In re Estate of Lyduska Hornik alias Piotto (Deceased) (Succession Cause E2587 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 6919 (KLR) (Family) (12 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 6919 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS) FAMILY SUCCESSION CAUSE E2587 OF 2021 CJ KENDAGOR, J MAY 12, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF LYDUSKA HORNIK ALIAS LYDUSKA HORNIK PIOTTO, DECEASED BETWEEN BENITA SIGEI HORNIK ...................................................................... PETITIONER AND DAIANELLA MORETI ALIAS DIANELLA PROSKE ............... 1ST RESPONDENT ROBERTO SAINAGHI ................................................................. 2ND RESPONDENT RULING 1. There are presently three succession causes in respect of the Estate of Lyduska Hornik alias Lyduska Hornik Piotto, deceased. The first, P&A 2039 of 2008, and the second, 2090 of 2008 were consolidated, and the present file, P&A E2581 of 2021, is the third file. 2. In this file, a Grant was issued to Benita Sigei Hornik on 18th February, 2022, and confirmed on 30th March, 2022 as per the Written Will dated 5th June, 1990. 3. In P&A 2039 of 2008, as consolidated with 2090 of 2008, a Grant was issued to Danella Moreti alias Dianella Proske and Roberto Sainaghi, and the same was also confirmed in accordance with a Written Will. 4. In the present file, Benita Sigei Hornik (Applicant) has filed an application dated 30th October, 2025 that is the subject of the present ruling. Danella Moreti alias Dianella Proske and Roberto Sainaghi are the Respondents. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6919/eng@2026-05-12 1
page 1 of 3
5. The application seeks an order of stay of proceedings in this file pending the hearing and determination of an application dated 17th May, 2023 in P&A 2039 of 2008 as consolidated with 2090 of 2008. 6. The Respondents each filed grounds of opposition to the application. 7. The Applicant’s case is that she is yet to be heard on the application pending in the consolidated files, and that the summons for revocation in the present file should await the determination of the application in the consolidated file. 8. The Respondents argue that the application is meant to delay the conclusion of the succession cause. Analysis and determination 9. The issue for determination is whether the Court should stay the proceedings in this matter pending the hearing and determination of an application dated 17th May, 2023 filed in P&A 2039 of 2008 as consolidated with 2090 of 2008. 10. The application dated 17th May, 2023 has not been annexed, and thus making it difficult to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the stay of proceedings prayer sought in relation to that application in the consolidated files. 11. In this file, the 1st Respondent has filed an application dated 15th February, 2023 seeking to revoke the Grant that was issued to the Applicant. That application is yet to be heard. 12. The existence of two Grants and Certificates of Confirmation pertaining to a single estate creates serious complexity in the estate’s administration and the administration of justice. The Law of Succession envisages that estate administration is carried out by a single Grant, which remains in effect unless revoked. 13. Under Section 47 of the Law of Succession Act and Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules, this Court has wide inherent powers to make such orders as may be expedient to ensure that the ends of justice are met and to prevent abuse of the court process. 14. An order to stay proceedings is a discretionary order and is regarded as a drastic remedy to be granted only in exceptional circumstances. Such discretion must always be exercised with consideration of the interests of justice. See Global Tours & Travels Limited (Nairobi HC Winding Up Cause No. 43 of 2000), In re Estate of Teriki Tapkigen Rokocho (Deceased) [2020] eKLR. 15. I have reviewed the circumstances of this case and opine that, to ensure that the rights and interests of all parties are adequately protected, it is best to afford each party the opportunity to pursue their respective applications and to have the courts review the issues that may be raised and determine those applications touching on the two Grants. 16. Staying these proceedings would delay the hearing and determination of the pending application in this file, as well as the determination of the issue requiring urgent review, namely the presence of two Grants in respect of the same estate. 17. After careful consideration, I conclude that granting an order of stay of proceedings in this matter is not in the interests of justice. Parties should take proactive measures to ensure the timely prosecution of the pending applications. 18. The application dated 30th October, 2025 is not merited and is dismissed. The costs of the application shall be in the cause. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6919/eng@2026-05-12 2
page 2 of 3
19. The matter shall be fixed for mention for directions within the term. 20. Orders accordingly. DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THROUGH THE MICROSOFT TEAMS ONLINE PLATFORM ON THIS 12TH DAY OF MAY, 2026. …………………….. C. KENDAGOR JUDGE In the presence of: Court Assistant: Beryl Mr. Nyangweso Advocate holding brief for Mr. Njenga Advocate for 2nd Respondent No attendance for Applicant No attendance for 1st Respondent https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6919/eng@2026-05-12 3
page 3 of 3