In re Estate of Gachura (Deceased) (Succession Cause E010 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 11800 (KLR) (10 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 11800 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NYERI SUCCESSION CAUSE E010 OF 2023 M MUYA, J JUNE 10, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID NDIGIRIGI GACHURA (DECEASED) BETWEEN BETH WAIRIMU GACHURA .......................................................... 1ST APPLICANT TABITHA WANJIRU GACHURA .................................................. 2ND APPLICANT AND IRENE NJOKI GACHURA ................................................................... PETITIONER RULING 1. The summons general dated 8th February, 2024 seeks the following orders; 1. That this Honourable Court be pleased to grant leave to the applicants to file this summons. 2. That this Honourable Court be pleased to order the production of the original Will purportedly executed by the Deceased and direct that it be tendered in court and or handed over to the investigating authorities for forensic analysis. 3. That this Honourable Court be pleased to direct all beneficiaries of the late David Ndigirigi Gachura (Deceased) under the purported Will to make themselves available at the Directorate of Criminal Investigations Nyeri Central within (21) days for the purpose of obtaining their hand writing and signatures specimens to assist in the forgery of the Will investigations. 4. That the Honourable Court be pleased to stay the confirmation of the grant of letters of administration with written Will annexed pending the finalization of the forgery investigations. 5. That the Honourable Court be pleased to grant such other and further orders as it deems fit in the circumstances. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11800/eng@2026-06-10 1
page 1 of 3
1. This application is opposed. The grounds are that the application is in bad faith and seeks to oust the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court which has the sole mandate and mechanism to proof the validity of a Will. 2. That the summons is meant to delay the cause of justice and if the applicants are aggrieved there is a well laid procedure in law to follow during the process of propounding of the Will. 3. That one of the witnesses to the Will is of poor health and thus of utmost importance for this matter to be expedited. 4. That the summons ought to be dismissed with costs for being a nuisance and occasioning wastage of precious judicial time. Determination and Conclusion Issues Whether the Summons General dated the 8th day of February, 2024 is merited? 2. From the onset, it is noted that these summons were filed before summons for confirmation of grant, with Will annexed which were subsequently filed on 14th February, 2024. 3. In the main they seek to stay the confirmation of grant of letters of administration on account of forgery of the annexed Will. 4. In the celebrated case of Raila Odinga & 5 others vs. Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & 3 others 2013 eKLR the Supreme Court had the opportunity to make a concise distinction between procedural requirements vis-avis the administration of justice by emphasizing that where the law sets out a specific procedure then parties are duly bound to follow it and the invocation of Article 159(2) of the constitution is not a remedy. 5. In the present case there is an application to confirm the grant issued by this court. This procedure is provided for under Rule 40(1) of the Probate & Administrative rules. Where a party who is not in agreement with the confirmation of a grant is obligated to file an affidavit of Protest as provided under rule 40(6) of Probate & Administrative rules. 6. Rule 16 (1) Probate & Administrative rules provides for the procedure to oppose and or object to the contents of the Will which is by way of affidavit of Protest which should highlight the particulars of fraud and forgery by so doing a party is required to adduce adequate and sufficient evidence of such forgery or fraud. 7. The jurisdiction of the High Court in matters of Succession is provided under section 47 of the Law of Succession thus; ‘‘The High Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any application and determine any dispute under this Act and to pronounce such decrees and make such orders as may be expedient’’. 8. There exists an elaborate procedure in the Law of Succession to contest Wills as to their validity. That is the route the applicants ought to have followed. 9. It is Trite law that the determination of the validity of a Will is the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court as provided for under the Law of Succession Act. 10. This application is without merit and it is hereby disallowed. 11. Costs in the cause. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11800/eng@2026-06-10 2
page 2 of 3
RULING DELIVERED THIS 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026. ................ MARTIN M. MUYA JUDGE In the Presence of: Maingi for the Applicant Court assistant – Isaack Molu width: 93%} HIGH COURT SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. E10 OF 2023 TC{style background: #5b9bd5; width: 5%} 3 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11800/eng@2026-06-10 3
page 3 of 3