Aron Sang v Johnstone Kiprotich Sang

5. I shall briefly summarize the parties’ cases in the trial court and their respective submissions in the present Appeal in the succeeding paragraphs. The Appellant’s/Petitioner’s case. 6. The Petitioner stated that the deceased’s estate comprised of KERICHO/GELEGELE/187 and that the deceased was survived by the following: i. Esther Chemitey Ngeny Widow ii. Ludia Ngeny Widow iii. Alice Ngeny Widow iv. Johnstone Sang Son v. Anthony Sang Son vi. David Sang (deceased) Son vii. Mary Sang Daughter in law viii. Raeli Cheruiyot Daughter ix. Pauline Sigei Daughter x. Rusi Mosonik (deceased) Daughter xi. Linner Chebii (deceased) Daughter xii. Sarah Cheruiyot (deceased) Daughter xiii. Stanley Sang (deceased) Son xiv. Wilter Sang Daughter in law xv. Joseah Sang Son xvi. Peter Sang Son xvii. Jane Cherono (deceased) Daughter xviii. Judith Koech Daughter xix. Denis Sang Son xx. Frankline Sang Son xxi. Aron Sang Son xxii. Agnes Chelangat Daughter xxiii. Beatrice Cheruto Daughter 7. It was the Petitioner’s proposal that the entire deceased’s estate be shared equally between himself, Anthony Kiprono Sang and David Kipsigei Sang. 8. Through these written submissions dated 28th October 2025, the Appellant submitted that the following people signed the consent form while obtaining the Grant: i. Mary Ruto 1st household https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2475/eng@2026-03-03 2

page 2 of 5

ii. Joseah Sang 2nd household iii. Peter Sang 2nd household iv. Dennis Sang 3rd household v. Frankline Sang 3rd household vi. Aron Sang 3rd household vii. Agnes Chelangat 3rd household viii. Beatrice Cheruto 3rd household 9. It was the Appellant’s submission that the other members of the 1st household declined to sign the consent form even after being served. That they instructed the firm of Bii V.K & Co. Advocates to act on their behalf. It was the Appellant’s further submission that the Respondent filed a Protest where he proposed a parallel mode of distribution and thereafter parties took directions to canvass the Protest through written submissions. 10. The Appellant submitted that the trial court erred when it found that the parties were not clear on who the beneficiaries were and commenced the process without the knowledge of all the three houses. That the trial court ought to make a determination on the mode of distribution. The Respondent’s/Protestor’s case 11. The Protestor stated that the proposed distribution was done fraudulently without his consent. That the other beneficiaries had not consented to the mode of distribution. The Protestor further stated that the deceased’s estate should be shared equally among the beneficiaries with each getting 1.577778 acres. 12. The Protestor stated that the deceased was survived by the following: 1st House i. Tapnyobi Chemitei Ngeny Widow ii. Johnstone Sang Son iii. Anthony Sang Son iv. David Sang (deceased) Son v. Mary Sang Daughter in law vi. Raeli Cheruiyot Daughter vii. Pauline Sigei Daughter viii. Sarah Cheruiyot (deceased) Daughter ix. Rusi Mosonik (deceased) Daughter x. Linner Chebii (deceased) Daughter 2nd House xi. Ludia Ngeny Widow xii. Jane Cherono (deceased) Daughter https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2475/eng@2026-03-03 3

page 3 of 5

xiii. Stanley Sang (deceased) Son xiv. Wilter Sang Daughter in law xv. Joseah Sang Son xvi. Judith Koech (deceased) Daughter xvii. Peter Sang Son 3rd House xviii. Alice Nyaboke Ngeny Widow xix. Denis Sang Son xx. Frankline Sang Son xxi. Aron Sang Son xxii. Agnes Chelangat Daughter xxiii. Beatrice Cheruto Daughter 13. Through his written submissions dated 30th October 2025, the Respondent submitted that the Appellant failed to comply with the trial court’s orders and that the present Appeal was a waste of the court’s time as it was meant to delay finalization of the succession process. The Respondent further submitted that the Record of Appeal was defective as the Appellant failed to extract the Judgement dated 18th April 2023. 14. I have gone through and carefully considered the trial court Record; the Record of Appeal and the respective parties’ written submissions. The only issue for my determination was whether the trial court erred in revoking the Grant. 15. The law on revocation of Grants is provided for in Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act which states that: A grant of representation, whether or not confirmed, may at any time be revoked or annulled if the court decides, either on application by any interested party or of its own motion(a) that the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance; (b) that the grant was obtained fraudulently by the making of a false statement or by the concealment from the court of something material to the case; (c) that the grant was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant notwithstanding that the allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently; (d) that the person to whom the grant was made has failed, after due notice and without reasonable cause either- (i) to apply for confirmation of the grant within one year from the date thereof, or such longer period as the court order or allow; or (ii) to proceed diligently with the administration of the estate; or https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2475/eng@2026-03-03 4

page 4 of 5

(iii) to produce to the court, within the time prescribed, any such inventory or account of administration as is required by the provisions of paragraphs (e) and (g) of section 83 or has produced any such inventory or account which is false in any material particular; or (e) that the grant has become useless and inoperative through subsequent circumstances. 16. I have keenly gone through the Protest dated 23rd August 2021 by the Respondent. The Protest was headed and worded as a Protest against the confirmation of the Grant. I have also gone through the list of beneficiaries as captured by the Appellant and the Respondent and it was clear that there was no dispute as the beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate. I however note that some of them are deceased. As I understand this Protest, the Protestor/Respondent disagreed with the Petitioner’s/Appellant’s proposed mode of distribution and offered a counter-proposal. This was not a Protest on how the Grant was obtained. 17. I have also gone through the 2nd Protest by Richard Kipngetich Rugut alias Joseah Sang dated 16th February 2022 and it contained the same heading as the first Protest; it was a Protest against the confirmation of Grant which meant it was effectively contest on the mode of distribution. The 2nd Protestor’s main contention was the mode of distribution stating that Zakayo Korir, Beatrice Chepkorir, Naumi Cherotich, Vicoty Chebet and Kiptoo Koech were not beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate and ought not to get a share of the estate. 18. From the above, it is clear to me that the parties had no issue with the Grant or how it was obtained but their bone of contention was the mode of distribution. The same is fortified by the court record when it was noted on 28th September 2021 that the only issue in contention was distribution. It is my finding that the trial court erred when it revoked the Grant. With respect to the trial court, it should have made a determination on the distribution of the deceased’s estate. 19. In the end, the Appeal dated 18th May 2023 has merit and the trial court’s Judgement dated 18th April 2023 is set aside. The file is transmitted back to the trial court for determination on the issue of distribution. RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT BOMET THIS 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026. HON. JULIUS K. NG’ARNG’AR JUDGE Ruling Delivered in the presence of; Susan/Siele Court Assistant Mr. Ngeno fop the Appellant N/A for the Respondent https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2475/eng@2026-03-03 5

page 5 of 5