In re Estate of Nyakerura (Deceased) (Succession Cause 111 of 2004) [2026] KEHC 12960 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 12960 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISII SUCCESSION CAUSE 111 OF 2004 SIFUNA NIXON, J JULY 29, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE OSORO NYAKERURA (DECEASED) RULING 1. This Succession Cause was filed in the year 2004. Which is 16 years ago. On 8th July 2015, this Court dismissed it for want of prosecution. As at that day, this cause had been in court for 11 years. The dismissal was for reason of lethargy and non-action. 2. Dismissal of suits for want of prosecution is in the interest of justice rather against justice. It is also meant to clean judicial records and rid them of dormant files which parties have either abandoned, or lost interest in. Or matters which have since settled away from the court. 3. Such file would be idling in the court registries, and merely adding to statistics, and compounding the case backlog headache that courts in this country perennially and almost eternally grapple with. 4. Ten years after that dismissal, PETER MOSES OSORO the Petitioner, filed this Application. By it, he is urging this Court to reinstate this matter, and allowed him to file an Application for Confirmation of Grant. It is this Application that is subject of this ruling. 5. I have considered the Application together with the Petitioner’s Supporting Affidavit. I have also considered his oral submissions at the hearing of the Application. 6. I find that while the Application has sought the reinstatement of the cause, it has not sought the setting aside of the dismissal orders which ought to be a corresponding prayer in reinstatement applications such as this. 7. There can be no reinstatement if the dismissal orders are not set aside, or vacated hence remain intact. For that reason, this Application is misconceived. 8. Besides, the Application having been brought ten years after the dismissal, has been brought after an overly prolonged delay. Which delay is unexplained, and therefore inordinate. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/12960/eng@2026-07-29 1
page 1 of 2
9. The reason the Petitioner has given for non-action that allegedly led to the dismissal, is that he did not know that there were to be any steps after being issued with the grant. 10. Upon the issuance of a Grant, the Administrator has to embark on the administration of the Estate. Later after confirmation, he has to embark on the distribution of the Estate, and finally transmission of the shares to the beneficiaries. 11. Lack of knowledge of the role of an Administrator, is not just ignorance of a fact. It is also ignorance of the law. Which cannot be pleaded as an excuse from the legal consequences of dereliction or breach of the legal duty as Administrator. 12. To the extent that it is pleading ignorance of the law, and has not ofiered sufficient reason for the inaction that led to the dismissal of this matter for want of prosecution, this Application is misconceived and devoid of merit. I therefore dismiss it accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. DATED AND DELIVERED AT KISII ON THIS 29TH DAY OF JULY 2026. PROF (DR) NIXON SIFUNA JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/12960/eng@2026-07-29 2
page 2 of 2