Leli & another (Suing as the Legal Representatives of the Estate of Leli Julo (Deceased)) v Cornestone Clearing & Forwarding Ltd (Civil Appeal E006 of 2023) [2026] KECA 82 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A limited 'ad colligenda bona' grant does not allow you to sue for a deceased's estate in Kenya; you need a proper grant, though dependants can still sue under the Fatal Accidents Act.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the 1st appellate court misdirected itself on the interpretation and application of the law relating to locus standi and the legal effect of a limited grant ad colligenda bona
- 2.Whether the 1st appellate court was in error in failing to order payment of costs and interest, and whether such omission warrants interference by this Court
Key legal issues
#Locus standi under a limited grant ad colligenda bona
A grant ad colligenda bona is limited by statute to collecting and preserving estate assets; even where it bears additional language permitting the filing of a suit, its dominant purpose and legal character remain unchanged, so the grantees lack capacity to sue under the Law Reform Act.
Section 54 and Section 67 of the Law of Succession Act, and Rule 36 of the Probate and Administration Rules, restrict ad colligenda bona grants to collection and preservation in urgent situations. A grant ad litem (Form 14, Fifth Schedule) is the proper vehicle for litigation. The Law Society of Kenya v Commissioner of Lands decision involved a grant expressly made under Section 54 and paragraph 14 of the Fifth Schedule for representation in a pending appeal and cannot be extended to ad colligenda bona grants. The additional phrase did not transform the grant's nature.
Whether Article 159(2)(d) cures absence of a valid grant
No - Article 159(2)(d) does not cure a jurisdictional defect; lack of a valid grant is a substantive deficiency.
The Court distinguished procedural technicalities, which Article 159(2)(d) addresses, from substantive jurisdictional requirements. Authority to litigate on behalf of a deceased's estate is a statutory requirement going to locus standi and the root of the proceedings, and cannot be implied or supplied by the overriding objective or the Oxygen Principles.
Costs and interest following the event
The High Court erred in failing to pronounce itself on costs and interest after entering judgment for the Appellants; costs follow the event under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and interest under Section 26(1) runs from the date of the High Court decree until payment in full. Because success was partial, each party bears their own costs.
Costs are discretionary but must be exercised judiciously; a successful litigant is ordinarily entitled to costs unless the court gives reasons for withholding them. Interest was specifically prayed for and assessed at trial, and the omission on first appeal is correctable. Given partial success at both appellate levels, an even-handed costs order was appropriate.
Legal principles established
#- A limited grant of letters of administration ad colligenda bona, whose purpose is to collect and preserve the estate pending a full grant, does not confer authority to institute or defend proceedings, and additional wording such as 'filing civil suit' does not transform its legal character.
- Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution cannot cure a jurisdictional defect; the absence of a valid grant is a substantive legal deficiency, not a procedural technicality.
- Claims under the Law Reform Act require a full grant or a grant ad litem, but claims under the Fatal Accidents Act for dependants may be maintained without such a grant.
- Where an appellate court allows a claim and enters judgment but is silent on interest which was specifically prayed for, the omission may be corrected on appeal.
Court orders
#- 1.Declared that the Appellants did not have locus standi to file the suit under the Law Reform Act in the trial magistrate's court
- 2.Awarded the Appellants interest on the High Court award from the date of the decree in the High Court until payment in full
- 3.Ordered that each party shall bear their own costs in the trial magistrates' court, in the High Court and in this Court
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya
- Not stated in the judgment (first appeal from Senior Principal Magistrate's Court at Mariakani, Civil Suit No. 107 of 2010)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Second appeal under Section 72(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, confining the Court to issues of law only
Relief refused
#Capacity to pursue claims under the Law Reform Act (Kshs. 15,000 for pain and suffering and Kshs. 100,000 for loss of expectation of life)
A limited grant ad colligenda bona does not confer authority to litigate; absence of a valid grant is a substantive jurisdictional deficiency not curable by Article 159(2)(d)
Full costs in the courts below and in this Court
The Appellants were only partially successful, and costs are in the court's discretion
Costs
Each party shall bear their own costs in the trial magistrates' court, in the High Court and in this Court.
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 limited grant ad colligenda bona does not give authority to the holder to file an action in court on behalf of a deceased and more so where the grant does not bear an endorsement to the efiect that it is limited to the purpose of instituting a suit.
The absence of a valid grant is not a procedural technicality but a substantive legal deficiency that goes to the very root of the proceedings.
the Law Reform Act is for the estate of the deceased, while the Fatal Accidents Act is for the deceased's dependants, such as spouses, children, and parents.
In view of the partial success of the Appellants’ appeal in the High Court and in this Court, each party shall bear their own costs in the trial magistrates’ court, in the High Court and in this Court.
Pursuant to the award in the High Court, the Appellants will be entitled to interest from the date of the decree in the High Court until payment in full
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment labels the case relied on by the Respondent as a Supreme Court decision, yet the citation 'KECA' indicates a Court of Appeal decision: 'The Supreme Court decision in Zacharia Okoth Obado vs Edward Akong’o Oyugi & Others, [2014] KECA 784 (KLR) was relied upon'
Inconsistency between the judgment text, which states the Appellants are entitled to interest from the date of the Judgment of the subordinate court, and the final orders, which run interest from the date of the decree in the High Court.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Leli & another (Suing as the Legal Representatives of the Estate of Leli Julo (Deceased)) v Cornestone Clearing & Forwarding Ltd (Civil Appeal E006 of 2023) [2026] KECA 82 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/82/eng@2026-01-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.