Hanter Ahmed Adam (Suing as personal representative of the estate of Ahmed Adam) v Greenbelt Warehouse Limited & 3 others; Adam Swaleh Adam (Intended Interested Party)

was registered under the names of Adam Khalifa. Further, the proposed interested party avers that the late Ahmed Adam took advantage of the similarities of names that is Adam Khalifa and Ahmed Adam and petitioned the High Court in Nairobi Family division and obtained an alleged illegal grant which is being relied on by his, who is the Plaintiff in this Suit. 3. The proposed interested party alleges fraud on the part of the deceased Ahmed Adam who is succeeded by the Plaintiff and is now prosecuting the Suit herein. His claim therefore is that being the blood relative of the late Adam Khalifa is reason for his Application for joinder to participate in the Suit herein. 4. The proposed Interested Party further contends that the Plaintiff in the present proceedings derives his alleged interest in the Suit Property from the said succession proceedings. His position is therefore that the Plaintiff cannot properly assert an interest in the Suit Property because the succession process through which that interest was allegedly acquired was fraudulent and irregular. 5. In support of the application, the proposed Interested Party has exhibited documents relating to the succession proceedings as well as correspondence exchanged by advocates. He maintains that the entire succession process concerning the estate of the late Adam Khalifa was fraudulent and that, as a grandson of the deceased, he has sufficient interest in the estate to warrant his joinder in these proceedings. MALINDI ELCLC E126 OF 2024 (RULING) Page 2

page 2 of 11

6. The Plaintiff opposed the application through a Replying Affidavit sworn on 20th June 2026 and Grounds of Opposition dated 15th June 2026. 7. The Plaintiff's principal objection is that the proposed Interested Party has no locus standi to advance the claim he seeks to introduce into these proceedings. The Plaintiff contends that the matters raised by the proposed Interested Party concern the estate of the late Adam Khalifa, the validity of the grant issued in respect of that estate and the identity of the persons entitled to the estate. In the Plaintiff's view, those are matters falling within the jurisdiction of the succession court and cannot properly be introduced into the present proceedings through an application for joinder. 8. The Plaintiff further contends that substantially similar issues were previously raised in Milimani High Court Succession Cause No. 311 of 2011, In the Matter of the Estate of Adam Khalifa, including through proceedings undertaken by the same advocates acting for the proposed Interested Party. It is the Plaintiff's case that the matters were conclusively dealt with, including an earlier application which was dismissed and that no appeal has been preferred against the relevant decisions. 9. The Plaintiff therefore characterises the present application as an attempt to re-litigate matters which have already been determined and as an abuse of the process of the Court. It is further contended that the proposed Interested Party is not a party to the transaction or dispute MALINDI ELCLC E126 OF 2024 (RULING) Page 3

page 3 of 11

presently before this Court and that his attempt to challenge the grant and assert rights over the estate should, if at all, be pursued through appropriate succession proceedings. 10. The proposed Interested Party filed submissions dated 15 June 2026 and supplementary submissions dated 18 July 2026. The Plaintiff filed submissions dated 8 July 2026, while the 4th Defendant filed submissions dated 16 July 2025. 11. I have considered the pleadings, affidavits, grounds of opposition, annexures and submissions placed before the Court. Analysis and Determination 12. From the application, the responses thereto and the submissions of the parties, several issues arise, including the jurisdiction of this Court, the Plaintiff's objection based on res judicata, and whether the proposed Interested Party has demonstrated sufficient interest to warrant his joinder. 13. However, in my view, there is a more fundamental issue which must be determined first. That issue concerns the locus standi of the proposed Interested Party. This is so because the entire claim advanced by the proposed Interested Party is founded upon rights which he asserts belonged to the late Adam Khalifa. MALINDI ELCLC E126 OF 2024 (RULING) Page 4

page 4 of 11

14. The proposed Interested Party repeatedly states that he is a grandson of the late Adam Khalifa. More importantly, however, he does not advance an independent proprietary claim to the Suit Property in his own right. He does not contend that the Suit Property belongs to him personally. His case is that the property belonged to the late Adam Khalifa, that the estate was subsequently subjected to fraudulent succession proceedings, and that the Plaintiff's interest in the Suit Property derives from those allegedly fraudulent proceedings. 15. In other words, the proposed Interested Party seeks to assert rights which, on his own case, belonged to the deceased and which now form part of the estate of the deceased. 16. The immediate question before the Court is therefore whether the proposed Interested Party has demonstrated the legal capacity to represent and assert the rights of that estate. 17. Locus standi is the legal capacity or right of a person to appear before a court and seek relief in respect of the subject matter of proceedings. It is a threshold issue which must be established before the Court embarks upon the substantive determination of a claim. 18. In Narankaik v Ahmed (Administrator of the Estate of Ahmed Abdi Murasa) & another [2024] KECA 648 (KLR), the Court of Appeal reiterated that a person seeking to institute proceedings concerning the estate of a deceased person must have the requisite legal capacity. The Court stated that such capacity is obtained through a limited grant, MALINDI ELCLC E126 OF 2024 (RULING) Page 5

page 5 of 11

the special grant contemplated under sections 54 and 55 of the Law of Succession Act, or a full grant of letters of administration. The Court found that a party who had instituted proceedings without first obtaining a grant lacked locus standi. 19. The same principle has consistently been applied by the courts. In in re Estate of the Late Joseph Cheruiyot Arap Koech (Deceased) [2024] KEHC 10346 (KLR), the Court observed that locus standi in succession matters is a critical preliminary issue and that a litigant is clothed with the requisite capacity upon obtaining a limited or full grant of letters of administration. 20. The position is further reflected in section 79 of the Law of Succession Act, under which the executor or administrator to whom representation has been granted becomes the personal representative of the deceased. Section 82 of the Act consequently vests in personal representatives the statutory powers necessary for the administration and enforcement of the deceased's rights and causes of action. 21. The significance of a grant is therefore not merely procedural. It is the legal instrument through which the law clothes a person with authority to represent the estate of a deceased person. 22. In the present case, the proposed Interested Party has not exhibited any grant of representation issued in respect of the estate of the late Adam Khalifa. There is no grant of letters of administration, limited grant or other form of representation before this Court demonstrating MALINDI ELCLC E126 OF 2024 (RULING) Page 6

page 6 of 11

that he has been appointed to represent the estate or otherwise authorised to institute proceedings on its behalf. His assertion that he is a grandson of the deceased does not alter that position. 23. A familial relationship with a deceased person does not, without more, confer legal authority to institute proceedings on behalf of the deceased's estate. The courts have expressly recognised that relationship with the deceased does not by itself clothe a relative with locus standi to prosecute proceedings concerning the estate. 24. The distinction is particularly important in the present case because the proposed Interested Party is not advancing a personal claim. 25. Had his case been that he possessed an independent proprietary right in the Suit Property which he sought to protect in his own capacity, a different question might arise. That, however, is not the case pleaded before this Court. His claim is entirely derivative of the late Adam Khalifa. He says, in substance, that the property belonged to Adam Khalifa, that the estate was fraudulently administered and that the Plaintiff's interest is consequently defective. 26. The proposed Interested Party cannot simultaneously maintain that the Suit Property belongs to the estate of the late Adam Khalifa and seek to enforce the alleged rights of that estate without demonstrating that he has been clothed with the legal authority to represent it. It follows that his asserted consanguinity, without a grant representation, is insufficient. MALINDI ELCLC E126 OF 2024 (RULING) Page 7 of

page 7 of 11

27. I am therefore unable to accept the proposition that the mere fact that the proposed Interested Party is allegedly a grandson of the deceased gives him an automatic right to litigate on behalf of the estate. The law recognises the distinction between a person's relationship to a deceased and the legal capacity to represent the deceased's estate. 28. The position is also important in the context of the proposed joinder. The proposed Interested Party seeks to be introduced into proceedings which are already before the Court in order to advance allegations concerning ownership of the Suit Property and the validity of succession proceedings undertaken in the name of the deceased. Joinder cannot, however, be used to confer upon a person a legal capacity which he does not otherwise possess. 29. In M'Inoti (Suing in his capacity as administrator ad litem of the Estate of Hellen Karambu M'Inoti – Deceased) v Imathiu; Mwendwa (Interested Party) [2023] KEELC 830 (KLR), the Environment and Land Court similarly recognised that a person's relationship with a deceased does not by itself confer locus standi to litigate concerning the deceased's estate. The Court also reiterated the principle that an interested party cannot use joinder to introduce an entirely new dispute into existing proceedings. In Haco Shanko vs Mohamud Vita Sharko (2018) eKLR, the court held that one’s relationship to the deceased did not clothe such a party with locus standi. The court MALINDI ELCLC E126 OF 2024 (RULING) Page 8

page 8 of 11

further stated that if each beneficiary was to be allowed to file a suit touching on the deceased estate without a grant, then there would be a plethora of cases. The court went on to strike out the suit. 30. The present application illustrates the point. The proposed Interested Party seeks, through joinder, to introduce a dispute concerning the alleged fraudulent acquisition and administration of the estate of the late Adam Khalifa. Yet the person advancing that dispute has not demonstrated that he has legal authority to represent that estate. 31. The Court therefore cannot properly proceed to determine the substantive allegations of fraud, the competing assertions concerning the identity and lineage of the deceased's beneficiaries, or the validity of the succession proceedings before first satisfying itself that the person bringing those allegations has the legal capacity to do so. 32. I have also considered the Plaintiff's contention that the matters raised by the proposed Interested Party are res judicata by reason of the previous proceedings in Milimani High Court Succession Cause No. 311 of 2011, In the Matter of the Estate of Adam Khalifa. The Plaintiff further contends that an earlier application by the proposed Interested Party was dismissed and that no appeal has been preferred against the relevant orders. 33. Those are serious matters. However, having found that the proposed Interested Party has failed to establish the requisite locus MALINDI ELCLC E126 OF 2024 (RULING) Page 9

page 9 of 11

standi, I do not consider it necessary, for purposes of disposing of the present application, to make a final determination on res judicata. Such a determination would require the Court to undertake a detailed comparison of the parties, pleadings, issues and orders in the earlier succession proceedings with the matters presently before the Court. 34. The absence of locus is sufficient to dispose of the application. It follows that the proposed Interested Party has not established the necessary legal basis upon which he can properly be joined to these proceedings for purposes of prosecuting the claim he has presented. 35. Accordingly, the Chamber Summons dated 2 nd June 2026 is hereby dismissed with costs. It is so ordered. Dated, Signed and Delivered, virtually at Malindi this 23 rd day of September, 2026 …………….………….. J. M. ONYANGO JUDGE In the presence of: Mr. Sausi for the Interested Party Ms Kemei for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants Ms Randa for Mr. Gikandi for the 4th Defendant Court Assistant: Happy MALINDI ELCLC E126 OF 2024 (RULING) Page 10

page 10 of 11

MALINDI ELCLC E126 OF 2024 (RULING) Page 11

page 11 of 11