Jecinta Wacheke Mwangi & 1 other v Francis Ngatia (sued As The Personal Representative of The Estate of Muthoni Kagia Njenga) & 1 other

2. d. The 2nd administrator is likely to transfer the above subject properties to herself, and unless the execution is stayed as intended, the Appeal will be rendered academic and nugatory, and the 1st objector will suffer irreparable harm and damage. e. Unless this honourable court intervenes as a matter of urgency and issues an order to stay by restraining the 2nd administrator her servantsagent from selling, cultivating or denying the appellants from cultivating, distributing and or transferring the above parcels the 2nd respondent will proceed with the distribution and transfer of the said properties yet the 1st objector filed a notice of appeal clearly showing the intention to appeal against the judgment and decree. f. There already exists a restriction by Jecinta Wacheke Mwangi and a caution placed by Tabitha Wanjiku Mwangi, which restriction and caution should be maintainedpreserved on the property.LR NyandaruaMawingo907Nyandarua Mawingo416417 g. The court be pleased to grant the 1st objector leave to appeal out of time andor allow extension of time to file an appeal against the judgment and decree delivered on 21st March, 2025, by Honourable Justice Charles Kariuki. The application was premised on the following grounds: a. The 1st objector is aggrieved by the trial court’s judgment in favour of the 2nd administrator, Susan Njeri Mwangi, that declared the two objectors are not claiming interests as dependents but are coming in to claim the interests of the grandmother, who is now deceased. The claim is based on occupation, not on an entitlement to their grandmother. b. The applicant, being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, has filed the Notice of Appeal and also applied for typed proceedings to facilitate lodging the main appeal against the whole of the decision. c. The 2nd administrator, Susan Njeri Mwangi, is likely to sell the properties under the late Julius Mwangi Njenga and has started to threaten the 1st objector by sending goons to where he stays. d. The 1st objector intends to execute the judgment against the applicant before the substantive appeal is heard and determined, which would render the appeal nugatory. e. The 2nd administrator is likely to transfer the above subject properties to herself, and unless the execution is stayed as intended, the appeal will be rendered academic and nugatory, and the 1st objector will suffer irreparable harm and damage. f. Unless this honourable court intervenes as a matter of urgency and issues an order of stay by restraining the 2nd administrator or her servantsagents form selling, distributing and or transferring the above parcels the 2nd respondent will proceed with the distribution and transfer of the said properties yet the 1st objector field a notice of appeal clearly showing the intention to appeal against the judgment and decree. g. The time frame for filing an appeal has lapsed, and there is a need for the honourable court to enlarge time to allow the applicant to file an appeal out of time and also the court to order for stay of execution pending hearing and determination of this application of this application as well as hearing of the appeal. h. The orders are not granted, the respondent will proceed with execution to the detriment of the applicant, who will suffer irreparable harm, and the appeal will be rendered nugatory. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/17056/eng@2025-11-20 2

page 2 of 3

i. It is in the interest of justice and fairness that the prayers sought in the application herein be granted. 3. The application was opposed, but no submissions were filed. 4. It is trite law that an appeal does not operate as a stay of execution or proceedings. For a party seeking the court's intervention to preserve the status quo, it must satisfy the court that the applicable principles have been met. Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules provides as follows: No order for stay of execution shall be made under subrule (1) unless— a. the court is satisfied that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order is made and that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and b. such security as the court orders for the due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding on him has been given by the applicant. 5. The subject in this case is the estate of Julius Mwangi Njenga. I have been convinced that, unless the court grants a stay of execution of this court's judgment, the appeal will become purely academic. In the interest of justice, it is only fair to grant the orders sought pending the outcome of the appeal. 6. The applicant is also granted leave to file the intended appeal within 30 days of this ruling. 7. This being a family dispute, each party will bear its own costs. DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT NYANDARUA, THIS 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 KIARIE WAWERU KIARIE JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/17056/eng@2025-11-20 3

page 3 of 3