Patrick Kumbiti v Richard Kirimi Joseph

5. Subsequently, Francis Muriati M'Kirichiu and Joseph Muriati Mukindia challenged the grant through objection proceedings. They alleged, inter alia, that the grant had been obtained through material non-disclosure, fraud and reliance on a forged death certificate. 6. Upon hearing the objection, the trial court (Hon. P. M. Wechuli, SRM) delivered a ruling on 28th May 2020 revoking the grant issued to the Appellant. The court found that the Appellant had failed to disclose material facts concerning the beneficiaries of the estate and had engaged in acts amounting to intermeddling by attempting to dispose of Parcel No. AKITHI III/1801 before lawful distribution of the estate. 7. Aggrieved by that decision, the Appellant filed Meru Civil Appeal No. E019 of 2020. In a judgment delivered on 9th June 2022, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the revocation of the grant. The High Court further affirmed the finding that there existed a valid oral will in favour of Joseph Muriati Mukindia in respect of Parcel No. AKITHI III/328. 8. Joseph Muriati Mukindia subsequently died on 22nd July 2023. Thereafter, the Appellant filed the application dated 28th February 2025 contending that, following the death of the said Joseph Muriati, he had become the sole surviving claimant to the estate and ought therefore to be appointed sole administrator. 9. The learned magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that the issues raised therein had already been conclusively determined and were therefore res judicata. 10. Being dissatisfied with that decision, the Appellant lodged the present appeal. 10. The Appellant contends that the learned magistrate erred in law and fact by: i. Holding that the application was res judicata; ii. Failing to appreciate the legal effect of the death of Joseph Muriati Mukindia iii. Failing to find that the Appellant was the only remaining beneficiary entitled to administer the estate; and iv. Dismissing the application despite the evidence allegedly establishing his entitlement to administration. 11. Having considered the record of appeal, the rival submissions and the applicable law, the issues that arise for determination are: Page 2 of 5

page 2 of 5

i. Whether the application dated 28th February 2025 was barred by the doctrine of res judicata; ii. Whether the death of Joseph Muriati Mukindia revived or reinstated the Appellant's right to administer the estate; iii. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application. ANALYSIS & DETERMINATION i. Whether the application dated 28th February 2025 was barred by the doctrine of res judicata; 12. The doctrine of res judicata is codified under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act. It bars courts from re-opening matters that have been directly and substantially in issue between the same parties and have been conclusively determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. 13. The rationale behind the doctrine was succinctly stated by the Court of Appeal in Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission v Maina Kiai & 5 Others [2017] eKLR, where the Court observed that litigation must come to an end and parties should not be permitted to repeatedly litigate issues that have already been finally determined. 14. The record before this Court demonstrates that the question whether the Appellant was entitled to administer the estate and whether he was the sole beneficiary was directly raised and determined during the revocation proceedings. The trial court found that the Appellant had obtained the grant through concealment of material facts and had excluded other persons with an interest in the estate. 15. Those findings were subsequently affirmed by the High Court in Meru Civil Appeal No. E019 of 2020. Consequently, the Appellant's claim to sole administration ceased to be an open question and became a matter conclusively settled by competent courts. 16. Although the Appellant relies on the subsequent death of Joseph Muriati Mukindia as a new development, that event does not alter the fact that the underlying issue namely the Appellant's entitlement to sole administration had already been determined. A litigant cannot evade the doctrine of res judicata by merely presenting old claims in a different form or by relying on events that do not fundamentally alter the rights previously adjudicated upon. Page 3 of 5

page 3 of 5

17. I therefore agree with the learned magistrate that the application substantially sought to re-open issues that had already attained finality and was properly barred by the doctrine of res judicata. ii. Whether the death of Joseph Muriati Mukindia revived or reinstated the Appellant's right to administer the estate; 18. The Appellant relied on Section 81 of the Law of Succession Act, arguing that upon the death of Joseph Muriati Mukindia, the powers of administration ought to vest in him as the surviving administrator or claimant. Section 81 of the Law of Succession Act provides for the vesting of powers and duties in surviving administrators where there exists a valid and subsisting grant. The provision presupposes that the person claiming the benefit thereof remains a lawful administrator under an existing grant. 19. In the present case, the Appellant's grant was revoked on 28th May 2020. Upon revocation, the grant ceased to exist in law and all powers previously conferred upon the Appellant were extinguished. A revoked grant cannot confer any continuing rights, privileges or authority upon its former holder. 20. Consequently, the Appellant could not invoke Section 81 because he was not a surviving administrator under a valid grant. The provision simply had no application to the circumstances of this case. 21. More fundamentally, the death of a beneficiary, objector or claimant does not automatically confer administrative rights upon another person. The question of who should administer an estate must always be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Law of Succession Act and the interests of all persons beneficially entitled to the estate. 22. The Appellant appears to assume that the death of Joseph Muriati Mukindia automatically elevated him into the position of sole beneficiary. That assumption is erroneous. Rights and interests in a deceased person's estate do not disappear upon the death of a beneficiary; rather, such interests ordinarily devolve to that beneficiary's estate and may be pursued by his personal representatives. 23. The Respondent has demonstrated that he claims through the estate of the late Joseph Muriati Mukindia and has placed material before the court supporting that claim. In those circumstances, it cannot be said that the Appellant became the sole person interested in the estate merely because Joseph Muriati Mukindia passed away. Page 4 of 5

page 4 of 5

24. The application before the trial court was therefore not only legally misconceived but also amounted to an attempt to circumvent the findings previously made by both the subordinate court and the High Court. 25. Upon my own evaluation of the entire record, I find no error in the learned magistrate's conclusion. The Appellant's grant of representation having been revoked on account of concealment of material facts and misconduct. That decision was affirmed on appeal and remains binding. 26. The subsequent death of Joseph Muriati Mukindia neither revived the revoked grant nor restored to the Appellant any right to administer the estate. 27. The learned magistrate correctly found that the application sought to re-open issues that had already been conclusively determined and was therefore unsustainable. 28. The appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent; the ruling delivered on 16th July 2025 in Tigania Succession Cause No. 66 of 2019 is hereby upheld. 32. It is so ordered. Dated, Signed and Delivered Virtually at Meru this 2nd day of DK RONO JUDGE Page 5 of 5 July 2026.

page 5 of 5