Mukungi & another v Nyaga & another (Civil Appeal 77 of 2018) [2025] KECA 2118 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled that land bought from an estate administrator stays valid even after the administrator's grant is revoked.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether Limo, J. erred in law and in fact when he is alleged to have overruled the decision of Makau, J. in respect of the grant of letters of administration intestate that were revoked by the latter Judge
- 2.Whether the 1st respondent is entitled to parcel No. Mwimbi/Chogoria/5089
- 3.What orders are to issue in respect of this appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether the Chuka High Court sat on appeal over Makau, J.'s decision by upholding a sale under a grant that had been revoked
Limo, J. did not err; the issue before him was the lawfulness of the 1st respondent's purchase under a confirmed grant, and the estate was properly subject to redistribution upon the application to confirm the new grant
The Court re-evaluated the chronology and found that Limo, J. determined a distinct issue: whether the 1st respondent lawfully purchased parcel 5089 from the widow under a confirmed grant. The appellants had not challenged Makau, J.'s refusal to cancel the transfer to the 2nd respondent under the same grant, so they could not complain when Limo, J. reached a similar conclusion on the transfer to the 1st respondent.
Whether the 1st respondent is entitled to retain parcel No. Mwimbi/Chogoria/5089
Yes; he was a purchaser for value under a confirmed grant and the transaction is protected by Section 93 of the Law of Succession Act notwithstanding the subsequent revocation
The 1st respondent purchased after satisfying himself that the widow held a confirmed grant, and the transfer occurred before the revocation proceedings concluded. No evidence of fraud was led. Section 93 of the Law of Succession Act validates transfers made by a person to whom representation has been granted, notwithstanding subsequent revocation of the grant, so the purchaser's title stands.
Whether the transfer of parcel No. 5088 to the 2nd respondent could be reopened
No; it was res judicata, the appellants never challenged Makau, J.'s omission on review or appeal, and counsel confirmed at the hearing that the challenge was abandoned
Makau, J. excluded parcel 5088 from the cancellation order for reasons not apparent from the record. The appellants neither sought review nor appealed, and although they proceeded as if the title had been cancelled, they never pursued the 2nd respondent. The matter was therefore res judicata and could not be re-litigated before Limo, J. or this Court.
Legal principles established
#- A transfer of property by a person to whom representation has been granted remains valid notwithstanding a subsequent revocation or variation of the grant, under Section 93 of the Law of Succession Act
- A party who fails to challenge a court's treatment of one transfer under a confirmed grant cannot seek cancellation of a parallel transfer made under the same grant - a litigant cannot approbate and reprobate
- On a first appeal, the Court of Appeal must reconsider and re-evaluate the evidence and draw its own conclusions, while making allowance for the fact that it neither saw nor heard the witnesses
- Issues already determined and not challenged on review or appeal are res judicata and cannot be re-litigated in subsequent proceedings in the same cause
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed
- 2.1st respondent to have the costs of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya (Chuka)
- Succession Cause No. 101 of 2010
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal under the Law of Succession Act / Appellate Jurisdiction Act (not expressly stated in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Appellants' challenge to the transfer of parcel No. Mwimbi/Chogoria/5089 to the 1st respondent and cancellation of his title
The purchase was made under a confirmed grant and protected by Section 93 of the Law of Succession Act; the appellants did not challenge the parallel transfer to the 2nd respondent and were estopped from blowing hot and cold
Relitigation of the transfer of parcel No. 5088 to the 2nd respondent
Makau, J.'s decision was not challenged and the matter was res judicata; counsel for the appellants confirmed at the hearing that the challenge was abandoned
Costs
The 1st respondent shall have the costs of the appeal
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In the premises therefore, the order that commends itself to us is the dismissal of the appeal. It lacks merit. The 1st respondent shall have the costs of the appeal.
We hold, just like the Superior court that the transfer made by the widow to the 1st respondent was protected under Section 93 of the Law of Succession Act
The appellants cannot blow hot and cold when it comes to acknowledging the transfers that were made by the widow of the deceased.
the issue of the transfer of Parcel No 5088 to the 2nd respondent was res judicata and could not be re-litigated before Limo J.
this Court must reconsider the evidence, evaluate it itself and draw its own conclusions, though it should always bear in mind that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently identifies which parcel was sold to the 1st respondent: paragraph 4 states the widow sold parcel No. 5089 to Isaac Kiogora Marete (1st respondent), but paragraph 14 states that parcel No. 5088 was transferred to the 1st respondent and that the widow sold parcel No. 5089 to the 2nd respondent
The original parcel number is given inconsistently: paragraph 1 states the estate comprised L.R. No. Mwimbi/Chogoria/386, while paragraph 13 refers to the parcel as Mwimbi/Chogoria/286
Counsel for the 1st respondent is recorded as submitting that parcel No. 5088 was sold to the 1st respondent, whereas paragraph 2 records that parcel 5088 was purchased by the 2nd respondent and paragraph 4 records the 1st respondent as purchasing parcel 5089
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mukungi & another v Nyaga & another (Civil Appeal 77 of 2018) [2025] KECA 2118 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Succession Appeal (from Succession Cause No. 101 of 2010). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/2118/eng@2025-11-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.