Cheruiyot (Suing as the administrator of the Estate of Taputany Cheptonui Chumo - Deceased) and Charles Kikwai Chumo alias Kikwai Arap Chuma - Deceased) & another v Lel Timber Products Enterprises Limited (Environment and Land Appeal E020 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8564 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court in Kericho confirmed that an administrator with letters of administration can sue to protect a deceased person's estate even before the grant is confirmed.
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 Learned Trial Magistrate erred in finding that the Appellants did not have locus standi to file the suit before the subordinate Court
- 2.Who should bear costs of the appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether the 1st Appellant's unconfirmed grants of letters of administration intestate conferred locus standi to sue on behalf of the estates
Yes. The grants of letters of administration intestate made the 1st Appellant a personal representative with capacity to institute the suit; confirmation was unnecessary and the trial magistrate erred in upholding the preliminary objection
The court held that it was not disputed the 1st Appellant held grants of letters administration intestate over both estates, making him a personal representative. Section 82(a) of the Law of Succession Act empowers personal representatives to enforce causes of action by suit. Relying on Chudasama, a limited or full grant confers locus standi, and per In re Estate of Juma Omwanda, a certificate of confirmation is not a grant of representation. Confirmation was therefore not a precondition to filing suit.
The nature of limited grants versus full grants and when they are appropriate
A party may apply for either a limited or a full grant; limited grants address exigencies that cannot await the full grant process
Relying on Kirombi v Juliana; Njiru, the court noted Sections 54 and 55 of the Law of Succession Act and Paragraph 14 of the Fifth Schedule governing limited grants such as grants ad litem. Such grants are issued due to exigencies relating to the estate which could not wait for the normal process. The court held it is trite law that a party can apply for either a limited or a full grant; the trial magistrate erred in requiring a grant ad litem where full grants intestate existed.
Costs of the appeal
Costs follow the event; the successful Appellants were awarded costs
Applying Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court applied the general rule that costs follow the event and that a successful party should ordinarily be awarded costs unless the court directs otherwise for good reason. No reason was shown to depart from that rule, so the Appellants were granted costs of the appeal.
Legal principles established
#- A litigant is clothed with locus standi upon obtaining a limited or full grant of letters of administration in cases of intestate succession
- A certificate of confirmation of grant is not a grant of representation; confirmation is not a precondition to instituting a suit by a personal representative
- A limited grant is issued when urgent issues arise in relation to a deceased's estate which cannot await issuance of a full grant
Court orders
#- 1.The ruling and order in Kericho CM ELC Case No. E026 of 2024 delivered on 19th November, 2024 is hereby set aside
- 2.The Appellants shall have costs of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court at Kericho
- CM ELC Case No. E026 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the subordinate court (appeal by way of retrial); statutory basis not expressly cited in the judgment
Relief refused
#Remittal of the suit to the Chief Magistrate's Court for hearing before another magistrate other than Hon. Charles Obulutsa, CM
Not among the orders made in the disposition; only setting aside of the ruling and costs were ordered
Costs
The Appellants shall have costs of the appeal
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.
a. The ruling and order in Kericho CM ELC Case No. E026 of 2024 delivered on 19th November, 2024 is hereby set aside.
b. The Appellants shall have costs of the appeal.
Consequently, I find that the Learned Trial Magistrate erred in allowing the Respondent’s preliminary objection and finding that the 1st Appellant ought to have obtained a full grant or grant ad litem in order to sustain the suit.
A litigant is clothed with locus standi upon obtaining a limited or a full grant of letters of administration in cases of intestate succession.
It is therefore evident that it was not necessary for the 1st Appellant to obtain confirm action of the said grants before instituting the suit before the trial Court.
Issues in the judgment
#Names of the Appellants and the case title are not stated in the judgment as reproduced; the appeal is identified only by reference to the lower court case number
Deceased's name appears inconsistently as 'Tabutany', 'Taputany' and 'Tabantany' within the judgment
The court cites 'Section 27 of the Succession Act' where the provision quoted (costs following the event) is Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Cheruiyot (Suing as the administrator of the Estate of Taputany Cheptonui Chumo - Deceased) and Charles Kikwai Chumo alias Kikwai Arap Chuma - Deceased) & another v Lel Timber Products Enterprises Limited (Environment and Land Appeal E020 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8564 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kericho CM ELC Case No. E026 of 2024 (appeal dated 25th November, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8564/eng@2025-12-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.