High Court 3095 of 2026

C. That the Honourable Court do issue further orders and give directions as it may deem fit to meet the ends of justice. And for orders 2. 1. A declaration that the Subject is adjudged as a person suffering from mental sickness under the Mental Health Act, cap 248 of the Laws of Kenya. 2. That the Applicants be appointed as guardian ad litem to represent the subject person herein in all matters and with full authority to manage the affairs and estate of the subject. 3. That there are no orders as to cost.” (sic) The application was based on grounds that the subject had been diagnosed with senile dementia and the applicant daughter was her primary care giver and supported by the Affidavit of Applicant sworn on 24/11/2025 setting out the facts relied on as follows: “ I NWG of P.O Box XXXX - 00520 Ruai in the Republic of Kenya hereby conscientiously declare solemn oath and state as follows» 1. That I am a female adult of sound mind and the Applicant herein hence competent to swear this affidavit. 2. That the subject herein, ANK is my mother. 3. That I have been living with her and I am her primary caregiver. 4. That in 2019 the subject developed forgetfulness, tardiness and loss of personal items which has developed to senile dementia. (Attached hereto and marked 'NWG l' is a copy of a psychiatric medical report) 5. That she cannot manage herself and her memory is lost to the extent that she has very low level of concentration or recognition of her children and surroundings. 6. That she is incapable of making any sound decisions with regard to her affairs such as financial transactions. 7. That we own a joint account at Bingwa Sacco, being account no. 4107XXXX which we have continually' managed but can no longer transact with since the subject developed senile dementia. (Annexed hereto and marked 'NWG 2' is a copy of a bank card 8. That the bank card indicates my name as NWK whereby K is my surname but I later on adopted the name G. therefore both names refer to me. (Annexed hereto and marked 'N G 3'is a copy of an Affidavit sworn on 14.05.2015). 9. That it is imperative that a guardian ad litem is appointed to manage my mother's affairs and estate in her best interest and I am in a capacity to take up this role as her continued primary caregiver.” https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/3095/eng@2026-03-06 2

page 2 of 11

3. 4. The application was opposed and the applicant’s brother Mr. NK filed a Replying Affidavit portraying the applicant as an unsuitable person for having failed to account for her dealings with monies and assets of the subject’s estate as follows: “ 1. That I am a male adult of sound mind residing in Nairobi within the Republic aforesaid and with authority of the other interested parties, I am competent to swear this affidavit (attached hereto and marked “NK" is a copy of the authority); 2. That I know the applicant herein and the interested parties, LWK and KK are siblings and ANK is our mother and owner of account no. XXXX held by Bingwa Sacco (hereafter "The Said Account"); 3. That I know the applicant herein was made a signatory to the said account 17 years ago and she has failed. refused and/or declined to account for monies withdrawn from the said account. 4. That I know due to the applicant's continued non-disclosure of how the monies is spent for 17 years, we requested Bingwa Sacco to suspend the said account, which they did. 5. Tiiat if allowed as interested parties, paragraph 4 above be allowed as our defence to the claimant's application. 6. That 1 know this is a Simple family issue that can be wholesomely resolved by accountability and honesty among all parities. 7. That I ask this Court to allow my sister, brother and myself to be enjoined in this application so that we can amicably resolve this issue.” The applicant filed a supplementary Affidavit in reply to the Replying Affidavit of the Respondents as follows: “ 1. I am the Applicant herein and the biological daughter of the Subject, ANK. I am competent to swear this Affidavit in reply to the Affidavit sworn by NK on 23rd December 2025. 2. That I have read the Replying Affidavit and Submissions filed.by the Interested Parties. I wish to state at the outset that the contents thereof are not only factually incorrect but are deposed with malice and a deliberate intent to mislead this Honourable Court. 3. That the Interested Party alleges that. I have been withdrawing and wasting money from the Subject’s account for 17 years (since 2008). This allegation is demonstrably false. 4. That the Subject's bank account was suspended by Bingwa Sacco and I cannot be granted access pies of the bank statements to demonstrate that I have not made any withdrawals or transactions to the account prior to 2019 coinciding exactly with the Subject’s medical diagnosis and incapacity. Prior to 2019, the account was depleted solely by the Subject's own generosity and lack of oversight. The alleged wastage of money can only assessed through the said https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/3095/eng@2026-03-06 3

page 3 of 11

bank statements which can only be acquired through this Honourable Court's direction. 5. That these official records demonstrate that the Respondents are misrepresenting facts to characterize my recent and necessary intervention as a long-term scheme. 6. That the Interested Parties allege mismanagement of the farm resulting in low yields of 1.4kg per stem. This is a distortion of agricultural reality as the 2nd Interested Party (KK) lacks the professional qualification to assess agricultural output. 7. Ti1at the yield of 2 Kg per stem cited by the Interested Parties is a theoretical average and not a guaranteed standard for aged bushes. The current yield is consistent with prevailing weather conditions and the age of the crop. 8. That it is hypocritical for the 2nd Interested Party to criticize the Subject's farm yields when his own portion of the subdivided land, situated on the same soil, produces significantly lower yields due to his own neglect. 9. That crucially, the Subject's estate operates on a financial deficit. The costs of labour, farm inputs and household upkeep far exceed the income generated from tea, coffee, and livestock. 10. That I have consistently covered this deficit from my personal funds to ensure the Subject lives comfortably and. happily in her sunset years. The Interested Parties are unaware of this deficit because they do not contribute to the Subject's expenses. 11. That the Interested Parties' sudden interest in the management of the estate is calculated to coincide with the annual Tea Bonus payment, which is typically released in October. 12. That for the entire tea farming year ending September 2025, I solely financed all farm inputs, fertilizer, husbandry, and labour required to maintain the crop and ensure a yield. Attached hereto and marked “NWG -1” is a summary of the expenditures spent on the Subject's property) 13. That in the event that this honourable court grants orders favouring the Interested Parties it would result in Unjust Enrichment, as they seek to harvest a·financial bonus they did not invest in, causing me direct financial loss of the capital I personally injected to keep the Subject’s estate productive. 14. That the allegation that I am "laying a claim to solely inherit" the Subject is malicious and unfounded because the history of our family inheritance clarifies the true position:- a) I received No Portion of the 7-acre ancestral family farm where the Subject resides, whereas all other siblings including the Interested Parties, received their respective portions of land. This exclusion was per the express instruction of our late father, who directed that I would eventually be the beneficiary of the Subject's (my mother's) share. b) The 15tInterested Party (NK) was the majority beneficiary, inheriting a separate parcel of land in Embu. c) The Nanyuki pared was to my son, Alex G. and not to me personally. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/3095/eng@2026-03-06 4

page 4 of 11

(Attached hereto and marked “NWG-2” are copies of title Land Green Card and Certificate of Confirmation of Grant). 15. That the allegation that I am a "remote supervisor" is insulting and deliberately ignores the history of my direct intervention when the Interested Parties abandoned the Subject. 16. That in 2019, the Subject fell critically ill while at the farm. Despite the 2nd Interested Party (KK) living on the same land, no action was taken to assist her. I personally travelled to the farm, rescued the Subject and facilitated her admission to Coptic Hospital for urgent medical treatment (Attached hereto and marked "NWG-3” are copies of medical records form Coptic Hospital). 17. That upon her discharge from Coptic Hospital, the Subject was too frail to return to consequently lived continuously in my direct care at my residence in Nairobi for a period of three (3) years (1019-2022). 18. That when the subject eventually insisted on returning to her own home, I established a robust care structure involving PK (the Subject's grandson and my nephew) and his wife L who serves as the full-time housekeeper. 19. That contrary to the Interested Parties' claims of neglect, P and L reside immediately next door to the Subject and, under m facilitation, ensure that she is well-fed, maintains high standards of personal hygiene, and receives constant company and entertainment to the isolation associated with dementia. 20. That this stands in stark contrast to the 2nd Interested Party (KK], who despite living on the opposite end of the same 7-acre parcel, has historically shown total apathy toward mother’s welfare. Proximity of residence does not equate to proximity of care. It is the grandson (P), not the son (K), who provides the daily warmth and presence the Subject requires. 21. That the Interested Party's claim that the account was suspended due to my alleged “non-disclosure” is a fabrication. 22. That the true cause of the suspension was the conduct of the Interested Parties, specifically N and KK, who dragged the Subject, visibly confused and frail. to Bingwa Sacco to force a withdrawal. 23. That the Saceo management, recognizing the Subject’s incapacity and the interference by the Interested Parties, rightfully declined the transaction and suspended the account to protect the Subject's funds from exploitation. 24. That I convened the meeting at the Chief' office on 29/10/2025 solely to compel the siblings to reinstate the account so that the Subject could survive. (Annexed hereto and marked NWG-4 is copy of chief’s letter dated 29.10.2025). 25. That during the said meeting, the Interested Parties refused to' cooperate and displayed zero concern regarding who was feeding their mother, catering for the farm, or paying for her dementia md hypertension medication. 26. That since the account suspension m October 2025 to date, not a single Interested Party has contributed a cent towards the Subject's livelihood. I https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/3095/eng@2026-03-06 5

page 5 of 11

have single-handedly shouldered the entire financial burden from my personal funds. (Attached hereto and marked "NWG-5" are receipts of payments made by me personally since October 2025). who alleges must prove, The Interested Parties have done neither. 5. 27. That the allegation that I confiscated the Subject's Sim card to' isolate her is false. The Sim card automatically blocked by Safaricom after AK (son to the 2nd Interested Party) repeatedly attempted to guess the Subject's M-Pesa Pin with the specific intention of gaining unauthorized access to her funds. 28. That in light of this attempted financial theft and the Subject's advanced dementia, I determined unsafe to renew the line. Communication remains unrestricted, as the Subject is readily accessible through her primary caregivers, P and L, and frequently receives physical visits from myself and her grandchildren. 29. That the Interested Parties are motivated by an interest in the Subject's property (specifically the Tea Bonus), whereas I am motivated solely by the Subject's preservation. 30. That I pray that this Honourable Court dismisses the objections of the Interested Parties. In the interest of maintaining family harmony, I do not seek costs against my siblings.” The Court then heard the application on 23/1/2026 by way of oral submissions of the parties and examination of the subject in presence of the applicant NW, the respondents NK and JK, and the subject AN, as set out in the record as follows: “ Applicant NWG Application for guardianship for the subject. I have been taking care of her since 2008. I used my own financial resources upto 2019 In 2012, I had to leave school to come and take care of her. Our worker took her to hospital while my brother who is at the same compound did not help. In 2019, the subject called me and said she was not feeling well. JK assisted her call. I took her to Hospital. I have ben paying for her treatment. I am authorised to operate the bank. When she was admitted she was at my place. I footed the bill. They did not help in clearing the bill. The subject has been using her bonus to manage the farm and when it is over, she calls me for money. The doctor has diagnosed a case of dementia. See Report dated 16/10/2025. I have been operating her account because she could not do it until my brothers went to the Bank and suspended the account yet they do not cater for her needs. None of them is catering for the costs. Mr. NK Deponent of Replying Affidavit We went with our mother to get an account to know how my sister is using the money. She has been using the money and has refused to account. My mother called me to her place and asked about the money. I went with the subject. We did not have an ID. It is kept by N. We were advised to go for another Identity card as she thought her Identity card was lost. The account was suspended. It cannot be accessed by the applicant or ourselves. We can join in the management of the farms. She does not us to get involved. The matter has been taken https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/3095/eng@2026-03-06 6

page 6 of 11

to the Chief on a different occasion. It was an issue of inheritance of the subject’s land. Her request is that she inherits our mother’s land. We took the matter to the Tribunal and latter came to this Court. Court examines the Subject: I am ANK. I do not know when I was born. I did not attend school. I understand that I am in Court. I am here because there is a case. I have been told to come. I live alone at my home. My home is at [Particulars Withheld]. NWG is my daughter. NK is my son. JK is also my son. W is my daughter, W is my daughter and I have two male children. [Application before the Court by W to act as guardian] The account is now closed. I do not agree that W should operate the account without my signature. I cannot allow any other person to operate my account alone. I can only agree that the account be operated when I am there. I can withdraw the money together with another person. The other person may be any other child that I shall bring to Court to be approved and [given] authority. I agree that NK should be the one to operate the account with me. I do not agree that i should authorise any one the children to operate the account in my absence. I am the one who takes the children to the Bank so that I can show them how to withdraw. It is N who should help me to make withdrawals from the Bank. It has to be with me present. I do not agree that NWG should be appointed. She is married and am alone with other children. If she takes the money and spends it with her husband what becomes of me and the children that I live with. The children I have in mind are W, L, N, W. [Court.: Subject is composed and responds lucidly.] N is at her husband’s. How can I allow her to withdraw the money. I have cows that nobody wants. I would want the daughters to state that they want their mother’s wealth. Applicant in reply: The subject has only my nephew who lives next door with their children. She does not live alone. The contribution by way of tea bushes – they were told that they should plant for our mother. The bushes are now 1000 but the tea goes to themselves. The are not contributing anything. The subject does not know that I am authorized to operate the bank account. She does not know that I am the one who pays for the land. I am not married now. She has memory loss. She cannot remember.” 6. Judgment was reserved for 6/3/2026. Determination 7. As shown in the affidavits sworn by the parties and especially the reply by the applicant at paragraph 14 of her Supplementary Affidavit, the subterranean issues of inheritance of the subject’s estate is the background scenario around which the present application for guardianship and management is, respectively, made and resisted by the siblings. The application before the Court is one for appointment of a guardian and or manager for the subject and her estate and not inheritance cause, and the Court cannot properly entertain inheritance disputes especially on the estate of a living parent. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/3095/eng@2026-03-06 7

page 7 of 11

8. See MWM vs PMN & 5 others [1995] KECA 117 (KLR) where a daughter wanted the court to stop her father from transferring those lands on the basis that as a daughter like other children was entitled to inherit land from the father and that the court should prevent her alleged right to inheritance being rendered nugatory in the event that father disposed the land, and he Court of Appeal held that the application was totally frivolous and doubted whether there would be any legal basis upon which court can prevent the parent from using his land in the manner he pleases and said that there no law which requires a man to preserve his property so that his children can exercise their alleged right of inheritance in the event of his death. 9. As regards the application before the court for guardianship and management for a person, and estate of a person, suffering from mental disorder, the power of the Court to make guardianship and management orders for the estate of a person suffering for mental disorder is set out in 26 of the Mental Health Act as follows: “ 26. Order for custody, management and guardianship (1) 10. The court may make orders— (a) for the management of the estate of any person suffering from mental disorder; and (b) for the guardianship of any person suffering from mental disorder by any near relative or by any other suitable person. (2) Where there is no known relative or other suitable person, the court may order that the Public Trustee be appointed manager of the estate and guardian of any such person. (3) Whereupon inquiry it is found that the person to whom the inquiry relates is suffering from mental disorder to such an extent as to be incapable of managing his affairs, but that he is capable of managing himself and is not dangerous to himself or to others or likely to act in a manner offensive to public decency, the court may make such orders as it may think fit for the management of the estate of such person, including proper provision for his maintenance and for the maintenance of such members of his family as are dependent upon him for maintenance, but need not, in such case, make any order as to the custody of the person suffering from mental disorder.” Section 2 of the Mental Health Act, which defines as follows - “person suffering from mental disorder” means a person who has been found to be so suffering under this Act and includes a person diagnozed as a psychopathic person with mental illness and person suffering from mental impairment due to alcohol of substance abuse”. The doctor’s medial report dated 16/10/2025 indicated that the subject “has features of senile dementia [and] is showing deficit in her memory” and it recommended that: “ Recommendation Senile dementia is a neuro -degenerative condition which causes progressive deterioration of memory and other executive brain functions. Due to the associated challenges with decision making and ability to mange finances and other resources, it would be prudent to appoint https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/3095/eng@2026-03-06 8

page 8 of 11

an administrator appointed to manage the patient’s estate. She is not able to fully participate in court proceedings as she cannot communicate effectively. Dr. Thuo J.N Psychiatrist Embu Level 5 Hospital” 11. None of the children of the subject before the court denied the subject’s state of mind, and the contest was with regard to who was suitable guardian and manager of her estate, with court accusations and counter-accusations of neglect, mismanagement and unaccountability for the dealings with her estate. 12. The Court was impressed with subject’s clarity of mind during its examination. She clearly understood the nature of the application before the court and had her view as to how to deal with it. She was clear that she must continue to be involved in the conduct of her financial matters of operating her bank accounts. 13. The Court noted that she was categorical of her position that she will transact the business of her financial/banking affairs herself with the assistance her eldest son NK and she did not agree that any of her adult children should be appointed as guardian/manager for purposes of sole operation of her of her financial and economic affairs without her involvement. In particular she was opposed to the applicant’s appointment observing that the applicant did not live with her and was already married. The applicant, however, responded without elaboration that she was now unmarried. 14. However, on account of her loss of memory as diagnosed and certified by the Psychiatrist Dr. Thuo J. N. of Embu Level 5 Hospital, the court must accept that she is a person suffering from mental disorder within he meaning of section 2 of the Mental Health Act. She is, however, obviously in need of assistance on account of her advanced age and limited agility, mental and physical, in her transactions with her bank accounts and other financial affairs and the management of her farms and economic activities thereon. 15. The Court considers that it has a duty to appoint a proper person being any near relative or by any other suitable person for the subject for purposes of “guardianship of subject as “a person suffering from mental disorder”, in terms of section 26 (1) (b) of the Mental Health Act. Such a proper person must in accordance with the Act be a person of close family or other social relationship with the subject. In addition, for effective guardianship the person so appointed must enjoy the confidence of the subject, and the court must not act against the express wishes of the subject so far as these may be established. Findings 16. In the circumstances of this case, having heard the applicant and her siblings in opposition and having examined the subject, the Court considers an appropriate order to be the appointment of three other children of the subject together with the applicant as managers of the subject’s estate under section 26(1) (a) of the Mental Health Act. The guardian will, in terms of section 26 (1) (b) of the Mental Health Act, be appointed from “any near relative or by any other suitable person” taking into account the established wishes of the subject, and such person must enjoy the confidence of the subject so as to provide meaningful assistance to the subject. 17. The Court finds in terms of section 26(3) of the Act that the subject herein is capable of managing herself and is not dangerous to self or to others or likely to act in a manner offensive to public decency, and the Court will only make such orders for the management of the estate of the subject without need to make any order as to the custody of the subject who will remain at her home with such assistance as https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/3095/eng@2026-03-06 9

page 9 of 11

may be required being provided by the guardian as necessary and appropriate. There is liberty to apply if there are changed circumstances in this this regard. 18. The subject confirmed that she preferred to have Mr. NK as her primary assistant in financial matters, and the Court will appoint Mr. NK as the guardian of the subject in terms of section 26 (1) (b) of the Mental Health Act. 19. As regards the manager to the subject’s estate, the Mental Health Act does not prescribe for a number of people who may be appointed. However, by analogy of the Law of Succession Act (section 56 (1) (b) that no grant of representation may be made “to more than four persons in respect of the same property”) as to the maximum number permitted by the law for appointment of administrators to an estate of a deceased person, the Court may appoint upto four managers for the subject. 20. There are four adult children of the subject herein, and the Court considers that the four children of the subject may be appointed co-managers. The respondents consider it a matter capable of resolution out of court by family negotiations. To encourage such resolution of the disputes between the parties herein and in upholding the right of every child to manage the affairs of his/her mother for her sake and their own sakes, the Court will appoint all the four as co-managers of their mother's estate. 21. For avoidance of mismanagement by a single manager bearing in mind the mistrust and contest between the siblings, the Court appoints three other children who are in equal priority with Mr. NK, being JKK, LWK and the applicant herein, NWG, as co-managers with the said guardian for purposes of operation of the financial and economic affairs of the subject including her farm activities and bank accounts. If the applicant has any claim for refunds for monies used on the subject or for the subject’s farm/business operations, the same shall be considered by the managers and settled as appropriate, subject to a full and true account of the dealings with the proceeds from the farm/businesses. There shall be liberty to apply. 22. There is also liberty to apply to court for further orders as necessary and appropriate in the event that they fail to cooperate as co-managers. The Court may then grant management authority to other family members or to the Public Trustee under section 26 (2) of the Mental Health Act. 23. In terms of section 33 of the Mental Health Act, the Court shall require the managers appointed herein to file complete, true and accurate reports on their dealings with the subject’s assets every six (6) months. Section 33(1) provides as follows: “ 33. Manager to furnish inventory and annual accounts (1) Every person appointed by the court to be manager of the estate of a person under this Part shall, within six months of the date of his appointment, deliver to the court and to the Public Trustee (to whom he shall pay such fee as may be prescribed) an inventory of the property belonging to the person of whose estate he has been appointed manager and all such sums of money, goods and effects as he receives on account of the estate, together with a statement of all debts owed by or due to such person, and every such manager shall furnish to the court and to the Public Trustee (to whom he shall pay such fee as may be prescribed) annually, within three months of the 31st December, an account of the property in his charge showing the sums received and disbursed on account of the estate during the year and the https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/3095/eng@2026-03-06 10

page 10 of 11

balance; such inventory, statement and account shall be in the prescribed form.” Orders 24. 25. Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the Court makes the following orders: 1. The Court finds that the subject is a person suffering from mental disorder, within the meaning of the Mental Health Act, and the disorder is identified as Senile Dimentia. 2. The Applicant’s application for her appointment as the sole guardian and manager of the subject is declined. 3. The Court appoints Mr NK as the guardian of the Subject with authority to assist the subject in transacting all legal and financial transactions of the subject in accordance with her wishes, instructions and directions and in accordance with section 26(1) (b) of the Mental Health Act. The applicant shall accordingly surrender the subject’s Identity Card to the brother Mr. NK for safe keePing and use in the course of his guardianship duties. 4. The Court further appoints the said Mr. NK, JKK, LWK together with the applicant NWG to act together as joint managers of the farm, business and other economic affairs of the Subject in terms of section 27 of the Mental Health Act. 5. The co-managers shall file complete, true and accurate reports on their dealings with the subject’s assets every six (6) months from the date of the appointment. 6. Liberty to apply for all the parties. 7. There shall be no orders as to costs. Mention for compliance on 7/12/2026. Order accordingly. DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2026. EDWARD M. MURIITHI JUDGE Appearances: Parties in Person. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/3095/eng@2026-03-06 11

page 11 of 11