C and R Group v Pravinchandra Vrajdas Ruparelia & 2 others

2. Sons, Pravinchandra, Kishorechandra, Himatlal and Havnitlal; and 3. Daughters, Champagauri and Haishagauri. 4. The grant was confirmed on 25th September 2020. The matter should have ended there, as the deceased's estate would have been distributed in accordance with his will. It wasn’t, however, to be. 5. Through the chamber summons application dated 22nd March 2025, C and R Group, as the applicant, sought to have this Court determine who, between the executors herein (Pravinchandra Vrajdas Ruparelia and Kishorchandra Vrajdas Ruparelia, on the one hand, and Kasim Hussein Noor Mohamed, on the other hand, was/were the real executors or administrators of the estate. 6. The application was supported by the annexed affidavit of Kerry-Ann Makatiani, sworn on 22nd March 2025, to which the petitions in respect of this cause and Nairobi CM Court Succession Cause No E314 of 2023 were attached. Ms Makatiani deposed that the applicant had no interest in the estate and merely sought to establish which claimant was justifiably entitled to it. 7. From the attached document, it would appear that the Nairobi petition was filed by Mr Kassim Hussein Noor Mohamed of Post Office Box No. 7732-00200, Nairobi. He averred that the deceased was his brother. Mr Noor Mohamed deposed that the deceased died on 29th July 2009 in Khirda, Orissa, India, and that his last known place of residence was Kariokor, Mathare Sub-County, Nairobi. In support of the latter contention, a letter from the Chief of Kariokor Location, a Mr. Samuel A Gums, dated 19th October 2023, was attached. Also attached was a purported certificate of death registration number 2693/2009, which gave his date of death as 29th July 2009. The death certificate listed the deceased's permanent address as Talasanga. 8. According to the attached national identification card, ID No. 8408649, Mr. Kassim Hussein Noor Mohamed was born on 20th December 1963 in Matuga, Kwale. 9. The application was heard interpartes on 3rd April 2025. The Court allowed prayer No. 2 of the Notice of Motion dated 22nd March 2025. The matter was slated for a hearing on 19th May 2025. On the latter date, Mr Murage, learned counsel, appeared for Mr Noor Mohamed. The Respondent had, however, not filed his responses as at the said date, and the Court adjourned the matter to 9th July 2025. 10. As the Court was concerned about the probable fraud, it issued a summons to Kishore Vrajdas Ruparelia and Mr. Kassim Hussein Noor Mohamed on 9th July 2025. On 9th July 2025, Mr. Murage was present. Ms Tanui, who held brief for Mr Harry Karanja on behalf of the applicant, prayed, on the grounds that the matter is an interpleader application, to be excused from further proceedings. Both Ms Essajee, for the 1st and 2nd claimants, and Mr. Murage claimed that their respective clients were unwell and living outside the country. For that reason, the matter could not proceed and was adjourned to 23rd September 2025. 11. On the said date, only the advocate for the 1st and 2nd Claimants was present. As the date was taken in the presence of Mr. Murage, the Court heard the matter in his absence, as no reason for his nonattendance was given. Although Mr Kishore Vrajdas Ruparelia was absent, the Court was satisfied that, given his medical condition, having been shown that he had Parkinson’s disease, he could not attend Court. 12. In the affidavit of Mr. Kishorchandra Vrajdas Ruparelia, the deponent denied that Kassim Hussein Noor Mohamed was a brother of their father and accused him of being a fraudster and an imposter seeking to unjustly enrich himself. He deposed that the deceased, having died in Mombasa on 2nd October 2001, could not have died again at Orissa, India, on 29th July 2009. He also stated that the https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19470/eng@2025-11-07 2

page 2 of 5

alleged death certificate could not be authenticated on the website of the state government of Odisha. It was also noted that the certificate of death was dated 9th September 2009 but signed on 21st August 2009. The death certificate was also not in the form currently used by the Odisha state government. 13. Mr Kishorchandra Jamnadas Ruparelia requested this Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction and to call for and revoke the grant issued in the Nairobi Chief Magistrate's Court. 14. Mr Sanjeev Khagram, learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd Claimants, made a deposition on 23rd September 2025, to which were attached various documents that he felt would help the Court decide the matter. Among the said documents was a certificate of domicile dated 20th April 1936, which shows that he was born in Bombay in 1917 and that on the date of issue, he worked for Devchand Keshavji, Post Office Box 478, Mombasa. 15. Mr. Khagram made oral submissions on 29th September 2025. He urged that the deceased was born in Bombay (now Mumbai) in 1917. He submitted that contrary to what Kassim Noor Mohamed stated in the Nairobi matter, the deceased had children, as evidenced by the birth certificates of his children, which were attached to the said affidavit. In the death certificate of his wife, who died in 2004, she was indicated as a widow. 16. Mr. Khagram prayed that the proceedings in Nairobi be terminated and that the Mombasa grant be recognized as the only valid grant. 17. I have considered the application and the response thereto. In my view, the issue for determination is which of the two grants is valid and what orders should be issued upon determination of the 1st question. 18. I must point out at the outset that despite being served, the 3rd Claimant filed no documents. His counsel appeared in Court twice, during which he averred that his client is in Tanzania and was unwell. 19. The 2nd claimant, on the other hand, filed an affidavit. Although he did not attend Court, there was a cogent explanation for his absence. The testimony of Mr. Sanjeev Khagram buttressed that of Mr Kishorchandra Ruparelia. Both depositions have annexures, which this Court has carefully perused. 20. Although the averments of the 2nd claimant have not been challenged, I must consider the 2 succession proceedings on their merits and determine which of these should govern the devolution of the estate of the deceased. 21. It would appear to me that the deceased lived and died in Mombasa. This is shown by the certificate of domicile and the death certificate, the latter of which shows that he died in Mombasa on 2nd October 2001. Having died in Mombasa in 2001, he couldn’t possibly have died again in the state of Odisha, India, as alleged. The authenticity of the Kenyan death certificate has not been challenged. That of India, on the other hand, is not attested and apparently does not conform to the format used at the time it was allegedly issued. In my view, the Indian death certificate is most probably fraudulent. The same lacks probative value. 22. Mr Kassim Noor Mohamed alleged that the deceased had no issues and that, as his alleged brother, he was the nearest kin. The said allegation is not borne out by the evidence before the Court. The birth certificates of Hashagauri (born on 27th April 1958), Havnitlal (born on 5th May 1949), and Kishorchandra (born on 7th June 1940) all show that the deceased had children. 23. I also note that Mr Noor Mohamed is most likely a Muslim, whereas Mr. Vrajdas Jamnadas Ruparelia, given his name, was, in all likelihood, a Hindu. Further, the age difference between them (one born in 1917 and the other in 1963 is so great as almost to exclude the possibility of their kinship. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19470/eng@2025-11-07 3

page 3 of 5

24. I note that Mr Kassim Noor Mohamed made no deposition. All the foregoing factors taken together support the finding that Mr Kassim Noor Mohamed was not a relative of the deceased and that he is most likely a fraudster out to fraudulently obtain the property of the deceased. 25. Having found as above, what orders should be issued? 26. It is clear that the grant issued in Nairobi CMC Succession cause No E314 of 2023 was issued pursuant to proceedings filed by a fraudster. As a result of the said fraud, there are 2 grants issued to different parties. The situation is clearly untenable. There is a real and clear possibility that the Applicant may be held in contempt of Court. 27. Article 165(6) and (7) of the Constitution of Kenya gives this Court supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate Courts. It provides that: “ (6) The High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate courts and over any person, body or authority exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial function, but not over a superior court. (7) For the purposes of clause (6), the High Court may call for the record of any proceedings before any subordinate court or person, body or authority referred to in clause (6), and may make any order or give any direction it considers appropriate to ensure the fair administration of justice.” 28. The Chief Magistrate Court at Nairobi is a Court subordinate to this Court. This Court can therefore supervise it. Although supervisory jurisdiction should be used sparingly to avoid a situation in which the High Court micromanages the Courts below, there are situations in which the High Court must exercise the said jurisdiction, and where not doing so would amount to dereliction of its constitutional duty. 29. In NSSF v Sokomania Ltd & another [2021eKLR the Court stated as follows: “ I am in agreement with the 1st Respondent that the supervisory power should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. It is also clear that the power should not be exercised where there is an appropriate alternative remedy. As I have stated earlier, the Applicant had a right of appeal against the orders of the 2nd Respondent sought to be reviewed.” 30. In my view, this matter calls for the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. The 3rd Claimant engaged in fraud. This Court must act to protect and uphold the dignity of the courts and to ensure that judicial proceedings are not defeated by fraud. 31. Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act provides that the Court may revoke a grant on its own motion or upon the application of a party. The grounds for revocation of the grant were discussed by Musyoka J In re Estate of Prisca Ong’ayo Nande (Deceased) [2020] KEHC 6553 (KLR). The learned judge stated that: “ 8. Under section 76, a court may revoke a grant so long as the grounds listed above are disclosed, either on its own motion or on the application of a party. A grant of letters of administration may be revoked on three general grounds. The first is where the process of obtaining the grant was attended by problems. The first would be where the process was defective, either because some mandatory procedural step was omitted, or the persons applying for representation was https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19470/eng@2025-11-07 4

page 4 of 5

not competent or suitable for appointment, or the deceased died testate having made a valid will and then a grant or letters of administration intestate was made instead of a grant of probate, or vice versa. It could also be that the process was marred by fraud and misrepresentation or concealment of matter, such as where some survivors are not disclosed or the applicant lies that he is a survivor when he is not, among other reasons. The second general ground is where the grant was obtained procedurally, but the administrator, thereafter, got into problems with the exercise of administration, such as where he fails to apply for confirmation of grant within the time allowed, or he fails to proceed diligently with administration, or fails to render accounts as and when required. The third general ground is where the grant has become useless and inoperative following subsequent circumstances, such as where a sole administrator dies leaving behind no administrator to carry on the exercise, or where the sole administrator loses the soundness of his mind for whatever reason or even becomes physically infirm to an extent of being unable to carry out his duties as administrator, or the sole administrator is adjudged bankrupt and, therefore, becomes unqualified to hold any office of trust.” 32. The grant in the proceedings in Nairobi CMC Succession Cause No E314 of 2023; re Estate of Vrajdas Jamnadas Ruparelia was obtained through fraud. Consequently, and in exercise of my supervisory jurisdiction. I revoke the grant issued in the said proceedings. I order that the said proceedings be closed forthwith. 33. Having found as foregoing, I find and hold that the only valid grant is that issued on 10th September 2010, which grant was confirmed on 25th September 2020. 34. For avoidance of doubt, I quash all orders issued by the Chief Magistrate Court in Nairobi CMC Succession Cause No E314 of 2023; re Estate of Vrajdas Jamnadas Ruparelia. 35. I order the Directorate of Criminal Investigations, Mombasa and Nairobi, to carry out investigations into the circumstances under which the grant was issued to Mr Noor Mohamed and the role of the government officers in the said fraud. The fraudster uttered a letter allegedly from the Chief of Kariokor Location. 36. Costs are at the discretion of the Court under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act. The conduct of the 3rd Claimant is fraudulent. Through his fraud, he has caused the Applicant and the 1st and 2nd Claimants to incur costs they shouldn’t have. In the circumstances, I award the Applicant and the 1st and 2nd Claimant the costs of the application. 37. It is so ordered. DATED AND SIGNED THIS 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025. DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS. GREGORY MUTAI JUDGE In the presence of:Ms Essajee, for the 1st and 2nd Claimants; Ms Tanui, holding brief for Mr Harry Karanja, for the Applicant; No appearance for the 3rd Claimant. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19470/eng@2025-11-07 5

page 5 of 5