Kiguru (Suing as personal representative of the Estate of the Rhoda Muthoni Kibe - Deceased) v Embakasi Ranching Co Limited & 3 others (Land Case E122 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 1952 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court reinstated a lapsed lawsuit by allowing a deceased plaintiff's family to step in using a limited grant, confirming the process is valid in Kenya.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the limited grant ad litem was validly issued notwithstanding an existing confirmed grant in the Thika succession cause
The grant ad litem was validly issued under Section 54 and paragraph 14 of the Fifth Schedule of the Law of Succession Act; it was limited to prosecuting this suit and not to substituting the deceased in the Thika cause. Any challenge must proceed by way of revocation under Section 76 and Rule 44 of the Probate and Administration Rules, which the Respondents have not done.
The court distinguished the Milimani grant ad litem from the confirmed Thika grant held by the deceased Plaintiff. Since the deceased administrator's grant became inoperative on his death and no new representative had been appointed in Thika, the grant ad litem was the proper statutory mechanism for a nominee to represent the deceased estate in the pending suit. Because the grant was issued by a competent court and remains unrevoked, its validity and the Applicants' capacity stand.
Whether the Applicants have capacity to be substituted as Plaintiffs after the suit abated
The Applicants, holders of an unrevoked limited grant ad litem, have the necessary capacity to be substituted as Plaintiffs and to make the application.
The court found that the Respondents had not invoked the statutory procedure for revocation of the grant, nor did they identify any personal representative appointed to replace the deceased Plaintiff in the Thika succession cause. In the absence of a lawful challenge or a rival representative, the Applicants' capacity under the grant ad litem remained intact, entitling them to pursue substitution under Order 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Whether the delay in applying for reinstatement after abatement was excusable
The delay was not inordinate; the Applicants were prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application before the suit abated.
The suit abated on 29th March 2025 and the application was filed on 14th May 2025, shortly after the grant ad litem issued on 10th April 2025. The court accepted the explanation that the beneficiaries were devastated by the death, faced financial hardship, and that some siblings resided abroad, making it difficult to agree on who would take out the grant. This sufficed as sufficient cause under Order 24.
Legal principles established
#- Where a confirmed grant exists, a grant ad litem issued solely for prosecuting a pending suit is still validly available under Section 54 and paragraph 14 of the Fifth Schedule of the Law of Succession Act; challenges to such a grant must follow the revocation procedure under Section 76 and Rule 44 of the Probate and Administration Rules.
- A grant of representation dies with its holder; there is no substitution of a deceased administrator, and a fresh grant must be applied for.
- An unrevoked grant issued by a competent court confers capacity on its holders to apply for substitution and continuation of an abated suit, and a short delay after abatement with sufficient cause does not defeat reinstatement.
Court orders
#- 1.The suit which legally abated on 29th March 2025 is reinstated (prayer 2)
- 2.The Plaintiffs, Robert Kibe Kiguru (Deceased), is substituted with the Applicants, Anthony James Mwangi and Anne Njeri Kariuki, being the Legal Representatives of the Estate of Rhoda Muthoni Kibe (Deceased) (prayer 3)
- 3.Costs shall be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction and the Law of Succession Act (Section 54, Fifth Schedule paragraph 14) read with Order 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiguru (Suing as personal representative of the Estate of the Rhoda Muthoni Kibe - Deceased) v Embakasi Ranching Co Limited & 3 others (Land Case E122 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 1952 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1952/eng@2026-03-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.