1. Before this Court for determination is the Notice of Motion dated 13th April 2026 brought by the 1st and 2nd Objectors/Applicants (hereinafter "the Applicants"). The Application is expressed to be brought under Articles 47, 50 and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 Section 47 of the Law of Succession Act, Cap 160 Laws of Kenya, Rules 49, 63 and 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules and all enabling provisions of the law.
2. The Applicants seek the following principal orders:
i. Spent.
ii. THAT there be a stay of proceedings and/or further proceedings and/or any action in this matter pending the hearing and determination of this application inter-parties.
iii. THAT there be a stay of proceedings and/or further proceedings and/or any action in this matter pending the hearing and determination of the appeal to the Court of Appeal.
iv. THAT the costs of this application be provided for.
3. The Application is supported by the affidavit of Jeanette Auma Ochieng, the 1st Objector/Applicant sworn on 13th April, 2026 and a supplementary affidavit sworn on an unspecified date in May 2026. The Applicants contend that this Court delivered a Ruling on 9th April, 2026 dismissing their Notice of Objection to the making of a grant dated 23rd June, 2025.
4. Being aggrieved by the said Ruling, the Applicants sought and obtained leave to appeal and promptly lodged a Notice of Appeal on 13th April, 2026. They are desirous of being heard on appeal before this Court's directions and/or orders are given effect. The Applicants assert that their intended appeal raises serious and weighty legal issues for determination by the Court of Appeal, including: Whether Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act is applicable in succession matters; Whether the Notice of Objection dated 23rd June, 2025 raised under Section 67(1) of the Law of Succession Act could be said to be res judicata when no notice had been previously published for an application for a grant of letters of administration; Whether this Court erred in failing to address itself on the failure by the Petitioners to comply with Section 51 of the Law of Succession Act; Whether this Court erred in failing to make a determination on the suitability of the Petitioners to administer the estate having intermeddled with the deceased's estate; and Whether this Court erred in failing to make a determination on the Applicants' prayer to be made co-administrators.
5. The Applicants contend that they stand to suffer substantial loss that cannot be monetarily compensated should the court proceed with the matter given that the Petitioners are at liberty to have the grant confirmed pursuant to the court's order of 9th May, 2025. They argue that unless the orders sought are issued, the appeal to the Court of Appeal risks being rendered nugatory. They further assert that they risk being disinherited should the matter proceed as is.
6. Grace Akinyi Ochieng, the 3rd Objector, filed an affidavit sworn on 18th May, 2026 wholly supporting the application. She contends inter alia; that the Petitioners had not denied that the status of the subject matter or estate would certainly change if the orders sought were not issued, considering that what was pending was the confirmation of the grant of letters of administration issued in favor of the Petitioners. She added that the said grant of letters of administration was the subject of an appeal before the Court of Appeal, lodged by the 1st and 2nd Objectors; that the mere fact that the court had delivered a ruling on an application for stay of proceedings pending appeal in another application was neither here nor there. She maintained that there was no law barring the court from hearing and determining an application such as the instant one especially when the situation demanded court intervention to prevent the wastage of the deceased's estate pending appeal; that allowing the deceased's estate to remain in the hands of the Petitioners pending appeal would risk the estate going to waste and being intermeddled with by the Petitioners who were actively diverting estate assets into their personal/individual names for personal gain; that the 1st Petitioner had in fact opened his own sugar factory to which he diverted estate business. That this business was a direct competitor to the estate's sugar factory and argued that he could not be trusted to manage and/or administer the deceased's estate due to competing interests that were clearly not in the estate's best interest; that the fact that the Petitioners had acknowledged that the Law of Succession Act provided inbuilt mechanisms in the process of applying for letters of administration up to confirmation most of which the Petitioners ignored in their quest to administer the estate was reason enough to stay proceedings in the matter. This would allow the Court of Appeal to re-evaluate the objection raised and determine whether the court's decision made on 9th April 2026 should stand before the matter proceeded further; that the petition presented before the court was incomplete and not ripe for confirmation thereby highlighting the need to have the appeal heard and determined; that contrary to the Petitioners' perception that the dispute was centered on the appointment of administrators, the Notice of Objection to the making of a grant was clear that it challenged not only the suitability of the Petitioners to be appointed as administrators but also the process and manner in which they went about obtaining the grant of letters of administration which was a clear departure from what the Law of Succession Act and the Probate and Administration Rules envisaged. She added that in any event it was not within the province of the court in such an application to delve into the merits of the appeal. Given that the Court of Appeal's decision would have a direct bearing on the matter as a whole she stated that it was in the interest of justice that the matter be stayed to allow the appeal to proceed and be determined; that whereas the Petitioners contended that the Law of Succession Act had put stopgaps in place to prevent losses resulting from their acts or omissions as administrators, there was no guarantee that the damage likely to result from their acts or inaction would be capable of being reversed should the matter proceed to conclusion before the Petitioners were allowed to administer the estate pending appeal. She maintained that if stay was not granted, the estate risked being waste and by the time the appeal was concluded, the estate would be out of reach of the court once the grant was confirmed; hence, the need to preserve the estate pending the hearing and determination of the appeal before the Court of Appeal.
7. The Petitioners/Respondents oppose the Application through their Grounds of Opposition dated 23rd April 2026. They contend; t hat they would rely on the contents of the replying affidavit of Joram Omondi Ochieng sworn on 17th August 2025 and filed in court on 19th August 2025 (which had been in opposition to the 1st and 2nd Objectors' Notice of Objection to the making of Grant dated 23rd June 2025 and filed on 25th June 2025) for the purpose of establishing the background facts necessary for the determination of the instant application; that the instant application seeking to stay the succession proceedings by stopping the beneficiaries from proceeding to the next stage of confirmation of distribution and grant of the deceased's estate was misconceived. That the next stage of the proceedings constituted the legal forum provided for determining all real, legitimate and substantive reliefs in any succession cause particularly those expressed as the subject of the Objectors' grievance in their application as the basis for pursuing an appeal against the court's Ruling delivered on 9th April 2026; that the application was equally misconceived and frivolous insofar as it sought to halt the subsequent proceedings leading to the confirmation of distribution and grant in order to pursue an appeal. That the stated purpose of the appeal was to protect the Objectors' very interests over which the Court of Appeal lacked original jurisdiction to hear and determine stating that such jurisdiction rested solely with the High Court by way of Protest Affidavits to be presented by any of the beneficiaries of the deceased's estate including the Objectors standing in that capacity; that the application was also misconceived and frivolous because the expressed purpose of the intended appeal allegedly challenging the appointment of the Petitioners as administrators was superfluous and of no practical relevance in law, fact or logic. That the court in its Ruling delivered on 9th May 2025 granting administration to the Petitioners had only allowed such administration to last for a maximum of 14 days rather than the ordinary six months contemplated by law while also requiring the provision of accounts which remains a mandatory requirement at every confirmation of grant; that the 1st and 2nd Objectors' continued and persistent dispute regarding who among the beneficiaries should be appointed administrators served no logical or practical purpose. That once the application for confirmation was filed within the 14 days prescribed by the court's Ruling delivered on 9th May 2025, the role of the administrators would come to an automatic end. The next role would then revert to all beneficiaries to equally present either agreement or disagreement with the proposed distribution of assets and liabilities and the rendered accounts via Protest Affidavits (if in disagreement) or formal consents when appearing in court for the confirmation hearing. The remaining task would be for the court to determine any dispute on accounts and rival proposed distribution modes upon concluding the succession dispute. That the 1st and 2nd Objectors had presented no explanation or justification as to why proceedings should not be allowed to advance to this next logical stage which they stated was the only forum in law where the Objectors' expressed concerns of prejudice could be determined; that the Honourable Court had already expressed itself in a Ruling delivered on 4th June 2025 regarding a similar application for stay of proceedings arising from the exact same set of facts now relied upon. That after the court had dismissed the Objectors' initial Objection Notice dated 1st September 2023 in its Ruling delivered on 9th May 2025, their subsequent application dated 15th May 2025 for stay of proceedings was dismissed because the court found no likely prejudice capable of being visited upon the Objectors should confirmation proceedings proceed. That no new issue of fact or law had arisen in the new objection proceedings (presented in the Notice of Objection dated 23rd June 2025) or in the court's Ruling dismissing the same on 9th April 2026 that would justify a different finding by the court; that the application was misconceived, frivolous and devoid of merit due to the nature of the relief sought and an apparent misconception of the built-in safeguards protecting beneficiaries' interests against harm, prejudice or loss arising from administration. That the Law of Succession Act (Chapter 160, Laws of Kenya) provides a complete statutory framework that includes: a clear opportunity for all beneficiaries to interrogate accounts at the distribution stage during confirmation; strict requirements for sureties for losses not recoverable from an administrator's own share; built-in assurances of compensation from an administrator's anticipated share for any loss caused by fault; and the right of beneficiaries to move the court at any time to halt administration upon proof of violation of statutory responsibilities; that the application was misconceived, frivolous and devoid of merit because granting the requested relief would unnecessarily delay and defeat the administration of justice. The disclosed urgent need to conclude the administration and distribution of the net intestate estate to the beneficiaries as outlined in various applications culminating in the Ruling delivered on 9th May 2025, the spirit of which had clearly addressed the anxieties of the Objectors all other beneficiaries and the Petitioners as Administrators. The Petitioners sought to have the instant application for stay of proceedings pending the determination of the Objectors' intended appeal dismissed with costs.
8. Sheila Adhiambo Ochieng, the 4th Objector/Respondent opposes the application through her replying affidavit sworn on 8th May, 2026. She contends that: the said application was misconceived, devoid of merit and an abuse of the process of the Honourable Court as it was meant to delay the succession proceedings and allow the estate of the deceased to continue to waste; that while the applicants had indeed lodged a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Honourable Court should be guided not to grant the orders for stay of proceedings before it for the following reasons: That the application before the Honourable Court was meant to delay the succession process and was therefore an abuse of court process and a waste of judicial time; That the applicants therein would not be prejudiced, risk being disinherited in any way whatsoever or suffer substantial loss if the orders sought were not granted and that the progression of the matter would be to the benefit of all the beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased; that the applicants sought a stay of proceedings pending the hearing and determination of an intended appeal to the Court of Appeal yet no draft memorandum of appeal or sufficient material had been placed before the Court to establish the existence of a competent or arguable appeal; that the 1st and 2nd Objectors/Applicants therein were collecting rents from part of the estate of the deceased and that she had been and would continue being left out if the Honourable Court issued the orders of stay of proceedings sought in the applicant's application dated 19th April, 2026; that the 1st and 2nd Objectors/Applicants would not be aggrieved if the Petitioners/Respondents gave effect to the Honourable Court's orders issued on 9th May, 2025 as they benefited and were in the best interests of all the beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased; that the instant application sought to delay the succession proceedings, lay waste to the estate of the deceased and deny all beneficiaries and/or dependants from receiving that which was rightfully theirs; that the applicants had failed to show how they would suffer substantial loss should the Honourable Court proceed with the matter; that the applicants had failed to show that the appeal to the Court of Appeal risked being rendered nugatory if the orders they sought were not granted; that the applicants therein were currently benefiting from the estate and that the application constituted a delay tactic to continue reaping what rightfully belonged to all the beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased including the applicants therein; that the respondents would greatly suffer prejudice by the delaying of the court process which would consequently delay the beneficiaries from receiving their rightful share of the estate of the deceased; that the Applicants therein on the inverse would rightfully gain from the estate of the deceased by allowing the succession to proceed in a timely manner; that the applicants therein had failed to show and/or demonstrate sufficient cause to warrant the grant of stay of proceedings which in itself was a drastic remedy granted sparingly; that if the instant proceedings were stayed, the beneficiaries of the estate therein would not have an opportunity or an avenue to hold the appointed administrators to account; that the objector/applicant had failed to show any prejudice that could not be remedied in due course and therefore the prayer that the proceedings sought be stayed was frivolous or oppressive; that the Application was intended solely to delay the course of justice and that granting the order for stay of proceedings sought at that stage would unjustly delay the expeditious disposal of the matter and prejudice all parties; that the Application failed to meet the legal threshold for the grant of stay of proceedings as established in law; that the balance of convenience tilted heavily in favor of allowing the proceedings to continue to their logical conclusion; that from the foregoing, it was evident that the applicants had moved the court with unclean hands and were therefore not entitled to the equitable reliefs sought; that the Honourable Court to dismiss the said application as it was not in the best interest of the estate of the deceased and its beneficiaries.
9. In response to the 4th Objector's replying affidavit, the Applicants filed a supplementary affidavit sworn on 6th May, 2026 by the 1 st Objector/Applicant Jeannette Auma Ochieng reiterating ; that contrary to the 4th Objector's deposition that the application was an abuse of the court process, the said deposition was misplaced and had no legal bearing as an appeal is a constitutional right and the prayers sought in the application were available to her co-Objector and her, were well within the court's power to grant and were grounded in law; that contrary to the 4th Objector's deposition that no prejudice would be suffered if the orders sought were granted and that the court should allow the matter to progress, she reiterated that the Notice of Objection to the making of a grant was clear that it challenged not only the suitability of the Petitioners to be appointed as administrators but also the process and manner in which the Petitioners went about obtaining the grant of letters of administration which was a clear departure from what the Law of Succession Act and the Probate and Administration Rules envisaged. As such, given that the Court of Appeal's decision would have a direct bearing on the matter, that it was in the interest of justice that the matter be stayed to afford the 2nd Objector and her an opportunity to ventilate their appeal so that the appeal was not rendered nugatory; that the issue of demonstrating substantial loss was not a requirement in an application for stay of proceedings pending appeal but was only essential for an application for stay of execution pending appeal. As such, the deposition made in paragraph 9 of the 4th Objector's replying affidavit was legally misplaced; that the allegations contained in paragraphs 6, 11 and 20 of the 4th Objector's replying affidavit were not only unsubstantiated but made in bad taste especially when no application had been presented by the 4th Objector to anchor her claim for the court's consideration and given that the 4th Objector had in the past filed an application bearing the same undertone which was dismissed with no appeal filed to challenge the decision; that it was not within the province of the court to interrogate the merits or demerits of the intended appeal to the Court of Appeal nor was it necessary for her to attach the draft memorandum of appeal as argued by the 4th Objector at paragraph 5 of her replying affidavit. That there was no requirement that a memorandum of appeal ought to be attached for the court to consider the application before it and that all that was necessary at that stage was for the Court to confirm whether a notice of appeal had been lodged (which Notice of Appeal she had already attached to the application before the court). That even the Court of Appeal did not insist on such a requirement so long as the applicant could substantiate the grounds of appeal that would be presented before it. That the application before the court was very clear regarding the complaint her co-Objector and she would be advancing before the Court of Appeal and therefore argued that the 4th Objector's argument had no place in the instant application and ought to be disregarded as the court was not sitting as an appellate court; that the reason for challenging the court's decision was precisely to safeguard the estate as beneficiaries as none of the parties therein ranked superior to the other. That it was within her right and that of the 2nd Objector to protect their interest in the estate and that seeking a stay of proceedings to have the Court of Appeal review the court's decision could not be termed a delaying tactic or a means to deny other beneficiaries their share. She reasoned that while the succession proceedings would ultimately be concluded, they should be concluded after all affected parties/beneficiaries had their day in court on the issues currently in contention. That as it stood, the grant of letters of administration issued in favor of the Petitioners was only one step away from being confirmed yet the appeal challenging the very grant the Petitioners were eager to confirm had yet to be heard. Posing the question of whether the damage occasioned by confirming the grant and distributing the estate would be reversible if the Court of Appeal reversed the court's decision thereby asserting the need to preserve the estate pending the determination of the appeal to the Court of Appeal; that whether her co-Objector and she stood to benefit from the estate or not was neither here nor there as the issue at hand was whether it would be in the interest of justice to proceed with confirmation of the grant and distribution of the estate when both the appointment of the Petitioners as administrators and the assets to be administered the bedrock of any succession proceedings were being challenged on appeal and needed to be determined by the Court of Appeal before the court moved a step further in confirming the grant of letters of administration; that the right to be heard should be cherished and prayed that the court would not impede that right by refusing the application and effectively rendering the appeal nugatory.
10. The Application was canvassed by way of written submissions. At the time of writing this ruling, all the parties except the Petitioners filed submissions which have duly been considered.
11. Counsel for the 1st 2nd 3rd objectors submitted that the main issue for determination was whether the order for stay of proceedings sought ought to be granted.
12. Counsel submitted that the Court possessed statutory power to grant the orders sought by virtue of Section 47 of the Law of Succession Act (Cap 160 Laws of Kenya) which confers jurisdiction to entertain applications, determine disputes and make expedient decrees/orders, alongside Rules 49, 63, and 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules which afford the Court unfettered discretion to make orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of court process.
13. Counsel submitted that the order sought ought to be granted because following the dismissal of the objection notice, the Petitioners were at liberty to seek confirmation of the grant of letters of administration pursuant to the court's order of 9/5/2025 (which directed them to file for confirmation within 14 days of obtaining the grant). Counsel highlighted that following the ruling of 9/4/2026, the Petitioners moved with speed and had the grant issued on 14/4/2026 and argued that but for the instant application, the Petitioners would have moved to confirm the grant.
14. Counsel stated that the appeal before the Court of Appeal was yet to be heard and determined and that it sought a determination on several pertinent legal issues arising from the ruling of 9/4/2026 namely: Whether Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act is applicable in succession matters; Whether the Notice of Objection to the making of a grant dated 23/6/2025 raised under Section 67(1) of the Law of Succession Act could be said to be res judicata when no notice had been previously published for an application for grant of letters of administration; Whether the High Court erred in failing to address itself on the failure by the Petitioners to comply with Section 51 of the Law of Succession Act; Whether the High Court erred in failing to make a determination on the suitability of the Petitioners to administer the estate having intermeddled with the deceased's estate and Whether the High Court erred in failing to make a determination on the prayer by the 1st and 2nd Objectors to be appointed co-administrators.
15. Counsel submitted that given the strict time limits imposed on the Petitioners to apply for confirmation, the succession cause was highly likely to be concluded and the estate distributed before the appeal was heard and determined, thereby rendering the appeal nugatory.
16. Counsel argued that if the appeal proved successful and the High Court's decision was overturned, the parties would be forced to return to the drawing board regarding the administration of the estate.
17. Counsel countered the Petitioners' contention regarding built-in statutory stopgaps by arguing that there was no guarantee that damage caused by the Petitioners' actions or inaction could be undone if the cause reached conclusion before the appeal was resolved, as the estate might no longer be within the court's reach once confirmed.
18. Counsel submitted that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Objectors were merely asking for a stay of proceedings to allow the Court of Appeal to hear and determine the appeal given its direct bearing on all proceedings in the cause. Counsel emphasized that unlike an ordinary civil suit, a succession cause is geared toward estate distribution; thus, setting aside a final distribution later would be difficult and expensive to reverse.
19. Counsel rejected the argument that the application was a delaying tactic, pointing out that the ruling was delivered on 9/4/2026, leave was granted, the notice of appeal was lodged on 13/4/2026 and the application was filed on that same date. Counsel maintained that exploiting a constitutional and legal right to appeal could not be termed a delay tactic.
20. Counsel responded to the 4th Objector's claim that the application aimed to deny beneficiaries their share while the 1st and 2nd Objectors collected rent by submitting that the argument was baseless. Counsel stated that while proceedings would eventually conclude, they should only do so after all affected parties had their day in court on contested issues. Counsel posed the question whether damage from confirmation and distribution would be reversible if the appellate court overturned the decision answering in the negative.
21. Regarding rent collection allegations made by the 4th Objector, Counsel submitted that those claims were unsubstantiated, made in bad taste and unsupported by any formal application before the court noting further that a previous application with similar undertones by the 4th Objector had been dismissed without any appeal being filed.
22. Counsel submitted that the 4th Objector's argument regarding the omission of a draft memorandum of appeal was misplaced, as it was not within the High Court's province to interrogate the merits/demerits of the intended appeal nor was there any legal requirement to attach a draft memorandum. Counsel stated that all that was legally required was proof of a filed Notice of Appeal (which was attached) adding that even the Court of Appeal did not insist on a draft memorandum as long as grounds could be substantiated.
23. Counsel addressed the Petitioners' reliance on the previous stay ruling of 4/6/2025 by submitting that the delivery of a previous ruling was irrelevant because circumstances had significantly changed. Counsel highlighted that the specific decision being challenged on appeal was the ruling delivered on 9/4/2026 making past stay determinations inapplicable.
24. Counsel countered the argument that grievances should be raised via Protest Affidavits at confirmation by stating that the status of the matter would certainly alter if stay were denied as the pending confirmation directly stemmed from the grant under appeal. Counsel submitted that the Petitioners' admission that statutory mechanisms were ignored during their initial application for administration was itself sufficient justification to stay proceedings to allow appellate evaluation.
25. Counsel reiterated that the Notice of Objection challenged not only administrator suitability but also the process used to acquire the grant (which departed from the Law of Succession Act and Probate Rules). Counsel maintained that the High Court should not delve into appeal merits but stay proceedings in the interest of justice.
26. Counsel prayed that the application be allowed, asserting that the right to be heard on appeal is a constitutional right that should not be impeded. In support of these legal arguments, Counsel cited and relied upon the following case authorities: Re Estate of Benjamin Albert Mulama Osundwa (Deceased) [2020] eKLR (2020KEHC4211(KLR)) , where the Court held that an aggrieved heir who filed a notice of appeal had a right to seek a stay of a repeat confirmation exercise. The Court observed that proceeding with a fresh confirmation during an appeal against the judgment setting aside a prior confirmation had the potential to render the appeal nugatory if successful. Emphasizing that succession causes require full ventilation to ensure family peace and complete hearing of all affected parties, the Court found a compelling case for staying proceedings pending the appellate outcome. Francis Njakwe Githiari & Another v. Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi t/a Moi Education Center [2008] eKLR , where the Court held that whenever a party exercises an unalienable right of appeal, the court must ensure that right is not encumbered or rendered nugatory. The Court observed that while weighing prejudice, proceeding with a trial while an intended appeal remained unresolved posed a real
[...truncated]
2. The Applicants seek the following principal orders:
i. Spent.
ii. THAT there be a stay of proceedings and/or further proceedings and/or any action in this matter pending the hearing and determination of this application inter-parties.
iii. THAT there be a stay of proceedings and/or further proceedings and/or any action in this matter pending the hearing and determination of the appeal to the Court of Appeal.
iv. THAT the costs of this application be provided for.
3. The Application is supported by the affidavit of Jeanette Auma Ochieng, the 1st Objector/Applicant sworn on 13th April, 2026 and a supplementary affidavit sworn on an unspecified date in May 2026. The Applicants contend that this Court delivered a Ruling on 9th April, 2026 dismissing their Notice of Objection to the making of a grant dated 23rd June, 2025.
4. Being aggrieved by the said Ruling, the Applicants sought and obtained leave to appeal and promptly lodged a Notice of Appeal on 13th April, 2026. They are desirous of being heard on appeal before this Court's directions and/or orders are given effect. The Applicants assert that their intended appeal raises serious and weighty legal issues for determination by the Court of Appeal, including: Whether Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act is applicable in succession matters; Whether the Notice of Objection dated 23rd June, 2025 raised under Section 67(1) of the Law of Succession Act could be said to be res judicata when no notice had been previously published for an application for a grant of letters of administration; Whether this Court erred in failing to address itself on the failure by the Petitioners to comply with Section 51 of the Law of Succession Act; Whether this Court erred in failing to make a determination on the suitability of the Petitioners to administer the estate having intermeddled with the deceased's estate; and Whether this Court erred in failing to make a determination on the Applicants' prayer to be made co-administrators.
5. The Applicants contend that they stand to suffer substantial loss that cannot be monetarily compensated should the court proceed with the matter given that the Petitioners are at liberty to have the grant confirmed pursuant to the court's order of 9th May, 2025. They argue that unless the orders sought are issued, the appeal to the Court of Appeal risks being rendered nugatory. They further assert that they risk being disinherited should the matter proceed as is.
6. Grace Akinyi Ochieng, the 3rd Objector, filed an affidavit sworn on 18th May, 2026 wholly supporting the application. She contends inter alia; that the Petitioners had not denied that the status of the subject matter or estate would certainly change if the orders sought were not issued, considering that what was pending was the confirmation of the grant of letters of administration issued in favor of the Petitioners. She added that the said grant of letters of administration was the subject of an appeal before the Court of Appeal, lodged by the 1st and 2nd Objectors; that the mere fact that the court had delivered a ruling on an application for stay of proceedings pending appeal in another application was neither here nor there. She maintained that there was no law barring the court from hearing and determining an application such as the instant one especially when the situation demanded court intervention to prevent the wastage of the deceased's estate pending appeal; that allowing the deceased's estate to remain in the hands of the Petitioners pending appeal would risk the estate going to waste and being intermeddled with by the Petitioners who were actively diverting estate assets into their personal/individual names for personal gain; that the 1st Petitioner had in fact opened his own sugar factory to which he diverted estate business. That this business was a direct competitor to the estate's sugar factory and argued that he could not be trusted to manage and/or administer the deceased's estate due to competing interests that were clearly not in the estate's best interest; that the fact that the Petitioners had acknowledged that the Law of Succession Act provided inbuilt mechanisms in the process of applying for letters of administration up to confirmation most of which the Petitioners ignored in their quest to administer the estate was reason enough to stay proceedings in the matter. This would allow the Court of Appeal to re-evaluate the objection raised and determine whether the court's decision made on 9th April 2026 should stand before the matter proceeded further; that the petition presented before the court was incomplete and not ripe for confirmation thereby highlighting the need to have the appeal heard and determined; that contrary to the Petitioners' perception that the dispute was centered on the appointment of administrators, the Notice of Objection to the making of a grant was clear that it challenged not only the suitability of the Petitioners to be appointed as administrators but also the process and manner in which they went about obtaining the grant of letters of administration which was a clear departure from what the Law of Succession Act and the Probate and Administration Rules envisaged. She added that in any event it was not within the province of the court in such an application to delve into the merits of the appeal. Given that the Court of Appeal's decision would have a direct bearing on the matter as a whole she stated that it was in the interest of justice that the matter be stayed to allow the appeal to proceed and be determined; that whereas the Petitioners contended that the Law of Succession Act had put stopgaps in place to prevent losses resulting from their acts or omissions as administrators, there was no guarantee that the damage likely to result from their acts or inaction would be capable of being reversed should the matter proceed to conclusion before the Petitioners were allowed to administer the estate pending appeal. She maintained that if stay was not granted, the estate risked being waste and by the time the appeal was concluded, the estate would be out of reach of the court once the grant was confirmed; hence, the need to preserve the estate pending the hearing and determination of the appeal before the Court of Appeal.
7. The Petitioners/Respondents oppose the Application through their Grounds of Opposition dated 23rd April 2026. They contend; t hat they would rely on the contents of the replying affidavit of Joram Omondi Ochieng sworn on 17th August 2025 and filed in court on 19th August 2025 (which had been in opposition to the 1st and 2nd Objectors' Notice of Objection to the making of Grant dated 23rd June 2025 and filed on 25th June 2025) for the purpose of establishing the background facts necessary for the determination of the instant application; that the instant application seeking to stay the succession proceedings by stopping the beneficiaries from proceeding to the next stage of confirmation of distribution and grant of the deceased's estate was misconceived. That the next stage of the proceedings constituted the legal forum provided for determining all real, legitimate and substantive reliefs in any succession cause particularly those expressed as the subject of the Objectors' grievance in their application as the basis for pursuing an appeal against the court's Ruling delivered on 9th April 2026; that the application was equally misconceived and frivolous insofar as it sought to halt the subsequent proceedings leading to the confirmation of distribution and grant in order to pursue an appeal. That the stated purpose of the appeal was to protect the Objectors' very interests over which the Court of Appeal lacked original jurisdiction to hear and determine stating that such jurisdiction rested solely with the High Court by way of Protest Affidavits to be presented by any of the beneficiaries of the deceased's estate including the Objectors standing in that capacity; that the application was also misconceived and frivolous because the expressed purpose of the intended appeal allegedly challenging the appointment of the Petitioners as administrators was superfluous and of no practical relevance in law, fact or logic. That the court in its Ruling delivered on 9th May 2025 granting administration to the Petitioners had only allowed such administration to last for a maximum of 14 days rather than the ordinary six months contemplated by law while also requiring the provision of accounts which remains a mandatory requirement at every confirmation of grant; that the 1st and 2nd Objectors' continued and persistent dispute regarding who among the beneficiaries should be appointed administrators served no logical or practical purpose. That once the application for confirmation was filed within the 14 days prescribed by the court's Ruling delivered on 9th May 2025, the role of the administrators would come to an automatic end. The next role would then revert to all beneficiaries to equally present either agreement or disagreement with the proposed distribution of assets and liabilities and the rendered accounts via Protest Affidavits (if in disagreement) or formal consents when appearing in court for the confirmation hearing. The remaining task would be for the court to determine any dispute on accounts and rival proposed distribution modes upon concluding the succession dispute. That the 1st and 2nd Objectors had presented no explanation or justification as to why proceedings should not be allowed to advance to this next logical stage which they stated was the only forum in law where the Objectors' expressed concerns of prejudice could be determined; that the Honourable Court had already expressed itself in a Ruling delivered on 4th June 2025 regarding a similar application for stay of proceedings arising from the exact same set of facts now relied upon. That after the court had dismissed the Objectors' initial Objection Notice dated 1st September 2023 in its Ruling delivered on 9th May 2025, their subsequent application dated 15th May 2025 for stay of proceedings was dismissed because the court found no likely prejudice capable of being visited upon the Objectors should confirmation proceedings proceed. That no new issue of fact or law had arisen in the new objection proceedings (presented in the Notice of Objection dated 23rd June 2025) or in the court's Ruling dismissing the same on 9th April 2026 that would justify a different finding by the court; that the application was misconceived, frivolous and devoid of merit due to the nature of the relief sought and an apparent misconception of the built-in safeguards protecting beneficiaries' interests against harm, prejudice or loss arising from administration. That the Law of Succession Act (Chapter 160, Laws of Kenya) provides a complete statutory framework that includes: a clear opportunity for all beneficiaries to interrogate accounts at the distribution stage during confirmation; strict requirements for sureties for losses not recoverable from an administrator's own share; built-in assurances of compensation from an administrator's anticipated share for any loss caused by fault; and the right of beneficiaries to move the court at any time to halt administration upon proof of violation of statutory responsibilities; that the application was misconceived, frivolous and devoid of merit because granting the requested relief would unnecessarily delay and defeat the administration of justice. The disclosed urgent need to conclude the administration and distribution of the net intestate estate to the beneficiaries as outlined in various applications culminating in the Ruling delivered on 9th May 2025, the spirit of which had clearly addressed the anxieties of the Objectors all other beneficiaries and the Petitioners as Administrators. The Petitioners sought to have the instant application for stay of proceedings pending the determination of the Objectors' intended appeal dismissed with costs.
8. Sheila Adhiambo Ochieng, the 4th Objector/Respondent opposes the application through her replying affidavit sworn on 8th May, 2026. She contends that: the said application was misconceived, devoid of merit and an abuse of the process of the Honourable Court as it was meant to delay the succession proceedings and allow the estate of the deceased to continue to waste; that while the applicants had indeed lodged a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Honourable Court should be guided not to grant the orders for stay of proceedings before it for the following reasons: That the application before the Honourable Court was meant to delay the succession process and was therefore an abuse of court process and a waste of judicial time; That the applicants therein would not be prejudiced, risk being disinherited in any way whatsoever or suffer substantial loss if the orders sought were not granted and that the progression of the matter would be to the benefit of all the beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased; that the applicants sought a stay of proceedings pending the hearing and determination of an intended appeal to the Court of Appeal yet no draft memorandum of appeal or sufficient material had been placed before the Court to establish the existence of a competent or arguable appeal; that the 1st and 2nd Objectors/Applicants therein were collecting rents from part of the estate of the deceased and that she had been and would continue being left out if the Honourable Court issued the orders of stay of proceedings sought in the applicant's application dated 19th April, 2026; that the 1st and 2nd Objectors/Applicants would not be aggrieved if the Petitioners/Respondents gave effect to the Honourable Court's orders issued on 9th May, 2025 as they benefited and were in the best interests of all the beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased; that the instant application sought to delay the succession proceedings, lay waste to the estate of the deceased and deny all beneficiaries and/or dependants from receiving that which was rightfully theirs; that the applicants had failed to show how they would suffer substantial loss should the Honourable Court proceed with the matter; that the applicants had failed to show that the appeal to the Court of Appeal risked being rendered nugatory if the orders they sought were not granted; that the applicants therein were currently benefiting from the estate and that the application constituted a delay tactic to continue reaping what rightfully belonged to all the beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased including the applicants therein; that the respondents would greatly suffer prejudice by the delaying of the court process which would consequently delay the beneficiaries from receiving their rightful share of the estate of the deceased; that the Applicants therein on the inverse would rightfully gain from the estate of the deceased by allowing the succession to proceed in a timely manner; that the applicants therein had failed to show and/or demonstrate sufficient cause to warrant the grant of stay of proceedings which in itself was a drastic remedy granted sparingly; that if the instant proceedings were stayed, the beneficiaries of the estate therein would not have an opportunity or an avenue to hold the appointed administrators to account; that the objector/applicant had failed to show any prejudice that could not be remedied in due course and therefore the prayer that the proceedings sought be stayed was frivolous or oppressive; that the Application was intended solely to delay the course of justice and that granting the order for stay of proceedings sought at that stage would unjustly delay the expeditious disposal of the matter and prejudice all parties; that the Application failed to meet the legal threshold for the grant of stay of proceedings as established in law; that the balance of convenience tilted heavily in favor of allowing the proceedings to continue to their logical conclusion; that from the foregoing, it was evident that the applicants had moved the court with unclean hands and were therefore not entitled to the equitable reliefs sought; that the Honourable Court to dismiss the said application as it was not in the best interest of the estate of the deceased and its beneficiaries.
9. In response to the 4th Objector's replying affidavit, the Applicants filed a supplementary affidavit sworn on 6th May, 2026 by the 1 st Objector/Applicant Jeannette Auma Ochieng reiterating ; that contrary to the 4th Objector's deposition that the application was an abuse of the court process, the said deposition was misplaced and had no legal bearing as an appeal is a constitutional right and the prayers sought in the application were available to her co-Objector and her, were well within the court's power to grant and were grounded in law; that contrary to the 4th Objector's deposition that no prejudice would be suffered if the orders sought were granted and that the court should allow the matter to progress, she reiterated that the Notice of Objection to the making of a grant was clear that it challenged not only the suitability of the Petitioners to be appointed as administrators but also the process and manner in which the Petitioners went about obtaining the grant of letters of administration which was a clear departure from what the Law of Succession Act and the Probate and Administration Rules envisaged. As such, given that the Court of Appeal's decision would have a direct bearing on the matter, that it was in the interest of justice that the matter be stayed to afford the 2nd Objector and her an opportunity to ventilate their appeal so that the appeal was not rendered nugatory; that the issue of demonstrating substantial loss was not a requirement in an application for stay of proceedings pending appeal but was only essential for an application for stay of execution pending appeal. As such, the deposition made in paragraph 9 of the 4th Objector's replying affidavit was legally misplaced; that the allegations contained in paragraphs 6, 11 and 20 of the 4th Objector's replying affidavit were not only unsubstantiated but made in bad taste especially when no application had been presented by the 4th Objector to anchor her claim for the court's consideration and given that the 4th Objector had in the past filed an application bearing the same undertone which was dismissed with no appeal filed to challenge the decision; that it was not within the province of the court to interrogate the merits or demerits of the intended appeal to the Court of Appeal nor was it necessary for her to attach the draft memorandum of appeal as argued by the 4th Objector at paragraph 5 of her replying affidavit. That there was no requirement that a memorandum of appeal ought to be attached for the court to consider the application before it and that all that was necessary at that stage was for the Court to confirm whether a notice of appeal had been lodged (which Notice of Appeal she had already attached to the application before the court). That even the Court of Appeal did not insist on such a requirement so long as the applicant could substantiate the grounds of appeal that would be presented before it. That the application before the court was very clear regarding the complaint her co-Objector and she would be advancing before the Court of Appeal and therefore argued that the 4th Objector's argument had no place in the instant application and ought to be disregarded as the court was not sitting as an appellate court; that the reason for challenging the court's decision was precisely to safeguard the estate as beneficiaries as none of the parties therein ranked superior to the other. That it was within her right and that of the 2nd Objector to protect their interest in the estate and that seeking a stay of proceedings to have the Court of Appeal review the court's decision could not be termed a delaying tactic or a means to deny other beneficiaries their share. She reasoned that while the succession proceedings would ultimately be concluded, they should be concluded after all affected parties/beneficiaries had their day in court on the issues currently in contention. That as it stood, the grant of letters of administration issued in favor of the Petitioners was only one step away from being confirmed yet the appeal challenging the very grant the Petitioners were eager to confirm had yet to be heard. Posing the question of whether the damage occasioned by confirming the grant and distributing the estate would be reversible if the Court of Appeal reversed the court's decision thereby asserting the need to preserve the estate pending the determination of the appeal to the Court of Appeal; that whether her co-Objector and she stood to benefit from the estate or not was neither here nor there as the issue at hand was whether it would be in the interest of justice to proceed with confirmation of the grant and distribution of the estate when both the appointment of the Petitioners as administrators and the assets to be administered the bedrock of any succession proceedings were being challenged on appeal and needed to be determined by the Court of Appeal before the court moved a step further in confirming the grant of letters of administration; that the right to be heard should be cherished and prayed that the court would not impede that right by refusing the application and effectively rendering the appeal nugatory.
10. The Application was canvassed by way of written submissions. At the time of writing this ruling, all the parties except the Petitioners filed submissions which have duly been considered.
11. Counsel for the 1st 2nd 3rd objectors submitted that the main issue for determination was whether the order for stay of proceedings sought ought to be granted.
12. Counsel submitted that the Court possessed statutory power to grant the orders sought by virtue of Section 47 of the Law of Succession Act (Cap 160 Laws of Kenya) which confers jurisdiction to entertain applications, determine disputes and make expedient decrees/orders, alongside Rules 49, 63, and 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules which afford the Court unfettered discretion to make orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of court process.
13. Counsel submitted that the order sought ought to be granted because following the dismissal of the objection notice, the Petitioners were at liberty to seek confirmation of the grant of letters of administration pursuant to the court's order of 9/5/2025 (which directed them to file for confirmation within 14 days of obtaining the grant). Counsel highlighted that following the ruling of 9/4/2026, the Petitioners moved with speed and had the grant issued on 14/4/2026 and argued that but for the instant application, the Petitioners would have moved to confirm the grant.
14. Counsel stated that the appeal before the Court of Appeal was yet to be heard and determined and that it sought a determination on several pertinent legal issues arising from the ruling of 9/4/2026 namely: Whether Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act is applicable in succession matters; Whether the Notice of Objection to the making of a grant dated 23/6/2025 raised under Section 67(1) of the Law of Succession Act could be said to be res judicata when no notice had been previously published for an application for grant of letters of administration; Whether the High Court erred in failing to address itself on the failure by the Petitioners to comply with Section 51 of the Law of Succession Act; Whether the High Court erred in failing to make a determination on the suitability of the Petitioners to administer the estate having intermeddled with the deceased's estate and Whether the High Court erred in failing to make a determination on the prayer by the 1st and 2nd Objectors to be appointed co-administrators.
15. Counsel submitted that given the strict time limits imposed on the Petitioners to apply for confirmation, the succession cause was highly likely to be concluded and the estate distributed before the appeal was heard and determined, thereby rendering the appeal nugatory.
16. Counsel argued that if the appeal proved successful and the High Court's decision was overturned, the parties would be forced to return to the drawing board regarding the administration of the estate.
17. Counsel countered the Petitioners' contention regarding built-in statutory stopgaps by arguing that there was no guarantee that damage caused by the Petitioners' actions or inaction could be undone if the cause reached conclusion before the appeal was resolved, as the estate might no longer be within the court's reach once confirmed.
18. Counsel submitted that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Objectors were merely asking for a stay of proceedings to allow the Court of Appeal to hear and determine the appeal given its direct bearing on all proceedings in the cause. Counsel emphasized that unlike an ordinary civil suit, a succession cause is geared toward estate distribution; thus, setting aside a final distribution later would be difficult and expensive to reverse.
19. Counsel rejected the argument that the application was a delaying tactic, pointing out that the ruling was delivered on 9/4/2026, leave was granted, the notice of appeal was lodged on 13/4/2026 and the application was filed on that same date. Counsel maintained that exploiting a constitutional and legal right to appeal could not be termed a delay tactic.
20. Counsel responded to the 4th Objector's claim that the application aimed to deny beneficiaries their share while the 1st and 2nd Objectors collected rent by submitting that the argument was baseless. Counsel stated that while proceedings would eventually conclude, they should only do so after all affected parties had their day in court on contested issues. Counsel posed the question whether damage from confirmation and distribution would be reversible if the appellate court overturned the decision answering in the negative.
21. Regarding rent collection allegations made by the 4th Objector, Counsel submitted that those claims were unsubstantiated, made in bad taste and unsupported by any formal application before the court noting further that a previous application with similar undertones by the 4th Objector had been dismissed without any appeal being filed.
22. Counsel submitted that the 4th Objector's argument regarding the omission of a draft memorandum of appeal was misplaced, as it was not within the High Court's province to interrogate the merits/demerits of the intended appeal nor was there any legal requirement to attach a draft memorandum. Counsel stated that all that was legally required was proof of a filed Notice of Appeal (which was attached) adding that even the Court of Appeal did not insist on a draft memorandum as long as grounds could be substantiated.
23. Counsel addressed the Petitioners' reliance on the previous stay ruling of 4/6/2025 by submitting that the delivery of a previous ruling was irrelevant because circumstances had significantly changed. Counsel highlighted that the specific decision being challenged on appeal was the ruling delivered on 9/4/2026 making past stay determinations inapplicable.
24. Counsel countered the argument that grievances should be raised via Protest Affidavits at confirmation by stating that the status of the matter would certainly alter if stay were denied as the pending confirmation directly stemmed from the grant under appeal. Counsel submitted that the Petitioners' admission that statutory mechanisms were ignored during their initial application for administration was itself sufficient justification to stay proceedings to allow appellate evaluation.
25. Counsel reiterated that the Notice of Objection challenged not only administrator suitability but also the process used to acquire the grant (which departed from the Law of Succession Act and Probate Rules). Counsel maintained that the High Court should not delve into appeal merits but stay proceedings in the interest of justice.
26. Counsel prayed that the application be allowed, asserting that the right to be heard on appeal is a constitutional right that should not be impeded. In support of these legal arguments, Counsel cited and relied upon the following case authorities: Re Estate of Benjamin Albert Mulama Osundwa (Deceased) [2020] eKLR (2020KEHC4211(KLR)) , where the Court held that an aggrieved heir who filed a notice of appeal had a right to seek a stay of a repeat confirmation exercise. The Court observed that proceeding with a fresh confirmation during an appeal against the judgment setting aside a prior confirmation had the potential to render the appeal nugatory if successful. Emphasizing that succession causes require full ventilation to ensure family peace and complete hearing of all affected parties, the Court found a compelling case for staying proceedings pending the appellate outcome. Francis Njakwe Githiari & Another v. Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi t/a Moi Education Center [2008] eKLR , where the Court held that whenever a party exercises an unalienable right of appeal, the court must ensure that right is not encumbered or rendered nugatory. The Court observed that while weighing prejudice, proceeding with a trial while an intended appeal remained unresolved posed a real
[...truncated]