1. The grant of letters of administration respecting the estate of the Late Kiprono Misoi [deceased] was in the first instance issued on 24'h May 2022 to Jepkinyor Misoi and Daniel Kipchirchir in their capacity as widow and son of the deceased respectively.
the estate property comprised four [4] parcels of land described as: -
Parcels No. Nandi/Surungoi/2, Nandi/5urungoi/16, Nandi/Chepterwoi/271 and Nandi/Chepterwoi/292.
2. Pursuant to the application made on 4th August by the Second Petitioner/ Administrator, the grant was subsequently confirmed on the 17th April 2023. The four parcels of land, were wholly transmitted to the First Petitioner widow of the deceased.
However, vide the summons for revocation or annulment of grant dated 10°h May 2023, Tecla Chepchumba applied for revocation of the grant dated 24thMay 2022, together with
the certificate of confirmation of grant dated 17 h April 2023.
3. The application was heard by this court by way of affidavit evidence and written submissions and a ruling rendered on 18th June 2024 allowing the application to the extent that the grant doted 24th May 2022 together with the certificate of confirmation of grant dated 17 April 2023 be revoked and fresh grant to issue in the names of the two Petitioners, Jepkinyor Misoi and Daniel Kipchirchir Sirwaniy as well as the Objector, Tecla Chepchumba. the three were directed to engage on the mode of distribution and take out summons for confirmation within four (4] months.
4. Accordingly, a fresh grant of letters of administration intestate was issued on 4th July 2024.
A Subsequent application by the Petitioners for review of the ruling dated 18th June 2024 was heard and dismissed on 18th June 2025 and on the 26th August 2025 the Petitioners
applied for confirmation of the fresh grant vide the summons for confirmation of grant dated 26thAugust 2025.
5. In response to the application, the Objector filed the affidavit of protest dated 7!h October 2025. the protest was heard by way of affidavit evidence and written submissions which were filed herein by the Petitioners through Wattangah & Company Advocates and by the Objector through Bitok & Sambu Advocates.
Basically, the Protestor/ Objector disagrees with the mode of distribution suggested by the Petitioners in the summons for confirmation of grant and proposes a different mode of distribution as set out in the affidavit of protest.
6. The proposal made by the Objector is contained in paragraph 14 of the protest affidavit and indicated that the bone of contention are the two parcels of land described as Nandi/Surungai/1 and Nandi/Surungai/2. The Objector otherwise has no objection with respect to the proposal made by the Petitioners in the summons for confirmation of grant regarding the rest of the estate.
7. Thus, the Objector proposes that fhe Parcel No. Nandi/Surungai/1 be wholly distributed to her and Parcel No. Nandi/Surungai/2 be distributed to her to the extent of 6.6 acres. On the other hand with regard to the two parcels of land, the Petitioners propose that Parcel No. Nandi/Surungai/2 be shared among four [4] beneficiaries inclusive of the Petitioners to the extent of 2 Acres for the First Petitioner and 6 Acres for the Second Petitioner and also Nelly Jemeli to the extent of 2.1Acres and Viola Jepkosgei to the extent of 2.3 Acres.
8. In regard to Nandi/Surungai/1 the Petitioner's propose that the Parcel be shored among five beneficiaries vis: - First Petitioner - 1 Acre, the Objector Acre, Jerotich Kitur - 2 Acres, Milko Jepkemboi 2 Acres and Viola Jepkosgei - 1 Acre to hold in trust for Bradley Kipngetich. Whereas Parcel No. Nandi/Sugungoi/2 measures a total of 5.0Ho or 12.3 Acres, Parcel No. Nandi/Surungai/1 measures a total of 2.8Ha or 7 Acres. Consideration being given to the total acreage of each of the two Parcels of Land, the number of the beneficiaries and the fact that nearly all if not all the beneficiaries consented to the distribution of the entire estate property as proposed by the Petitioners in the summons for confirmation of grant and that they all endorsed the consent annexed to the summons, it is clearly evident that the proposal made by Objector in her affidavit of protest is not reflective of a proportionate and equitable distribution of the estate vis-a- vis the proposal made by the Petitioner.
10. In view of the consent on distribution filed herein together with the Petitioners summons for confirmation of grant, it is doubtful whether Section 40 of the Law of Succession Act would apply in the circumstances of the case.
Apparently, the protest appears not to have been mode in good faith considering that the Objector was one of those who consented to the mode of distribution of the entire estate as proposed by the Petitioners.
11. For all the factors and reasons foregoing it is the finding of this court that the Protest is lacking in merit.
Consequently, the protest is now dismissed. The summons for confirmation of grant dated 26 h August 2025 be and is hereby allowed to the extent that the entire estate property shall be shared amongst the beneficiaries in the manner set out in Paragraph six [6j of the affidavit in support of the summons dated 26th august 2025. A certificate of confirmation of grant shall accordingly and forthwith issue with parties bearing their own costs of the protest.
Dated and Delivered this 19th day of March 2026
the estate property comprised four [4] parcels of land described as: -
Parcels No. Nandi/Surungoi/2, Nandi/5urungoi/16, Nandi/Chepterwoi/271 and Nandi/Chepterwoi/292.
2. Pursuant to the application made on 4th August by the Second Petitioner/ Administrator, the grant was subsequently confirmed on the 17th April 2023. The four parcels of land, were wholly transmitted to the First Petitioner widow of the deceased.
However, vide the summons for revocation or annulment of grant dated 10°h May 2023, Tecla Chepchumba applied for revocation of the grant dated 24thMay 2022, together with
the certificate of confirmation of grant dated 17 h April 2023.
3. The application was heard by this court by way of affidavit evidence and written submissions and a ruling rendered on 18th June 2024 allowing the application to the extent that the grant doted 24th May 2022 together with the certificate of confirmation of grant dated 17 April 2023 be revoked and fresh grant to issue in the names of the two Petitioners, Jepkinyor Misoi and Daniel Kipchirchir Sirwaniy as well as the Objector, Tecla Chepchumba. the three were directed to engage on the mode of distribution and take out summons for confirmation within four (4] months.
4. Accordingly, a fresh grant of letters of administration intestate was issued on 4th July 2024.
A Subsequent application by the Petitioners for review of the ruling dated 18th June 2024 was heard and dismissed on 18th June 2025 and on the 26th August 2025 the Petitioners
applied for confirmation of the fresh grant vide the summons for confirmation of grant dated 26thAugust 2025.
5. In response to the application, the Objector filed the affidavit of protest dated 7!h October 2025. the protest was heard by way of affidavit evidence and written submissions which were filed herein by the Petitioners through Wattangah & Company Advocates and by the Objector through Bitok & Sambu Advocates.
Basically, the Protestor/ Objector disagrees with the mode of distribution suggested by the Petitioners in the summons for confirmation of grant and proposes a different mode of distribution as set out in the affidavit of protest.
6. The proposal made by the Objector is contained in paragraph 14 of the protest affidavit and indicated that the bone of contention are the two parcels of land described as Nandi/Surungai/1 and Nandi/Surungai/2. The Objector otherwise has no objection with respect to the proposal made by the Petitioners in the summons for confirmation of grant regarding the rest of the estate.
7. Thus, the Objector proposes that fhe Parcel No. Nandi/Surungai/1 be wholly distributed to her and Parcel No. Nandi/Surungai/2 be distributed to her to the extent of 6.6 acres. On the other hand with regard to the two parcels of land, the Petitioners propose that Parcel No. Nandi/Surungai/2 be shared among four [4] beneficiaries inclusive of the Petitioners to the extent of 2 Acres for the First Petitioner and 6 Acres for the Second Petitioner and also Nelly Jemeli to the extent of 2.1Acres and Viola Jepkosgei to the extent of 2.3 Acres.
8. In regard to Nandi/Surungai/1 the Petitioner's propose that the Parcel be shored among five beneficiaries vis: - First Petitioner - 1 Acre, the Objector Acre, Jerotich Kitur - 2 Acres, Milko Jepkemboi 2 Acres and Viola Jepkosgei - 1 Acre to hold in trust for Bradley Kipngetich. Whereas Parcel No. Nandi/Sugungoi/2 measures a total of 5.0Ho or 12.3 Acres, Parcel No. Nandi/Surungai/1 measures a total of 2.8Ha or 7 Acres. Consideration being given to the total acreage of each of the two Parcels of Land, the number of the beneficiaries and the fact that nearly all if not all the beneficiaries consented to the distribution of the entire estate property as proposed by the Petitioners in the summons for confirmation of grant and that they all endorsed the consent annexed to the summons, it is clearly evident that the proposal made by Objector in her affidavit of protest is not reflective of a proportionate and equitable distribution of the estate vis-a- vis the proposal made by the Petitioner.
10. In view of the consent on distribution filed herein together with the Petitioners summons for confirmation of grant, it is doubtful whether Section 40 of the Law of Succession Act would apply in the circumstances of the case.
Apparently, the protest appears not to have been mode in good faith considering that the Objector was one of those who consented to the mode of distribution of the entire estate as proposed by the Petitioners.
11. For all the factors and reasons foregoing it is the finding of this court that the Protest is lacking in merit.
Consequently, the protest is now dismissed. The summons for confirmation of grant dated 26 h August 2025 be and is hereby allowed to the extent that the entire estate property shall be shared amongst the beneficiaries in the manner set out in Paragraph six [6j of the affidavit in support of the summons dated 26th august 2025. A certificate of confirmation of grant shall accordingly and forthwith issue with parties bearing their own costs of the protest.
Dated and Delivered this 19th day of March 2026