In re Estate of Eston Maina Kimere (Deceased) [2021] eKLR

Key Facts

Deceased Name

Issues

• The court had to determine if the administrators should be ordered to provide full, detailed, and accurate accounts of the estate, including all income and expenditure from the time of the deceased's death to date, within 14 days. The Applicant argued that the administrators failed in their duties, while the Respondents claimed they have provided accounts and held meetings.
• The court considered whether all persons involved should be restrained from meddling with the estate, including developing or interfering with properties. The Applicant provided evidence of a house built on a parcel, while the Respondents denied any interference and cited the property being in the deceased's name.
• The court evaluated the Applicant's request to revoke the 2013 grant and issue a new one including her, based on the administrators' failure to apply for confirmation within the required time under Section 76. The Respondents argued there were reasonable causes for the delay, including ongoing court cases and health issues.

Holdings

• The court dismissed the Applicant's application to revoke the grant of letters of administration issued to the Respondents in 2013, finding no reasonable cause for revocation under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. The delay in confirming the grant was attributed to factors such as pending court cases, the terminal illness of a deceased's wife, and the need to resolve disputes over property ownership. No evidence of fraud, failure to administer the estate, or intermeddling was demonstrated.
• The court found no evidence of intermeddling with the estate by the administrators or beneficiaries. While a house was built on a disputed parcel, the title remains in the deceased's name, and there was no proof of unauthorized interference or development of estate properties.
• The court ordered the administrators to apply for confirmation of the grant within 60 days to avoid mistrust among beneficiaries. However, it emphasized that confirmation cannot proceed while pending disputes (e.g., ownership of Loc. 19/Kiawambogo/204) and legal issues under Section 72 of the Law of Succession Act remain unresolved.
• The court ruled that the Applicant's request to add herself as an administrator is unnecessary, as the law prohibits issuing more than four grants for the same property. Including her would not resolve the revenue-sharing dispute, which the court stated can be addressed separately without altering the grant.
• The court denied the Applicant's demand for immediate detailed accounts of the estate within 14 days, noting that the administrators have already provided accounts up to 2017 and that involving other shareholders in the properties is impractical. The law allows for rectification of the grant if additional properties are later identified.

Remedies

• The court ruled that each party shall bear their own costs associated with the application. This includes the Applicant and Respondents, as neither side was found to have succeeded in their claims or defenses sufficiently to warrant cost awards.
• The court ordered the administrators to apply for confirmation of the grant issued on 15th May 2013 within 60 days. Failure to comply would allow any beneficiary to apply for confirmation. The court emphasized that the prolonged delay in confirmation (over seven years) required resolution, though it acknowledged ongoing disputes over property ownership as a contributing factor.
• The court dismissed the Applicant's application, finding no grounds to revoke the grant or confirm the estate. The Applicant failed to demonstrate that the administrators had meddled with the estate or that there was a reasonable cause for revoking the grant. The court noted that the administrators had not wasted or disposed of estate property and that the Applicant's claims lacked sufficient evidence.

Probate Status

Legal Principles

• The court referenced Section 56(1)(b) of the Law of Succession Act, which prohibits issuing a grant to more than four persons for the same property, and determined that adding the Applicant as an administrator would not resolve the estate's administrative issues.
• The court applied the legal principles under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act regarding the revocation of a grant of representation, emphasizing the requirement for an applicant to demonstrate reasonable grounds for revocation, such as failure to apply for confirmation within the prescribed period or fraudulent actions by the administrator.

Succession Regime

Precedent Name

• Succession Cause No. 21 of 2016 (Kangema)
• High Court Succession Cause No. 33 of 2017
• Succession Cause No. 145B of 2017 (Murang'a High Court)
• Environment and Land Court No. 4 of 2018

Executor Name

• Francis Gichuhi Kamau Maina
• Francis Kihoro Maina
• Peter Maingi Maina
• Lucy Wambui Maina

Cited Statute

Executor Appointment

Judge Name

Passage Text

• It is my considered view that the Applicant has not demonstrated that the Respondents have transgressed the law as provided under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. This section provides that: A grant of representation... may at any time be revoked or annulled if the court decides, either on application by any interested party or of its own motion—
• The administrators are given 60 days from today's date within which to apply for the confirmation of the grant issued on 15th May 2013 failing which any beneficiary... is at liberty to so apply.
• I do not have evidence to the contrary that the Respondents did not have reasonable cause for the delay given that some of the reasons for the delay are due to engagement in court in cases initiated by the Applicant.

Beneficiary Classes

• Dependent Relative
• Spouse / Civil Partner
• Child / Issue