1. According to the documents presented in this Court, on 10th June 2010, an order presuming the death of Masashi Kitano was made by the High Court of Kenya at Mombasa pursuant to an application made by the Respondents. The Court declared that the date of death of Mr Masashi Kitano was 5th June 1999, while the place of his alleged death was given as Japan. The respondents were granted leave to apply for letters of administration intestate in respect of the estate of Mr Kitano, with the said order serving in place of the death certificate.
2. The Respondents appear to have petitioned for a grant of letters of administration interstate. On 2nd May 2013, a grant of letters of administration intestate is stated to have been issued to them in respect of the estate of Masashi Kitano. It is alleged that the grant was issued on 2nd May 2013 and confirmed on 8th December 2014. Thereafter, the Respondents attempted to have Title No Lamu/Block IV/15 transferred to themselves. I have used the word “appear” advisedly, as I have not been able to confirm that Succession Cause No 70 of 2013, in respect of the estate of Masashi Kitano, does in fact exist. The 3 succession causes with the same citation are all in respect of the estates of different deceased persons.
3. The applicant, the supposedly deceased Masashi Kitano, filed the summons for revocation of grant dated 16th January 2024, seeking to have the grant issued on 2nd May 2013 and confirmed on 8th December 2014 revoked on the ground that the applicant was alive, that the grant of representation was issued pursuant to proceedings that were defective in substance, and that the grant had become useless and competitive due to subsequent events, as Mr. Masashi Kitano had re-appeared and wasn’t dead.
4. The status of Mr Masashi Kitano, and whether he was alive or dead, was the subject of severe contestation before me. I ordered that Mr Kitano appear in court, if he was in fact alive, so that his existence could be ascertained. His counsel contended that Mr Kitano couldn’t travel to Kenya as he was old and sickly. The counsel for the applicant, Mr Lumatete, SC, holding brief for Mr FE Jamal, prayed that I dispense with my order for Mr Kitano to appear in person in court in Kenya, on account of his alleged ill-health. This resulted in an impasse, which was only resolved on 28th July 2025, when both Mr Lumatete and Mr Omwancha, for the respondents, agreed that the applicant could appear at the Kenyan embassy in Tokyo, Japan, so that his status as either living or dead could be determined by the chargé d'affaires of the Kenyan embassy.
5. According to the letter dated 4th September 2025, written by the Embassy of the Republic of Kenya in Japan to the Counsel for the Applicant, Mr Masashi Kitano, appealed before Mr Wellington Muli of the Kenya Embassy in Japan on 28th August 2025. He is said to hold Japanese passport number TT5258911, issued by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 24th January 2025, and to have been a resident of Ise City, Mie Prefecture, Japan.
6. Given the report of the Embassy of Kenya in Japan, it is evident that Masashi Kitano is not deceased. Clearly, he is very much in the land of the living. It therefore follows that the succession proceedings, allegedly filed in respect of his estate, are defective in substance. It is also the case that the applicants, in all likelihood, made false factual allegations so as to procure the alleged grant. It goes without saying that succession proceedings may only be commenced where a person is deceased.
7. I must state that the presumption of death is rebuttable. Section 118A of the Evidence Act states that:
“Where it is proved that a person has not been heard of for seven years by those who might be expected to have heard of him if he were alive, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that he is dead.”
8. The presumption of death is displaced by facts showing that the alleged decedent is in fact alive. This is the case in this matter.
9. In the case of In re Estate of Prisca Ong’ayo Nande (Deceased) [2020] KEHC 6553 (KLR) it was held that:-
“8. Under section 76, a court may revoke a grant so long as the grounds listed above are disclosed, either on its own motion or on the application of a party. A grant of letters of administration may be revoked on three general grounds. The first is where the process of obtaining the grant was attended by problems. The first would be where the process was defective, either because some mandatory procedural step was omitted, or the persons applying for representation was not competent or suitable for appointment, or the deceased died testate having made a valid will, and then a grant or letters of administration intestate was made instead of a grant of probate, or vice versa. It could also be that the process was marred by fraud and misrepresentation or concealment of matter, such as where some survivors are not disclosed or the applicant lies that he is a survivor when he is not, among other reasons. The second general ground is where the grant was obtained procedurally, but the administrator, thereafter, got into problems with the exercise of administration, such as where he fails to apply for confirmation of grant within the time allowed, or he fails to proceed diligently with administration, or fails to render accounts as and when required. The third general ground is where the grant has become useless and inoperative following subsequent circumstances, such as where a sole administrator dies leaving behind no administrator to carry on the exercise, or where the sole administrator loses the soundness of his mind for whatever reason or even becomes physically infirm to an extent of being unable to carry out his duties as administrator, or the sole administrator is adjudged bankrupt and, therefore, becomes unqualified to hold any office of trust.”
10. I am satisfied that the grant issued to the Respondents cannot stand. I find and hold that Mr Masashi Kitano is alive. The purported grant in respect of his estate must be revoked. I therefore revoke the grant issued on 2nd May 2013 and confirmed on 8th December 2014 in Succession Cause No 70 of 2013.
11. The parties will bear their own costs of the application.
12. It is so ordered.
Dated and signed in Nairobi, this 13th day of April 2026. Delivered virtually through Microsoft TEAMS.
2. The Respondents appear to have petitioned for a grant of letters of administration interstate. On 2nd May 2013, a grant of letters of administration intestate is stated to have been issued to them in respect of the estate of Masashi Kitano. It is alleged that the grant was issued on 2nd May 2013 and confirmed on 8th December 2014. Thereafter, the Respondents attempted to have Title No Lamu/Block IV/15 transferred to themselves. I have used the word “appear” advisedly, as I have not been able to confirm that Succession Cause No 70 of 2013, in respect of the estate of Masashi Kitano, does in fact exist. The 3 succession causes with the same citation are all in respect of the estates of different deceased persons.
3. The applicant, the supposedly deceased Masashi Kitano, filed the summons for revocation of grant dated 16th January 2024, seeking to have the grant issued on 2nd May 2013 and confirmed on 8th December 2014 revoked on the ground that the applicant was alive, that the grant of representation was issued pursuant to proceedings that were defective in substance, and that the grant had become useless and competitive due to subsequent events, as Mr. Masashi Kitano had re-appeared and wasn’t dead.
4. The status of Mr Masashi Kitano, and whether he was alive or dead, was the subject of severe contestation before me. I ordered that Mr Kitano appear in court, if he was in fact alive, so that his existence could be ascertained. His counsel contended that Mr Kitano couldn’t travel to Kenya as he was old and sickly. The counsel for the applicant, Mr Lumatete, SC, holding brief for Mr FE Jamal, prayed that I dispense with my order for Mr Kitano to appear in person in court in Kenya, on account of his alleged ill-health. This resulted in an impasse, which was only resolved on 28th July 2025, when both Mr Lumatete and Mr Omwancha, for the respondents, agreed that the applicant could appear at the Kenyan embassy in Tokyo, Japan, so that his status as either living or dead could be determined by the chargé d'affaires of the Kenyan embassy.
5. According to the letter dated 4th September 2025, written by the Embassy of the Republic of Kenya in Japan to the Counsel for the Applicant, Mr Masashi Kitano, appealed before Mr Wellington Muli of the Kenya Embassy in Japan on 28th August 2025. He is said to hold Japanese passport number TT5258911, issued by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 24th January 2025, and to have been a resident of Ise City, Mie Prefecture, Japan.
6. Given the report of the Embassy of Kenya in Japan, it is evident that Masashi Kitano is not deceased. Clearly, he is very much in the land of the living. It therefore follows that the succession proceedings, allegedly filed in respect of his estate, are defective in substance. It is also the case that the applicants, in all likelihood, made false factual allegations so as to procure the alleged grant. It goes without saying that succession proceedings may only be commenced where a person is deceased.
7. I must state that the presumption of death is rebuttable. Section 118A of the Evidence Act states that:
“Where it is proved that a person has not been heard of for seven years by those who might be expected to have heard of him if he were alive, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that he is dead.”
8. The presumption of death is displaced by facts showing that the alleged decedent is in fact alive. This is the case in this matter.
9. In the case of In re Estate of Prisca Ong’ayo Nande (Deceased) [2020] KEHC 6553 (KLR) it was held that:-
“8. Under section 76, a court may revoke a grant so long as the grounds listed above are disclosed, either on its own motion or on the application of a party. A grant of letters of administration may be revoked on three general grounds. The first is where the process of obtaining the grant was attended by problems. The first would be where the process was defective, either because some mandatory procedural step was omitted, or the persons applying for representation was not competent or suitable for appointment, or the deceased died testate having made a valid will, and then a grant or letters of administration intestate was made instead of a grant of probate, or vice versa. It could also be that the process was marred by fraud and misrepresentation or concealment of matter, such as where some survivors are not disclosed or the applicant lies that he is a survivor when he is not, among other reasons. The second general ground is where the grant was obtained procedurally, but the administrator, thereafter, got into problems with the exercise of administration, such as where he fails to apply for confirmation of grant within the time allowed, or he fails to proceed diligently with administration, or fails to render accounts as and when required. The third general ground is where the grant has become useless and inoperative following subsequent circumstances, such as where a sole administrator dies leaving behind no administrator to carry on the exercise, or where the sole administrator loses the soundness of his mind for whatever reason or even becomes physically infirm to an extent of being unable to carry out his duties as administrator, or the sole administrator is adjudged bankrupt and, therefore, becomes unqualified to hold any office of trust.”
10. I am satisfied that the grant issued to the Respondents cannot stand. I find and hold that Mr Masashi Kitano is alive. The purported grant in respect of his estate must be revoked. I therefore revoke the grant issued on 2nd May 2013 and confirmed on 8th December 2014 in Succession Cause No 70 of 2013.
11. The parties will bear their own costs of the application.
12. It is so ordered.
Dated and signed in Nairobi, this 13th day of April 2026. Delivered virtually through Microsoft TEAMS.