kemc-2026-00552

that this court proceeds with the hearing and determination of the instant Summons for Revocation in line with Article 50 of the Constitution which guarantees litigants the right to fair hearing. 6. The approach proposed by Ms. Mukanda was strenuously opposed by Ms. Mutunda hence necessitating this extempore ruling. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION 7. This court has duly considered the pleadings on record as well as the oral submissions by counsel. 8. This court has had the benefit of going through the original court file for Bungoma Chief Magistrate’s Court Succession Cause No. E138 of 2023. It is also evident that the said succession cause relates to the estate herein. It is also evident that a Grant of Letters of Administration Intestate with respect to the estate herein was issued to the Objectors/Applicants on 10th July 2023 in Bungoma Chief Magistrate’s Court Succession Cause No. E138 of 2023 (“the initial Succession Cause”). 9. The Grant of Letters of Administration Intestate herein was issued after the issuance of a grant in the initial Succession Cause. There cannot be two Grants of Letters of Administration with respect to one estate. 10. What is clear is that the Grant herein is void for material non-disclosure since had the Petitioner/Respondent disclosed to this court that there was another Grant in respect of the estate herein at the time of filing this Succession Cause, this court would not have issued the Grant herein to her. 11. Material non-disclosure is one of the grounds a court can revoke a grant suo moto per sections 47 & 76 of the Law of Succession Act. 12. This court having already satisfied itself, at this stage, that there was material nondisclosure by the Petitioner/Respondent before issuance of the Grant herein to her, it will be an academic exercise for this court to hear and determine the Summons for Revocation dated 04th May 2026 as proposed by Ms. Mukanda. Scarce judicial resources cannot be deployed in academic exercises. 13. The position above taken by this court is buttressed by the holding In re Estate of Kithyo (Deceased) (Succession Cause E986 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 7011 (KLR) (Family), where when the court was confronted with circumstances almost similar to the ones obtaining in this cause rendered itself thus (the said court’s holding is extensively reproduced for the benefit of the parties herein): 58.Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act empowers this court to revoke a grant where the proceedings to obtain it were defective in substance, where it was procured fraudulently through concealment of material facts or false statements, or where it was founded on untrue allegations essential in law. 59.Succession proceedings demand utmost candour, full disclosure and inclusion of all beneficiaries. A party petitioning for representation bears a legal duty to disclose any prior succession proceedings touching on the same estate and to notify all persons ranking in equal or prior degree. The material on record demonstrates that before the impugned grant of 11th June, 2025 was issued, there

page 2 of 4

already existed Nairobi High Court Succession Cause No. E367 of 2024 in respect of the same estate, in which a grant had been issued on 23rd August, 2024 to Agnes Murorunkweru Kata, Melany Mwelu Kithyo, Ariane Rose Okong’o and Billy Nzuma Kata. 60.The Respondents contend that they were unaware of the earlier succession cause and that the earlier grant itself is contested through revocation proceedings filed by Melany Mwelu Kithyo. However, the existence of disputes regarding the validity of the earlier grant did not entitle the Respondents to institute parallel succession proceedings over the same estate without disclosure to the court. 61.The proper recourse would have been to prosecute the pending revocation application within Succession Cause No. E367 of 2024. The institution of a second succession cause resulted in two competing grants issued by courts of concurrent jurisdiction over the same estate, thereby creating uncertainty, confusion and risk of conflicting administration. This court takes judicial notice that succession proceedings are proceedings in rem and there cannot lawfully subsist parallel grants over one estate unless the earlier grant has first been revoked, annulled or set aside. Concealment of an existing succession cause and subsisting grant constitutes a fundamental defect warranting revocation. 64.I am also persuaded that the interests of justice and orderly administration of the estate would best be served by having all disputes relating to the estate ventilated within one succession cause instead of multiple parallel proceedings because consolidation and centralized determination of related disputes promotes efficiency, consistency and avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings. 65.Accordingly, I find that the proceedings leading to the issuance of the grant dated 11th June, 2025 were defective in substance and attended by material nondisclosure. 66.In the premises the Court makes the following orders: (a)The summons for revocation dated 4th September, 2025 is hereby allowed and the grant of letters of administration intestate issued to Prisca Mukethe Kithyo and Mark Muinde Kithyo on 11th June, 2025 in Nairobi High Court Succession Cause No. E986 of 2024 is hereby revoked and annulled…(Emphasis added) DETERMINATION 14. Given the reasons above, the Grant of Letters of Administration Intestate issued to the Petitioner/Respondent herein on 25th August 2025 is revoked for material non-disclosure. Any dispute(s) arising from the deceased’s estate can be canvassed in the initial Succession Cause. 15. Each party to bear its own costs 16. This file is closed.

page 3 of 4

Read, signed, and delivered in open court at Bungoma, this 25th day of June 2026 T.O. OMONO SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE In the presence of: Ms. Mukanda for Petitioner/Respondent Ms. Mutunda for Objectors/Applicants

page 4 of 4