1. In a ruling delivered on 6th March 2024, this court invalidated an alleged last will and testament of the deceased, Walji Narayan Mulji Patel, dated 29th September 2020. The court’s reason for doing so was its finding that the decedent lacked testamentary capacity at the time he was supposed to have signed the will, due to physical and mental incapacity, and that there was importunity, as the decedent was under the undue influence of Mr Vinodkumar Lalji Varsani.
2. The court found that the deceased was survived by a widow, 3 daughters, 2 sons and the estate of his deceased son Visram Patel.
3. Having invalidated the alleged will, the court deemed the succession to the decedent’s estate to be intestate. At paragraph 113 of the ruling, the court stated as follows:-
“To preserve the estate, I direct that the 1st Objector/Applicant, Kanji Valji Naran Patel and the 2nd Petitioner/Respondent, Bhanuben Hirani, file a joint petition for letters of administration intestate within 30 days of the date of the ruling.”
4. Despite the directions issued by the court, no petition has been filed to date. The objectors/applicants and the 2nd Petitioner/Respondent are unable to agree on who, between them, was responsible for the impasse: whether it was Bhanuben Hirani (hereafter “Bhanuben”), as alleged by the objectors/applicants, or the objectors/applicants, as alleged by Bhanuben.
5. It must be stated that Bhanuben Hirani and Mr Vinodkumar Varsani, both of whom were the executors of the alleged will, were aggrieved by the decision this court made and filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal. As of the date of this ruling, the appeal is pending determination by the said court.
6. Vide an application dated 27th May 2025, the objectors/applicants seek the following orders:-
1. The order made on 8th March 2024 be and is hereby reviewed to the extent that Bhanuben Hirani be and is hereby substituted with Jiten Vishram Valji Naran Patel;
2. Upon the said substitution, Jiten Vishram Valji Patel to file a petition for letters of administration intestate within 30 days of this order; and
3. The costs of this application be borne by Bhanuben Hirani.
7. The application is brought under sections 47 and 66 of the Law of Succession Act, Rule 49 of the Probate & Administration Rules, Order 45 Rules (1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, and Section 159 of the Constitution of Kenya. The objectors/applicants contend that, pursuant to the ruling, they prepared a draft joint petition for letters of administration intestate within 30 days of the ruling, but that Bhanuben declined to sign after promising to do so and instead approached the Court of Appeal. The objectors/applicants saw her decision to file an appeal as an expression of her innate intention not to comply with the court orders.
8. They propose that Jiten Vishram Valji Patel, the second son of Visram Valji Patel (deceased), be appointed by the court as the person to file the petition together with their uncle, Kanji Valji Naran Patel. They contend that it would be in the estate's interest for that to be done. The objectors/applicants aver that Jiten was close to the deceased and took care of him prior to his demise.
9. It is evident from the affidavit of Ketan Visram Valji Patel (hereafter “Ketan”) that there was extensive consultation between the parties regarding the execution of the draft petition, as Ketan confirms in paragraphs 5, 7, 11, 12 and 13 of his affidavit. The parties appear to have disagreed on which beneficiaries and properties would be included in the petition.
10. What triggered the application appears to be the decision of the petitioners/respondents to seek a stay at the Court of Appeal. It was urged that such action was inconsistent with Bhanuben’s status as the person directed by the Court to file the petition.
11. In a response, Bhanuben made a sworn deposition on 12th July 2025, in which, while stating that she was desirous of executing the petition, averred that upon delivery of the court’s ruling they filed a Notice of Appeal on 15th March 2024 and that the same was served on Oluga & Co. Advocates on the same date. She contended that the petitioners/respondents have a right to appeal against the decision of this court. Bhanuben stated that their application for a stay, filed with the Court of Appeal, was necessitated by concerns about the annulment of the deceased’s will.
12. Bhanuben accused the objectors/applicants’ counsel of delay in finalizing the drafting of the petition. She averred that the execution of the petition was delayed due to disagreements over the listing of beneficiaries. It was denied that the estate was wasting away as alleged. She cast doubt on the accuracy of the share listings for companies, in particular V Naran Muli Properties Ltd, Manson Hotel, and Mistry V Naran Mulji & Company Ltd, whose shareholdings she contended weren’t presented accurately in the draft petition.
13. Bhanuben stated that she was ready and willing to execute the petition once issues regarding beneficiaries and the list of assets were resolved.
14. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The submissions of the objectors/applicants are dated 3rd October 2025. The said submissions, in the main, accused the 2nd petitioner/respondent of dragging her feet in executing the petition and of blowing hot and cold regarding the matter.
15. Counsel for the objectors/applicants accused Bhanuben of duping them into believing that she would sign the petition while at the same time pursuing an appeal.
16. On the other hand, it was contended for the petitioners/respondents that the application lacked merit. The said parties' counsel submitted that Bhanuben was still desirous of administering the estate and that she had single-handedly paid land rates and penalties for Title No Mombasa/Block X/X/9.
17. Counsel submitted that removing Bhanuben and substituting her with Jiten Vishram Valji Patel would create conflicts of interest as possible disputes existed between his father’s estate (of which he was an administrator and a beneficiary) and the estate of his grandfather. Relying on the case of In re Estate of Gurdial Kaur Sihra (Deceased [2018] KEHC 3985 (KLR), it was urged that the conflict of interest rendered Jiten unsuitable to serve as an administrator of his grandfather’s estate.
18. The Petitioner/Respondent's counsel urged that it was improper for the objectors/applicants to file an application partly based on their own failure. It was submitted that the petitioner/respondent's pursuit of an appeal shouldn’t be taken against them. Counsel prayed that I dismiss the application.
19. Having considered the record, the application and response thereto, as well as the written submissions, I am of the view that the issues I must determine are:
i Whether the fact that the 2nd petitioner/respondent filed an appeal disqualifies her from being an administrator, and
ii If the application has merit.
20. It is clear from the record that the 2nd petitioner/respondent was aggrieved by the orders issued by this court. Being so aggrieved, she and her fellow petitioner filed an appeal. My view is that she was within her rights to do so. In its decision directing her to petition together with Mr Kanji Patel, this court did not condition her nomination on her not being aggrieved. The court made it clear that there was a need to preserve the estate. Further, the court chose to undertake a delicate balancing act, attempting to bring the two disputing/belligerent factions together by appointing one from each as co-administrators so that all interests and viewpoints would be taken into account.
21. My view is that the objectors/applicants were aware, all along, of the appeal, as their counsel was served with the Notice of Appeal, which wasn’t withdrawn at any point during the pendency of the matter in this court. The contention that there was a sudden change of mind in March 2025 is therefore incorrect. Thus, I find and hold that the pendency of an appeal is no ground for the removal of Bhanuben.
22. What of the alleged delay? In my view, both parties share the blame for the lack of progress. I have already referred to the correspondence that shows that Bhanuben was keen to sign the petition. The objectors/applicants' counsel appears to have taken a long time to prepare the petition. In my view, it would be wrong for the objectors/applicants to benefit from a failure they themselves created. The Latin maxim “nullus commodum capera potest de injuria sua propria” is instructive.
23. It must be noted that the 2nd petitioner/respondent appears to have genuine concerns regarding the draft petition arising from the identity of beneficiaries and the draft list of assets. Her concerns cannot be swept away. To require her to sign a petition with which she disagreed would be oppressive, unfair and unjust. It would have been necessary for all the parties to reach a meeting of the minds on the said issues.
24. The issue above is instructive in another respect. Jiten is a beneficiary of his father’s estate. The respective holdings of his father and grandfather in some companies are disputed. Would Jiten be able to administer his father’s estate and his grandfather's at the same time? My view is that his deceased father’s contentious claim to some of his grandfather’s properties creates a conflict of interest that renders Jiten unsuitable for appointment as an administrator. I am guided by the decision of the High Court in the case of the Estate of In re Estate of Gurdial Kaur Sihra (Deceased [2018] KEHC 3985 (KLR) where it was held that:
“18. It is trite that among the duties an Administrator is supposed to perform is to protect, collect and preserve the Estate and, in case of a suit, defend or institute one for and on behalf of the Estate. In the instant case, the 1st Cross Petitioner (Objector) is a litigant in ELC case No. 216/2013, where he sued his late mother (deceased) and Jagjeet Singh. The suit is still pending. What will happen if he were appointed as an Administrator? How will he balance the two interests where one is a plaintiff and at the same time the defendant by virtue of being an Administrator? It is my finding that there will be a conflict of interest if Kulwant Singh (1st Objector) is appointed an Administrator.”
25. In any case, as this is a review application, it was necessary for the objectors/applicants to show that there was discovery of new and important information, or an error apparent on the face of the record, or that there was otherwise a sufficient reason to review the court’s decision. No grounds warranting review have been disclosed.
26. It is clear from the foregoing that I am not persuaded that a case for review of the ruling that this court delivered on 6th March 2026 has been made. In my view, the application dated 27th May 2025 is wholly without merit and should be dismissed.
27. Due to the nature of this matter, the parties will bear their own costs of the application.
28. With a view to making progress, I direct that this matter be mentioned before Visram J on 22nd July 2026 for further directions.
29. It is so ordered.
Dated and signed at Nairobi this 30th day of June 2026.
2. The court found that the deceased was survived by a widow, 3 daughters, 2 sons and the estate of his deceased son Visram Patel.
3. Having invalidated the alleged will, the court deemed the succession to the decedent’s estate to be intestate. At paragraph 113 of the ruling, the court stated as follows:-
“To preserve the estate, I direct that the 1st Objector/Applicant, Kanji Valji Naran Patel and the 2nd Petitioner/Respondent, Bhanuben Hirani, file a joint petition for letters of administration intestate within 30 days of the date of the ruling.”
4. Despite the directions issued by the court, no petition has been filed to date. The objectors/applicants and the 2nd Petitioner/Respondent are unable to agree on who, between them, was responsible for the impasse: whether it was Bhanuben Hirani (hereafter “Bhanuben”), as alleged by the objectors/applicants, or the objectors/applicants, as alleged by Bhanuben.
5. It must be stated that Bhanuben Hirani and Mr Vinodkumar Varsani, both of whom were the executors of the alleged will, were aggrieved by the decision this court made and filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal. As of the date of this ruling, the appeal is pending determination by the said court.
6. Vide an application dated 27th May 2025, the objectors/applicants seek the following orders:-
1. The order made on 8th March 2024 be and is hereby reviewed to the extent that Bhanuben Hirani be and is hereby substituted with Jiten Vishram Valji Naran Patel;
2. Upon the said substitution, Jiten Vishram Valji Patel to file a petition for letters of administration intestate within 30 days of this order; and
3. The costs of this application be borne by Bhanuben Hirani.
7. The application is brought under sections 47 and 66 of the Law of Succession Act, Rule 49 of the Probate & Administration Rules, Order 45 Rules (1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, and Section 159 of the Constitution of Kenya. The objectors/applicants contend that, pursuant to the ruling, they prepared a draft joint petition for letters of administration intestate within 30 days of the ruling, but that Bhanuben declined to sign after promising to do so and instead approached the Court of Appeal. The objectors/applicants saw her decision to file an appeal as an expression of her innate intention not to comply with the court orders.
8. They propose that Jiten Vishram Valji Patel, the second son of Visram Valji Patel (deceased), be appointed by the court as the person to file the petition together with their uncle, Kanji Valji Naran Patel. They contend that it would be in the estate's interest for that to be done. The objectors/applicants aver that Jiten was close to the deceased and took care of him prior to his demise.
9. It is evident from the affidavit of Ketan Visram Valji Patel (hereafter “Ketan”) that there was extensive consultation between the parties regarding the execution of the draft petition, as Ketan confirms in paragraphs 5, 7, 11, 12 and 13 of his affidavit. The parties appear to have disagreed on which beneficiaries and properties would be included in the petition.
10. What triggered the application appears to be the decision of the petitioners/respondents to seek a stay at the Court of Appeal. It was urged that such action was inconsistent with Bhanuben’s status as the person directed by the Court to file the petition.
11. In a response, Bhanuben made a sworn deposition on 12th July 2025, in which, while stating that she was desirous of executing the petition, averred that upon delivery of the court’s ruling they filed a Notice of Appeal on 15th March 2024 and that the same was served on Oluga & Co. Advocates on the same date. She contended that the petitioners/respondents have a right to appeal against the decision of this court. Bhanuben stated that their application for a stay, filed with the Court of Appeal, was necessitated by concerns about the annulment of the deceased’s will.
12. Bhanuben accused the objectors/applicants’ counsel of delay in finalizing the drafting of the petition. She averred that the execution of the petition was delayed due to disagreements over the listing of beneficiaries. It was denied that the estate was wasting away as alleged. She cast doubt on the accuracy of the share listings for companies, in particular V Naran Muli Properties Ltd, Manson Hotel, and Mistry V Naran Mulji & Company Ltd, whose shareholdings she contended weren’t presented accurately in the draft petition.
13. Bhanuben stated that she was ready and willing to execute the petition once issues regarding beneficiaries and the list of assets were resolved.
14. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The submissions of the objectors/applicants are dated 3rd October 2025. The said submissions, in the main, accused the 2nd petitioner/respondent of dragging her feet in executing the petition and of blowing hot and cold regarding the matter.
15. Counsel for the objectors/applicants accused Bhanuben of duping them into believing that she would sign the petition while at the same time pursuing an appeal.
16. On the other hand, it was contended for the petitioners/respondents that the application lacked merit. The said parties' counsel submitted that Bhanuben was still desirous of administering the estate and that she had single-handedly paid land rates and penalties for Title No Mombasa/Block X/X/9.
17. Counsel submitted that removing Bhanuben and substituting her with Jiten Vishram Valji Patel would create conflicts of interest as possible disputes existed between his father’s estate (of which he was an administrator and a beneficiary) and the estate of his grandfather. Relying on the case of In re Estate of Gurdial Kaur Sihra (Deceased [2018] KEHC 3985 (KLR), it was urged that the conflict of interest rendered Jiten unsuitable to serve as an administrator of his grandfather’s estate.
18. The Petitioner/Respondent's counsel urged that it was improper for the objectors/applicants to file an application partly based on their own failure. It was submitted that the petitioner/respondent's pursuit of an appeal shouldn’t be taken against them. Counsel prayed that I dismiss the application.
19. Having considered the record, the application and response thereto, as well as the written submissions, I am of the view that the issues I must determine are:
i Whether the fact that the 2nd petitioner/respondent filed an appeal disqualifies her from being an administrator, and
ii If the application has merit.
20. It is clear from the record that the 2nd petitioner/respondent was aggrieved by the orders issued by this court. Being so aggrieved, she and her fellow petitioner filed an appeal. My view is that she was within her rights to do so. In its decision directing her to petition together with Mr Kanji Patel, this court did not condition her nomination on her not being aggrieved. The court made it clear that there was a need to preserve the estate. Further, the court chose to undertake a delicate balancing act, attempting to bring the two disputing/belligerent factions together by appointing one from each as co-administrators so that all interests and viewpoints would be taken into account.
21. My view is that the objectors/applicants were aware, all along, of the appeal, as their counsel was served with the Notice of Appeal, which wasn’t withdrawn at any point during the pendency of the matter in this court. The contention that there was a sudden change of mind in March 2025 is therefore incorrect. Thus, I find and hold that the pendency of an appeal is no ground for the removal of Bhanuben.
22. What of the alleged delay? In my view, both parties share the blame for the lack of progress. I have already referred to the correspondence that shows that Bhanuben was keen to sign the petition. The objectors/applicants' counsel appears to have taken a long time to prepare the petition. In my view, it would be wrong for the objectors/applicants to benefit from a failure they themselves created. The Latin maxim “nullus commodum capera potest de injuria sua propria” is instructive.
23. It must be noted that the 2nd petitioner/respondent appears to have genuine concerns regarding the draft petition arising from the identity of beneficiaries and the draft list of assets. Her concerns cannot be swept away. To require her to sign a petition with which she disagreed would be oppressive, unfair and unjust. It would have been necessary for all the parties to reach a meeting of the minds on the said issues.
24. The issue above is instructive in another respect. Jiten is a beneficiary of his father’s estate. The respective holdings of his father and grandfather in some companies are disputed. Would Jiten be able to administer his father’s estate and his grandfather's at the same time? My view is that his deceased father’s contentious claim to some of his grandfather’s properties creates a conflict of interest that renders Jiten unsuitable for appointment as an administrator. I am guided by the decision of the High Court in the case of the Estate of In re Estate of Gurdial Kaur Sihra (Deceased [2018] KEHC 3985 (KLR) where it was held that:
“18. It is trite that among the duties an Administrator is supposed to perform is to protect, collect and preserve the Estate and, in case of a suit, defend or institute one for and on behalf of the Estate. In the instant case, the 1st Cross Petitioner (Objector) is a litigant in ELC case No. 216/2013, where he sued his late mother (deceased) and Jagjeet Singh. The suit is still pending. What will happen if he were appointed as an Administrator? How will he balance the two interests where one is a plaintiff and at the same time the defendant by virtue of being an Administrator? It is my finding that there will be a conflict of interest if Kulwant Singh (1st Objector) is appointed an Administrator.”
25. In any case, as this is a review application, it was necessary for the objectors/applicants to show that there was discovery of new and important information, or an error apparent on the face of the record, or that there was otherwise a sufficient reason to review the court’s decision. No grounds warranting review have been disclosed.
26. It is clear from the foregoing that I am not persuaded that a case for review of the ruling that this court delivered on 6th March 2026 has been made. In my view, the application dated 27th May 2025 is wholly without merit and should be dismissed.
27. Due to the nature of this matter, the parties will bear their own costs of the application.
28. With a view to making progress, I direct that this matter be mentioned before Visram J on 22nd July 2026 for further directions.
29. It is so ordered.
Dated and signed at Nairobi this 30th day of June 2026.