Gadson Thuo v Priscilla Wambui Karanja & 1 other

b. That, this Honorable Court be pleased to issue an order directing Absa Bank Kenya PLC to furnish the Applicant who is a beneficiary of the estate with complete records of any loans, overdrafts, facilities, securities, charge instruments, or related documents issued to or held in the name of the deceased in the LR. No Bahati/ Wendo/ Block 1/6, including but not limited to charge information, bank statements, and correspondence. c. That, this Honorable Court be pleased to compel the said bank to avail the information within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this order. d. That, this Honorable Court be pleased to give any such other and/or further order(s) as it may deem fit. 5. It is the Applicant’s case that the 2nd Respondent has charged the estate property Bahati/Wendo/Block 1/6 and that it has become necessary to ascertain the balances of the account. 6. In response, the 2nd Respondent through the Affidavit of Mercy Wambugu Legal Officer sworn on 24th November,2024 asserted that there was no record whatsoever showing that the deceased maintained any account, obtained any loan facility or created any charge in favour of the Respondent Bank nor was there facility agreement, charge instrument, or letter of offer bearing the Respondent's name to justify the prayers sought. That the search records proved the same. 7. That unless the Applicant can provide verifiable particulars or documentation linking the deceased to an account or facility with the Respondent, the Respondent is unable to take any further action beyond the exhaustive search already conducted. 8. The 3rd is the Notice of Motion Application dated 7th October 2025, filed pursuant to Articles 40, 47, 50(1), and 159(2)(d) of the Constitution of Kenya; Sections 47, 45, and 76 of the Law of Succession Act (Cap 160); and Rules 44, 49, and 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules, craving for the following orders; 9. a. That, this Honourable Court be pleased to grant leave to the Applicant to adduce and place on record additional and fresh evidence relating to ongoing police investigations into allegations of forgery of documents forming the basis of the impugned Grant and evidence of intermeddling with the estate property by the Respondent/Administratrix as confirmed by the area Chief and photographic exhibits annexed hereto; b. That, pending the conclusion of the said investigations and any resultant criminal proceedings, this Honourable Court be pleased to stay delivery of its ruling and/or further proceedings on the Summons for Revocation of Grant filed herein c. That, this Honourable Court be pleased to make such further or other orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court d. That the costs of this application be in the cause. Through his Affidavit in Support it is the Applicants’ case that new and material evidence has since emerged showing that the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) has commenced forgery investigations concerning the very documents forming the basis of the impugned Grant which are material to the revocation of grant proceedings. That the investigations are ongoing and involve forensic examination of the beneficiaries’ signatures and documents whose authenticity is central to the issues before this Court in the summons for revocation. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5364/eng@2026-04-14 2

page 2 of 4

10. That despite confirmation of grant he has been denied access to his rightful share. That the 1st Respondent has been intermeddling with the estate according to the area Chief and photographic evidence to include unauthorized leasing, farming, and acquisition of loans using estate property and that unless the Court grants leave to admit the new evidence, and stays delivery of its Ruling the is a real risk of miscarriage of justice. Analysis and Determination 11. Having considered the Applicant’s case on all the three Applications and the Replies in opposition I have refined the following issues for consideration? a. Whether the Application for revocation of grant has merit? b. Whether the Application against the 2nd Respondent has merit? and; c. Whether the 3rd Application for introduction of additional evidence has merit? 12. In my consideration of these Applications, it is noteworthy that the Applicant is not a dependant and according to Section 29 of the Law of Succession Act, grandchildren can be considered dependants if they were being maintained by the deceased immediately before their death, even if their parents are alive, but this often requires court intervention to prove dependency. 13. In this instance the Applicant only contends that he was never consulted and that his signature was forged, the Confirmed grant and the share allocation to the estate of the Applicant’s deceased mother is equitably included, the Administrator contends that the subdivision and transmissions have been affected. 14. It is further noteworthy that the Applicant has not moved the court as a personal representative of the estate of his deceased mother but rather as an entitled beneficiary in this estate. 15. The 1st Respondent contends that her late sisters Hellen Mugure Thuo, Lenah Wangari Thuo and Rahab Wanjiku Kamau are survived by 12 children, the twelve children are all listed as beneficiary including the applicant and the two siblings. 16. That the deceased had a sister (who is now deceased) but is also a beneficiary of the estate as she was a dependant when the deceased was alive. That her estate is also listed on the grant and the family members are well aware of the same. 17. That the deceased had two parcels of land known as Bahati Wendo Block 1/128 (10 acres) and Bahati Wendo Block 1/6(1 acre. 18. That, the deceased sub divided land title number Bahati Wendo Block 1/128(10 acres) among his five children both alive and dead and his one sister who was his dependant and gave each child a two acre piece of land and the sister was given one acre of land. 19. That the family of Hellen Mugure Thuo was already residing on an area given to them by the deceased and they had built a home on that area even before the deceased subdivided the property. 20. That her sister Rahab Wanjiku Kamau had bought some two acres of land from the deceased where she had built a home for her family and when she wanted to move from the area, she decided to sell that piece of land and the deceased insisted since it was family land it could only be sold to a family member and the same was purchased by Betty Thuo. 21. To the court is a logical explanation by the 1st Respondent that is without any rebuttal or contestation the share to the estate of the Applicant’s mother is provided for in LR. No Bahati/ Wendo/ Block https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5364/eng@2026-04-14 3

page 3 of 4

1/128 (10 acres) and that the Applicant’s Mothers share on LR. No Bahati/ Wendo/ Block 1/6 does not exist. 22. The 2nd Respondent denies of existence of a bank account in its records, in the name of the deceased. 23. The 2nd Respondent denies of existence of a charge or loan facility in its records, taken out against the LR. No Bahati/ Wendo/ Block 1/6 and as such in the absence of otherwise proof, the 2nd Notice of Motion Application dated 2nd May 2025 becomes moot and inconsequential. 24. With regards to the last Application seeking to introduce additional evidence to wit an ongoing criminal investigation by the police, the Court is of the view that the same is not new to the Applicant who instigated the criminal investigations and was all along aware of the same. In any case the criminal investigations cannot hold the succession in a state of limbo. 25. I am thus constrained to find as follow; a. The summons for revocation of grant dated 21st August 2024 is without merit; b. The Notice of Motion Application dated 2nd May 2025 is without merit; c. The Notice of Motion Application dated 7th October 2025, is without merit; 26. The court shall grant costs to the 1st Respondent for the 1st and the 3rd Applications. 27. The 1st Respondent is granted costs for the 2nd Application. 28. The Administrator is Ordered to file an affidavit detailing her final account of the distribution and transmission of the entire estate, within the next forty-five (45) days. 29. Any party aggrieved by this ruling may Appeal within the next thirty (30) Days from the date of this Ruling. It so ordered SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU ON THIS 14TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 MOHOCHI S.M JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5364/eng@2026-04-14 4

page 4 of 4