1. This succession cause relates to the Estate of Flavian Mwangi Waweru, deceased, who died on 26 th September, 2022. Based on the pleadings before me, he died intestate.
2. Sharon Kendi Mburugu filed a petition for grant ad colligenda, and the court, in a ruling delivered on 22nd July, 2025 struck out the Petition for being defective in form.
3. Carol Makele Amayi, Wendy Wangui and Jason Waweru had lodged an objection to the issuance of the special limited grant. They have presently moved the court via an application dated 7th August, 2025 in which they are asking the court to reinstate the cause, and upon reinstatement, the matter be transferred to the Chief Magistrates Court, Family Court Milimani Commercial, to enable her file the Petition for a full grant.
4. The application is opposed by Sharon (Respondent), who contends that the applicants are estopped from asking the court to reinstate the matter. She also disputes the value of the estate.
5. Section 48 of the Law of Succession Act provides for the Jurisdiction of Magistrates in the following terms: -
“(1)Notwithstanding any other written law which limits jurisdiction, but subject to the provisions of section 49, a magistrate shall have jurisdiction to entertain any application and to determine any dispute under this Act and pronounce such decrees and make such orders therein as may be expedient in respect of any estate the gross value of which does not exceed the pecuniary limit prescribed under section 7(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, Act (No. 26 of 2015).
(2)………”
6. Section 7 of the Magistrate’s Act sets out the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Magistrate’s Court as follows:-
“7. (1)A Magistrate’s Court shall have and exercise such jurisdiction and powers in proceedings of a civil nature in which the value of the subject matter does not exceed –
a. twenty million shillings, where the Court is presided over by a chief magistrate;
b. fifteen million shillings, where the Court is presided over by a senior principal magistrate;
c. ten million shillings, where the Court is presided over by a principal magistrate;
d. seven million shillings, where the Court is presided over by a senior resident magistrate; or
e. five million shillings, where the Court is presided over by a Resident Magistrate.”
7. The applicants contend that the estate is valued below Kshs. 20,000,000/- while the respondent contends that the same is above Kshs. 20,000,000/-.
8. I have reviewed the draft petition submitted by the applicants. The estimated value of the estate is KShs. 5,000,000/-. However, the draft petition and the application dated 7 th August, 2025 fails to specify the estimated size of the properties involved. In contrast, the respondent has presented a breakdown of the assets, including estimates of the sizes of the parcels of land. The respondent has also provided estimated values for shares and cash held in bank accounts.
9. Determining the market value of parcels of land often necessitates the expertise of professionals in the field, which has yet to be invoked in the current case. Similarly, the value of shares and cash at bank is contingent on proof being provided.
10. However, based on the evidence presented before the court, it is reasonable to conclude that the estate may be valued at an amount exceeding Kshs. 20,000,000/-.
11. It is imperative for the interests of justice that the administration of estates is expedited. Furthermore, it is considered best practice to conduct succession proceedings within a single succession file.
12. In consideration of the prior proceedings held in this Court and in light of the absence of any additional evidence to indicate that the estate’s value falls below the threshold of 20,000,000/- and to avoid further delay in the processing of the estate administration, I hereby direct that the Petition be filed in the present Succession Cause in the High Court. The Court further reserves the right to review this decision, contingent upon the presentation of any new evidence that may arise during the administrative approval process upon the filing of the Petition, or as may be moved by the Parties upon the filing thereof. The matter shall be fixed for mention before the Deputy Registrar to confirm status.
13. The costs of the application shall be in the cause.
14. Orders accordingly.
Delivered on 03rd March 2026.
C. Kendagor
Judge, High Court
2. Sharon Kendi Mburugu filed a petition for grant ad colligenda, and the court, in a ruling delivered on 22nd July, 2025 struck out the Petition for being defective in form.
3. Carol Makele Amayi, Wendy Wangui and Jason Waweru had lodged an objection to the issuance of the special limited grant. They have presently moved the court via an application dated 7th August, 2025 in which they are asking the court to reinstate the cause, and upon reinstatement, the matter be transferred to the Chief Magistrates Court, Family Court Milimani Commercial, to enable her file the Petition for a full grant.
4. The application is opposed by Sharon (Respondent), who contends that the applicants are estopped from asking the court to reinstate the matter. She also disputes the value of the estate.
5. Section 48 of the Law of Succession Act provides for the Jurisdiction of Magistrates in the following terms: -
“(1)Notwithstanding any other written law which limits jurisdiction, but subject to the provisions of section 49, a magistrate shall have jurisdiction to entertain any application and to determine any dispute under this Act and pronounce such decrees and make such orders therein as may be expedient in respect of any estate the gross value of which does not exceed the pecuniary limit prescribed under section 7(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, Act (No. 26 of 2015).
(2)………”
6. Section 7 of the Magistrate’s Act sets out the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Magistrate’s Court as follows:-
“7. (1)A Magistrate’s Court shall have and exercise such jurisdiction and powers in proceedings of a civil nature in which the value of the subject matter does not exceed –
a. twenty million shillings, where the Court is presided over by a chief magistrate;
b. fifteen million shillings, where the Court is presided over by a senior principal magistrate;
c. ten million shillings, where the Court is presided over by a principal magistrate;
d. seven million shillings, where the Court is presided over by a senior resident magistrate; or
e. five million shillings, where the Court is presided over by a Resident Magistrate.”
7. The applicants contend that the estate is valued below Kshs. 20,000,000/- while the respondent contends that the same is above Kshs. 20,000,000/-.
8. I have reviewed the draft petition submitted by the applicants. The estimated value of the estate is KShs. 5,000,000/-. However, the draft petition and the application dated 7 th August, 2025 fails to specify the estimated size of the properties involved. In contrast, the respondent has presented a breakdown of the assets, including estimates of the sizes of the parcels of land. The respondent has also provided estimated values for shares and cash held in bank accounts.
9. Determining the market value of parcels of land often necessitates the expertise of professionals in the field, which has yet to be invoked in the current case. Similarly, the value of shares and cash at bank is contingent on proof being provided.
10. However, based on the evidence presented before the court, it is reasonable to conclude that the estate may be valued at an amount exceeding Kshs. 20,000,000/-.
11. It is imperative for the interests of justice that the administration of estates is expedited. Furthermore, it is considered best practice to conduct succession proceedings within a single succession file.
12. In consideration of the prior proceedings held in this Court and in light of the absence of any additional evidence to indicate that the estate’s value falls below the threshold of 20,000,000/- and to avoid further delay in the processing of the estate administration, I hereby direct that the Petition be filed in the present Succession Cause in the High Court. The Court further reserves the right to review this decision, contingent upon the presentation of any new evidence that may arise during the administrative approval process upon the filing of the Petition, or as may be moved by the Parties upon the filing thereof. The matter shall be fixed for mention before the Deputy Registrar to confirm status.
13. The costs of the application shall be in the cause.
14. Orders accordingly.
Delivered on 03rd March 2026.
C. Kendagor
Judge, High Court