1. The deceased, whose estate is the subject of these proceedings, died on 24th September 2021 in Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany. The grant in respect of the estate of Margaret Christine Schroter was issued by the Constance Local Court on 4th October 2021 to Dr Klaus Friedrich Rudolf Schroter, ID NO L32 T1 2M6M, of Bahnhofstrasse 33, 55218 Ingelheim, Germany.
2. The deceased died testate, having executed a joint will with her husband, Heinz Hugo Traugott Schroter (deceased), on 17th September 1984. According to the will, the couple had 2 children: Ursula Schroter-Liss, nee Schroter, born on 16th April 1951, and Klaus Schroter, born on 24th February 1953. The testators appointed the surviving spouse as the sole heir of the estate. The 2 children were named in the will as substitute heirs in the event that both parents died simultaneously.
3. In the Petition dated 10th June 2025, filed electronically on 30th June 2025, Dr Klaus Fredrick Rudolf Schroter sought to have the German will resealed. The petitioner stated that the decedent had 3 bank accounts and that her estate was worth Kes 70,000,000/= in total.
4. The petition was gazetted on 29th August 2025. There being no objection, this court resealed the grant on 29th September 2025.
5. On 18th November 2025, the objector, Julius Gona Katana, filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated the same day, contending that Mr Tom Leone Kongere had no authority to file an affidavit on behalf of Dr Klaus Schroter. He prayed that the petition for resealing of the foreign grant be struck out for being “incompetent, unauthorized, and totally defective.”
6. By an application dated 20th November 2025, Mr Katana sought to have the Kenya Gazette Notice dated 29th August 2025 set aside and to reopen the proceedings so that the resealing process could be reopened. The applicant did so because the grant had by then been resealed. He contended that the bank accounts mentioned in the petition did not belong to Margaret Christine Schroter but to her daughter, Ursula Christine Marie Schroter, and that he was entitled to inherit whatever was in the said accounts.
7. The application was canvassed before me on 25th November 2025. Mr Mutonyi submitted that the petitioner perjured himself insofar as the account did not belong to him but to Ursula, and that the accounts in question were the subject of a freezing order in P&A No E041 of 2025, the Estate of Ursula Christine Marie Schroter (deceased).
8. On the other hand, Mr Tom Leone Kongere submitted that the application had been overtaken by events because the resealed grant had been issued. In his view, the court was thus functus officio and had no jurisdiction to issue any further order(s). He further contended that due process had been followed.
9. In his rebuttal, Mr Mutonyi argued that the petitioner had not contested its assertion that the accounts belonged to Ms Ursula Christine Marie Schroter.
10. Whither goest the court? It is my view that there is a valid grant resealed by this court on 29th September 2025. Once a foreign grant is resealed, there is no requirement in our law for its confirmation. See the decision of Chemitei, J in re Estate of Anthony Timothy Mariano [2020] KEHC 7558(KLR) where his lordship stated that:-
“Unlike local grants of letters of administration issued intestate, the law governing resealed foreign probate grants does not expressly require a further confirmation process before administration may proceed.”
11. What the applicant ought to have done was to seek to have the resealed grant revoked for any of the reasons stated in section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. It has not done any such thing. In my view, the application before me is competent and should be dismissed.
12. In the circumstances, the application dated 20th November 2025 is dismissed. Each party shall bear its own costs.
13. It is so ordered.
Dated and signed at Nairobi this 6th day of July 2026.
2. The deceased died testate, having executed a joint will with her husband, Heinz Hugo Traugott Schroter (deceased), on 17th September 1984. According to the will, the couple had 2 children: Ursula Schroter-Liss, nee Schroter, born on 16th April 1951, and Klaus Schroter, born on 24th February 1953. The testators appointed the surviving spouse as the sole heir of the estate. The 2 children were named in the will as substitute heirs in the event that both parents died simultaneously.
3. In the Petition dated 10th June 2025, filed electronically on 30th June 2025, Dr Klaus Fredrick Rudolf Schroter sought to have the German will resealed. The petitioner stated that the decedent had 3 bank accounts and that her estate was worth Kes 70,000,000/= in total.
4. The petition was gazetted on 29th August 2025. There being no objection, this court resealed the grant on 29th September 2025.
5. On 18th November 2025, the objector, Julius Gona Katana, filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated the same day, contending that Mr Tom Leone Kongere had no authority to file an affidavit on behalf of Dr Klaus Schroter. He prayed that the petition for resealing of the foreign grant be struck out for being “incompetent, unauthorized, and totally defective.”
6. By an application dated 20th November 2025, Mr Katana sought to have the Kenya Gazette Notice dated 29th August 2025 set aside and to reopen the proceedings so that the resealing process could be reopened. The applicant did so because the grant had by then been resealed. He contended that the bank accounts mentioned in the petition did not belong to Margaret Christine Schroter but to her daughter, Ursula Christine Marie Schroter, and that he was entitled to inherit whatever was in the said accounts.
7. The application was canvassed before me on 25th November 2025. Mr Mutonyi submitted that the petitioner perjured himself insofar as the account did not belong to him but to Ursula, and that the accounts in question were the subject of a freezing order in P&A No E041 of 2025, the Estate of Ursula Christine Marie Schroter (deceased).
8. On the other hand, Mr Tom Leone Kongere submitted that the application had been overtaken by events because the resealed grant had been issued. In his view, the court was thus functus officio and had no jurisdiction to issue any further order(s). He further contended that due process had been followed.
9. In his rebuttal, Mr Mutonyi argued that the petitioner had not contested its assertion that the accounts belonged to Ms Ursula Christine Marie Schroter.
10. Whither goest the court? It is my view that there is a valid grant resealed by this court on 29th September 2025. Once a foreign grant is resealed, there is no requirement in our law for its confirmation. See the decision of Chemitei, J in re Estate of Anthony Timothy Mariano [2020] KEHC 7558(KLR) where his lordship stated that:-
“Unlike local grants of letters of administration issued intestate, the law governing resealed foreign probate grants does not expressly require a further confirmation process before administration may proceed.”
11. What the applicant ought to have done was to seek to have the resealed grant revoked for any of the reasons stated in section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. It has not done any such thing. In my view, the application before me is competent and should be dismissed.
12. In the circumstances, the application dated 20th November 2025 is dismissed. Each party shall bear its own costs.
13. It is so ordered.
Dated and signed at Nairobi this 6th day of July 2026.