Manojkumar Ratilal Sanghani, one of the children of the late Ratilal Gorhandas Sanghani, has moved to court seeking to have the current executors of a multi-million-dollar property in Westlands ordered to file an inventory rendering account of their administration.

In an application filed at the high court, Manojkumar, who is one of the beneficiaries of that estate, wants executors Rajendra Ratilal and Jayant Rach ordered to file income and expenses of the assets of the deceased as included in the will dated March 2006.

He also wants the court to revoke the grant of the letter of administration with the written will made to the two issued on August 7, 2008, and for him to be appointed as Administrator De Bonis Non.

The beneficiaries are also seeking to have their succession cause reinstated and orders issued on May 30, 2022, dismissing it for review.

The applicant says that the two executors have failed to act in the best interest of the estate and its beneficiaries as required by law and the office of the executor.

“Over 16 years since they were appointed estate executors, they have never accounted to the beneficiaries for their administration of the estate or given updates/accounts on any administrative actions they have undertaken,” added Manojkumar Ratilal Sanghani.

He says the two executors have been selling estate assets without a confirmed grant, mishandling bank accounts held by the deceased, collecting rental income from the assets that beneficiaries are entitled to, and failing to disclose to beneficiaries.

The applicant who is representing other beneficiaries also wants to be appointed as administrator of their multimillion-dollar estate only after evaluation.

“It is in the best interest that I am appointed Administrator De Bonis Non to conclude the estate administration only after the current executors’ account on the estate and a valuation is done for clarity purposes and to avoid their mistakes being visited upon me in the future,” added Manojkumar Ratilal Sanghani. He wants the court to direct that the whole estate be valued.

In court documents, the petitioner wants the court to order an audit of the estate and a presentation of the estate’s accounts to include funds held in bank accounts, assets sold and their value, and assets remaining in the estate for the court and beneficiaries to have a clear picture of the estate as it currently stands due to meddling with the estate by current executors.

In the application dated December 13, 2024, Ghorandas died on May 22, 2007, in Nairobi and left a written will dated March 3, 2006, where he appointed Rajendra Ratilal Saghani and Jayant Rach as the executors of his will.

The beneficiary adds that the two executors failed to prosecute to conclusion the summons for confirmation of the grant dated October 15, 2018, within and after the lapse of 10 years from the date the grant of letters of administration with a written will was made to him until the cause was dismissed for want of prosecution on May 30, 2022.

Manojkumar says that the executors have failed to proceed diligently with the administration of the estate and severely abused their duties in regard to that estate.

He says that they have sold assets of late, and specifically 95 Niclause RoLeicester, in the Kingdom, without having proper authority in the form of a confirmed grant.

The aggrieved son of the late says that the executors purported to grant him Sh 600,000 as his share and failed to disclose all the sale and cost transactions.

According to him, the executors have also refused to give an account of the funds that were held in bank accounts in Kenya and the UK by their father. He says such information, and they have not received their share as beneficiaries.

The petitioner adds that the petitioners have been leasing their estate property off Westlands Road and have accumulated over Sh 100,000,000, and this information has never been disclosed to the beneficiaries, as the will had stated.

Through lawyer Neli Walubengo, Manojkumar says the two have since failed to attend court, resulting in the dismissal of the matter for want of prosecution. He contests that the grant was not confirmed and wants the court to reinstate the succession cause.

The beneficiaries say that the executors are yet to conclude the distribution of the estate to the beneficiaries, and they have been intermeddling and have not seen the need to have the grant issued to them confirmed, prejudicing the estate beneficiaries.