SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Pandhaal v Pandhal & another (Civil Appeal E026 of 2023) [2026] KECA 930 (KLR) (15 May 2026) (Judgment)

[2026] KECA 930 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
930
Citation
[2026] KECA 930 (KLR)
Decided
15 May 2026
Judges
KI Laibuta, GW Ngenye-Macharia, SG Kairu
Parties
raw · defendants · plaintiffs
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from the judgment and orders of the High Court of Kenya at MombasaCoramKI Laibuta, GW Ngenye-Macharia
Holding

The appeal is dismissed in its entirety. The judgment and decree of the High Court of Kenya at Mombasa is upheld.

Facts

The deceased, Narain Singh Pandhal, executed a will appointing his wife, Pritam Kaur Pandhal, as the sole executrix. The estate was to devolve to the second respondent in the event of the deceased and the executrix dying simultaneously. The first respondent filed a petition for a Grant of Probate, which was granted and confirmed. The appellant, Jagit Singh Gurumukh Pandhal, filed a Notice of Motion seeking revocation of the Grant of Probate and reasonable provision from the estate.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant was entitled to revocation of the Grant of Probate and reasonable provision from the estate.
  2. Whether the learned Judge was biased and did not accord the appellant a fair hearing.

Reasoning

The court found that the appellant's allegations were effectively rebutted by the respondents' replying affidavits. The court concluded that the learned Judge did not act unfairly.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The judgment and decree of the High Court of Kenya at Mombasa be and is hereby upheld.
  • The appellant shall bear the costs of the appeal.
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case