1. The interested party filed the application dated 7.3.22 seeking :
1 . spent.
2. Spent.
3. Revocation / setting aside of Gazette notice Volume CXXI no. 42 dated 8.4.19.
4. In the alternative to prayer 3 joinder of other known beneficiaries of the
estate of deceased (i.e Veronicah Nyamokami , Isabella Nyangarisa , Rhoda Nyaanga, Jacqueline Mogoi, Agnes Saringii , Solomon Asiago , Edina Kemunto, Hesborn Bosire , farida Omari, Andrew Ratemo, Brian Obaga, Bruce Ratemo , Lydia Nyaboke , Jerusha Moraa, Judy Nyakerario , Edwin Ombaso and Duncan Omari ) excluded form Succession cause no. 59 of 2018 Keroka
5. In the alternative to prayer 3 the Court be pleased to amend the letters of administration dated 15.10.2018 issued in the said Keroka succession cause to include the above mentioned beneficiaries .
6. In the alternative to prayer 3 substitution of Meshack Omari Ombaso (deceased co-administrator in the said Keroka Succession cause With jane Nyaboke Omari his surviving widow .
7.. Stay of further proceedings in the said Keroka succession cause pending amendment of the letters of administration to include the applicant and the beneficiaries mentions in paragraph 4 hereinabove ,
8. Stay of further proceedings pending substitution of the deceased co -administrator.
9. Any other order that would meet the ends of justice .
10. costs of the application.
2. The application is based on the annexed affidavit of Agnes Nyamokami Ombati and the grounds that the application was obtained by mispresentation, non -disclosure of , concealment of material facts .Also that the grand children mentioned in prayer 4 herein above of deceased were left out of the cause . The applicant deponed to the fact that survivors of deceased were left out of the cause . he told the court that deceased had two wives i. Askah Nyabaita Ombaso and Ruth Kwamboka Ombaso (the 1st and 2nd wife respectively who are also both deceased . also that the 1st wife had 3 children ;
i.Kennedy Ratemo Ombaso . (Deceased )
ii, Meshack Omoari Ombaso (deceased )
iii. Zablon Ombati Ombaso (deceased )
while the 2nd wife also had children but the applicant only knows 2 of them i.e another Zablon Ombati Ombaso and Ombaso Nehemiah Nyamweya ( objector herein). Zablon Ombati Ombaso of the 2nd house is now the sole administrator of the estate of deceased upon the demise of Meshack Omari Ombaso on 13.12.20 . Applicant said she is a daughter to Zablon Ombati Ombaso of the 1st house who is deceased and thus a grand daughter to the deceased herein .
3. The respondent Ombaso Nehemiah Nyamweya filed notice of appointment of M/s Ochwangi & co advocates to act for him and he filed a replying affidavit dated 20.4.22. He said he is a son to deceased and he was not aware of the succession cause in Keroka. He later perused the filed and noted that two properties of deceased were left out . He admitted that the applicant is a daughter to their elder brother and that he tried to unite the family in vain as the applicant did not attend the family meeting . he said he filed summons for confirmation of grant dated 25.6.2020 as a son to deceased. further that he proposed equal distribution of the estate of deceased as per the law as the beneficiaries did not agree. He said that he has been advised by his counsel that there is no need for substitution of the deceased administrator since they were two . he said he is fit to be appointed as an administrator since he had diligently handled the estate of his father .
4. Counsel submitted that the grant was obtained by concealment of material facts , no disclosure as Solomon Ratemo Ombaso and the applicant have been listed as a son and daughter of deceased which is not true. Also that she did not sign the purported consent by beneficiaries and thus he same was forged. and misrepresentation. Further that Jairus Marube Ombaso and was listed as a son of deceased but he is not related to deceased. Also that the grand children of deceased were left out of the cause. He urged this court to allow the revocation/ setting aside of the letters of administration. Also that the grandchildren ought to be joined in the cause by virtue of their family consanguinity with deceased. Counsel cited the case of Estate of Francis Muriuki Aloia Francis Muriuki Mucheru (deceased) (2018 ) eKLR in support of the prayer for joinder. It was also submitted that no grant exists under Section 76 of the law of Succession Act and so she is entitled to the prayers sought. .
Nehemiah the objector submitted that the application does not meet the threshold for revocation of grant under in Section 76 of the of Succession Act . Counsel cited the case of Milka Anyango Otieno &Another vs Kennedy Otieno (2014 )eKLR . Also that the beneficiaries listed are true family of the deceased
5. I have considered the application and the submissions . The issues arising for determination are;
a. whether the application meets the threshold for revocation of the grant of letters of administration or setting aside of the same and if so ,
b. Whether the grant should be revoked or .
c. Whether the grant should be amended or set aside and the grand children of deceased be enjoined in the cause .
d. Whether the co-administrator Meshack Omari Ombaso (deceased ) ought to be substituted .
On whether the application meets the threshold for revocation of the grant of letters of administration or setting aside of the same .
6. Revocation of grants is provided for under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. The said Section provides that - 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 circumstance
The applicant alleged that grant was obtained by concealment of material facts , non disclosure and misrepresentation of facts as Solomon Ratemo Ombaso and the applicant have been described as a son and daughter of deceased which is not true. She said she is a grand daughter of deceased and that Jairus is not a son to deceased Also that she did not sign the purported consent by beneficiaries and thus he same was forged. Further that Jairus Marube Ombaso and was listed as a son of deceased but he is not related to deceased. These allegations were against the 2nd petitioner and were not responded to by him . In the case of In re Estate of Magangi Obuki (Deceased) [2020] eKLR the Court cited the authority in the case of Albert Imbuga Kisigwa v Recho Kavai Kisigwa, Succession Cause No.158 of 2000, Mwita J. held as follows ; on the guiding principles for the revocation of a grant. He stated;
(13)Power to revoke a grant is a discretionary power that must be exercised judiciously and only on sound grounds. It is not discretion to be exercised whimsically or capriciously. There must be evidence of wrong doing 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.
7. I find that misdescription of the survivors in the petition does not amount to concealment of material facts , non -disclosure and misrepresentation of facts as the same are errors which can be rectified under Rule 43 of the probate and administration rules . The application does not meet the threshold for revocation of grant under Section 76 of the Law of succession Act.
8. On whether a grant of letters of administration can be amended to include all the beneficiaries / survivors , the law provides for only 4 administrators and thus not the entire family can be appointed as administrators in the grant. The grand children listed cannot all be administrators . They can however apply under Section 29 of the law of succession Act . identification of beneficiaries if disputed can be done any time before confirmation of grant There is also no provision of setting aside a grant but revocation under Section 76 of the Act. In any event grant can only be amended to before issuance of the same to deal with minor errors . I find that a grant cannot be amended to include all the beneficiaries / survivors .
On whether a grant ought to be revoked
9.The applicant has not met the threshold for revocation of grant under Section 76 of the Act. I find that the threshold has not been met and thus I decline to revoke the grant .
10. On whether the deceased administrator ought to be substituted by his wife and the applicant herein or whether the objector /respondent should be appointed as the administrator , there is no dispute that the administrator has passed on. The applicant suggested that she and the wife to Meshack he appointed as administrators. However Nehemiah suggests that he be appointed as an administrator to join Zablon Ombaso (Junior ) . The wife to the said Meshack has not come to court to seek to be appointed as an administrator The deceased herein had two wives and so it would be fair and just that the administrators be representative of the two houses . I proceed to substitute the deceased administrator with the applicant Agnes Nyamokami Ombati to be a joint administrator with Zablon Ombati Ombaso in the interest of justice .
11. The administrators to file summons for confirmation of grant within 45 days from today. The beneficiaries to have a sitting and agree on beneficiaries and the proposed mode of distribution before the next mention date. Mention on 6.5.26 .
12. Each party to bear his own costs .
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
9.12.25
Delivered Virtually on this 15 th Day of December 2025 Via teams platform in the absence of parties . CA MATIKO .
1 . spent.
2. Spent.
3. Revocation / setting aside of Gazette notice Volume CXXI no. 42 dated 8.4.19.
4. In the alternative to prayer 3 joinder of other known beneficiaries of the
estate of deceased (i.e Veronicah Nyamokami , Isabella Nyangarisa , Rhoda Nyaanga, Jacqueline Mogoi, Agnes Saringii , Solomon Asiago , Edina Kemunto, Hesborn Bosire , farida Omari, Andrew Ratemo, Brian Obaga, Bruce Ratemo , Lydia Nyaboke , Jerusha Moraa, Judy Nyakerario , Edwin Ombaso and Duncan Omari ) excluded form Succession cause no. 59 of 2018 Keroka
5. In the alternative to prayer 3 the Court be pleased to amend the letters of administration dated 15.10.2018 issued in the said Keroka succession cause to include the above mentioned beneficiaries .
6. In the alternative to prayer 3 substitution of Meshack Omari Ombaso (deceased co-administrator in the said Keroka Succession cause With jane Nyaboke Omari his surviving widow .
7.. Stay of further proceedings in the said Keroka succession cause pending amendment of the letters of administration to include the applicant and the beneficiaries mentions in paragraph 4 hereinabove ,
8. Stay of further proceedings pending substitution of the deceased co -administrator.
9. Any other order that would meet the ends of justice .
10. costs of the application.
2. The application is based on the annexed affidavit of Agnes Nyamokami Ombati and the grounds that the application was obtained by mispresentation, non -disclosure of , concealment of material facts .Also that the grand children mentioned in prayer 4 herein above of deceased were left out of the cause . The applicant deponed to the fact that survivors of deceased were left out of the cause . he told the court that deceased had two wives i. Askah Nyabaita Ombaso and Ruth Kwamboka Ombaso (the 1st and 2nd wife respectively who are also both deceased . also that the 1st wife had 3 children ;
i.Kennedy Ratemo Ombaso . (Deceased )
ii, Meshack Omoari Ombaso (deceased )
iii. Zablon Ombati Ombaso (deceased )
while the 2nd wife also had children but the applicant only knows 2 of them i.e another Zablon Ombati Ombaso and Ombaso Nehemiah Nyamweya ( objector herein). Zablon Ombati Ombaso of the 2nd house is now the sole administrator of the estate of deceased upon the demise of Meshack Omari Ombaso on 13.12.20 . Applicant said she is a daughter to Zablon Ombati Ombaso of the 1st house who is deceased and thus a grand daughter to the deceased herein .
3. The respondent Ombaso Nehemiah Nyamweya filed notice of appointment of M/s Ochwangi & co advocates to act for him and he filed a replying affidavit dated 20.4.22. He said he is a son to deceased and he was not aware of the succession cause in Keroka. He later perused the filed and noted that two properties of deceased were left out . He admitted that the applicant is a daughter to their elder brother and that he tried to unite the family in vain as the applicant did not attend the family meeting . he said he filed summons for confirmation of grant dated 25.6.2020 as a son to deceased. further that he proposed equal distribution of the estate of deceased as per the law as the beneficiaries did not agree. He said that he has been advised by his counsel that there is no need for substitution of the deceased administrator since they were two . he said he is fit to be appointed as an administrator since he had diligently handled the estate of his father .
4. Counsel submitted that the grant was obtained by concealment of material facts , no disclosure as Solomon Ratemo Ombaso and the applicant have been listed as a son and daughter of deceased which is not true. Also that she did not sign the purported consent by beneficiaries and thus he same was forged. and misrepresentation. Further that Jairus Marube Ombaso and was listed as a son of deceased but he is not related to deceased. Also that the grand children of deceased were left out of the cause. He urged this court to allow the revocation/ setting aside of the letters of administration. Also that the grandchildren ought to be joined in the cause by virtue of their family consanguinity with deceased. Counsel cited the case of Estate of Francis Muriuki Aloia Francis Muriuki Mucheru (deceased) (2018 ) eKLR in support of the prayer for joinder. It was also submitted that no grant exists under Section 76 of the law of Succession Act and so she is entitled to the prayers sought. .
Nehemiah the objector submitted that the application does not meet the threshold for revocation of grant under in Section 76 of the of Succession Act . Counsel cited the case of Milka Anyango Otieno &Another vs Kennedy Otieno (2014 )eKLR . Also that the beneficiaries listed are true family of the deceased
5. I have considered the application and the submissions . The issues arising for determination are;
a. whether the application meets the threshold for revocation of the grant of letters of administration or setting aside of the same and if so ,
b. Whether the grant should be revoked or .
c. Whether the grant should be amended or set aside and the grand children of deceased be enjoined in the cause .
d. Whether the co-administrator Meshack Omari Ombaso (deceased ) ought to be substituted .
On whether the application meets the threshold for revocation of the grant of letters of administration or setting aside of the same .
6. Revocation of grants is provided for under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. The said Section provides that - 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 circumstance
The applicant alleged that grant was obtained by concealment of material facts , non disclosure and misrepresentation of facts as Solomon Ratemo Ombaso and the applicant have been described as a son and daughter of deceased which is not true. She said she is a grand daughter of deceased and that Jairus is not a son to deceased Also that she did not sign the purported consent by beneficiaries and thus he same was forged. Further that Jairus Marube Ombaso and was listed as a son of deceased but he is not related to deceased. These allegations were against the 2nd petitioner and were not responded to by him . In the case of In re Estate of Magangi Obuki (Deceased) [2020] eKLR the Court cited the authority in the case of Albert Imbuga Kisigwa v Recho Kavai Kisigwa, Succession Cause No.158 of 2000, Mwita J. held as follows ; on the guiding principles for the revocation of a grant. He stated;
(13)Power to revoke a grant is a discretionary power that must be exercised judiciously and only on sound grounds. It is not discretion to be exercised whimsically or capriciously. There must be evidence of wrong doing 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.
7. I find that misdescription of the survivors in the petition does not amount to concealment of material facts , non -disclosure and misrepresentation of facts as the same are errors which can be rectified under Rule 43 of the probate and administration rules . The application does not meet the threshold for revocation of grant under Section 76 of the Law of succession Act.
8. On whether a grant of letters of administration can be amended to include all the beneficiaries / survivors , the law provides for only 4 administrators and thus not the entire family can be appointed as administrators in the grant. The grand children listed cannot all be administrators . They can however apply under Section 29 of the law of succession Act . identification of beneficiaries if disputed can be done any time before confirmation of grant There is also no provision of setting aside a grant but revocation under Section 76 of the Act. In any event grant can only be amended to before issuance of the same to deal with minor errors . I find that a grant cannot be amended to include all the beneficiaries / survivors .
On whether a grant ought to be revoked
9.The applicant has not met the threshold for revocation of grant under Section 76 of the Act. I find that the threshold has not been met and thus I decline to revoke the grant .
10. On whether the deceased administrator ought to be substituted by his wife and the applicant herein or whether the objector /respondent should be appointed as the administrator , there is no dispute that the administrator has passed on. The applicant suggested that she and the wife to Meshack he appointed as administrators. However Nehemiah suggests that he be appointed as an administrator to join Zablon Ombaso (Junior ) . The wife to the said Meshack has not come to court to seek to be appointed as an administrator The deceased herein had two wives and so it would be fair and just that the administrators be representative of the two houses . I proceed to substitute the deceased administrator with the applicant Agnes Nyamokami Ombati to be a joint administrator with Zablon Ombati Ombaso in the interest of justice .
11. The administrators to file summons for confirmation of grant within 45 days from today. The beneficiaries to have a sitting and agree on beneficiaries and the proposed mode of distribution before the next mention date. Mention on 6.5.26 .
12. Each party to bear his own costs .
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
9.12.25
Delivered Virtually on this 15 th Day of December 2025 Via teams platform in the absence of parties . CA MATIKO .