Lewis Wanyoike Kangethe & 1 other v Louisa Wanjira Mburu & 2 others

be presented to the DCI Headquarters, Kiambu Road for use in the analysis and compiling of the report. 4. The Honourable court be pleased to issue such other or further orders and/or directions for the ends of justice to be met. 5. Costs of this application be in the cause. 3. The application is based on the grounds thereof and supported by affidavit sworn by Catherine Njeri Nganga on 22nd July, 20254. 4. She avers inter alia that she challenges the validity of the deceased’s Will dated 26th January, 2017. She annexes a copy of the impugned Will and relies on her earlier objection to the grant of probate dated 13th January, 2022, together with a supporting affidavit sworn on the same date. 5. She asserts that the Will only came to light approximately four years after the deceased’s death, thereby raising doubts as to its authenticity and propriety. She further depones that the Will is seriously disputed and ought to be subjected to forensic document examination to verify the authenticity of the deceased’s signature and the document generally. 6. In her view, the Will is vague, as it purports to dispose off all of the deceased’s property without specifying or identifying the assets in question, thereby casting further doubt on its validity and enforceability. She maintains that it is essential for the forensic examination to be undertaken prior to the probate of the Will, emphasizing that such verification is necessary to safeguard the integrity of the succession process. She contends that the interests of justice would be best served by allowing the application so that the authenticity of the will can be conclusively determined before any further steps are taken in the cause. 7. The application is opposed vide replying affidavit sworn by Joseph Wanyoike Kangethe on 20th November, 2024. He avers inter alia that the 2nd Objector, being a former advocate of the deceased, is bound by advocate–client privilege and professional ethics and therefore lacks the locus standi to contest the will, particularly as he is neither a beneficiary nor an executor. The Objector is conflicted, having been referenced as a potential witness, and is prohibited under the Advocates (Practice) Rules from acting in such circumstances. 8. He maintains that any claim for legal fees by the Objector is premature and unenforceable, as it has not been subjected to taxation as required by law, nor properly presented as a creditor’s claim against the estate. He recounts efforts to engage the 2nd Objector with a view to resolving any legitimate claim, including a meeting at the Objector’s office. 9. During this meeting, the Objector allegedly acknowledged his prior representation of the deceased and indicated willingness to withdraw his objection upon payment of Kshs. 3.5 million, purportedly from proceeds of the estate. This demand is portrayed as evidence that the objection is not grounded in a legitimate legal interest but is instead motivated by a financial claim, which remains unsubstantiated and procedurally defective. 10. The application is further opposed vide joint affidavit sworn by Job Kariuki, Michael Maina and John Thuku on 19th November, 2024. They aver inter alia that they are relatives of the 2nd Petitioner and confirm their involvement in a meeting convened to understand the basis of the 2nd Objector’s opposition to the Will. They state that they accompanied the 2nd Petitioner to the Objector’s office on 14th November, 2024 with the intention of resolving any outstanding issues amicably, particularly if there existed any legitimate claim by the Objector against the estate. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5514/eng@2026-04-30 2

page 2 of 10

11. During the meeting, the 2nd Objector acknowledged having previously acted as an advocate for the deceased and claimed to have been instructed to act in matters relating to the estate of John Godhand Mburu. They indicate that they pointed out the impropriety of the Objector opposing the probate process, especially in light of the fact that the deceased was not an administrator of the other estate, which is unrelated to the present succession proceedings. 12. According to them, the Objector stated that he would be willing to withdraw his objection on condition that he be paid Kshs. 3.5 million from the proceeds of the estate, which he allegedly valued at Kshs. 19 billion. The meeting did not yield any agreement and the parties departed without reaching a resolution, the witnesses affirming that this account reflects the entirety of the events within their knowledge. 13. The application dated 10th December, 2024 filed by the Applicant, Joseph Kangethe Wanyoike, seeks for orders that: 1. Spent. 2. Pending the interpartes hearing and determination of this application, an order be issued restraining the Objectors whether by themselves, agents, representatives, relatives and principals, creditors, rivals, henchmen, servants or anyone acting on their authority, or persons claiming under them howsoever from interfering with the deceased’s estate, trespassing on, remaining onto, invading, damaging, developing, constructing on, cultivating, alienating, charging transferring, leasing laying claim and/or in any manner whatsoever dealing with the estate of the deceased located within the Republic of Kenya. 3. Pending the confirmation of grant of probate, an order be issued restraining the Objectors whether by themselves, agents, representatives, relatives and principals, creditors, rivals, henchmen, servants or anyone acting on his authority, or persons claiming under him howsoever from interfering with the deceased’s estate, trespassing on, remaining onto, invading, damaging, developing, constructing on, cultivating, alienating, charging transferring, leasing laying claim and/or in any manner whatsoever dealing with the estate of the deceased located within the Republic of Kenya. 4. Pending the hearing and determination of the suit herein, an order be issued to protect the vast estate of the deceased. 5. All objections to the confirmation of the grant of probate in this matter be consolidated and heard together in one proceeding. 6. The Honourable Court issues directions for the expedited hearing of the consolidated objections. 7. The court order that the parties herein resolve objections through affidavits and written submissions, limiting oral testimony to contested issues. 8. The court order strict timelines for filing responses, evidence, and submissions, ensuring the objections are dealt with quickly. 9. The objection filed by Catherine Nganga be struck out on grounds of res judicata, as determined by the Court of Appeal in Civil Application No E408 of 2021. 10. Counsel on record for Catherine Nganga one William Arusei be cited for contempt of Court for filing a res judicata application having participated in the court of Appeal, Civil Application https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5514/eng@2026-04-30 3

page 3 of 10

No E408 of 2021 as the advocate for the 3rd Objector whereby the Court of Appeal made a finding that his client doesn’t have any interest in the estate of Carmelina Mburu Ngami. 11. Pending the hearing and determination of the objections, the estate of the late Carmelina Ngami Mburu be preserved by: a. Prohibiting any dealings, transfers, or alienation of the estate property. b. Directing the filing of a comprehensive inventory and status report of the estate within 14 days. 12. This Honourable Court directs the 2nd Objector Wilfred Nyamu Matu to quantify and justify his claim, if any, failing which his objection be dismissed. 13. Costs of this application be provided for. 14. The application is supported by affidavits sworn by Joseph Kangethe Wanyoike on 10th December, 2024. 15. He avers inter alia that he is a beneficiary and administrator of the deceased’s estate. The deceased died testate, leaving a Will dated 26th January, 2017, which forms the basis of the probate proceedings. He outlines that objection to the confirmation of the grant have been raised by three parties: the 1st Objector, who challenges the validity of the will and claims inclusion of property belonging to another estate, the 2nd Objector, who alleges improper execution of the will and asserts a claim for legal fees and the 3rd Objector, whose claim has already been determined adversely by the court of appeal. 16. He states that steps have already been taken to address some of the concerns raised, including amendment of the grant to exclude disputed properties. He contends that the objections have unduly delayed the matter since 2018 and have contributed to the continued wastage of the estate, which he attributes to actions by the Objectors, including alleged dealings with estate property. He maintains that consolidation of the objections would promote efficiency, conserve judicial resources and facilitate expeditious resolution of the dispute. 17. The application is opposed vide replying affidavit sworn by Louisa Wanjira Mburu on 2nd April, 2025. 18. She avers inter alia that the petitioners instituted probate proceedings on 23rd October, 2018 seeking a grant of probate in respect of the estate of the late Carmelina Ngami Mburu, relying on a purported will dated 26th January, 2017 which allegedly bequeaths the entirety of her estate to them. Subsequently, they filed a chamber summons on 13th March, 2019 seeking to compel the Public Trustee, the then administrator of the estate of the late John Godhand Mburu, to produce documents relating to that estate, having included some of its assets in the petition. Upon learning of the proceedings and the inclusion of property allegedly belonging to the estate of the late John Godhand Mburu, the 1st Objector lodged an objection on 25th January, 2019, which was dismissed on procedural grounds as the petition had not yet been gazetted. 19. Following gazettement, she filed a fresh objection dated 18th November, 2023. In response, the 2nd petitioner swore a replying affidavit on 23rd February, 2024 indicating that the disputed properties would be excluded from the petition. The Objector, however, maintains that the validity of the will remains seriously contested, particularly on the issue of testamentary capacity. While the petitioners assert that the deceased, despite prior mental illness, had the requisite capacity to execute the will, the Objector contends that the deceased was not of sound mind at the material time and therefore could not have acted independently or formed a valid testamentary intention. 20. The application is further opposed vide replying affidavit sworn by Catherine Ng’ang’a on 24th March, 2026. She avers inter alia that the application is vague, vexatious and devoid of merit. She clarifies https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5514/eng@2026-04-30 4

page 4 of 10

that although she does not oppose an expedited hearing, she disputes the necessity and basis of consolidation and strongly opposes the attempt to strike out her objection on grounds of res judicata, maintaining that her objection has never been heard or determined on its merits. 21. She asserts that she has never filed an appeal before the court of appeal, explaining that the only matter determined was an interlocutory application for stay under Rule 5 (2) (b), in which the intended appeal was found arguable. 22. She further distinguishes that the court of appeal proceedings related to her involvement in ELC Suit No. 1180 of 2014 and not the substantive issues in the present succession cause. She emphasizes that her answer to petition and cross-petition filed in June 2022 remains on record and ought to be determined substantively, alongside a pending application seeking forensic examination of the impugned will by the DCI. 23. She maintains that the issues she has raised are neither res judicata nor conclusively determined and contends that the Applicants have provided no evidence of alleged intermeddling with the estate. She characterizes the application as a bad-faith fishing expedition intended to forestall forensic scrutiny of the will, insisting that the authenticity of the will is the central issue requiring determination. 24. She further argues that the application is misconceived, lacks bona fides and constitutes an abuse of the court process, while defending her counsel against allegations of contempt and asserting that her pleadings predate the court of appeal ruling. 25. In conclusion, she urges dismissal of the application with costs, asserting that it is designed to obstruct justice and delay determination on the merits. She adds that during her lifetime, the deceased entrusted her, her advocate and another individual with control over her affairs, and claims that the deceased had no biological children and that the petitioners are distant relatives who neglected her. She also questions the credibility of the will, noting its late emergence several years after the deceased’s death and its lack of specificity in identifying the assets it purports to dispose of. 26. Louisa Wanjira Mburu has filed written submissions dated 22nd August, 2025. Joseph Kangethe Wanyoike has filed written submissions dated 10th December, 2025. Catherine Njeri Nganga has filed written submissions dated 31st March, 2026. Analysis and Determination 27. I have read the applications before this court, the responses thereto and the rival submissions. 28. The application dated 22nd July, 2024 principally seeks orders for forensic examination of the Will dated 26th January, 2017, which forms the foundation of the probate proceedings herein. 29. In re Estate of Julius Mimano (Deceased) [2019] eKLR where the court espoused as follows: “The other provision related to testamentary capacity is section 7 which states: “A will or any part of a will, the making of which has been causes by fraud or coercion, or by such importunity as takes away the free agency of the testator, or has been induced by mistake, is void. Section 7 covers situations where the testator at the time of making the will is of the requisite testamentary capacity. That would be to say that the testator was of age and of sound mind at the material time, but the circumstances of making the will detract from or undermine its validity. Fraud would arise in cases where the making of the Will is procured by deceit or similar underhand methods. Coercion would refer to circumstances where a person is literally forced to make a Will in a certain way, either under duress or threats to life or limb. The Will, through made by the deceased himself, in terms of the same being executed by him, would not reflect his Will or wishes or intentions in the circumstances, but those of the person driving him to make it in that particular way. Importunity refers to what is often described as undue influence. In https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5514/eng@2026-04-30 5

page 5 of 10

such cases there would be no coercion or force or duress as such, but pressure would be brought on the testator of such nature that he cannot resist. He would bend to the pressure, not so much because he is persuaded or convinced that he should make his will in such manner, but because he would be tempted to rid himself of the pressure by capitulating to it. Mistake would refer to cases where the testator signed the written document, such as that meant for someone else believing it to be meant for him. There must be evidence of the intimate details of the making of the Will, in terms of what exactly transpired at the event of the making of Will… That role would include being the person in general control of the testator, being the one who took him around, being the person who prepared the will or procured his own advocate to do it, or the person who took him to an advocate of his own choice for that purpose” 30. In Christopher Ndaru Kagina vs Esther Mbandi Kagina & Another [2016] eKLR where the court stated as follows: “The fundamental characteristic of expert evidence is that it is opinion evidence. To be practically of assistance to a court, however, expert evidence must also provide as much detail as is necessary to allow the court to determine whether the expert’s opinions are well founded. While the test for admissibility of expert evidence differs from jurisdiction, judges in all jurisdictions face the common responsibility of weighing expert evidence and determining its probative value. This is no easy task. Expert opinions are admissible to furnish courts with information with information which is likely to be outside their experience and knowledge. The evidence of experts has proliferated in modern litigation and is often determinative of one or more central issues in a case. Expert testimony, like all other evidence, must be given only appropriate weight. It must be as influential in the overall decision making process as it deserves; no kore no less. To my mind, the weight to be given to expert evidence will derive from how that evidence is assessed in the context of all other evidence and the circumstances of the case including the real likelihood of the expert witness having been compromised or the real possibility of such witness having been compromised or the real possibility of such witnesses using their expertise to mislead the court by placing undue advantage to the party in whose favour they offer the evidence. The court must be alert to such realities and act with caution while analyzing such evidence. It is important to bear in mind the criteria a court should use to weigh the probative value of expert evidence. This is because, while expert evidence is important evidence, it is nevertheless merely part of the evidence which a court has to take into account. Four consequences flow from this as reiterated by this court in the case of Stephen Wang’ondu vs The Ark Limited. Firstly, expert evidence does not “trump all other evidence,” It is axiomatic that judged are entitled to disagree with an expert witness. Expert evidence should be tested against known facts, as it is the primary factual evidence which is of the greatest importance. It is therefore necessary to ensure that expert evidence is not elevated into a fixed framework or formula, against which actions are then to be rigidly judged with a mathematical precision. Secondly, a judge must not consider expert evidence in a vacuum. It should not therefore be “artificially separated” from the rest of the evidence. To do so is a structural failing. A court’s findings will often derive from an interaction of its views on the factual and expert testimony and vice versa. For example, expert evidence can provide a framework for the consideration of other evidence. Thirdly, where there is conflicting expert opinion, a judge should test it against the background of all the other evidence in the case which they accept in order to decide which expert evidence is to be preferred. Fourthly, a judge should consider all the evidence in the case, including that of the experts, before making any findings of fact, even provisional one… I emphasize that the expert must be able to provide impartial, unbiased, objective evidence on the matters within their field of expertise. I find useful guidance from a passage from a judgment by Sir George Jessell MR in the case Abringer v Ashton [9] where he described expert witnesses as “paid agents.” Almost 100 years later, Lord Woolf joined the list of critics of expert witnesses on his Access to Civil Justice Report, when he said: - “Expert witnesses used to be genuinely independent experts. Men of outstanding eminence in their field. Today, they are in practice hired guns. There is a new breed of litigation hangers – on https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5514/eng@2026-04-30 6

page 6 of 10

whose main expertise is to craft reports which will conceal anything that might be to the disadvantage of their clients.” 31. The validity of the impugned Will is directly challenged on several fronts, including the circumstances of its discovery, the nature of its contents and the authenticity of the deceased’s signature. The Applicant contends that the will surfaced several years after the deceased’s death, is vague in its disposition and is of doubtful authenticity, thus necessitating forensic verification. 32. Under Sections 5 and 7 of the Law of Succession Act, a valid Will must be made by a testator of sound mind and free from fraud, coercion, undue influence or mistake. This court is obligated to interrogate not only the formal execution of the Will but also the surrounding circumstances, including whether the document reflects the true intention of the testator or is the product of external influence. 33. In the present case, the dispute is not merely procedural but goes to the root of testamentary validity. Questions raised as to the authenticity of the signature and the integrity of the document are matters requiring specialized expertise. Expert opinion is admissible to assist the court in resolving technical issues, though it must ultimately be weighed alongside the totality of evidence. 34. However, I think it is not in the realm of this court at this juncture to assist the party in obtaining evidence and therefore partially prosecuting her case. It is incumbent upon her to approach the handwriting experts who are out there in the field to interrogate the impugned Will. 35. Hypothetically if the court were to agree with her and the same turns out to be positive then the courts hands would be tied and may not have much to maneuver over the case. It may as well prejudice the other parties in the case. 36. In so many words I find that the best approach is for the Applicant to find her own way and manner to have the Will examined by the experts and later present before the court as part of the evidence. In the event that the court on its own motion shall be of the view that the will be subjected to analysis by an expert then nothing stops it from stating as much. 37. The Respondents oppose the application on grounds that the 2nd Objector lacks locus standi, being a former advocate of the deceased, and that his position is tainted by conflict of interest and alleged financial motives. 38. While the court takes cognizance of the ethical considerations governing advocates, the issues raised in the objection extend beyond a personal claim and touch on the validity of the testamentary instrument itself. The question of authenticity of a Will is a matter of public interest within succession proceedings and cannot be shut out at an interlocutory stage on the basis of disputed motives. The allegations that the objection is driven by a financial claim remain contested and unproven at this stage, and cannot, without more, displace the need for the court to investigate the validity of the Will. 39. The guiding principles on consolidation of suits were well established in Omoke v Kenyatta & 83 others [2021] KESC 27 (KLR) where the court pronounced itself as follows: “… [8] We now therefore opine as follows: i. The jurisdiction to consolidate appeals in this court is conferred by rule 21 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2021, which stipulates that; “The court may, upon application by any party or on its own motion, where satisfied that the issues involved in any two or more proceedings are similar, order that the proceedings be— a. consolidated, on such terms as the Court may determine…” ii. Consolidation of suits or appeals will be ordered where there are common questions of either law or fact in two or more suits or appeals and where it is desirable that all the related matters be disposed of at the same time. iii. When considering an application for consolidation, this court will bear in mind the guiding principles it pronounced in the case of the Law Society of Kenya v Centre for Human Rights & Democracy & 12 others, SC Petition No 14 of 2013, [2014] eKLR, that: “The essence of consolidation is to facilitate https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5514/eng@2026-04-30 7

page 7 of 10

the efficient and expeditious disposal of disputes and to provide a framework for a fair and impartial dispensation of justice to the parties. Consolidation was never meant to confer any undue advantage upon the party that seeks it, nor was it intended to occasion any disadvantage towards the party that opposes it.” iv. Through consolidation, costs, time and other resources are saved and multiplicity of proceedings avoided. All the three petitions before this court arise from the same set of facts; the same subject matter; they raise similar issues of law; involve the same parties who were before the two superior courts below; and ensue from the same judgment…” 40. 41. The principle of res judicata was well articulated in John Florence Maritime Services Limited & Another V Cabinet Secretary for Transport And Infrastructure & 3 others [2021] eKLR where the court stated: “ 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 is a 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 Kennedy Mokua Ongiri v John Nyasende Mosioma & Florence Nyamoita Nyasende [2022] eKLR, the court cited, with authority, Uhuru Highway Development Ltd – Vs – Central Bank of Kenya, Exchange Bank Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) and Kamlesh Mansukhlal Pattni where the court in an earlier Application, ruled that “…the Application before it was Res Judicata as the issue of injunction had been twice rejected both by the High Court and the Court of Appeal on merits and that the Ruling by the High Court had not been appealed against. The court further emphasized that the same Application having been finally determined “thrice by the High Court and twice by the Court of Appeal”, it could not be resuscitated by another Application...” https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5514/eng@2026-04-30 8

page 8 of 10

The Court of Appeal further stated that: “That is to say, there must be an end to Applications of similar nature, that is to further, under principles of Res judicata apply to applications within the suit. If that was not the intention, we can imagine that the courts could and would be mandated by new applications filed after the original one was dismissed. There must be an end to interlocutory applications as much as there ought to be an end to litigation. It is this precise problem that Section 89 of or Civil Procedure Act caters for.” 42. The application dated 10th December, 2024 seeks restraining and preservation orders to prevent alleged interference, intermeddling and wastage of the estate pending confirmation of grant and determination of the objections; consolidation of all objections to the confirmation of grant; striking out the 3rd Objector’s objection on the basis of res judicata, relying on the Court of Appeal decision in Civil Application No. E408 of 2021; citing counsel for the 3rd Objector for contempt of court; and directions for expedited hearing, including determination through affidavits and written submissions, with strict timelines. 43. It is not in dispute that the estate has been the subject of protracted litigation since 2018 and that multiple objections have been lodged. Although the Objectors deny any acts of intermeddling, the court is vested with a duty under succession law to preserve the estate pending determination of disputes relating to entitlement. 44. The nature of the estate is described as substantial and the risk of dissipation, whether established or apprehended, cannot be ignored. This court is not required at this interlocutory stage to conclusively determine acts of intermeddling, but rather to safeguard the subject matter. In the circumstances, and in order to maintain the status quo and protect the estate, preservation and injunctive orders are warranted. 45. The Applicant seeks consolidation of all objections to the confirmation of grant. The guiding principles are that consolidation is appropriate where there are common questions of law or fact and where it serves the ends of justice by promoting efficiency and avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. 46. In the present matter all objections arise from the same estate they revolve around interconnected issues, particularly the validity of the will, inclusion of assets and entitlement and the parties are substantially the same. 47. I, therefore, find that consolidation will facilitate expeditious and coherent determination of all issues without prejudice to any party thus the prayer for consolidation is merited. 48. The Applicant seeks to strike out the 3rd Objector’s objection on the basis of res judicata, relying on the Court of Appeal decision in Civil Application No. E408 of 2021. The doctrine of res judicata requires a final determination on the merits by a competent court and between the same parties and on the same issues. 49. The material placed before court demonstrates that the Court of Appeal proceedings related to an interlocutory application for stay under Rule 5 (2) (b) and not a substantive determination of the issues now before this court. Further, the issues in the present succession cause, particularly the validity of the will and entitlement to the estate, have not been conclusively adjudicated. 50. I, thus find that the elements of res judicata have not been satisfied. The prayer to strike out the 3rd Objector’s objection is therefore unmerited. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5514/eng@2026-04-30 9

page 9 of 10

51. The Applicant seeks to cite counsel for the 3rd Objector for contempt of court. The law on civil contempt requires proof of a clear and unambiguous court order; knowledge of that order; breach of the order; and deliberate disobedience. No specific court order has been demonstrated to have been violated, nor has evidence been adduced to show deliberate disobedience. 52. I, therefore, find that the threshold for contempt has not been met. This prayer fails. 53. The Applicant seeks directions for expedited hearing, including determination through affidavits and written submissions, with strict timelines. 54. Given the age of the matter and the multiplicity of applications, it is in the interests of justice that the matter be fast-tracked. This court retains discretion to regulate its own proceedings and to adopt procedures that enhance efficiency without compromising fairness. Therefore, the prayers for directions on expeditious disposal, including use of affidavit evidence and written submissions with limited oral testimony, are merited. 55. The 2nd Objector is alleged to have a claim for legal fees against the estate but has not formally quantified or substantiated it. A claim against an estate must be properly particularized and supported, including compliance with the statutory framework governing advocate–client costs. The 2nd Objector shall be required to quantify and justify his claim to enable a determination be made before the appropriate forum. 56. The application dated 10th December, 2024, substantially succeeds in so far as it seeks preservation of the estate and procedural streamlining of the dispute. However, the attempts to summarily terminate the 3rd Objector’s participation and to invoke contempt jurisdiction are not supported by the evidence or the law. The matter shall now proceed to substantive hearing on the merits, with the estate preserved and the issues consolidated for determination. 57. In light of the foregoing, I hold that the applications dated 22nd July, 2024 and 10th December, 2024 allowed as follows: 58. a. The prayers for the Will to be subjected to analysis by DCI is disallowed. b. An order is hereby issued restraining the Objectors, their agents or any persons acting under their authority from interfering with, alienating, transferring, charging, leasing or otherwise dealing with the estate of the deceased pending determination of the cause. c. All objections to the confirmation of grant are hereby consolidated and heard together by way of viva voce evidence. All the parties to file their respective responses, statements, list of documents and submissions within 30 days from the date of this ruling. d. The prayer to strike out the 3rd Objector’s objection on grounds of res judicata is not merited and is hereby declined. e. The prayer to cite counsel for contempt is declined. Each party to bear its costs. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI VIA VIDEO LINK THIS 30TH DAY OF APRIL 2026. H K CHEMITEI JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5514/eng@2026-04-30 10

page 10 of 10