RULING
Before this court is the summons brought under Rule 63 of the Probate and Administration Rules and all the enabling provisions of the Law seeking the following orders;
1. THAT Regina Rose Nakhabi the beneficiary of the estate of William Melchizedek Oketch (deceased), in her capacity as a grand-daughter, be granted leave to be joined into the suit as a Beneficiary forthwith ex-parte.
2. THAT the 1st and 2nd Petitioners being the administrators of the estate of the deceased herein be restrained and/or injuncted from receiving any funds on behalf of the Beneficiary/ applicant pending the hearing and determination of this review application.
3. THAT this Honourable court be pleased to review its ruling dated and delivered on 02.02.2026 on ground that there was an on the face of the record for the orders issued against the Beneficiary/ Applicant referring to and/or perceiving her as a minor when she had attained the age of majority when the ruling was rendered and was thus capable of directly benefitting from the estate in her own capacity without trustees.
4. THAT this court reviews its orders of the said ruling and direct that the Beneficiary/ Applicant do benefit directly in her own capacity from the distribution of the estate without the same being held in trust by the 1st and 2nd Petitioners as ordered and also directly participates in the decision making on matters touching on the distribution of the estate like the other beneficiaries as ordered by the court.
The summons supported by the Affidavit of REGINA ROSE NAKHABI of Vihiga County and one of the beneficiaries who deponed as follows;
1. THAT I am a female adult of sound-mind and disposition, the Beneficiary/ Applicant herein thus competent to swear this Affidavit.
2. THAT I am the grand-daughter of William Melchizedek Oketch (Deceased) seeking leave of this court to be joined as a Beneficiary in these proceedings for purposes of reviewing the decision of this court of a ruling dated 02.02.2026 distributing the estate of the deceased subject to a protest that was filed by the 2nd Objector herein (Annexed and marked RRN-I is a copy of the ruling)
3. THAT I seek to review the decision of the court highlighted above to protect my interests in the estate of the deceased for reasons that there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the ruling referring to me as a minor, yet I had already attained the age of majority on 15th April 2025 subject to the evidence on record of my birth certificate produced by the 2nd Objector in her Affidavit of Protest marked MAA-5, when the ruling was rendered. (Annexed RRN-2 hereto is a copy of the said birth certificate)
4. THAT subject to the said error, I risk losing direct beneficiary interest in the estate as the orders of this court are that my shares from the distribution of the deceased estate's are held in trust by the Petitioners' because I am minor which position is erroneous.
5. THAT further pursuant to the said orders all my shares in the estate are to held in trust by the 1st and 2nd Petitioners until I have attained eighteen (18) years which position is also erroneous as I had already attained the age of majority when the ruling was rendered and can directly benefit from my shares on the distribution adopted by this court like the other beneficiaries without the same being held in trust.
6. THAT I am informed by my advocate on record which advise I believe to be true and sound that there was an error apparent on the face of the record referring to me as a minor yet I had attained the age of majority which ground is sufficient to warrant the review of the orders of this court as sought.
7. THAT the application filed herein is made in good faith and is fit to grant for review of the orders sought.
8. THAT what is stated herein is true to the best of my knowledge belief and information.
In opposition to the summons are grounds of opposition by the Objector premised as follows;
1. That this application is vexatious, frivolous and brought in bad faith
2. That the application does not meet the pre-requisite of review set by the law
3. That indeed in the interest of justice, the objectors be granted an opportunity to prosecute the matter to its logical conclusion
4. That the objectors will not be prejudiced in anyway if the Applicant is allowed opportunity to prosecute the case
1. I have considered the summons for review by the Applicant and the Objection raised by the Objector to the Application. Essentially, the Summons is based on review of the impugned Ruling and subsequent certificate of confirmation of grant dated 18th February 2026, which inter alia provides as follows; That the Applicant’s shares and benefits to the intestate estate of the deceased was to be held in trust for reasons that she was a minor at the time of the distribution.
1. THAT all beneficiaries save for Rose Ang’ondi who is a minor shall agree on the bank to deposit the rental income and shall have a right to request for bank statements at reasonable intervals without causing the 1st and 2nd Petitioners undue hardship in the supply of such bank statements.
2. THAT in the event the parties are not able to agree on the bank to deposit the monies, they are at liberty to seek the assistance of the court in identifying the bank.
3. THAT the 1st and 2nd Petitioners will hold the share of Rose Ang’ondi in trust until she attains the age of eighteen (18) years whereafter she will have a right to equal share directly in a similar manner as the other beneficiaries to the deceased’s estate.
4. THAT accounts be taken to identify the monies that the 2nd Petitioner used to salvage Kakamega Town Block B111/116 that was on loan with a view to being reimbursed to her from the rental income that will be collected from the commercial properties.
5. THAT for the avoidance of doubt, each child of the deceased will have one (1) share in the deceased’s assets and where such child is also deceased, that child’s children shall share his share of the assets and rental equally.
This is the gist of this Summons by the Applicant;
Decision
2. The operative legal framework falls within the scope of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 45 Rule (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules as read with Rule 73(1) of the Probate and Administration Rules. This is one area of jurisdiction which is invoked to clarify certain matters in a Judgment or Ruling of the Court which might not necessarily require an Appeal protocol.
3. In as far as the interpretation and construction of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules superior courts are spoken vividly as demonstrated by the sample of authorities herein cited;
• First in National Bank of Kenya Limited v Ndungu Njau [1997] eKLR: This Court of Appeal ruling established that a review requires an apparent, self-evident error or omission, not one that requires a lengthy or elaborate argument to be proven. Second, the court in Mutoro v Obala (Civil Appeal E011 of 2025) [2025] KEHC: The High Court reinforced that a review is strictly for manifest errors of law that “stare one in the face” and distinguished this from mere erroneous decisions. Thirdly the Court of Appeal in Nyamongo & Nyamongo v Kogo [2001] EA 174: Recognized as the foundational test for errors, the court held that an error must be apparent, direct visible on the record itself without relying on extraneous matters. There being an element of indefiniteness inherent in its very nature, and it must be left to be determined judicially on the facts of each case. There is a real distinction between a mere erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of record. Where an error on a substantial point of law stares one of the face of the record would be made out. An error which has to be established by long drawn process of reasoning or on points where there may conceivably be two opinions, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Again, if a view adopted by the court in the original record is a possible one, it cannot be an error or wrong view is certainly no ground for a review although it may be for an appeal. This laid down principle of law is indeed applicable in the matter before us…”
• Fourth in Ribiru v Mwaniki & 2 Others [2024] KEHC: The High Court clarified that failing to award costs cannot be termed an “error on the face of the record” because costs fail under judicial discretion; it must be raised via appeal. Fifth in Said Mbwana Abdi v Muhambi Koja [2013] KEHC: The High Court granted a review after noting a self-evident error in the handling of a judgment written but undelivered due to a judge’s transfer, finding it necessary to correct for the ends of justice.
4. This court has the power to review its ruling or judgment to correct the patent error and note minor mistake or inconsequential import. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise. The circumstances in which review lies constitute the following though not exhaustive;
a. cases in which appeal lies but not preferred
b. cases in which no appeal lies
c. decisions on reference from Court of Small Claims
d. the discovery of new and important matter or evidence or
e. mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or
f. any other sufficient reason
5. My other proposition on this application is drawn from the honourable court of the decision in Lily Thomas vs Union of India laid down the law in the following terms in SCC pp 247 – 48 Para 52) the dictionary meaning of the word “review” is “the act of looking, offer something again with a view to correction or improvement. It cannot be denied that the review is the creation of a statue. This Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi vs Pradyumansigji Arjunsinghji, (1971) 3 SCC 844, held that the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. The review is also not an appeal in disguise. It cannot be denied that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and the rues or procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of administration of justice. Law has to bend before justice. If the Court finds that the error pointed out in the review petition was under a mistake and the earlier judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its penetration shall result in a miscarriage of justice nothing would preclude the court from rectifying the error.
6. This curative Summons is accompanied by Affidavit pointing our substantial grounds for entertaining it. In my considered view, there is merit for the clause to hold in trust on behalf of the Applicant to be reviewed and set aside for the very reasons that she is no longer a minor by the definition offered under the Children’s Act. What this means that any such benefit, right of inheritance or shares should be transmitted directly to the Applicant without the proxy of a Trustee or in our case the appointed personal representative administering the estate of the deceased within the functionality scope under Section 82, 83 and 84 of the Law of Succession Act. As a consequence of this the Applicant be and is hereby directed to share her personal accounts from a reputable financial institution or any such account in which her financial benefits shall be channeled from the account receivables. The other orders or injunction or preservation or conservation or restraint as against the administrators to administer the estate diligently and finally render a probate account are moot. I make no orders as to costs save that the certificate of grant of confirmation dated 18th February 2026 shall be amended in consonant with this Ruling.
7. Orders accordingly
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA EMAIL AND CTS AT VIHIGA THIS 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2026
Before this court is the summons brought under Rule 63 of the Probate and Administration Rules and all the enabling provisions of the Law seeking the following orders;
1. THAT Regina Rose Nakhabi the beneficiary of the estate of William Melchizedek Oketch (deceased), in her capacity as a grand-daughter, be granted leave to be joined into the suit as a Beneficiary forthwith ex-parte.
2. THAT the 1st and 2nd Petitioners being the administrators of the estate of the deceased herein be restrained and/or injuncted from receiving any funds on behalf of the Beneficiary/ applicant pending the hearing and determination of this review application.
3. THAT this Honourable court be pleased to review its ruling dated and delivered on 02.02.2026 on ground that there was an on the face of the record for the orders issued against the Beneficiary/ Applicant referring to and/or perceiving her as a minor when she had attained the age of majority when the ruling was rendered and was thus capable of directly benefitting from the estate in her own capacity without trustees.
4. THAT this court reviews its orders of the said ruling and direct that the Beneficiary/ Applicant do benefit directly in her own capacity from the distribution of the estate without the same being held in trust by the 1st and 2nd Petitioners as ordered and also directly participates in the decision making on matters touching on the distribution of the estate like the other beneficiaries as ordered by the court.
The summons supported by the Affidavit of REGINA ROSE NAKHABI of Vihiga County and one of the beneficiaries who deponed as follows;
1. THAT I am a female adult of sound-mind and disposition, the Beneficiary/ Applicant herein thus competent to swear this Affidavit.
2. THAT I am the grand-daughter of William Melchizedek Oketch (Deceased) seeking leave of this court to be joined as a Beneficiary in these proceedings for purposes of reviewing the decision of this court of a ruling dated 02.02.2026 distributing the estate of the deceased subject to a protest that was filed by the 2nd Objector herein (Annexed and marked RRN-I is a copy of the ruling)
3. THAT I seek to review the decision of the court highlighted above to protect my interests in the estate of the deceased for reasons that there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the ruling referring to me as a minor, yet I had already attained the age of majority on 15th April 2025 subject to the evidence on record of my birth certificate produced by the 2nd Objector in her Affidavit of Protest marked MAA-5, when the ruling was rendered. (Annexed RRN-2 hereto is a copy of the said birth certificate)
4. THAT subject to the said error, I risk losing direct beneficiary interest in the estate as the orders of this court are that my shares from the distribution of the deceased estate's are held in trust by the Petitioners' because I am minor which position is erroneous.
5. THAT further pursuant to the said orders all my shares in the estate are to held in trust by the 1st and 2nd Petitioners until I have attained eighteen (18) years which position is also erroneous as I had already attained the age of majority when the ruling was rendered and can directly benefit from my shares on the distribution adopted by this court like the other beneficiaries without the same being held in trust.
6. THAT I am informed by my advocate on record which advise I believe to be true and sound that there was an error apparent on the face of the record referring to me as a minor yet I had attained the age of majority which ground is sufficient to warrant the review of the orders of this court as sought.
7. THAT the application filed herein is made in good faith and is fit to grant for review of the orders sought.
8. THAT what is stated herein is true to the best of my knowledge belief and information.
In opposition to the summons are grounds of opposition by the Objector premised as follows;
1. That this application is vexatious, frivolous and brought in bad faith
2. That the application does not meet the pre-requisite of review set by the law
3. That indeed in the interest of justice, the objectors be granted an opportunity to prosecute the matter to its logical conclusion
4. That the objectors will not be prejudiced in anyway if the Applicant is allowed opportunity to prosecute the case
1. I have considered the summons for review by the Applicant and the Objection raised by the Objector to the Application. Essentially, the Summons is based on review of the impugned Ruling and subsequent certificate of confirmation of grant dated 18th February 2026, which inter alia provides as follows; That the Applicant’s shares and benefits to the intestate estate of the deceased was to be held in trust for reasons that she was a minor at the time of the distribution.
1. THAT all beneficiaries save for Rose Ang’ondi who is a minor shall agree on the bank to deposit the rental income and shall have a right to request for bank statements at reasonable intervals without causing the 1st and 2nd Petitioners undue hardship in the supply of such bank statements.
2. THAT in the event the parties are not able to agree on the bank to deposit the monies, they are at liberty to seek the assistance of the court in identifying the bank.
3. THAT the 1st and 2nd Petitioners will hold the share of Rose Ang’ondi in trust until she attains the age of eighteen (18) years whereafter she will have a right to equal share directly in a similar manner as the other beneficiaries to the deceased’s estate.
4. THAT accounts be taken to identify the monies that the 2nd Petitioner used to salvage Kakamega Town Block B111/116 that was on loan with a view to being reimbursed to her from the rental income that will be collected from the commercial properties.
5. THAT for the avoidance of doubt, each child of the deceased will have one (1) share in the deceased’s assets and where such child is also deceased, that child’s children shall share his share of the assets and rental equally.
This is the gist of this Summons by the Applicant;
Decision
2. The operative legal framework falls within the scope of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 45 Rule (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules as read with Rule 73(1) of the Probate and Administration Rules. This is one area of jurisdiction which is invoked to clarify certain matters in a Judgment or Ruling of the Court which might not necessarily require an Appeal protocol.
3. In as far as the interpretation and construction of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules superior courts are spoken vividly as demonstrated by the sample of authorities herein cited;
• First in National Bank of Kenya Limited v Ndungu Njau [1997] eKLR: This Court of Appeal ruling established that a review requires an apparent, self-evident error or omission, not one that requires a lengthy or elaborate argument to be proven. Second, the court in Mutoro v Obala (Civil Appeal E011 of 2025) [2025] KEHC: The High Court reinforced that a review is strictly for manifest errors of law that “stare one in the face” and distinguished this from mere erroneous decisions. Thirdly the Court of Appeal in Nyamongo & Nyamongo v Kogo [2001] EA 174: Recognized as the foundational test for errors, the court held that an error must be apparent, direct visible on the record itself without relying on extraneous matters. There being an element of indefiniteness inherent in its very nature, and it must be left to be determined judicially on the facts of each case. There is a real distinction between a mere erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of record. Where an error on a substantial point of law stares one of the face of the record would be made out. An error which has to be established by long drawn process of reasoning or on points where there may conceivably be two opinions, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Again, if a view adopted by the court in the original record is a possible one, it cannot be an error or wrong view is certainly no ground for a review although it may be for an appeal. This laid down principle of law is indeed applicable in the matter before us…”
• Fourth in Ribiru v Mwaniki & 2 Others [2024] KEHC: The High Court clarified that failing to award costs cannot be termed an “error on the face of the record” because costs fail under judicial discretion; it must be raised via appeal. Fifth in Said Mbwana Abdi v Muhambi Koja [2013] KEHC: The High Court granted a review after noting a self-evident error in the handling of a judgment written but undelivered due to a judge’s transfer, finding it necessary to correct for the ends of justice.
4. This court has the power to review its ruling or judgment to correct the patent error and note minor mistake or inconsequential import. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise. The circumstances in which review lies constitute the following though not exhaustive;
a. cases in which appeal lies but not preferred
b. cases in which no appeal lies
c. decisions on reference from Court of Small Claims
d. the discovery of new and important matter or evidence or
e. mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or
f. any other sufficient reason
5. My other proposition on this application is drawn from the honourable court of the decision in Lily Thomas vs Union of India laid down the law in the following terms in SCC pp 247 – 48 Para 52) the dictionary meaning of the word “review” is “the act of looking, offer something again with a view to correction or improvement. It cannot be denied that the review is the creation of a statue. This Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi vs Pradyumansigji Arjunsinghji, (1971) 3 SCC 844, held that the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. The review is also not an appeal in disguise. It cannot be denied that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and the rues or procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of administration of justice. Law has to bend before justice. If the Court finds that the error pointed out in the review petition was under a mistake and the earlier judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its penetration shall result in a miscarriage of justice nothing would preclude the court from rectifying the error.
6. This curative Summons is accompanied by Affidavit pointing our substantial grounds for entertaining it. In my considered view, there is merit for the clause to hold in trust on behalf of the Applicant to be reviewed and set aside for the very reasons that she is no longer a minor by the definition offered under the Children’s Act. What this means that any such benefit, right of inheritance or shares should be transmitted directly to the Applicant without the proxy of a Trustee or in our case the appointed personal representative administering the estate of the deceased within the functionality scope under Section 82, 83 and 84 of the Law of Succession Act. As a consequence of this the Applicant be and is hereby directed to share her personal accounts from a reputable financial institution or any such account in which her financial benefits shall be channeled from the account receivables. The other orders or injunction or preservation or conservation or restraint as against the administrators to administer the estate diligently and finally render a probate account are moot. I make no orders as to costs save that the certificate of grant of confirmation dated 18th February 2026 shall be amended in consonant with this Ruling.
7. Orders accordingly
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA EMAIL AND CTS AT VIHIGA THIS 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2026