Loise Wambui Chege & 1 other v Veronica Nyambura Irubu & 1 other

Plots No. 157 and 24, and Plot No. 140) had already been given to named individuals during the deceased’s lifetime and therefore do not form part of the estate. 5. In opposition to the summons, the respondents filed an affidavit of protest dated 17th January 2023. The 1st respondent, on behalf of the 2nd respondent (the deceased granddaughter from the second house), deposed that when these proceedings were instituted in 2001, she disagreed with the proposed mode of distribution on the grounds that it was unfair and that not all beneficiaries had been involved in discussions. As a result, she applied for revocation of the grant. 6. By a ruling delivered on 11th October 2013, this court (Musyoka J.) set aside the orders confirming the grant and directed that a fresh application for confirmation be filed. The Court ordered that distribution be in conformity with Section 40 of the Law of Succession Act, that each individual survivor be provided for, and that all survivors be involved in the process. 7. The 1st respondent contended that the present application for confirmation filed by her coadministrators did not comply with those directions. Although several meetings were allegedly held, she stated that no consensus was reached and that not all beneficiaries were involved or fully informed before the application was filed. 8. The 1st respondent outlined the structure of the deceased’s family into three houses and listed the surviving and deceased beneficiaries as follows: First house-(Teresia Wairimu Charagu) i. Francis Kimani Charagu ii. Josphat Chege Charagu Second house - (Wangari Charagu) i. Veronica Nyambura Irubu ii. Jane Muthoni Njui Third house- (Pauline Njeri Charagu) i. Njoki Charagu ii. Francis Kimani Charagu iii. Paul Thuo Charagu iv. Charles Mburia Charagu v. James Mungai Charagu vi. David Kihugo Charagu 9. She further stated that several beneficiaries, including Pauline Njeri Charagu, Paul Thuo Charagu, Francis Kimani Charagu, Charles Mburia Charagu, Josphat Chege Charagu, and Jane Muthoni Njui, were deceased. 10. She identified the estate assets as:KiambuNdumberi163NdumberiRiabaiT.44Kamiti Farmers Plot Nos. 157, 140, and 24 11. She disputed the Applicants’ claim that certain Kamiti Farmers plots (Nos. 157, 140, and 24) had been gifted during the deceased’s lifetime and therefore did not form part of the estate. The 1st respondent deposed that no evidence had been produced to support those allegations. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/3753/eng@2026-02-24 2

page 2 of 12

12. She further alleged dishonesty and bad faith in excluding those properties from distribution. Additionally, she objected to the inclusion of Plot No. 159 in the estate, arguing that documents showed it belonged to Pauline Njeri Charagu and not the deceased. 13. The protestor maintained that the proposed mode of distribution was unfair, unjust, and inequitable, contrary to the Court’s earlier directions, and that there was no agreement among beneficiaries supporting the Applicants’ proposal. Hearing 14. During the hearing of this summons, PW-1 (2nd applicant) testified that the deceased had three wives (now all deceased), and therefore the estate comprised three houses. The three administrators represented the three houses: Loise Wambui Chege (First House), Veronica Nyambura Irubu (Second House), and himself (Third House). He outlined the beneficiaries in each house and noted that although some family members had since died, their children were entitled to inherit their respective shares. 15. The 2nd applicant testified that numerous family meetings were convened to resolve the mode of distribution and that efforts were made to involve all beneficiaries to avoid further delay in a matter that had been in court for over twenty years. However, some members allegedly changed their positions after earlier agreeing on the proposed mode of distribution. He maintained that all beneficiaries, including the respondents, were invited to meetings. 16. He further explained that after filing the summons for confirmation of grant, it emerged that some properties had been erroneously listed as part of the deceased’s estate. He provided as evidence records from Kamiti Farmers Company Limited, which showed that prior to his death, the deceased had transferred several plots to other individuals. The plots were as follows:Plot No NB 11724- Loise Wambui Chege and Njeri Charagu ChegePlot No NB 117157-Njeri Charagu KimaniPlot No NB 117140-Loise Wambui ChegePlot No NB 117270-Richard Irubu Njoroge 17. As a result, the 2nd applicant proposed amending the schedule of assets by removing properties that had already been transferred during the deceased’s lifetime, since they were no longer available for distribution. 18. He disputed the authenticity and validity of the minutes attached to the affidavit of protest, stating that some beneficiaries were not invited to the alleged meeting and that the minutes were unsigned. He maintained that the respondents could not claim there was consensus on distribution based on such minutes. 19. The 2nd applicant further testified that the proposed mode of distribution considered current occupation and developments on the land, including the fact that David Kihugo Charagu had built and settled on Kamiti Farmers Plot No. 157. He also indicated that the family had agreed to allocate a small portion of NdumberiRiabai163 to Simon Ngigi Kamau to cover subdivision and survey costs. 20. He opposed the sale of estate property to meet expenses, stating that the majority of beneficiaries were against such a sale and that any objector could sell her own share if necessary. 21. Regarding Monicah Wambui Mahihu, he stated that as a granddaughter, she was not entitled to inherit directly but through her mother’s share. He noted that Virginia Wangare Chege had been allocated a share as trustee of the estate of Jane Muthoni Njui (deceased), and therefore, there was no basis for Monicah’s objection. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/3753/eng@2026-02-24 3

page 3 of 12

22. He concluded by urging the Court to allow the summons for confirmation of grant, subject to the proposed amendments removing already transferred properties, and to fast-track the matter given its long pendency and the advanced age or death of several beneficiaries. 23. PW-2 (Simon N. Njoroge) testified that he is the Chairman of Kamiti Farmers Company Limited. He confirmed that the deceased had been a member of the Company prior to his death. 24. He testified that according to the Company’s records, the deceased previously held the following plots under Kamiti Farmers Company Limited: Plot No. NBI 11724; Plot No. NBI 117157; Plot No. NBI 117140; and Plot No. NBI 117270. 25. He further testified that on 13th February 1997, the deceased personally appeared at the Company’s offices and expressed his intention to transfer his properties. The transfers were effected on the same day in accordance with his instructions. He confirmed the transfers as testified by the 2nd applicant. He stated that as a result of those transfers, the above properties were no longer registered in the name of the deceased. 26. DW-1 (1st respondent) testified the estate assets as: KiambuNdumberi163; NdumberiRiabaiT.44; and Kamiti Farmers Plots Nos. 157, 140, and 24 27. She denied allegations that certain Kamiti Farmers plots (Nos. 157, 140, and 24) had been given out during the deceased’s lifetime and asserted that no evidence had been produced to support such claims. 28. She further accused the applicants of improperly including Plot No. 159 as part of the estate, yet documents allegedly showed that it belonged to Njeri Charagu. 29. She testified that as an original petitioner, she knew what constituted the estate assets. She maintained that Plot No. NBI117270 did not form part of the estate and clarified that it had been sold and transferred to her husband, Richard Irubu Njoroge, in or about 1997, and was never given to her. 30. She contended that there was no new information warranting amendment of the proposed distribution schedule and argued that the Applicants’ proposal was fundamentally flawed. She further stated that it was contradictory for the Applicants to deny agreement on sale of estate property while simultaneously allocating 0.065 acres of KiambuNdumberi163 to Simon Ngigi Kamau, who was not a dependant. Applicants’ submissions 31. The Applicants’ primary submission is that certain properties listed in the petition do not form part of the estate because they were transferred by the deceased during his lifetime on 13th February 1997. They relied on documentary evidence from Kamiti Farmers Company Limited and testimony from its Chairman confirming that four plots originally associated with the deceased were transferred prior to his death. 32. The Applicants argue that once property has been lawfully transferred and registered in the names of third parties, it ceases to form part of the estate. They contend that no contrary documentary evidence was produced to show that these plots remained registered in the deceased’s name at the time of death. They further submit that the Protestor admitted she had not formally challenged the titles in any appropriate forum and conceded that one of the disputed plots had been transferred to her husband. 33. On this basis, the Applicants maintain that the only properties available for distribution are:KiambuNdumberi163; andNdumberiRiabaiT44. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/3753/eng@2026-02-24 4

page 4 of 12

34. With respect to distribution, the applicants submit that the proposed mode reflects fairness and equity, taking into account:the number of children in each house; benefits previously received; current occupation and developments on the land; and agreements reached during family meetings. 35. The applicants emphasised that there is agreement among the parties regarding the subdivision of KiambuNdumberi163. They further contend that distribution should not be a rigid mathematical exercise but guided by equity, as reflected in Sections 35, 38 and 42 of the Law of Succession Act 36. The Applicants proposed that NdumberiRiabai163 be subdivided and distributed among the beneficiaries as follows: i. Loise Wambui Chege - 1.27 acres ii. Josphat Chege Kimani - 1.27 acres (in trust for the Estate of Francis Kimani Charagu) iii. Veronica Nyambura Irubu - 1 acre iv. Virginia Wangare Chege - 0.5 acres (in trust for the Estate of Jane Muthoni Njui) v. Njoki Charagu - 0.25 acres vi. Francis Kimani Charagu - 0.70 acres vii. Stephen Charagu Thuo - 0.70 acres (in trust for the Estate of Paul Thuo Charagu) viii. James Mungai Charagu - 0.70 acres ix. David Kihugu Charagu - 0.70 acres x. Elizabeth Wanjiru Waithathu - 0.25 acres xi. Simon Ngigi Kamau - 0.065 acres 37. Some beneficiaries were to hold their shares in trust for the estates of deceased beneficiaries. 38. The Applicants further proposed that NdumberiRiabaiT44 be distributed as follows:i. Loise Wambui Chege and Francis Kimani Charagu- equal share 1st Respondent’s submissions 39. The 1st respondent submitted that at the time these proceedings were instituted, the following properties were listed as forming part of the estate: KiambuNdumberi163; NdumberiRiabaiT.44; Kamiti Farmers Plot No. 157; Kamiti Farmers Plot No. 140; and Kamiti Farmers Plot No. 24 40. She argued that all beneficiaries were initially in agreement regarding the assets comprising the estate and only differed on the mode of distribution. During earlier proceedings, no party suggested that any of the Kamiti plots had been transferred during the deceased’s lifetime. She contended that the Applicants’ current position that the plots were transferred inter vivos is an afterthought inconsistent with the record of proceedings. 41. The 1st respondent maintained that there is no credible evidence of valid lifetime transfers. She submitted that under Sections 107–109 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof lies on the party alleging a transfer. In her view, the Applicants failed to produce any duly executed transfer instruments, signed documents, or registered entries demonstrating lawful disposition. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/3753/eng@2026-02-24 5

page 5 of 12

42. She further argued that Section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act and Section 44 of the Land Registration Act require transfers of interests in land to be in writing, duly executed, and registered. Handwritten notes and unauthorised letters, she submitted, do not meet the statutory threshold. 43. With respect to the evidence of Simon N. Njoroge, she challenged his authority to testify on behalf of Kamiti Farmers Company Limited. She referred to previous court decisions and correspondence indicating that he is not recognised as a director or chairman of the company. She pointed to a letter dated 2nd July 2024 from Kamiti Farmers Company Limited stating that the relevant plots remain registered in the name of the deceased. On that basis, she urged the Court to disregard his testimony. 44. Regarding Plot No. 270, the 1st respondent maintained that it was sold to her husband, Richard Irubu Njoroge, in 1997 and did not form part of the estate when the petition was filed. She contended that its inclusion in the present proceedings was inconsistent and aimed at bolstering the Applicants’ argument of lifetime transfers. 45. She therefore submitted that Kamiti Farmers Plots Nos. 24, 140, and 157 remain part of the deceased’s free estate and should be distributed accordingly. 46. On the mode of distribution, the 1st respondent reiterated that the original dispute concerned fairness in distribution, particularly in relation to the second house. She maintained that although meetings were held, no final binding agreement was reached except in respect of KiambuNdumberi163. 47. She also questioned the Applicants’ proposal to sell a portion measuring 0.065 acres out of KiambuNdumberi163 to a non-beneficiary, arguing that such action was inconsistent with their position that estate assets should not be sold. 2nd Respondent’s submissions 48. The 2nd respondent submitted that although the Applicants claimed that Kamiti Farmers Plot Nos. 157, 140 and 24 had been transferred by the deceased during his lifetime’ no valid documentary evidence of such transfers was produced. The only material presented was a handwritten record, which did not meet the statutory requirements for the transfer of land under the Land Registration Act. She emphasised that a valid transfer must be effected through a duly executed and registered instrument. In the absence of such documentation, the alleged transfers were null and void, and the properties remained part of the deceased’s free estate. 49. The 2nd respondent further relied on Section 40 of the Law of Succession Act, which governs the distribution of the estate of a polygamous intestate. They submitted that distribution must be guided by fairness and equality among the houses, taking into account the number of children in each house. She argued that while Section 40 provides a general framework, the court retains discretion to ensure equitable and fair distribution based on the circumstances of the case. 50. They contended that the Applicants’ proposed mode of distribution was discriminatory against the 2nd house and would result in an inequitable allocation, with the 2nd house receiving a smaller share. They maintained that succession proceedings are not governed by majority rule but by principles of equity, legality, and protection of minority beneficiaries. 51. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent proposed that all the properties forming part of the estate, namely KiambuNdumberi163, NdumberiRiabaiT.44, and Kamiti Farmers Plot Nos. 157, 140 and 24 be shared equally among all the beneficiaries across the three houses, without discrimination. They further proposed that the share due to Jane Muthoni Njui be held in trust by Monica Wambui Mahihu and Virginia Wangari Chege for the benefit of her children. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/3753/eng@2026-02-24 6

page 6 of 12

Determination 52. I have considered the summons, rival affidavits, submissions and the evidence on record. The issues for determination are as follows: i. Whether the Court Has Jurisdiction to Determine the Question of Ownership of the Disputed Kamiti Farmers Plots ii. What Constitutes the Estate of the Deceased iii. The Proper Mode of Distribution of the Estate Whether the Court Has Jurisdiction to Determine the Question of Ownership of the Disputed Kamiti Farmers Plots 53. The Applicants have argued that once the dispute concerns ownership of land, this Court, sitting as a probate court, lacks jurisdiction and that such a dispute falls exclusively within the mandate of the Environment and Land Court (ELC) pursuant to Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act. 54. The respondents, on the other hand, contend that the question before this Court is not a third-party ownership dispute but a succession issue, namely, whether the deceased validly transferred the disputed Kamiti Farmers plots during his lifetime and whether those properties formed part of his free estate at the time of death. 55. It is now settled that jurisdiction is everything. A court must first satisfy itself that it is properly seized of a matter before proceeding further. Under Article 165(5) of the Constitution, the High Court lacks jurisdiction in matters reserved for courts established under Article 162(2), including the Environment and Land Court. The ELC is therefore vested with jurisdiction to determine disputes relating to title, ownership, use, and occupation of land. 56. However, the Law of Succession Act vests in the High Court jurisdiction to determine all matters relating to the administration, distribution, and composition of the estates of deceased persons. Rule 41(3) of the Probate and Administration Rules further empowers the probate court to determine questions as to whether a particular asset forms part of the estate of the deceased. 57. The critical distinction lies between: a dispute between the estate and a third party asserting independent proprietary rights over land; and a dispute among beneficiaries as to whether property was lawfully disposed of by the deceased during his lifetime and therefore forms part of the estate. 58. In the present case, the dispute is between beneficiaries of the estate. The Applicants assert that the deceased transferred Kamiti Farmers Plots Nos. 157, 140 and 24 during his lifetime. The respondents deny that any valid transfer was effected and contend that the properties remained in the deceased’s name. 59. This Court is not being asked to adjudicate competing titles between the estate and an external stranger. Rather, it is being called upon to determine whether the deceased lawfully divested himself of the properties before his death. That determination is integral to identifying what constitutes the free estate under section 3 of the Law of Succession Act. 60. The probate court cannot distribute property unless it first determines what property belongs to the estate. To decline jurisdiction on that question would render the succession process incomplete and defeat the statutory mandate placed upon this Court. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/3753/eng@2026-02-24 7

page 7 of 12

61. I therefore find that the question whether the deceased validly transferred the Kamiti Farmers plots during his lifetime is a succession question. The determination of whether those plots form part of the deceased’s estate falls squarely within the jurisdiction of this Court under the Law of Succession Act, and this matter does not require referral to the Environment and Land Court. What constitutes the estate of the deceased 62. The law is clear that only the free property of a deceased person is available for distribution. Where it is alleged that the deceased disposed of certain assets inter vivos, the party asserting that fact bears the burden to prove it, on a balance of probabilities. Where the alleged disposition relates to an interest in land, the court must be satisfied that the disposition met the legal threshold, namely, that it was properly documented and, where applicable, duly registered. 63. In this matter, the Applicants contend that certain plots that had been included in the petition were transferred during the deceased’s lifetime, specifically Kamiti Farmers Plot Nos. 24, 157, 140 and 270 on or about 13th February 1997, and that those plots are now in the names of third parties and are therefore not available for distribution. 64. The applicants relied on evidence said to include company records and correspondence from Kamiti Farmers Company Limited, transfer records, and documents such as share certificates and certificates of lease in the names of the alleged transferees. 65. The respondent disputed the alleged transfers and argues that no valid transfer instruments executed by the deceased have been produced; that reliance on handwritten notes and contested letters is insufficient; and that some correspondence from Kamiti Farmers Company Limited indicates the plots remained in the deceased’s name. They also raise doubt as to the authority and credibility of the Applicants’ witness from Kamiti Farmers Company Limited and contend that any purported transfer not supported by proper documentation and registration should be treated as null and void, leaving the plots as part of the free estate. 66. Having weighed the evidence as presented in the proceedings, the court’s task is not to determine “who owns” the plots in the abstract, but to decide whether the Applicants have proved that the deceased lawfully divested himself of the plots during his lifetime such that they ceased to be part of his free estate. 67. Two principles guide the court: i. The best evidence of ownership of registrable land is the register and duly issued title documents (or official searchescertificates of lease showing current proprietorship). ii. Where evidence is conflicting, the court must prefer cogent, verifiable, and legally consequential documents over informal notes or uncorroborated assertions. 68. On the record, the Applicants’ case is that the disputed plots were transferred and are now registered in the names of specific persons (including beneficiaries and, for Plot No. 270, a third party). The respondents’ response is essentially that the transfers were not strictly proved and that correspondence exists suggesting the plots remained in the deceased’s name. 69. The court notes that Plot No. 270 is admitted to have been disposed of during the deceased’s lifetime and is associated with the 1st respondent’s husband; it is therefore not available for distribution as part of the estate in these proceedings. 70. In the final analysis, and on the standard of proof applicable, I find as follows: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/3753/eng@2026-02-24 8

page 8 of 12

71. Kamiti Farmers Plot No. 270: The evidence points to lifetime disposal and the plot being held outside the estate. It is excluded from the estate. 72. Kamiti Farmers Plot Nos. 24, 157 and 140: The Applicants bear the burden to show that these plots had ceased to be the deceased’s free property at death. Where the Applicants have placed before the court documentary material showing transfer and registration to named persons, that evidence is legally significant and, unless displaced by stronger proof, supports the conclusion that the assets are not available for distribution in this cause. Conversely, to the extent the respondents rely on general assertions that no transfer occurred, without producing superior title evidence demonstrating the deceased remained the registered proprietor at death, such assertions do not, by themselves, displace documentary proof of transfer and current registration. 73. Accordingly, on the evidence as placed before this court, I find that the Applicants have established, on a balance of probabilities, that Plot Nos. 24, 157 and 140 were disposed of during the deceased’s lifetime and are not available for distribution as part of the deceased’s free estate in this cause. They are therefore excluded. 74. Plot No. 159: It emerged in evidence that Plot No. 159 was included in the discourse, yet the documentation indicated it was not in the deceased’s name. A property that was never the deceased’s free property cannot be distributed in his succession cause. Plot No. 159 is therefore excluded. 75. From the foregoing, the assets available for distribution in this cause are therefore limited to: i. KiambuNdumberi163; and ii. NdumberiRiabaiT44. Mode of distribution of the estate 76. Before addressing distribution, the Court must determine the legal effect of the alleged family consensus arising from meetings held among the beneficiaries, particularly in respect of KiambuNdumberi163. 77. Family settlements in succession matters are not only permissible but encouraged, provided they are voluntary, inclusive, and consistent with the Law of Succession Act. For such an agreement to be binding, three elements must be established: i. clear evidence of a concluded agreement; ii. participation or adoption by all beneficiaries or their lawful representatives; and iii. compliance with statutory requirements and principles of fairness. 78. The record shows that several meetings were convened following the setting aside of the earlier confirmation. While there is no evidence of a comprehensive settlement covering the entire estate, there is substantial convergence regarding the subdivision of KiambuNdumberi163. Significantly, even the respondents acknowledge agreement on that parcel. No similar consensus has been demonstrated concerning the Kamiti Farmers plots or NdumberiRiabaiT44. 79. I am satisfied that a consensus was reached only in respect of KiambuNdumberi163, and not as to the estate as a whole. 80. Succession proceedings are not governed by majority rule; the rights of every beneficiary must be safeguarded. The evidence indicates that representatives of the three houses participated in the discussions, and no beneficiary has repudiated the agreed subdivision of KiambuNdumberi163. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/3753/eng@2026-02-24 9

page 9 of 12

81. In those circumstances, I am satisfied that the consensus relating to that parcel was sufficiently inclusive and adopted by the beneficiaries. 82. Even where agreement exists, the Court must ensure it accords with section 40 and section 42 of the Law of Succession Act. The proposed subdivision of KiambuNdumberi163 reflects consideration of the number of children per house, prior occupation and developments, and trust arrangements for deceased beneficiaries’ estates. There is no evidence that the allocation is unlawful, discriminatory, or manifestly unjust. 83. I am therefore satisfied that the agreement concerning KiambuNdumberi163 complies with the law and principles of equity. 84. It was argued that the minutes of the meetings were not signed by all beneficiaries and, therefore, cannot bind the estate. The Law of Succession Act does not require that a family settlement be reduced into a formally executed contract signed by every beneficiary. While signatures are strong evidence of consent, they are not the sole means of proving consensus. The Court may infer agreement from participation, conduct, admissions, and absence of objection. 85. In this case, there is no evidence of dissent regarding the agreed subdivision of KiambuNdumberi163. The objection relates only to the absence of universal signatures, not to the substance of the agreement. In the absence of demonstrated prejudice or repudiation, the unsigned minutes do not invalidate the consensus reached. 86. That said, unsigned minutes would not suffice where terms are actively disputed. That is not the case here in respect of KiambuNdumberi163. 87. An objection was raised to the proposed allocation of 0.065 acres out of KiambuNdumberi163 to Simon Ngigi Kamau, on the basis that he is neither a beneficiary nor a dependant of the deceased. It is common ground that he does not qualify to inherit under the Law of Succession Act. However, receipts were produced showing that he incurred expenses relating to the subdivision of Plot 163 and associated legal costs. Such reasonable administration expenses are properly payable out of the estate before distribution. 88. The material further suggests that there was some understanding among the parties that reimbursement of those expenses could be effected by allocating him a small portion of the land in lieu of monetary payment. While such an arrangement is not unlawful if consensual, it cannot confer beneficiary status upon him. Accordingly, the allocation of 0.065 acres may stand only because it reflects a clear and voluntary agreement of the beneficiaries. 89. The principal divergence arises on NdumberiRiabaiT44. The Applicants propose that it be distributed in a manner consistent with the allocation and prior benefits accounted for under KiambuNdumberi163, with due regard to the number of children in each house. The respondents propose that T44 be sold to meet surveysubdivision and legal costs, and the balance shared equally among the three houses, insisting that succession is guided by law and equity rather than majority preference. 90. In determining the just approach, the court notes that Section 40 provides the framework for distribution in polygamous intestacy, but it does not compel a mechanical outcome divorced from the factual context; the court retains discretion to achieve an equitable result. 91. Where one major property (here, KiambuNdumberi163) has already been distributed on a defined schedule reflecting prior benefits and family occupation patterns, it is lawful and practical to distribute https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/3753/eng@2026-02-24 10

page 10 of 12

the remaining property (T44) in a manner that complements and balances the overall equity of the estate, rather than re-opening settled allocations absent compelling reason. 92. The sale of a property is a serious step. It should be ordered where subdivisiondistribution is impracticable, where the asset is not amenable to partition, where beneficiaries cannot agree, and valuation indicates sale is the fairest method, or where sale is necessary to settle estate liabilities and administration expenses that cannot otherwise be met. 93. NdumberiRiabaiT44 shall be distributed in the same proportions as KiambuNdumberi163, save that the 0.065 acres previously allocated to Simon Ngigi Kamau is excluded and shall be redistributed proportionately among the remaining ten beneficiaries. Accordingly, each beneficiary’s entitlement shall be calculated based on the revised total acreage of 7.34 acres, using the formula: (individual acreage ÷ 7.34) × 100, and the resultant percentage shall be applied to the total acreage of NdumberiRiabaiT44. Disposition a. That Kamiti Farmers Plots No. 24, 140, 157 and 159, do not form part of the deceased estate. b. Summons for Confirmation of Grant dated 27th October 2022 is allowed in the following manner: i. A Certificate of Confirmation of Grant be hereby issued with regard to plot KiambuNdumberi163 and NdumberiRiabaiT44 ii. The mode of distribution of be as follows: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/3753/eng@2026-02-24 11

page 11 of 12

Beneficiary KiAmbundumberi Ndumbeririabait44 163 Loise Wambui Chege 1.27 acres 17.30% Josphat Chege Charagu (in trust for the Estate of Francis Kimani Charagu) 1.27 acres 17.30% Veronica Nyambura Irubu 1 acre 13.62% Virginia Wangare Chege (in trust for the Estate of Jane Muthoni Njui) 0.5 acres 6.81% Njoki Charagu 0.25 acres 3.41% Francis Kimani Charagu 0.7 acres 9.54% Stephen Charagu Thuo (in trust for the Estate of Paul Thuo Charagu) 0.7 acres 9.54% James Mungai Charagu 0.7 acres 9.54% David Kihugu Charagu 0.7 acres 9.54% Elizabeth Waithathu 0.25 acres 3.41% 0.065 acres 0 Wanjiru Simon Ngigi Kamau c. Costs be in the cause. Orders accordingly. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI, THIS 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 ……………………………………… E.K. OGOLA JUDGE In the presence of: Mr. Mwarila hb for Wainaina for the Protestor Gisiele Muthoni Court Assistant E. OGOLA J. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/3753/eng@2026-02-24 12

page 12 of 12