ayo Nande (Deceased) [2020] KEHC 6553 (KLR), Musyoka, J stated as follows:-
“8. 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 the 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.”
17. Under Section 76(b) of the Act, a grant may be revoked if the same was a product of fraud. In this case, Mohamed Sheikh Noor has disowned the signature he allegedly made on the consent and has made a deposition stating that the signature on the consent is not his. His statement is corroborated by the document examiner’s report.
18. His contention was rejected by his brother and father, who averred that he signed the consent document. This appears to be borne out by extracts from WhatsApp discussions, which indicate that, prior to the filing of the petition, siblings discussed how their mother’s estate would be managed.
19. Given the contentious nature of the matter, what position should the Court take? Although it would appear to me that Mohamed Sheikh Noor did, in fact, sign the consent, I am more inclined to make a decision that will promote harmony and reconciliation. This would call for revoking the grant so that the family members can start from scratch and reach unanimity among themselves. That way, they would also be able to correct the glaring errors in the description of the deceased's properties, which the counsel for the petitioners/respondents admitted existed.
20. In the circumstances, I allow the Summons for revocation of the grant dated 25th November 2024. I revoke the grant issued on 19th December 2024 to Muhideen Sheikh Mohamed and Abdulkadir Jaylan Sheikh Mohamed Noor. I direct that Sheikh Mohamed Noor (the widower) and Muhideen Sheikh Mohamed jointly petition this Court for a grant of representation within 30 days of the date hereof.
21. Since this is a family matter, each party shall bear his own costs.
22. It is so ordered.
Dated and signed in Nairobi, this 23rd day of April 2026. Delivered virtually through Microsoft TEAMS.
2. Muhideen Sheikh Mohamed and Abdulkadir Jaylan Sheikh Mohamed Noor, both of P.O Box 16482 – 80100 Mombasa, petitioned the Court for the grant of letters of administration intestate on the ground that they were the sons of the deceased. They identified the following as the dependants of the deceased:
i. Sheikh Mohamed Noor – The deceased’s husband
ii. Mohamed Sheikh Noor – son
iii. Muhideen Sheikh Mohamed – son
iv. Hajra Sheikh Mohamed Noor – Daughter
v. Abdulkadir Jaylan Sheikh Mohamed Noor – son
The petitioners listed the deceased's properties, whose value was stated as Kes. 50,000,000. The petition was supported by a letter from the chief of Old Town Location, Mombasa, dated 5th April 2024.
3. The consent form dated 9 April 2024 was allegedly signed by 3 beneficiaries/dependants in support of the petitioners' appointment as administrators of the estate.
4. The petition was gazetted on 19th April 2024. There being no objection, and upon effluxion of 30 days from the date of gazettement, the grant was issued to Muhideen Sheikh Mohamed and Abdulkadir Jaylan Sheikh Mohamed Noor on 18th June 2024. The grant stated that the same was due for confirmation on 19th December 2024.
5. Vide summons dated 25th November 2024, Abdulrahman Mohamed Al-Amin objected to the grant and sought to have it revoked on 2 grounds; firstly, that the petitioners passed off the properties of the estate of Mohamed Mohamed Al-Amin as belonging to the deceased, and, secondly that they forged the signature of Mohamed Sheikh Noor purporting that he was aware and or consented to the petition for grant of representation. The said objector is the administrator of the estate of Mohamed Mohamed Al-Amin. He deposed in his affidavit that unless the grant was revoked the heirs of the estate of Mohamed Mohamed Al-Amin would be prejudiced. He contended that Mohamed Sheikh Noor's signature was forged.
6. The application was opposed by the administrators. In his affidavit, Muhideen Sheikh Mohamed conceded that his mother’s estate comprised a share in the estate of her deceased father, the late Mohamed Mohamed Al-Amin, not the whole of it. He contended that, contrary to what was stated by the objector/applicant, her brother had not renounced his signature on the petition. He insisted that the signature was that of Mohamed Sheikh Noor.
7. The summons was supported by Mohamed Sheikh Noor, who made a sworn deposition dated 4th December 2024, in which he denied signing the affidavit. In the stated deposition, he stated that the listed properties belonged to the estate of Mohamed Mohamed Al-Amin and that, at the time of her demise, their mother was a joint administrator with the objector. He prayed that the summons for the Revocation of the grant be allowed as prayed.
8. In response, Muhideen filed an affidavit, sworn on 12th February 2025, in which he accused his brother, Mohamed Sheikh Noor, of lying. He contended that all the issues regarding the administration of their mother’s estate were discussed in WhatsApp groups called “Mummy’s 4 Musketeers” and that Mohamed Sheikh Noor agreed with the proposal and signed the petition.
9. Sheikh Mohamed Noor, the spouse of the deceased, supported the petitioners and averred that his son, Mohamed Sheikh Noor, was lying
10. The matter proceeded by way of viva voce evidence.
11. The parties filed written submissions. Those of the objector/Applicant are dated 16th December 2026. On the other hand, those for counsel for Mohamed Sheikh Noor are dated 8th December 2025, while those of the petitioners are dated 20th January 2026. I have considered all the submissions carefully.
12. I will first set out the facts that aren’t in dispute:
1. The deceased was married to Sheikh Mohamed Noor, with whom he had 4 children, the 2 administrators, Mohamed Sheikh Noor and Hajra, the only daughter;
2. The deceased was a beneficiary of the estate of her father, Mohamed Mohamed Al-Amin, who is deceased; and
3. Her father’s estate has other beneficiaries, apart from the deceased. The estate of the deceased’s father owns the properties wrongly listed as belonging to Fatuma El-Amin Mohamed in the Petition for the grant of representation filed herein.
13. The applicant does not claim a share of the deceased’s estate, nor does he deny that her sister, Fatuma, was entitled to a share of the estate of Mohamed Mohamed Al-Amin. From what I can tell, his worry arises from the application made by Muhideen, by which he sought to be made a co-administrator of his grandfather’s estate. Abdulrahman is afraid that if that is done, the other beneficiaries of Muhideen’s grandfather’s estate may be prejudiced. Although his fears appear to me to be unfounded, as Muhideen would only take the role his mother had, I am of the view that succession matters must be treated with due sensitivity.
14. I note that this Court has the discretion to revoke grants under section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. It is necessary that I quote, in extenso, the said section so that it can be properly understood:
“A grant of representation, whether or not confirmed, may at any time be revoked or annulled if the court decides, either on application by any interested party or of its own motion—
(a)that the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance;
(b)that the grant was obtained fraudulently by the making of a false statement or by the concealment from the court of something material to the case;
(c)that the grant was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant, notwithstanding that the allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently;
(d)that the person to whom the grant was made has failed, after due notice and without reasonable cause, either-
(i)to apply for confirmation of the grant within one year from the date thereof, or such longer period as the court order or allow; or
(ii)to proceed diligently with the administration of the estate; or
(iii)to produce to the court, within the time prescribed, any such inventory or account of administration as is required by the provisions of paragraphs (e) and (g) of section 83 or has produced any such inventory or account which is false in any material particular; or
(e)that the grant has become useless and inoperative through subsequent circumstances.”
15. The power to revoke grants is an exercise of judicial discretion by the Court. Like with all exercises of discretion, the Court must act judiciously and not on whimsy or caprice. I am guided by what Mwita, J (as he then was) stated in the case of Albert Imbuga Kisigwa v Recho Kavai Kisigwa [2016] KEHC 1528 (KLR). In the said case, the learned judge succinctly stated as follows:-
“13. Power to revoke a grant is a discretionary power that must be exercised judiciously and only on sound grounds. It is not a discretion to be exercised whimsically or capriciously. There must be evidence of wrongdoing for the court to invoke section 76 and order to revoke or annul a grant. And when a court is called upon to exercise this discretion, it must take into account interests of all beneficiaries entitled to the deceased’s estate and ensure that the action taken will be for the interest of justice.”
16. The grounds upon which a grant may be revoked under section 76 of the Law of Succession Act have been discussed in a plethora of decisions. In the oft-cited case of In re Estate of Prisca Ong’ayo Nande (Deceased) [2020] KEHC 6553 (KLR), Musyoka, J stated as follows:-
“8. 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 the 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.”
17. Under Section 76(b) of the Act, a grant may be revoked if the same was a product of fraud. In this case, Mohamed Sheikh Noor has disowned the signature he allegedly made on the consent and has made a deposition stating that the signature on the consent is not his. His statement is corroborated by the document examiner’s report.
18. His contention was rejected by his brother and father, who averred that he signed the consent document. This appears to be borne out by extracts from WhatsApp discussions, which indicate that, prior to the filing of the petition, siblings discussed how their mother’s estate would be managed.
19. Given the contentious nature of the matter, what position should the Court take? Although it would appear to me that Mohamed Sheikh Noor did, in fact, sign the consent, I am more inclined to make a decision that will promote harmony and reconciliation. This would call for revoking the grant so that the family members can start from scratch and reach unanimity among themselves. That way, they would also be able to correct the glaring errors in the description of the deceased's properties, which the counsel for the petitioners/respondents admitted existed.
20. In the circumstances, I allow the Summons for revocation of the grant dated 25th November 2024. I revoke the grant issued on 19th December 2024 to Muhideen Sheikh Mohamed and Abdulkadir Jaylan Sheikh Mohamed Noor. I direct that Sheikh Mohamed Noor (the widower) and Muhideen Sheikh Mohamed jointly petition this Court for a grant of representation within 30 days of the date hereof.
21. Since this is a family matter, each party shall bear his own costs.
22. It is so ordered.
Dated and signed in Nairobi, this 23rd day of April 2026. Delivered virtually through Microsoft TEAMS.