Background
1. The deceased died intestate on 13th July 2025. A substantive petition for full letters of administration intestate has already been filed and is pending before this Court.
2. Before Court is a petition dated 19th November 2025 by Onkangi Kwamboka Florence seeking the issuance of a limited grant of letters of administration ad colligenda bona in respect of the estate of her late father Daniel Onkangi Paul.
3. The Applicant avers that during his lifetime the deceased operated Borabu Maternity and Nursing Home and that following his death the operations of the facility stalled due to the absence of a legally authorised person to access and operate the hospital's bank account, being Account No. [xxxxxx] held at [xxxxxx], Nyamira Branch.
4. The Applicant seeks authority, under a limited grant ad colligenda bona, to access the said account and to apply the funds therein towards payment of staff salaries and other operational expenses.
Issues for Determination
5. From the pleadings and submissions on record, the following issues arise for determination by the Court:
1) Whether the Applicant seeks authority to access and withdraw estate funds.
2) Whether such authority is permissible under a limited grant ad colligenda bona.
3) Whether the Applicant has demonstrated sufficient necessity to justify withdrawal of estate funds before issuance of a full grant.
4) Whether the amounts claimed as unpaid salaries have been proved to the standard required at this stage.
5) What orders ought to issue.
Analysis and Determination
1) Whether the Applicant seeks authority to access and withdraw estate funds
6. The Court has carefully considered the Applicant’s pleadings and depositions together with the Written Submissions filed on behalf of the Petitioner/Applicant dated 15th December 2025. From the tenor of the Motion and the prayers sought, it is evident that the Applicant does not merely seek custodial preservation of the estate pending confirmation of grant. Rather, the relief sought expressly contemplates access to, and withdrawal of, monies standing to the credit of Account No. [xxxxxx] at [xxxxxx], Nyamira Branch for purposes of paying salaries and meeting operational expenses.
7. In the premises, and for purposes of Issue (i), the Court finds that the Applicant seeks authority to withdraw and apply estate funds, as opposed to safeguarding them. Issue (i) is accordingly answered in the affirmative.
2) Whether such authority is permissible under a limited grant ad colligenda bona
8. Section 54 of the Law of Succession Act empowers the Court to issue limited grants in appropriate circumstances, while Rule 36 of the Probate and Administration Rules confines such grants to the collection and preservation of the estate until further representation is granted. The form prescribed for such a grant, namely Form 47, does not confer general powers of administration.
9. The Applicant, through submissions dated 15th December 2025, has cited several authorities in support of the proposition that the Court may craft targeted protective orders permitting withdrawals for urgent estate needs without converting the process into distribution. The Court has examined each of these authorities and their application to the present case.
10. In Morjaria v Abdalla [1984] KLR 490, the Court of Appeal held that limited grants must be tethered to the specific purpose authorised by law, and that "ad colligenda bona" is fundamentally about collecting and preserving the estate where a full grant cannot be obtained immediately. Applying this principle to the present case, the Court notes that while the Applicant seeks to preserve the hospital as an estate asset, the relief sought which is access to bank accounts for payment of salaries and operational expenses goes beyond mere collection and preservation as contemplated in Morjaria where the Court emphasized the restrictive nature of such grants, which must remain tethered to their specific statutory purpose.
11. In Emmanuel Wawole Mochawa v Harun Kariuki Kamande [2020] eKLR, the Court emphasized that an ad colligenda bona grant is "limited to the purpose only of collecting… and doing such acts as may be necessary for the preservation of the estate." However, unlike the present case, the Mochawa decision did not involve a determination of whether withdrawals for operating expenses could be authorized. The principle established in Mochawa supports the restrictive interpretation that such grants are preservation-focused, which militates against the broad access to funds sought by the Applicant herein.
12. The Applicant places considerable reliance on In re Estate of Daniel A. Korir Kipkurui (Deceased) [2021] eKLR, where the High Court accepted that urgent necessities can justify a limited grant and held that, "as part of preservation of the estate," prompt payment of urgent needs (school fees and upkeep for minor children) was necessary. The Court issued an ad colligenda bona grant authorising withdrawal of a capped sum of KES. 281,000, directing direct payment to school accounts and requiring accountability.
13. However, the present case is distinguishable on material facts. In Korir Kipkurui, the urgent needs related to the welfare of minor children, a constitutional imperative under Article 53 of the Constitution and the amounts were specific, verifiable, and directed to identified recipients (schools).
14. In contrast, the present application concerns payment of staff salaries and operational expenses for a business enterprise, with amounts that have not been adequately substantiated. The Court finds that the constitutional dimension and the specificity of needs in Korir Kipkurui justify a different outcome than the present case warrants.
15. Similarly, in In re Estate of Johnson Maweu Kieti (Deceased) [2021] eKLR, the High Court made targeted protective orders including compelling the bank to supply statements and permitting withdrawals of specified sums for mortuary charges amounting to KES. 400,000, and legal fees of in the sum of KES. 150,000 to each party. Critically, these were one-time, verifiable expenses related to burial a matter of dignity and closure and legal representation for parties already before the Court. The Court notes that mortuary and burial expenses are of an entirely different character from ongoing operational expenses of a business. The former prevents actual wastage (decomposition of remains) and completes a finite obligation, while the latter involves continuing business operations which properly fall within the scope of full administration. The Maweu Kieti precedent therefore does not support the relief sought in the present case.
16. The Court has also considered In re Estate of Joseph Karimi Karuhi (Deceased) [2015] eKLR, where the Court declined to allow access to withdraw funds because the applicant had not disclosed how much was needed, the value of the estate, and the risk of depletion before full grant and confirmation. The Court reiterated that ad colligenda bona is restricted to collecting and preserving unless modified and carefully controlled. The present case suffers from similar evidentiary deficiencies. Like the applicant in Karuhi, the Applicant herein has not adequately disclosed the total value of the estate, the extent of liabilities, or the risk of depletion if the claimed KES. 1,038,000 plus operational expenses are withdrawn from the account. This Court adopts the reasoning in Karuhi that such evidentiary gaps preclude the granting of authority to access estate funds at this interlocutory stage.
17. Finally, in In re Estate of Arthur Nganga Njuguna Ndoro (Deceased) [2015] eKLR, although the applicant cited the need to keep a school running and meet obligations including staff salaries, the Court declined broad access to the deceased's bank accounts, emphasising the limited nature of the grant and the need for proper safeguards and candour, especially where there were serious beneficiary disputes. The facts of Ndoro bear significant similarity to the present case as both involve requests to access funds to maintain operations of an educational or medical institution and pay staff salaries. The Court in Ndoro held that such ongoing operational expenses exceed the scope of an ad colligenda bona grant.
18. Applying this precedent, the Court finds that payment of staff salaries and operational expenses for the hospital, while potentially beneficial to the estate, constitutes active management and administration rather than mere preservation, and therefore falls outside the permissible scope of a limited grant.
19. The Court therefore finds that a limited grant is, by its nature, restrictive and preservatory, and does not ordinarily permit withdrawal or application of estate funds beyond what is strictly necessary to prevent actual wastage. In the present case, the Applicant has not demonstrated that the funds in the bank account face actual wastage, loss, or dissipation if left untouched. Unlike perishable goods, decomposing remains, or minor children's immediate welfare, the funds remain secure in the bank account pending full grant. The cessation of hospital operations, while regrettable, does not constitute wastage of the funds themselves. The authorities cited by the Applicant, when properly applied to the facts, do not support the broad relief sought.
3) Whether the Applicant has demonstrated sufficient necessity to justify withdrawal of estate funds before issuance of a full grant
20. The Applicant urges that immediate access to funds is necessary to revive the operations of the hospital and to meet outstanding obligations. In the submissions dated 15th December 2025, the Applicant argues that the estate asset is an operating hospital which, if unable to pay staff, utilities, and essential inputs, will rapidly lose staff, patients, supplier credit lines, and operational capacity, thereby directly diminishing the value of the estate. The Applicant relies on sections 54 and 67(1) of the Law of Succession Act and section 47, which empowers the Court to make expedient orders. The Applicant further distinguishes the relief sought from distribution under section 55, contending that the request is to preserve a wasting estate asset through controlled payments rather than to distribute capital to beneficiaries or divide property.
21. The Court has considered this argument but notes that no evidence has been placed before it to demonstrate that the funds held in the said bank account are exposed to loss, dissipation, or wastage if left untouched pending issuance of a full grant. There is no allegation of imminent attachment, garnishee proceedings, unauthorised access, or any external threat to the funds. The Applicant's concern relates to the operational viability of the hospital as a business, not to the preservation of the funds themselves. While the Court appreciates that the hospital's closure may affect its goodwill and operational capacity, this goes to the management and administration of the business rather than the preservation of liquid assets.
22. In the absence of evidence demonstrating actual threat to the estate funds, the Court finds that the threshold of necessity required to justify interlocutory withdrawal of estate funds has not been met.
4) Whether the amounts claimed as unpaid salaries have been proved to the standard required at this stage
23. The Applicant places the alleged salary arrears at KES. 1,038,000. While the figure is stated, it is derived from an internal schedule and is unsupported by material enabling the Court to verify its accuracy, scope, or immediacy. The schedule does not clearly disclose the period covered, the basis of computation, or whether the sums are gross or net.
24. In the submissions dated 15th December 2025, the Applicant acknowledges the judicial caution expressed in cases such as In Karuhi, where the Court declined to allow access to withdraw funds because the applicant had not disclosed how much was needed, the value of the estate, and the risk of depletion before full grant and confirmation. The Applicant seeks to address these concerns by proposing specific safeguards.
25. The Applicant's proposed framework, as set out in the submissions, includes the following protective measures: first, limiting authority strictly to the specific hospital account identified in the evidence; second, capping withdrawals to the precise amounts shown in the salary schedule and essential operating expenses; third, directing that all payments be made directly to employees and critical suppliers rather than through cash withdrawals; and fourth, requiring periodic filing of bank statements and a brief account to Court to ensure transparency and accountability.
26. The Applicant relies on Korir Kipkurui and Maweu Kieti (Deceased) as precedents where courts adopted similar controlled structures. In the Korir Kipkurui case, the Court permitted withdrawals of a capped sum for school fees and upkeep, directing payment directly to school accounts and requiring accountability. In the Maweu Kieti case, the Court allowed withdrawals of specified sums limited to mortuary charges, cremation charges, burial expenses, and legal fees, with each amount clearly delineated. The Applicant submits that this type of controlled, accountable structure enables urgent preservation measures while preventing the risk of estate depletion that concerned the Court in Karuhi.
27. However, the Court notes critical distinctions between the cited cases and the present application. In Korir Kipkurui, the amounts were supported by school fee structures and clearly identified beneficiaries (minor children with constitutional rights to education). In Maweu Kieti, the amounts related to verifiable one-time expenses (mortuary bills and legal fees). In contrast, the present case involves ongoing operational expenses based on an internal schedule without independent verification. The Applicant has not provided employment contracts, payroll records, statutory deduction schedules, or other documentation that would enable the Court to verify the amounts claimed. Further, unlike the finite expenses in the cited cases, operational expenses are by nature continuous and open-ended, which increases the risk of estate depletion before full grant.
28. Despite the proposed safeguards, the Court finds that the amount claimed has not been proved to a standard sufficient to ground an order authorising withdrawal of estate funds at this stage. The evidentiary deficiencies identified in Karuhi (are equally present in this case.
5) What orders ought to issue
29. Having determined the issues arising for consideration and in light of the foregoing analysis and findings, the Court is satisfied that the circumstances disclosed justify the issuance of a limited grant for purposes of collecting, getting in, and preserving the estate. However, the Court is not persuaded that the legal or evidentiary threshold for authorising access to, or withdrawal of, estate funds has been met.
30. In the premises, and with respect to Issue (v), the Court finds that a limited grant ad colligenda bona shall issue to the Applicant, but strictly confined to its statutory purpose of collection and preservation of the estate. The grant shall not confer any authority to access or withdraw monies from the deceased’s bank accounts, nor to make any payments whatsoever. All questions relating to the management, expenditure, or application of estate funds shall await the issuance of a full grant of letters of administration in accordance with the law.
Disposition
31. Accordingly, pursuant to section 54 of the Law of Succession Act and Rule 36 of the Probate and Administration Rules, this Court finds that:
1) The Applicant has not demonstrated sufficient necessity to justify withdrawal of estate funds before issuance of a full grant.
2) A limited grant of letters of administration ad colligenda bona shall issue to Onkangi Kwamboka Florence, limited strictly to the collection, safeguarding, and preservation of the estate of the late Daniel Onkangi Paul until further representation is granted.
3) For the avoidance of doubt, the said limited grant shall not authorise access to, operation of, or withdrawal from Account No. [xxxxxx] held at [xxxxxx], Nyamira Branch, or any other bank account of the deceased, nor shall it authorise payment of salaries, operational expenses, or any other liabilities of the estate.
4) All matters relating to the management, expenditure, or application of estate funds shall await issuance of a full grant of letters of administration in accordance with the law.
5) There shall be no order as to costs.
1. The deceased died intestate on 13th July 2025. A substantive petition for full letters of administration intestate has already been filed and is pending before this Court.
2. Before Court is a petition dated 19th November 2025 by Onkangi Kwamboka Florence seeking the issuance of a limited grant of letters of administration ad colligenda bona in respect of the estate of her late father Daniel Onkangi Paul.
3. The Applicant avers that during his lifetime the deceased operated Borabu Maternity and Nursing Home and that following his death the operations of the facility stalled due to the absence of a legally authorised person to access and operate the hospital's bank account, being Account No. [xxxxxx] held at [xxxxxx], Nyamira Branch.
4. The Applicant seeks authority, under a limited grant ad colligenda bona, to access the said account and to apply the funds therein towards payment of staff salaries and other operational expenses.
Issues for Determination
5. From the pleadings and submissions on record, the following issues arise for determination by the Court:
1) Whether the Applicant seeks authority to access and withdraw estate funds.
2) Whether such authority is permissible under a limited grant ad colligenda bona.
3) Whether the Applicant has demonstrated sufficient necessity to justify withdrawal of estate funds before issuance of a full grant.
4) Whether the amounts claimed as unpaid salaries have been proved to the standard required at this stage.
5) What orders ought to issue.
Analysis and Determination
1) Whether the Applicant seeks authority to access and withdraw estate funds
6. The Court has carefully considered the Applicant’s pleadings and depositions together with the Written Submissions filed on behalf of the Petitioner/Applicant dated 15th December 2025. From the tenor of the Motion and the prayers sought, it is evident that the Applicant does not merely seek custodial preservation of the estate pending confirmation of grant. Rather, the relief sought expressly contemplates access to, and withdrawal of, monies standing to the credit of Account No. [xxxxxx] at [xxxxxx], Nyamira Branch for purposes of paying salaries and meeting operational expenses.
7. In the premises, and for purposes of Issue (i), the Court finds that the Applicant seeks authority to withdraw and apply estate funds, as opposed to safeguarding them. Issue (i) is accordingly answered in the affirmative.
2) Whether such authority is permissible under a limited grant ad colligenda bona
8. Section 54 of the Law of Succession Act empowers the Court to issue limited grants in appropriate circumstances, while Rule 36 of the Probate and Administration Rules confines such grants to the collection and preservation of the estate until further representation is granted. The form prescribed for such a grant, namely Form 47, does not confer general powers of administration.
9. The Applicant, through submissions dated 15th December 2025, has cited several authorities in support of the proposition that the Court may craft targeted protective orders permitting withdrawals for urgent estate needs without converting the process into distribution. The Court has examined each of these authorities and their application to the present case.
10. In Morjaria v Abdalla [1984] KLR 490, the Court of Appeal held that limited grants must be tethered to the specific purpose authorised by law, and that "ad colligenda bona" is fundamentally about collecting and preserving the estate where a full grant cannot be obtained immediately. Applying this principle to the present case, the Court notes that while the Applicant seeks to preserve the hospital as an estate asset, the relief sought which is access to bank accounts for payment of salaries and operational expenses goes beyond mere collection and preservation as contemplated in Morjaria where the Court emphasized the restrictive nature of such grants, which must remain tethered to their specific statutory purpose.
11. In Emmanuel Wawole Mochawa v Harun Kariuki Kamande [2020] eKLR, the Court emphasized that an ad colligenda bona grant is "limited to the purpose only of collecting… and doing such acts as may be necessary for the preservation of the estate." However, unlike the present case, the Mochawa decision did not involve a determination of whether withdrawals for operating expenses could be authorized. The principle established in Mochawa supports the restrictive interpretation that such grants are preservation-focused, which militates against the broad access to funds sought by the Applicant herein.
12. The Applicant places considerable reliance on In re Estate of Daniel A. Korir Kipkurui (Deceased) [2021] eKLR, where the High Court accepted that urgent necessities can justify a limited grant and held that, "as part of preservation of the estate," prompt payment of urgent needs (school fees and upkeep for minor children) was necessary. The Court issued an ad colligenda bona grant authorising withdrawal of a capped sum of KES. 281,000, directing direct payment to school accounts and requiring accountability.
13. However, the present case is distinguishable on material facts. In Korir Kipkurui, the urgent needs related to the welfare of minor children, a constitutional imperative under Article 53 of the Constitution and the amounts were specific, verifiable, and directed to identified recipients (schools).
14. In contrast, the present application concerns payment of staff salaries and operational expenses for a business enterprise, with amounts that have not been adequately substantiated. The Court finds that the constitutional dimension and the specificity of needs in Korir Kipkurui justify a different outcome than the present case warrants.
15. Similarly, in In re Estate of Johnson Maweu Kieti (Deceased) [2021] eKLR, the High Court made targeted protective orders including compelling the bank to supply statements and permitting withdrawals of specified sums for mortuary charges amounting to KES. 400,000, and legal fees of in the sum of KES. 150,000 to each party. Critically, these were one-time, verifiable expenses related to burial a matter of dignity and closure and legal representation for parties already before the Court. The Court notes that mortuary and burial expenses are of an entirely different character from ongoing operational expenses of a business. The former prevents actual wastage (decomposition of remains) and completes a finite obligation, while the latter involves continuing business operations which properly fall within the scope of full administration. The Maweu Kieti precedent therefore does not support the relief sought in the present case.
16. The Court has also considered In re Estate of Joseph Karimi Karuhi (Deceased) [2015] eKLR, where the Court declined to allow access to withdraw funds because the applicant had not disclosed how much was needed, the value of the estate, and the risk of depletion before full grant and confirmation. The Court reiterated that ad colligenda bona is restricted to collecting and preserving unless modified and carefully controlled. The present case suffers from similar evidentiary deficiencies. Like the applicant in Karuhi, the Applicant herein has not adequately disclosed the total value of the estate, the extent of liabilities, or the risk of depletion if the claimed KES. 1,038,000 plus operational expenses are withdrawn from the account. This Court adopts the reasoning in Karuhi that such evidentiary gaps preclude the granting of authority to access estate funds at this interlocutory stage.
17. Finally, in In re Estate of Arthur Nganga Njuguna Ndoro (Deceased) [2015] eKLR, although the applicant cited the need to keep a school running and meet obligations including staff salaries, the Court declined broad access to the deceased's bank accounts, emphasising the limited nature of the grant and the need for proper safeguards and candour, especially where there were serious beneficiary disputes. The facts of Ndoro bear significant similarity to the present case as both involve requests to access funds to maintain operations of an educational or medical institution and pay staff salaries. The Court in Ndoro held that such ongoing operational expenses exceed the scope of an ad colligenda bona grant.
18. Applying this precedent, the Court finds that payment of staff salaries and operational expenses for the hospital, while potentially beneficial to the estate, constitutes active management and administration rather than mere preservation, and therefore falls outside the permissible scope of a limited grant.
19. The Court therefore finds that a limited grant is, by its nature, restrictive and preservatory, and does not ordinarily permit withdrawal or application of estate funds beyond what is strictly necessary to prevent actual wastage. In the present case, the Applicant has not demonstrated that the funds in the bank account face actual wastage, loss, or dissipation if left untouched. Unlike perishable goods, decomposing remains, or minor children's immediate welfare, the funds remain secure in the bank account pending full grant. The cessation of hospital operations, while regrettable, does not constitute wastage of the funds themselves. The authorities cited by the Applicant, when properly applied to the facts, do not support the broad relief sought.
3) Whether the Applicant has demonstrated sufficient necessity to justify withdrawal of estate funds before issuance of a full grant
20. The Applicant urges that immediate access to funds is necessary to revive the operations of the hospital and to meet outstanding obligations. In the submissions dated 15th December 2025, the Applicant argues that the estate asset is an operating hospital which, if unable to pay staff, utilities, and essential inputs, will rapidly lose staff, patients, supplier credit lines, and operational capacity, thereby directly diminishing the value of the estate. The Applicant relies on sections 54 and 67(1) of the Law of Succession Act and section 47, which empowers the Court to make expedient orders. The Applicant further distinguishes the relief sought from distribution under section 55, contending that the request is to preserve a wasting estate asset through controlled payments rather than to distribute capital to beneficiaries or divide property.
21. The Court has considered this argument but notes that no evidence has been placed before it to demonstrate that the funds held in the said bank account are exposed to loss, dissipation, or wastage if left untouched pending issuance of a full grant. There is no allegation of imminent attachment, garnishee proceedings, unauthorised access, or any external threat to the funds. The Applicant's concern relates to the operational viability of the hospital as a business, not to the preservation of the funds themselves. While the Court appreciates that the hospital's closure may affect its goodwill and operational capacity, this goes to the management and administration of the business rather than the preservation of liquid assets.
22. In the absence of evidence demonstrating actual threat to the estate funds, the Court finds that the threshold of necessity required to justify interlocutory withdrawal of estate funds has not been met.
4) Whether the amounts claimed as unpaid salaries have been proved to the standard required at this stage
23. The Applicant places the alleged salary arrears at KES. 1,038,000. While the figure is stated, it is derived from an internal schedule and is unsupported by material enabling the Court to verify its accuracy, scope, or immediacy. The schedule does not clearly disclose the period covered, the basis of computation, or whether the sums are gross or net.
24. In the submissions dated 15th December 2025, the Applicant acknowledges the judicial caution expressed in cases such as In Karuhi, where the Court declined to allow access to withdraw funds because the applicant had not disclosed how much was needed, the value of the estate, and the risk of depletion before full grant and confirmation. The Applicant seeks to address these concerns by proposing specific safeguards.
25. The Applicant's proposed framework, as set out in the submissions, includes the following protective measures: first, limiting authority strictly to the specific hospital account identified in the evidence; second, capping withdrawals to the precise amounts shown in the salary schedule and essential operating expenses; third, directing that all payments be made directly to employees and critical suppliers rather than through cash withdrawals; and fourth, requiring periodic filing of bank statements and a brief account to Court to ensure transparency and accountability.
26. The Applicant relies on Korir Kipkurui and Maweu Kieti (Deceased) as precedents where courts adopted similar controlled structures. In the Korir Kipkurui case, the Court permitted withdrawals of a capped sum for school fees and upkeep, directing payment directly to school accounts and requiring accountability. In the Maweu Kieti case, the Court allowed withdrawals of specified sums limited to mortuary charges, cremation charges, burial expenses, and legal fees, with each amount clearly delineated. The Applicant submits that this type of controlled, accountable structure enables urgent preservation measures while preventing the risk of estate depletion that concerned the Court in Karuhi.
27. However, the Court notes critical distinctions between the cited cases and the present application. In Korir Kipkurui, the amounts were supported by school fee structures and clearly identified beneficiaries (minor children with constitutional rights to education). In Maweu Kieti, the amounts related to verifiable one-time expenses (mortuary bills and legal fees). In contrast, the present case involves ongoing operational expenses based on an internal schedule without independent verification. The Applicant has not provided employment contracts, payroll records, statutory deduction schedules, or other documentation that would enable the Court to verify the amounts claimed. Further, unlike the finite expenses in the cited cases, operational expenses are by nature continuous and open-ended, which increases the risk of estate depletion before full grant.
28. Despite the proposed safeguards, the Court finds that the amount claimed has not been proved to a standard sufficient to ground an order authorising withdrawal of estate funds at this stage. The evidentiary deficiencies identified in Karuhi (are equally present in this case.
5) What orders ought to issue
29. Having determined the issues arising for consideration and in light of the foregoing analysis and findings, the Court is satisfied that the circumstances disclosed justify the issuance of a limited grant for purposes of collecting, getting in, and preserving the estate. However, the Court is not persuaded that the legal or evidentiary threshold for authorising access to, or withdrawal of, estate funds has been met.
30. In the premises, and with respect to Issue (v), the Court finds that a limited grant ad colligenda bona shall issue to the Applicant, but strictly confined to its statutory purpose of collection and preservation of the estate. The grant shall not confer any authority to access or withdraw monies from the deceased’s bank accounts, nor to make any payments whatsoever. All questions relating to the management, expenditure, or application of estate funds shall await the issuance of a full grant of letters of administration in accordance with the law.
Disposition
31. Accordingly, pursuant to section 54 of the Law of Succession Act and Rule 36 of the Probate and Administration Rules, this Court finds that:
1) The Applicant has not demonstrated sufficient necessity to justify withdrawal of estate funds before issuance of a full grant.
2) A limited grant of letters of administration ad colligenda bona shall issue to Onkangi Kwamboka Florence, limited strictly to the collection, safeguarding, and preservation of the estate of the late Daniel Onkangi Paul until further representation is granted.
3) For the avoidance of doubt, the said limited grant shall not authorise access to, operation of, or withdrawal from Account No. [xxxxxx] held at [xxxxxx], Nyamira Branch, or any other bank account of the deceased, nor shall it authorise payment of salaries, operational expenses, or any other liabilities of the estate.
4) All matters relating to the management, expenditure, or application of estate funds shall await issuance of a full grant of letters of administration in accordance with the law.
5) There shall be no order as to costs.