1. The petitioner, Dr Klaus Friedrich Rudolf Schroter, filed a petition for a limited grant ad litem dated 27th May 2025, with a view to filing a petition at the Environment & Land Court regarding Title No LR 72/III, which the deceased co-owned with Mr Jonathan Kilumu Nzai and also so that he could apply for freezing orders in respect of the deceased's accounts at the Absa Bank and the Diamond Trust Bank.
2. On 28th May 2025, this court allowed the petition on the condition that a petition for the full grant would be filed within 90 days thereafter.
3. In his petition for a limited grant, Dr Schroter described himself as the only surviving close relative of the deceased. He was categorical that Ms Ursula Christine Marie Schroter was “unmarried and without children.”
4. The foregoing assertion is strongly denied by Mr Julius Gona Katana. Vide Notice of Motion dated 21st July 2025, he sought to have the orders issued on 28th May 2025 stayed, for the grant issued to Dr Klaus Schroter to be revoked and/or annulled for having been obtained through concealment of material facts, and for a temporary injunction to issue.
5. In his affidavit sworn on 21st July 2025, he contended that he and Ursula were lawfully married on 17th June 2026. In support, he annexed a copy of the marriage certificate. He accused Dr Schroter of failing to disclose the marriage and/or attempting to interfere with Ursula’s estate, which includes Title No LR/72/III/Mtwapa as well as accounts at Absa Bank and DTB Bank.
6. The application was opposed by Dr Klaus Schroter through his affidavit sworn on 29th July 2025 before a Notary Public in Germany. He contended that the application had technical defects, including its commencement by a Notice of Motion rather than a summons for revocation of grant, and uncertainty as to where the supporting affidavit was sworn. He denied that the applicant was the spouse of the decedent and averred that the applicant didn’t live with the deceased, nor was he present when she died, nor did he play any role in her interment.
7. In support of his averments, Dr Klaus Schroter annexed to the application the affidavits of Mr Swalehe Yaa Baya and Mr Sammy Menza Kahindi, both sworn on 21st June 2025. The two had worked for the decedent as her domestic staff. They both denied that Mr Katana was Ms Ursula Schroter's spouse.
8. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The applicant's submissions are dated 31st (Nairobi) 2025. It was contended that this court should ignore technical objections to the application and render substantive justice.
9. Its counsel submitted that the marriage of the deceased to Mr Katana had not been dissolved. Counsel relied on the case of Kuria v Irungu [2025] KEHC 3340 (KLR) where it was held that:
“As long as there is no evidence of formal divorce or proof of remarriage, she is for all intents and purposes a wife, though an estranged one.”
10. Mr Mutonyi contended that the grant was obtained fraudulently through concealment of material information as the petitioner did not disclose that the applicant was a spouse.
11. In the submissions dated 29th July 2025, the petitioner’s advocates reiterated that the application was defective and should be dismissed. They contended that the defect was not merely technical but went to the root of the matter. They deprecated the manner in which the oath was commissioned. Also contested were the annexures attached to the application.
12. It was urged that there was no evidence that the applicant was the spouse of the decedent. Counsel relied on the affidavits of the two employees who disclaimed knowledge of the applicant.
13. The petitioner/respondent stated that in any event, no sufficient evidence had been adduced to justify revocation of the grant.
14. I have considered the matter. It appears to me that the applicant has a marriage certificate indicating that he was married to the decedent at the time of her death. I am not satisfied that there is sufficient proof that the marriage certificate is invalid.
15. The petitioner/respondent appears to confirm that that is the case as he took out a citation in P & A No E041/2025; re
Estate of Ursula Christine Marie Schroter (deceased). There would be no need to issue a citation unless the petitioner viewed the citee as having an equal or greater right to petition for a grant than he did. In my view, by citing Dr Klaus Schroter, he acknowledged him as a spouse and cannot now resile from the said position.
16. In his impugned petition, Dr Klaus Schroter made no mention of Mr Katana. I am of the view that this was a material non-disclosure.
17. Is the non-disclosure of the existence of a spouse fatal? Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act states 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 circumstances.
18. In re Estate of Prisca Ong’ayo Nande (Deceased) [2020] KEHC 6553 (KLR), Musyoka, J stated as follows:-
“8. Under section 76, a court may revoke a grant so long as the grounds listed above are disclosed, either on its own motion or on the application of a party. A grant of letters of administration may be revoked on three general grounds. The first is where the process of obtaining the grant was attended by problems. The first would be where the process was defective, either because some mandatory procedural step was omitted, or the persons applying for representation was not competent or suitable for appointment, or the deceased died testate having made a valid will and then a grant or letters of administration intestate was made instead of a grant of probate, or vice versa. It could also be that the process was marred by fraud and misrepresentation or concealment of matter, such as where some survivors are not disclosed or the applicant lies that he is a survivor when he is not, among other reasons. The second general ground is where the grant was obtained procedurally, but the administrator, thereafter, got into problems with the exercise of administration, such as where he fails to apply for confirmation of grant within the time allowed, or he fails to proceed diligently with administration, or fails to render accounts as and when required. The third general ground is where the grant has become useless and inoperative following subsequent circumstances, such as where a sole administrator dies leaving behind no administrator to carry on the exercise, or where the sole administrator loses the soundness of his mind for whatever reason or even becomes physically infirm to an extent of being unable to carry out his duties as administrator, or the sole administrator is adjudged bankrupt and, therefore, becomes unqualified to hold any office of trust.”
19. In my view, Dr Klaus Schroter, by not listing Mr Katana as the spouse of the deceased, failed to disclose material information.
20. The failure renders the grant issued to him incurably defective. The same is therefore for revocation. That being the case the limited grant issued on 28th May 2025 is hereby revoked.
21. Given the nature of the matter, each party shall bear its own costs.
22. It is so ordered.
Dated and signed at Nairobi this 6th day of July 2026.
2. On 28th May 2025, this court allowed the petition on the condition that a petition for the full grant would be filed within 90 days thereafter.
3. In his petition for a limited grant, Dr Schroter described himself as the only surviving close relative of the deceased. He was categorical that Ms Ursula Christine Marie Schroter was “unmarried and without children.”
4. The foregoing assertion is strongly denied by Mr Julius Gona Katana. Vide Notice of Motion dated 21st July 2025, he sought to have the orders issued on 28th May 2025 stayed, for the grant issued to Dr Klaus Schroter to be revoked and/or annulled for having been obtained through concealment of material facts, and for a temporary injunction to issue.
5. In his affidavit sworn on 21st July 2025, he contended that he and Ursula were lawfully married on 17th June 2026. In support, he annexed a copy of the marriage certificate. He accused Dr Schroter of failing to disclose the marriage and/or attempting to interfere with Ursula’s estate, which includes Title No LR/72/III/Mtwapa as well as accounts at Absa Bank and DTB Bank.
6. The application was opposed by Dr Klaus Schroter through his affidavit sworn on 29th July 2025 before a Notary Public in Germany. He contended that the application had technical defects, including its commencement by a Notice of Motion rather than a summons for revocation of grant, and uncertainty as to where the supporting affidavit was sworn. He denied that the applicant was the spouse of the decedent and averred that the applicant didn’t live with the deceased, nor was he present when she died, nor did he play any role in her interment.
7. In support of his averments, Dr Klaus Schroter annexed to the application the affidavits of Mr Swalehe Yaa Baya and Mr Sammy Menza Kahindi, both sworn on 21st June 2025. The two had worked for the decedent as her domestic staff. They both denied that Mr Katana was Ms Ursula Schroter's spouse.
8. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The applicant's submissions are dated 31st (Nairobi) 2025. It was contended that this court should ignore technical objections to the application and render substantive justice.
9. Its counsel submitted that the marriage of the deceased to Mr Katana had not been dissolved. Counsel relied on the case of Kuria v Irungu [2025] KEHC 3340 (KLR) where it was held that:
“As long as there is no evidence of formal divorce or proof of remarriage, she is for all intents and purposes a wife, though an estranged one.”
10. Mr Mutonyi contended that the grant was obtained fraudulently through concealment of material information as the petitioner did not disclose that the applicant was a spouse.
11. In the submissions dated 29th July 2025, the petitioner’s advocates reiterated that the application was defective and should be dismissed. They contended that the defect was not merely technical but went to the root of the matter. They deprecated the manner in which the oath was commissioned. Also contested were the annexures attached to the application.
12. It was urged that there was no evidence that the applicant was the spouse of the decedent. Counsel relied on the affidavits of the two employees who disclaimed knowledge of the applicant.
13. The petitioner/respondent stated that in any event, no sufficient evidence had been adduced to justify revocation of the grant.
14. I have considered the matter. It appears to me that the applicant has a marriage certificate indicating that he was married to the decedent at the time of her death. I am not satisfied that there is sufficient proof that the marriage certificate is invalid.
15. The petitioner/respondent appears to confirm that that is the case as he took out a citation in P & A No E041/2025; re
Estate of Ursula Christine Marie Schroter (deceased). There would be no need to issue a citation unless the petitioner viewed the citee as having an equal or greater right to petition for a grant than he did. In my view, by citing Dr Klaus Schroter, he acknowledged him as a spouse and cannot now resile from the said position.
16. In his impugned petition, Dr Klaus Schroter made no mention of Mr Katana. I am of the view that this was a material non-disclosure.
17. Is the non-disclosure of the existence of a spouse fatal? Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act states 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 circumstances.
18. In re Estate of Prisca Ong’ayo Nande (Deceased) [2020] KEHC 6553 (KLR), Musyoka, J stated as follows:-
“8. Under section 76, a court may revoke a grant so long as the grounds listed above are disclosed, either on its own motion or on the application of a party. A grant of letters of administration may be revoked on three general grounds. The first is where the process of obtaining the grant was attended by problems. The first would be where the process was defective, either because some mandatory procedural step was omitted, or the persons applying for representation was not competent or suitable for appointment, or the deceased died testate having made a valid will and then a grant or letters of administration intestate was made instead of a grant of probate, or vice versa. It could also be that the process was marred by fraud and misrepresentation or concealment of matter, such as where some survivors are not disclosed or the applicant lies that he is a survivor when he is not, among other reasons. The second general ground is where the grant was obtained procedurally, but the administrator, thereafter, got into problems with the exercise of administration, such as where he fails to apply for confirmation of grant within the time allowed, or he fails to proceed diligently with administration, or fails to render accounts as and when required. The third general ground is where the grant has become useless and inoperative following subsequent circumstances, such as where a sole administrator dies leaving behind no administrator to carry on the exercise, or where the sole administrator loses the soundness of his mind for whatever reason or even becomes physically infirm to an extent of being unable to carry out his duties as administrator, or the sole administrator is adjudged bankrupt and, therefore, becomes unqualified to hold any office of trust.”
19. In my view, Dr Klaus Schroter, by not listing Mr Katana as the spouse of the deceased, failed to disclose material information.
20. The failure renders the grant issued to him incurably defective. The same is therefore for revocation. That being the case the limited grant issued on 28th May 2025 is hereby revoked.
21. Given the nature of the matter, each party shall bear its own costs.
22. It is so ordered.
Dated and signed at Nairobi this 6th day of July 2026.