Teresia Wanjiru Kang’ethe v Veronica Wanja Njuguna

4. She contends that the estate was thereafter irregularly subdivided and transferred in defiance of court orders, rendering all such dealings illegal and liable to cancellation. She further explains that her paternity and entitlement were contested, leading to court-ordered DNA testing which confirmed J K as her father. 5. She accuses Veronica Wanja Njuguna of intermeddling with the estate, giving false evidence, concealing material facts and acting in contempt of court and maintains that no lawful distribution of the estate has ever taken place. 6. The deponent outlines the long and complex procedural history of the matter, including repeated applications for confirmation and revocation and transfers between courts and identifies outstanding issues framed by the court, including her status as a dependant, the validity of prior grants, concealment of material facts, jurisdiction and administrators’ accountability. 7. She averred that the deceased’s assets and beneficiaries are set out in her affidavit sworn on 8th February 2023 and that on 3rd October, 2022 she was appointed a co-administrator alongside V W N and J M K following revocation of the grant confirmed on 6th June, 2008. 8. Pursuant to the court’s direction that a confirmation application be filed within ninety days, she has filed the present summons for confirmation together with a proposed mode of distribution, with the aim of preventing further wastage of the estate and ending a succession dispute that has persisted for over twenty-seven years since the deceased’s death. 9. The application is opposed vide replying affidavit sworn by Veronica Wanja Njuguna on 12th March, 2023 who avers that she is an administrator and beneficiary of the deceased’s estate and swears the affidavit with the authority of the other beneficiaries, save for the Applicant. 10. She contends that the Applicant has grossly overvalued the estate. She explains that the deceased died in 1994 and that succession proceedings were lawfully commenced by the family in Thika CMCC Succession Cause No. 364 of 1997 at a time when the Applicant was unknown to the estate. The grant issued therein was confirmed on 4th June, 2008 and the estate distributed by consent of the known beneficiaries. 11. She deposes that although summons for revocation were later filed in 2009, there was no stay of distribution and the administrators therefore proceeded to distribute the estate in accordance with the confirmed grant. She acknowledges that, after protracted proceedings lasting about ten years, the court eventually revoked the grant and directed that the Applicant undergoes DNA testing, which in 2019 confirmed her relationship to the estate through her late father, J K K. 12. She further confirms that the Applicant was subsequently appointed as a co-administrator. Despite her dissatisfaction with the decision, she states that the family elected not to appeal in the interest of finality. 13. The deponent asserts that, because the estate was fully distributed as far back as 2008 pursuant to a valid court order that was only set aside many years later, the estate assets no longer exist in the administrators’ hands and are now held by third parties, rendering the Applicant’s proposed mode of distribution impractical and impossible to implement. 14. She states that the revocation occurred long after distribution had already taken place and that the court cannot undo completed transactions. As a compromise, she avers that the family proposed allocating the Applicant the remaining portion of land, but maintains that the Applicant’s proposed distribution cannot be effected. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/377/eng@2026-01-26 2

page 2 of 4

15. She therefore urges the court to dismiss the application, particularly on the basis that the proposed mode of distribution is impracticable and incapable of implementation. 16. The Applicant has filed written submissions dated 28th January, 2025 placing reliance on various authorities in support of her case. Analysis and Determination 17. I have read the application before this court, the responses thereto and the rival submissions. 18. The application seeks confirmation of a grant issued on 3rd October, 2022, before the statutory six months, on the basis that the estate has been in dispute for decades and is at risk of continued wastage. The consent to the mode of distribution dated 8th February, 2023 has not been signed by the beneficiaries. 19. The Applicant’s case is anchored on her now-established beneficiary status through her late father following court-directed DNA testing, the revocation of the earlier Thika grant and allegations that prior distribution and transfers were undertaken unlawfully and/or in defiance of court orders, thus requiring court intervention to regularize the administration and conclude the matter. 20. The Respondent, however, asserts that the estate was fully distributed in 2008 pursuant to a confirmed grant that remained valid until it was set aside years later, and that the assets are now in the hands of third parties, making the Applicant’s proposed redistribution impossible to implement. 21. While a later revocation can, in appropriate cases, open the door to consequential rectification/ cancellation where dealings were tainted by fraud, illegality or want of jurisdiction, the court will be slow to approve a confirmation framework that assumes assets remain available when ownership has already shifted and third-party interests may be implicated. 22. The dispute therefore appears less about the timing of confirmation and more about whether the court presently has a sufficiently accurate inventory, a verified status of current registrations/holdings and a distribution proposal that accounts for the reality on the ground, especially if reversals, tracing or cancellation of titles would be required, which ordinarily demands specific pleadings, evidence, and, where necessary, joinder and due process for affected persons. 23. In view of the history of this cause I find that it might be prejudicial to discuss this estate without the input of other parties who may already be in possession of the properties bequeathed to them via the now annulled grant. 24. Further it is not known as at now what is the fate of these capital assets of the estate. 25. In light of the foregoing, I direct as follows: a. The administrators to file a current and an accurate inventory and schedule of assets showing current registrations, transfers since 2008 and what (if any) remains in the estate, supported by searches and any other legal documents. b. The parties to identify and, if necessary, join/serve any third parties whose titles or interests may be affected by any proposed redistribution or cancellation. c. The parties to file a revised proposed mode of distribution limited to assets proved to be available, and/or proposing specific consequential orders (rectification/cancellation/tracing) where illegality is alleged, with supporting evidence. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/377/eng@2026-01-26 3

page 3 of 4

d. The above directions be complied within 45 days from the date herein. e. Each party to bear own costs. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA VIDEO LINK AT NAIROBI THIS 26TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026. H K CHEMITEI JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/377/eng@2026-01-26 4

page 4 of 4