In re Estate of Kiambati Rufus M'Impiia (Deceased) - Summons for Revocation of Grant
The bottom line
#If a will exists or if heirs are unfairly excluded from property, the court can revoke the existing grant and restart the process.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicants, as daughters of the deceased, were aware of and consented to the cause
The applicants were aware of the cause; they signed the consent form to the petition and their unchallenged introduction of the advocate proved knowledge, but they did not consent to the distribution.
The Chief's letter and petition documents listed the applicants as daughters, and the consent form to the petition bore their signatures. Under Section 109 of the Evidence Act, he who alleges must prove, and the applicants produced no proof that the signatures were forged. The respondent's unchallenged oath evidence that the 3rd applicant introduced the advocate confirmed awareness.
Whether the distribution of the estate discriminated against the daughters
Yes - the exclusion of the daughters from real property was grave discrimination amounting to a potent ground for revocation.
The certificate of confirmation showed the substantial property went to the 2nd house widow, Martin and the children of the late Aaron Kimathi, while daughters received only alleged non-existent KGGCU shares or nothing. No renunciation or lawful justification for the exclusion was shown, and the respondent's voluntary sharing of rent could not substitute the daughters' statutory inheritance rights.
Whether the discovered will rendered the grant liable to revocation
Yes - non-disclosure of the will dated 26/12/1999 made the proceedings fatally defective in form and substance.
A certified translation of a Kimeru document bearing the deceased's and witnesses' signatures showed the deceased distributed his estate between his two houses. The court declined to pronounce on the will's validity, reserving that for a trial for proof of will under sections 5 and 11 of the Law of Succession Act, but held that concealing it was a fatal blow to the grant.
Legal principles established
#- Daughters of a deceased person have an equal right as children to inherit and their rights do not depend on the goodwill of a brother.
- Non-disclosure of an existing will in probate proceedings is a fatal defect justifying revocation of a grant.
- A statement made on oath that is not expressly denied on oath remains a fact.
Court orders
#- 1.The grant of letters of administration issued on 9/10/2007 is revoked
- 2.A fresh grant of letters of administration with will annexed is issued to Martin Koome, Jennifer Karwirwa and Fridah Nkatha Kiambiti
- 3.Jennifer and Fridah to apply for confirmation of grant within 14 days and serve all beneficiaries
- 4.Parties at liberty to file and serve affidavits of protest within 14 days of service
- 5.Directions to be given on a date the court shall appoint
- 6.Proceedings to be conducted as for a grant of letters of administration with will annexed since the will named no executor
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act (Cap 160) and Rules 44, 49 and 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "In re Estate of Kiambati Rufus M'Impiia (Deceased) - Summons for Revocation of Grant", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment (succession cause instituted in 2006, transferred to Meru). Source:
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.