Beatrice Murugi Munene v Mary Wanjiku Gakuu

5. That costs of this application be in the cause.” 2. The application was supported by the affidavit of even date sworn by the Applicant. 3. The Respondent Mary Wanjiku Gakuu opposed the application by way of the Replying Affidavit dated 10th November 2025. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The Applicant filed the written submissions dated 8th October 2025 whilst the Respondent relied upon her written submissions dated 10th November 2025. Background 4. This succession cause relates to the estate of the late Joseph Munene Maina (hereinafter ‘the Deceased) who died intestate on 27th September 2001. A copy of the Death Certificate Serial No. xxxxxx is in the Original file. 5. There has been much litigation in this cause which culminated in the Mediation Settlement Agreement which was filed in the High Court on 23rd October 2021. (see Annexture ‘BMM2’ to the Notice of Motion dated 11th June 2025.) By that Mediation Agreement it was agreed that Beatrice Murugu (the Applicant) and Mary Wanjiku Gakuu (the Respondent) be appointed as the joint administrators for the estate 6. The Applicant avers that she is a widow of the Deceased and a joint administrator of the estate. The Applicant complains that the Respondent who is the co-administrator has unilaterally taken control of all rent collection to the exclusion of the applicant. 7. The Applicant states that she is an elderly widow, frail in health who requires medical care. That she is apprehensive that the actions of the Respondent may lead to the dissipation of the estate to the prejudice of the Applicant and the other beneficiaries. Hence the present application seeking to have the rental income collected by a neutral agent. 8. The Respondent opposed the application. She states that the parties initially agreed that the Respondent take up the day to day running of the estate due to the frail nature of the Applicant. The Respondent asserts that all the rental income collected is used for the benefit of the estate i.e paying rates. 9. The Respondent opposes the suggestion that a neutral agent be engaged to collect rents as this would only add to the estates expenses. Analysis and Determination 10. I have carefully considered the application before this court, the reply filed thereto as well as the written submissions filed by both parties. 11. The Applicant sought conservatory orders to restrain the Respondent and her agents from collecting rents from the estate properties. 12. In order for an injunction to be issued, the applicant must satisfy the three requirements as was laid out in the case of Giella v Cassman Brown [1973] EA 348 where the court held that an applicant must demonstrate that they have a prima facie case with a probability of success, demonstrate irreparable injury which cannot be compensated by an award of damages if a temporary injunction is not granted, and if the court is in doubt show that the balance of convenience is in their favour. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/1960/eng@2026-02-20 2

page 2 of 4

13. In the case of Nguruman Limited Vs Jan Bonde Nielson & 2 Others [2014] eKLR, the Court of Appeal expounded on the decision in Giella as follows:“ In an interlocutory injunction application, the applicant has to satisfy the triple requirements to; 14. a. Establish his case only at a prima facie level, b. Demonstrate irreparable injury if a temporary injunction is not granted, and c. Ally any doubts as to (b) showing that the balance of convenience is in his favour. These are the three pillars on which rests the foundation of any order of injunction, interlocutory or permanent. It is established that all the above three conditions and stages are to be applied as separate, distinct, and logical hurdles that he applicant is expected to surmount sequentially.” In Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya Limited and 2 Others [2003] eKLR the Court of Appeal described a ‘prima facie’ case as:“ a case in which on the material presented to the Court, a tribunal properly directing itself will conclude that there exists a right which has apparently been infringed by the opposite party to call for an explanation or rebuttal from the latter.” 15. The Applicant has alleged that the Respondent has more or less pushed her out of the management of the estate. She states that the Respondent has been unilaterally collecting the rental income and has failed to account for the same to the other beneficiaries. She expresses the apprehension that the estate may be dissipated. 16. The Applicant has not tendered any proof of the alleged misuse of the rental income. There is no evidence of diversion of any of the said rental income. 17. By her own admission and based on the attached medical documents it is clear that the Applicant is an elderly woman who is frail and quite ill. Given her condition, it would be quite difficult for her to play an active role in the management of the estate. 18. I find that the Applicant has failed to establish a prima facie case to warrant issuance of the conservatory orders. 19. Having said that Section 83 of the Law of Succession Act Cap 160 Laws of Kenya sets out the duties of personal representatives of an estate. Section 83(e) provides that an administrator has a duty to “ (e) 20. within six months from the date of the grant, to produce to the court a full and accurate inventory of the assets and liabilities of the deceased and a full accurate account of all dealings therewith upto the date of the account.” The Respondent concedes that she has been managing the estate including collecting and dealing with the rental income. She expresses her willingness to render accounts of her management of the estate this far. I am not inclined to grant the prayer for an appointment of an agent to collect the rental income as I do agree with the Respondent that to do so would only increase expenses of the estate. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/1960/eng@2026-02-20 3

page 3 of 4

21. Section 47 of the Law of Succession Act and Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules give the probate court wide discretionary powers. Section 47 of the Law of Succession Act provides: The High Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any application and determine any dispute under this Act and to pronounce such decrees and make such orders therein as may be expedient. Provided that the High Court may for the purpose of this section be represented by Resident Magistrates appointed by the Chief Justice. Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules provides that:Nothing in these Rules shall limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.” 22. Finally I dismiss this application in its entirety. However I do direct that the Respondent file within sixty (60) days full and accurate accounts of her management and dealings with the estate. This being a family matter each side will bear its own costs. DATED IN NYERI THIS 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 ………………………… MAUREEN A. ODERO JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/1960/eng@2026-02-20 4

page 4 of 4