REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BOMET
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 52 OF 2021
IN THE MATTER OF KIPRONO BARCHOK ALIAS KIPRONO ARAP BARCHOK (DECEASED)
KIPKETER ARAP RONO ..……………...……………. 1ST PETITIONER
CHARLES KIPKEMNOI RONOH …………………… 2ND PETITIONER
DAVID CHERUIYOT RONOH ………………………. 3RD PETITIONER
RECHO CHELANGAT BARCHOK …………………. 4TH PETITIONER
VERSUS
PATRICK CHEPKWONY ……………………………... 1ST PROTESTOR
WINNY CHEBET ……………………………………….. 2ND PROTESTOR
FLORENCE CHEPNGETICH LANGAT ……………. 3RD OBJECTOR
ALICE NGENY ………………………………………….. 4TH OBJECTOR
JACKSON KIPKIRUI KETER ………………………. 5TH OBJECTOR
PHILIP KIPKORIR CHIRCHIR …………………….. 6TH OBJECTOR
WELDON CHERUIYOT TALAM ……………………. 7TH OBJECTOR
DICKSON MUTAI ……………………………………… 8TH PROTESTOR
PHILEMON ROTICH …………………………………. 9TH PROTESTOR
RULING
1. In this matter, a Rectified Certificate of Confirmation of Grant was issued to the Petitioners on 24th April 2024.
Summons for Revocation of Grant dated 15th November 2016
2. In the referenced Application, the Protestors sought revocation of the Grant dated 15th November 2016 and confirmed on 24th April 2024.
3. Through his Supporting Affidavit dated 20th February 2026, the 1st Protestor stated that the Protestors had physical possession and occupation of KERICHO/KIPSONOI S.S/93 for more than 12 years. That they had occupies 0.75 acres, 0.83 acres, 2.3 acres, 0.4 acres, 0.805 acres, 2.1 acres, 0.85 acres, 4.16 acres and 0.1 acres respectively.
4. It was the 1st Protestor’s case that the Petitioners instituted a suit for adverse possession at the Environment and Land Court being Kericho ELC Number E007 of 2022 which was settled in their favour via Consents dated 10th July 2025 and 14th July 2025. That the said Consents were adopted as an order of the court and a Decree was issued. It was the 1st Protestor’s further case that the deceased’s entire family and known that they had been in occupation of the suit property.
5. The 1st Protestor stated that the Petitioners failed to disclose this to the court and the Grant could not be effected without incorporating the Decree from the Environment and Land Court. That it was in the interest of justice that the Grant be revoked.
6. Through their written submissions dated 22nd July 2026, the Protestors submitted that after the Consents had been adopted as an order of the court, a restriction was registered against KERICHO/KIPSONOI S.S/93. That the Decree in the ELC matter was binding to this court. They relied on Article 162 (2) (b) of the Constitution of Kenya and section 13(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act. The Protestors further submitted that the Rectified Certificate of Confirmed Grant could not practically be implemented without the application of the Decree from the Kericho ELC matter. That the Grant should be revoked.
Response
7. Through their Replying Affidavit dated 25th May 2026, the Petitioners stated that the Protestors were not beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate and had no entitlement to the estate. That the Petitioners’ claims in the suit property vide the Kericho ELC Suit were procured illegally. The Applicants further stated that KERICHO/KIPSONOI S.S/93 was distributed by this court and all the shares conclusively determined.
8. It was the Petitioners’ case that the Protestors had no locus standi to seek redistribution of the estate. That succession proceedings dealt with identification of the beneficiaries and did not deal with purchaser claims. It was the Petitioners’ further case that the Consent orders relied upon by the Protestors were obtained after the confirmation of the Grant and they contradicted and undermined the mode of distribution sanctioned by this court.
9. The Petitioners stated that upon confirmation of the Grant, their role became limited to implementing the Grant and they had no authority to redistribute the estate. That this court could not rely on the impugned Consents to revoke the Grant. The Petitioners stated that the Protestors had not demonstrated any fraud, false statement, concealment of beneficiaries or any other ground as contained in section 76 of the Law of Succession Act.
10. It was the Petitioners’ case that revoking the Grant would prejudice beneficiaries whose shares had been conclusively determined. That the present Application was misconceived and bad in law.
11. At the time of writing this Ruling, the Petitioners had not filed their written submissions despite being directed to do so on 10th June 2026.
12. I have gone through the entire record, the Application for revocation of Grant dated 20th February 2026, the Replying Affidavit dated 25th May 2026 and the Protestors’ written submissions dated 22nd July 2026. The only issue for my determination was whether the Grant dated 15th November 2016 and confirmed on 24th April 2024 should be revoked.
13. The law on revocation of Grants is provided for in Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act which states that: -
A grant of representation, whether or not confirmed, may at any time be revoked or annulled if the court decides, either on application by any interested party or of its own motion-
(a) that the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance;
(b) that the grant was obtained fraudulently by the making of a false statement or by the concealment from the court of something material to the case;
(c) that the grant was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant notwithstanding that the allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently;
(d) that the person to whom the grant was made has failed, after due notice and without reasonable cause either-
(i) to apply for confirmation of the grant within one year from the date thereof, or such longer period as the court order or allow; or
(ii) to proceed diligently with the administration of the estate; or
(iii) to produce to the court, within the time prescribed, any such inventory or account of administration as is required by the provisions of paragraphs (e) and (g) of section 83 or has produced any such inventory or account which is false in any material particular; or
(e) that the grant has become useless and inoperative through subsequent circumstances. (Emphasis mine)
14. The Protestors stated that the Grant ought to be revoked as they had not been catered for. That they had an adverse possession claim to KERICHO/KIPSONOI S.S/93 which formed part of the deceased’s estate. The Protestors further stated that they had commenced an ELC suit against the Petitioners being Kericho ELC Number E007 of 2022 which was settled through Consents. That through the said Consents they were allocated shares in KERICHO/KIPSONOI S.S/93. On the other hand, the Petitioners stated that the Protestors were not beneficiaries and that they had no claim to the deceased’s estate. That the Consents were illegally procured.
15. I have looked at the Consents attached as “PC 1(a), (b) and (c) in the 1st Protestor’s Supporting Affidavit dated 20th February 2026. The Consents indicated that the matter (Kericho ELC Number E007 of 2022) was for application of registration of title by adverse possession over L.R Number KERICHO/KIPSONOI S.S/93. The Consents further indicated that the Petitioners had agreed to transfer shares of KERICHO/KIPSONOI S.S/93 to the Protestors who were in occupation. The shares were that the Petitioners (1st to 9th) would get 0.75 acres, 0.83 acres. 2.3 acres, 0.4 acres, 0.805 acres, 2.1 acres, 0.85 acres, 2.1 acres, 0.85 acres, 4.16 acres and 0.1 acre respectively. The 1st Petitioner further attached a Decree as “PC 2” which captured the contents of the Consents.
16. From the above, it is clear that there was evidence that the Protestors owned shares in KERICHO/KIPSONOI S.S/93 which formed part of the deceased’s estate. There was no evidence that the court order in Kericho ELC Number E007 of 2022 had been appealed or reviewed which effectively meant that it was a valid and enforceable order.
17. I agree with the Petitioners’ contention that the Consents were entered into after the Grant had already been confirmed on 24th April 2024. However as referenced above, section 76 (e) of the Succession Act allowed this court to revoke a Grant if it had become inoperative through subsequent circumstances. The present circumstances fall squarely within the definition above.
18. The Petitioners were parties in the Kericho ELC matter and though they allowed one Joseph Cheruiyot to act on their behalf through an undated Authority to Act, they could not, without evidence, turn around and claim that the Consents were procured illegally. The grounds for vacating a Consent are similar to the grounds for rescinding a Contract and the same have to be proved at the Environmental and Land Court. As earlier stated, the court order in the Kericho ELC matter remain valid and enforceable.
19. I have read through an considered the report concerning KERICHO/KIPSONOI S.S/93 from the Ministry of Lands, Public Works, Housing and Urban Development dated 18th August 2026 and the report reflected the above position. The report further indicated that the existence of the Grant made it impossible to implement the order from the Kericho Environmental and Land Court.
20. Flowing from the above, I am satisfied and it is my finding that through the Decree of the Kericho Environmental and Land Court dated 15th July 2025, the Grant dated 15th November 2016 had become inoperative and was ripe for revocation by dint of section 76(e) of the Law of Succession Act.
21. The Protestors filed an Application dated 8th March 2026 seeking revocation of the Grant and that Joseph Cheruiyot Rono be appointed as an administrator of the deceased’s estate. The first part of revocation has been achieved through the previous Application.
22. On the issue of substituting the Petitioners, the Applicant (Joseph Cheruiyot Sang) stated that the Petitioners had acted in bad faith by entering into Consents which were contrary to the Rectified Certificate of Confirmation of Grant dated 24th April 2024.
23. I have gone through the record and I have noted that Joseph Cheruiyot Sang was the deceased’s son from the 4th household. The same household was represented by the 4th Petitioner who was the deceased’s widow. There was no opposition to this prayer by the Protestors. It is my finding that there would be no prejudice suffered by the parties if Joseph Cheruiyot Sang was added as an administrator of the deceased’s estate.
24. As I have found that the Protestors have shares in KERICHO/KIPSONOI S.S/93 which formed part of the deceased’s estate, it is in the interest of justice that their interests are observed and protected by one of their own, in this case the 1st Protestor. It is therefore my further finding that it is just to have the 1st Protestor added as a co-administrator of the deceased’s estate.
25. In the end, I make the following orders: -
I. The Applications dated 20th February 2026 and 8th March 2026 are allowed.
II. The Grant dated 15th November 2016 and confirmed on 24th April 2024 is hereby revoked.
III. A fresh Grant to issue bearing the names of representatives of all the beneficiaries as identified herein
IV. Each party to bear their own costs in the two Applications.
V. Mention on 1st March, 2027.
Ruling delivered, dated and signed at Bomet this 26th day of October, 2026.
.................................
HON. JULIUS K. NG’ARNG’AR
JUDGE
Ruling delivered in the presence of:
Siele/Susan (Court Assistants)
Langat for Applicants:-absent
Jausiku for Beneficiaries:-absent
Source: Supplied judgment file.