Eunice Nyambura Makumi (Administratrix of the estate of the late Humphrey Njumbi Makumi) v Njeri Kiagayu T/A Njeri Kiagayu & Co. Advocates & 6 Others

JEREMIAH NYAGA ..4TH NJUBI………….………………. DEFENDANT DISTRICT LAND REGISTRAR KAJIADO………….5TH DEFENDANT ATTORNEY GENERAL……………………………. …..6TH DEFENDANT ALICE NYAGA……………………………..7TH RWAMBA DEFENDANT RULING 1. In the application dated 10th February 2026, the Plaintiff/Applicant seeks interlocutory injunctive reliefs against the Defendants/Respondents’ restraining them from interfering with parcels Ngong/Ngong/18796 and Ngong/Ngong/6411, that the 1st Defendant/Respondent be compelled to surrender the titles deeds and any other instruments for the said parcels and the 5th Defendant/Respondent be restrained from registering any further dealings on the said properties. 2. This application is premised on the grounds that the Plaintiff, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants are siblings whose RULING ELCLC NO E028 OF 2026 Page 2 of 12

page 2 of 12

father passed away sometime in June 2014. Upon his demise, the family agreed that the Administrators of his estate would be the Plaintiff and the 3 rd Defendant. The family identified the 1st Defendant as the firm that would undertake the succession proceedings. 3. The Grant of Letters of Administration was issued on 18 th January 2016, after which parties consented to the mode of distribution paving way for issuance of the Confirmation of Grant. It the Plaintiffs case that all this time the property was held in trust by the 1st Defendant. 4. The Plaintiff avers that the property Ngong/Ngong/18796 was to be subdivided into two portions with her holding 0.1555ha and 0.05ha being jointly held by the four siblings as the family’s burial site. Parcel Ngong/Ngong/6411 was to be subdivided into 0.374ha and 0.226ha and registered to the 2 nd and 3rd Defendants respectively. The advocate’s payment was to be effected through the sale of parcel Ngong/Ngong/2/219. 5. On 2nd July 2024, she sold her portion of the property as per the agreed distribution modalities to the 7 th Defendant. Unbeknownst to her, on 8 th August 2019 the 1st RULING ELCLC NO E028 OF 2026 Page 3 of 12

page 3 of 12

Defendant caused Ngong/Ngong/18796 the transmission of parcel to them and parcel jointly Ngong/Ngong/6411 was transmitted solely in the 2 nd Defendant’s name. She states that her agreement with the 7th Defendant was later terminated and a termination notice issued to the 7th Defendant but the 7th Defendant has declined to vacate the property and has started developing it. She now seeks injunctive reliefs to safeguard her proprietary interests over the said property. 6. The 1st Respondent opposes the application on the grounds that it is pegged on falsehoods claiming that the prayers sought were a calculated attempt not to pay her legal fees. She depones that the properties were distributed and transmitted as agreed. That 0.1555ha of parcel Ngong/Ngong/18796 was rightly transmitted to the Plaintiff and 0.05ha transmitted to the four siblings and parcel Ngong/Ngong/6411 was jointly registered to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. She affirms that she is holding titles to the said properties for her unpaid legal services after the siblings sold parcel Ngong/Ngong/2/219 but failed to offset her legal fees and this application should therefore be dismissed. RULING ELCLC NO E028 OF 2026 Page 4 of 12

page 4 of 12

7. The other Respondents neither filed their responses nor submissions. 8. Counsel for the Plaintiff submits that the Plaintiff has met the threshold set for grant of interlocutory injunctions since the transmissions carried out were done in contravention of the confirmed grant denying the Plaintiff exclusive possession of her portion of property Ngong/Ngong/18796. It is submitted that the said parcel is at risk of alienation and wrongful occupation by the 7 th Defendant who defaulted on the sale and if the reliefs sought are not granted, the Plaintiff would suffer irreversible, irreparable loss and damage. Reference was made to: Giella v Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd [1973] EA 358, Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 Others [2003] KLR 125, Banis Africa Ventures Limited v National Land Commission [2021] eKLR and Pius Kipchirchir Kogo v Franklin Kimeli Tenai [2018] KEELC 2424 (KLR). 9. Contesting this application, counsel for the 1st Defendant submits and acknowledges possession of the title deeds of parcel Ngong/Ngong/18796 and 6411 in lieu of payment of the legal fees. Counsel also submits RULING ELCLC NO E028 OF 2026 Page 5 of 12

page 5 of 12

that the Plaintiff’s application is based on falsehoods as articulated in her Replying Affidavit. The prayer for surrender of the title deeds is also contested on grounds that parcel Ngong/Ngong/6411 was inherited by the 2nd and 3rd Defendant who have not authorized the Plaintiff to collect the documents on their behalf. Counsel also points out that parcel Ngong/Ngong/2/219 which the Plaintiff claims will be sold to offset the 1 st Defendant’s legal fees was already sold and is no longer available. 10. Having considered the application and the fervent responses and submissions, I find that the sole issue for determination is whether the orders sought should be granted. 11. The principles for grant of interlocutory injunctions were settled in Giella v Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd [1973] EA 358 and bolstered in Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others [2014] KECA 606 (KLR) where the Court of Appeal reiterated that an applicant must establish a prima facie case, demonstrate that he or she will suffer irreparable injury for which damages would not be an adequate remedy, and where doubt remains, RULING ELCLC NO E028 OF 2026 Page 6 of 12 demonstrate that the balance of

page 6 of 12

convenience favours the grant of the injunction and that these are distinct hurdles which must be addressed sequentially. In Yaseen v Judicial Service Commission [2019] KECA 805 (KLR) the Court of Appeal further reiterated that, “…on considering whether or not a prima facie case has been established, the Court does not hold a mini trial and must not examine the merits of the case closely. All that the Court is to see is that on the face of it, the person applying for an injunction has a right which has been or is threatened with violation. 12. The first question therefore is whether the Plaintiff has established a prima facie case. 13. The Plaintiff’s case is founded on the alleged inconsistency between the mode of distribution contained in the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant and the subsequent transmission of parcels Ngong/Ngong/18796 and Ngong/Ngong/6411 by the 1st Defendant. The Plaintiff has produced a title deed and certificate of official search for parcel Ngong/Ngong/18796 registered in favour of the four siblings. The 1 st Defendant has opposed this claim and produced evidence that the transmissions RULING ELCLC NO E028 OF 2026 Page 7 of 12

page 7 of 12

for both parcels was undertaken in accordance with the confirmed grant. 14. In view of the Certificate of Confirmation of grant which indicates that apart from the portion to be shared by the 4 siblings of 0.05 Ha, the Plaintiff was to receive 0.1555 Ha of Ngong/ Ngong/ I8796, the court finds that the Plaintiff is entitled to a hearing on this claim. As against the 7th Defendant, the Plaintiff asserts that she did not comply with the terms of the agreement but is proceeding to carry out a construction on the property. If allowed to continue the construction is likely to alter the character of the property. 15. An injunction is an equitable remedy granted to protect an established or sufficiently demonstrated right. As such there are sufficient grounds to restrain the Respondents from selling, transferring or developing the said property. 16. However, in respect to parcel Ngong/Ngong/6411, the Plaintiff states that this property was to be divided between the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. She has not demonstrated, at this stage, her interest in the said property or authority from the 2nd and 3rd Defendants to RULING ELCLC NO E028 OF 2026 Page 8 of 12

page 8 of 12

seek orders concerning their title document. As such, the Court cannot grant Ngong/Ngong/6411 orders which against the a property Plaintiff has no proprietary interest in. 17. The Plaintiff/Applicant has also sought that the 1 st Respondent/Defendant be compelled to surrender the original title deeds for the said parcels. The 1 st Defendant/Respondent has acknowledged that she is in possession of the said titles arguing that titles are security for her unpaid legal fees. Without delving into the substratum of the suit, it is on record that there existed an advocate client relationship between the 1 st Defendant/Respondent and the Plaintiff (together with her siblings). 18. The 1st Defendant claims that her legal fees are yet to be paid, a claim that has not been controverted. On the issue of lien, Onguto J. in Booth Extrusions (Formerly) Booth Manufacturing Africa Limited v Dumbeyia Nelson Muturi Harun t/a Nelson Harun & Company Advocates [2014] KEHC 8597 (KLR) which decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal in Booth Extrusions Limited (Formerly RULING ELCLC NO E028 OF 2026 Page 9 of 12 Booth Manufacturing Africa

page 9 of 12

Limited) v Nelson Dumbeyia Harun Nelson & Muturi Company Harun t/a Advocates [2017] KECA 143 (KLR) held: “… A review of case law in the context of an Advocate – Client relationship, will reveal that there is the general lien which confers upon the advocates the right to retain all papers, money or other chattel the property of their client which came into possession of the advocates as their clients’ advocate until all the costs and charges due to the advocates are paid… Consequently ,an advocate having a retaining lien over documents in her or his possession is entitled to retain the documents against the client until the full amount of his costs is paid: see Barrat –v- Gough Thomas [1950]2 All ER 1048, 1053.” 19. At this interlocutory stage being satisfied that there existed an advocate- client relationship between the parties, i cannot grant the mandatory orders sought without hearing the parties substantively. RULING ELCLC NO E028 OF 2026 Page 10 of 12

page 10 of 12

20. In the premises, the Notice of Motion application dated 10th February 2026 succeeds in part as follows: a. A temporary injunction is hereby issued restraining the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants/Respondents, their agents or persons acting or claiming through them from in any other manner selling, transferring, sub dividing or carrying out construction on Ngong/Ngong/18796 pending the hearing and determination of this suit. b. The 5th Defendant/Respondent is restrained, from registering any further dealings or dispositions affecting parcel Ngong/Ngong/18796. c. The prayer seeking an order compelling the 1st Defendant/respondent to surrender the original instruments title deeds relating and to other parcels Ngong/Ngong/18796 Ngong/Ngong/6411 interlocutory stage. RULING ELCLC NO E028 OF 2026 Page 11 of 12 and is declined at this

page 11 of 12

d. The prayers restriction for of injunctive dealings relief for and parcel Ngong/Ngong/6411 are declined. e. The costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the main suit. Dated, Signed and Delivered virtually at Kajiado this 24th day of September 2026. JUDY OMANGE JUDGE. IN THE PRESENCE OF: Ms. Njeri Kiagayu the 1st Defendant. Ms. Ochola for Plaintiff. Peter – Court Assistant. RULING ELCLC NO E028 OF 2026 Page 12 of 12

page 12 of 12