1. Simon Kangethe Wambu was appointed the administrator of the estate of James Wambu Mukiri. The grant was confirmed on 24 th May, 2016.
2. What is presently before the court is an application dated 4 th June, 2025 filed by the administrator that seeks the following orders;
a. That the certificate of confirmation of grant issued to Simon Kangethe Wambu on 30 th June, 2025 and confirmed on 24 th may, 2016 be amended and rectified as the property Nairobi/Block 126/510 measuring approximately 2.116 Hectares has been subdivided into 17 plots. The beneficiaries namely Thomas Ndungu Wambu, Elizabeth Wanjiku Gichuhi, George Nganga Wambu, Simon Kangethe Wambu and Serah Muthii Wambu have all consented on the mode of distribution of the said plots.
b. That costs be provided for.
3. The application is opposed by Elizabeth Wanjiku Gichuhi vide a Replying Affidavit dated 1 st October, 2025.
4. The administrator avers that Nairobi/Block 126/510 (hereinafter referred to as the property) had not been subdivided into plots at the time the grant was confirmed. He states that the beneficiaries have consented to the subdivision and the rectification.
5. Elizabeth (Respondent) contends that she was not involved in the subdivision and allocation of the plots. She accuses the Administrator of acting arbitrarily and allocating himself the prime parts of the land, leaving the rest to share the interior parts.
6. The issue for determination is whether the application for rectification is merited.
7. From the application, the rectification sought introduces a subdivision plan. In the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant, the allocation of shares for the heirs is in hectares as follows;
I. Thomas Ndungu Wambu 0.6Ha
II. Elizabeth Wanjiku Gichuhi 0.2Ha
III. George Nganga Wambu 0.4Ha
IV. Simon Kangethe Wambu 0.716Ha
V. Serah Muthii Wambu 0.2Ha
8. The application is brought under Section 74 of the Law of Succession Act which provides that:
“Errors in names and descriptions, or in setting out the time and place of the deceased’s death, or the purpose in a limited grant, may be rectified by the court.”
9. Rule 43(1) of the Probate and Administration Rules provides that:
“Where the holder of a grant seeks pursuant to the provisions of section 74 of the Act rectification of an error in the grant as to the names or descriptions of any person or thing or as to the time or place of the death of the deceased, or in the case of a limited grant, the purpose for which the grant was made, he shall apply by summons.”
10. In the matter of the estate of Geoffrey Kinuthia Nyamwinga (deceased) [2013] eKLR, the Court stated as follows;
“The law on rectification or alteration of grants is Section 74 of the Law of Succession Act and Rule 43 of the Probate and Administration Rules……. What these provisions mean is that errors may be rectified by the court where they relate to names or descriptions, or setting out of the time or place of the deceased’s death. The effect is that the power to order rectification is limited to those situations, and therefore the power given to the court by these provisions is not general…….Where a proposed amendment of a grant cannot be dealt with under the provisions of section 74 of the Law of Succession Act , the applicant ought to approach the court under order 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules . A review under order 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules may be sought upon discovery of new and important matter or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any sufficient reason. The applicant in this case should have moved the court under this provision – order 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and on the ground that there exists a sufficient reason for review of the certificate of the confirmation of the grant.”
11. In re estate of Charles Kibe Karanja (deceased) [2015] eKLR, the Court stated;
“ If a party wishes to have the assets of the estate redistributed or there is discovery of new assets that were not available or had not been discovered at the time of distribution, among others; it would be imprudent to seek rectification or alteration or amendment of the certificate of confirmation of grant. Such changes are fundamental, not superficial. They go to the core of the distribution. They cannot be affected without touching the orders made by the Court at the distribution of the estate. Consequently, such changes cannot and should not be effected through a mere amendment of the certificate of confirmation of grant. The proper approach ought to be an application for review of the orders made at the confirmation of the grant. The remedy of review of Court orders is not directly provided for in the Law of Succession Act and the Probate and Administration Rules, but it is imported into probate practice by Rule 63 of Probate and Administration Rules, which has adopted a number of procedures from the Civil Procedure Rules…………the Court may review its orders made at the point of confirming the grant on the ground of discovery of new and important evidence that was not available at the time the grant was being confirmed…………”
12. Rectification of a grant of Letters of Administration is therefore limited to matters set out under Section 74 of the Law of Succession Act. Under this provision, rectification of the grant specifically addresses the correction of errors that the court may order without changing the substance of the grant. This includes errors in names, description of any person or thing or an error as to the time or place of death of the deceased or the purpose for which a grant was issued. An error which is visualised under the Section is a mistake which may occur on the face of the grant, like typing errors in the names of persons or things.
13. The present application for rectification presents a subdivision plan that alters the original distribution. The amended schedule is associated with the survey plan F/R640/23. However, upon review of the annexures, the court is unable to determine how these proposed 17 plots correspond with the subdivision detailed in the certificate of confirmation of grant.
14. Upon examination, I have concluded that the rectification being sought fundamentally changes the confirmed grant by altering the original distribution of the asset Nairobi/Block 126/510. This requested rectification goes beyond simple correction of minor errors; it impacts the substance of the certificate of confirmation of grant. As a result, it does not fall within the criteria set out in Section 74 of the Law of Succession Act, which specifies the types of errors eligible for rectification.
15. The application is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
16. Orders accordingly.
DELIVERED through the Microsoft Teams Online Platform on this 04TH day of MARCH, 2026
HON. C. KENDAGOR
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Court Assistant: Beryl
Ms Njenga, Advocate holding brief for Nyasaye Advocate for the Applicant
Mr Kariuki, Advocate for the Respondent
2. What is presently before the court is an application dated 4 th June, 2025 filed by the administrator that seeks the following orders;
a. That the certificate of confirmation of grant issued to Simon Kangethe Wambu on 30 th June, 2025 and confirmed on 24 th may, 2016 be amended and rectified as the property Nairobi/Block 126/510 measuring approximately 2.116 Hectares has been subdivided into 17 plots. The beneficiaries namely Thomas Ndungu Wambu, Elizabeth Wanjiku Gichuhi, George Nganga Wambu, Simon Kangethe Wambu and Serah Muthii Wambu have all consented on the mode of distribution of the said plots.
b. That costs be provided for.
3. The application is opposed by Elizabeth Wanjiku Gichuhi vide a Replying Affidavit dated 1 st October, 2025.
4. The administrator avers that Nairobi/Block 126/510 (hereinafter referred to as the property) had not been subdivided into plots at the time the grant was confirmed. He states that the beneficiaries have consented to the subdivision and the rectification.
5. Elizabeth (Respondent) contends that she was not involved in the subdivision and allocation of the plots. She accuses the Administrator of acting arbitrarily and allocating himself the prime parts of the land, leaving the rest to share the interior parts.
6. The issue for determination is whether the application for rectification is merited.
7. From the application, the rectification sought introduces a subdivision plan. In the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant, the allocation of shares for the heirs is in hectares as follows;
I. Thomas Ndungu Wambu 0.6Ha
II. Elizabeth Wanjiku Gichuhi 0.2Ha
III. George Nganga Wambu 0.4Ha
IV. Simon Kangethe Wambu 0.716Ha
V. Serah Muthii Wambu 0.2Ha
8. The application is brought under Section 74 of the Law of Succession Act which provides that:
“Errors in names and descriptions, or in setting out the time and place of the deceased’s death, or the purpose in a limited grant, may be rectified by the court.”
9. Rule 43(1) of the Probate and Administration Rules provides that:
“Where the holder of a grant seeks pursuant to the provisions of section 74 of the Act rectification of an error in the grant as to the names or descriptions of any person or thing or as to the time or place of the death of the deceased, or in the case of a limited grant, the purpose for which the grant was made, he shall apply by summons.”
10. In the matter of the estate of Geoffrey Kinuthia Nyamwinga (deceased) [2013] eKLR, the Court stated as follows;
“The law on rectification or alteration of grants is Section 74 of the Law of Succession Act and Rule 43 of the Probate and Administration Rules……. What these provisions mean is that errors may be rectified by the court where they relate to names or descriptions, or setting out of the time or place of the deceased’s death. The effect is that the power to order rectification is limited to those situations, and therefore the power given to the court by these provisions is not general…….Where a proposed amendment of a grant cannot be dealt with under the provisions of section 74 of the Law of Succession Act , the applicant ought to approach the court under order 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules . A review under order 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules may be sought upon discovery of new and important matter or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any sufficient reason. The applicant in this case should have moved the court under this provision – order 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and on the ground that there exists a sufficient reason for review of the certificate of the confirmation of the grant.”
11. In re estate of Charles Kibe Karanja (deceased) [2015] eKLR, the Court stated;
“ If a party wishes to have the assets of the estate redistributed or there is discovery of new assets that were not available or had not been discovered at the time of distribution, among others; it would be imprudent to seek rectification or alteration or amendment of the certificate of confirmation of grant. Such changes are fundamental, not superficial. They go to the core of the distribution. They cannot be affected without touching the orders made by the Court at the distribution of the estate. Consequently, such changes cannot and should not be effected through a mere amendment of the certificate of confirmation of grant. The proper approach ought to be an application for review of the orders made at the confirmation of the grant. The remedy of review of Court orders is not directly provided for in the Law of Succession Act and the Probate and Administration Rules, but it is imported into probate practice by Rule 63 of Probate and Administration Rules, which has adopted a number of procedures from the Civil Procedure Rules…………the Court may review its orders made at the point of confirming the grant on the ground of discovery of new and important evidence that was not available at the time the grant was being confirmed…………”
12. Rectification of a grant of Letters of Administration is therefore limited to matters set out under Section 74 of the Law of Succession Act. Under this provision, rectification of the grant specifically addresses the correction of errors that the court may order without changing the substance of the grant. This includes errors in names, description of any person or thing or an error as to the time or place of death of the deceased or the purpose for which a grant was issued. An error which is visualised under the Section is a mistake which may occur on the face of the grant, like typing errors in the names of persons or things.
13. The present application for rectification presents a subdivision plan that alters the original distribution. The amended schedule is associated with the survey plan F/R640/23. However, upon review of the annexures, the court is unable to determine how these proposed 17 plots correspond with the subdivision detailed in the certificate of confirmation of grant.
14. Upon examination, I have concluded that the rectification being sought fundamentally changes the confirmed grant by altering the original distribution of the asset Nairobi/Block 126/510. This requested rectification goes beyond simple correction of minor errors; it impacts the substance of the certificate of confirmation of grant. As a result, it does not fall within the criteria set out in Section 74 of the Law of Succession Act, which specifies the types of errors eligible for rectification.
15. The application is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
16. Orders accordingly.
DELIVERED through the Microsoft Teams Online Platform on this 04TH day of MARCH, 2026
HON. C. KENDAGOR
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Court Assistant: Beryl
Ms Njenga, Advocate holding brief for Nyasaye Advocate for the Applicant
Mr Kariuki, Advocate for the Respondent