High Court 614 of 2026

3. The application is based on the grounds thereof and supported by affidavit sworn by A W N on 16th December, 2024. 4. She avers inter alia that she is the deceased’s biological daughter and the second of three children born to P C N (deceased in 1999) and E W N (deceased in 2021), who were lawfully married in the USA and lived together at the family home in Lavington (L.R. No. 3734/707) acquired in 1968 and occupied from 1970. 5. She recounts that her parents jointly owned and operated a fashion college and amassed substantial assets, all meticulously managed by her late mother, who was appointed Administrator of her late husband’s estate in 2008 but whose grant was later revoked due to non-attendance, leading to her appointment as Administrator of her father’s estate in 2015 and confirmation on 3rd October, 2024. 6. Following her mother’s sudden death in August 2021 at the Lavington home, she returned to oversee funeral rites, paid outstanding utility bills and maintenance costs from her own funds and later obtained confirmation of her mother’s estate in October 2022, distributing it promptly. 7. She further states that the Lavington property remains registered in the deceased’s name, the estate has no liquid cash and urgent liabilities and rates, legal fees and charges including an income tax encumbrance must be settled from the sale proceeds pursuant to court orders. 8. She has taken steps to value and market the property, engaged agents, shown prospective buyers and paid for permits and repairs from her own pocket, seeking reimbursement. 9. However, since December 2024, unknown armed trespassers allegedly invaded the Lavington home, chased away security, interfered with boundary fencing, possibly commenced construction, ignored notices to vacate and obstructed access for the Administrator and beneficiaries, leading to loss of buyers, reputational harm and risk of attachment and auction. 10. She emphasizes statutory timelines under sections 83(d) and (g) of the Law of Succession Act requiring completion of administration and settlement of debts within prescribed periods, which are imperiled by the invasion and lack of access. She contends that without urgent court intervention to remove the trespassers with police assistance, restrain further intermeddling, and secure safe access to the property, the estate will waste away and the rights of all beneficiaries will be irreparably prejudiced. 11. The application dated 13th March, 2025 filed by F A N and Tanya Nderito seeks for ORDERS THAT: 1. Spent. 2. Pending hearing and determination of these summons inter partes, or until further orders of the honourable court, a temporary order of stay be and is hereby issued restraining any sale, disposition and or distribution of L. R. No. 7741/ 286 Kitusuru, Nairobi. 3. Leave be and is hereby granted to the Applicants, F A N, Tanya Nderito and Wambui Nderitu to lodge an appeal against the ruling and order of the honourable court of 3rd October, 2024. 4. An order be and is hereby issued extending time within which to file a notice of appeal by F A N, Tanya Nderito and Wambui Nderitu, against the ruling and order of the honourable court of 3rd October, 2024, and the notice of appeal thereon filed herein dated 13th March, 2025, be and is hereby deemed as to have been properly filed in time. 5. Pending hearing and determination of the appeal, to be filed in the court of appeal by F A N, Tanya Nderito and Wambui Nderitu, against the ruling and order of the honourable https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/614/eng@2026-01-29 2

page 2 of 9

court, a temporary order of stay be and is hereby issued restraining any sale, disposition and or distribution of L.R. No. 7741/286 Kitusuru Nairobi. 6. Costs of this application be provided for. 12. The application is based on the grounds thereof and supported by affidavit sworn by F A N on 13th March, 2025. 13. She avers inter alia that she is the Administrator of the estate of the late M M N, a son of the deceased whose estate is the subject of these proceedings and acknowledges that the High Court confirmed the grant on 3rd October, 2024 pursuant to the summons dated 8th August, 2022. She contends, however, that both the summons for confirmation and the resulting certificate of confirmation of grant were legally defective and issued in contravention of the judgment and decree of Muigai J and the Law of Succession Act. 14. In particular, she argues that L.R. No. 7741/285, which had been expressly excluded from the deceased’s estate as a gift inter vivos, was improperly cited and distributed in the confirmed grant, rendering the certificate non-compliant and liable to recall. 15. She further maintains that the confirmation of grant undermines Administrators’ statutory duties under Section 83, especially by leaving realization of certain properties in Githurai and Mombasa to the Administrator’s discretion without a binding obligation to pursue and report on them, thereby prejudicing beneficiaries. 16. She also asserts that the court, in confirming the grant, relied on earlier decisions that she views as discriminatory and disinheriting her family of an equal share in L.R. No. 7741/286 Kitisuru, contrary to Article 27 of the Constitution. 17. On that basis, she seeks leave and enlargement of time to appeal the ruling of 3rd October, 2024, explaining that the delay arose from an honest mistake of counsel in filing an appeal without leave, a requirement only clarified to them upon delivery of a Court of Appeal ruling on 21st February, 2025. 18. She argues that there are serious and arguable grounds for appeal, including the legality of the confirmed grant, prejudice arising from discretionary administration of estate assets and alleged constitutional discrimination in distribution. 19. Invoking Rule 73 of the Probate Rules and Article 159 of the Constitution, she urges the court to grant leave to appeal and a limited stay of distribution of L.R. No. 7741/286 pending determination of the application and intended appeal, contending that no prejudice will be occasioned as other estate assets remain undistributed, while failure to grant a stay would render any successful appeal nugatory and defeat the ends of justice. 20. The application is opposed vide replying affidavits sworn by A W N and J K N on 1st April, 2025 and 5th May, 2025. 21. A W N avers inter alia that she is the deceased’s biological daughter and the duly confirmed Administrator of his estate, while F A N is the widow of the deceased’s late son and therefore has no locus standi in the estate of P C N, the deceased herein. F’s adult daughters have independently participated in the proceedings through counsel and F cannot purport to litigate on their behalf or swear affidavits without proper authority. 22. The legal position regarding the Kitisuru properties was conclusively settled in the judgment of Lady Justice Muigai in 2015, which held that L.R. No. 7741/285 was a gift inter vivos to the late M M N and belongs absolutely to his family, while L.R. No. 7741/286 forms part of the deceased’s estate https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/614/eng@2026-01-29 3

page 3 of 9

and is to be shared equally between Angela and her brother John, a position consistently reaffirmed in subsequent rulings in 2019 and 2024. 23. Despite full participation in the proceedings, F and her daughters neither appealed these decisions in time nor can they now reopen them after unsuccessfully pursuing a review in 2023. 24. She contends that the Applicants are deliberately obstructing long-overdue distribution by unlawfully occupying L.R. No. 7741/286, denying her and her brother access, destroying boundary fences and mischaracterizing enforcement efforts as an attempt to dispossess a matrimonial home. 25. She further explains that administration has been hampered by lack of funds, beneficiaries’ refusal to contribute, illegal occupation of other estate properties and an erroneous reference to “consent” in police assistance orders that requires correction, though she has personally incurred expenses for rates and security and is entitled to reimbursement under Section 83 of the Law of Succession Act. 26. She urges the court to reject what she terms frivolous and malicious applications aimed at delaying distribution, direct beneficiaries to cooperate financially and allow subdivision or enforcement of the confirmed grant so she may secure her lawful share without further obstruction, emphasizing that L.R. No. 7741/285 was never subject to redistribution and was mentioned only to clarify the prior gift to the late Martin’s family. 27. J K N avers inter alia that he is the deceased’s only surviving son and a long-standing beneficiary who has participated in the succession proceedings since inception. He contends that the three applications dated 13th March, 2025 are incompetent and fatally defective because they were filed by a firm of advocates not properly on record, no leave or consent having been obtained to replace the firm that represented the Applicants up to the final determination confirming the grant on 3rd October, 2024. 28. He argues that the applications are frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of process and a deliberate attempt by F A N and her daughters to delay distribution after nearly 19 years of litigation. 29. He further submits that the prayer for leave to appeal is unmerited and time-barred, as the legal status and distribution of L.R. Nos. 7741/285 and 7741/286 were conclusively determined by Lady Justice M.W. Muigai on 28th August, 2015, with subsequent rulings in 2019 and 2024 merely reiterating that decision. 30. The Applicants, having been parties to those proceedings, neither appealed in time nor can they now do so after electing to pursue an unsuccessful review and are therefore guilty of inordinate delay and laches. 31. He maintains that there is no arguable appeal, that any intended appeal is an abuse of process and that similar applications for leave and stay were already struck out by the Court of Appeal in February 2025. 32. He adds that he has pending applications before the Court of Appeal seeking to strike out the impugned notices of appeal, making it prudent for this court to stay its hand. 33. Finally, he opposes any further stay of distribution, noting that the Court of Appeal has already declined such relief and that granting it would unjustly prolong distribution to the prejudice of beneficiaries who have waited for almost two decades. 34. The application dated 20th March, 2025 filed by the Applicant, J K N, seeks for ORDERS THAT: 1. Spent. 2. This honourable court be pleased to issue an order revoking the grant of letters of administration issued on 8th November, 2006 and rectified on 28th August, 2015 to A W N. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/614/eng@2026-01-29 4

page 4 of 9

3. Upon granting order No. 2 above, this honourable court be pleased to appoint J K N as the Administrator of the Estate of P C N (deceased). SUBPPARA 4. This honourable court be pleased to make such other and/or further orders/directions as may be just and expedient in the circumstances. 5. The costs of this application be in the cause. 35. The application is based on the grounds thereof and supported by affidavit and further affidavit sworn by J K N on 20th March, 2025 and 5th May, 2025. 36. He avers inter alia that he is the deceased’s only surviving son and states that although a grant of letters of administration was issued to A W N in 2006, later rectified in 2015 and confirmed by the court on 3rd October, 2024, the current Administrator has failed to diligently administer or distribute the estate. More than six months after confirmation of the grant, no valuation has been undertaken on any estate asset, despite the court having directed those assets be valued, sold and proceeds distributed among the beneficiaries, namely the Administrator, himself and the two adult daughters of the late M M N. 37. He contends that the Administrator has remained uncooperative and inactive, notwithstanding the court’s orders of 20th November, 2024 granting her police assistance to take possession, fence, survey and value L.R. No. 7741/286 Kitisuru; and the subsequent approval by the Nairobi Regional Police Commander for ten officers to provide security. 38. Despite these measures, no valuation or meaningful step has been taken and no explanation offered for the inaction. He further avers that the Administrator has failed to address illegal occupation of other estate properties in Lavington, Githurai and Mombasa, has not taken effective steps to remove trespassers or facilitate valuation and has refused to cooperate with other beneficiaries in formulating a strategy to secure and distribute the estate. 39. He argues that her own admissions demonstrate an inability or unwillingness to perform her statutory duties under Section 83 of the Law of Succession Act, particularly in taking possession and preserving estate property. 40. He maintains that there is no court order preventing the Administrator from accessing L.R. No. 7741/286 and that her claims of obstruction by third parties are unsupported, given the existence of a valid court order and police security. He asserts that the administratrix’s explanations regarding lack of funds, alleged interference by relatives and references to disputes in their late mother’s estate are diversionary and do not justify prolonged inaction, especially where estate assets continue to waste under unlawful occupation. 41. He expresses loss of confidence in the Administrator, alleging poor communication, refusal to consult and failure over many years to advance either estate to completion. 42. In view of the prolonged delays, prejudice to beneficiaries who have waited nearly two decades and the Administrator’s demonstrated incapacity or neglect, he urges the court to revoke the existing grant and appoint him as Administrator pursuant to Section 66 of the Law of Succession Act. He argues that he is of equal priority and better placed to conclude the administration and distribution of the deceased’s estate. 43. The application is opposed vide replying affidavit sworn by A W N on 24th March, 2025. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/614/eng@2026-01-29 5

page 5 of 9

44. She avers that she is the deceased’s biological daughter and the court-appointed Administrator of his estate. She denies, as malicious and untrue, allegations that she has deliberately failed to distribute the estate, noting that she is herself an equal beneficiary. The Kitisuru property, L.R. No. 7741/286, was determined to be jointly owned by her and her brother J N, yet F A N and her daughters have persistently denied both of them access, repeatedly demolishing boundary fences and blocking entry while falsely portraying her actions as an attempt to dispossess F of a matrimonial home. 45. Despite F holding the deed plan to the adjacent plot L.R. No. 7741/285, she has refused to fence her own land and has instead continued to occupy and interfere with L.R. No. 7741/286, allegedly hiring goons to bar lawful access. She states that she has reported these acts of trespass and intermeddling to the police, while also incurring substantial personal costs securing estate properties, paying rates and attempting administration in an estate that has no liquid assets and where other beneficiaries have refused to contribute financially. 46. She explains that distribution has stalled due to lack of funds, ongoing illegal occupation of estate properties and beneficiaries’ non-cooperation, though she has initiated liquidation of shares and recovery of bank funds. She further disputes claims surrounding police assistance orders, clarifying that the reference to “consent” was erroneous and is being rectified and that progress is constrained by insufficient funds for valuation and surveying. 47. Drawing on past experiences where her brother allegedly disposed of estate assets, forged documents and acted dishonestly in the administration of their mother’s estate, she asserts that he is untrustworthy and should not be entrusted with estate property. She therefore urges the court to direct beneficiaries to cooperate financially or, in the alternative, allow subdivision of the estate so that each beneficiary may independently pursue their share, as continued joint administration has become unworkable and has frustrated final distribution. 48. The application dated 27th January, 2025 filed by the Applicant, F A N, seeks for ORDERS THAT: 1. Spent. 2. This honourable court be pleased to issue an order staying execution of the orders given herein on 20th November, 2024 and issued on 21st November, 2024 and 19th November, 2024 respectively pending hearing and determination of this application. 3. This honourable court be pleased to set aside the orders given herein on 20th November, 2024 and issued on 21st November, 2024 and 19th November, 2024 respectively pending hearing and determination of this application. 4. Upon grating orders 2 and 3 above, this honourable court be pleased to set aside the proceedings of 20th November, 2024 and issue fresh directions on hearing of the application dated 23rd October, 2024. 49. The application is based on the grounds thereof and supported by affidavit sworn by F A N on 27th January, 2025. 50. She avers that although she instructed her former advocate only to seek time to oppose the Administrator’s application for police assistance to take possession, survey, fence and value L.R. No. 7741/286 Kitisuru, the court nonetheless issued orders on 20th November, 2024 purportedly granting the substantive prayer, one of which misleadingly indicated it was by consent. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/614/eng@2026-01-29 6

page 6 of 9

51. She states that she was never served with these orders, only learning of them from a stranger and that the existence of two conflicting orders arising from the same proceedings raises serious concerns of illegality, impunity and breach of due process. 52. She contends that granting the sole substantive prayer effectively disposed of the application without affording her an opportunity to file a response or be heard on the merits, thereby violating her constitutional right to a fair hearing. 53. She further depones that the Administrator has threatened her and her children, invoked the alleged consent order to justify imminent execution, engaged law enforcement to facilitate entry onto the property and intends to fence, value and dispose of the land so as to defeat her children’s beneficial interests. 54. She adds that there is a pending appeal challenging the earlier ruling of 3rd October, 2024, that the property is already secured by a perimeter wall and is not at risk of waste; and that past acts of intermeddling by the Administrator, including demolition of the perimeter wall, demonstrate bad faith. 55. She therefore urges the court to urgently stay execution, set aside the impugned orders and proceedings of 20th November, 2024, and safeguard her and her children’s rights by allowing her to be heard on merit in the interest of natural justice and fairness. 56. The application dated 22nd August, 2025 was marked as withdrawn on 7th October, 2025. 57. J K N has filed written submissions dated 18th July, 2025 on the application dated 13th March, 2025; and 5th May, 2025 to the applications dated 16th December, 2024, 7th January, 2025, 4th February, 2025 and notice or preliminary objection dated 12th February, 2025. He has also filed written submissions dated 18th July, 2025 in support of the application dated 20th March, 2025. 58. A W N has filed written submissions on all the applications dated 15th May, 2025. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE 59. The consolidated applications raise interrelated disputes arising from the prolonged administration of the estate of P C N (deceased) and centre on four core issues. 60. First is enforcement and protection of estate property, particularly L.R. No. 3734/707 (Lavington) and L.R. No. 7741/286 (Kitisuru), where the confirmed Administrator seeks police assistance to take possession, secure, value and realize the assets for purposes of settling estate liabilities and completing distribution, while opposing parties allege unlawful entry, lack of consent, breach of due process and intermeddling. 61. Second is the finality and legality of the confirmed grant and distribution orders of 3rd October, 2024, with one camp asserting that the status of the Kitisuru properties was conclusively settled by prior judgments (notably Muigai J, 2015) and cannot be reopened, while the other challenges the confirmation as defective, discriminatory and contrary to the Law of Succession Act and the Constitution; and seeks leave to appeal out of time with attendant stays. 62. Third is the question of locus standi, procedure and abuse of process, including whether F A N, as widow of a deceased son, can properly move the court on behalf of her adult daughters, whether applications were competently filed by advocates properly on record, and whether repeated applications amount to re-litigation, delay and laches after failed reviews and struck-out appeals. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/614/eng@2026-01-29 7

page 7 of 9

63. Fourth is fitness and effectiveness of the current Administrator, pitting allegations of inaction, failure to value and distribute estate assets and loss of confidence against explanations of obstruction by trespassers, lack of funds, beneficiaries’ non-cooperation and ongoing enforcement efforts; culminating in a counter-application for revocation of the grant and substitution of the Administrator. 64. Overall, the dispute reflects a tension between the need to enforce and conclude long-delayed administration and distribution of the estate, and competing claims of procedural fairness, appellate rights and protection of alleged beneficial interests pending appeal. Analysis And Determination 65. I have carefully considered the applications, the responses as well as the written submissions filed by the parties and address them as follows: 66. The issues for determination, as crafted by the parties, are as follows: a. Whether the respondents engaged in activities against the estate deemed to be intermeddling. b. Whether the 1st applicant has locus standi with the estate of the deceased and is a beneficiary? c. Whether the Applicants’ application is merited as to warrant the grant of the orders sought. 67. The central tension is between enforcement of a confirmed grant and preservation of estate property on the one hand, and procedural fairness and appellate rights on the other. Once a grant is confirmed, the Administrator is under a positive statutory duty to gather, preserve and distribute the estate and to settle liabilities within the framework of Section 83 of the Law of Succession Act. The court’s probate jurisdiction (including its inherent power) exists precisely to prevent wastage and intermeddling and to ensure its decrees are not rendered academic. 68. On the facts as framed, police assistance and ancillary protective orders are, in principle, appropriate where there is credible evidence of trespass, violent obstruction, or a real risk of waste that prevents valuation, possession, or realization. However, such enforcement should be narrowly tailored to what is necessary to secure access, valuation and preservation (and, where required, lawful eviction through due process), rather than to conclusively determine disputed proprietary or occupational claims by force. 69. In practical terms, if obstruction/trespass is demonstrated, the court is justified in directing security to facilitate access for survey/valuation and to prevent interference with estate property, because the beneficiaries’ rights and the estate’s capacity to meet debts are directly prejudiced by continued occupation and disruption. 70. It is alleged that the 20th November, 2024 orders were erroneously recorded as “by consent” when consent was not in fact given. A perusal of the original file copy of this order does not indicate that the orders were issued by consent. To this end, I do not find credibility in this allegation made by the Administrator in a bid to explain the inability to execute the said orders, despite the fact that 10 police officers were availed to assist in this process. 71. What then is the way forward in this unnecessarily long protracted cause pitting siblings.? 72. To be fair to the Administrator she has demonstrated in my view that she has attempted to execute the grant including involving the police and paying from her own sources. This was not controverted. 73. It is a fact that F stays in the Lavington home with her two children, although Angela called them strangers but in her subsequent affidavits, she confirmed this position. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/614/eng@2026-01-29 8

page 8 of 9

74. The certificate of confirmation of grant dated 3rd October 2024 to the extend that it has not been revoked or set aside remains a final legal instrument herein. The same clearly spells out how the estate ought to be shared out. 75. The Kitusuru property LR NO 7741/286 and Lavington LR NO. 3734/707 were to be sold and proceeds shared out in the ratio mentioned therein. 76. Obviously, they cannot be sold without valuation being undertaken and potential purchasers approached. 77. I suppose if any of the family members is able to purchase, the better. But for now, I find the efforts by the administratrix to carry out the exercise must be supported by all and sundry. 78. The prayers for appeal in my view have come to late in the day. I do not find any plausible reason why the 2nd and third respondent failed to file a proper Notice of Appeal or for that matter file their appeal within a reasonable or appropriate period. Blaming her counsel previously on record is too pedestrian in the circumstances. 79. The prayers to revoke the grant at this juncture as prayed by 1st Respondent is not efficacious for the reasons I have stated above. 80. The sum total in my view is to have the grant executed as a matter of priority and without any let or hindrances from the beneficiaries. The same must however be done lawfully and transparently. 81. In the premises I hereby make the following global orders: (a) The application to revoke the grant issued to the administratrix herein is disallowed. (b) The prayer for leave or extent the period to file a Notice of Appeal is disallowed. (c) The Administratrix is hereby directed to execute the grant forthwith as earlier mandated by this court. (d) The 2nd and 3rd Respondents and in particular F A N, and her daughters, T W N and W N are directed to provide unhindered access to the Administrator specifically to carry out valuation of land parcel number 3734/707 Lavington property in execution of the grant. (e) Pursuant to order (d) above the same does not warrant in any manner the eviction or harassment in any manner whether by the Administrator, the police or in any way the above stated persons and any form of execution must be lawfully sanctioned. (f) The Administratrix is granted 90 days from the date herein to carry out the exercise and file a report to this court. (g) Save as otherwise ordered the other prayers in all the applications are disallowed. (h) Each party shall meet their respective costs. DaTED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA VIDEO LINK AT NAIROBI THIS 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026. H K CHEMITEI JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/614/eng@2026-01-29 9

page 9 of 9