Jaspriya Kaur Hanspal & 1 other v Vijay Hanspal & 1 other

The Applicants’/Executors’ Case 3. The applicant in his affidavit avers that the deceased left a valid Will dated 6th October 2017 and a Grant of probate with written Will was granted on the 21st May 2018. 4. That the deceased left behind a spouse and two daughters who are named the executors of the Will. 5. The Applicants aver that the full inventory of the assets and liabilities of the deceased is as follows; 6. a. Property L.R 209/7496 – whose subject of ownership dispute is pending in ELC 1218 of 2013 Milimani Nairobi. b. 667 shares in Alcon Holdings Ltd c. 1500 shares in Alcon International Ltd The Applicants further state that the deceased in his Will allocated ten shares with respect to the subject companies amongst his beneficiaries as follows; “ All shares held by the deceased in the capital of the Companies known as Alcon International Limited and Alcon Holdings Limited to Jaspriya Kaur Hanspal and Sachna Kaur Hanspal in equal shares for their own use and benefit absolutely” 7. The Applicants further filed a supplementary affidavit dated 17th March 2025 in which they stated that the 2nd Protestor herein filed a Judicial Review application No. E032 of 2021 touching on the issue of Alcon Holdings ltd shareholding, which was dismissed vide a Ruling dated 27th February 2025. 1st Protestor’s case 8. Vijay Hansal, a protestor filed an affidavit in opposition dated 2nd July 2019. 9. He avers that his late father Inderit Singh Hanspal and the deceased, Davinder Singh Hanspal were brothers and that both of them were directors and shareholders in Alcon Holdings Ltd and Alcon International Ltd. 10. He further states that a further shareholder and director, Kultar Singh Hanspal, was invited to join the companies. 11. The Protestor avers that the he carried out a Company Search dated 2nd November 2018 that revealed that Davinder Singh Hanspal holds 333 shares in Alcon Holdings Ltd, Kultar Singh Hanspal holds 334 shares in Alcon Holdings ltd and Inderit Singh Hanspal holds the remaining 333 shares. That he is not aware of any transfer of shares from Kultar Hanspal to Davinder Hanspal that would amount to Davinder Hanspal having 667 shares as alleged by his Executors. 12. The protestor further states that the shareholding information regarding Alcon International Company ltd is not clear as per the company search. 13. The 1st Protestor filed a supplementary affidavit dated 22nd November 2019 in which he avers that upon the death of Kultar Singh Hanspal, the grant of letters of administration were given to his wife Alka Roshanlal Sharma and sister Mamta Roshanlal Sharma. Upon confirmation of the grant of letters issued on 6th October 2015 the late Kultar Singh Hanspal 334 shares in Alcon Holdings Ltd passed over to his wife, Alka Roshanlal. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/16407/eng@2025-10-02 2

page 2 of 4

14. That upon conducting a company search on 11th November 2019 the shareholding of Alcon Holding ltd revealed the following shareholders;- Davinder Singh Hanspal 333 shares, Estate of Kultar Hanspal 334 shares and Inderit Hanspal 333 shares. 15. The protestor believes that the current Summons for confirmation of probate are in bad faith and the same should be dismissed. 2nd Protestors Case 16. The 2nd Protestor, Alka Roshanlal Harbanslal filed her affidavit in opposition dated 31st December 2019. 17. She avers that she is the personal representative of the Estate of the late Kultar Hanspal. That prior to his death the late Kultar Hanspal was one of the directors of Alcon Holdings Ltd and that the deceased’s 334 shares in Alcon Holdings Ltd legally devolved to her. 18. That upon the confirmation of grant she discovered that a Transfer Deed had allegedly been executed by the Late Kultar Hanspal on 16th February 2005. 19. The 2nd Protestor avers that she has filed a suit Milimani High Court Civil Case No.328 of 2015 Alka Roshanlal Sharma Vs. Alcon Holdings Ltd & others whose subject matter is the shares of Alcon Holdings. The suit is ongoing and yet to be determined. She avers that the summons before this court are prejudicial to the ongoing civil case. 20. All parties filed their respective submissions. Determination 21. 22. Having gone through the Summons for confirmation, the Respective affidavits in protest, the Supplementary affidavits and the submissions filed, I have narrowed down two issues for determination; 1. Whether this court has the jurisdiction to determine the ownership of Alcon Holdings ltd shareholding. 2. Whether the summons for confirmation of grant has merit. Section 4 of the Law of Succession Act provides as follows: – “ Succession of the movable property of a deceased person shall be regulated by the law of the country of the domicile of that person at the time of his death.” By dint of the above section, the succession of shares of a deceased shareholder domiciled in Kenya is regulated by the Law of Succession Act Cap 160 and the Companies Act No. 17 of 2015. The transmission of shares is regulated by the subject company’s Articles of Association and in the absence thereof, it is regulated by Regulation 8(2) of the Companies (General) Regulations, 2015. 23. This court has also gone through the proceedings and notes that the Judicial Review Case Number 032 of 2021 has been determined. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/16407/eng@2025-10-02 3

page 3 of 4

In his Ruling, my brother P.M Mulwa J. stated in para 5 of his analysis and determination that; interalia “ … I note that this issue is set to be determined in Civil Case No.308 of 2015 at least going by the pleadings of the case annexed by the Registrar and as such this court cannot comment on the legality of the transfer” 24. There is another case pertaining to the shares of Alcon Holdings Ltd which is the subject matter of the Summons for Confirmation. It follows that this matter is subjudice in the Civil Court as argued by the 2nd Protestor in her affidavit under Milimani Civil case Number 328 of 2015 Alka Roshanlal Sharma Vs. Alcon Holdings Ltd & others. 25. This court cannot therefore determine a case that is before another court of competent jurisdiction and, hence, the Summons for Confirmation is held in abeyance until the determination of the civil case. 26. In the upshot I make the following orders; 1. That the Summons for confirmation of grant dated 18th April 2019 is held in abeyance until the determination of Civil Case 328 of 2015 Alka Roshanlal Sharma Vs. Alcon Holdings Ltd & Others. 2. That costs be in the cause. It is so ordered. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 2ND day of OCTOBER, 2025. E.K OGOLLA JUDGE In the presence of: Mr Opole holding brief Musyoka ……………………………… for the Applicants Mr Kinyanjui ……………………………… for the 1st Objector Mr Mituga ……………………………… for V.J. Hanspal Gisiele ……………………………… Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/16407/eng@2025-10-02 4

page 4 of 4