REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI
FAMILY DIVISION
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 407 OF 2019
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF PATRICK GEORGE MUSYOKI (DECEASED)
RULING
1. This ruling pertains to 3 Summons for revocation of grant that was issued on 3 rd June 2020 to DOMINIC MASILA MUTHAMA, (respondent) (in his capacity as a nephew to the deceased). The 1 st in time is dated 22 nd March 2021 and is presented by LISA WANGU GATUNGO and AIKA NYANGARA GATUNGO, they seek to revoke the grant on the basis that they are the biological daughters of the deceased and therefore rank in priority to the administrator. They aver that there is evidence of the respondent paying fees for them, all the way from primary to university and they are currently living in one of his houses. They aver further that the grant was fraudulently obtained as at the time of the issuance of the grant, they had a pending objection and cross petition.
2. The 2 nd Summons is dated 22 nd March 2023 and it is presented by DANIEL MUTIE MUSYOKI who states that he is a step brother to the deceased. He avers that the father of the deceased was polygamous. His mother was a Step mother to the deceased. The deceased had a brother, Paul Muthama also deceased. He contends that the respondent was not a biological child of Paul Muthama as alleged, he states the respondent was born out of a previous relationship his mother had. He states that Paul Muthama had biological children who would rank prior than the respondent in issuance of the grant of letters of administration. These are Caroline Ndunge Muthama, Dominic Masila Muthama, Geoffrey Muathe Muthama, Eric Mbithi Muthama, Mweu Muthama, Irene Katheu Muthama and Nzuki Muthama and none of these have been made administrators.
3. His claim to issuance of the grant in place of the respondent is that he is a step brother to the deceased. The other brothers (step) to the deceased are Patrick Mbatha Muthama (Deceased) and Mbatha Musyoki. The grant should be revoked as it does not incorporate the siblings and other nephews and nieces of the deceased. He avers that the deceased herein died a bachelor and did not have biological children
4. The final summons is that dated 30 th January 2024 and is presented by GEOFREY MUATHE PAUL, ERIC MBITHI MUTHAMA, GEOFREY MWEU MUTHAMA, IVINE KATHEO MUTHAMA and ESTHER KALONDU MUTHAMA. They aver that the deceased died a bachelor and without biological children. The respondent is their half-brother. He is a son to their mother but not their father who was the sole biological brother of the deceased. They therefore rank in priority to the respondent.
5. The grant should also be revoked as the respondent has been intermeddling with the estate by disposing of assets of the estate prior to confirmation of the grant. He is facing criminal charges in this regard in MCCR No. E494 of 2024 R V DOMINIC MUTHAMA. They have attached statements recorded in relation to the criminal charges where the respondent admits to initiating sale so as to dispose of estate assets so as to settle liabilities .
6. The respondent has replied to all 3 applications. In response to Lisa Wangu and Aika Nyangara, he states that after considering protracted submissions and in the presence of all the parties, the Court directed that he Petition for Grant of Letters of Administration. Subsequent to his Petition the Court issued Grant of Letters of Administration to him on 3 rd June 2020. He denies that they are children of the deceased and contends that they have failed to move to establish paternity. He also has availed copies of birth certificates of the applicants which do not show that the deceased was their father.
7. In response to Daniel Mutie, he states that he and his siblings rank in priority to him. He has no claim to the estate of the deceased as he is a step brother and not a half-brother. He rubbishes the claim by applicant and his Siblings that he is not a child of the deceased’s brother and therefore a nephew to the deceased. He denies intermeddling with the estate and avers that the parties have not met the legal threshold for revocation of grant.
8. The Summons were canvassed by way of written submissions. In submissions dated 9 th September 2025, the applicant in summons dated 22 nd March 2023, submits that his application is merited and relies on the decision in In re Estate of Monicah Wanjiru Kinyanjui alias Monicah Wanjiru Gitau (Deceased)(Succession Cause 5 of 2019) [2022] KEHC 10351 (KLR) (26 May 2022) (Judgment ) in support of his submission that as a half brother he is entitled to be appointed as administrator.
9. Vide Submissions dated 30 th September 2025, the applicant’s in Summons dated 30th January 2024, submit that the grant should be revoked on account of intermeddling on the part of the respondent. Reference is made to the decision in Benson Mutunga Muriungi v CEO Kenya Police Sacco & Another [2016] eKLR Albert Imbuga Kisigwa v Recho Kavai Kisigwa [2016] KEHC 1528 (KLR) and Butt v Khan [1981[KLR 349
10. In submissions dated 8 th October 2025 the respondent frames the following as the issues for determination,
a. Whether any of the applicants has satisfied the statutory threshold under Section 76 of the LSA to warrant revocation of the grant.
b. The applicable order of devolution under Section 39 of the LSA in circumstances where the deceased left neither spouse nor child.
c. The legal effect, if any, of (a) the paternity claim by Lisa and Aika and (b) the consanguinity challenge newly introduced by Geoffrey Muathe & Others
d. Whether alleged mismanagement/ intermeddling or intra family disagreements justify revocation, or whether proportionate remedies ( accounts, injunctive relief, or co- administration) suffice
11. It is submitted that the applicants have not met the legal threshold for revocation of grant and reference made to the decision in Re Estate of Eliakim Shibia Musa ( Deceased) (Succession Cause 236 of 2012) [2023] KEHC 25563 (KLR) (17November 2023) (Ruling). It is submitted that until paternity is established in respect to the applicants in the summons dated 22 nd March 2021, their application for revocation has no basis. Reference is made to the decision in re Estate of Arthur Ikua Gioche alias Arthur Mwangi (Deceased) (Succession Cause 736 of 2013) [2025] KEHC 1631 (KLR) (18 February 2025) (Ruling)
12. It is further submitted that the summons dated 22 nd March 2023 must fail as the claim by the applicant lacks merit on account of the fact that the respondent and his siblings rank in priority as the deceased is not survived by a spouse and children. He submits that the charge of intermeddling has not been proved against him and that the application by his siblings is an abuse of the Court process.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
13. Having carefully considered the pleadings on record alongside submissions filed and the relevant law, I frame the following as the issues for determination.
a. Whether the Grant should be revoked?
b. What if any are the consequential orders?
c. Who should pay costs?
14. On the 1 st issue; Whether the grant should be revoked? With regard to the application dated 30 th January 2024, the relevant provisions are Section 76 and Section 39 of the Law of Succession Act. Section 76 provides the circumstances under which a Court may revoke a grant either on its own motion or on the application of an interested party. It provides-
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) ……..
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) ……
e) The grant has become useless and inoperative through subsequent
circumstances.
15. I have looked at Petition for Grant of Letters of Administration dated 26 th April 2019 lodged by the respondent. He presents the same in his capacity as nephew of the deceased. Attached to that Petition is consent to making of grant to the respondent executed by Caroline Ndunge Muthama, Dominic Masila Muthama, Geofrey Muathe Muthama, Eric Mbithi Muthama, Mweu Muthama, Irvine Katheo Muthama and Esther Kalondu Muthama on the same date. The applicants in application dated 30 th January 2024 do not deny executing that consent. Their application for revocation would fail on that ground.
16. They also allege that the applicant is guilty of intermeddling and rely on a pending criminal charge. Our legal system is based on the doctrine of presumption of innocence and until he is convicted of the same, these amount to allegations. For this reason, I am inclined to disallow the summons for revocation presented by them.
17. With regard to the Summons dated 22 nd March 2021, the success of their challenge rests on establishment of paternity. The applicants had the burden to establish paternity. They contend that they are the biological daughters of the deceased. Their birth certificates on record do not support this claim. They seek to rely on cheques allegedly drawn by the deceased for their school fees and receipts for school that show he paid fees. All these do not establish paternity. The reliance on proceedings under mental health act does not support the claim as in any event the deceased challenged those proceedings. At the very best the applicants may lodge a claim as dependants. I am not satisfied that they have established that they were the biological children of the deceased as alleged and therefore ranking in priority to the respondent under Section 66 of the Law of Succession Act. The summons for revocation therefore fails.
18. The application for revocation dated 22 nd March 2023, is based on the applicant’s interpretation of Section 39 of the Law of Succession Act. It provides-
39. Where intestate has left no surviving spouse or children
(1) Where an intestate has left no surviving spouse or children, the net intestate estate shall devolve upon the kindred of the intestate in the following order of priority—
(a)father; or if dead
(b)mother; or if dead
(c)brothers and sisters, and any child or children of deceased brothers and sisters, in equal shares; or if none
(d)half-brothers and half-sisters and any child or children of deceased half-brothers and half-sisters, in equal shares; or if none
(e)the relatives who are in the nearest degree of consanguinity up to and including the sixth degree, in equal shares.
(2) Failing survival by any of the persons mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (1), the net intestate estate shall devolve upon the State, and be paid into the Consolidated Fund
19. It is clear that the intention of the law is to limit and exclude beneficiaries of intestate succession of a deceased who dies without a spouse and children. It starts with those deemed closest and only in their absence progresses to the next category. If there are relatives at the higher level of consanguinity, the inquiry ceases. It is disjunctive in its hierarchy. In this case it is not denied that the deceased had nieces and nephews who according to the law rank prior to half-brothers and half-sisters.
20. It is alleged that since the respondent is not a biological child of the brother to the deceased he has no right to the estate of the deceased. I have considered the definition of Child under the law of Succession Act which provides-
Section 3(2) References in this Act to "child “or "children" shall include a child conceived but not yet born (as long as that child is subsequently born alive) and, in relation to a female person, any child born to her out of wedlock, and, in relation to a male person, any child whom he has expressly recognized or in fact accepted as a child of his own or for whom he has voluntarily assumed permanent responsibility.
21. There is consensus that the respondent was raised as a son of the deceased’s biological brother. The Law of Succession does not discriminate between children, whether biological or by adoption or as in this case by assumption of parental responsibility. This is in line with Article 27 of the Constitution of Kenya which prohibits discrimination.
27. Equality and Freedom from Discrimination
(1) Every person is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection
and equal benefit of the law.
(2) Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and fundamental freedoms.
(3) Women and men have the right to equal treatment, including the right to equal opportunities in political, economic, cultural and social spheres.
(4) The State shall not discriminate directly or indirectly against any person on any ground, including race, sex, pregnancy, marital status, health status, ethnic or social origin, colour, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, dress, language or birth.
(5) A person shall not discriminate directly or indirectly against another person on any of the grounds specified or contemplated in clause (4).
22. The Law of Succession Act does not distinguish between the respondent and the biological children of Paul Muthama, they are of equal standing. For these reasons the Summons dated 22 nd March 2023 will also fail.
23. The applicants also seek that the grant be revoked as the respondent has not been diligent in finalizing the administration and transmission of the estate to the rightful beneficiaries, further it is contended that the respondent ought to provide accounts of his dealings with the estate. Section 83 (e) of the Act requires that the administrator produce to the Court a full and accurate inventory of the assets and liabilities of the deceased and a full accurate account of all dealings with the estate within 6 months of the issuance of the grant. Section 71 further requires that the administrator apply for confirmation of the grant within 6 months of the issuance of the grant.
24. It is evident that there has been delay in finalizing the transmission of the estate, this is partly on account of the multiple applications that have been presented. The administrator has a statutory obligation to furnish accounts and the law requires that the transmission of the estate to rightful beneficiaries be expedited.
25. The final orders are therefore
a. All 3 applications to revoke the grant are dismissed
b. The other children of Paul Muthama, namely GEOFREY MUATHE PAUL, ERIC MBITHI MUTHAMA, GEOFREY MWEU MUTHAMA, IVINE KATHEO MUTHAMA and ESTHER KALONDU MUTHAMA to nominate two among them who will be appointed as Co- administrators with the respondent.
c. Mention on 22 nd April 2026 to confirm whether the family has agreed on the two names and to make further orders
d. The respondent will submit within 90 days a report in accordance with Section 83 (3) of the Law of Succession Act.
e. Each party will bear their own costs.
f. Parties at liberty to appeal. Party exercising their right to appeal to do so within 30 days
It is so ordered.
SIGNED DATED AND DELIVERED IN VIRTUAL COURT THIS 23 rd DAY OF January, 2026.
SUCC CAUSE NO. 407 of 2019 Page 2 of 2
IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI
FAMILY DIVISION
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 407 OF 2019
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF PATRICK GEORGE MUSYOKI (DECEASED)
RULING
1. This ruling pertains to 3 Summons for revocation of grant that was issued on 3 rd June 2020 to DOMINIC MASILA MUTHAMA, (respondent) (in his capacity as a nephew to the deceased). The 1 st in time is dated 22 nd March 2021 and is presented by LISA WANGU GATUNGO and AIKA NYANGARA GATUNGO, they seek to revoke the grant on the basis that they are the biological daughters of the deceased and therefore rank in priority to the administrator. They aver that there is evidence of the respondent paying fees for them, all the way from primary to university and they are currently living in one of his houses. They aver further that the grant was fraudulently obtained as at the time of the issuance of the grant, they had a pending objection and cross petition.
2. The 2 nd Summons is dated 22 nd March 2023 and it is presented by DANIEL MUTIE MUSYOKI who states that he is a step brother to the deceased. He avers that the father of the deceased was polygamous. His mother was a Step mother to the deceased. The deceased had a brother, Paul Muthama also deceased. He contends that the respondent was not a biological child of Paul Muthama as alleged, he states the respondent was born out of a previous relationship his mother had. He states that Paul Muthama had biological children who would rank prior than the respondent in issuance of the grant of letters of administration. These are Caroline Ndunge Muthama, Dominic Masila Muthama, Geoffrey Muathe Muthama, Eric Mbithi Muthama, Mweu Muthama, Irene Katheu Muthama and Nzuki Muthama and none of these have been made administrators.
3. His claim to issuance of the grant in place of the respondent is that he is a step brother to the deceased. The other brothers (step) to the deceased are Patrick Mbatha Muthama (Deceased) and Mbatha Musyoki. The grant should be revoked as it does not incorporate the siblings and other nephews and nieces of the deceased. He avers that the deceased herein died a bachelor and did not have biological children
4. The final summons is that dated 30 th January 2024 and is presented by GEOFREY MUATHE PAUL, ERIC MBITHI MUTHAMA, GEOFREY MWEU MUTHAMA, IVINE KATHEO MUTHAMA and ESTHER KALONDU MUTHAMA. They aver that the deceased died a bachelor and without biological children. The respondent is their half-brother. He is a son to their mother but not their father who was the sole biological brother of the deceased. They therefore rank in priority to the respondent.
5. The grant should also be revoked as the respondent has been intermeddling with the estate by disposing of assets of the estate prior to confirmation of the grant. He is facing criminal charges in this regard in MCCR No. E494 of 2024 R V DOMINIC MUTHAMA. They have attached statements recorded in relation to the criminal charges where the respondent admits to initiating sale so as to dispose of estate assets so as to settle liabilities .
6. The respondent has replied to all 3 applications. In response to Lisa Wangu and Aika Nyangara, he states that after considering protracted submissions and in the presence of all the parties, the Court directed that he Petition for Grant of Letters of Administration. Subsequent to his Petition the Court issued Grant of Letters of Administration to him on 3 rd June 2020. He denies that they are children of the deceased and contends that they have failed to move to establish paternity. He also has availed copies of birth certificates of the applicants which do not show that the deceased was their father.
7. In response to Daniel Mutie, he states that he and his siblings rank in priority to him. He has no claim to the estate of the deceased as he is a step brother and not a half-brother. He rubbishes the claim by applicant and his Siblings that he is not a child of the deceased’s brother and therefore a nephew to the deceased. He denies intermeddling with the estate and avers that the parties have not met the legal threshold for revocation of grant.
8. The Summons were canvassed by way of written submissions. In submissions dated 9 th September 2025, the applicant in summons dated 22 nd March 2023, submits that his application is merited and relies on the decision in In re Estate of Monicah Wanjiru Kinyanjui alias Monicah Wanjiru Gitau (Deceased)(Succession Cause 5 of 2019) [2022] KEHC 10351 (KLR) (26 May 2022) (Judgment ) in support of his submission that as a half brother he is entitled to be appointed as administrator.
9. Vide Submissions dated 30 th September 2025, the applicant’s in Summons dated 30th January 2024, submit that the grant should be revoked on account of intermeddling on the part of the respondent. Reference is made to the decision in Benson Mutunga Muriungi v CEO Kenya Police Sacco & Another [2016] eKLR Albert Imbuga Kisigwa v Recho Kavai Kisigwa [2016] KEHC 1528 (KLR) and Butt v Khan [1981[KLR 349
10. In submissions dated 8 th October 2025 the respondent frames the following as the issues for determination,
a. Whether any of the applicants has satisfied the statutory threshold under Section 76 of the LSA to warrant revocation of the grant.
b. The applicable order of devolution under Section 39 of the LSA in circumstances where the deceased left neither spouse nor child.
c. The legal effect, if any, of (a) the paternity claim by Lisa and Aika and (b) the consanguinity challenge newly introduced by Geoffrey Muathe & Others
d. Whether alleged mismanagement/ intermeddling or intra family disagreements justify revocation, or whether proportionate remedies ( accounts, injunctive relief, or co- administration) suffice
11. It is submitted that the applicants have not met the legal threshold for revocation of grant and reference made to the decision in Re Estate of Eliakim Shibia Musa ( Deceased) (Succession Cause 236 of 2012) [2023] KEHC 25563 (KLR) (17November 2023) (Ruling). It is submitted that until paternity is established in respect to the applicants in the summons dated 22 nd March 2021, their application for revocation has no basis. Reference is made to the decision in re Estate of Arthur Ikua Gioche alias Arthur Mwangi (Deceased) (Succession Cause 736 of 2013) [2025] KEHC 1631 (KLR) (18 February 2025) (Ruling)
12. It is further submitted that the summons dated 22 nd March 2023 must fail as the claim by the applicant lacks merit on account of the fact that the respondent and his siblings rank in priority as the deceased is not survived by a spouse and children. He submits that the charge of intermeddling has not been proved against him and that the application by his siblings is an abuse of the Court process.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
13. Having carefully considered the pleadings on record alongside submissions filed and the relevant law, I frame the following as the issues for determination.
a. Whether the Grant should be revoked?
b. What if any are the consequential orders?
c. Who should pay costs?
14. On the 1 st issue; Whether the grant should be revoked? With regard to the application dated 30 th January 2024, the relevant provisions are Section 76 and Section 39 of the Law of Succession Act. Section 76 provides the circumstances under which a Court may revoke a grant either on its own motion or on the application of an interested party. It provides-
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) ……..
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) ……
e) The grant has become useless and inoperative through subsequent
circumstances.
15. I have looked at Petition for Grant of Letters of Administration dated 26 th April 2019 lodged by the respondent. He presents the same in his capacity as nephew of the deceased. Attached to that Petition is consent to making of grant to the respondent executed by Caroline Ndunge Muthama, Dominic Masila Muthama, Geofrey Muathe Muthama, Eric Mbithi Muthama, Mweu Muthama, Irvine Katheo Muthama and Esther Kalondu Muthama on the same date. The applicants in application dated 30 th January 2024 do not deny executing that consent. Their application for revocation would fail on that ground.
16. They also allege that the applicant is guilty of intermeddling and rely on a pending criminal charge. Our legal system is based on the doctrine of presumption of innocence and until he is convicted of the same, these amount to allegations. For this reason, I am inclined to disallow the summons for revocation presented by them.
17. With regard to the Summons dated 22 nd March 2021, the success of their challenge rests on establishment of paternity. The applicants had the burden to establish paternity. They contend that they are the biological daughters of the deceased. Their birth certificates on record do not support this claim. They seek to rely on cheques allegedly drawn by the deceased for their school fees and receipts for school that show he paid fees. All these do not establish paternity. The reliance on proceedings under mental health act does not support the claim as in any event the deceased challenged those proceedings. At the very best the applicants may lodge a claim as dependants. I am not satisfied that they have established that they were the biological children of the deceased as alleged and therefore ranking in priority to the respondent under Section 66 of the Law of Succession Act. The summons for revocation therefore fails.
18. The application for revocation dated 22 nd March 2023, is based on the applicant’s interpretation of Section 39 of the Law of Succession Act. It provides-
39. Where intestate has left no surviving spouse or children
(1) Where an intestate has left no surviving spouse or children, the net intestate estate shall devolve upon the kindred of the intestate in the following order of priority—
(a)father; or if dead
(b)mother; or if dead
(c)brothers and sisters, and any child or children of deceased brothers and sisters, in equal shares; or if none
(d)half-brothers and half-sisters and any child or children of deceased half-brothers and half-sisters, in equal shares; or if none
(e)the relatives who are in the nearest degree of consanguinity up to and including the sixth degree, in equal shares.
(2) Failing survival by any of the persons mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (1), the net intestate estate shall devolve upon the State, and be paid into the Consolidated Fund
19. It is clear that the intention of the law is to limit and exclude beneficiaries of intestate succession of a deceased who dies without a spouse and children. It starts with those deemed closest and only in their absence progresses to the next category. If there are relatives at the higher level of consanguinity, the inquiry ceases. It is disjunctive in its hierarchy. In this case it is not denied that the deceased had nieces and nephews who according to the law rank prior to half-brothers and half-sisters.
20. It is alleged that since the respondent is not a biological child of the brother to the deceased he has no right to the estate of the deceased. I have considered the definition of Child under the law of Succession Act which provides-
Section 3(2) References in this Act to "child “or "children" shall include a child conceived but not yet born (as long as that child is subsequently born alive) and, in relation to a female person, any child born to her out of wedlock, and, in relation to a male person, any child whom he has expressly recognized or in fact accepted as a child of his own or for whom he has voluntarily assumed permanent responsibility.
21. There is consensus that the respondent was raised as a son of the deceased’s biological brother. The Law of Succession does not discriminate between children, whether biological or by adoption or as in this case by assumption of parental responsibility. This is in line with Article 27 of the Constitution of Kenya which prohibits discrimination.
27. Equality and Freedom from Discrimination
(1) Every person is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection
and equal benefit of the law.
(2) Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and fundamental freedoms.
(3) Women and men have the right to equal treatment, including the right to equal opportunities in political, economic, cultural and social spheres.
(4) The State shall not discriminate directly or indirectly against any person on any ground, including race, sex, pregnancy, marital status, health status, ethnic or social origin, colour, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, dress, language or birth.
(5) A person shall not discriminate directly or indirectly against another person on any of the grounds specified or contemplated in clause (4).
22. The Law of Succession Act does not distinguish between the respondent and the biological children of Paul Muthama, they are of equal standing. For these reasons the Summons dated 22 nd March 2023 will also fail.
23. The applicants also seek that the grant be revoked as the respondent has not been diligent in finalizing the administration and transmission of the estate to the rightful beneficiaries, further it is contended that the respondent ought to provide accounts of his dealings with the estate. Section 83 (e) of the Act requires that the administrator produce to the Court a full and accurate inventory of the assets and liabilities of the deceased and a full accurate account of all dealings with the estate within 6 months of the issuance of the grant. Section 71 further requires that the administrator apply for confirmation of the grant within 6 months of the issuance of the grant.
24. It is evident that there has been delay in finalizing the transmission of the estate, this is partly on account of the multiple applications that have been presented. The administrator has a statutory obligation to furnish accounts and the law requires that the transmission of the estate to rightful beneficiaries be expedited.
25. The final orders are therefore
a. All 3 applications to revoke the grant are dismissed
b. The other children of Paul Muthama, namely GEOFREY MUATHE PAUL, ERIC MBITHI MUTHAMA, GEOFREY MWEU MUTHAMA, IVINE KATHEO MUTHAMA and ESTHER KALONDU MUTHAMA to nominate two among them who will be appointed as Co- administrators with the respondent.
c. Mention on 22 nd April 2026 to confirm whether the family has agreed on the two names and to make further orders
d. The respondent will submit within 90 days a report in accordance with Section 83 (3) of the Law of Succession Act.
e. Each party will bear their own costs.
f. Parties at liberty to appeal. Party exercising their right to appeal to do so within 30 days
It is so ordered.
SIGNED DATED AND DELIVERED IN VIRTUAL COURT THIS 23 rd DAY OF January, 2026.
SUCC CAUSE NO. 407 of 2019 Page 2 of 2