Isaac Kariuki Munene & 1 other v Faith Muthoni Munene & 2 others

i) Account Nos. 20xxxx76. Absa Bank. [Particulars Withheld] Branch. ii) Account Nos 20xxxx90 Absa Bank, [Particulars Withheld] Branch. iii). Account Nos 011xxxx00 Cooperative Bank. [Particulars Withheld] Branch. iv) Any other Account with Cooperative Bank. [Particulars Withheld] Branch All in the names of th 3. That, this Honourable Court be pleased to order closure of:i) Account Nos. 20xxxx76, Absa Bank, [Particulars Withheld] Branch. ii) Account Nos 20xxxx90 Absa Bank. [Particulars Withheld] Branch. iii) Account Nos 011xxxx00 Cooperative Bank, [Particulars Withheld] Branch. iv) Any other Account with Cooperative Bank. [Particulars Withheld] Branch All in the names of the 1st Respondent pending the hearing and determination of the Succession Cause. 4. That, this Honourable Court be pleased to appoint the 1st and 2nd Applicants plus the 1st Respondent as signatories of Account No. 011xxxx800 Cooperative Bank. [Particulars Withheld] Branch in the names of [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primary School. private school previously owned by the deceased Cyrus Munene Mwenje which school is now illegally registered in the names of the 1st Respondent and/or 2nd Respondent pending the hearing and determination of the application. 5. That, this Honourable Court be pleased to appoint the 1st and 2nd Applicant plus the 1st Respondent as signatories of Account No. 0112020034407800 Cooperative Bank. [Particulars Withheld] Branch in the names of [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primary School. private school previously owned by the deceased Cyrus Munene Mwenje and now illegally registered in the names of the 1st Respondent and/or 2nd Respondent pending the hearing and determination of the Succession cause. 6. That, this Honourable Court be pleased to appoint the 1st and 2nd Applicants plus the 1st Respondent as signatories of Account No. 13xxxx40 KCB Bank, [Particulars Withheld] Branch in the name of [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Junior. born out of deceased's school [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primary School, and now illegally registered in the names of the 1si Re pendent and' or 2nd Respondent pending the hearing of the application. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 2

page 2 of 80

7. That, this Honourable Court be pleased to appoint the 1st and 2nd Applicants plus the 1st Respondent as signatories of Account No. 13xxxx40 KCB Bank. [Particulars Withheld] Branch in the name of [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Junior, born out of deceased's school [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primarv School and now illegally registered in the names of the 1st Respondent and or 2nd Respondent pending the hearing of the Succession cause. 8. That, this Honourable Court be pleased to order that the 1st Respondent being the deceased wife be given Ksh.50,000/= per month out of deceased estate for her monthly subsistence pending the hearing and determination of the application. 9. That, this Honourable Court be pleased to order that the 1st Respondent being the deceased wife be given Ksh.50,000/= per month out of deceased estate for her monthly subsistence pending the hearing and determination of the succession cause. 10. That, this Honourable Court be pleased to order opening of a new account for collection of rental income from deceased houses on Land Parcel No.Inoi/ Kaitheri/xxx and xxx, coffee income from deceased Land Parcels Mwerua/ Gitaku/xxx and Mwerua/Kanyokora/xxx, income from school buses hire, KBJ xxxx, KBZ xxxx. KBM xxxx in the names of the Applicants and the 1st Respondent pending the hearing and determination of the Application. 11. That, this Honourable Court be pleased to order opening of a new account for collection of rental income from deceased houses on Land Parcel No.Inoi/ Kaitheri/xxx and xxx coffee income from deceased Land Parcels Mwerual Gitak xxx and Mwerua/Kanyokora/xxx, income from school buses hire KBJ xxxx, KBZ xxxx, KBM xxxx in the names of the Applicants and the 1st Respondent pending the hearing and determination of the Succession Cause. 12. That, this Honourable Court be pleased to order the 1st Respondent to furnish statements of Account for:i) Account Nos. 20xxxx76, Absa Bank, [Particulars Withheld] Branch. ii) Account Nos. 20xxxx90, Absa Bank, [Particulars Withheld] Branch. iii) Account Nos 011xxxx00 Cooperative Bank, [Particulars Withheld] Branch. iv) Any other Account with Cooperative Bank, [Particulars Withheld] Branch. All in the names of the 1st Respondent pending the hearing and determination of the Succession cause. 13. That, this Honourable Court be pleased to order the 1st Respondent to furnish statement of Account for Account No. 011xxxx800 Cooperative Bank, [Particulars Withheld] Branch in the names of [Particulars Withheld] https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 3

page 3 of 80

Municipality Primary School, private school previously owned by the deceased Cyrus Munene Mwenje and now illegally registered in the names of the 1st and or 2nd Respondent from 1st January 2019 to 31st May 2024 pending the hearing of the Succession Cause. 14. That, this Honourable Court be pleased to order the 1st Respondent to furnish statement of Account for Account No. 13xxxx40 KCB Bank, [Particulars Withheld] Branch in the names of [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Junior, born out of deceased’s school [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primary School now illegally registered in the names of the 1st Respondent and/ or 2nd Respondent. from 1st Januarv 2023 to 31st May 2024 pending the hearing of the application. 15. That, this Honourable Court be pleased to order audit of [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primary School now known as [Particulars Withheld] Municipality School's income from 1st January 2019 to 31st May 2024 and [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Junior income from 1st January 2023 to 31st May 2024 pending the hearing and determination of the succession cause. 16. That, this Honourable Court be pleased to order audit of rental income from deceased house located in L.P. No. Inoi/Kaitheri/xxxx/xxxx from 1st January 2019 to 31st May 2024 pending the hearing and determination of the succession cause. 17. That, this Honourable Court be pleased to order audit or income from bu hire of school buses of [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primary School now known as [Particulars Withheld] Municipality School and [Particulars Withheld] Junior School, Registration Nos. KBJ xxxx, KBZ xxxx, KBM xxxx from 1st January 2019 to 31st May 2024 pending the hearing and determination of the succession cause. 18. That, this Honourable Court be pleased to order audit of purchase and sale of school uniforms and books to parents of [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primary School now known as [Particulars Withheld] Municipality School from 1st September 2017 to 3151 May 2024 and [Particulars Withheld]Municipality Junior from 1st January 2023 to 31st May 2024 pending the hearing and determination of the succession cause herein. 19. That, this Honourable Court be pleased to order audit of the 2nd Respondent's Account with Bingwa Sacco, [Particulars Withheld], Branch pending the hearing and determination of the succession cause. 20. That, this Honourable Court be pleased to order the 2nd Respondent to furnish his statement of' Account with Bingwa Sacco, [Particulars Withheld] Branch pending the hearing and determination of this succession cause. 21. That, this Honourable Court be pleased to order the 3rd Respondent to furnish his statement of Account of all his bank accounts and m-pesa statements of cell phone nos. 0729xxx144, 0745xxx210 from 1st January 2022 to 31st May 2024 pending the hearing and determination of the succession cause. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 4

page 4 of 80

22. That, this Honourable Court be pleased to conduct audit of the income of the 3rd Respondent emanating from all his bank accounts and m-pesa nos. 0729xxx144, 0745xxx210 from 1st January 2022 to 31st may May 2024 pending the hearing and determination of the Succession cause. 23. That this Honourable Court be pleased to appoint a government auditor to conduct all the audit sought herein and also the audit ordered by this Court on 2nd February 2019 and the cost thereof to be borne by the estate of the deceased. 24. That, this Honourable Court be pleased to order cancellation of the registration of both [Particulars Withheld] Municipality School and [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Junior from the names of 1st and or 2nd Respondents and the same be converted into a limited Company with the 1st Respondent having 50% shares thereof and 1st and 2nd Applicants, 2nd Respondent, 1st and 2nd Interested parties having 10% shares each. 25. That, this Honourable Court be pleased to grant temporary injunction against the 1st Respondent restraining her either by herself, her agents and/or servants from selling the deceased rice mill worth Ksh8~ as at October 2013, pending the hearing and determination of the succession cause. 26. That, this Honourable Court be pleased to cancel [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Schools and [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Junior's partnership with 'Health X Africa to establish a health facility in [Particulars Withheld] Town. 27. That, this Hononourable Court be pleased to order the 1st Respondent who is the legal administrator of the deceased estate to apply for confirmation of grant within 30 davs from the issuance of the Court order or such other period. the Court may deem fit failing which he Court appoints the 1st and 2nd Applicants and/or any other beneficiary/ beneficiaries of the deceased estate as legal administrators of the deceased estate. AND on any other or further grounds to be adduced during the hearing herein.” 2. The application was supported by a Supporting Affidavit sworn by the 2nd Applicant on 7/6/2024 setting out the facts relied on as follows: “ Supporting Affidavit Of 7/6/2024 By Jane Wangechi Munene 1. That, I am the 2nd Respondent and have authority of my co-applicant to swear the affidavit on his behalf hence competent to swear this affidavit. 2. That, the deceased herein Cyrus Munene Mwenje was our father and also father to the 2nd Respondent and 1st and 2nd Interested parties. The 1st Respondent was his wife and our mother while the 3rd Respondent was his grandson. (Attached herein and marked JWM I is a copy of chief’s letter to verify the same). 3. That, the deceased was murdered on 16th October 2013 and left among other properties a private school then known as [Particulars Withheld] Municipality https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 5

page 5 of 80

Primary School located on Land Parcel No. Inoi/Kaitheri/211 still in his names. [Attached herein is a copy of Registration Certificate of the school marked JWM2]. 4. That, prior to 2010 constitution which brought devolution in our country, private schools were being registered at National Level as shown by our late father's certificate above. I also attach copies of business permits marked JWM3 to show that private schools then were being registered like business names. 5. That, after the enactment of the 2010 Constitution all private school owners were legally mandated to register their schools afresh at County level. 6. That, our father who was murdered on 16th October 2013, did not have the school registered at County level by the time he met his untimely demise. Therefore, at the time of his death, the School was in his names. (See JWM2 and 3 above). 7. That, the private school owned by our deceased father was illegally registered at county in the names of the 1st and/or 2nd Respondent without recourse to Succession Court. 8. That, because the deceased left the school in his names at the time of his death any development thereof could only be in a succession court. 9. That, our attempts to ask anything concerning the school. has seen the 1st Applicant arrested and arraigned in court for allegedly creating disturbance. assault. malicious damage etc by the Respondents herein; only for them to either withdraw the criminal cases and/or fail to attend court. This is a way of intimidating and silencing the Applicants from inquiring anything concerning the school. [Attached herewith are copies of the charges sheet of the said cases marked JWM1]. 10. That, the 1st Respondent has been designated as the 'Manager' of the deceased school without consent of all the children of the deceased. This has seen him have sole control of the School management without input of the Applicants who have equal right in participation thereof. 11. That, the Applicants are even denied K.C.P.E Results of the deceased School on instructions by the 2nd Respondent. [Attached herewith and marked JWM5 is a copy of what app conversation with the 3rd Respondent showing the foregoing]. 12. That, these problems started in July 2017 when the 2nd Respondent joined Management or the private school and together with the 1st Respondent commenced serious change to the school to wit change of school uniform, logo. motto without involvement of the Applicants. 13. That, there were also meaningless renovations carried out in the school spearheaded by the 2nd Respondent all meant to enrich him yet the deceased left the School fully developed and not in full capacity to warrant construction. (Attached herewith i a photograph of the deceased school as at the time of his death marked JWM 6). https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 6

page 6 of 80

14. That, the 2nd Respondent who designated himself as the Manager of the school also caused his own personal contacts to appear in the school diary, School bus, social media (face book. tiktok L and twitter) calendars, school newsletter, website, school fee structure without consent of all the beneficiaries of the deceased estate/school yet every child of the deceased should participate in decision making. management and running of the school. 15. That, the 2nd Respondent also unilaterally changed the school uniform. increased school fees 3rd term 2017 almost double causing parents to withdraw their children in large number without involvement of the applicants. 16. That, this caused the Applicant herein plus the 2nd interested party to move the Court and stop these unlawful activities that amounted to intermeddling with deceased estate and also wasting the same. (Attached herewith and marked JWM 7 is a copy of the Court Order issued by this Court on 15th April 2019] that explains the situation on the ground then that has worsened over the time. 17. That, upon serving the said orders upon 1st and 2nd Respondents. my mother 1st Respondent and other relatives implored upon us to solve the dispute out of court which we readily agreed. Before going to Court then. we had used paternal and maternal relatives and friends to talk to our mother to no avail. 18. That, since February 2019 to-date however, our mother has totally refused to have a sitting with all her children so as to hear our grave concerns despite various interventions from close relatives and friends to do so. 19. That, our mother has sworn and told us that any succession will be done after she passes on and she will work with whoever she wants. 20. That, in March this year, the 1st Respondent called me and asked me whether it was in order for her to sell a rice mill worth Kshs.8Million as at March 2012, which the deceased had purchased in 2012. I advised her not to sell before succession cause is finalized but she told me she will have it sold, nevertheless hence the injunctive orders to prevent the imminent sale. (Attached are copies of sale agreements of the rice mill plus receipts for payments marked JW 18 (a) &(b). 21. That, my co-applicant and I have as a result painfully watched as the 2nd Respondent wastes the deceased estate by renovating buildings unnecessarily in the school/buying 2nd hand school buses that are always at garage for repair. whereas there are vacant plots left by the deceased that have not been developed for example. more than 10 years after his death. 22. That, for example. the 2nd Respondent had the school's staffroom which had been partitioned into cubicles demolished and converted to a day care to earn Kshs.50 per child and thereafter have another room in the school partitioned into cubicles wasting school funds. 23. That, the 2nd Respondent also had a shop built allegedly for CBC program which was not a requirement. The shop is now a monument in the school. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 7

page 7 of 80

(Attached herein and marked as JWMI 9 are copies of school performance to show this) 24. That, the school performance has gone down since 2017 when the 2nd Re pendent of the shoal because of not everyone participate in the running of the school. 25. That, the deceased children save for myself are all teachers and have different skills which should be employed for the betterment of the school. 26. That, as a lawyer and a legal expert, I should also be consulted when it come to legal issues to avoid legal embarrassment and losses. 27. That, I attach a copy of supporting affidavit by the 2nd Respondent to our application 31st January 2019 that explain in detail our complaints over deceased school and other properties marked as JWM 10. 28. That the 2nd Respondent's various unnecessary renovations in the School since 2019, purchase of Motor vehicles registration number KBL xxxx, KBZ xxxx, KBM xxxx and introduction of new school uniform all with collusion with the 1st Respondent to mention but a few are projects are meant to help him embezzle fund from the School hence the need to conduct audit of the 2nd Respondent's bank accounts. 29. That, recently the 1st and 2nd Respondent started a partnership with ‘Health X Africa’ to establish a health facility in [Particulars Withheld] Town using deceased's funds without consent of all the beneficiaries of the estate. (Attached herein and marked as JWM11 (a) and (b) are copies or school's newsletter of end of 1SI term 2024 and bronchure of the said Health X Africa to show this). This way of the 2nd Respondent earning an illegal extra coin for himself. 30. That, co-applicant and 1 also have reliable information that the 1st Respondent has also helped the 2nd Respondent clear loan with Bingwa Sacco and purchase plots using school funds that belongs to the deceased hence the need to audit the school account. (Attached herein and marked as JWM12 is a copy of a cheque drawn by 1st Respondent in favour of 2nd Respondent). 31. That, in an attempt to defraud the other beneficiaries to the estate of the deceased. the 2nd Respondent even had [Particulars Withheld] Junior School Secondary School registered in a different parcel of land, i.e Land Parcel No. Inoi/Kaitheri/ xxxx, whereas the said school lies on Inoi/ Kaitheri/211 now subdivided into Land Parcel Nos .Inoi/ Kaitheril xxxx and xxxx. Attached herein and marked as JWM13 (a)&(b) are copies of certificates of registration of the respective schools to and parcels of land to demonstrate this). 32. That the 2nd Respondent has even started his own school in Kutus town known as Sunshine Elite School using the deceased funds from the school this year. 33. That, for these reasons we pray that the 1st Respondent furnishes: i) Statement of Account for Account 011xxxx800 Cooperative Bank, [Particulars Withheld] Branch in the names of https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 8

page 8 of 80

[Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primary Schcol. Private school previously owned by the deceased CyrusMunene Mwe0ijeand now illegally registered in the names of the 1st and/ or 2nd Respondent from 1st January 2019 to 31st May 2024. ii) 34. Statement of Account for Account No. 13xxxx40 KCB Bank, [Particulars Withheld] Branch in the names of [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Junior. born out of deceased's school [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primary School, and now illegally registered in the names of the 1st Respondent and! or 2nd Respondent from 1st January 2023 to 31st May 2024 and audit of the said accounts to be done. That, the 1st Respondent has also illegally opened new accounts in her own name to wit i) Account Nos. 20xxxx76. Absa Bank. [Particulars Withheld] Branch. ii) Account Nos. 20xxxx90, Absa Bank, [Particulars Withheld] Branch. iii) Account Nos 011xxxx00 Cooperative Bank. [Particulars Withheld] Branch in order to help the 2nd Respondent finance his illegal projects, embezzle and waste deceased funds. 35. That, this is why my co- applicant and I pray for bank statements of these accounts and audit thereof. The rental income from deceased houses located in Land Parcel Nos. Inoi/Kaitheri/xxxx/xxxx are deposited in Absa accounts whereas the rest are used to get unnecessary loans from the bank. 36. That, the money for bus hire is paid to the 2nd respondent cell phone no. 07xxxx02, yet the buses have been purchased using deceased funds hence the need to conduct audit of his mobile and all his bank accounts in general. 37. That, for reason hereinabove we also pray that the 2nd Respondent furnishes his statement of Account No. 0111xxxx00 Cooperative Bank. [Particulars Withheld] Branch and Account No. 10xxxx36, Fortune Sacco. [Particulars Withheld] Branch, mobile no. 07xxxx02 and any other Account from 1st January 2019 to 31st March 202024 and audit of the income from the same he conducted. 38. That, the 3rd Respondent who is a grandson to the deceased is paid a monthly salary yet he is not in the payroll. When we ask about what he does in the school the 1st Re pendent said he is a volunteer in the school. 39. That, my co-applicant and I pray that his income is audited as we have strong reasons to believe that he is involved in embezzlement of school funds. For example. last year in April 2023. He organized for [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primary school pupils to attend National School drama festivals in Mombasa, yet they had not won anything to warrant them attend the festivals. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 9

page 9 of 80

3. 40. That, the 2nd Respondent has for the two (2) years he has worked in the school engaged the pupils in unnecessary extra-curricular activities so as to embezzle money from the School. 41. That, our Father had left a rich legacy for us in the name of [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primary School and other properties and it is sad that the same is being wasted and going to the drain yet he wa brutally murdered because he wanted to set up a 10 MILLION project/ rice mill for us and some people were not happy about it. 42. That, for this reason we pray that the Court order our mother to apply for confirmation of grant within 30 days and/ or any other period it deems from determination of this application and also order that the School is converted into a company with the 1st Respondent having 50% shares thereof and 1st and 2nd applicants, 2nd Respondent. 1st and 2nd Interested parties having 10% share each. 43. That, this was the wish of the deceased which he shared with me in the presence of the 1st Respondent. He told me one evening in 2013, the year he died. “Wangechi, I want you to convert this school into a limited company. Your mother and I to have 50% shareholding and the each one of you (children) 10%. 44. That, on the same day. my late father in the presence of my mother also told me to register Baraka Rice Millers Ltd which name he had chosen for the rice mill he intended to set up in December 2013. That unfortunately he was murdered in October 2013 before I could actualize his wishes. 45. That, for these reasons we pray that the Court intervenes and grants the order sought.” The 1st respondent filed a Replying Affidavit sworn on 23/1/2025 setting out her response to the application as follows: “ First Respondent's Replying Affidavit 1. That I am the first respondent in the summons dated 7th June 2024 whose contents my advocate on record has explained to me. 2. That, I am a beneficiary and the Administrator of the estate of Cyrus Munene Mwenje (Deceased) herein; and the 1st Respondent herein, hence competent to swear this Affidavit. 3. That, these succession proceedings concern the estate of the late Cyrus Munene Mwenje, who is my husband; the father of the Applicants, the 2nd Respondent, and the 1st & 2nd Interested Parties. He was also grandfather to the 3rd Respondent. He passed away on 16th October 2013. 4. That, I have read the Summons dated 7th June 2024 brought under Certificate of Urgency together with the annexed Affidavit in Support sworn by Jane Wangechi Munene and that, save for the matters specifically admitted I categorically and unequivocally deny in totality each and every allegation contained therein. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 10

page 10 of 80

5. That this application is not filed in good faith because its intentions are to delay the transmission of the estate by frustrating every move I make as the administrator. 6. That I have no reason to intermeddle with this estate which we established with my husband in 1992 and which I have continued to ably manage after my husband's death. 7. That I resigned from my teaching job to join my husband in running the school when the applicants were still in primary school and if I was that irresponsible as the applicants want to portray me, there would be nothing existing in form of the estate of Cyrus Munene Mwenje. 8. That before we filed this cause in 2018 we sat down as a family and unanimously agreed that as the wife of the deceased and the mother of the parties herein as well as co-founder of the school ([Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primary School) I should be the petitioner/administrator of this estate. 9. That we also agreed to instruct the second applicant who was then a practising advocate to file the cause for us. This we did and the grant of letter of administration was issued to me by the court on 21st January 2019. 10. That the second applicant took the grant and kept me in the dark for over 5 years without advising us what I was supposed to do after it was issued. 11. That I have come to realize that within (10) ten days after the second applicant who all along was acting for the family received the grant, together with the first applicant they instructed another advocate to seek injunctive orders against me. 12. That the application dated 31st January 2019 was to be served upon me and the second respondent and yet on the record the second applicant was still representing the family. The application should have been served upon her as our advocate. 13. That the intention of that application just like this one was aimed at stalling the smooth running of the estate and particularly the school. 14. That I am running the estate as we used to do with my husband from 1972 to 2013 and after his death I proceeded with the same until this cause was filed in 2018. 15. That I am aware that the grant that was issued to me on 21st January 2019 requires me to faithfully administrate the estate according to law and that I should render a just and true account thereof whenever required by law so to do. That is what I am doing. 16. That nobody has applied for the grant to be revoked and were it not for these applications I would have filed the summons for confirmation of grant to complete the transmission. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 11

page 11 of 80

17. That I am surprised to learn that the second applicant who on the record is still the family advocate has engaged another firm of advocates and has sworn the supporting affidavit of the application dated 7th June 2024. It is not clear to me who the new advocate is representing as the applicants are not parties. 18. That, I categorically deny the allegations that I changed the registration of the schools into my name or that of the 2nd Respondent. The registration process of both schools reflects joint ownership and management by the deceased and me. My inclusion in the registration documents was consistent with his wishes and the management structure of the schools. I state that I have acted as the administrator and co-founder of these institutions, as agreed by all beneficiaries of the deceased's estate. The claims made by the Applicants that I registered the schools in the name of the 2nd Respondent are false and remain unsubstantiated and are purely speculative. Annexed hereto and marked "F.M.M-1 & 2" are copies of the Registration Application documents for the Schools and the Application Forms for the Manager of the Schools respectively. 19. That, the school was initially registered in the name of the deceased. Following his demise, it remains proper and lawful for the school to be registered in my name as the administrator of his estate. 20. That as the Administrator of the deceased's estate, I applied for the registration of both [Particulars Withheld] Municipality School and [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Junior Secondary School. My personal and professional details appear in all the application forms and documents related to the registration. As the surviving spouse and co-founder of the institution, I have every right to ensure my name is included in the registration documents, which will facilitate continuity and proper administration of the schools. The second respondent does not appear in the registration documents and there is no school that is registered in his name. 21. That the second Respondent is not the registered manager of [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primary School and [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Junior Secondary School. 22. That, failure to have the school registered with the Ministry of Education meant that the school was operating illegally and thus, the school should not be allowed to admit students and consequently that is tantamount to shutting down the school and as a responsible administrator, I could not have allowed that to happen. 23. That, the allegations by the Applicant that the 2nd Respondent has made an attempt to defraud other beneficiaries by having [Particulars Withheld] Junior Secondary School registered in a different parcel of land is false and malicious. 24. That I solely applied for registration of both the [Particulars Withheld] Municipality School and [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Junior Secondary School. The 2nd Respondent did not at all apply for the registration of the said schools and his details do not appear in any of the registration documents herein attached. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 12

page 12 of 80

25. That, the said Land Parcel No. Inoi/Kaitheri/xxxx in which the [Particulars Withheld] Junior Secondary School is registered in the name of Cyrus Munene Mwenje (deceased) and not in the name of Solomon Mwai Munene, the 2nd Respondent. 26. That, both the [Particulars Withheld] Municipality School and [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Junior Secondary School appear in several parcels of land all in the name of the deceased Cyrus Munene Mwenje and none of the title deeds have changed ownership. 27. That, the Applicants' allegations are also based on a misunderstanding of the registration process for Basic Education Institutions in Kenya, as outlined in the 'Registration Guidelines for Basic Education Institutions, 2021.' Among the registration requirements is the minimum land acreage, which varies depending on the location and educational levels of the institution. A copy of the land title deed must be submitted for registration, and in cases where schools do not have adequate playgrounds, they may lease land within 200 meters of the school. Our school is fortunate to have sufficient playgrounds, thanks to the founders' efforts. 28. That, our school is situated on several parcels of land, and I confirm that the following title deeds pertain to the land where the school is located: Inoi/Kaitheri/xxxx, Inoi/Kaitheri/xxx, Inoi/Kaitheri/xxxx, Inoi/Kaitheri/ xxx, Inoi/Kaitheri/xxx, Inoi/Kaitheri/xxx, Inoi/Kaitheri/xxx, Inoi/Kaitheri/ xxx, and Inoi/Kaitheri/xxx. These details confirm the lawful registration of the school. 29. That, I confirm that all the parcels of land listed in the application, which are registered in the name of the deceased Cyrus Munene Mwenje, were submitted to the County Education Office along with other required documents for the registration of both [Particulars Withheld] Municipality School and [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Junior Secondary School. 30. That, to comply with the set land acreage requirements for school registration, I provided copies of the title deeds for all the above-mentioned parcels during the registration process. Both [Particulars Withheld] Municipality School and [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Junior Secondary School were successfully registered after meeting all the necessary requirements. Attached to this affidavit are the registration certificates for both institutions, confirming their registration. I also acknowledge that the [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Junior Secondary School Certificate reflects that the school is located on Plot/L.R. No. Inoi/Kaitheri/xxxx. Annexed hereto and marked "F.M.M-3 & 4" are the registration certificates for both institutions being [Particulars Withheld] Municipality School and [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Junior Secondary School respectively. 31. That, I further confirm that the registration forms did not require the Plot/ L.R. Numbers to be filled in but instead required the attachment of the relevant title deeds or copies of the Plot/L.R. Numbers. All copies of the said title deeds and land parcels were duly submitted along with the Registration Application Forms for both schools. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 13

page 13 of 80

32. That, the forms provided for registration did not include a specific space for Plot/L.R. Nos., and it is my understanding that the County Education Board must have chosen and allocated the appropriate Plot/L.R. No. Given that several Plot/L.R. Nos. were available, only one could be included, and there is nothing irregular about Plot/L.R. No. Inoi/Kaitheri/xxxx appearing on the Registration Certificate. Furthermore, as per the guidelines in place, Junior Secondary Schools were meant to be autonomous and independent of Primary Schools, even if they shared the same compound, which is why separate Plot/ L.R. Nos. were assigned for each level. 33. That, I have not opened any personal bank accounts for the purpose of promoting wastage as alleged by the Applicants. I have always maintained transparency in managing the deceased's funds and properties, with rental income and school fees deposited into designated accounts. The [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primary School account (Account No. 011xxxx800) at Cooperative Bank remains unchanged and continues to be used for the payment of school fees for Pre-Primary and Primary School students, with me as the sole signatory following my husband's passing. The allegation that I diverted school fees into other accounts is false and deeply hurtful. I have attached a letter from Cooperative Bank confirming my status as the sole signatory, along with cancelled cheques to attest to the consistency of the account. Annexed hereto and marked F.M.M-12 is a letter from Cooperative Bank, [Particulars Withheld] Branch that confirms that I, Faith MuthoniMUNENE, hereby known as 1st Respondent I am the sole signatory of the School Bank Account (011xxxx800) at Cooperative Bank Account. Annexed hereto and marked F.M.M-13 and F.M.M-14" are the copies of the cancelled cheques to attest that the Cooperative Bank Account 011xxxx800 that the school operated for school fees collection during the reign of my husband has not changed to date. 34. That, to further clarify, I opened a separate account for [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Junior Secondary School (Account No. 13xxxx40) at Kenya Commercial Bank to ensure proper financial management of fees for the Junior School, distinct from the Primary School account. This was necessary to ensure proper financial oversight and facilitate fee collection for the Junior School without mixing it up with fees from Primary School section. This account is registered in the name of the school, and all fees collected for the Junior School are deposited there. I have attached a letter from KCB confirming that I am the sole signatory of this account. All school fees are paid directly into the designated accounts, and parents receive system-generated receipts, confirming that the funds are properly managed and no fees have been diverted to personal accounts. If such an incident had occurred, parents would have noticed discrepancies and raised complaints, but no such complaints have been received. Annexed hereto and marked "F.M.M-5 to- 7" are the certified copies of the sample receipts to demonstrate how the fees are received and receipts and statements auto generated. 35. That, the proceeds from the coffee farms continue to be deposited into the Cooperative Bank account (Account No. 011xxxx800), as they were during https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 14

page 14 of 80

my late husband's lifetime, and the claim that I opened personal accounts for these funds is false. After my husband's passing, I opened two accounts at Absa Bank (Account Nos. 20xxxx76 and 20xxxx90) to collect rental income, as I was not a co-signatory to his account. [misnumbering or missing paragraphs] 39. That, there is nothing illegal about opening a personal bank account as alleged by the Applicants. I am within my constitutional rights to open and operate personal bank accounts. The dates the aforementioned bank accounts were opened are critical to understanding the purposes for which they were opened. 40. That, I opened the first account, Account Number 011xxxx00 at Cooperative Bank, on 22/10/2013, just after the passing of my husband, who died on 16th October 2013. Since I did not previously have a personal bank account, there was an urgent need to open one to bank the money given by friends to cover burial expenses for my late husband. This was a very painful and emotional period of my life, and I recount this with tears as it serves as a painful reminder of the darkest days of my life. 41. That, in addition, I opened the Absa Account Number 20xxxx76 on 25/11/2013, shortly after my husband's passing. My husband was the sole signatory to an Absa Bank account that was used for rent collection. Upon his passing, there was a need to provide tenants with a new account for rent payments. This new account was opened for that specific purpose. 42. That, in 2016, I realized that I needed an account with an ATM card for easier access to my funds. A bank official advised me to open another account, which led to the opening of Account Number 20xxxx90 at Absa Bank, [Particulars Withheld] Branch, on 24/11/2016. The account opened in 2016 is now the main account used for rent collection. All tenants are informed of this and payments are strictly made through the bank. No payments are made in cash or via Mpesa. 43. That, the 2nd Respondent is not a signatory to any of these accounts, and he cannot conduct any transactions in any of them. It is highly insensitive and irresponsible for the Applicants to make such false allegations, which are aimed at tarnishing my reputation and credibility as the administrator of my late husband's estate. 44. That, the Applicants should take time to seek clarification on the issues they are raising before taking such matters to court. Their actions are causing unnecessary legal embarrassment, as has been asserted by the 2nd Applicant in her sworn affidavit. 45. That, the 2nd Respondent was not working in school in the year 2013 and 2016 when the aforementioned bank accounts were opened by the first Respondent and neither was he made aware that such accounts had been opened since the first Respondent does not need to consult him over such decisions. Therefore, it is false for the Applicants to allege the aforementioned bank accounts were opened to help the 2nd Respondent finance his illegal projects, embezzle and waste deceased funds. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 15

page 15 of 80

46. That, I oppose the closure and audit of my bank accounts and request that the court dismiss the prayers sought. 47. That, the bank accounts listed-Account No. 20xxxx76 and Account No. 20xxxx90, both with Absa Bank, [Particulars Withheld] Branch, -are in my name and serve the purpose of collecting rental income from tenants. These accounts were opened after the death of my late husband on 16th October 2013, as I am the administrator of his estate. My late husband had previously operated an account in the same bank, and I was required to open new accounts for rent collection. Since then, there has been no objection from the beneficiaries of the deceased estate regarding the continuation of rent deposits into these accounts, as they understood that rent payments could no longer be directed to my late husband's account after his passing. 48. That, additionally, Account No. 011xxxx00 with Cooperative Bank, [Particulars Withheld] Branch, has always been in my name, and I fail to see any issue with maintaining an account there. The applicants have sought orders to close this account, but I do not understand why there should be a problem with me holding an account at Cooperative Bank or any other bank. 49. That, I oppose the prayers seeking to have the court appoint the 1st and 2nd applicants as signatories to Account No. 011xxxx800 at Cooperative Bank, [Particulars Withheld] Branch in the names of [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primary School. As the administrator of the school, I have been performing my duties diligently, faithfully, and prudently, and I do not require any assistance. Appointing the 1st and 2nd applicants as co-signatories would negatively affect the operations of the school, as it is highly likely that they will frustrate me in accessing the funds, as has been the case with the 2nd applicant's refusal to give me the grant. The applicants have a history of attempting to sabotage the operations of the school, and such an appointment would provide them with a platform to paralyze the school's operations. 50. That, all purchases of uniforms and textbooks are conducted through school accounts, which adhere to a cashless policy, and the financial transactions are accounted for with transparency. I oversee the funds, being the sole signatory for these accounts, and the school's accounting system ensures that only paid materials are distributed to students. The school has always been audited independently, with an external auditor continuing the work started by the late Cyrus Munene Mwenje, and there have been no changes to this process. I also maintain an efficient system for issuing these materials, with all financial records regularly submitted to the auditor for review. Despite this, the applicants, who have never previously questioned the deceased's management, now seek to undermine me based on nothing more than baseless suspicions. 51. That, I am opposed to the orders sought by the applicants for the opening of a new bank account for the collection of rental income from the deceased's houses and other income, as well as the collection of bus hire income from school buses. As the administrator of the estate, I maintain that the applicants, who are beneficiaries, are out of order in requesting the opening of a new account and the collection of these incomes. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 16

page 16 of 80

52. That, the 2nd Respondent has no access to any funds from the school's operations or the deceased's estate. All payments, including school fees and rental income, are directly deposited into the school's bank account, and the 2nd Respondent does not receive these funds, either in cash, through mobile transactions, or in his personal bank account. The applicants should have provided evidence to show that the 2nd Respondent has been fraudulently receiving money from parents or from bus hire. The financial operations of the school are managed independently, with all transactions processed through designated channels that exclude the 2nd respondent. 53. That, I affirm that the school's financial operations, including revenue from school fees and rental properties, are distinct and managed through established channels. None of these funds have been misappropriated, as suggested by the Applicants. It is important to note that other children and beneficiaries of the deceased also own personal bank accounts, and there is no legal prohibition against such ownership merely because one is a beneficiary. The Applicants have failed to justify their request, as they have provided no evidence linking the accounts to any mismanagement. 54. That, the allegations made by the Applicants regarding the 3rd Respondent's involvement in the school's activities, particularly in relation to the National Drama Festivals, are false. The school did participate in the 61st Kenya National Drama and Film Festival, which took place at Mombasa County from 20th to 29th April 2023. I have attached the Certificate of Participation from the event as evidence, which proves the school's participation. Annexed hereto and marked "F.M.M-8 is a copy of the Certificate of Participation of the said event issued to the school. 55. That, I state that the attached copy of the alleged WhatsApp conversation between the 2nd Applicant and the 3rd Respondent, marked JWM5, is a clear example of witch-hunt tactics and harassment by the 2nd Applicant. Rather than focusing on making positive contributions, the 2nd Applicant is constantly scheming to harass others. The 2nd Applicant knew exactly whom to contact for the information she sought, yet her intention was not to seek genuine assistance but to create unnecessary conflict. The conversation in JWM5 makes it evident that the 2nd Applicant had to unblock her nephew, the 3rd Respondent, first, which confirms the strained relationship between them. 56. That, the 3rd Respondent operates personal bank accounts and owns the mobile numbers referenced by the Applicants, which are his personal property and unrelated to the deceased's estate. The Applicants have no basis to seek an audit of these accounts, and the 3rd Respondent's right to own property, including personal bank accounts and mobile phones, is protected under the Constitution. There is no lawful basis for the Applicants to challenge his right to manage his personal property. Moreover, the request for an audit violates his right to privacy and the Applicants have not provided evidence that justifies such an intrusion into his private affairs. I also note that the Applicants' claims are speculative, unsubstantiated, and designed to harass rather than address legitimate concerns about the administration of the estate. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 17

page 17 of 80

57. That, regarding the Applicants' allegations, I categorically deny any claims that the Second Respondent has engaged in embezzling funds from the school. The Applicants have failed to provide any concrete evidence to substantiate their claims, relying solely on unsubstantiated suspicions. No funds have been paid to the Second Respondent by any parent for any purpose. The Applicants should have presented proof of their allegations if they were genuinely concerned about financial mismanagement, but their claims remain baseless. 58. That, I categorically deny the Applicants' accusations of mismanagement, which are aimed at undermining my efforts to safeguard the legacy of the deceased. Throughout this process, I have acted in good faith, making decisions in the best interest of the estate and the school. I have never misused or diverted any funds, and all financial transactions have been conducted with the highest level of integrity. The growth and success of the school serve as proof of my responsible management, and the allegations made by the Applicants are unfounded and damaging to the reputation of the deceased's estate. 59. That I have been managing the school as a family venture and there is no time I refused the applicants access to KCPE results. I had no reason to do that and moreover once the results are released, they are in the public domain. 60. That, the Applicants have always been able to access the K.C.P.E results directly from the relevant authorities and without the 3rd Respondent's involvement. It is important to note that the 3rd Respondent is not the official custodian of school records, including the K.C.P.E results, and the Applicants are fully aware of this. The claim that any information has been withheld from them is entirely unfounded. The Applicants' allegations are a clear misrepresentation of the facts and appear to be driven by their ongoing succession dispute. 61. That I deny the allegation that the school performance has gone down since 2017. The School has been doing well in all areas expected of the learners as per the objects of the curriculum and the broad- based objects of Basic Education in Kenya as provided for in various Basic Education Statutes. The Applicants have given empirical data per class to back their claims. 62. That the document annexed by the Applicants marked JWM9 to back their claims of low school performance lacks authenticity and its source/authorship remains unknown and thus cannot be relied on. The document is not certified and it contains data from various school which is wrong. 63. That whereas I welcome contributions of ideas from the applicants their aim is to dissuade many students from enrolling in the school by portraying its negative aspects to the parents Annexed is uncertified document marked JWM9 by the Applicants that was meant to dissuade students from enrolling in the school and herein marked "F.M.M-9 –64. THAT any action I take in the school especially in its management including modification to school uniform, logo and motto have been undertaken with a view to keeping the school at per with the other schools and also so as to conform to the dictates of the new https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 18

page 18 of 80

curriculum (Competence -Based Curriculum - CBC) and thus the changes have been done in the best interests of the school. 65. That further, the Ministry of Education required that the Junior Secondary School (now renamed Junior School) should have a different uniform from the Primary School and therefore, as the school administrator, I had to comply. 66. That these decisions which are made to enhance the school's image have been done with the stakeholders' involvement and these include parents and the government represented by the Ministry of Education officials who have been instrumental in guiding the renovations and modifications being carried out in school. 67. That this school was established in 1992 and a lot of infrastructure has to be upgraded and renovated. I have to do this to keep the school competitive. It appears the applicants would wish the school to be rundown which as a cofounder of the same I cannot allow it to happen. 68. That as an educationist in my own right, I know what makes a school attractive to the parents and students who are the most critical stakeholders and that is what I am doing. I am not engaged in any wastage at all. 69. That I am very receptive to suggestions aimed at improving the school whether it is coming from the applicants, the second respondent or any stakeholder. 70. That the applicants are unfairly targeting the second respondent whose contributions and support have been very valuable to the school. My husband and I (founders) recalled the second applicant in 2009 and thus, his father has always expressed his confidence in him to help run the school. Annexed is a letter dated from the founders marked "F.M.M- 10" to confirm this. 71. That the applicants are motivated by ulterior motives and grudges they have held against some individuals in particular myself and the second respondent. 72. That it is not true that the school enrolment has gone down due to the alleged mismanagement. This assertion is not supported with empirical data. In fact, the school's enrolment now stands at 483 students which shows an upward trajectory. Annexed is the data showing the school enrolment from 2012 to 2024 marked "F.M.M- 11" 73. That save for 2019 when there was a temporarily decline of school's enrolment, the school has been on upward trajectory with a target of 600 students in 2025 and this will be the highest enrolment in the history of the school. The temporarily decline in population in 2019 was caused by the second applicant when together with the 2nd interested party sent a controversial message to parents that sharply contradicted the official newsletter earlier sent to parents. However, I as the administrator with the support of the 2nd Respondent worked to repair the damage caused by the conduct of the second applicant and the 2nd interested party and that is why the enrolment has been on gradual rise. The 2nd Applicant and the 2nd interested party who were in school then, were involved fully in the review of school fees. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 19

page 19 of 80

74. That although the estate is at the stage of transmission, some of its assets like the school and rental houses must be kept up to the standard of repair and cleanliness. Any money spent on this is well spent and I am able to give account for the same. 75. That some statutes that govern the running of schools must be adhered to like safety, health and other legal and official requirements. The Government officials have in the past issued various recommendations with an aim of enhancing the safety and well - being of learners. Any money spent in complying with the law and government directives is well spent and not wastages as alleged by the applicants. Annexed are the various recommendations to be complied herein marked as "F.M.M- 12" to "F.M.M15" 76. That failure to comply with the law and to implement the recommendations issued to the school by the Government officials is risking the deregistration of the school or denial of Re - Registration at the point of renewal. 77. That failure to comply with the requirements for Registration of Junior Secondary School as set out in the 'REGISTRATION GUIDELINES FOR BASIC EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS, 2021' meant that the school would have missed out on registration for Junior Secondary School thus losing 3 classes namely Grade 7, Grade 8 and Grade 9. I as the Administrator had to put up the learning facilities and equipment to secure the Registration of Junior Secondary School and doing so is not wastage of funds as alleged by the Applicants. 78. That any physical improvements I have undertaken in the school is aimed at enhancing its standards to attract more students. Thus the renovations that have been carried out are not only necessary but beneficial to the school. Indeed, my late husband and 1 have always carried out Renovations in School without any objection from our children including the Applicants. 79. That, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the government issued stringent health and safety guidelines to all learning institutions and which had to be met before the reopening of schools in the year 2020. As the Administrator, I ensured that [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primary School met all the required protocols and therefore, all renovations carried out in school are necessary contrary to the claims by the applicants that the renovations are unnecessary. 80. That, further, I am determined to actualize the vision we had with my husband when we decided to establish the school. The applicants should not be allowed to pull us down for whatever motive they may have. 81. That the applicants should come out and declare what they want because the first application seeking injunctions was filed only 10 days after I become the administrator. This application was filed after 5 years and it is similar in all aspects to the first one. They are not giving me time to distribute the estate. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 20

page 20 of 80

82. That the applicants' sole intentions in frustrating the completion of this cause is to undermine my authority and to show that I cannot move even a single step without their consent and blessings. 83. That the applicants have other motives to seek orders to close the accounts as they have not adduced any evidence of mismanagement. I began managing the accounts of this school when the applicants were children, they found me managing them and no reason is given as to why I have suddenly become a bad manager. 84. That I have always wanted to resolve the problem in the family but the Applicants have remained uncooperative, giving conditions for meetings and refusing to attend family meetings when called upon by myself as their mother. It is false for the Applicants to allege that I have refused to hold family meetings. 85. That the applicants are just some of my children, there is no reason given why we should be joint holders of the school account with them. 86. That forming a company will require consensus by all the beneficiaries and the court cannot force when to incorporate one if they are not interested. Thus, the order sought to convert the school into a company does not fall within the jurisdiction of the court. Such a matter should be addressed through family discussions and consensus, not by court order. 87. That we are not selling the rice mill which is still one of the subjects of this cause. 88. That, I state that the 1st Applicant, alongside the 2nd Interested Party and the 2nd Respondent, initially joined the school as teachers and supported the administration. While the 2nd Respondent and 2nd Interested Party left voluntarily to work elsewhere, they continued supporting the school when available. The 1st Applicant, however, was ejected from the school due to gross misconduct that threatened its survival, which occurred not only in 2020 but also in 2008 and 2009, when his own father had to eject him. I issued him a disciplinary letter in 2015 for his misconduct, and despite the warnings, his behavior remained disruptive, rude, and disrespectful, leading to his ejection from the school in 2016 with the full support of the 2nd Applicant and 2nd Interested Party. His actions have consistently caused chaos at the school, including incidents captured on CCTV, where he was seen stealing building materials and causing violent disturbances, matters which are currently under police investigation. Annexed hereto and marked "F.M.M-16" to "F.M.M-18" are copies of three letters sent to the 1st Applicant being: a disciplinary letter by Cyrus Munene Mwenje (Deceased) dated 7th May 2013; a letter from the 1st Respondent to the 1st Applicant dated 5th February 2015 and a letter from the 1st Respondent to the 1st Applicant dated 11th February 2015 respectively. 89. That, I wish to respond to the Applicants' request for the Court to order me to apply for confirmation of the grant of letters of administration within 30 days or any other period deemed appropriate. The grant in question was issued to me on January 21, 2019, and the 2nd Applicant subsequently collected it from the court on January 24, 2019, without notifying the other https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 21

page 21 of 80

beneficiaries. The 2nd Applicant's actions in withholding the grant for five years are questionable, as the document should have been shared promptly with all beneficiaries. She only handed it over to me in 2024, which suggests a potential misuse of authority and a disregard for my rights and the rights of other beneficiaries in the administration of the estate. 90. That, I strongly feel that the 2nd Applicant should not project herself as superior to me, nor should she claim that her father confided more in her than in me, his wife. It seems she is resorting to all means possible to push for the confirmation of the grant to go a certain way. She did not want a family-based discussion about the grant but sought court orders to pursue her agenda. As the advocate of the Succession Cause, the 2nd Applicant crafted a plan that involved filing succession disputes to pressure me into agreeing to the proposed company shareholding, and her true motives are revealed in Paragraphs 42 and 43 of the Affidavit in Support of the Summons. This litigation could have been avoided if the 2nd Applicant had simply allowed the family to discuss the matter in a reasonable and professional manner. 91. That, I am deeply saddened by the 2nd Applicant's conduct and the way she has treated me. She appears to be overstepping her mandate, even making claims about things my late husband supposedly told her. As his legally married wife, I shared everything with him, and I do not need to be reminded by the 2nd Applicant of our conversations. 92. That, I wish to express my dissatisfaction with the approach taken by the 2nd Applicant, who seems to project herself as being closer to the deceased than I was, his own wife. Before my husband allegedly instructed the registration of 'Baraka Rice Mills,' we had already discussed the business idea extensively, as we always did, in our relationship built on trust and unity. She seeks to compel me through the court to confirm the grant in a proposed structure, yet I find this approach to be belittling. Her actions suggest that I have little say in the matter, as though the decisions regarding the succession and the family's future have already been made, leaving me with no voice. 93. That, the remarks made by the 2nd Applicant have relegated me to the role of a mere beneficiary, undermining my position as the wife of the deceased. It seems as though I am being made to bow to the demands of the Applicants, who believe that my role is to follow their instructions without question. Her approach implies that my knowledge and contribution are of little value, as she positions herself as the one to guide the entire family in matters of succession. This makes it clear that, in her view, I have no say in the process, and my role is to submit to her decisions. I find this deeply disrespectful and contrary to the unity and mutual respect that should guide family matters. 94. That the applicants have failed to justify the figure of Ksh. 50,000 per month, nor have they provided any basis for how they arrived at this amount, including consultations with me about my monthly expenses. 95. That the 2nd Applicant, driven by her desire to divide the deceased's property among herself and her siblings, has sought every opportunity to discredit me, https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 22

page 22 of 80

calling me "too old" and undermining my role in the family. It is clear to me that her allegations are meant to demean me and mislead the court. 96. That I am not aware of any law that prevents me from managing the property of the deceased in which I am a co - founder because of my age which the Applicants term "too old." 97. That, the 2nd Applicant's behavior in the school has been highly disruptive to the smooth running of the institution. She displaces the Head Teacher or Deputy Head Teacher from their offices to conduct her official virtual court sessions. These are administrative offices, and as such, the school staff is unable to perform their duties, including attending to parents. Parents are left stranded when they cannot access the Head Teacher or Deputy Head Teacher due to ongoing court sessions. 98. The Applicants have failed to provide any evidence of my alleged misconduct, and these claims appear to be part of a deliberate attempt to undermine my position as the administrator of the estate. 99. That, I have diligently managed the estate and school, providing a full scope of evidence to support my prudent leadership. Contrary to the Applicants' unfounded claims, I have not been involved in any form of intermeddling of the deceased's estate, but instead, I have worked hard to preserve the estate and its productivity, despite the overwhelming personal challenges I faced after my husband's tragic death in 2013. I have been prudent and diligent in my role, yet the Applicants' claims of intermeddling are baseless and malicious, attempting to undermine my efforts and dedication. 100. That, I have always acted with honesty, diligence, and prudence in managing the estate and the school, motivated by my deep sense of responsibility towards both my late husband's legacy and the welfare of the children in my care. 101. That, the accusations of embezzlement and mismanagement are completely unfounded, fuelled by sibling rivalry, and intended to diminish my authority and legacy. I urge the Honorable Court to dismiss the Applicants' unfounded prayers in their entirety, which, if granted, is detrimental to the estate and school, and to protect me from undue harassment. 102. That all the allegations made in the application against me and the second respondent and the third respondent are false and malicious. 103. That all the prayers in the application are not necessary because at the end of the day, I shall account for the entire estate as the law requires. 104. That, in response to all the Orders sought by the Applicants in their Application Being Summons, I categorically and unequivocally oppose the granting of the said Orders contained in the aforementioned Orders sought. 105. That this application has caused delay in distributing the estate, the same should be dismissed with costs and the Honourable Court do grant me time in which to file Summons for Confirmation of Grant Intestate. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 23

page 23 of 80

106. That I oppose all other prayers sought by the applicants and urge this honorable court to reject them on the following grounds: The applicants have failed to adduce any evidence to support their allegations xxx. That, I, as the Administrator cannot purport to disinherit beneficiaries/ children of the late Cyrus Munene Mwenje of the rightful acreage which we occupy and have extensively developed. 108. That, I request this Honourable Court to consider my Response and give effect to my requests and wishes of my deceased husband in the interests of justice. 109.THAT, I request this Honourable Court to consider sending/ fixing/directing this succession cause to a neutral mediator/court annexed mediator since this being a sensitive family issue, it would be better resolved in a peaceful manner.” 4. The 2nd and 3rd respondent filed replying Affidavits in support of the 1st respondent’s case. 5. The applicants filed a Supplementary Affidavit sworn by the 2nd Applicant on 19/2/2025 responding to the Replying Affidavits of the 1st and 3rd respondents and enclosing some affidavit by two others, as follows: “ SUPPLEMENTARY AFFIDAVIT of Jane Wangechi Munene 1. That I am the 2nd applicant herein and have the authority of the 1st applicant to swear as this affidavit on his behalf and on my behalf hence competent to swear as this affidavit. 2. That I have read both the 1st Respondent's and 3rd Respondent's Replying Affidavits to our Summon3 dated 7th June 2024 and it is in reply thereto I swear this affidavit. 3. That the said affidavits contain material false hoods as I will demonstrate hereunder. 4. That to begin with, my co-applicant and I's summons dated 7/6/2024 is not in any way meant to delay transmission of the estate. No confirmation yet has ever been done since the letters of administration were issued on 21st January 2019 to give way to transmission. 5. That as a lawyer, I duly advised my mother, who is the administrator to what steps to take to ensure that the grant is confirmed but she told me in Kikuyu language, “IKAGAYO NGAKUA" translated in English to mean 'the property will be distributed when I die". 6. That concerning [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primary School now known as [Particulars Withheld] Municipality School, every time my coapplicant and I raise objection as to how it is being run by both her and the 2nd Respondent, she says in Kikuyu language, “YEENDA GUTHIRA NI THIRE” translated in English to mean, "IF IT GOES UNDER, LET IT GO UNDER" 7. That she has since 2017 repeated these statements to us every time we raise our concerns as to the running of the School and the estate and it is surprising for https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 24

page 24 of 80

her to say that I have frustrated every move she has made to transmit the estate that she has not even moved the court to distribute. 8. That the deceased estate derives income from the school fees, school tours school buses hire, rental income and coffee income from approximately 5.5 acres of land, yet there is no investment that we have done since 2013, 11 years after our father's death. 9. That my co-applicant and I have no problem with the way my mother and my late father managed and ran to school since its inception and until my father died on 16th October 2013. 10. That problems arose in 3rd term 2017 where 2nd Respondent joined the management as clearly demonstrated in my earlier application dated 31% January 2019 annexed herewith and marked JWM1. 11. That I had applied for letters of administration, using my law firm's name Wangechi Munene & Co. Advocates. When the 1st and 2nd Respondent, started intermeddling with the deceased estate, I could not continue using the said name. I had to instruct another advocate and seek orders against the 1st and 2nd respondents which orders were duly issued. 12. That since 3rd term 2017 to 31st January 2019, we tried to engage our mother personally and also through our relatives on issues we raised in our application dated 31st January 2019 but she did not listen to us. 13. That I did not know that letters of administration had been duly gazetted way back on 10th September 2018. I had to push the registry to issue letters of administration as a matter of urgency to enable us move the Court appropriately. 14. That our going to Court on 31s January 2019, after letters of administration were issued on 21st January 2019 was therefore without any ill-will or motive. We were hard pressed by what was happening to the school; issues our mother has refused to settle since 3rd term 2017. 15. That the 1st Respondent cannot also be heard to say that the Application dated 31s January 2019 and the present one dated 7th June 2024 has hindered her in any moving the Court to confirm the grant. That letters were issued on 21st January 2019. The 1st and 2nd Respondents started intermeddling thereof in 2017 resulting to us going to Court in 2019 to stop the same. That prior to this we had involved both paternal and maternal relatives to talk to our mother regarding the issues raised in the 1st Application to no avail. After we obtained Court Orders in 2019, she told us she is now ready to listen to us and involve everyone in the management of the school; but she refused. She said that there will be no meeting that will be held in her home; she will work with whoever she wants and that the estate will be distributed after she dies. Several meetings between her and our paternal relatives after the issuance of Court Orders of 2019 have borne no fruit. 16. There is no reason as to why the 1" Respondent has not moved the Court since 2019 to confirm the grant. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 25

page 25 of 80

17. That further the 1t Respondent has in several cases by and against the estate used the Letters of Administration and she cannot be heard to say that I hid Letters of Administration from her for five years. These cases are:- i) ELC 95 of 2029 Faith Muthoni Munene suing as legal administrator of Cyrus Munene Mwenje vs Nesto Muriu and two(2) others - finalized ii) High Court Succession No. 85 of 2013.In the matter of the estate of Rubai Kabagi. Mary Wangari Mararo vs Faith Muthoni Munene sued as legal representative of Cyrus Munene Mwenje and 11 others. iii) ELC High Court No. 35 of 2019 Faith Muthoni Munene suing as legal administrator of Cyrus Munene Mwenje and 4others vs iv) Cr. Case 1012 of 2018. Republic vs Stephen Nyaga and 3 others (Attached herewith are pleadings in the said cases marked JWM 2(a), (b) and (c) 18. That both the 1st and 2nd Respondent cannot now claim that I have been hiding letters of administration for five(5) years and/or have kept the rest of the beneficiaries in the dark over issuance of the same. The 1st Respondent has been having possession of the letters of administration which she has used to prosecute and defend the above cases on behalf of the deceased estate. 19. That the Court record would bear witness also that she has been summoned twice to show-cause why the Succession Cause should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. 20. That among the properties the deceased owned was Block/Plot Wanguru/365. (Jointly owned between him and our maternal grandfather, Joseph Gitumbu Kabutu (deceased). (Attached herewith is a copy of minutes from Kirinyaga County Council as it then was to confirm this JWM3). 21. That sometime back the family of my said maternal grandfather wanted to have the plot shared out between them and our family. When my mother 1st Respondent asked for my legal advice; I told her succession over the person who died last our father ought to be done and our grandfather's family called during confirmation for distribution thereof. 22. That when she heard that she also had to move the Court to confirm the grant not only over that plot but all other of our late father's properties, she said that the joint plot between our father and grandfather would not be shared out any more. 23. That all this shows that the 1st Respondent has been adamant to have the grant confirmed. In the meantime, the estate is being wasted by her under her watch. 24. The 1st Respondent also says that registration documents of the School are both in her names and that of the deceased which is not true as exhibited by her own annextures marked FMM1, FMM3 and FMM4. The 2ud Respondent's mobile phone number 0722 282 702 appears as the designated contact person. 25. That it is also not true that my father's wishes were that the school is registered in the name of my mother solely. Being an advocate, my father in the presence of my mother, 1st Respondent mandated me to have the School converted into a company; with her and dad, having 50% shareholding and the 5 children, 10% https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 26

page 26 of 80

each. Disclosing this to this Honourable Court does not mean that I belittle my mother and/or that I claim any superiority over her as the deceased wife. 26. That the said conversation was held in her presence as the wife of the deceased. It is good to note that she does not deny that such a conversation was held between my late father, 1st Respondent and I. 27. That at the time of the death in 16/10/2023, [Particulars Withheld] Municipality School was registered in the name of the deceased. 28. That any transfer or change of ownership thereof to any other person even our mother could only be done in a succession court and with consent of all the beneficiaries. 29. That the requirement to have the schools required at county level came about in 2010 after the 2010 Constitution. Our father died in 16/10/2023. Application for registration of the school in the 1st Respondent's name was done in 2021. The question therefore remains is why the 1s" Respondent did not move the court to have the school which was in deceased name transmitted properly in a succession court yet it had been operating through the repealed laws from 2010 to 2021 when the registration was done. 30. That both [Particulars Withheld] Municipality School and [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Junior Secondary School lies on Land Parcel No. Inoi/Kaitheri/211 now subdivided into Land Parcel No. Inoi/Kaitheri/ xxxx and xxxxand the 1st Respondent has not explained why she had to indicate that it lies on Land Parcel No. Inoi/Kaitheri/xxxx which is not the case. 31. That whereas it is true that a school proprietor has to show that the school has enough land for playground and recreation, the actual title where the school is located has to be indicated; which is not the case for [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Junior Secondary School. The motive of this misleading information remains unknown. 32. That at the time of deceased death, the school was being run through Cooperative Bank Account No. 011xxxx800, Account name, [Particulars Withheld] Municipality School. Both the deceased and the 1t Respondent were joint signatories thereof. 33. That after the illegal registration of [Particulars Withheld] Municipality School and [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Junior Secondary School in the name of the 1st Respondent, an account No. 13xxxx40, KCB Bank, [Particulars Withheld] Branch for the junior school was opened. To the extent that the Junior Secondary School, was borne out of the deceased's original [Particulars Withheld] Municipality School; a bank statement should be provided for us, as beneficiaries of the estate, to know how the funds have been utilized thereof. 34. That the 1st Respondent has also confirmed that the coffee proceeds continue being deposited in the School Cooperative Bank Account No. 011xxxx800 that the deceased left. The School was registered in the deceased name at the time of his death and the coffee farms lies on parcels of land registered in the deceased names. The 1" Respondent should therefore provide the Statement https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 27

page 27 of 80

of account for these accounts to us being beneficiaries thereof to know how the money has been utilized over the years. 35. That the 1st Respondent has also confirmed that after our father's death she opened two (2) other accounts at Absa Bank, [Particulars Withheld], being Account Nos. 20xxxx76 and 20xxxx90 both for rent collection. The question that remains unanswered is why open two (2) accounts for the same purpose. Further these accounts collect rental income from the deceased rental houses. The 1st Respondent should therefore provide the Statement of account for these accounts to us being beneficiaries to the estate to know how the money has been utilized over the years. 36. That the 1st Respondent says that she opened Account No. 20xxxx76 on 25th November 2013, at Absa bank shortly after our father passed on for rent collection. The question that we have is that why were the latter Account Nos. 20xxxx90 opened in the same bank for the same purpose. 37. That the 1st Respondent later contradicts herself when she says that she realized in 2016 that she needed an ATM Card and was hence advised by the Bank to open another Account No. 20xxxx90 so as to get easy 'access to her funds'. Earlier one she had said that the account was for rent collection. Secondly it is common knowledge that one does not need to open a new account to acquire an ATM Card but only needs to apply for one in an existing account. 38.That further, if it is true that Account No. 011xxxx00 at Cooperative Bank, [Particulars Withheld] was opened by the 1st Respondent allegedly to bank money given by friends to cover the deceased burial, was it closed after the burial or does it continue banking money from the deceased estate? The 1 Respondent should therefore provide the Statement of account for this account to confirm the foregoing. 39. That the truth of the matter that all these numerous accounts have been opened to aid in embezzlement and wastage of deceased funds. To the extent that they all hold money from the deceased estate either from his school, coffee proceeds and rental income an audit thereof should be carried out to show us, as beneficiaries to the estate, how the money therein has been used over the years. 40. That my co- applicant and I were not in any position to object to all these accounts being opened as we were not made aware; the same way we are not made aware of how the school is run and managed. 41. That in a nut-shell, my co-applicant and I being beneficiaries to the estate are legally entitled to a thorough audit of how deceased funds have been utilized over the years hence the Application before Court. 42. That it beats common sense why the 1st Respondent says that she would have a problem with new accounts opened in her name and our names (Applicants) because we shall frustrate her in accessing the funds. Particularly she says I will frustrate her like the way I did when I allegedly refused with the letters of administration. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 28

page 28 of 80

43. That the truth of the matter is that I have never refused to release the letters of administration to the 1t Respondent. As her advocate in the cases listed above, we have been in and out of court with the 1s" Respondent using the same letters of administration which have been in her possession all along. 44. That over and above the civil matters, I also spearheaded two (2) robbery with violence matters involving the suspects who kidnapped and killed our father, being Cr, Cases 490/13 R vs Peter Kariuki and six (6) others and Cr. Case 712/2015, Rep vs Simon Ume and another for six(6) good years. I was available for every court attendance and duty required either by the state counsel, the investigating officer or prosecution witnesses. It is therefore preposterous for my mother to now say I will not be available as a joint signatory to the joint accounts. 45. That it is not true that the 3rd Respondent is volunteer in the school. He holds the position of an Assistant Manager of the School while the 2nd Respondent is the Manager. These are positions bestowed upon them without consent and/or consultation of the other beneficiaries. (Attached herewith and marked is a copy of a letter by the School Headteacher, Mr. C.J Gitura to the Executive Secretary, Kenya National Drama Festivals, requesting that the School participates in the National Drama Festival marked JWM4) 46. That in the said letter, is a Festival Entry Form, whereby the 3rd Respondent's position in the School is clearly spelt out as Assistant Manager. 47.That while in this position, the 2nd Respondent, who is the, 'Manager delegates various duties to the 3rd Respondent. The 2nd Respondent may direct the 3rd Respondent to attend a parent who want a rebate on school fees. The 3rd Respondent may for example agree on a discounted school fees of Kshs. 25,000 whereby but he will pocket Kshs. 5,000. This has happened over the years the 3rd Respondent has been in the school as the Assistant Manager. 48.The 2nd Respondent in collusion with the 1st Respondent as the 'Manager' has also been doing the same thing since 2017 and continually denies that he designates himself as the manager of the school of the deceased's estate without consent of the other beneficiaries. (Attached herewith is a letter addressed to a teacher dated 30th Dec 2022 and the current school brochure where the 2nd Respondent has signed himself as the school manager marked as JWM 5 and JWM 6 respectively) 49. That 3rd Respondent is also mandated by the 1st and 2nd Respondent to organize school tours and activities like drama festivals. 50. That while doing budget for such activities, he usually exaggerates the budget and receives more money than required from the 1 Respondent vide petty cash vouchers. Sometimes the money is sent directly to his cell phone no. or 0702 098182 assigned to Junior Secondary School Therefore, there is need to carry out audit over these numbers. 51. That the 2nd Respondent also receives money for school fees, school trips, school buses' hire directly in his cell phone no. and does not have all of banked in the relevant school account hence the need of a thorough audit of his accounts and mobile no. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 29

page 29 of 80

52. That a good example is the 3td Respondent going to any length to have the school participate in the National Drama Festivals in Mombasa, yet the school had won nothing; for him to mint some few coins from the school. 53. That those are reasons among others that we pray for the 2nd and 3rd Respondent's mpesa statements and bank statements and their audit thereof to be conducted. 54. That as whole, an audit of school fees received from the students as per the enrolment since 2017 should also be conducted plus all other monies generated from school trips and bus hire. 55. That the 3rd Respondent in his capacity as the Assistant Manager of the School as well as the 2nd Respondent has access to the school results which he chose not to give me, saying that he did not have the same yet he was purportedly using the top student to market the school. This was in 2022. Since 2017, my co-applicant and I have never been shown the school results even by the 1st Respondent. The School employees are usually under strict instructions not to allow us access to them. 56. That contrary to the 1st Respondent's assertion school results are only released to the head teacher of a school or someone authorized by the school owner. They are not in the public domain. The school Head teacher is usually under strict instructions not to allow the applicants to get hold of the results. 57.That the 1st and 3rd Respondents have resulted in embarrassing and under hand tactics being the self-proclaimed manager and Assistant manager respectively to intimidate and threaten employees with sacking who would dare cooperate with the applicants whenever they seek information about the school or use the school vehicles regardless of any emergency and urgency that the applicants may have. 58. That due to this attitude which boarders to utmost disrespect coming from a nephew/ 3rd Respondent who is like my own son. I chose to block him. 59. That it is not true that the changes in school logo, uniform and motto were undertaken with a view of keeping the school at per with other schools and also to conform to the new dictates of the new curriculum (Competence Based Curriculum). There was no requirement from the Ministry of Education that the uniform had to be changed. The least we could is to retain the uniform, logo and motto to remember our late father but we were not consulted. 60. That the 1st and 2nd Respondents changed primary school uniform in 2018 which was not a requirement of Competence Based Curriculum. Junior Secondary School stream was due to start in 2022. In all these, the applicants input on the same was disregarded among many other projects that the Respondents have undertaken costing colossal sums of money. 61. That we are not talking about the uniform for Junior Secondary School but the new uniform introduced in 2018 amidst Court Orders not to do so. 62. That the 2nd Respondent has continually insinuated that the applicants are not versed with the Registration Guidelines for Basic Education and we put https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 30

page 30 of 80

him to strictly proof that changing of the school logo, motto change of primary school uniform is a requirement by the Ministry of Education. The applicants are graduates and are well exposed and informed. The flurry of changes that the 1st and 2nd Respondents have engaged in are only meant to embezzle the deceased's estate. 63. That the complimentary note dated 5th January 2009, purportedly written by our late father is a addressing the 2nd applicant is utter forgery by the 1st Respondent. The same did not emanate from him but from the 1t Respondent who has not only impersonated the deceased but forged his signature. This just serves to amplify the extent that the applicants would go to justify the intermeddling of the deceased's estate that has run for the past 8 years amid court order against the same. 64. That our father being literate and a teacher in his own right could have done the said note in his own handwriting but not use our mother to write the same. Any communication to his children was usually oral and at home not formally through memos. 65. That being a teacher and great educationist in Kenya, our late father could not even bother advocates to write simple agreements leave alone a complimentary notes. (Attached herewith are copies of agreement that he did once to demonstrate this, marked JWM7) 66. That the truth of the matter is that the 2nd Respondent graduated from Daystar University with Bachelor of Education in June 2002. 67. That he thereafter briefly became a teacher of [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primary School where he worked for less than two (2) years and joined British American Insurance, Embu until December 2009 when he was terminated from employment. (Attached herewith and marked JWM8 is a copy of a memo from British American Insurance Co. Ltd to confirm this) 68. That he later joined Pan Africa Life Assurance Ltd, Nanyuki branch in early 2010 as a sales manager. He was later transferred to their Nairobi branch. (Attached herewith and marked JWM9 is a copy of a letter to confirm the foregoing). 69. That he later joined Madison Insurance on 1st January 2016 as an Agency Manager before his employment being relegated to a unit manager with effect from1st May 2017 due to non-performance. (Attached herewith and marked JWM10 is a copy of a letter dated 26th April 2017, to confirm the foregoing). 70.That he opted to resign vide his letter dated 18th May 2017 and came back to school with a flurry of changes that led to our application dated 31st January 2019. (Attached herewith and marked JWMIl is a copy of his letter to confirm this.) 71. That for the 1st Respondent to now forge a letter in her own handwriting and purport that the same emanated from our late father is a big lie and falsehood to ingrain the 2nd Respondent's downgrading of our father's school. In particular, he was not in the school in 2009. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 31

page 31 of 80

72. That the chronology of the events since the 2nd Respondent graduated up and until 2017 clearly depicts that he was not in the school at the time that the letter was written. He was never honoured the 'flowery' sentimental letter that 'begged' him to rejoin the school as the same is authored by our mother for to defend themselves in this application. He only came back after a series of sackings and demotions in the insurance companies that he worked for before. 73.That in fact our late father fell into a coma in late 2009 due to diabetic condition and when he recovered he kept on lamenting in Kikuyu Language, "Mwai andiga ndi murwaru, athii kwambiriria kiganda kia mundu ungi atigite kiao", loosely translated in English to mean, Mwai, has gone to start new company, leaving his own company here. At the time he had left British American Insurance Company Ltd to join Pan Africa Life Assurance Ltd. 74. That the trajectory allegedly showing data of school enrolment from 2012 to 2024, supports our application dated 31s January 2019. Due to unilateral school increment to almost double in 3rd term 2017, we lost 67 children that term and another 100 in January 2018. The school had to gain it pace slowly as parents got used to the new school fees. 75. That the question that remains is, if there was a better way of doing this. If there was an urgent need to increase the school fees; couldn't it have been gradual instead of almost double and instantly. 76. That I know for a fact that the 2nd Respondent used to leave employment at the school in protest and at will whenever our father did not agree with his decisions concerning the school. For the 2nd interested party, she was advised by our late father to go acquire managerial skills in a public school set up; which skills would be useful in running the school. She had taught in the school from 2001 to 2008. 77. That our late father thereafter approached Teacher Service Commission (TSC) and sought deployment of the 2nd interested party at Teachers Training College. The only available post then, was Eregi Teachers Training where she joined in January 2013. 78. That the deceased later sought her transfer to a nearby college so that she/ 2nd interested party could assist him in the management and asked her to fill transfer letters immediately. This was effected after his death by his close brother, Mr. Stephen Mutugi Mwenje and the then Senator, Hon Daniel Karaba. All this was because the 2nd Respondent had refused to assist him in the management and went to be employed by Insurance companies as explained hereinabove. (Attached herewith and marked JWM 12 is a copy of the Transfer Letter dated 6" January 2014.) 79. That the 2nd interested Party is also a trainer of trainers of Competence Based Curriculum; yet she cannot be allowed by both the 1 and 2nd Respondent to do so. (Attached herewith and marked JWM13 is a copy of a Letter dated 8th March 2023 inviting her to do so.) 80. That the 1st Applicant has been in school as a teacher since he graduated in 2004 and has acquired several certificates of merit awarded by both the https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 32

page 32 of 80

ministry of education at County and Sub-county levels and A.C.K Church, Diocese of Kirinyaga; sponsored schools, for excellence performance in KCPE. (Attached herewith and marked JWM 14(a)-(r) are copies of the certificates). 81.That the 1st Applicant has never has never been ejected from the school due to gross misconduct or otherwise in 2008, 2009 and 2020 or at all and neither has he ever received the disciplinary letters dated 5th February 2015 allegedly drawn by the 1st Respondent. The applicant has several certificate spanning several years for exemplary performance in his class work and his management acumen. 82. That in the same year, 2015 the 1st Applicant received Certificate of Merit from Ministry of Education, ACK Sponsored schools for attaining 2nd Position in Science subject KCPE results in Kirinyaga County. The alleged dismissal from work by the 1st Respondent vide the forged letters is unfounded and fuelled by ill will as exhibited by the certificates that he was awarded in the same year Attached herewith and marked as JWM15 and JWM16) 83. That this shows that the alleged disciplinary letters are forged and fabricated to paint the 1st Applicant as irresponsible and one who cannot teach and manage the school. 84. That the 1st Applicant taught until 2017 when the Respondents started making false reports at the police for creating disturbance whenever he raised an objection of how things were being run at the school. (Attached herewith and marked JWM17 is a copy of a judgment in one of the cases where the 1st Applicant was acquitted.) 85. That when charges of creating disturbance could not hold a conviction, the 2nd and 3rd Respondent have now resulted to make false allegations of assault. 86.That since 2017 when the 2nd Respondent joined the school in 3rd term, he has cunningly and selfishly created a wedge between with mother such that the family has been torn into two. The 1st & 2nd Respondents have ran the school in deep seated secrecy and the applicants remaining mere spectators. The top management meetings between the Respondents is held in secrecy out of the Applicants earshot. That the School is therefore ran by the Respondents in exclusion of the rest of the beneficiaries. 87. That in fact in order to keep us away from knowing anything concerning the school, the 2nd Respondent in collusion with the 1t Respondent, demolished the wall partitioning the offices of both the 1st Applicant and 2nd Respondent and converted it to a single office. They thereafter removed the wooden door and changed it to a metallic door so as to prevent the 1 Applicant to access his office. (Attached herewith are photos of the changed door to the office marked as JWM18) 88. That in fact our mother has divided her family into two groups: the 1st and 2nd Applicants and 2nd interested party on one hand and the 2nd Respondent and 1st interested party and herself on the other hand. Any contribution by the 1st group is met with contempt, trashed as of no consequence. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 33

page 33 of 80

89. That at no point in time did my co-applicant and I send unauthorized communication to parents regarding school fees in November/ December 2018 or at all. We only protested and begged the 1t Respondent not to allow the same. She refused. 90. That there was no financial challenges between 2014 and 2017 as alleged by the 2nd Respondent to warrant increment of school fees to almost double. He was not even at the school during this period as we have already demonstrated. The School has never been unable to pay its expenses. 91. That the alleged marketing strategies and numerous renovations alluded in paragraphs 35,36 and 37 of the 2nd Respondent's replying affidavit are ploy by the 1 and 3rd Respondents to siphon and embezzle money from the estate. Why are the rest of the beneficiaries not involved in these so called noble tasks. 92.That it is a common fact and knowledge to everybody at the school that motor vehicle registration No. KBZ xxxx has been in garage for three (3) years now, wasting deceased funds on its repairs. The mechanics have resulted to coming to school instead and repairing it from there. 93. That it is true that the 1st Respondent had called me regarding selling the rice mill. When I told her it could not be sold as it is subject to succession, she adamantly said she will sell it. My late father's brother, Ephantus Mwangi Mwenje also called me about it upon which I told him the same thing. 94. That it is good to note that the 2nd Respondent does not deny that such intended sale existed. 95. That the 2nd Respondent has adversely lied to the court in regard to his active role in the intermeddling of the deceased property as the applicants have vividly demonstrated. He has engaged in a string of the so called requirements by engaging unnecessary so called developments as a cover up to his fraudulent activities at the school. As recently as this term he has installed over 100 CCTV cameras in three buildings under the guise that it is a Ministry of Education requirement. 96. That the health facility at the school being ran by a third party Health X is illegal as per their registration details that limits the company's operations strictly within Nairobi county notwithstanding that the operating licence is already expired. It is a business within the school whose agreement was between the 1st and 2nd Respondents who have no legal capacity to act on behalf of the other Beneficiaries. 97. That the 2nd Respondent in collusion with the 1st Respondent have engaged in unethical financial prudence whereby the 1st Respondent deposited a sum of Kshs 150,000 into the 2nd Respondent's Cooperative bank account which he acknowledges. 98. That the 2nd Respondent alleges withdrawal of the said sum to pay Kieni Computers whereas the 1s Respondent was in a position to make the same withdrawal to pay the said payment to the said Kieni Computers. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 34

page 34 of 80

99. That the said annexed bank statements by the 2nd Respondent are scanty and selective meant to hoodwink this court of the innocence of the Respondents. Why not give full bank statements of all the accounts concerning the school and themselves if they have nothing to hide. 100. That the actions of the Respondents financially are shrouded with suspicion and only serves to fuel the need and urgency to audit the mentioned bank accounts and their mobile phone numbers to ascertain the financial status of the deceased estate whereby the applicants are beneficiaries. 101. That the above issues have been there since 2017, we have literally kneeled before our mother asking her not to allow our family to split and to deal with the issues above when she is still alive. She has refused. 102. That we have gone ahead and involved paternal relatives, maternal relatives and friends alike. She has refused to listen to our views vowing repeatedly over the years that: she will work with the one she wants. the school can be wound up and she does not care. any confirmation of grant will be done when she is dead. She does not care if her children are divided or not. Even Martha Koome cannot force her to distribute the estate. 103. That recently she has started cursing us whenever she sees us, telling us in Kikuyu language, 'nimukugucia ndigi', a Kikuyu phrase that means we shall die. 104. That as earlier pointed out our family has now been divided into two groups, our mother, the 2nd Respondent and the 1s interested party on one hand and the applicants and 2nd interested party on the other hand. The two groups do not talk to one another. Our mother is biased against us and any meeting to settle the above issues will not be fruitful as she has already taken a strong stand on the matter over the years. 105. That because of this no mediator can arbitrate over the issues we have raised due to the divisions in the family and our mother's biased stance over example. We need to know how the deceased funds have been utilized over the years. 106. That for example in October 2023, the 2nd Respondent wanted to vie for a seat of National Chairman, Kenya Private Schools Association (KPSA) posing as the registered owner of the school. xxx. That we raised an objection thereof vide our email dated 5th October 2023. Instead of listening to our concerns, she personally went at the venue of the elections at Bomas of Kenya, accompanied by the 3rd Respondent and announced at the venue that she had endorsed the 2nd Respondent to vie for the seat despite not being the owner of the school. Luckily the association considered our concerns as valid and the 2nd Respondent was disqualified to vie for the seat. 108. That shows the extent of our mother's bias towards us and her disregard to any concerns we raise concerning the school. (Attached herewith and marked JWM 19 is a copy of our said email) 109. That we hereby attached copies of affidavits from our late father's brothers, Ephantus Mwangi Mwenje and Charles Murimi Mwenje to confirm the foregoing and also to shed light on our late father's wishes concerning the school. JWM20 x https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 35

page 35 of 80

110. 6. That for these reasons I pray that the application be allowed.” The 2nd applicant’s supplementary affidavit applicants’ attached two affidavits sworn by two brothers of the Deceased Charles Murimi Mwenje and Ephentus Mwangi Mwenje, which in material parts in the same terms that: “ 4. That we were lour brothers in total; the deceased being the first.... 5. That problems in my late brothers family started in 2017. 6. That his children, Mercy Wanjiru Munene, Isaac Kariuki Munene and Jane Wangechi Munene approached my brothers and I told us that there were various things that were being done in the school by their mother and their brother Solomon Mwai Munene in exclusion of the rest of the children which thev were not happy with. 7. That they told us that. at the time their mother together with their brother Solomon Mwai Munene had increased school lees to almost double causing many children to leave School. 8. That they also complained that there were many unnecessary renovations that were being done in the school which according to them were only aimed at wasting the deceased's School’s funds. 9. That the said children said that their mother had refused to listen to them and requested us to go speak to her on their behalf as they were worried that the school was going down the drain. 10. That together with my two brothers we approached their mother who refused to hold a meeting and listen to their grievances. 11. That it is then that Wanjiru Munene, lsaac Kariuki Munene and Jane Wangechi Munene went to Court and obtained some injunction orders to stop what they were complaining about. l2. That after they went to Court and obtained the said orders, their mother implored upon us to talk to her children to leave tile Court Case, they solve the issues outside Court. 13. That the children agreed to do so but their mother has since then, refused to hold a meeting in her home. 14. That we have tried several times to talk to her and get all her children involved in the running of the school hut our pleas have fallen on deaf ear. 15. That during the last meeting ill 2023 1. their mother agreed she will distribute the estate and each of her children will have a certain shareholding in the school. 16. That the following day alter the meeting. she called me and told me that she has changed her mind....” https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 36

page 36 of 80

7. The 1st respondent filed a further Affidavit of 28/4/2025 in response to the Supplementary Affidavit of Charles Murimi Mwenje and Ephentus Mwangi Mwenje of 19/2/2025 which were attached to the supplementary Affidavit, and reiterated her case as follows: “ 1st Respondent's Further Affidavit of 28 April 2025 I, Faith Muthoni Munene of P.O BOX 185-10300, [Particulars Withheld] within the Republic of Kenya do hereby make oath and state as follows: 2. That, I have read the Supplementary Affidavit dated 19th February 2025 brought together with the annexed Affidavits in Support sworn by Charles Murimi Mwenje and Ephentus Mwangi Mwenje and that I deny each and every allegation contained in the Supplementary Affidavit THAT, supplementary affidavit is not filed in good faith, as the two uncles of the Applicants have teamed up with them to frustrate me for reasons better known to themselves. I reaffirm that the Second Applicant, who was my advocate then, has never advised me on the legal steps to be taken she took the grant of letters of Administration intestate on 24th January 2019 and kept me in the dark for over five years without advising me on the necessary actions after it was issued. Attached is the grant of letters of Administration intestate, dated 24th January 2019, bearing the signature of the Second Applicant, confirming the issuance of the grant from the Court on that day. Annexed hereto and marked "F.M.M-19A" is the grant of letters of Administration intestate with the signature of the 2nd Applicant at the back dated 24/01/2019 and marked "F.M.M-19B" confirming that the 2nd Applicant took the grant from the court. 3. That, prior to receiving the grant of letters of administration intestate the 2nd Applicant withdrew from acting as an advocate in the Succession Cause of the deceased estate Page 1 of 22 (Succession Cause No. 75 of 2018) on 23rd January 2019 under a certificate of urgency, which was received by Baricho Law Courts on the same day. Attached are the certificate of urgency and an affidavit in support, both signed by the 2nd Applicant and duly received by Baricho Law Courts on 23rd January 2019. The 2nd Applicant, despite knowing she had withdrawn as the advocate, proceeded to collect the grant, the following day on 24th January 2019 an act that suggests an ulterior motive and bad faith, ultimately causing a bungled succession process due to her hidden interests in the estate. Why did she collect the letters of administration intestate knowing very well that she had withdrawn from acting for me. 4. That, it is not true that the 2nd Applicant informed me, as the administrator, of the necessary steps to take to confirm the grant, nor did she inform me of her withdrawal from the Succession Cause. Her efforts and energies were instead directed to an application that herself together with 1st Applicant and 2nd interested party filed in court on 31st January 2019. To the Applicants I had now turned into antagonist and I had to be abandoned to my own devices. Had the 2nd Applicant informed me of her cessation as the advocate, I would have appointed a new advocate to help finalize the succession process. I trusted my daughter, the 2nd Applicant, believing everything was in order but I was gravely wrong to trust her. In July 2024, I learned the grant was https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 37

page 37 of 80

issued on 21st January 2019, and my daughter had collected it on 24th January 2019, three days after issuance. Furthermore, on 31st January 2019, seven days after collecting the grant, the 2nd Applicant, along with her co-applicants (1st Applicant and 2nd Interested Party), filed an application in court. Such haste to file the dispute does not explain of someone who is interested in guiding her client and collecting the grant behind my back imputes an ill motive. Annexed hereto and marked “F.M.M-20A”, “F.M.М-20B", “F.M.M-20C”, “F.M.М20D", “F.M.M-20E”, are the certificates of urgency and affidavits in support of the urgency by the 2nd Applicant to withdrew from acting as the advocate of the Succession Cause and the same received by the Baricho Law Courts on 22/01/2019 and 23/01/2019. 5. That, the supersonic speed at which the Applicants were moving does not reflect an interest in dialogue, and it is therefore untrue that they went to court as a last resort. I only came to learn of legal terms like letters of Administration Intestate, confirmation of grant, and transmission from my current advocate in July 2024, when I sought his guidance on the application served on me by the Applicants. I reaffirm that the 2nd Applicant, as my advocate Page 2 of 22 did not advise me on the necessary steps to confirm the grant, nor did she issue me with the grant until June 2024. 6. That, the 2nd Applicant did not serve me with the said certificates of urgency for her withdrawal from acting as the advocate that she filed in court on 22nd January 2019 and 23rd January 2019 despite the same being indicated that it was to be served on me. It is also noteworthy to state that the said applications and affidavits were being prepared by 2nd Applicant herself and therefore, it was incumbent upon her to serve me accordingly and give me time to appoint a new advocate. This is a clear case of miscarriage of due process as per the law and a manifestation of conflict of interest where the two roles of an advocate to the deceased succession cause and a beneficiary in the same estate were in constant conflict. 7. That, the Applicants, specifically the 2nd Applicant and 2nd Interested Party, were involved in the school fees review in October 2017 during a meeting that lasted past midnight in my house, with the fees review circular sent to parents through their children in November 2018 as school closed for the December holidays. 9. That, during the school holiday of November/December of 2017, the 2nd Applicant and 2nd Interested Party illegally took school phone, parents' contacts, and other documents from the front office; used the school phone (072xxxx44) to send a message to parents urging them to ignore the circular on school fees earlier sent to them through their children, consequently causing confusion and anxiety among the parents. After creating this turmoil, they disappeared, leaving me to handle the crisis. During a 2018 family members' meeting at my house with all my children in attendance, the 2nd Applicant arrogantly confessed to confiscating the school phone from the school secretary then. Additionally, she unapologetically swore never to return the phone and stated that she was happy they sent the messages that sabotaged a good initiative to review the school fees. The Applicants are simply distorting https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 38

page 38 of 80

facts about school enrolment and the school fees review in 2017 and 2018 to suit their false narrative. I have annexed the school enrolment document to clarify the facts. Annexed hereto and marked "F.M.M-21A" and "F.M.M-21B" is the school enrolment that helps put the facts clearly. THAT, in 2018, I blame the 2nd Applicant and the 2nd interested party for sending unauthorized and controversial messages to parents that contradicted the official circular on school fees, leading to some parents withdrawing their children citing a divided school management. Had Page 3 of 22 the applicants not sent the controversial message to parents, the exercise to review the school fees would have been smooth. As a school, we have always reviewed school fees without any hitches and the 2017 incidence is a rare unfortunate incidence that has never happened in our school. However, we have since recovered the unfortunate incidence of 2017 and the school has grown significantly, with current enrolment standing at 503 students, up from 303 in 2016, the year the Applicants claim to have been involved in management. This growth of 200 students from 2016, is a case in point that shows the school was still struggling with low enrolment even before the 2nd Respondent rejoined the school in mid-2017. 10. That, to further illustrate the difference between 2016 and 2024, I can point to the current Playgroup class, where in 2016, there were 20 pupils paying sh4,xxx each, totaling sh90,000 per term gross fees collection, while in 2024, there are 35 pupils paying sh15,000 each, totaling sh525,000 per term gross fees collection. The Applicants should acknowledge this improvement and give credit where it's due. This is also a testament that the school is growing and doing well contrary to the false impression the applicants are fighting hard to create. 11. That, my husband and I have always reviewed the school fees, and we have never invited our children to approve such administrative decisions and therefore, it is me, their mother, that the applicants are undermining. Changing the school uniform, logo, and motto is part of my administrative duties as the legal administrator and co - founder of the school, and such measures are undertaken from time to time to add value to the school. The Applicants, as beneficiaries, are overstepping their limits in this regard. Around 2006/2007, we introduced a tracksuit as part of the uniform, which didn't require approval from our children, so I don't understand why they now argue that I can't initiate changes to the uniform or introduce a new one in the absence of my husband and co-founder. The change of uniform is part of my mandate as the Legal Administrator, intended to rebrand the school and make it more attractive to students. 12. That, I did not incur any cost for the change of the school logo, motto, or uniform, as parents pay for the school uniforms. I cannot be accused of misusing the deceased's funds for exercises that cost the school no money. Having co-founded the school, I am more attached to its motto, logo, and old uniform than anyone else. However, I know the best legacy is ensuring the school continues thriving, which I am working towards despite the tribulations from my children. My late husband made numerous changes, improvements, renovations, and constructions to the school without seeking approval from his children and all that was meant to add value to the school. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 39

page 39 of 80

I am surprised that, according to some of my children, I cannot introduce changes like repairs without their approval. The two beneficiaries, the 1st and 2nd Applicants, have misunderstood their role as beneficiaries. 13. That, further, I have read the affidavits sworn by my late husband's brothers, Charles Murimi Mwenje and Ephentus Mwangi Mwenje, in support of the Applicants, which have left me shocked and anguished. I never thought that after my husband's death, his brothers would take advantage of my widowhood to frustrate and torment me, something they never did when he was alive. I feel overwhelmed and wish my husband was alive to protect me. Their allegations are false and contains distorted material facts that is cleverly crafted to suit a certain skewed narrative by the applicants. Therefore, it is apparent and unfortunate that the two uncles to the applicants (Charles Murimi Mwenje and Ephentus Mwangi Mwenje) have all along been working with the applicants behind my back while pretending they are mediators to the conflict in my family. 14. That, the affidavits sworn by Charles Murimi Mwenje and Ephentus Mwangi Mwenje are completely unnecessary, with ill - motive besides containing false allegations and distorted facts aimed at supporting the misleading narrative being peddled around by the applicants. It is shocking that these two brothers of my late husband have joined my children in attacking me unfairly. 15. That Now, in my husband's absence, they have the audacity to sign affidavits supporting my children, who are antagonizing me, their mother, without any reference to me. Both Charles and Ephentus are fully aware of 1st applicant's alcohol and substance abuse issues, which has, in the past, negatively affected the smooth running of the school and led to his removal from school in 2008 and again in 2016 for inappropriate weird behavior that threatened to bring down the school. It is sad that they have ignored these facts, even though they know that the school requires total sobriety and integrity from its staff and management to function well. 16. That, it is utterly false for my husband's two brothers, Charles Murimi Mwenje and Ephentus Mwangi Mwenje, to claim that I am running down my school and ignoring my children. Since my husband's death, I have held numerous meetings with my children, but after the Applicants filed the Application on 31st January 2019, they changed their attitude and became solely interested in pursuing the matter in court. After this, the Applicants began imposing conditions for meetings and sometimes refused to attend them. For instance, in July 2024, I involved a respected retired Anglican priest to mediate, but both the Applicants and Page 5 of 22 the 2nd interested party refused to attend. The Applicants also declined the court's initiative to mediate through the probation office in [Particulars Withheld], proving their dishonesty in claiming that they have been denied dialogue. They are more focused on the court process than family discussions. I also find both Charles Murimi Mwenje and Ephentus Mwangi Mwenje dishonest, as they know we held our first family meeting regarding the succession dispute at Relax Hotel in February 2019, with them and their last-born brother, Stephen Mutugi Mwenje, also present. Before this, the Applicants and the 2nd interested party had not https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 40

page 40 of 80

informed the uncles about their decision to file an application in court under Succession Cause No. 3 of 2019, because they were equally shocked to learn of it. Ephentus Mwangi Mwenje was tasked with contacting the Applicants, but they refused to attend any meeting and instead told him to inform their mother, "tukutane kortini" (we will meet in court), indicating their lack of interest in family talks. Therefore, it is incorrect for the two brothers to my late husband to claim that the applicants went to court because I refused an audience with them or my children. Annexed hereto and marked "F.M.M-23" is an extract of a text message of the Anglican Priest appealing to the 2nd Applicant to agree to attend family talks for mediation which she declined to attend insisting the court way. THAT, in the entire 2017 and 2018, the two brothers to my husband - Charles Murimi Mwenje and Ephentus Mwangi Mwenje - did not approach me to discuss anything to do with the management of my school or the deceased estate or any dispute for that matter. The first time we sat with them to discuss the family dispute was in February 2019 after the applicants filed the matter in court on 31st January 2019. Therefore, it is not true for the two brothers to say that I refused to hold a meeting with them while it is me who actually initiated the very first ever meeting in February 2019 at Relax Hotel, [Particulars Withheld] owned by their last born brother - Stephen Mutugi Mwenje. 17. That, in May 4th 2018, in the precincts of [Particulars Withheld] Law Courts, two of my late husband's brothers namely Ephentus Mwangi Mwenje and Stephen Mutugi Mwenje signed the guarantee by personal sureties and affidavits of justification of proposed sureties to steer off the succession cause of the deceased estate. Just like on 4th May 2018, Ephentus like his brothers have always had unlimited access to me and we usually meet in family occasions and in all those encounters, they have never raised issues of the grievances from the applicants. The truth is that, the discussions on the family dispute begun in February 2019 after the applicants filed a succession dispute in court on 31st January 2019. So, the two brothers are dishonest and they have been pressurized by the applicants to sign affidavits that contradicts Page 6 of 22 the series of events from mid-2017 to 2019 February. If they were indeed aware of the decision to go to court in 2019 by the applicants, why didn't they inform me? 18. That, contrary to the allegations by the two brothers to my husband - Charles Murimi Mwenjeand Ephentus Mwangi Mwenje- there was no family meeting that was held to discuss the said court orders given by Honorable Justice L.W. Gitari on 1st April 2019 and indeed, the first time I have come across the said court orders was in July 2024 upon being served with the application dated 7th June 2024. 19. That, the fact that the applicants were issued with court orders on 1st April 2019 having filed the application on 31st January 2019 confirms that the applicants ignored pleas to withdrew the application in favour of family talks and that they were never interested in any family talks but rather, they have always wanted to resolve the dispute in court. It is now very clear that the true motive of obtaining the said court orders was to again use the court orders to manipulate me as they are doing now and as a mother. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 41

page 41 of 80

20. That, therefore, on the contrary, the 1st, 2nd Applicants and 2nd Interested Party were actually advised that they should withdraw the case to allow family talks, but they remained adamant and insisted on resolving the dispute in court. They claimed to have approached many relatives for support, but only listed two relatives - Charles Murimi Mwenje And Ephentus Mwangi Mwenjewithout providing supporting affidavits from others. The Applicants did not provide affidavits to support their claims of approaching both paternal and maternal relatives. 21. That, I have never refused to hold a meeting at my home or another designated venue, contrary to the claims made by my late husband's brothers, Charles Murimi Mwenje and Ephentus Mwangi Mwenje. I also have not barred my children from managing the school, except for the 1st Applicant, Isaac Kariuki Munene, due to his behavior, which I believe is detrimental to the smooth running of the school. I have no problem in supporting the 1st Applicant in engaging in other income-generating projects while helping him reform, but at the moment, his behavior is grossly harmful to the smooth school's operations and can bring down the school. I am dismayed by the double standards applied by the two brothers, who, despite advising me to act differently, have failed to disclose their interests in the school. Furthermore, no meeting was held in 2023 or any other time to discuss the distribution of the estate or the alleged shareholding of the school, and I only learned of the proposed shareholding from the applicants' application. Page 7 of 22 22. That, I am shocked by the false claims made by Ephentus Mwangi Mwenje, who alleged that I changed my mind about the estate's distribution and informed him of such in 2023. If there had been any genuine discussions about the estate's distribution, my children would have been included in those talks, but none of them have attended such meetings meaning there was no such meetings held to discuss the distribution of the estate. The involvement of Charles Murimi Mwenje and Ephentus Mwangi Mwenje in supporting the applicants' claims is part of a manipulative scheme to force a certain outcome, and they have failed to present any concrete evidence of my husband's alleged wishes for the school. My late husband and I worked harmoniously for 42 years, and it is difficult to believe that he would confide in his brothers regarding the school without including me, especially after trusting me as custodian of all critical documents including tittle deeds of our land parcels. I still remain committed to holding family talks on the distribution of the estate outside of the courts, but the applicants' actions are obstructing this process. 23. That, the Applicants have developed a habit of invading school offices to seize documents for use in court without regard for the negative impact on the school. For instance, in late 2017 and 2018, they confiscated the financial records of the school, disrupting the accounts office, and also seized documents from the office of the 2nd Respondent, some of which his personal documents that they have used as annexures in their court applications. A good example is the documents marked JWM9, JWM10, and JWM11 in their supplementary affidavit dated 19th February 2025. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 42

page 42 of 80

24. That,this behavior reveals that the Applicants are not peaceful people seeking honest dialogue, but rather, individuals at war, determined to have their way at all costs, showing total disregard for me as the legal administrator and cofounder of the school snaet 25. That, also, the illegal smoking out of documents also reveals and confirms that their real intent is not seeking information about the management of the school as they allege but obtaining documents to use in court as evidenced by numerous documents they have attached in their court applications all which confiscated from school offices as earlier explained. 26. That, I have always been open to honest dialogue, but the applicants have been manipulative, dishonest, and have caused me constant distress in managing the school that I co-founded with my late husband. Since 2019, they have tried to discredit and demean me to force me to meet their demands, resulting in endless litigation and mental abuse, especially from the 1st Applicant. I reaffirm that I have not interfered with my late husband's estate and have continued to faithfully discharge my duties as I did when he was alive. My late husband Page 8 of 22 sold several parcels of land to fund a rice mill business but unfortunately he passed on before he could implement the project. I have not sold any land parcel and I have done my best to take care of all the deceased farms and maintained the school as a foregoing concern. We have several schools that have closed even after the demise of the founder. The school has seen an increase in student enrolment, and contrary to the Applicants' claims, it is stable and running smoothly, with parents expressing satisfaction with the implementation of the new curriculum. 27. That, the 1st Applicant denies causing disturbances at the school, but he has repeatedly disrupted the school's operations due to his alcohol problem, despite our efforts to rehabilitate him. While intoxicated, he has stormed into offices, creating violent scenes, and paralyzing school operations. Sometimes schools' workers are forced to leave the school compound completely. I have voluntarily withdrawn cases in court that the 2nd Applicant has been charged with mainly creating disturbance in hope that he will reform and come back to his senses but to no avail. I don't go to the courts because I want but because he pushes me to the corner mocking me all the time that the school is not mine and he can do whatever he wants. It has also been difficult to pursue legal action because staff members happen to be witnesses and most of them shy way for fear of repercussions. 28. That, it is not true that the current office of the 2nd Respondent was converted to prevent the 1st Applicant from accessing his office or that a metallic door was installed for that purpose. The office was restructured for rebranding, to create more space for staff meetings and delegations of senior dignitaries and officials from the government enhancing the school's reputation. In the past, the office has hosted delegations from a Principal Secretary in the government and other senior officers from the Ministry of Education. Enhancing and branding of the said office is also in line with matching the competition from the sector and meeting the parents' expectations. It is also worth to inform the court that the 1st Applicant used to insert toothpicks in the padlock of the wooden door to https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 43

page 43 of 80

block access that he is no complaining that it was replaced with a metallic door with a lock instead of a padlock. The 1st Applicant has done so many nasty things that if I was to write them all, I will fill a book. 29. That, the number of CCTV cameras that have been installed in school are not over 100 in number as alleged and the actual problem the applicants have against the CCTV cameras is that they record and reveal their true behaviour in school which they claim it is false. The court can see for itself the real character of the applicants which has been overly disruptive and Page 9 of 22 detrimental to the smooth running of the school. Anyone with the school at heart cannot oppose installation of CCTV cameras for whatever reasons because it is a vital security facility that every school should have and it also boosts the parents' confidence hence increased enrolment. 30. That, I completely deny the allegations made by the Applicants and dismiss them as false, including the claim that my late husband directed the 2nd Applicant to register the school into a company with specific shareholding. If my husband wanted the school to be registered into a company with the children allocated shares, (and actually it is a good idea) he would have first called for a family meeting and have it effected in the hearing and in the know of all his children and of course, we would have discussed the idea with him before assembling the children. I don't know why the 2nd Applicant feels that she is the only one among my five children that her father confided with and not even me his wife of 42 years. There is nothing wrong with proposal to convert the school into a company with structured shareholding, but such discussions should be reserved for family discussions. The 2nd Applicant is deliberately attempting to block other beneficiaries from airing their views. I was personally surprised to learn about the proposal to convert the school into a company with structured shareholding from the Applicants' application dated 7th June 2024, as the 2nd Applicant has never shared the same with me or other beneficiaries. 31. That, I categorically deny dividing my family, and such allegation is an insult and untrue. The division is orchestrated by the 2nd Applicant, who manipulates situations to fuel and sustain the legal dispute. I have never benefited from dividing my children, whom I raised with love. On the contrary, the family division started with the 2nd Applicant in late 2018 when she recruited her siblings to join in her succession agenda and on 31st January 2019, her, together with 1st Applicant and 2nd interested party filed an application in court that has caused so much harm to my family. Before 2018, there was no division in the family, and the 2nd Applicant's actions have caused this rift because she needed some beneficiaries on her side. She first caused family division by recruiting the 1st applicant and 2nd interested party to invade school offices and sending unauthorized messages to parents. It is hypocritical and false to claim that I divided the family yet she is the one who is even extending the rift to her children, as I have not and will never do that. 32. That, the 2nd Applicant, 2nd Interested Party, and their two uncles (Ephentus Mwangi Mwenje and Charles Murimi Mwenje) disregard my welfare, supporting the 1st Applicant to unleash violence on me. The 1st https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 44

page 44 of 80

Applicant has previously broken window panes in my house Page 10 of 22 during violent outbursts. The 2nd Applicant also creates chaotic scenes at will, including at school. Annexed hereto and marked "F.M.M-29" and “F.M.M-30" are: an image of a door pane that the 1st Applicant broke in the past in one of his violent attacks whereby I resolved not to repair the window pane so that it can serve as evidence of the atrocities melted on me by the 1st Applicant and an image of a repaired window pane which had be still broken by the 1st Applicant respectively. 33. That, when the violent scenes from the 1st Applicant become rampant and uncontrollable, I am forced to report the matters to the police, but I am often frustrated as the witnesses are usually school staff, making it difficult to manage employees and have them serve as witnesses in court. At times, I withdraw criminal cases in the hope that the 1st Applicant will reform, but he has only become unrulier and the situation has worsened over time. Therefore, it is false for the Applicants to claim they kneel before me; instead, they are rude, arrogant, and disrespectful, and I often lock myself inside my house to avoid altercations, with the 1st Applicant, who is extremely abusive especially when intoxicated. It is illogical for applicants to claim they kneel before me while at the same time breaking window and door panes in my house. The Applicants accuse me of letting my family split, but it is not true. The two groups are a creation of the 2nd applicant who plotted and masterminded the succession dispute and for her to do so, she had to recruit some of the siblings on her side. 34. That, in paragraph 101, the Applicants claim to have been pleading with me to deal with family issues while I am still alive. While it is a fact that all of us will die one day, for the Applicants who are my own children to ask me to deal with issues when I am still alive. 35. That, since 2019, I have lived in utter anguish and misery due to this dispute, and I have never known peace since it was filed in court on January 31, 2019. Some of the most hurtful words I've heard from the 1st Applicant, whose house is next to mine, include, "My father's property will be shared equally, and you too will also line up with Munene's children for a share of the property." I also get frustrated by the actions of the 2nd Applicant, the 2nd interested party, and the two uncles of the Applicants, Ephentus Mwangi Mwenje and Charles Murimi Mwenje, who support the 1st Applicant in tormenting me and bailing him out of police custody and courts without consulting me. Once the 1st Applicant is released, he mocks me, boasting that his sponsors- the 2nd Applicant, 2nd interested party, and his two uncles-will always bail him out, even if he is fined. In summary, Ephentus Mwangi Mwenje and Charles Murimi Mwenje, the two uncles of the Applicants and brothers to my late husband, have been the sponsors of violence and mischief in my family, which is very unfortunate. It is hypocritical for the two uncles to take action against their own children including legal action (which don't interfere) yet claim I have no right or authority as a parent to take action when my children become unruly. The two uncles each own a private school, which they guard jealously, but they do not care about the school I co-founded with my late husband, allowing it to suffer. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 45

page 45 of 80

36. That, I have been accused by the Applicants of failing to make additional investments (developing plots) since 2013 yet, the applicants contradict themselves because, elsewhere, they have urged that I cannot make any developments without first going through the succession process. Their confusing and contradictory statements suggest they are unsure of what they are accusing me of. The investments we made with my late husband, including new constructions in the school and real estate, were funded through hefty bank loans, which my children were unaware of as it was none of their concern. Prior to my husband's death, he sold several parcels of land to finance his major investment in a Rice Milling Business, and we have always raised capital either through borrowing or selling property. I was also able to pay off the school loan left by my husband and set up all necessary learning facilities for the New Curriculum, CBC, and Junior Secondary School, which required substantial investment. Therefore, it is not true to allude that there has been no progress in the deceased estate. 37. That, additionally, I acquired four more vehicles for the school transport program, launched in 2018, marking growth in the school's transport system. The current focus is on improving school facilities to attract more enrolment, which will boost our borrowing power for additional investments. During my husband's life, we prioritized the school as the main investment, only venturing into other investments when it was safe to do so, and I continue to uphold this principle of prioritizing the school first and ensuring that there is prudent management of the school. The accusations they are mounting against me are thus out of ignorance. 38. That, the troubles in the family did not start in 2017 but began in late 2018 when the Applicants and 2nd interested party started scheming to take me to court escalating the conflict ever since. The issues they keep on raising that include introduction of new school uniform, change of logo and moto are just mere excuses to justify their decision to take me, their, mother to court. It appears that they were just waiting for me to be appointed as the legal administrator Page 12 of 22 for them to strike and actually, the sequence of their actions tells that going to court was a predetermined decision. 39. That, the Applicants have been dishonest and grossly distorted facts to justify their decision to go to court. They allege seeking dialogue, yet within 10 days of the grant being issued, they had filed a dispute in court, proving they had been preparing for litigation all along. In December 2017, they unlawfully invaded school offices, confiscated documents, and then, ironically, went ahead to lobby for relatives support and misinforming them on the real facts, showing their true intent was not dialogue but creating crisis as basis of going to court. Despite their claims, no family sitting took place to discuss the court orders, which I only learned about in June 2024 when served with an application. 40. That, the 2nd Applicant manipulated the succession process from the start, exerting pressure on the registry to hasten the issuance of the letters of administration as she has gladly confessed, which was a precursor to filing the dispute. She later withdrew as the advocate but proceeded to collect the grant, only to file an application days later while hiding the new developments https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 46

page 46 of 80

from us. I was misled to believe my daughter would handle the succession process smoothly to its final conclusion, but instead, she had hidden motives, creating division among us and making decisions on the succession cause like appointing advocates without my consent. Her actions, including misleading statements about our agreement in 2019, reveal her manipulative tactics, hindering the process and causing unnecessary delays. 41. That, I deny the 2nd Applicant's claim that I used the Letters of Administration in multiple cases in court, as I never handled the court files personally or perused their contents. She was the sole custodian of those files and she did not me have the files. more so, she never explained on the legal steps to be followed and neither did she or provide me with the Letters of Administration or even point it out to me among the court papers in the files she was carrying. I reiterate that the 2nd Applicant hid the Letters of Administration from me for over five (5) years, only giving them to me in June 2024. 42. That, the Court Summons that the 2nd Applicant claims bears her witness that I had been summoned twice to show - cause why the succession cause should not be dismissed for want of prosecution is yet another ploy by the 2nd Applicant to use the court papers to suit her argument and for us to understand her ploys, we need to scrutinize the said summons. Page 13 of 22 Annexed hereto and marked "F.M.M-31A”, “F.M.M-31B", “F.M.M-31C", are the court papers that 2nd Applicant claims were summons to me to show cause why the succession cause should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. 43. That, the Affidavit I signed on 12th November 2020, filed by Maina Kagio & Co Advocates, contains numerous anomalies that reveal the ill motives of the 2nd Applicant. I had not appointed this advocate, and I only met him once in 2024; moreover, the address used in the Affidavit, P.O. BOX 185 [Particulars Withheld], is the same address the 2nd Applicant has used, suggesting her involvement in preparing the Affidavit. The detailed criminal case accounts and annexures, which I had never shared, were in the Affidavit, and only the 2nd Applicant had possession of these documents. Additionally, she brought the Affidavit to my home for me to sign without explaining its purpose, taking advantage of my trust and making decisions without the knowledge of other beneficiaries. The 2nd Applicant also appointed advocates on my behalf without consulting me, further demonstrating her vested interests in the succession matter. She has confessed to appointing the advocates in paragraph 11 of their supplementary affidavit. After withdrawing from the case as an advocate, she continued preparing court documents under other advocates' names, including the Affidavit filed by Maina Kagio & Co Advocates.The Affidavit failed to mention the Letters of Administration, intentionally keeping me in the dark about the matter. Despite thinking, she was still working on the succession cause, I was unaware that she had withdrawn, further highlighting how she manipulated the process to serve her own interests. 44. That, I firmly believe that certificates of merit cannot excuse misbehavior, especially in an educational institution, as good character and professionalism https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 47

page 47 of 80

are critically essential for smooth running of the institution. The deceased demonstrated these values when removing the 1st Applicant from an examination class in 2013, directing him to a rehabilitation center due to the negative influence of bad character. The Applicants' baseless allegations, including claims of my refusal to engage in dialogue, are merely manipulative tactics to derail the succession process and further to manipulate the distribution of the estate to take a go the way of the 2nd applicant. They fail to prove their claims and are only attempting to manipulate the situation, especially by bringing confusion into the succession process to tarnish my reputation. Page 14 of 22 45. That, I reiterate that I am the sole manager of both [Particulars Withheld] Municipality School and [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Junior Secondary School and my qualifications appear in the application forms, and not the 2nd Respondent's, who has never applied to manage either school. The 2nd Respondent's phone number on the forms was simply for verification purposes by the County Education office, not an indication of ownership. The Applicants' allegations have been proven false after the School Registration Forms were provided, and they are left holding onto trivial matters such as a contact number on the forms. They clearly have no tangible case against me and they lack understanding of the registration process for Basic Education Institutions as outlined in the Basic Education Act, 2013, and continue to misinterpret the distinction between a school accreditation and ownership. 46. That, I am the administrator of the estate, and I am the most suitable person to be the official registered manager of both the [Particulars Withheld] Municipality School and [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Junior Secondary, as that was the wish of my late husband by the fact that I have been his co signatory in the school bank account and a co - founder of the school. 47. That, the 2nd Applicant's insistence on being a joint signatory to the bank accounts cannot be justified by merely claiming that she will be physically available to sign cheques when needed. No, that is not the most critical qualification for one to be a bank signatory but one's character and integrity comes first. The applicants have conducted themselves in a dishonest manner with the 2nd applicant bungling up the would- have -been a smooth succession process that began well only to end in confusion and mayhem. She is manipulative through and through and indeed, her insistence to be a bank co -signatory is part of her manipulative devices because one fails to understand why she is imposing herself over other beneficiaries to be a co -signatory. Why her among the five beneficiaries and what makes her think she is the most suitable person to be a co-signatory? I object to the prayer by the applicants to be a co – signatories to the deceased bank accounts since her motive is to frustrate me as she has done in the past - bungling up the succession matter without and incidence of bungling up the review of school fees and confiscating financial documents making it difficult to file KRA returns among other awful disruptive incidences. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 48

page 48 of 80

48. That, I registered both schools in compliance with the law, as no school could operate without being registered by the County Education Board. The location of the [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Junior Secondary School under Land Parcel No. Inoi/Kaitheri/xxxx is clear and legitimate, as it is adjacent to other school land parcels owned by my late husband, and it Page 15 of 22 is indeed part of the school compound that was considered during the registration process of the school. I followed all guidelines in the registration process. 49. That, further, I reiterate that there was no ill - motive about the Land Parcel No. Inoi/Kaitheri/xxxx appearing in the certificate of school registration since it is the registration officials who picked the said land parcel number among the other land parcels submitted. The applicants are simply trying to force issues which are not their and this explains the nature of the 2nd applicant. Rather, the applicants should simply acknowledge that they had raised non - issues out. 50. That, I maintain that I have not changed the ownership of the school that is still registered solely under my late husband, Mr. Cyrus Munene Mwenje as shown in the attached certificate - Certificate of Registration. The problem with the Applicants is that they do not know the difference between the Certificate of Registration issued by the Registrar of Companies that indicates the ownership of an institution and the Certificate of Registration for Basic Education Institutes issued by the Ministry of Education which does not deal with ownership of the institution but simply certification to offer Basic Education. It is sad that the Applicants who are my own children have been accusing me falsely of changing the ownership of the school. The certificate attached, therefore puts this matter on school ownership to rest. Annexed hereto and marked "F.M.M-33" is the original and certified Certificate of Registration issued under the Registration of Business Names Act, Cap xxx, section 14 by the Registrar of Companies Business Names. 51. That, I opened separate bank accounts for the Junior Secondary School and Primary School to enhance fee collection, accountability, and the autonomy of the schools. The opening of these accounts was administrative and not for embezzlement as alleged by the Applicants. І also opened a personal account after the tragic death of my husband to handle burial expenses and later opened bank account for rent collection, all of which were done in good faith and in line with the needs at the time. The accounts, including those for rent collection, were set up properly and not for any unlawful purpose as claimed by the Applicants. The Applicants demand access to the bank statements for these accounts, but I maintain that there is no evidence of any misappropriation of funds. I opened the rent collection accounts at Absa Bank after my husband's death for proper management of rental income, and the accounts were managed as advised by the bank. The accounts were opened for legitimate purposes, and I Page 16 of 22 stand by the integrity of all transactions associated with them. I request that the Applicants provide proof for their allegations. 52. That, I opened a bank account for [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Junior Secondary School at Kenya Commercial Bank to collect fees, which does not https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 49

page 49 of 80

make me an embezzler. I was also a cosignatory to the [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primary School account at Cooperative Bank, which existed before my husband's death, and he trusted me with that responsibility. My late husband had asked me several times to accompany him to Absa bank to make me a co-signatory to the rental income account, but we never managed to fulfil his wish before his passing. The Applicants' claims that they were unaware of the bank accounts are hypocritical as the bank accounts to aid the continuity of services offered including rent collection. 53. That, notably, the Applicants never objected to the accounts opened by their father, including the primary school account and the rental account. I have never stolen money, not even a shilling, and the accusations of embezzlement are unfounded. The Applicants never asked for bank statements or audits from their father when he managed his accounts, and it is unfortunate that they now accuse me of mismanaging the estate we built together. They have treated me like a criminal despite having previously sought my financial assistance without complaint. I opened the bank accounts to manage the deceased estate and provide necessary solutions, especially when Letters of Administration were not issued until January 2019, and I had no choice but to ensure continuity in managing the estate. My late husband opened the bank accounts for the school and his own personal accounts and the applicants never challenged him for opening the accounts and neither did they infer an ulterior motive to him for opening bank accounts. Annexed hereto and marked "F.M.M-34A" and "F.M.M-34B" are cheque leaves showing the bank accounts opened by my deceased husband for the school and his personal account respectively. 54. That, the allegations by the Applicants Health X Africa is illegal as per the registration details and that their operations are limited to Nairobi County is incorrect and the allegations have been made in ignorance of the current law in health sector. This is because while the main office of Health X Africa is in Nairobi, Health X Africa has a telemedicine license that allows them to provide virtual telemedicine services from across the country. The current law allows a registered Virtual Treatment Facility to offer telemedicine services from the registered Page 17 of 22 location. The Operating License of Health X Africa is valid and has not expired as alleged by the Applicants. Annexed hereto and marked "F.M.M-35A" and "F.M.M-35B” and F.M.M -35C are three certificates to confirm that Health X Africa is not operating illegally and that it is duly licensed to operate as a Private Virtual Treatment Facility. 55. That, the healthcare program at the school is working well, and parents pay for it and not the school. Previously, together with my late husband, we had entered similar arrangements of students' healthcare program with no prior consultation with our children, including the Applicants, on the choice of healthcare providers. I am surprised, that when we made decisions with my late husband, my children never objected, but now, in his absence, I cannot make any administrative decision. In the same manner that my late husband and I had previously engaged Dr. Nthiga G.N. Clinic, I decided to change the healthcare provider to Health X Africa, which falls within my mandate as a co-founder and the legal administrator of the school. The services with the current healthcare provider are better and are aimed at matching the https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 50

page 50 of 80

expectations of the parents and the ever increasing demand for high standards virtually on everything including healthcare. Previously, before the entry of Health X Africa Medical care, the school would use its own money to meet the medical care of the students while in school but with the current healthcare programme, the parents meet the entire costs of healthcare and from the management perspective, this is a feat that should be celebrated and not castigated since it is a reduction of school expenditure. 56. That, in their supplementary affidavit, the applicants have resulted to changing their initial arguments and this is a confirmation that there have no concrete case against me and they are just desperate in creating a false impression that the deceased estate is being mismanaged by peddling false and unsubstantiated allegations. It is like try and error method. For instance, initially, they had alleged that we have established a health facility in [Particulars Withheld] town and now after realizing that there is no such facility that was established in [Particulars Withheld] town, they are now urging that the facility not being legally registered. 57. That, the Applicants have always had access to KCPE results and it is not true that they usually go to offices in search for KCPE results. From 2024 going forward, there was no KСРЕ since the last class to sit for KCPE was 2023 and yet, in 2024 and 2025, the 1st applicant has been harassing school workers, and interfering with their work with some forced to flee the toxic encounters. Are the applicants still in search for KCPE results? Does the school clinic keep KCPE results? On the contrary, it is the Applicants who harass and intimidate the school workers, with various incidents on record now that CCTV cameras have been installed. The incidents, among others, include the 1st Applicant, while intoxicated, interfering with the school nurse and even stealing from the school. The 2nd applicant also removes the school workers from their offices to hold virtual court sessions disrupting the service delivery and she does so without consulting with me first. Annexed hereto and marked “F.M.M-36" to "F.M.M-37" are: CCTV footage showing the 1st Applicant entering the school clinic and the nurse escaping from the clinic in protest; and additional CCTV footages showing various scenes that confirms that the Applicants are usually not on a good mission as they claim and theirs is to cause harm than good. Annexed hereto also and marked "F.M.M-38" is CCTV video clip showing 2nd applicant arrogantly disrupting the on - going repairs in school and obstructing the deputy head teacher from doing his work. She thereafter started singing loudly in office instead of allowing the occupant of the office continue with his work and that is the extent of impunity displayed by the applicants. 58. That, I am deeply upset by the accusations from my children (the Applicants) of forgery, as I have never forged any document in my entire life. The complimentary note dated 5th January 2009, handwritten by me and signed by my late husband, is authentic and was written to the 2nd Respondent, asking him to return to school and assist us. My husband asked me to do so on his behalf after discussing the matter out of concern that the school was not doing well in enrolment and his health was also failing him. The signature is his. Besides, I am no also a parent and can't we together with my husband https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 51

page 51 of 80

talk and agree what to do? The applicants should not be envious about the good remarks made to their brother, the 2nd Respondent but instead, we should celebrate each other's strengths. If the Applicants believe the note to be forged, they are free to report the matter to the authorities, and I am confident I will be vindicated. I am ready for the said complimentary note dated 5th January 2009 be subjected to the most efficient technologies for verification of its authenticity. I have not impersonated the deceased as alleged. The Applicants cannot claim to know my late husband better than me, his wife; he communicated in any format he chose, including the letter he wrote to Isaac, the 1st Applicant, for mishandling his car and he communicated in whatever fashion he deemed fit and not in the manner the applicants are describing. Annexed hereto and marked “F.M.M-39" is a letter by my late husband to his son, Isaac Kariuki, the 1st Applicant, being reprimanded for driving his vehicle without Page 19 of 22 his permission. The signature is the same as as that one appearing in his complimentary note dated 5th January 2009 and Annexed hereto and marked "F.M.M-40". 59. That, the 2nd applicant requested me to draw a cheque in her favour to pay a third party for land related disputes concerning land parcels belonging to the deceased after advising me to so. At that time, she did not raise concerns that it was unethical. Annexed hereto and marked “F.M.M.-41" is cheque leaf of a cheque drawn in favour of 2nd applicant to pay a third party for services offered. 60. That, I have also assisted 2nd Applicant when she is in financial difficulties and therefore she cannot say I am biased against the Applicants and that I have created two groups in the family. I have also assisted the 1st Applicant in the past and I also support his family even today. For instance, I assisted the 2nd Applicant with Ksh200,000 to meet her Law Office Bills (Wangechi Munene Advocates) upon her request in the year 2020 when covid - 19 pandemic affected her cash flows. I have attached a cheque leaf to confirm that she received the Ksh200,000. I have also assisted her numerous times as evidenced in the Cheque leafs attached I have also paid for her hospital bills for her medication. As recent as early this year, I have taken the 1st Applicant for medical treatment and paid all his medical bills. Can I support the Applicants this much if hate them? What do I gain when by dividing my own family? and it is sad to note that she has paid my kindness with mockery and insults by taking me to court and calling me an embezzler. Annexed hereto and marked “F.M.M.–42”" is a cheque leaf of sh200,000 drawn in favour to the 2nd Applicant to meet her office expenses of her law firm dated 5/3/2020. Annexed hereto and marked "F.M.M.–43" is a cheque leaf of Ksh300,000 paid to the 2nd Applicant dated 21/03/2017. Annexed hereto and marked "F.M.M.–44" is a cheque leaf of Ksh45,000 paid to the 2nd Applicant dated 31/08/2017. Annexed hereto and marked "F.M.M.–45" is a cheque leaf of Ksh50,000 paid to the 2nd Applicant dated 16/05/2022. Annexed hereto and marked "F.M.M.-46” is a cheque leaf of Ksh150,000 paid to health facility for medical Bill of the 2nd Applicant dated 12/02/2020. Annexed hereto and marked "F.M.M.–47" is a cheque leaf of Ksh15,000 paid to the 1st Applicant dated 17/03/2014 for his personal upkeep. Page 20 of 23 THAT, even with https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 52

page 52 of 80

my late husband, we would sometimes settle payments through any of our children if need be and there was nothing unethical in such arrangement. I have attached cheque records to confirm that there is nothing irregular or unethical as alleged by the applicants who have themselves received cheques on behalf of third parties in the past. One of the cheques drawn in favour of the 1st Applicant is clearly indicated that it was to pay for the exams. The cheques leaf of a cheques drawn in favour of 1st applicant and 2nd Respondent by my late husband to pay a third parties for services offered are hereto annexed: Annexed hereto and marked "F.M.M.–48 is a cheque leaf of Ksh8100 paid to the 1st Applicant dated 12/7/2010. Annexed hereto and marked "F.M.M.-49 is a cheque leaf of Ksh145,000 paid to the 1st Applicant dated 11/2/2011. Annexed hereto and marked "F.M.M.–50 is a cheque leaf of Ksh30,000 paid to the 2nd Respondent dated 16/9/2010. 8. 61. That, therefore, the 2nd Applicant lied in her affidavits by saying that as the petitioner/respondent in the succession cause, I failed to contact her to give her instructions while she would come to me anytime she was in need and I was fully accessible to her. The fact that she could still seek financial assistance from me is a contradiction of her affidavit that she states that the lawyer - client relationship has since broken down. When she is in need of my assistance, she comes to me quietly and whatever is done in her knowledge is the only thing that is right and ethical. 62. That the Applicants are completely unable to prove any of their allegations of intermeddling of the deceased estate and their allegations are false, purely speculative and maliciously driven and I ask the court to dismiss the application.” The 2nd respondent filed a further affidavit sworn on 28/4/2025 in response to the Affidavit of Charles Murimi Mwenje and Ephentus Mwangi Mwenje of 19/2/2025 as follows: “ 2nd Respondent's Further AffidavltSolomon Mwai Munene I. That,I have read the Supplementary Affidavit dated 19th February 2025 and the annexed Affidavits in Support sworn by Charles Murimi Mwenjeand Ephentus Mwangi Mwenjeand -I wish deny each and every allegation contained in the Supplementary Affidavit: 2. That, on 4th May 2018, the 2nd Applicant, facilitated the signing of the Consent to the Making of Letters of Adrnstration in presence of all beneficiaries. On that day, the 2nd Applicant also ensured the signing of the petition for Letters of Administration, the 2nd Applicant did not provide updates to the beneficiaries on the progress of the Succession Cause, despite their repeated inquiries, and they were not aware when the Letters of Administration were issued. From the court records, I have learnt that the 2nd Applicant collected the Letters of Administration on 24th January 2019, but failed to inform the beneficiaries, and did not provide us with any copy of the grant. Annexed hereto and marked "S.M.M.-20" are the Letters OfAdministration Intestateconfirming that the 2nd Applicant collected the said document on 24/01/2019. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 53

page 53 of 80

3. That, I, was not informed by the 2nd Applicant about her withdrawal from acting for us I only discovered that the Letters Of AdministrationI Testatehad been withheld from the beneficiaries for over five (5) years. She surrender them in June 2024. She didn't serve me with the court papers withdrawing from acting for us and as a berie flac iary 1 continued to assume that she was still our advocate. Annexed hereto and marked "S.M.M.-21A" and "S.M.M.-21B" and "S.M.M.-21C"and "S.M.M.-210" are a copies of the applications and supporting affidavits by the 2nd Applicant about her withdrawal from acting as our advocate in the Succession Cause; and the supporting affidavit. 4. That, the 2"d Applicant states that she withdrew from representing the Petitioner/] 1st Respondent due to her consistent failure to give her instructions despite several reminders. She also cited the breakdown in the lawyer-client relationship and the lack of contact with the Petitioner. However, the 2nd Applicant's decision to withdraw was not a result of the Ist Respondent's actions as she would go home at will that means she was readily accessible to her mother, the l" Respondent. 5. That, furthermore, the 2nd Applicant is the daughter of the 1st Respondent and she had the opportunity to discuss and share the letters of administration intestate with the rest of the beneficiaries, which she failed to do. The 2nd Applicant ha,s regularly lived with her mother from 2019, which means there was no obstacle in informing the beneficiaries or surrendering the grant.to the Administrator. The 2"d Applicant's failure to do so, despite multiple family meetings, shows that her actions were premeditated with no intention to act in good faith. We never heard the 2nd Applicant inform us that the grant was out and neither has she ever advised us on the legal steps to be taken for confirmation of grant. On the contrary, she always insisted that the grant was not yet out and we have come to discover that it was not true because the court records indicate that she collected the grant on 24/01/2019. 6. That, telling the rest of the beneficiaries that the Letters of Administration instruction were not out and collecting the Letters of Administration on 24/01/2019 and failure to inform any of the beneficiaries and withdrawing from acting as the advocate in the cause and refusing to inform other beneficiaries of the decision and proceeding thereafter to collect the grant yet knowing very well for she had resigned on 22/01/2019, clearly imputes an ulterior motive on the side of the 2nd Applicant. She had no intention of surrendering the Letters of Administration as she kept them to herself to deny us information that could help move forward. 7. That, the way the School was being managed from 16th October 20 13 to Mid-Zl 07, a period they have been avoiding to talk about simply because the 1st Applicant and the 2nd interested party were actively involved in school management while I was not there. That is applying double standards which confirms that theirs is simply witch - hunt expedition targeting me whom they don't want to be anywhere near the school. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 54

page 54 of 80

8. That, the Applicants contradict themselves alleging that the problems in the school started when I rejoined the it in 3,d term 2017 yet they have stated that the on I} period of the school that they do not have a problem with is the period from its inception to 16th October 2013. 9. That, furthermore, I learned through court records that the Applicants filed an application dated' 1st January 2019 and claimed to have served me with the same which is false. Annexed hereto and marked •.s. LM.-23" is an affidavit of service allegedly served on me through my wife which is false. 10. That, I deny the applicants' claims that I have created an edge between them and their mother. This is not true because in her Supporting affidavit dated 22"d January 2019 in which the 2"d Applicant was withdrawing from representing the Petitioner/Respondent, she stated that their relationship with her mother had broken down and I was not aware of the said affidavit. 11. That, the 2nd Applicant seems determined to cast all blame on me without any justification. If there is any wedge between the Applicants and their mother, they should go to her and reconcile the same way they go to her to seek financial assistance when they are in need. 12. That, the applicants misconduct has also affected the school's operations, with the applicants' confiscation of crucial documents. including the school docuemnts and my personal documents, which they have used as evidence in court. This ends up making their mother's work as legal admini trator incredibly difficult and subjecting her to constant embarrassnent. 13. That, I chose to move forward instead of dwelling on the past, focusing on the future rather than blaming anyone fur events between 2014 and 20 J 7. While the applicants accuse me of causing division and keep on blaming me virtual ly over everything. 14. That, I worked at the County Assembly of Kiri nyaga between ISI August 2017 and June 2023, the period which I am accused of intermeddling with the decased estate. I would therefore on Iy attended to my duties in school in my free time especially early in the morning, evenings and weekend. I have always done my best efforts to take the school to the next level and improve its reputation. from mid 2017. My siblings should appreciate and applaud me for the sacrificial and passionate efforts instaed of castigating me labelling me an embezzler which I am not. 15. That, the Affidavits sworn by Mr. Charle Murimi Mwenje and Mr. Ephentus Mwangi Mwenje: my two uncles and brothers to my father are false and malicious meant to undermine my mother and destabilize our family and estate especially the school for their won sefish gains. They seem to be happy with the death of my father whose absence they have taken advantage of by waging war against my mother, a widow. 16. That. I aver th~t the inclusion of the two affidavits from my two uncles is part of a broader attempt to force our mother into agreeing with a pre-determined distribution of the deceased estate and influence the management structure of https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 55

page 55 of 80

the school. Their selective narrative on the school's challenges reflects their bias and hidden interests in the estate. 17. That, the contents of the two affidavits from m) two uncles confirm that they have been part and parcel of the push and the decision by the Applicants to go to court instead of engaging in family discussions and their affidavits further unmask their true motives which is to pressurize our mother into distributing the estate according to their interests at the expense of genuine family consensus. 18. That, I am not opposed to the confirmation of the grant, as insinuated by the applicants and I have never been opposed to its confirmation and I wish for this matter to be concluded amicably and in accordance with the law. 19. That, Additionally, [ was shocked to discover that both my office and personal documents were unlawfully confiscated and attached to the succession records without my consent, further proving the applicants' intent to use the succession cause to settle personal scores, particularly the 2nd Applicant's push to influence the distribution of the estate. My personal documents attached by the Applicants in their Supplernntary Affidavit and marked JVM8, JWM9, JWM I0, JWM 11, were actually stolen by the Applicants from my office and this shows the extent to which the Applicants are willing to go to push for the false narrative having lacked any credible evidence against me. My career at the Insurance Sector and other employers outside of the decased estate has nothing to do with the deceased estate for the companies listed are not party to the dispute. 20. That, the school fees review in November/December 2017 was not the cause of the Applicants' grievances as they allege but rather, it served as an excuse to lodge a succession dispute with an ill - intention of influencing how the distribution of the estate takes place and the management of the school. Their allegation that the school lost 167 children due to the fees review is inaccurate. The school fees review was a collective decision made after a thorough discussion with our mother, the 2nd applicant, and the 2nd interested party. I was tasked with preparing and sending the circular on the new fees structure, which the applicants did not dispute. In December 2017, [came to learn from one of our student's parents about a contradictory message sent to parents via the school line - 072 1850844 urging parents to ignore the fees review circular. 21. That, immediately, I went home and reported the strange discovery to my mother, who was equally shocked, as she wasn't aware of the phone communication contradicting the fee structure earlier sent to parents. The secretary confirmed that the 2nd interested party and the 2nd applicant had confiscated the school phone and the parents' phone records after which the controversial message was sent meaning thy were both responsible and actually sent the said rnesaage to parents. After a week, my mother replaced the phone line 072xxxx44 and bought a new handset, as the applicants refused to return the phone that they confiscated. This led to a mammoth crisis, as parents, panic-stricken, made ceaseless calls seeking clarification on the conflicting messages regarding the school fees review. Despite our best https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 56

page 56 of 80

efforts to reassure parents, the situation escalated, shaking their confidence in the school's management and resulting in some parents withdrawing their cochildren due to eroded confidence and faith in stability in management. The school reputation was grossly damaged causing panic withdrwal of learners by parents. 22. That, the applicants were fully involved in the fee review, but their actions of sending contradictory and unauthorized messages to parents botched the process. In 2018, the 2nd applicant confessed to sending the controversial messages to parents, yet they continue to deny their involvement and distort facts to suit their argument. 23. That, on the other hand, it is incorrect to state that all transfers at that time were solely due to school fees increment as there are other many reasons that make parents transfer their children to other schools and this is the same way that we also admit transfers from other schools. The reasons include such asjob relocations and need for boarding especially when children reach middle classes among other reasons. It is unfortunate that seven years later. the applicants are still fixated on the issue, while the school has moved on, focusing on its growth, with the current student population at 503 and a target of 600 by the end of 2025. Were it not for the constant interruptions by the applicants, we would have reached our target sooner. This fixation on a matter that happened seven (7) years ago only means that the Applicants have nothing substantial to accuse us of. 24. That, the applicants are unable to provide any concrete evidence of embezzlement against me, and their allegations are merely speculative. Actually in paragraph 100 of the Supplementary Affidavit dated 19th February 2025, the Applicants have confessed that the) are simply suspicious. They have demanded my bank and Mpesa statements, audits thereof, and asset valuations, all to be done even before the matter is heard and determined, which violates my right to a fair hearing. 25. That, furthermore, are unable regarding the bank accounts, they continue to insist on audits without adducing any evidence to warrant such orders. 26. That, the applicants have never been interested in genuine family talks to resolve the family dispute and to cordially agree on the distribution of the deceased property but only interested in pushing their own agenda in court and roping in their quest to have their way in court, they have roped in two relatives from among the so called many parental and maternal relatives they keep on talking about. 27. That, I accompanied m) mother to court in several cases that the 2nd Applicant is talking about in paragraph 17, including those in Murang'a and [Particulars Withheld] Law courts, where the 2nd applicant would act as the link between the prosecution and our family. I never saw or held the Letters of Administration, nor did I know what they looked like, and the 2nd appl icant never showed me the document despite my frequent court attendance. My mother never carried court documents either since the 2nd applicant would come with them, and she was briefed orally on the proceedings of all matters https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 57

page 57 of 80

in court. She trusted her daughter and therefore, he was not aware that there was Letters Of Admiministration In Estatestacked in court files and which was being used among the court documents and neither could she have been able to positively identify the grant a she has never seen one. She depended on her daughter, the 2nd applicant to give her the grant and explain to her what is expected of her as the legal admini trator but unfortunately, she didn't. I also couldn't be able to single out the grant as I have never seen one. The information that we all had is that the grant is not yet out and therefore we simply trusted the 2nd Applicant a mistake that has caused us so much harm and it is highly regrettable. 28. That, since 2019, the 2nd applicant has been frustrating my mother and antagonizing her. Instead of offering her support she needs to carry out her duties as the administrator. As a beneficiary, I oppose the: applicants being joint bank signatories, as their actions suggest the) would sabotage the choots operations. Their insistence on converting the school into a company with a structured shareholding should be a family matter, not one for the court to decide at this stage. I also clarify that our mother, the administrator, is the official manager of the school, and the allegations against me regarding school registration were false. The applicants are simply causing unnecessary trouble and ignoring the fact that our mother, as a co-founder, deserves recognition for her role in the school's success. 29. That, I have diligently served in the school and during my father's tenure, I adopted the title "Operations Manager," which was never objected to by the applicants. These titles were for convenience and easy identification of my duties, and do not imply that I am the school owner. The 1st Applicant referred to himself as the Assistant Director and the 2nd interested party often refers herself as Director and yet there has been no complaints from 2nd Applicant who has styled herself as a 'legal expert' whom we should consult at all times. The applicant. having no substantial claims against me, are resorting to petty accusations. including the baseless allegation of misappropriating funds, which they fail to support with any evidence. They have also accused me of colluding with the 3rd Respondent to defraud parents seeking rebates on their school fees, which is an outrageous and unfounded claim. 1 challenge the applicants to substantiate this claim and provide evidence or witnesses to support their allegations, which is purely speculative maliciousand lacking in any basis. 30. That, furthermore. the appl icants have made the false allegation that [ personally receive school fees, trip payments, and bus hire charges through my mobile phone, bypassing the relevant school bank accounts. This is entirely untrue, and [ do not receive any money through my personal mobile Mpesa or by cash. The school operates a cashless policy. The applicants should provide evidence to support their claims, as they seem to make accusation without any solid proof. 31. That, I wish to clarify that my role regarding school educational tours is in identifying the sites or places to visit that are educative and relevant to the academic needs of the students but with consultation with teachers who https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 58

page 58 of 80

play a pivotal role in academic tours becase the tours are an extension of classwork. The budget and financial planning is done by the Accounts Clerk who first confirms that the learners involved have paid for the said tour. I do not handle any money for tours and our newsletters are very clear about the mode of payment for the. .tours. We offered this explanation clearly and attached - newsletters that bear us witness but the Applicants keep on repeating themselves and they have failed to provide any proof to their allegations. 32. That changes to the school uniform, logo, and motto were administrative decisions that falls within the mandate of the 1st Respondent as the Adm in istator and it is aimed at enhancing the school brand, with no financial burden on the school, as parents pay for the uniforms. The Applicants are attempting to bring confusion in our explanation about the change of uniform, change of logo and motto which we said was meant to enhance the brand of the school and the renovations and repairs on the other hand were meant to improve the school standards, safety and security of learners and compliance to Education Guidelines set by the Ministry of Educations including specific recommendations made to the school by Education and Public Health Officials. 33. That, in 2018. we introduced school transport for the first time in the history of the school. Introduction of school transport was to increase accessibility to the school hence enrolment and the applicants fully supported the introduction of the school transport for dayscholar and it was actually their pet subject for a long time despite the fact that our late father was strongly opposed to School transport owing to the fact that it is an extremely expensive venture, Personally, I was also not for the proposal to introduce the school transport reminding my siblings that my father was strongly opposed to school transport but the applicants insisted that we must introduce the school transport knowing very well it was against the legacy of our father.. When the) want a certain change to be introduced in school like the school transport. the) push for it despite the wishes of our late father who was opposed to school transport. If new changes like school transport can be made in full support of the applicants. Why not changes like school uniform, school logo and motto? 34. That, the renovations and improvements made in the school are in line with education statutes and necessary for a safe learning environment, and the applicants failed to acknowledge these efforts, which were always made under our father's leadership. Despite their claims of mismanagement and interference, the school is stable and running smoothly, and I have not misappropriated any funds or acted improperly, as alleged. The applicants are merely attempting to create unnecessary conflict and turmoil, and the legal administrator should be allowed to continue her work without disruption. 35. That, I did not lie about the school renovations, repairs and maintenance as alleged by the applicants. All institutions carry out the renovations and repairs and this is a normal and basic exercise due to wear and tear. Besides, the Ministry of Education requires all institutions maintain safe, healthy and secure environment of Basic Institutions for conducive learning environment and to confirm this are the various Education Statutes and recommendations https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 59

page 59 of 80

which we duly attached. Even the period between October 2013 after the passing on of our father and mid- 2017, when the applicants were actively involved in the running of the school, and I was not, there were still renovations and repairs initiated by them. The Applicants should instead produce evidence of where and how I am involved in misappropriating any school funds in the name of renovations as they allege listing down the persons and amount of money I have embezzled. 36. That, notably, the applicants have failed to single out the renovations that they consider wasteful or unnecessary even in the respect to various Education Guidelines on School Safety, Security and health of learners and the Recommendations by Government o Ific ia ls which we attached as annexetures. 37. That, all Basic Education Institutions are required to observe and adhere to all set guidelines and regulations that stipulated in various Education Statutes that include Basic Education Act, No. 14 of 20 13 and Safety Standards Manual For Schools in Kenya. The school that fails to adhere to set guidelines risks closure and responsibility holders prosecuted for negligence and/or recklessness. 38. That, reaffirm that the Ksh 150.000 cheque was used to purchase school computers, not for loan repayment as alleged. I provided bank statements and relevant purchase documents to support this, and it is clear that the computers were delivered to the school, which the applicants did not dispute. The applicants' claim that the cheque was for loan repayment is unfounded. as r supplied a one-year bank statement from Bingwa Sacco showing the cheque was not deposited into my account to pay the alleged personal loan and thus their allegation was purely speculative and malicious. Additionally, the cheque was cashed, and payment was made to the supplier, Kieni Computers, in cash upon delivery, as agreed, ensuring no delays for the school. Cheques become stale after six months and that is why r went to the extent of giving a whole year bank statement to shed light clearly that the said cheque was never used to pay my personal loan at Bingwa Sacco and actually I went to show that the said cheque was cashed immediately and payment made for delivery of computers. The statements given are therefore not scanty or selective as they were meant to answer to a specific allegation which I have fully addressed. 39. That, to demand full bank statements of all Accounts concerning the school and the Respondents ' personal bank accounts statements so as to proof that we have nothing to hide is again, yet another case in point of manipulative tactics and personality by the 2nd Applicant who has been manipulative all through. Going by her argument, then all beneficiaries should provide all their personal bank statements and Mpesa statements from 16th October 2013 for auditing to proof that they have not been stealing from the deceased estate. 40. That, furthermore, the applicants have not provided any evidence of mismanagement or embezzlement; their allegations are speculative and illmotivated. 41. That, the 2nd applicant should tell us if there is anything irregular and unethical for the I SI Respondent to draw a cheque in her favour to pay a third https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 60

page 60 of 80

party for the services offered. She clearly applaying double standards and this is a testament that she is not sure what she is pursuing. Annexed hereto and marked "S.M.M.-30" are cheque records of a cheque drawn in favour of 2nd applicant to pay a third party for services offered . 42. That, I deny the allegations that my mother forged a letter recalling me to school clarifying that the letter dated 5th January 2009 wa actually given to me in 2019 and the same year. I worked in school and I could only switch to my insurance job as a sales agent wth British American Insurance at my free time and I gave the school a priority. I was paid purely on commissions and we supervised ourselves as sales agent and therefore the Applicants are wrong to allege that I was not working in school in 2009. I taught class 8 English. However, the said complimentary letter was never intended to suggest that I should solely run the school. 0 at all. Currently, I have been so much focused and passionate to see the school back on track and among the top in the country despite constant interference from the applicant .. who are more concerned with securing their share of inheritance and do not care about the welfare the school which they keep on hurting by causing violent chaos in School and invading offices to confiscate documents for court use with pretext that they are seeking information about how the school is being managed. The 1st Applieant has constantly and arrogantly said he does not care what happens in school. 43. That, further, I reject the distorted account of my career path provided by the applicants, as it is misleading and seems designed to tarnish my reputation. I find it perplexing that they would misrepresent my professional background in relation to the deceased estate, as the companies mentioned are not involved in this dispute. The following are falsehoods about my career path peddled by the Applicants in malice: • I worked for less than two years in school after graduating in June 2002_ I worked for two and half years from June 2002 to 2004 December. • I was not terminated from employment at British American Insurance (Britam) and actually in 2014. I rejoined Britam as a unit manager which was a promotion since I had left: Britam in 2009 as an sales agent. They couldn't have promoted me if I was not a performer. • The letter from my manager then at British American Insurance and marked JWM 8 is not a dismissal letter. • That I did not join Pan - Africa Assurance Ltd in 20 I0 as falsely put but in March 2013 and actually. in 2010, I was working in school. •.THAT, in December 2017, the applicants unlawfully invaded my office, confiscatirig both school and personal documents. including memos from British American Insurance, Pan Africa Life Assurance, and Madison Insurance, which are marked as "JWM8," "JWM9," and '"JWM9" and "J WM 10" in their supplementary affidavit dated J 9'h February 2025. Stealing my personal documents, is theft and constitutes a criminal offense punishable by law. Their actions. including invading and ransacking the school offices, show a lack of good intent and goodwill, contradicting their claims of https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 61

page 61 of 80

wanting to hold cordial family talks, as the) seem more focused on gathering evidence tor court. 45. That, my job at British American Insurance Company was a sales agent and not an office job. We were paid purely on commissions and one also only required to submit the business acquired and therefore the nature of the job demanded one to go anywhere in the country in search of potential clients. We didn't report to office on daily basis but ours was purely a field job. We were free to manage our own programme though the company would give us monthy targets as way of pushing us to perform. In 2009, my sales performance were affected because I spent most of the time in school after being recalled back to school by my father' and I thus could only meet my clients on weekends if [ was not busy in school. This affected my sales output that year (2009). In other years, I did well as evidenced in accredited certificate attached. Annexed hereto and marked "S.lVI.M.-31" is a certificate of merit issued by insurance company recognizing my outstanding performances as a sales agent. 46. That, I was not a failure in the insurance industry as alleged by the Applicants, I rose from a mere agent through the ranks to a branch manager and that is a testament that I am a committed person in any work that 1 chose to do and it is unfortunate that the applicants are trying to portray my career in the insurance in a negative way in desperation to proof their baseless allegations because my career outside the school has nothing to do with the deceased estate. 47. That, the stand taken by the applicants regarding my candidacy for elective positions within the Kenya Private Schools Association (KPSA) is unfortunate, regrettable, and embarrassing to them. Their actions in October 2023 were a sheer display of ignorance and even the members of KPSA across the country were shocked by their folly. 48. That, my candidacy for elective posts within KPSA has no connection to the succession process of the deceased estate, and the applicants' assertions to the contrary reflect their misunderstanding of the KPSA constitution. One does not need to be a school proprietor or director to vie for any elective post as alleged by the Applicants, as KPSA membership is institutional. not individual, which is why I successfully vied for the National Vice-Chairman post in 2021 and contested for National Chairman in 2023 without any objection or being barred by the constitution. Contrary to the applicants' claims, [ was not disqualified from running for the KPSA seat; my name wa s on the ballot, and though I was not victorious, I grac.iously conceded defeat and the fact that I had been cleared twice to ran far an elective post means I had qualified and met all the requirement of KPSA constitution . 49. That, what is sad and awful is that the applicants went to an extent of infiltrating the KPSA National Elections in October 2023 by sending emails and WhatsApp messages to KPSA members to block my candidacy and damage my reputation so as to spoil my chances of being elected for the post that I was vying for - National Chairman, Kenya Private Schools Association. We were two candidates vying for the same position and they did everything https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 62

page 62 of 80

they could to spoil for me and this was the height of malice and siblings' rivalry in its ugliest form. Annexed hereto and marked "S.M.M.-32A" is a forwarding email to me by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) while for-w adf ng the communication sent to KPSA by the Applicants and the two communications sent by the applicants to KPSA members to spoil my chances of being elected and block my candidature are hereby attached and marked "S.M.M.-32B" and "S.M.M.-32C" 9. 50. That, despite the unfortunate attempts by applicants to block my candidature, the KPSA elections went on srnoothly as the issues raised by the applicants were ignored and discarded since they were not in line with .the KPSA constitution. 5I. That, there is no correlation between my candidature at KPSA elections and the deceased estate and therefore, the alleged biasedness of our mother towards the applicants does not apply and this is actually a totally misplaced case in point. Besides, the applicants did not furnish my mother with the alleged email marked JW 19 and the email was not even addressed to her and neither was it emailed to her. 52. That, it is apparent that the applicants have resorted to raising irrelevant issues as far as the deceased estate is concerned and a good example of misplaced issues in KPSA elections which have nothing to do with the succession process at hand and this is a testament that the applicants have no case against the respondents and all that they left with his holding unto non-issues and irrelevant matters completely unrelated to the deceased estate. I pray that the court dismisses this application for lack of merit. 53. That, I find it shocking and disrespectful that my father' two brothers are claiming to represent his wishes concerning the school while my mother is still alive. Their involvement in this matter clearly indicates external inf1uences and vested interests, undermining the family and disrespecting my mother as a widow. I strongly oppose the applicants' claims and their invasion of my privacy by demanding personal bank and MPESA statements. They have failed to provide any evidence for their allegations, and their request are unreasonable and prejudicial, infringing on my rights to a fair hearing under the Constitution. The 3rd respondent filed a further Affidavit in response to the Supplementary Affidavit of Charles Murimi Mwenje and Ephentus Mwangi Mwenje of 19/2/2025 and set out his role in the affairs of the school as follows: “ 3rd Respondent's Further Affidavit Derrick Maina Thuku I. That, I have read the Supplementary Affidavit dated 19th February 2025 brought together with the annexed Affidavits in Support sworn by Charles Murimi Mwenjeand Ephentus Mwangi Mwenjeand that, I [reiterate] that I categorically and unequivocally deny in totality each and every allegation contained in the Supplementary Affidavit and aver as follows: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 63

page 63 of 80

2. That, I am not a beneficiary of the deceased's estate, and I am the grandchild. I also have no authority to withhold the deceased's KCPE results, as I am only a volunteer at the school and not responsible for managing academic records. Contrary to the Applicants' claims, I have not obstructed their access to the KCPE results. I advised the Applicants to approach the 2nd Respondent, who is better positioned to assist them. The Applicants have always been able to access the KCPE results directly from the relevant authorities without my involvement. The allegations that I withheld information are unfounded and misrepresent the facts. 3. That, I deny the allegation that I had the school participate in the Drama Festivals in Mombasa to profit from the event. The school participated in the Central Region Drama and Film Festivals in Nyeri County, where it attained 2nd Runners-up in the choral verse category, and ( have attached the Certificate of Participation. Schools that attain 2nd Runners-up are allowed to apply to participate at the national level, which is why we expressed interest to participate. Annexed hereto and marked "D.M.T.-2" is a copy of the Certificate of Participation of the said event issued to the school. 4. That, the school submitted the application to participate in the Kenya National Drama and Film Festival in line with the Ministry of Education protocols, and it was approved by the Sub-County Director of Education, Kirinyaga Central Sub-County. The application was transparent, following all necessary regulations, and was approved accordingly. After the regional approval, the school participated in the 61 st Kenya National Drama and Film Festival with the choral verse "KUHAMA." The school did not only participate but also won at the national level, and the Certificate of Participation supports this achievement. The applicants' claims of nonparticipation are false, and their allegations offund embezzlement are unfounded. 5. That, the applicants have made false allegations, and now they are desperately trying to force baseless claims, such as accusing me of organizing fake tours to make money. It is clear that these accusations are speculative and-malicious, and I have not embezzled funds from the deceased as alleged, especially since the school participated in the festivals in Mombasa. The certificate of participation disproves the applicants' claims and proves that their allegations are false. 6. That, the title "Assistant Manager" was used only to describe my role in coordinating the drama festivals, not my position at the school, and there was no ill motive behind it. Additionally, as the choral verse trainer, I was the best person to be the contact between the school and the festival organizers, offering technical information on the drama festivals expeditiously and these are part of the protocols that govern the Drama Festivals: there must be a contact person. 7. That, the Festival Entry Form annexed by the applicants is not an official appointment letter from the school, and I have never been appointed as the https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 64

page 64 of 80

Assistant Manager. The applicants have tailed to prove their allegations of embezzlement. 8. That, I wish to bring to the attention of this honorable court of the glaring inconsistency in the Applicants' pleadings between their initial and supplementary affidavits. In their original affidavit, the Applicants alleged that [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primary School did not qualify for the ational Drama Festivals, and accused the 3rd Respondent of organizing a tour purely as a means to misuse school funds. They explicitly stated that the school never participated at the National level, aiming to portray the trip as fraudulent and unnecessary. 9. That, in response to those allegations, we submitted verifiable evidence, including the official certificate awarded to the school at the ational Drama Festivals, which clearly confirmed the school's qualification and participation at that level. 10. That, following this revelation, the Applicants have now changed their narrative in the supplementary affidavit. Instead of acknowledging their earlier error, they have introduced a new and unrelated claim-that I am listed as the "Assistant Manager" of the school, citing the festival entry form as their supporting evidence. This newly introduced accusation serves no purpose other than to shift focus from their claims and to malign my character and contribution. 11. That, it is evident that the Applicants are deliberately shifting their position to suit their agenda, and these inconsistencies undermine the credibility and integrity of their allegations. Their failure to maintain a consistent line of argument raises questions about the overall intent and truthfulness of their claims. 12. That, 2nd applicant has confessed that she blocked me on her phone, which reflects their attitude and hatred towards me. The 1st applicant is my uncle, and the 2nd applicant is my aunt, but they have been harassing me because they do not want me to assist my grandmother in marketing the school and increasing its enrolment. 13. That, just as the 2nd applicant blocked me on her phone showing her negative attitude towards me, the ISI Applicant keeps on harassing and intimidating me despite the fact that I have been putting up a lot efforts every time I am free to add value to school. 14. That, the mobi le phone number 07xxxx82 is registered in the name of the Ist Respondent, not mine, and I have no access to any money sent to it. It has become common for the applicants to make allegations of embezzlement without providing any evidence to support their claims. I oppose their request for an audit of my income from my bank and M-Pesa accounts between January 2022 and May 2024, as I have not received any money from the parents. The applicants have not been able to prove their case. 15. That, I am not a beneficiary of the estate nor involved in its administration, so there is no reason to link my personal finances to the estate. I oppose all the https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 65

page 65 of 80

prayers sought by the applicants. as they have failed to provide any evidence to support their allegations. I do not intimidate or threaten any employees at the school, as I have no power to sack anyone. My contribution is focused on adding value to the school through marketing, especially on social media, and I have no interest in sharing any inheritance from the deceased estate. 16. That, I have endured constant harassment and intimidation by the 1st Applicant, who is my uncle. Recently, he assaulted me, and a criminal case is ongoing in court regarding the incident.” History of the matter 10. The Court (Gitari, J.) on 27/2/2019 granted the orders sought in the application of 31/1/2029 after she found that the application was unopposed for failure of the Respondents to attend despite service of summons and notice of hearing, in a short ruling as follows: “Ruling I have considered the application dated 31/1/2019 which was filed under certificate of urgency. The respondents were duly served with the application as shown on the affidavit of service sworn on 27/2/2019. I find that the application is not opposed. I will therefore allow the application in terms of prayers 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 31, 33 & 35 as prayed. Costs in the Cause.” 11. The Court Order of 27/2/2019 was in the following express terms: “ Order In Court On 27thfebruary 2019 Before Honourable Justice L.w Gitari (judge) This matter coming up for hearing of the application dated 31st January 2019 on 27th February 2019 before Honourable Justice L.W GitarUJudge) in the presence of the counsel for the applicants and in absent of the Respondents herein, It Is Hereby Ordered: 1. That temporary injunction orders be and are hereby granted against the Respondents herein restraining them from carrying any further developments and/or constructions in [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primary School alias [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Boarding Primary School registered in the names of Cyrus Munene Mwenje (deceased) and lying on land parcel No. Inoi/Kaitheri/211(now subdivided into land parcel Nos. InoilKaitherilxxxx and xxxx) (still registered in the names of Cyrus Munene Mwenje (deceased) and/or any other property belonging to the deceased pending the hearing and determination of the succession cause. 2. That temporary injunction orders be and are hereby granted against the Respondents from further implementing proposed plans (2018-2022) and Bio digestor at a cost of Kshs. 780,000/= for [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primary School alias [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Boarding Primary School pending the hearing and determination of the succession cause. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 66

page 66 of 80

3. That temporary injunction orders be and are hereby granted against the Respondents from constructing of tiles on the 23 residential houses built on land parcel No. Inoil[Particulars Withheld]/xxxx/xxxx and belonging to the deceased herein at a cost of Kshs. 44, 400/= per house totaling to Kshs. 1,021,200 or more pending the hearing and determination of the succession cause. 4. That temporary injunction orders be and are hereby granted against the Respondents preventing them from changing and/or implementing change of School uniform for [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primary School alias [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Boarding Primary School pending the hearing and determination of the succession cause. 5. That temporary injunction orders be and are hereby granted against the Respondents from introducing pay bill account with Safaricom Ltd for the purposes of fee collection for [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primary School alias [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Boarding Primary School and having the 2nd Respondent as the key appointed person for official communication pending the hearing and determination of the succession cause. 6. That temporary injunction orders be and are hereby granted against the 2nd Respondent posing as [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primary School alias [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Boarding Primary School manager, finance contact person in the purported school pay bill No., general contact person of the school and/or entering any further contracts on behalf of [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primary School alias [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Boarding Primary School pending the hearing and determination of the succession cause. 7. That temporary injunction orders be and are hereby granted against the Respondents from changing the old school logo and motto of [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primary School alias [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Boarding Primary School and/or further using purported new logo and motto on anything concerning [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primary School pending the hearing and determination of this succession cause. 8. That temporary injunction orders be and are hereby granted against the Respondents from using a new [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primary School alias [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Boarding Primary School KRA PIN No. P0xxxx69 as opposed to KRA PIN No. A0xxxx43 pending the hearing and determination of the succession cause. 9. That temporary injunction orders be and are hereby granted against the 2nd respondent from using his own cell phone No. i.e 0722 282 702 and 072xxxx72 on [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primary School alias [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Boarding Primary School pamphlets and bronchures, calendars, school diary, school buildings, school bus, social media (face book) school newsletter, postal directory, website, twitter and school fee https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 67

page 67 of 80

structure forms and/or any other school documents or property pending the hearing and determination of the succession cause. 10. That the 1st Respondent do furnish the applicants with accounts statement of [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primary school alias [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Boarding Primary School account No. 011xxxx800 from 1st June 2017 to 31st December 2018 pending the hearing and determination of this succession cause. 11. That there be an audit of [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primary School alias [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Boarding Primary School finances from school fees and school bus (KBJ xxxx) hire from 1st June 2017 to 31st December 2018 pending the hearing and determination of this succession cause. 12. That the 1st Respondent do furnish statement of her Barclays Bank Account No. 20xxxx90 pending the hearing and determination of this Succession cause. 13. That the 2nd Respondent do furnish statement of his Account No. 0111655284800 Cooperative Bank [Particulars Withheld] and Account No. 10xxxx36 Fortune Sacco, [Particulars Withheld] pending the hearing and determination of this succession cause. 14. That there be an audit of the 23 rental house built on the deceased land parcel No. Inoi/Kaitheri/xxxx/xxxx and other rental houses in [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Primary School alias [Particulars Withheld] Municipality Boarding Primary School compound from I" July 2017 to 31st December 2018 pending the hearing and determination of the succession cause. 15. That the 1st Respondent do furnish this honourable court with mpesa statement of the school cell phone No. 072xxxx44 registered in her name from I" July 2018 to date pending the hearing and determination of this succession cause. 16. That the 2nd Respondent do furnish this honourable court with mpesa statement of his cell phone no. 072xxxx02 and 072xxxx72 pending the hearing and determination of this succession cause. 17. That Costs be in the cause. L. Wgitari Judge” 12. The Cause remained unprosecuted for some time and upon a NTSC casue why the petition should be dismissed for want of prosecution, the Court (Mulwa, J.) on 9/12/2022 upon hearing the 2nd applicant who then appeared as Counsel for the Petitioner, ruled that: “Court: Sufficient cause has been stated as to why the administrator was unable to apply for confirmation of grant within the statutory period of 6 months. Let the Administrator apply for the Confirmation of Grant within 90 days. Mention on 20/4/2021”. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 68

page 68 of 80

13. There was another lull in the proceedings until the application by Summons of 7/6/2024 the subject of this ruling. Application of 4/7/2025 14. A subsequent application dated 4/7/2025 was filed by beneficiary Rose Wambui Wachira seeking exclusion of a portion of a certain property which it was contended was not part of the estate. The Court directed that the application dated 4/7/2025 be held in abeyance to allow for the hearing and determination of the earlier application dated 7/6/2024 which seeks wide-ranging and more substantive reliefs. Submissions on Summons of 7/6/2024 15. Counsel for the parties filed respective submissions on their contentions supported by case-law and statutory authorities, with brief highlighting on 20/1/2026, and Ruling was reserved. 16. The applicants’ Submissions dated 23/7/2025 urged that the 1st Respondent had registered the school which belong to the deceased in her name and there was consequently need for the asset to be restored to the name of the Deceased and the asset registered into a limited liability company with the beneficiaries as shareholders, and for the 1st Respondent to account in terms of section 83 of the Law of Succession Act and the school manager and his assistant had received monies on behalf of the school, and hence need of audit and account and appointment of co-signatories. 17. By Submissions dated 16/9/2025 the Respondents urged that principally that there had not been established a case of intermeddling in the estate the management of which the applicants had up to a point assisted; that the registration of the School had been done to comply with the legal requirements on registration of schools; that an application for confirmation of grant had since been filed, and the Court was urged to allow the matter proceed to confirmation of grant. 18. The 1st Interested party by Submissions dated 16/9/2025 urged the Court that the applicants had not demonstrated any case of intermeddling against the respondents noting that the 1st respondent had interests in the estate by way of the doctrine of survivorship and life interest as widow of the deceased and in any event the issue of school management was res judicata having been dealt with by the Court in an earlier application. The issue for determination 19. 20. The issues that arise for determination from the pleadings affidavits and submissions of the parties are: a. Whether the Court will grant the orders for account, audit as sought by the Applicants. b. Whether the Court shall appoint the applicants as co-signatories to the Schools accounts. c. Whether the Court will make the mandatory orders for incorporation of a limited liability company to run the school as sought in the Summons at this stage. d. Whether the Court will direct that the parties pursue mediation in the matter as sought by the Respondents and the 1st Interested Party. The background of the matter is that there is now pending two other applications before the Court – one dated 4/7/2025 for the determination that a certain asset is not part of the Estate for distribution and the application by the 1st Respondent Administrator for the confirmation of the Grant herein for distribution of the estate as proposed in her supporting affidavit. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 69

page 69 of 80

21. An issue of res judicata in the relation to the management of the School raised by the 1st interested Party may be resolved in limine. The Court considers that in Succession proceedings, because of the continuing nature of the administration and process towards distribution of the estate, an order against intermeddling, wastage and account may be made as many times as necessary in the course of administration of the different assets of the estate. 22. Of course, a final order distributing an asset to a particular beneficiary an order in rem will bind the whole world. A final determination on a particular issue such as the entitlement of persons who benefit form an estate as heirs or dependants will also operate as res judicata. 23. In the Supreme Court decision John Florence Maritime Services Limited & Another V Cabinet Secretary For Transport And Infrastructure & 3 Others [2021] eKLR the principle of res judicata was discussed as follows: 24. “ 81. We reaffirm our position as in the Muiri Coffee case that the doctrine of res judicata is based on the principle of finality which isa matter of public policy. The principle of finality is one of the pillars upon which our judicial system is founded and the doctrine of res judicata prevents a multiplicity of suits, which would ordinarily clog the Courts, apart from occasioning unnecessary costs to the parties; and it ensures that litigation comes to an end, and the verdict duly translates into fruit for one party, and liability for another party, conclusively. (82) If we were to find that the doctrine does not apply to constitutional litigation, the doctrine may very well lose much of its legitimacy and validity. We say this in light of the fact that constitutional tenets permeate all litigation starting with the application of Article 159 of the Constitution in both civil and criminal litigation, and its application now embedded in all procedural statutes. Further Article 50 on right to fair hearing and Article 48 on access to justice are fundamental rights which every litigant is entitled to. Such a holding may very well lead to parties, that whenever they need to circumscribe the doctrine of res judicata, they only need to invoke some constitutional provision or other. (86) We restate the elements that must be proven before a court may arrive at the conclusion that a matter is res judicata. For res judicata to be invoked in a civil matter the following elements must be demonstrated: a) There is a former Judgment or order which was final; b) The Judgment or order was on merit; c) The Judgment or order was rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and d) There must be between the first and the second action identical parties, subject matter and cause of action.” In this case, there has not been to have been any final orders made by the Court as regards the management of the Schools or any asset of the estate. The Court only order made was on an interlocutory application for injunction, account, audit and other specific reliefs pending the hearing and determination of the Succession Cause has shown in the order of the Court of |January 2019 set in full above. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 70

page 70 of 80

25. The Court has noted that such an order for accounts the period ending 2019 when the order was made had directed account to be furnished. There was no evidence that this was done. The present application seeks an order for account and audit for particular periods when it is alleged that acts of wastage and misappropriation was done. This is of course not res judicata as the application is for account in continuing administration of the estate and the period for which the account is required are different. And the prayer for an account in 2019 could not, on the principles of physics, have sought for account for dates in the future that had not come. 26. In any event, there no final determination in rem over any property upon which section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act may apply. All that happened were injunctions made in personam and account for specific period in the course of administration of the estate. In the respectful view of the court, the principle of res judicata would not apply for such continuing administration where the cause of action is renewed by the continuing duty of an administrator to account ot eh beneficiaries of the estate within the periods set by the Act or by order of the Court. The question in the application of 7/6/2026 is per se the management of the Schools as part of the deceased’s estate, which is a continuing duty of the administrator with a continuing duty under section 83 of the law of Succession Act to account for the dealings in the school management as may be directed by the Court. Indeed, the applicants were the successful party in the application of 31/1/2029 on which the Court gave orders ex parte when the Respondents failed to attend court on 27/2/2019. 27. The Court does not see that the 1st Interested Party’s objection based on res judicata has merit. Determination 28. At this stage of the Succession proceedings, as the appointed legal representative, the role of administration and management of the estate falls on the 1st respondent, and allegations of intermeddling by an administrator must mean that she has acted outside the authority of an administrator in law. Sections 82 and 83 of the Law of Succession Act have given the powers and duties of a personal representative. 29. On the evidence, there are allegations of misappropriation of estate funds, which appear to be properly explained in detail by the respondents’ affidavits and on a balance of probabilities, the court must find that the allegations are not proved. The serious allegations herein, which connote fraudulent intermeddling, must be proved by cogent evidence to a higher degree than that the ordinary standard of balance of probability for civil cases as discussed in House of Lords in Re H & Others (Minors) (1996) AC 563, 586C, where Lord Nicholls explained the standard of balance of probability in civil cases that: “ Where the matters in issue are facts the standard of proof required in non-criminal proceedings is the preponderance of probability, usually referred to as the balance of probability… …The balance of probability standard means that a court is satisfied an event occurred if the court considers that, on the evidence, the occurrence of the event was more likely than not. When assessing the probabilities, the court will have in mind as a factor […] that the more serious the allegation the less likely it is that the event occurred and, hence, the stronger should be the evidence before the court concludes that the allegation is established on the balance of probability. ... Although the result is much the same, this does not mean that where a serious allegation is in issue the standard of proof required is higher. It means only that the inherent probability https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 71

page 71 of 80

or improbability of an event is itself a matter to be taken into account when weighing the probabilities and deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred. The more improbable the event, the stronger must be the evidence that it did occur before, on the balance of probability, its occurrence will be established.” 30. It appears that the applicants’ case is based on fears and suspicions sometimes based on information from undisclosed sources that the administrator is commit waste to the estate. There is need for cogent evidence before the Court may determine that an administrator is guilty of waste or that she has intermeddled or permitted intermeddling by others. 31. Of course, subject to any order for removal under the Law of Succession Act, the personal representative of a deceased person had the authority to deal with the estate as follows: “ 79. Property of deceased to vest in personal representative The executor or administrator to whom representation has been granted shall be the personal representative of the deceased for all purposes of that grant, and, subject to any limitation imposed by the grant, all the property of the deceased shall vest in him as personal representative. [Act No. 8 of 1976, s. 15.]” 32. An administrator is under supervision of the Court and may be removed by the Court for misadministration/ mismanagement of the Estate in breach of her fiduciary duty to act for best interest of the estate. See for example In re estate of Njue Kamunde (Deceased) [2018] KEHC 8718 (KLR) (R. Limo, J.). 33. This is a sad case of emotional and anguished bitter succession dispute that wraps in an entire family of the deceased’s widow and her five (5) children and overflowing to the deceased’s brothers and a grandchild. The dispute pits the protagonists of the three younger members/children of the deceased against the three elder members of the family made of the mother, the widow of the deceased, and the two elder children of the deceased. The former accuses the mother and their siblings along with the grandchild of mismanagement and waste of estate resources associated with the Deceased’s School the subject of the application while the Deceased’s brothers who support the applicants’ case report a case of exclusion of the three younger members of the family in the school affairs and the administrator widow’s refusal to hold a meeting for the resolution of the dispute and urge a court driven intervention. Of, course, the Deceased’s brothers have no locus to interfere with the succession of the deceased in view of the existence of the widow/spouse of the Deceased and her children in terms of degrees of consanguinity set out in section 66 of the Law of the Succession Act. 34. The Court is yet hopeful of a mediated outcome to settle, in the interests of a harmonious existence of the close relatives. The Considers that the innovation of court annexed mediation fits the bill for the expeditious resolution of the dispute with an amicable result. The Court considers it appropriate to grant the parties a cn opportunity to attempt an amicable resolution, and may only come in and perform its adjudicative role in the event of failure of a settlement after a worthy attempt. 35. In view of the injunctions granted by the Court in 2019, the Court may not make further orders in the same vein. The Court must accept that the issue of administration of the estate assets lies with the duly appointed administrator, the 1st respondent herein. Consequently, the issue of management of the school and its affairs must lie with the administrator 1st Respondent. The authority is subject to the order of the Court issued on 27/2/2019 and her statutory duty as a personal representative to account https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 72

page 72 of 80

for the dealings with the estate assets from the date of appointment in terms of section 83 (h) of the Law of succession Act. 36. The interventions sought by the applicants as beneficiaries of the estate by way of injunctions against certain acts, agreements with third parties and the opening of special accounts for receipt of income to the estate property and their appointment as co-signatories may only be considered upon proof of mismanagement on the part of their administrator mother, with or without the persons she has appointed as assistants in the management of the Estate. 37. The Duty to account lies with administrators/personal representatives, not beneficiaries who may benefit from any lawful gifts or apportionments from the administrator in terms of section 35 of the Law of Succession Act. Section 83 of the law of Succession Act is clear in terms as follows: “ 83. Duties of personal representatives Personal representatives shall have the following duties— (a) to provide and pay, out of the estate of the deceased, the expenses of a reasonable funeral for him; (b) to get in all free property of the deceased, including debts owing to him and moneys payable to his personal representatives by reason of his death; (c) to pay, out of the estate of the deceased, all expenses of obtaining their grant of representation, and all other reasonable expenses of administration (including estate duty, if any); (d) to ascertain and pay, out of the estate of the deceased, all his debts; (e) 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 and accurate account of all dealings therewith up to the date of the account; (f) subject to section 55, to distribute or to retain on trust (as the case may require) all assets remaining after payment of expenses and debts as provided by the preceding paragraphs of this section and the income therefrom, according to the respective beneficial interests therein under the will or on intestacy, as the case may be; (g) within six months from the date of confirmation of the grant, or such longer period as the court may allow, to complete the administration of the estate in respect of all matters other than continuing trusts, and to produce to the court a full and accurate account of the completed administration. (h) to produce to the court, if required by the court, either of its own motion or on the application of any interested party in the estate, a full and accurate inventory of the assets and liabilities of the deceased and a full and accurate account of all dealings therewith up to the date of the account; https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 73

page 73 of 80

(i) to complete the administration of the estate in respect of all matters other than continuing trusts and if required by the court, either of its own motion or on the application of any interested party in the estate, to produce to the court a full and accurate account of the completed administration.[Act No. 18 of 1986, Sch.]” 38. The duty to account cannot justify breach of right to privacy on judicial fishing expedition. There must be a basis for an order for an audit in evidence presented that a person had or may have unlawfully received monies for the estate. The primary duty to account is, however, with the administrator/ executor as the case may be, not to employees of the estate. The order for account cannot be used to harass an administrator who the beneficiary applicant dislike/hates and or to secure the removal of an administrator or revocation of grant only for the reasons that the beneficiary does not like the administrator. There must be a legal basis in the law on administration of estates, in this case under the Law of Succession Act. 39. The basis of an order for investigations is a prima facie proof of illegality/criminality. With respect, having considered the affidavits of the applicants and the respondents, the Court does not find that on a balance of probabilities criminal or fraudulent acts have been committed by the respondents to warrant an order for criminal investigations. This is without prejudice to any evidence of wrongful, as opposed to criminal, conduct or any appointment by the 1st Respondent to any child in exercise of a surviving spouse’s power of appointment under section 35 of the Act as provided for 42 of the Act as would affect the exercise of distribution authority of the Court at the hearing of the application for Confirmation of Grant in terms of section 42 (b) of the Act that: “ 42. Previous benefits to be brought into account Where— (a) an intestate has, during his lifetime or by will, paid, given or settled any property to or for the benefit of a child, grandchild or house; or (b) property has been appointed or awarded to any child or grandchild under the provisions of section 26 or section 35,that property shall be taken into account in determining the share of the net intestate estate finally accruing to the child, grandchild or house.” 40. If any apportionments are shown to have been made wrongly, such may be recovered from the administrator on account upon section 83 (h) or factored against the share of the beneficiary in terms of section 42 (b) of the Act. 41. The Court considers it appropriate to let the questions of ownership of eh school and its registration into the names of the 1st respondent and or the 2nd respondent be dealt with upon a full account of the 1st respondents dealing with the estate from the date of her appointment to the date of account. The personal representative may not be asked to account for dealings before her appointment, as in this case where she observes that she had been running the estate with the assistance of the applicants. 42. As there is already pending application for confirmation of Grant, let the parties with the benefit of the accounts of the administrator’s dealing with he estate consider whether the proposed distribution https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 74

page 74 of 80

is acceptable by the beneficiaries. Should any questions arise, the Court may be moved for further directions as appropriate. 43. The Court shall, consequently, make orders/directions to progress this matter towards the final hearing of the succession dispute by determination of the application for confirmation of Grant and final distribution of the estate. 44. Any questions of applicability of the doctrine of survivorship and the right of the widow to a life interest in the Estate in accordance with the Law of Succession Act shall be dealt with in the context of the distribution to be done upon hearing and determination of at the application for confirmation of Grant 45. The hearing contemplated under Rule 44 of the Probate and Administration Rules 1981 on an application for confirmation of Grant shall admit the calling of oral witness testimony and crossexamination which will assist the Court in making a final determination of the issues of succession presented in this case on tangible evidence rather than rely on affidavit evidence without crossexamination. Conclusion 46. The submissions based on the “doctrine of survivorship” and “life interest in the residue of the net intestate estate” are suitable at the stage of the distribution of the estate of the Deceased or at accounting for the dealings with the estate in line with the personal representative’s duty to account. The Court is, in terms of section 71 of the Law of Succession Act, required to ascertain the size of the estate, the heirs and their respective shares. Suitable protests may be filed on the basis of law and fact to the application for confirmation of Grant in which the applicant moves the Court to approve a certain mode of distribution which the beneficiaries may consent or oppose and there ensues a hearing as b=necessary before confirmation of the Grant. 47. The Cour is under a duty (performed mostly in cases of delayed application for confirmation of Grant to give notice to the Administrator under section 73 of the Law of Succession Act as follows: “ 73. Duty of court to give notice to holder of grant to apply for confirmation The court shall, within one year from the date of any grant of representation, give notice to the holder of the grant to apply for confirmation thereof.” 48. The Court has noted an application for confirmation of Grant dated 6/5/2025 filed by the 1st respondent administrator in which she proposes that the School subject of this application and other state assets be distributed to her to hold pending the incorporation of a limited liability company where she holds 50% and each of the children including the applicant 10% in the balance of shares. 49. The Court notes that it is this same, or similar, kind of distribution that the applicants seek in the Supporting Affidavit paragraphs 42 and 43: “ “42. That,for this reason we pray that the Court order our mother to apply for confirmation of grant within 30 days and/ or any other period it deems from determination of this application and also order that the chool is converted into a company with the 1st Respondent having 50% shares thereof and 1st and 2nd applicants, 2nd Respondent. 1st and 2nd Interested parties having 10% share each. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 75

page 75 of 80

43. 50. That, this was the wish of the deceased which he shared with me in the presence of the 1st Respondent. He told me one evening in 2013, the year he died. “Wangechi, I want you to convert this school into a limited company. Your mother and I to have 50% shareholding and the each one of you (children) 10%.” Similarly in their submissions paragraph as follows: “ “The deceased had expressed his wishes that the school be converted to a company with him and the 1st Respondent having 50% thereof and the 5children having 10% each. Having died his 25% shares should be divided among the 5children such that each will have 15% thereof. However, we pray that it first be registered in the names of the deceased first and conversion into a company be postponed until confirmation stage, where evidence will be adduced as to the deceased wishes.” 51. Such evidence as the applicants seek to have adduced as to the deceased’s wishes may properly be taken at the hearing of any protest filed in response to the proposed distribution as section 71 of the Law of Succession Act contemplates a hearing of necessary evidence before confirmation of Grant as shown Rule 44 (1) of Probate and Administration (P&A) Rules 1981 provides for the procedure for the hearing of an application for Confirmation of Grant as follows: “ “41. Hearing of application for confirmation (1) At the hearing of the application for confirmation the court shall first read out in the language or respective languages in which they appear the application, the grant, the affidavits and any written protests which have been filed and shall then hear the applicant and each protester and any other person interested, whether such persons appear personally or by advocate or by a representative.” Duty to Account 52. The personal representatives such as the Administrator 1st respondent in this case has a duty to account upon an order of the Court under section 83 (h) of the Law of Succession Act as follows: “ (h) 53. In addition, there is the statutory duty of every administrator unpon grnat of representation under section 83 (e) of the Act: “ (e) 54. to produce to the court, if required by the court, either of its own motion or on the application of any interested party in the estate, a full and accurate inventory of the assets and liabilities of the deceased and a full and accurate account of all dealings therewith up to the date of the account”. 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 and accurate account of all dealings therewith up to the date of the account”. Again in an application for confirmation of Grant, the Court is required to consider the accounts which the administrator shall have provided by order of the court or pursuant to section 83 of the https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 76

page 76 of 80

Law of Succession Act. Such information may help the court in deciding the respective shares of their in terms of section 42 of the Law of Succession Act. 55. The Court notes that the Court (Gitari J.) had by order of 27th February 2019 grant a request for account among other reliefs including audit of the respondents’ accounts and injunction against acts of intermeddling. This order is still in existence as there is no indication of its having been set aside or reviewed, and the Court would remake any such orders as they were as shown above made pending the hearing of the Succession Cause. However, there has been continued administration and the matter is now at the stage of application for confirmation of Grant on a date to be fixed. The beneficiaries of the estate as well as the court will need to know the state of the estate to inform the distribution at the hearing of the application for confirmation of Grant. Hence, an order for account by the administrator with estate of the deceased from the period of appointment as personal representative to the date of account is appropriate. 56. The Court considers that the statutory duty to account lies with the administrator, the 1st respondent herein by the grant of Letters of administration dated 21/1/2019, by virtue of section 83 of the Law of Succession Act. An order of the audit of the accounts maintained or operated by the administrators may be granted upon the filing of account which calls for further examination for any noted irregularities or shortfalls. 57. If the administrator is on the accounts, found to have neglected or misapplied the estate, she will have committed a statutory wrong and liable, in addition to offences under section 95 (1) (a) of the Law of Succession Act, to make good the loss occasioned as follows: “ 94. Neglect or misapplication of assets by personal representatives When a personal representative neglects to get in any asset forming part of the estate in respect of which re-presentation has been granted to him, or misapplies any such asset, or subjects it to loss or damage, he shall, whether or not also guilty of an offence on that account, be liable to make good any loss or damage so occasioned.” 58. Not being administrators, the 2nd and 3rd Respondent’s activities may only come into judicial scrutiny if upon provision of accounts by the administrator who is liable under statute, here is shown to a reasonable cause for action against a staff of the School. For this reason, the requests for audit of the money in bank accounts/Mpesa accounts for the 2nd and 3rd respondents may only be directed upon prima facie case established upon provision of accounts by the duty bearer, the 1st respondent. 59. On the basis of the evidence before the Court presently, it is not established a prima facie case of misappropriation/embezzlement of the estate funds as to warrant an intrusive audit of the personal accounts of the persons involved in the estate operations. 60. At this stage, on the basis of evidence before the Court, the request for audit of accounts is mainly based on fear and suspicion of misappropriation, wastage and embezzlement. There is no evidence, on a balance of probabilities, adduced that monies received, paid into, or for school accounts, were fraudulently used by the respondents as to justify an audit of school and their personal accounts. 61. This is, of course, without prejudice of any criminal investigations for any crimes that may be or have been reported for action to the police. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 77

page 77 of 80

Mediation Order appropriate 62. This is a story of family acrimony in the background of succession proceedings in the estate of a deceased person where there are allegations and counter allegations of mismanagement, embezzlement of funds, theft of estate property, wastage of estate assets and even physical assault between the family members, made only of a mother the widow of the deceased and her five adult children and a grandchild. It is a matter where the Court may properly encourage an amicable resolution by out of court settlement through the court annexed process of mediation and only intervene judicially if no settlement is reached after a worthy attempt. 63. The Court has considered the relationship between the parties in this suit as set out in paragraph 2 of the 2nd Applicant’s affidavit of 7/6/2024 as follows: “ [T]he deceased herein Cyrus Munene Mwenje was our [applicants] father and also father to the 2nd Respondent and 1st and 2nd interested parties. The 1st Respondent was his wife and our mother while the 3rd Respondent was his grandson. (Attached herein and marked JWM I is a copy of chief’s letter to verify the same).” 64. The Mediation Rules 2022 (Legal Notice No. 145 The Civil Procedure (court annexed Mediation) Rules,2022) provide for direct referral by the Court in appropriate cases as follows: “ Referral to mediation. 5. 65. (1) A court before which a case is being heard may, at any stage before final judgment, refer the case to mediation. (2) Any case instituted before the coming into operation of these Rules shall be subjected to screening by a screening officer to determine the suitability of the case to referral to mediation. (3) A case that is determined to be suitable to mediation shall, by order in writing given by the Mediation Registrar, be referred to mediation with or without further orders. (4) The parties to a case may, by mutual consent, request the court to refer the case to mediation. (5) Nothing in these Rules shall derogate from the jurisdiction of the court to refer the case to mediation in accordance with section 59B of the Act or to another method of alternative dispute resolution under section 59C.” There does not appear to be any disputes as to the heirs of the deceased, the matter appears to centre on the management and sharing of the not insubstantial assets and the incorporation of a limited liability Company where the beneficiaries hold shares, again which appear to have been ascertained by wishes of the deceased himself. See paragraphs 42 and 43 of the supporting Affidavit and paragraph of the application for confirmation of Grant dated 6/5/2025. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 78

page 78 of 80

Appointment of applicants as co-signatories 66. There may be a good case for such an order in view of the size of the estate and the personal disagreements between the beneficiaries but the court seeks to foster an opportunity for the family members to resolve the matter amicably for a lasting solution before any adjudicatory intervention. Of course, an administrator may be removed in terms of section 67. The issue of the applicants being appointed as co-signatories, if agreed, could also be resolved by an expanded administration where the Court by mediation agreement may appoint the two applicants together with their mother and any other beneficiary, to the maximum of four permitted under the law (section 56(1) (b) as co-administrators. However, if the matter of the distribution of the Estate is resolved, whether by mediation or by judicial determination of the application for confirmation of Grant, the question of appointment of co-signatories or co-administrators will have been at an end. Order for Account 68. The issue of account, and audit as necessary, may also be subjected to a mediation and agreement reached. For that purpose, the administrators will file accounts in terms of section 83 of the Law of Succession Act within 30 days of this ruling ahead of the hearing of the application for confirmation of Grant. 69. In the interests of an expedited determination of the succession dispute between members of the same family. The Court also considers that the prime asset of the schools subject of the application has third party minor interests in pupils and students and their parents whose stability in educational progress may be affected instability on the management of the school facilities that they attend. The Court considers this aspect of the matter to be of paramount importance, as it touches on the welfare and best interest of the pupil/students. The less that the schools are exposed to public controversy on account of the ongoing succession dispute the better for all involved. 70. In the circumstances of this case, an order for mediation of the dispute commends itself to the Court, before any further directions or action may be taken as to the hearing and determination of the matter. ORDERS 71. Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the Court finds merit in the application to the extent only of an order for account against the administrator 1st Respondent in terms of section 83 (h) of the Law of Succession Act, and the administrator shall render true, full account of her dealing with the estate since appointment to the date of account within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, ahead of commencement of the Mediation process directed hereinbelow. 72. The Court further makes an order for mediation of the dispute pursuant to section 5 of the Mediation Rules 2022, and directs that the succession cause herein shall be referred for mediation before a mediator to be appointed by the Deputy Registrar of Court in the usual way, with a return date sixty (60) days after the supply by the administrator of the Account as to her dealing with the estate in terms of order hereinabove. 73. Mention for compliance and further directions in the matter as regards any mediation settlement or the hearing of the application for confirmation of Grant dated 6/5/2025 and any protests thereto on 15/7/2026. Order accordingly. DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2026. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 79

page 79 of 80

EDWARD M. MURIITHI JUDGE APPEARANCES: Mr. Kebuka and Ms. Maina for the 1-3 Respondents. Mr. B. Njeru for the 1st Interested Party. Ms. Wangeci Munene for the Applicant Isaac Kariuki Munene and 2nd Interested Party. Mr. Ngigi for Applicant Rose Wambui Wachira in Application dated 4/7/2025. 33 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4779/eng@2026-04-09 80

page 80 of 80