High Court 11987 of 2026

51 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and Section 49 of the Law of Succession Act. The application is brought by Manisha Gopal Vagjiani, who is the daughter of the deceased and a beneficiary of the estate and seeks the following orders; (i) Spent. (ii) THAT pending the hearing of this application inter parties, Naran Valji Patel be restrained whether by himself, his agents, servants or representatives from in any manner meddling in the administration of the estate of the late Parbat Lalji Halai or any manner interfering with the estate or properties comprised thereof; (iii) THAT pending the hearing of this application inter partesk Naran Valji Patel and/or the executor hereof be restained whether by themselves, their agents, servants or representatives from SUCCESSION 207 OF 2017 RULING 2

page 2 of 24

in any manner meddling with the proceeds from the sale of the property known as Title No. Mavoko/Block 2/15796; (iv) THAT Naran Valji Patel be compelled whether by himself, his agents, servants or representatives to deposit in court all the title documents, account statements, full account of receipts had and received from the which he estate, is and all documents holding in respect of property forming part of the estate of the late Parbat Lalji Halai; (v) THAT Kanbai Parbat Lalji Halai the executor of the estate of the late Parbat Lalji Halai be ordered to provide full, detailed and accurate accounts of the estate including all income and expenditure within 14 days; (vi) THAT further in default of providing accounts SUCCESSION 207 OF 2017 as RULING above, the grant of 3

page 3 of 24

administration to Kanbai Parbat Lalji Halai be revoked; (vii) THAT the honourable court be pleased t make and order that the affairs of Kanbai Parbat Lalji Halai be managed by P.J. Kakad, Advocate, who is the current advocate of the executor and Ashok Dave of Lalji R Raghwani, advocate who have been the family lawyers for over fifty years; (viii) THAT the costs of this application be provided for; (ix) THAT the court may grant any or further orders that may favour the cause of justice. 2. The grounds on the face of the application are as follows: a. That a Grant of representation to the estate of the deceased was granted to KANBAI PARBAT LALJI HALAI (hereinafter SUCCESSION 207 OF 2017 RULING 4

page 4 of 24

“the Executor”) on 11th April, 2016 and confirmed on 13th November 2017; b. That the properly Executor, execute being the will unable as by to law required, has delegated her powers to NARAN VALJI PATEL, who has been managing her affairs as relates to the estate of the deceased; c. That the Executor has created a Power of Attorney appointing NARAN VALJI PATEL as her true and lawful attorney representing her in matters concerning the estate of the deceased and therefore leading to a delegation of decision-making power in execution of the will, against doctrines of the law; d. That by virtue of the delegation, the appointed Attorney has intermeddled in the affairs of the estate without authority of the Court; SUCCESSION 207 OF 2017 RULING 5

page 5 of 24

e. That the Applicant herein is entitled to one third (1/3rd ) benefit of the intestate estate of the deceased and by virtue thereof, to one third proceeds of of the the benefits of the sale property in MAVOKO constituency whose net worth would be in the region of Kshs. 3000,000,000.00; f. That the Executor is not capable of executing the Will of the deceased or running the affairs of the estate and thus the reason that she has appointed the Attorney; g. That the sale of the said property in Mavoko is now nearing completion and the Applicant, being a beneficiary of the estate of the deceased, is reasonably apprehensive that she stands to suffer irreparable loss should the intermeddling of the estate of the deceased by the appointed attorney continue. SUCCESSION 207 OF 2017 RULING 6

page 6 of 24

3. The Application is opposed vide the Replying Affidavit dated 20th February 2026 sworn by NARAN VALJI PATEL, who is the interested party and is reportedly an agent of the Respondent acting on a power of attorney granted by the executrix. 4. Both parties have filed their submissions which this Court has duly considered. 5. Through the Submissions dated 11th March 2026, the Applicant submits that the Interested Party has admitted to holding a power of Attorney and acts in estate matters. They aver that the Power of Attorney has no legal backing and is therefore of no effect, as supported by the relevant law cited therein. 6. The Applicant avers that the Interested Party is involved in estate matters through delegation and as such, his conduct amounts to intermeddling. She has cited various case laws in support of her claim. 7. The Respondent and the Interested Party filed joint submissions dated 27th April, 2026. On addressing the issue of intermeddling, they deny the same. SUCCESSION 207 OF 2017 RULING 7

page 7 of 24

8. They assert that the Applicant has not met the threshold for the issuance of the orders sought. Issues and determination: 9. I have considered the Summons, the affidavits on record, the rival submissions by counsel, the authorities cited and the applicable law. In my view, the following issues arise for determination: a. Whether an Executor/ Administrator of an Estate can donate such power to a Third Party; b. Whether the actions of a Third Party acting on the powers donated through a Power of Attorney amount to intermeddling; c. Whether the delegation Administrator is Revocation the of of power sufficient Grant by ground issued to an for the Respondent. SUCCESSION 207 OF 2017 RULING 8

page 8 of 24

Whether an Executor/Administrator of an Estate can donate such power to a Third Party. 10. The Deceased in this particular case died on 11th April, 2016 leaving behind a Will dated 27 th June, 2014. In the said Will, the deceased appointed the Respondent, KANBAI PARBAT LALJI HALAI, as the sole executor. The said Will was proven in Court, and a Grant of Probate was issued to that effect. The Certificate of Confirmation of Grant of Probate with Will was issued on 13th November, 2017 and the estate distributed as per the Will. 11. As per the Replying Affidavit dated 20 th February 2026, the Interested Party states that he holds a Power of Attorney and is therefore duly authorized to depone to matters on behalf of the Respondent. The same is annexed and dated 23 rd March 2022. 12. He further avers appointed by the that he has Respondent. That been duly the said appointment was necessary as the Applicant was SUCCESSION 207 OF 2017 RULING 9

page 9 of 24

attempting to dispose of the assets of the estate while the Respondent was receiving treatment abroad. He avers that any involvement with the estate has been authorized. 13. Section 79 of the Law of Succession Act provides as follows: “The executor or administrator to whom representation has been granted shall be the personal representative of the deceased for all purposes of that grant, and, subject to any limitation imposed by the grant, all the property of the deceased shall vest in him as personal the Law of Succession representative”. 14. Section Act defines 3 a (1) of personal representative as “the executor or administrator of a deceased person”. 15. Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, defines personal representative as: SUCCESSION 207 OF 2017 RULING 10

page 10 of 24

“A person who manages the legal affairs of another because of incapacity or death, such the executor of an estate. Technically, while an executor is a personal representative named in a will, an administrator is a personal representative not named in a will”. 16. In the case of In Re Estate of KRISHAN MURTI MAINI (DECEASED) [2011] KEHC 3583 (KLR), while discussing the issue at hand stated that; “It is therefore clear that when a court issues letters of administration or grants a probate of written will, such letters or grants are issued personal to the person applying to administer the estate of the deceased. The person applying for letters of administration or grant of probate cannot on his part delegate the powers granted to him by the court to someone else to administer the estate (in the case where the deceased died intestate) or to execute the will (in the case SUCCESSION 207 OF 2017 RULING 11

page 11 of 24

where the deceased left behind a written will) on his behalf’’ 17. This position has been echoed by the High In Court re Estate of (Deceased) [2016] eKLR. Haji Indeed, Mohamed the excerpt relied upon by the Applicant emphasizes the position that while the administrator can employ an agent to transact on their behalf, the decision-making power over the estate remains with the personal representatives. 18. I conclude that an administrator cannot delegate the decision-making powers related to the exercise of the statutory duties and powers outlined in Sections 82 and 83 of the Law of Succession Act. This includes any discretion in matters concerning the administration of the estate. Whether then actions of a Third party acting on powers granted through a Power of Attorney amount to intermeddling; SUCCESSION 207 OF 2017 RULING 12

page 12 of 24

19. The Law of Succession Act under Section 45 deals with intermeddling with the property of a deceased person and it provides as follows: 1. Except so far as expressly authorized by this Act, or by any other written law, or by a grant of representation under this Act, no person shall, for any purpose, take possession or dispose of, or otherwise intermeddle with, any free property of a deceased person. 2. Any person who contravenes the provisions of this section shall(a) be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand shillings or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding one year or to both such fine and imprisonment; and (b) be answerable to the rightful executor or Administrator, to the extent of the assets with which he has intermeddled after deducting any payments made in the due course of administration SUCCESSION 207 OF 2017 RULING 13

page 13 of 24

20. The Court in Re Estate of Wilson Omolo Oloo [2019] eKLR and Re Estate of Ndiba Thande [2013] eKLR defines intermeddling as any unauthorized handling of a deceased’s assets that dissipates or puts them at risk. 21. In Gladys Nkirotem’itunga Vs. Julius Majaum’itunga [2016] eKLR, the Court stated: “Whereas the law of succession does not define what intermeddling with the property of the deceased is, there is ample judicial decisions on acts which may amount to intermeddling. For instances, in the case of Benson Mutuma Muriungi vs. C.E.O. Kenya Police Sacco & another [2016] eKLR the Court observed that: “Whereas there is no specific definition provided by the Act for the term intermeddling, it refers to any act or acts which are done by a person in relation to the free property of the deceased without the authority of any law or grant of representation to do so. The category of the offensive acts is not heretically closed but would SUCCESSION 207 OF 2017 RULING 14

page 14 of 24

certainly include occupation of, taking disposing possession, of, or exchanging, receiving, paying out, distributing, donating, charging or mortgaging, leasing out, interfering with lawful liens or charge or mortgage of the free property of the deceased in contravention of the Law of Succession Act. I should add that any act or acts which will dissipate or diminish or put at risk the free property of the deceased are also acts of intermeddling in law. I reckon that intermeddling with the free property of the deceased is a very serious criminal charge for which the person intermeddling may be convicted and sentenced to imprisonment or fine or both under section 45 of the Law of Succession Act. That is why the law has taken a very firm stance on intermeddling and has clothed the Court with wide powers to deal with cases of intermeddling and may issue any appropriate order(s) of protection of the estate against any person. SUCCESSION 207 OF 2017 RULING 15

page 15 of 24

22. the The Interested Party has unlawfully assumed role of executor without the Court’s authorization. Any actions undertaken by him under the power of attorney while purporting to act as the executor are deemed unlawful and constitute unauthorized interference with the estate of the Deceased. It amounts to intermeddling. Whether the delegation of power by an Administrator is sufficient ground for Revocation of the Grant issued to the Respondent. 23. Manisha Gopal Vagjiani, as a beneficiary of the estate, has the right under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act and Rule 44(1) of the Probate and Administration Rules to apply for revocation of the grant. 24. Is the delegation of duty that has been proven sufficient ground for revocation of the grant issued to the Respondent? 25. The reasons given by the Interested Party for the donation of a power of attorney are that it was at SUCCESSION 207 OF 2017 RULING 16

page 16 of 24

a time when the Respondent was ill and receiving treatment abroad. 26. The very fact that the Administrator/ Executor has donated a general Power of Attorney to another person to administer the estate on her behalf because she is unable to do so, is an admission that she is unable to perform her duties as an administrator of the estate. The only remedy for that is to remove her as an administrator of the estate. 27. An administrator of a deceased person’s estate has important statutory duties that they are required to fulfil. Once someone has been officially appointed as an administrator or executor, they cannot simply delegate their responsibilities by granting Power of Attorney to someone else. It is essential that the appointed administrator personally carries out the duties expected of them as an administrator. 28. Section 76 (d) of the Law of Succession Act provides as follows; A grant of representation, whether or not confirmed, may at any time be revoked or SUCCESSION 207 OF 2017 RULING 17

page 17 of 24

annulled if the court decides, either on application by any interested party or of its own motion – ………….. d. that the person to whom the grant was made has failed, after due notice and without reasonable cause either i. to apply for confirmation of the grant within one year from the date thereof, or such longer period as the court order or allow; or ii. to proceed diligently with the administration of the estate; or iii. to produce to the court, within the time prescribed, any such inventory or account of required by administration the as is provisions of paragraphs (e) and (g) of section 83 produced any such inventory or account which is false in any material particular; SUCCESSION 207 OF 2017 RULING 18

page 18 of 24

29. The Court, in the disposition of the application now before Court, grants the executor, who is the widow of the deceased, the opportunity to provide an update on the current status of the estate administration. This allows the Court to assess if the executor is fit to continue as administrator. If the executor does not present the accounts and status report, the court may revoke the grant. What further orders will be appropriate? 30. well Section 47 of the Law of Succession Act as as Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules grant the probate Court broad, inherent jurisdiction to hear any disputes and issue any orders as may be appropriate in the interest of justice or to prevent the abuse of the court process. 31. Rule 63 of the Probate and Administration Rules incorporates the application of Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which deals with temporary injunctions and interlocutory orders in proceedings under these Rules. SUCCESSION 207 OF 2017 RULING 19

page 19 of 24

32. In Giella v Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd. [1973] EA considering 358 the applications three-pronged test in for are as injunctions follows; a) Prima facie case: an arguable case exists; b) Irreparable loss: damages cannot be adequately compensated; c) Balance of convenience: if in doubt, the Court weighs potential injury to both parties. 33. The Applicant avers that the sale of the property MAVOKO/BLOCK 2/15796 is now nearing completion and is apprehensive that she stands to suffer irreparable loss should the appointed Attorney continue to intermeddle with the estate of the Deceased. She states that being a beneficiary of the estate of the Deceased, she is entitled to a share from the proceeds of the sale of property located in Mavoko amongst other assets of the Deceased. 34. The Applicant avers that she is apprehensive as to the dissipation of the proceeds and therefore preservatory SUCCESSION 207 OF 2017 orders RULING are necessary to protect 20

page 20 of 24

identified property and sale proceeds of Title No. MAVOKO/BLOCK 2/15796. 35. I am satisfied that the Applicant has an arguable case. If the alleged sale is to be completed, there is a likelihood that she will suffer irreparable loss that cannot be compensated by way of damages as she is entitled to a share of the estate of the Deceased as a beneficiary. On a balance of convenience, the Applicant stands to suffer more harm should the injunctive orders not be issued. 36. Given the evidence tendered in this case, I conclude that the appropriate step is to issue preservative orders to safeguard the Deceased’s estate, owing to evidence of delegated duties that have authorized a third party to unlawfully deal with the assets of the estate. Disposition: 37. In the end, I make the following orders: a. Naran Valji Patel, the interested party in this matter, is hereby prohibited, whether personally or through his agents, servants, SUCCESSION 207 OF 2017 RULING 21

page 21 of 24

or representatives, from interfering in any way with the administration of the estate of the late Parbat Lalji Halai, or from meddling with any properties that the estate comprises thereof; b. That Naran Valji Patel, the Interested Party herein and/or the executor hereof, is hereby restrained, whether by themselves, their agents, servants or representatives, from in any manner meddling with the proceeds from the sale of property known as Title No. MAVOKO/BLOCK 2/15796; c. That Naran Valji Patel is hereby ordered to deposit in court all the title documents, account statements, receipts had and full account of received from the executor and all documents which he is holding in respect of property forming part of the estate of the late Parbat Lalji Halai; d. That Kanbai Parbat Lalji Halai, the Executor of the estate of the late Parbat SUCCESSION 207 OF 2017 RULING 22

page 22 of 24

Lalji Halai, is hereby ordered to provide full, detailed and accurate accounts of the estate, including all income and expenditure, and a status report on the administration of the estate within 60 days; e. That in default of providing the accounts and status report as above, the grant of administration issued to Kanbai Parbat Lalji Halai shall be revoked; j) Costs of the application to be borne by the Respondent. 38. Orders accordingly. 39. DATED, DELIVERED and SIGNED at NAIROBI through the Microsoft Teams Online Platform on this 22ND day of JULY, 2026. ………………….. C. KENDAGOR JUDGE In the presence of: SUCCESSION 207 OF 2017 RULING 23

page 23 of 24

Court Assistant: Beryl Ms. Koki, Advocate for the Executor Mr. Mutinda, Advocate holding brief for Mr. Muoka, Advocate for the Respondent SUCCESSION 207 OF 2017 RULING 24

page 24 of 24