In re Estate of Cheptirgei alias Kimenjo arap Cheptirge (Deceased) (Succession
Cause E036 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 14621 (KLR) (1 October 2026) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 14621 (KLR)
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMET
SUCCESSION CAUSE E036 OF 2025
JK NG'ARNG'AR, J
OCTOBER 1, 2026
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JOEL KIMECHO
CHEPTIRGEI ALIAS KIMENJO ARAP CHEPTIRGE (DECEASED)
IN THE MATTER OF
JOSEPH DUNCAN RERE ............................................................... 1ST PETITIONER
ALICE CHERUTICH CHEPTIRKEI ............................................ 2ND PETITIONER
EMILY CHEPKIRUI ........................................................................ 3RD PETITIONER
RERE KIPRONO WILFRED ......................................................... 4TH PETITIONER
RULING
1. In this matter, a Grant was issued to the Petitioners on 3rd March 2026.
Summons for Conrmation of Grant dated 9th March 2026
2. Through the above Application, the 2nd and 3rd Petitioners sought to have the Grant conrmed before
the lapse of 6 months. They stated that they were the deceased’s daughters and were beneciaries of
full age. They further stated that there had been no objection raised in the succession proceedings and
it would be expedient to have the matter nalized before the expiry of 6 months.
3. It was the 2nd and 3rd Petitioner’s proposal that the deceased’s estate being Kericho/kaptebengwet/213
be divided equally between the deceased’s two households.
4. Through her Supplementary Adavit dated 2nd June 2026, the 3rd Petitioner stated that most of the
beneciaries i.e. 2nd Petitioner. 4th Petitioner, Mathew Rere, Edwin Cheruiyot Rere, Erick Rere, Fredah
Cherotich, Fancy Chepkorir and Chepngeno Janeer did not stay on the deceased’s estate and the
Protestors wanted to lock them out of the estate if the Grant was not conrmed. The 3rd Petitioner
https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/14621/eng@2026-10-01 1
further stated that no prejudice would be suered if the Grant was conrmed as every beneciary had
been catered for.
5. It was the 3rd Petitioner’s case that they had come to this court with good intentions and had everyone’s
best interest as heart and that their Application was meant to ensure expediency in distributing the
estate considering that some of the beneciaries had benetted from the estate since the deceased passed
on to the detriment of other beneciaries.
6. Through their written submissions dated 20th July 2026, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Petitioners submitted
that as per section 71(3) of the Law of Succession Act, the exceptional circumstance warranting the
conrmation of the Grant before the expiry of 6 months was that some of the beneciaries notably
the 2nd Petitioner was homeless after she was forced out of the estate. That they were keen on having
the matter settled expeditiously and that if the Application was allowed, it would not prejudice any
beneciary.
7. It was the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Petitioners’ submission that the deceased’s properties had been identied, the
beneciaries were of full age and that there was no opposition to the mode of distribution. They relied
on re Estate of Cecil Peter Okumu (Deceased) KEHC 5514 (KLR) and re Estate of Andrea Mutuka
(Deceased) (2020) KEHC 1145 (KLR).
8. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th Petitioners submitted that the proposed mode of distribution was anchored in law.
They relied on sections 35, 38 and 40 of the Law of Succession Act and M/Murithi vs Murithi [2015]
KECA 347 KLR.
Response
9. Through his Replying Adavit dated 21st April 2026, the 1st Petitioner stated that the Application
was vexatious and an abuse of the court process as it sought to circumvent the mandatory statutory
period of 6 months before the Grant is conrmed. That section 71 of the Law of Succession Act
prevented the conrmation of Grant before the expiry of 6 months unless exceptional circumstances
are demonstrated.
10. It was the 1st Petitioner’s case that the court may not, in cases of intestacy such as the present case,
conrm the Grant until it was satised as to the respective identities and shares of all beneciaries. It
was the 1st Petitioner’s further case that there was no consent as to the conrming of the Grant before
the expiry of 6 months.
11. At the time of writing this Ruling, the 1st Petitioner had not led his written submissions.
12. Having gone through the Application for conrmation of Grant dated 9th March 2026, the Replying
Adavit dated 21st April 2026, the Supplementary Adavit dated 2nd June 2026 and the 2nd, 3rd and 4th
Petitioners’ written submissions dated20th July 2026, the only issue for my determination was whether
the Grant dated 3rd March 2026 ought to be conrmed before the lapse of 6 months.
13. Section 71 (3) of the Law of Succession Act provides: -
The court may, on the application of the holder of a grant of representation, direct that such grant be
conrmed before the expiration of six months from the date of the grant if it is satised-
(a) that there is no dependant, as dened by section 29, of the deceased or that the only dependants
are of full age and consent to the application;
(b) that it would be expedient in all the circumstances of the case so to direct.
https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/14621/eng@2026-10-01 2
14. In re Estate of Chandrakant Manibhai Patel (Deceased) [2025] KEHC 18798 (KLR), the court held: -
“It is generally both procedural and substantive law that Probate Courts are clothed with
jurisdiction to conrm a grant before the expiry of six months depending on the specic
circumstances on a case to case basis presented to the Courts and as much as possible that
all beneciaries have consented and agreed that the distribution be undertaken before the
expiry of six months.
What does the key legal principles surrounding the conrmation of grant before the expiry
of six months?
Statutory Requirement: Section 71(3) of the Law of Succession Act, Cap 160, mandates the
holder of the grant to apply for conrmation after the expiry of six months from the date
of issue.
Court's Discretion: Courts have the discretion to allow conrmation for a shorter period,
but this is exercised in "compelling cases" depending on the specic circumstances.
Beneciary Consent: A crucial factor for early conrmation is the consent of all
beneciaries, who must be of the full age and agree to the proposed distribution.
Expediency/Just and Equitable: The court must be satised that it would be "expedient in
all circumstances of the case" or "just and equitable" to immediately issue a conrmed grant.
Purpose of the Waiting Period: The six-month period allows for potential objections to
the grant or the mode of distribution, ensuring all dependents' interests are protected.
Premature conrmation without proper procedure or consent may lead to the grant's
revocation later.”
15. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th Petitioners stated that the exceptional circumstance that warranted their request for
an expedited conrmation of the Grant was that the 2nd Petitioner was homeless as she had been kicked
out of the deceased’s estate while the other beneciaries lived and benetted from the same estate. On
the other hand, the 1st Petitioner has not consented to the Application for an expedited conrmation.
16. Having looked at the circumstances of the case as a whole, I am not convinced by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th
Petitioners’ reason for an expedited conrmation. It is important to state that the deceased’s estate
can only be distributed once the Grant has been conrmed and not before. The statutory 6-month
period for conrmation was purposely in place to protect the interests of all beneciaries and as the 1st
Petitioner being a beneciary had denied consent for the same, I nd the Application premature.
17. In the end, I nd the Summons for Conrmation of Grant dated 9th March 2026 has no merit and is
dismissed. Each party to bear their own costs.
RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT BOMET THIS 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026.
.................................
HON. JULIUS K. NG’ARNG’AR
JUDGE
Ruling delivered in the presence of:
Siele/Susan (Court Assistants)
Chepngetich for the 1st and 2nd Petitioner
https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/14621/eng@2026-10-01 3
Okok for the 3rd Petitioner
https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/14621/eng@2026-10-01 4
Source: Supplied judgment file. Citation: [2026] KEHC 14621 (KLR).