REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KERICHO
(FAMILY AND PROBATE DIVISION)
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E012 OF 2025
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KIPKERICH ARAP BOR (DECEASED)
JOHN KIPKOECH KERICH.............................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
SAMWEL KIPKEMOI BETT..............................................1ST RESPONDENT
JENNIFER CHERONO.................................................2ND RESPONDENT
RUTH CHEPKORIR LANGAT............................................3RD RESPONDENT
SAMUEL KERICH BOR.....................................4TH RESPONDENT
1. This ruling determines both the respondents Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 6th March 2026 and the applicant's Notice of Motion dated 18th December 2025. The dispute concerns the estate of Kipkerich Arap Bor (deceased) and the proceedings relating to the same estate in Kericho Chief Magistrate's Succession Cause No. E308 of 2023.
2. The Motion invokes the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 165(6) and (7) of the Constitution. The substantive prayers remaining for determination are that the subordinate court proceedings be struck out; that the certificate of confirmation of grant issued on 29th August 2024 be revoked for want of jurisdiction; that the succession proceedings be placed before the High Court; and that costs be provided for.
3. The respondent's preliminary objection contends that the Motion is incompetent because a confirmed grant may only be challenged through a summons for revocation under section 76 of the Law of Succession Act, an appeal or an application for review. They further contend that the High Court lacks jurisdiction in the manner in which it has been moved; that the applicant participated in the lower court proceedings and is estopped from challenging them; and that the application amounts to a collateral attack on those proceedings and is therefore an abuse of the court process.
The applicant's case
4. The applicant deposes that he and the respondents are children of the deceased. He states that the respondents petitioned for letters of administration without obtaining his consent, failed to provide for him upon confirmation of the grant and obtained the grant from a court that lacked pecuniary jurisdiction. In support of his contention regarding jurisdiction, he relies on three valuation reports prepared by Legeno Real Estates following inspections conducted on 18th December 2025.
5. The reports value Kericho Municipality Block 5/368 at Kshs. 90,000,000, Kericho/Chepsir/194 at Kshs. 8,000,000 and Sundur River Settlement Scheme/178 at Kshs. 4,000,000, giving the estate an aggregate value of Kshs. 102,000,000. Copies of the valuers practising certificate, professional diploma and supporting title and survey documents were annexed.
6. The applicant also annexed the certificate of confirmation of grant issued on 29th August 2024. It shows that the grant had been issued to the four respondents and that the three properties referred to above formed part of the estate. The certificate distributes those assets principally to the respondents jointly and allocates portions of Kericho Municipality Block 5/368 to several other persons. The applicant is not named in the schedule of distribution.
7. Lastly, the applicant annexed an agreement for sale dated 6th November 2025. Under that agreement, the four respondents, describing themselves as administrators, agreed to sell a portion measuring 50 feet by 100 feet to be excised from Kericho Municipality Block 5/368 to Mburu Robert Karana, acting through John Mburu Mukundi, for Kshs. 9,000,000. The agreement acknowledges payment of a deposit of Kshs. 1,500,000 and provides for payment of the balance by instalments. The purchaser was not joined as a party to these proceedings.
The respondent's case
8. The respondents oppose the Motion and support their preliminary objection. They submit that the applicant adopted a procedure unknown to succession law; that he ought to have sought revocation in the cause in which the grant was issued; that he participated in the proceedings up to the confirmation of the grant; and that the application undermines the principle of finality in litigation. They rely on Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696, Owners of the Motor Vessel Lillian S v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KLR 1, Oraro v Mbaja [2005] 1 KLR 141 and Muchanga Investments Ltd v Safaris Unlimited (Africa) Ltd & 2 others [2009] eKLR.
9. The respondents did not place before this Court any competing valuation. Neither did they controvert the specific values returned by the professional valuer or the contents of the sale agreement. Their response is directed predominantly at the competence of the Motion and the procedure adopted by the applicant.
Issues for determination
10. The issues arising for determination are whether the preliminary objection is properly taken and meritorious; whether the subordinate court had pecuniary jurisdiction over the estate; whether the grant and certificate of confirmation ought to be disturbed; the effect, if any, of the applicant's alleged participation in the subordinate court proceedings; and the consequential orders necessary for the preservation and proper administration of the estate.
Whether the preliminary objection is meritorious
11. A preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law which proceeds on the assumption that the facts pleaded by the opposing party are correct and which, if upheld, may dispose of the matter without the ascertainment of contested facts or the exercise of judicial discretion: Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd and Oraro v Mbaja (supra).
12. The contentions that the applicant participated fully in the proceedings, consented to the grant, failed to protest and is estopped from challenging the grant are factual. Their determination would require an examination of the lower court record and the evidence. The allegations that the application is a collateral attack and an abuse of the court process similarly raise mixed questions of fact and law. Those grounds do not, therefore, constitute proper preliminary objections.
13. The objection concerning this Court's jurisdiction raises a pure point of law, but it fails on its merits. Article 165(6) of the Constitution confers upon the High Court supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts, while Article 165(7) empowers it to call for the record of any proceedings before a subordinate court and to make any order or give any direction it considers appropriate to ensure the fair administration of justice. Sections 47 and 76 of the Law of Succession Act and rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules complement that jurisdiction in probate matters.
14. The Motion is inelegantly expressed and cites provisions of the Civil Procedure Act and the Environment and Land Court Act which are unnecessary in this succession dispute. Those drafting defects do not, however, deprive the Court of jurisdiction where the factual foundation of the application and the supervisory relief sought are clear. Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution requires justice to be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities. Although that provision cannot cure an absence of jurisdiction, it prevents the Court from elevating a curable defect in form above the substance of a clearly identifiable claim.
15. In Mangala v Mangala & another (Miscellaneous Civil Application 48A of 2023) [2024] KEHC 5942 (KLR), the High Court recognised that Article 165(6) and (7) of the Constitution, section 47 of the Law of Succession Act and rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules may be invoked to call for a subordinate court probate file and to make appropriate orders. I accordingly find that the present miscellaneous proceedings are competent. The preliminary objection is therefore dismissed.
Pecuniary jurisdiction of the subordinate court
16. Section 48(1) of the Law of Succession Act provides that a magistrate may entertain an application or determine a dispute under the Act only in respect of an estate whose gross value does not exceed the pecuniary limit prescribed under section 7 of the Magistrate'sCourts Act. Under section 7(1)(b) of the Magistrates Courts Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Senior Principal Magistrate is limited to Kshs. 15,000,000.
17. Jurisdiction flows from the Constitution or statute and cannot be created by consent, acquiescence or judicial innovation: Samuel Kamau Macharia & another v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & 2 others [2012] eKLR. Where a court acts without jurisdiction, its proceedings and orders cannot acquire validity merely because the parties participated in them: Owners of the Motor Vessel Lillian (supra).
18. The certificate of confirmation demonstrates that the subordinate court dealt with all three properties covered by the valuation reports. Their aggregate open-market value is Kshs. 102,000,000. The principal property alone was valued at Kshs. 90,000,000. The respondents did not tender any contrary valuation or other evidence. Further, the subsequent agreement to sell a portion measuring only 50 feet by 100 feet out of that property for Kshs. 9,000,000 lends independent support to the conclusion that the gross value of the estate far exceeded Kshs. 15,000,000.
19. I have considered that the reports state the value of the properties as at December 2025, whereas the cause was filed in 2023 and the grant was confirmed in August 2024. A valuation ordinarily relates to a particular date. In the present case, however, the disparity is not marginal. The aggregate value is more than six times the pecuniary ceiling of a Senior Principal Magistrate; the estate comprises several properties; and the valuation evidence is uncontroverted. There is no evidence of any intervening event capable of explaining an increase in value from Kshs. 15,000,000 or less to Kshs. 102,000,000 within that period. On a balance of probabilities, I find that the estate was outside the subordinate court's pecuniary jurisdiction when the cause was instituted.
20. I therefore find that the subordinate court lacked jurisdiction to entertain and determine Kericho Chief Magistrate's Succession Cause No. E308 of 2023. The grant and its confirmation were made without jurisdiction and cannot stand.
Revocation, omission of the applicant and administration of the estate
21. Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act permits the revocation or annulment of a grant at any time, either on the application of an interested party or on the Court's own motion, where the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance; where the grant was obtained through a false statement or the concealment of a material fact; or where it was obtained by an untrue allegation of a fact essential in law, even if that allegation was made inadvertently. A petition presented to a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction is defective in substance. The grant is therefore liable to revocation under section 76(a) and (c) of the Act.
22. The applicant swore that he is a son of the deceased, that his consent was not obtained and that he was excluded from the distribution of the estate. The certificate of confirmation supports the final assertion as it makes no provision for him. Although the respondents allege that he participated in the proceedings and is estopped from challenging the grant, they produced no consent, renunciation, record of protest proceedings or order resolving his status. Under section 51(2)(g) of the Act and rules 7(1)(e), 26(1) and (2) of the Probate and Administration Rules, all surviving children are material to a petition, while persons with an equal or prior right to administration must consent, renounce their right or be cited. The alleged non-disclosure or omission of the applicant is therefore material.
23. Nevertheless, the decisive ground in this application is the absence of pecuniary jurisdiction. It is unnecessary at this stage to determine the applicant's precise beneficial entitlement. That issue, together with the complete inventory of beneficiaries, assets and liabilities, must be addressed upon the transfer of the succession cause to this Court and in accordance with the directions to be issued in that cause.
24. The applicant asked the Court to strike out the lower court proceedings and direct that succession proceedings be instituted afresh in the High Court. In the circumstances, however, the just and efficient course is to transfer the existing succession cause to this Court for further proceedings. The respondents, as the former administrators who dealt with property belonging to the estate, remain accountable for all assets and monies received notwithstanding the revocation of their grant.
The sale agreement and preservation of the estate
25. The sale agreement demonstrates an imminent risk of further dealings with the estate. The purchaser, however, is not a party to the present proceedings and has not been heard. The Court will therefore not determine the validity, enforceability or proprietary consequences of that agreement in these proceedings. Those questions, including any statutory protection claimed under section 93 of the Law of Succession Act, must await a properly constituted dispute involving all affected parties.
26. The Court is nevertheless empowered by section 47 of the Act and rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules to preserve the estate. No further transfer, subdivision, transmission, sale, charge, lease or other dealing should occur until lawful administrators are appointed and this Court issues further directions. Any money already received under the impugned administration constitutes estate property and must be disclosed, accounted for and preserved.
Disposition
27. For the foregoing reasons, the preliminary objection fails and the Motion substantially succeeds. I accordingly make the following orders:
a. The respondents Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 6th March 2026 is dismissed.
b. The applicant's Notice of Motion dated 18th December 2025 is allowed to the extent set out below.
c. It is hereby declared that the Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain Kericho Chief Magistrate’s Succession Cause No. E308 of 2023 concerning the estate of Kipkerich Arap Bor (deceased).
d. The grant of letters of administration intestate issued to Samwel Kipkemoi Bet, Jennifer Cherono, Ruth Chepkorir Langat and Samuel Kerich Bor, together with the certificate of confirmation of grant dated 29th August 2024, is hereby revoked and annulled.
e. All substantive orders founded upon the grant, including the distribution contained in the certificate of confirmation, are hereby set aside. For the avoidance of doubt, this order does not finally determine the rights of any purchaser or other third party who was not joined to and heard in these proceedings.
f. The four respondents shall, within thirty (30) days, file and serve a full and accurate inventory and account of the estate from the date on which they assumed its administration, disclosing every asset, dealing, subdivision, transfer, agreement, payment received, expenditure incurred and the present location of all estate funds.
g. Any monies received under the agreement for sale dated 6th November 2025, or from any other dealing with property belonging to the estate, shall be preserved in an interest-earning account in the joint names of the advocates for the applicant and the respondents pending further directions of this Court. If any such monies have already been applied, the account required under order 6 above shall state when and how they were applied and under whose authority.
h. Pending the appointment of lawful administrators and further orders of this Court, there shall be no transfer, transmission, subdivision, sale, charge, lease, waste or other dealing with Kericho Municipality Block 5/368, Kericho/Chepsir/194, Sundur River Settlement Scheme/178 or any other asset belonging to the deceased.
i. Kericho Chief Magistrate's Succession Cause No. E308 of 2023 is hereby transferred to this Court for further proceedings.
j. The Deputy Registrar shall call for the original record in Kericho Chief Magistrate’s Succession Cause No. E308 of 2023 and cause an appropriate High Court succession file to be opened.
k. This being a family dispute, each party shall bear his or her own costs of the preliminary objection and the Motion.
l. The matter shall be mentioned on 30th July 2026 for further orders.
m. The parties shall, before the mention date, endeavour to agree on the persons to be appointed as administrators of the estate.
It is so ordered.
T. A. ODERA
JUDGE
29.7.2026
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KERICHO THIS 29TH DAY OF JULY 2026. IN THE PRESENCE OF MR O.LANGAT FOR THE APPLICANT & MR KIPKORIR FOR THE RESPODENT . CA – BUSIENEI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KERICHO
(FAMILY AND PROBATE DIVISION)
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E012 OF 2025
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KIPKERICH ARAP BOR (DECEASED)
JOHN KIPKOECH KERICH.............................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
SAMWEL KIPKEMOI BETT..............................................1ST RESPONDENT
JENNIFER CHERONO.................................................2ND RESPONDENT
RUTH CHEPKORIR LANGAT............................................3RD RESPONDENT
SAMUEL KERICH BOR.....................................4TH RESPONDENT
1. This ruling determines both the respondents Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 6th March 2026 and the applicant's Notice of Motion dated 18th December 2025. The dispute concerns the estate of Kipkerich Arap Bor (deceased) and the proceedings relating to the same estate in Kericho Chief Magistrate's Succession Cause No. E308 of 2023.
2. The Motion invokes the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 165(6) and (7) of the Constitution. The substantive prayers remaining for determination are that the subordinate court proceedings be struck out; that the certificate of confirmation of grant issued on 29th August 2024 be revoked for want of jurisdiction; that the succession proceedings be placed before the High Court; and that costs be provided for.
3. The respondent's preliminary objection contends that the Motion is incompetent because a confirmed grant may only be challenged through a summons for revocation under section 76 of the Law of Succession Act, an appeal or an application for review. They further contend that the High Court lacks jurisdiction in the manner in which it has been moved; that the applicant participated in the lower court proceedings and is estopped from challenging them; and that the application amounts to a collateral attack on those proceedings and is therefore an abuse of the court process.
The applicant's case
4. The applicant deposes that he and the respondents are children of the deceased. He states that the respondents petitioned for letters of administration without obtaining his consent, failed to provide for him upon confirmation of the grant and obtained the grant from a court that lacked pecuniary jurisdiction. In support of his contention regarding jurisdiction, he relies on three valuation reports prepared by Legeno Real Estates following inspections conducted on 18th December 2025.
5. The reports value Kericho Municipality Block 5/368 at Kshs. 90,000,000, Kericho/Chepsir/194 at Kshs. 8,000,000 and Sundur River Settlement Scheme/178 at Kshs. 4,000,000, giving the estate an aggregate value of Kshs. 102,000,000. Copies of the valuers practising certificate, professional diploma and supporting title and survey documents were annexed.
6. The applicant also annexed the certificate of confirmation of grant issued on 29th August 2024. It shows that the grant had been issued to the four respondents and that the three properties referred to above formed part of the estate. The certificate distributes those assets principally to the respondents jointly and allocates portions of Kericho Municipality Block 5/368 to several other persons. The applicant is not named in the schedule of distribution.
7. Lastly, the applicant annexed an agreement for sale dated 6th November 2025. Under that agreement, the four respondents, describing themselves as administrators, agreed to sell a portion measuring 50 feet by 100 feet to be excised from Kericho Municipality Block 5/368 to Mburu Robert Karana, acting through John Mburu Mukundi, for Kshs. 9,000,000. The agreement acknowledges payment of a deposit of Kshs. 1,500,000 and provides for payment of the balance by instalments. The purchaser was not joined as a party to these proceedings.
The respondent's case
8. The respondents oppose the Motion and support their preliminary objection. They submit that the applicant adopted a procedure unknown to succession law; that he ought to have sought revocation in the cause in which the grant was issued; that he participated in the proceedings up to the confirmation of the grant; and that the application undermines the principle of finality in litigation. They rely on Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696, Owners of the Motor Vessel Lillian S v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KLR 1, Oraro v Mbaja [2005] 1 KLR 141 and Muchanga Investments Ltd v Safaris Unlimited (Africa) Ltd & 2 others [2009] eKLR.
9. The respondents did not place before this Court any competing valuation. Neither did they controvert the specific values returned by the professional valuer or the contents of the sale agreement. Their response is directed predominantly at the competence of the Motion and the procedure adopted by the applicant.
Issues for determination
10. The issues arising for determination are whether the preliminary objection is properly taken and meritorious; whether the subordinate court had pecuniary jurisdiction over the estate; whether the grant and certificate of confirmation ought to be disturbed; the effect, if any, of the applicant's alleged participation in the subordinate court proceedings; and the consequential orders necessary for the preservation and proper administration of the estate.
Whether the preliminary objection is meritorious
11. A preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law which proceeds on the assumption that the facts pleaded by the opposing party are correct and which, if upheld, may dispose of the matter without the ascertainment of contested facts or the exercise of judicial discretion: Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd and Oraro v Mbaja (supra).
12. The contentions that the applicant participated fully in the proceedings, consented to the grant, failed to protest and is estopped from challenging the grant are factual. Their determination would require an examination of the lower court record and the evidence. The allegations that the application is a collateral attack and an abuse of the court process similarly raise mixed questions of fact and law. Those grounds do not, therefore, constitute proper preliminary objections.
13. The objection concerning this Court's jurisdiction raises a pure point of law, but it fails on its merits. Article 165(6) of the Constitution confers upon the High Court supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts, while Article 165(7) empowers it to call for the record of any proceedings before a subordinate court and to make any order or give any direction it considers appropriate to ensure the fair administration of justice. Sections 47 and 76 of the Law of Succession Act and rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules complement that jurisdiction in probate matters.
14. The Motion is inelegantly expressed and cites provisions of the Civil Procedure Act and the Environment and Land Court Act which are unnecessary in this succession dispute. Those drafting defects do not, however, deprive the Court of jurisdiction where the factual foundation of the application and the supervisory relief sought are clear. Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution requires justice to be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities. Although that provision cannot cure an absence of jurisdiction, it prevents the Court from elevating a curable defect in form above the substance of a clearly identifiable claim.
15. In Mangala v Mangala & another (Miscellaneous Civil Application 48A of 2023) [2024] KEHC 5942 (KLR), the High Court recognised that Article 165(6) and (7) of the Constitution, section 47 of the Law of Succession Act and rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules may be invoked to call for a subordinate court probate file and to make appropriate orders. I accordingly find that the present miscellaneous proceedings are competent. The preliminary objection is therefore dismissed.
Pecuniary jurisdiction of the subordinate court
16. Section 48(1) of the Law of Succession Act provides that a magistrate may entertain an application or determine a dispute under the Act only in respect of an estate whose gross value does not exceed the pecuniary limit prescribed under section 7 of the Magistrate'sCourts Act. Under section 7(1)(b) of the Magistrates Courts Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Senior Principal Magistrate is limited to Kshs. 15,000,000.
17. Jurisdiction flows from the Constitution or statute and cannot be created by consent, acquiescence or judicial innovation: Samuel Kamau Macharia & another v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & 2 others [2012] eKLR. Where a court acts without jurisdiction, its proceedings and orders cannot acquire validity merely because the parties participated in them: Owners of the Motor Vessel Lillian (supra).
18. The certificate of confirmation demonstrates that the subordinate court dealt with all three properties covered by the valuation reports. Their aggregate open-market value is Kshs. 102,000,000. The principal property alone was valued at Kshs. 90,000,000. The respondents did not tender any contrary valuation or other evidence. Further, the subsequent agreement to sell a portion measuring only 50 feet by 100 feet out of that property for Kshs. 9,000,000 lends independent support to the conclusion that the gross value of the estate far exceeded Kshs. 15,000,000.
19. I have considered that the reports state the value of the properties as at December 2025, whereas the cause was filed in 2023 and the grant was confirmed in August 2024. A valuation ordinarily relates to a particular date. In the present case, however, the disparity is not marginal. The aggregate value is more than six times the pecuniary ceiling of a Senior Principal Magistrate; the estate comprises several properties; and the valuation evidence is uncontroverted. There is no evidence of any intervening event capable of explaining an increase in value from Kshs. 15,000,000 or less to Kshs. 102,000,000 within that period. On a balance of probabilities, I find that the estate was outside the subordinate court's pecuniary jurisdiction when the cause was instituted.
20. I therefore find that the subordinate court lacked jurisdiction to entertain and determine Kericho Chief Magistrate's Succession Cause No. E308 of 2023. The grant and its confirmation were made without jurisdiction and cannot stand.
Revocation, omission of the applicant and administration of the estate
21. Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act permits the revocation or annulment of a grant at any time, either on the application of an interested party or on the Court's own motion, where the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance; where the grant was obtained through a false statement or the concealment of a material fact; or where it was obtained by an untrue allegation of a fact essential in law, even if that allegation was made inadvertently. A petition presented to a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction is defective in substance. The grant is therefore liable to revocation under section 76(a) and (c) of the Act.
22. The applicant swore that he is a son of the deceased, that his consent was not obtained and that he was excluded from the distribution of the estate. The certificate of confirmation supports the final assertion as it makes no provision for him. Although the respondents allege that he participated in the proceedings and is estopped from challenging the grant, they produced no consent, renunciation, record of protest proceedings or order resolving his status. Under section 51(2)(g) of the Act and rules 7(1)(e), 26(1) and (2) of the Probate and Administration Rules, all surviving children are material to a petition, while persons with an equal or prior right to administration must consent, renounce their right or be cited. The alleged non-disclosure or omission of the applicant is therefore material.
23. Nevertheless, the decisive ground in this application is the absence of pecuniary jurisdiction. It is unnecessary at this stage to determine the applicant's precise beneficial entitlement. That issue, together with the complete inventory of beneficiaries, assets and liabilities, must be addressed upon the transfer of the succession cause to this Court and in accordance with the directions to be issued in that cause.
24. The applicant asked the Court to strike out the lower court proceedings and direct that succession proceedings be instituted afresh in the High Court. In the circumstances, however, the just and efficient course is to transfer the existing succession cause to this Court for further proceedings. The respondents, as the former administrators who dealt with property belonging to the estate, remain accountable for all assets and monies received notwithstanding the revocation of their grant.
The sale agreement and preservation of the estate
25. The sale agreement demonstrates an imminent risk of further dealings with the estate. The purchaser, however, is not a party to the present proceedings and has not been heard. The Court will therefore not determine the validity, enforceability or proprietary consequences of that agreement in these proceedings. Those questions, including any statutory protection claimed under section 93 of the Law of Succession Act, must await a properly constituted dispute involving all affected parties.
26. The Court is nevertheless empowered by section 47 of the Act and rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules to preserve the estate. No further transfer, subdivision, transmission, sale, charge, lease or other dealing should occur until lawful administrators are appointed and this Court issues further directions. Any money already received under the impugned administration constitutes estate property and must be disclosed, accounted for and preserved.
Disposition
27. For the foregoing reasons, the preliminary objection fails and the Motion substantially succeeds. I accordingly make the following orders:
a. The respondents Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 6th March 2026 is dismissed.
b. The applicant's Notice of Motion dated 18th December 2025 is allowed to the extent set out below.
c. It is hereby declared that the Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain Kericho Chief Magistrate’s Succession Cause No. E308 of 2023 concerning the estate of Kipkerich Arap Bor (deceased).
d. The grant of letters of administration intestate issued to Samwel Kipkemoi Bet, Jennifer Cherono, Ruth Chepkorir Langat and Samuel Kerich Bor, together with the certificate of confirmation of grant dated 29th August 2024, is hereby revoked and annulled.
e. All substantive orders founded upon the grant, including the distribution contained in the certificate of confirmation, are hereby set aside. For the avoidance of doubt, this order does not finally determine the rights of any purchaser or other third party who was not joined to and heard in these proceedings.
f. The four respondents shall, within thirty (30) days, file and serve a full and accurate inventory and account of the estate from the date on which they assumed its administration, disclosing every asset, dealing, subdivision, transfer, agreement, payment received, expenditure incurred and the present location of all estate funds.
g. Any monies received under the agreement for sale dated 6th November 2025, or from any other dealing with property belonging to the estate, shall be preserved in an interest-earning account in the joint names of the advocates for the applicant and the respondents pending further directions of this Court. If any such monies have already been applied, the account required under order 6 above shall state when and how they were applied and under whose authority.
h. Pending the appointment of lawful administrators and further orders of this Court, there shall be no transfer, transmission, subdivision, sale, charge, lease, waste or other dealing with Kericho Municipality Block 5/368, Kericho/Chepsir/194, Sundur River Settlement Scheme/178 or any other asset belonging to the deceased.
i. Kericho Chief Magistrate's Succession Cause No. E308 of 2023 is hereby transferred to this Court for further proceedings.
j. The Deputy Registrar shall call for the original record in Kericho Chief Magistrate’s Succession Cause No. E308 of 2023 and cause an appropriate High Court succession file to be opened.
k. This being a family dispute, each party shall bear his or her own costs of the preliminary objection and the Motion.
l. The matter shall be mentioned on 30th July 2026 for further orders.
m. The parties shall, before the mention date, endeavour to agree on the persons to be appointed as administrators of the estate.
It is so ordered.
T. A. ODERA
JUDGE
29.7.2026
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KERICHO THIS 29TH DAY OF JULY 2026. IN THE PRESENCE OF MR O.LANGAT FOR THE APPLICANT & MR KIPKORIR FOR THE RESPODENT . CA – BUSIENEI