Machuka & another v Nyangute & another (Civil Appeal 166 of 2019) [2025] KECA 538 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that succession appeals need prior leave, and that leaving a known beneficiary out of a grant is fraud enough to revoke it.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether an appeal lies to the Court of Appeal from a decision of the High Court sitting as an original court in succession matters, and if so whether leave was required
- 2.Whether the respondents established that the grant was obtained fraudulently by making a false statement or concealment of material facts under Section 76(b) of the Law of Succession Act
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction to hear appeals in succession matters from the High Court sitting as an original court
The Court has jurisdiction under Article 164(3) of the Constitution, but the right of appeal is not automatic; leave is mandatory. Since no leave was sought, the appeal was incompetent.
The Court reviewed the conflicting lines of authority, including Makhangu v Kibwana, Peter Wahome Kimothe and Rhoda Wairimu Karanja, and preferred the Rhoda Wairimu Karanja perspective: the Law of Succession Act must be interpreted in harmony with the Constitution. Article 164(3) confers jurisdiction over High Court appeals, but absent an express automatic right in the Act, leave is required. The appellants never obtained leave, so the jurisdiction of the Court was never properly invoked.
Whether the grant was obtained by false statement or concealment of material facts under Section 76(b)
Yes. The appellants omitted Nyangute and his beneficiaries from the petition and confirmation application; the excuse of a Tanzanian land gift was unproved and Charles's Tanzanian citizenship did not justify exclusion.
The appellants conceded the omission of Nyangute and Charles. Gladys claimed Nyangute had been given land in Tanzania, but no evidence supported it, and exclusion of a beneficiary cannot rest on such a claim without a renouncement. Citizenship of Tanzania does not disqualify a beneficiary. The concealment was material, so the learned Judge rightly revoked the grant and ordered an afresh grant.
Timing of a jurisdictional objection
The respondents should have raised the jurisdiction issue by a preliminary objection within thirty days of service of the notice of appeal; raising it at the hearing was late.
Rule 86 of the Court of Appeal Rules empowers the Court to strike out a notice of appeal or appeal where no appeal lies, but the respondent must move the Court within thirty days of service of the notice of appeal. Having failed to do so, the respondents could only raise the issue at the hearing. The Court nevertheless dealt with jurisdiction first, as it was obliged to.
Legal principles established
#- There is no automatic right of appeal to the Court of Appeal from a decision of the High Court exercising original jurisdiction in succession matters; an appeal lies only with leave of the High Court or, if refused, of the Court of Appeal
- The absence of a provision in the Law of Succession Act for appeals originating from the High Court to the Court of Appeal does not completely exclude such appeals, the Court having jurisdiction under Article 164(3) of the Constitution
- Where a court has no jurisdiction, it must down tools and cannot take any further step in the proceedings
- A grant may be revoked under Section 76(b) of the Law of Succession Act where it was obtained by concealment from the court of something material to the case
- Failure to include a known beneficiary in a petition for letters of administration, with no renouncement of rights, constitutes concealment justifying revocation of the grant
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed
- 2.Appellants to pay costs of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 164(3) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 (as discussed); appeal competence challenged for want of leave under the Law of Succession Act
Relief refused
#Reinstatement of the revoked grant / allowance of the appeal
Appeal incompetent for want of leave to appeal and, in any event, without merit as there was concealment of material information
Costs
Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The upshot of the above is that we uphold the judgment of the High Court, as the appeal is incompetent and has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed with costs.
There must be leave to appeal given either by the High Court or this Court. In this case, no leave to appeal was sought either from this Court or the High Court. Therefore, the appeal before us is incompetent
the absence of a provision in the Law of Succession Act for appeals originating from the High Court to this Court does not completely exclude such appeals from this Court.
Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no power to make one more step.
It is clear that there was concealment of material information, and therefore, the learned Judge was right in revoking the letters of administration and confirmation of the grant.
Nor does the fact that Charles is a Tanzanian justify his exclusion from the estate.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal contradiction on the fate of the appeal: the Court first holds it is incompetent for want of leave and says it must down tools, yet proceeds to decide the merits of the revocation and affirms the judgment below on both bases
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Wandi v Muchira (Suing as the Administrator Ad Litem of Jane Muthoni Muchira)[2026] KESC 29 (KLR)31 Mar 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Machuka & another v Nyangute & another (Civil Appeal 166 of 2019) [2025] KECA 538 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/538/eng@2025-03-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.