In re Estate of William Mathendu Kinama (Deceased) (Succession Cause 49 of 2016) [2025] KEMC 278 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to distribute an estate because key property was missing from the paperwork, ruling omitted assets need a separate proper application.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the objection to confirmation of grant should be upheld
- 2.Whether the court should proceed and distribute the estate of the deceased
- 3.If so, how should the court distribute the estate of the deceased
- 4.What other orders should the court make if need be
Key legal issues
#Whether the court can include omitted assets at the confirmation stage and then distribute the estate
No – the court's jurisdiction was not properly invoked on inclusion of omitted assets; confirmation of grant must be halted to allow a proper application
The petition and confirmation application listed only Plot No. 29 Kyuasini Market, yet the parties agreed the deceased owned Plot No. 1 Makindu and land at Nthilani. Adding omitted properties is a substantial step requiring its own application; a notice of objection or affidavit of protest cannot accomplish it. Until assets are properly included, the court cannot distribute them or distribute the sole listed asset in isolation.
Whether the objection to confirmation should be upheld
Effectively upheld to the extent that the confirmation summons is dismissed; following a consent to join the 1st Objector as co-administrator, the surviving issues were omission of assets and distribution
The court narrowed the objection to two issues: addition of allegedly omitted assets and distribution. Finding that other assets were indeed left out, the court declined to confirm the grant on the petition as framed and dismissed the summons, directing the administrators to move the court appropriately regarding the omitted assets.
Legal principles established
#- Inclusion of properties omitted from a petition and grant is a substantial step requiring a proper application to the court; it cannot be achieved through a notice of objection or affidavit of protest, nor simultaneously with distribution.
- A court lacks authority to distribute assets not forming part of the petition or grant.
Court orders
#- 1.The summons for confirmation of grant dated 21/6/2018 is hereby dismissed
- 2.The administrators, although adversaries, to move the court appropriately with regard to the asset(s) omitted from the petition and grant, and should find a way of working together
- 3.There shall be no orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Law of Succession Act – jurisdiction over confirmation of grants of letters of administration intestate
Relief refused
#Distribution of the estate, including Plot No. 29 Kyuasini Market alone, at this stage
Other assets were omitted from the petition and grant; confirmation halted to allow the administrators to move the court properly to include them
Inclusion of omitted assets (unsurveyed land at Nthilani, motor vehicles) via the notice of objection/affidavit of protest
Inclusion of omitted properties requires a proper application, not an objection or protest
Costs
Given the relationship between the parties, there shall be no orders as to costs.
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.
a. The summons for confirmation of grant dated 21/6/2018 is hereby dismissed;
b. The administrators, although adversaries, to move the court appropriately with regard to the asset(s) omitted from the petition and grant. They should find a way of working together;
Given the relationship between the parties, there shall be no orders as to costs.
Inclusion of omitted properties cannot be done simultaneously with distribution, particularly in the absence of a proper application to include the properties.
That being the case, the court lacks authority to distribute assets not forming part of the petition or grant.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "In re Estate of William Mathendu Kinama (Deceased) (Succession Cause 49 of 2016) [2025] KEMC 278 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Succession Cause (Makindu) – grant issued 2/10/2016 (exact cause number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/278/eng@2025-11-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.