In re Estate of Michael Nganga Muhia (Deceased) (Probate & Administration E041 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 19261 (KLR) (6 May 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 19261 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KIAMBU PROBATE & ADMINISTRATION E041 OF 2025 DO CHEPKWONY, J MAY 6, 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL NGANGA MUHIA (DECEASED) RULING 1. The Applicant herein, Joakim Kimani Nganga, approached this court vide a chamber summons application dated the 4th April, 2025 seeking to be issued with Letters of Administration Ad Litem limited to the purpose of instituting and/or defending legal proceedings involving the estate of the late Michael Nganga Muhia. In particular, the Applicant seeks to safeguard, recover, and manage the estate property known as Gatamaiyu/Kamuchege/355 and any resultant subdivisions thereof. 2. The Applicant contends that the suit property, Gatamaiyu/Kamuchege/355, was solely registered in the name of the Deceased, who was his father. He avers that the said property has since been unlawfully subdivided by his brother, Joseph Kangethe Nganga, without the consent, knowledge, authority or participation of the Deceased or other beneficiaries of the Estate. He contends that his late father did not voluntarily sell, gift or otherwise transfer any portion of his land to Joseph Kangethe. 3. According to the Applicant, there are active legal proceedings, namely Kiambu MCCC/E070/2022 and HCCC/E009/2025, filed against him in an attempt to assert further illegal claims which directly affect the Estate. These proceedings, he submits, require formal legal representation of the Estate. The Applicant further states that the full grant of representation has not been issued due to deliberate frustration by the local area chief, who has allegedly refused to take action on the fraudulent transactions and illegal occupation of the Estate property or issue a necessary letter to initiate succession proceedings. 4. On 7th April, 2025, this Court issued directions that the application be served upon the other beneficiaries of the Estate, who, if served, were at liberty to file their responses. Indeed, both supportive and opposing responses were filed. Those supporting the application affirmed that Joseph Kangethe Nganga had, without family consensus, attempted to irregularly transfer to himself portions of the subject property. It was also alleged that he had ignored the deceased’s own request to surrender the original title documents and to reverse the unauthorized transfers. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19261/eng@2025-05-06 1
page 1 of 3
5. Conversely, those opposing the application were unanimous in asserting that the deceased had, during his lifetime, voluntarily subdivided the property into seven distinct portions. As such, they claim that the original title, Gatamaiyu/ Kamuchege/355, ceased to exist prior to the deceased’s demise. Furthermore, they contend that Joseph Kangethe Nganga was allocated three (3) of the subdivided portions, largely because he had settled a loan that had been fraudulently acquired by the Applicant, which had been secured using the original title deed. In their view, the issuance of Letters of Administration Ad Litem is unnecessary, as the legal disputes cited by the applicant either involve him personally or were initiated by him in his personal capacity. Determination 6. I have carefully considered the Chamber Summons application dated 4th April, 2025, the affidavit in support thereof, the responses filed by the other beneficiaries both in support and opposition, as well as the oral submissions made before this Court. I find that the primary issue for this Court’s determination is whether this Court should issue a Limited Grant of Letters of Administration Ad Litem to the Applicant, Joakim Kimani Nganga, for purposes of instituting and/or defending legal proceedings involving the Estate of the Deceased, Michael Nganga Muhia. 7. It is a well-established principle under the Law of Succession Act, Cap 160 of the Laws of Kenya, that only a person holding a grant of representation, whether full or limited, has the legal capacity to undertake any action on behalf of a Deceased’s Estate. Section 54 of the said Act provides for the issuance of Limited Grants in specific circumstances, including instances where urgent representation is necessary to protect the interest of the Estate pending the issuance of a full grant. 8. Likewise, Rule 14 of the Probate and Administration Rules, provides that a Grant Ad Litem may be issued for the limited purpose of prosecuting or defending proceedings in which the estate has a direct legal interest, in circumstances where no full grant has been issued. It then follows that, a Grant Ad Litem is a limited form of representation that does not allow the grantee to administer the Estate but to only prosecute or defend proceedings on behalf of the Estate where the Estate is a necessary party to the suit. 9. Accordingly, the Applicant bears the burden of demonstrating that the Estate is a party or necessary party in the contemplated proceedings, that there is an urgent or pressing need for representation, and that the issuance of a full grant is not feasible in the interim. 10. In the present case, no evidence, such as pleadings or court orders, has been availed to show that the Estate of the Deceased is named as a party in either of the two suits cited by the Applicant hence this court cannot issue the grants in a vacuum or on speculative grounds. 11. The Applicant’s mere assertion that the Estate “might be affected” by the outcome of the suits does not suffice. The suits cited by the Applicant, namely Kiambu MCCC/E070/2022 and HCCC/ E009/2025, have not been substantiated by any annexures. The Court is therefore left to speculate as to who the parties, the subject matter, and the legal nexus to the Estate is. In the absence of such particulars, the Court is thus unable to make a finding that the Estate is at risk of prejudice or that there is any procedural barrier to the continuation of the suits due to lack of estate representation. 12. Additionally, this court has noted with concern that the property Gatamaiyu/Kamuchege/355 which the Applicant intends to protect ceased to exist as a unit of ownership, and was on a balance of probability, subdivided during the lifetime of the deceased. The evidence presented by the Objectors, which was not convincingly rebutted by the Applicant, points to a voluntary inter vivos distribution by the Deceased. In the absence of any title in the Deceased’s name at the time of death, it is difficult https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19261/eng@2025-05-06 2
page 2 of 3
to justify the Applicant’s claim that the estate currently faces risk of wastage or even holds a stake in the alleged property. 13. While the Applicant alleges that the local chief has refused to issue a succession letter, the same cannot be a ground for circumventing the lawful process of obtaining full representation. The issuance of a chief’s letter is administrative and not jurisdictional. The Applicant has not demonstrated any effort to seek redress from the court or relevant offices over the chief’s alleged inaction. As observed In the Matter of the Estate of Julius Waweru Kariuki (Deceased) [2018] eKLR, the absence of a chief’s letter does not bar the court from granting full letters where the identity of the deceased, the relationship of the Applicant, and the list of survivors are not in dispute. 14. The Court is also persuaded that the Applicant may be using this application to pursue personal grievances under the guise of protecting the estate. His admitted conflict with his brother, and the existing disputes, are indicative of competing private interests which are better addressed through civil litigation and not through a grant of representation of an estate whose property status remains uncertain. 15. A Limited Grant Ad Litem cannot be issued in a vacuum or as a tool to revive property rights that may not lawfully belong to the Deceased’s Estate hence this calls for the Court to exercise caution to prevent abuse of the probate process. 16. In view of the foregoing, this Court finds that the Applicant has not satisfied the legal and evidentiary threshold for the issuance of a Limited Grant of Letters of Administration Ad Litem. Consequently, the Chamber Summons application dated 4th April, 2025 is found to be without merit and is hereby dismissed. 17. Given the family nature of the dispute, each party shall bear their own costs. It is so ordered. RULING DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, DATED AND SIGNED AT KIAMBU THIS 6TH DAY OF MAY ,2025. D. O. CHEPKWONY JUDGE In the presence of: Applicant in person – present Mr. Ndungu Mwaura counsel for Joseph Kangethe Nganga, one of the beneficiaries. Court Assistant - Martin https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19261/eng@2025-05-06 3
page 3 of 3