Miriam Chepkwony v Alfred Mitei & 1 other

3. IV. That further, the Applicants be granted leave to deal with the issues in the estate till its logical conclusion. V. That any further necessary directions be issued. The Application was brought under section 47 of the Law of Succession Act, Rules 59(1) and 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules. It was premised on the grounds on the face of the Application and further by the supporting affidavit sworn by John Kiptai Chepkwony on 5th November 2025. The Applicants’ case 4. The Applicants stated that the Petitioner was their mother and had passed on on 10th April 2024. That they had a letter from the Chief which granted them consent to be appointed as Petitioners in place of their deceased mother. The Applicants further stated that the Grant had been issued in their mother’s name and it had not been executed by the beneficiaries. 5. At the time of writing this Ruling, the Applicants had not filed their written submissions despite being directed by this court to do so on 30th April 2026. Response 6. Through the Grounds of Opposition dated 22nd May 2026, the Objector stated that after the death of the Petitioner, the Grant issued in her name became inoperative as per section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. That the Applicants had invoked a procedure unknown to the Law of Succession Act as a Grant was personal and non-transferable and was incapable of being transmitted by substitution. 7. Through his written submissions dated 22nd May 2026, the Objector relied on re Estate of Wanjohi Kamau (Deceased) [2023] KEHC 24358 (KLR) to advance its argument above. That a confirmed Grant was not transferrable and ought to be revoked on grounds of being untenable. 8. I have gone through the Chamber Summons Application dated 5th November 2025, the Objector’s Grounds of Opposition and written submissions both dated 22nd May 2026. The only issue for my determination was whether the Application has merit. 9. In re Estate of Muroko Kimitu - (DCD) [2019] KEHC 9129 (KLR), the court held: “ On the issue of substitution of the petitioner I am guided by decisions of the High Court & Court of Appeal. In John Karumwa Maina v Susan Wanjiru Mwangi [2015] eKLR The Court held; In the case of Florence Okutu Nandwa And Another Vs John Atemba Kojwa, Court of Appeal Civil Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 306 of 1998 at Kisumu where it was held that a court should not issue a grant to a person who has not sought for it. The judge stated as follows:“A grant of representation is made in personam. It is specific to the person appointed. It is not transferable to another person. It cannot therefore be transferred from one person to another. The issue of substitution of an administrator with another person should not arise. Where the holder of a grant dies, the grant made to him becomes useless and inoperative, and the grant exists for the purpose only of being revoked. Such grant is revocable under section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. Upon its revocation, a fresh application for grant should be https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11025/eng@2026-07-22 2

page 2 of 3

made in the usual way, following procedures laid down in the Law of Succession Act and the Probate and Administration (Rules)……..” 10. Similarly, in Julia Mutune M’mboroki v John Mugambi M’mboroki & 3 others [2016] KEHC 7023 (KLR), the court held: “ ……..I also think it is worth mentioning that the Law of Succession Act does not talk of substitution of administrator; it provides for making of a grant to another person or persons after revocation of grant or on the death of the administrator or on renunciation of right to apply or executorship etc……. ……. There is absolutely no room of substitution of the deceased administrator under the Law of Succession Act. In my view, therefore, where the sole administrator is a natural person, and he or she dies, the grant becomes useless or inoperative by reason of subsequent event of his demise. I am aware that the Law of Succession Act does not define or say what constitutes ‘’the grant has become useless and inoperative through subsequent circumstances’’. But, in my opinion, death of an Administrator would be a sufficient reason to revoke a Grant for having become useless and inoperative due to subsequent demise of its holder. Accordingly, in such case, the proper procedure is to apply for revocation of grant of letters of administration under section 76(e) of the Law of Succession Act on the reason that the grant has become useless and inoperative through subsequent circumstances and a grant to be made to another person named in the application……..” 11. I associate myself with the findings above. It is therefore clear that this court cannot substitute the deceased administrator (Miriam Chepkwony) with the Applicants. 12. In the end, I make the following orders: I. The Chamber Summons Application dated 5th November 2025 has no merit and is dismissed. II. The Grant issued on 5th May 2017 and confirmed on 14th November 2017 is hereby revoked. III. The Applicants are at liberty to petition for a fresh grant of letters of administration intestate to administer the estate of Fredrick Kipmitei Chepkwony alias Fredrick Kimitei (deceased). IV. Each party to bear their own costs. V. This file is now closed. RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT BOMET THIS 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2026. ................................. HON. JULIUS K. NG’ARNG’AR JUDGE Ruling delivered in the presence of: Siele/Zachary (Court Assistants) Kenduiwo for the Applicants Nandi for the Objector https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11025/eng@2026-07-22 3

page 3 of 3