1. This ruling relates to two applications – one for revocation of the grant dated 1st August, 2024 and a second one dated 5th September, 2023 seeking rectification of the grant.
2. The background of the matter is that Wairimu Njuguna, alias Rahab Wairimu Njuguna, alias Wangoko Njuguna, died on 27th November 1995. She left two dependants – Richu Njuguna alias Rishu Njuguna Richu (deceased), and Njeri Njuguna (deceased).
3. A grant of letters of administration intestate was issued to Richu Njuguna, who also inherited the entire estate. Njeri died before the petition for administration was filed, and she had no dependants.
4. The grant was rectified several times to address issues that were presented by Richu Njuguna, including the inclusion of an alias name and to correct the reference for some shares.
5. Additionally, in 2021, Richu Njuguna filed an application for substitution of administrator to have his son, David Munge Richu, appointed as the new administrator.
6. David Munge Richu is currently serving as the administrator. The Certificate of Confirmation of Grant retained the distribution that has been in place since the first grant, i.e., that the estate assets wholly vested in Richu Njuguna.
7. Richu Njuguna died on 23rd July, 2012, and the family was thrown into a succession dispute because the transmission had not been completed at the time of his death.
8. Richu Njuguna is alleged to have had five widows and several children. There is disagreement among the children regarding the status of certain widows.
9. David Munge Richu, the administrator, is the son of the 2 nd house. His application seeks rectification of the grant, stating that the certificate of confirmation of grant should indicate that the estate devolves to him, David Munge Richu. He claims that his name was mistakenly recorded as Richu Njuguna. However, there is no complexity surrounding the issue of names; the record is clear. It explicitly shows that Richu Njuguna was the name of their deceased father. Therefore, this is not an error as the administrator suggests; the name was recorded accurately.
10. In the second application filed by Stephen Njuguna Richu, who is a son of the 1 st house, he seeks the revocation of the grant that was issued to David Munge Richu. This application is based on allegations that the administrator, David Munge Richu, is intermeddling with the estate belonging to their deceased father.
11. Stephen argues that the administrator’s actions are detrimental to the interests of the beneficiaries. He also stated that he and the other beneficiaries are apprehensive that David may dispose of the estate assets without their consent, which could result in a loss of their rightful inheritance.
12. The application for revocation is similar to the one dated 28 th September, 2012 which was determined by Hon. Justice W. Musyoka on 10 th July, 2015. In dismissing the application for revocation, the court stated that since the estate was vested in the name of their late father, it is the responsibility of those surviving him to obtain representation for his estate.
13. Following that, the appointed legal representatives’ duty is to ensure that the assets from Wairimu Njuguna’s estate are transferred into the name of Richu Njuguna’s estate. Once this process is complete, the assets are distributed in Richu Njuguna’s estate, all in separate proceedings.
14. The two applications and the viva voce evidence indicate that the parties remain at a standstill regarding the distribution of assets that devolved to their deceased husband/father.
15. The applicants in the applications are seeking to initiate succession proceedings regarding their father’s estate in their grandmother’s estate. They are inviting the court to examine how their father intended to settle his affairs in the polygamous unions and how the assets that devolve to him from his mother should be managed and distributed. However, the issues they are raising relate to the administration of their father’s estate, which should be addressed through separate legal proceedings dedicated to their late father’s estate. Those proceedings would allow for a comprehensive resolution of all relevant issues surrounding the estate’s rightful beneficiaries, administration, assets, and their distribution.
16. The applications lack merit and are hereby dismissed. Each party will bear own costs of the applications.
It is so ordered.
DATED, DELIVERED and SIGNED at NAIROBI through the Microsoft Teams Online Platform on this 02 nd day of FEBRUARY, 2026.
C. KENDAGOR
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Court Assistant: Beryl
Mr Kimanzi, Advocate for Administrator
Ms Ndavuti , Advocate, holding brief for Mashwa, Advocate for the 1st, 3rd, and 4th houses .
Mr Mwaura, Advocate for 2 nd house
2. The background of the matter is that Wairimu Njuguna, alias Rahab Wairimu Njuguna, alias Wangoko Njuguna, died on 27th November 1995. She left two dependants – Richu Njuguna alias Rishu Njuguna Richu (deceased), and Njeri Njuguna (deceased).
3. A grant of letters of administration intestate was issued to Richu Njuguna, who also inherited the entire estate. Njeri died before the petition for administration was filed, and she had no dependants.
4. The grant was rectified several times to address issues that were presented by Richu Njuguna, including the inclusion of an alias name and to correct the reference for some shares.
5. Additionally, in 2021, Richu Njuguna filed an application for substitution of administrator to have his son, David Munge Richu, appointed as the new administrator.
6. David Munge Richu is currently serving as the administrator. The Certificate of Confirmation of Grant retained the distribution that has been in place since the first grant, i.e., that the estate assets wholly vested in Richu Njuguna.
7. Richu Njuguna died on 23rd July, 2012, and the family was thrown into a succession dispute because the transmission had not been completed at the time of his death.
8. Richu Njuguna is alleged to have had five widows and several children. There is disagreement among the children regarding the status of certain widows.
9. David Munge Richu, the administrator, is the son of the 2 nd house. His application seeks rectification of the grant, stating that the certificate of confirmation of grant should indicate that the estate devolves to him, David Munge Richu. He claims that his name was mistakenly recorded as Richu Njuguna. However, there is no complexity surrounding the issue of names; the record is clear. It explicitly shows that Richu Njuguna was the name of their deceased father. Therefore, this is not an error as the administrator suggests; the name was recorded accurately.
10. In the second application filed by Stephen Njuguna Richu, who is a son of the 1 st house, he seeks the revocation of the grant that was issued to David Munge Richu. This application is based on allegations that the administrator, David Munge Richu, is intermeddling with the estate belonging to their deceased father.
11. Stephen argues that the administrator’s actions are detrimental to the interests of the beneficiaries. He also stated that he and the other beneficiaries are apprehensive that David may dispose of the estate assets without their consent, which could result in a loss of their rightful inheritance.
12. The application for revocation is similar to the one dated 28 th September, 2012 which was determined by Hon. Justice W. Musyoka on 10 th July, 2015. In dismissing the application for revocation, the court stated that since the estate was vested in the name of their late father, it is the responsibility of those surviving him to obtain representation for his estate.
13. Following that, the appointed legal representatives’ duty is to ensure that the assets from Wairimu Njuguna’s estate are transferred into the name of Richu Njuguna’s estate. Once this process is complete, the assets are distributed in Richu Njuguna’s estate, all in separate proceedings.
14. The two applications and the viva voce evidence indicate that the parties remain at a standstill regarding the distribution of assets that devolved to their deceased husband/father.
15. The applicants in the applications are seeking to initiate succession proceedings regarding their father’s estate in their grandmother’s estate. They are inviting the court to examine how their father intended to settle his affairs in the polygamous unions and how the assets that devolve to him from his mother should be managed and distributed. However, the issues they are raising relate to the administration of their father’s estate, which should be addressed through separate legal proceedings dedicated to their late father’s estate. Those proceedings would allow for a comprehensive resolution of all relevant issues surrounding the estate’s rightful beneficiaries, administration, assets, and their distribution.
16. The applications lack merit and are hereby dismissed. Each party will bear own costs of the applications.
It is so ordered.
DATED, DELIVERED and SIGNED at NAIROBI through the Microsoft Teams Online Platform on this 02 nd day of FEBRUARY, 2026.
C. KENDAGOR
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Court Assistant: Beryl
Mr Kimanzi, Advocate for Administrator
Ms Ndavuti , Advocate, holding brief for Mashwa, Advocate for the 1st, 3rd, and 4th houses .
Mr Mwaura, Advocate for 2 nd house