In re Estate of Chege (Deceased) (Succession Cause E927 of 2020) [2026] KEHC 8470 (KLR) (Family) (18 June 2026) (Directions) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8470 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS) FAMILY SUCCESSION CAUSE E927 OF 2020 HK CHEMITEI, J JUNE 18, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE GIBSON KIMANI CHEGE (DECEASED) BETWEEN MARTIN CHEGE KIMANI .............................................................. 1ST APPLICANT JOY GIVEN WANGECHI ................................................................. 2ND APPLICANT AND MARGARET NJAMBI IRUNGU ................................................. 1ST RESPONDENT ANTHONY MAINA KIMANI .................................................... 2ND RESPONDENT DIRECTIONS 1. Before the court are two sets of applications. 2. The first application dated 22nd August 2022 by the applicants/ respondents Margaret Njambi Irungu and Anthony Maina Kimani seeks to have the grant and letters of administration issued to the administrators Martin Chege Kimani and Joy Given Wangechi on 22nd January 2021 and confirmed on 14th October 2021 revoked. 3. Their main ground is that they are the widow and son of the deceased herein respectively and that the respondents did not notify them when they filed this cause. 4. On the other hand, vide her replying affidavit sworn on 7th November 2024 Joy Given Wangeci has refuted the above assertion and stated that the applicants were strangers in the estate and that the deceased did not have any other family. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8470/eng@2026-06-18 1
page 1 of 2
5. The second application by dated 29th November 2022 by Martin Kimani and Joy Given Wangeci prays that the 2nd respondent be subjected to a DNA analysis to ascertain whether he was indeed the deceased biological son. 6. The respondents have vehemently opposed the application vide the affidavit of Anthony Maina Kimani sworn on 31st January 2023. 7. I have perused the two applications carefully as well as the rival responses and the submissions filed by the parties and the attendant cited authorities. 8. In my considered view the issue of whether the deceased had any relationships with the objectors or not is a matter of evidence. The affidavit evidence is not sufficient. For instance, there must be evidence to suggest that there was a Kikuyu marriage ceremony between the deceased and the 1st objector. 9. At the same time and based on the evidence on record it is too early in the day to order a DNA exercise as prayed for by the administrators to be undertaken by Anthony Maina Kimani. Evidence must be heard orally and thereafter the court can be moved. 10. The same applies to whether the land parcels numbers Juja/Juja East Block 1/4847 and 4848 belonged to the deceased or not and they were transferred after his demise. 11. For the above reasons and many more I find that the proper way to deal with the objection proceedings herein is to subject it to formal hearing. 12. Consequently, I direct that: (a) The objection proceedings be determined by way of oral evidence. (b) The parties are hereby granted 30 days from the date herein to file further witness statements or affidavits and exchange, if any. (c) The two applications are held in abeyance pending the hearing and determination of the cause orally. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI VIA VIDEO LINK THIS 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026. H. K. CHEMITEI JUDGE, FCIArb https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8470/eng@2026-06-18 2
page 2 of 2