Teresa Doricas Maosa Masese v William Sagero Moruri & 1 other

The Appeal 4. The gist of the appellant’s appeal is that the trial court erred in law and fact by revoking the grant and appointing a co-administrator. She argues that the trial court erred in law and fact by misapplying Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act, failing to properly evaluate her replying affidavit, submissions, and supporting documents including the chief’s letter and forms identifying the dependents. 5. The appellant further contends that the court reached an erroneous decision by recognizing the 1st respondent as having an interest in the estate when he was only a land buyer, and by annulling the grant even after acknowledging that the 2nd and 3rd respondents were already listed as beneficiaries. 6. The Appellant also faults the trial magistrate for failing to address the issue of land parcel North Mugirango/Ikonge/844. The appellant urges this court to allow the appeal, dismiss the application for revocation dated 2nd October 2023, and award her the costs of the appeal. 7. Through her written submissions dated 18th June 2025 the appellant reiterated the grounds listed in her Memorandum of Appeal and asserted that the deceased’s estate had been lawfully distributed in line with the deceased’s wishes as shown in the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant issued on 21st August 2023. The appellant disputed the inclusion of the 1st respondent, Joshua Okworo Amisi, as a beneficiary, and added that he merely purchased land from the 2nd and 3rd respondents who are sons of the deceased and was therefore not entitled to a share in the estate. 8. She further argued that the respondents failed to submit any documents to prove that the 1st respondent purchased land directly from the deceased or that the land parcel North Mugirango/ Ikonge/844 belonged to her at the time of her death. She faulted the trial court for disregarding a letter from the area chief dated 16th January 2023, which listed only legitimate dependents of the deceased and excluded the 1st respondent. 9. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents, on the other hand, opposed the Appeal on the basis that that there are serious inconsistencies and omissions in the appellant’s record of appeal, including missing pages (11, 14, and 98), repeated and mislabelled submissions, absence of identity card details, and disorganized pagination that cast doubt on the validity of the said record. It was the Respondents’ case that the said deficiencies render the appeal fatally defective and misleading. Reference was made to several decisions including the Supreme Court’s decision in Kenya Revenue Authority & 2 Others vs. Mount Kenya Bottlers Ltd & 4 Others Petition No. 41 of 2019 where courts dismissed appeals for defective records. 10. The Respondents noted that the Appellant’s arguments are contradictory as on one hand she claims that the 1st respondent is not a beneficiary of the deceased’s estate while at the same time she acknowledges that he bought land from the deceased’s estate. The Respondents maintained that the Appellant did not present any evidence before the trial court to prove that the 1st Respondent purchased the land in question posthumously thereby undermining her argument that the 1st Respondent was not entitled to a share of the said estate. The respondents further noted that the appellant did not regularize her record of appeal despite having ample opportunity to do so and instead proceeded with submissions despite the procedural fiaws. 11. The Respondents contended that the Chief's letter listing beneficiaries is not reliable as it does not indicate the identity card numbers of the alleged beneficiaries thus raising questions on the circumstances under which it was prepared. The Respondents highlighted a prior ruling wherein directions were issued for the filing of a succession petition including all beneficiaries, which was allegedly ignored when the appellant got herself gazetted as an administrator without due process. The Respondents urged this court to dismiss the appeal with cost. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19368/eng@2025-10-16 2

page 2 of 5

Issues for Determination 12. Upon careful review of the appeal and submissions of both parties, I find that the following issues arise for determination: a. Whether the trial court erred in law and fact by revoking the grant of letters of administration issued to the appellant. b. Whether the appointment of William Sagero Moruri as a co-administrator was justified in law. c. Whether the trial court erred in holding that the appellant committed fraud or omitted material facts. d. Whether the appellant’s record of appeal was fatally defective and incapable of supporting the appeal. e. Whether the 1st respondent (Joshua Okworo Amisi) had a legitimate interest in the estate. f. Whether the appeal should be allowed and the original grant reinstated. Analysis and Determination Revocation of the Grant 13. Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act permits revocation of a grant where it is established that it was obtained through: i. Fraud or misrepresentation, ii. Material non-disclosure, or iii. Failure to follow due process. 14. In Re Estate of Prisca Ong’ayo Nande (Deceased) [2020] eKLR, the court emphasized that revocation must be justified by sufficient grounds, especially material concealment or fraudulent misrepresentation. 15. In the present case, the trial court found that the Appellant failed to disclose the existence of Succession Cause No. 140 of 2023 at Nyamira Law Courts that had already been initiated by the 1st Respondent. My finding is that this omission amounts to material non-disclosure. Appointment of a Co-Administrator 16. In Re Estate of Tuaruchiu Marete (Deceased) [2019] eKLR, the court held that co-administrators may be appointed to ensure equitable representation of all beneficiaries. 17. In the present case, I note that the trial court relied on the area Chief’s letter dated 16th January 2023 confirming that William Sagero Moruri is a son of the deceased and hence a rightful beneficiary. I therefore find that there was sufficient justification for his inclusion as co-administrator and that this was a proper exercise of judicial discretion. Allegations of Fraud or Misrepresentation 18. As I have already noted in this judgment, the Appellant not only failed to disclose the existence of a parallel succession cause but also proceeded, in a questionable manner, by obtaining her gazettement as the sole administrator of the estate without engaging other beneficiaries or complying with a prior https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19368/eng@2025-10-16 3

page 3 of 5

court directive. I find that the Appellant’s conduct amounted to concealment of material facts and procedural impropriety. It is my further finding that the trial court was justified when it relied on the decision in Albert Imbuga Kisigwa vs. Recho Kavai Kisigwa [2016] eKLR, for the finding that concealment of material facts warrants revocation. Defects in the Record of Appeal 19. The respondents highlighted significant procedural defects in the Appellant’s record of appeal including missing pages, disorganized pagination, and lack of ID numbers in affidavits. The Respondents further noted that the Appellant did not correct the defects despite having been granted an opportunity to do so. In Mumo Matemu vs. Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 Others [2013] eKLR, it was held that procedural defects which hinder the fair and just determination of a case may render a matter fatally defective. 20. In the present case, it cannot be gainsaid that the the missing pages and poor organization significantly impaired the record's reliability and the ability of the court to decipher the true position of the case. The appellant’s failure to regularize the issues raised even when provided the opportunity may leave this court with no option but to dismiss the appeal. Status of the 1st Respondent 21. The appellant contested the 1st Respondent’s claim of interest in the estate and asserted that he was merely a purchaser. The 1st Respondent however contended that he bought the land directly from the deceased. I note that none of the parties presented conclusive evidence to establish or rebut this claim. The burden of proof rested with the 1st respondent to establish his claim of purchase. I find that in the absence of definitive documentation, the trial court rightly held that he had not sufficiently proved beneficiary status and excluded him as co-administrator. Reliefs and Disposition 22. My finding is that the appeal was anchored on a record that is riddled with inconsistencies, factual omissions, and unsupported claims. I further find that the revocation was based on valid legal grounds, and that the court exercised its discretion properly in appointing a co-administrator who is a proven beneficiary. I also find that no substantive miscarriage of justice has been shown. Conclusion and Orders 23. 24. For the reasons that I have stated in this judgment, I find that the instant Appeal is not merited and I accordingly issue the following final orders: a. The appeal is hereby dismissed. b. The ruling and order of Hon. E.K. Nyutu delivered on 8th October 2024 in Succession Cause No. MCSUCC E015 of 2023 is upheld. c. Costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Appellant and is awarded to the 1st , 2nd , and 3rd Respondents. It is so ordered. JUDGMENT DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NYAMIRA VIRTUALLY VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS THIS 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025. W. A. OKWANY https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19368/eng@2025-10-16 4

page 4 of 5

JUDGE In the Presence of: Mr. Onyancha for Nyamwange for the Respondent Mr. Ondigo for the Appellant Court Assistant – Anita https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19368/eng@2025-10-16 5

page 5 of 5