Mary Waithera Wang’ang’a & 1 other v Anita Milkah Gathunguri (Suing on her own behalf and as a guardian of Mary Anisha Waithira John, Stephen Wang’ang’a John and Prince Wang’ang’a John)

d) The deceased left a valid Will dated 25th January 2020, signed at the hospital with the protestor present. The witnesses showed the Will to the family, and it was read aloud in my presence, along with other family members. e) Contrary to the explicit provisions of the Will, the alleged consent regarding distribution attempts to disinherit the children of the deceased and the protestor from the properties left to them by the deceased. Instead, it diverts these properties to the deceased's brothers and sisters. f) The proposed distribution is illegal, unfair, oppressive, violates the deceased's testamentary wishes, and is against the best interests of the children. The deceased's brothers and sisters have already taken what was given to my late exhusband by his father, and have now taken what was meant for my children from their late father. g) According to Section 5 of the Law of Succession Act, Cap 160 Laws of Kenya, any competent adult, who is not a minor, has the freedom to distribute their property through a Will. This includes referencing any secular or religious laws they choose. h) Article 53(2) of the Kenyan Constitution emphasizes that the child's best interests are paramount in all matters relating to children. 2. The respondents disagreed with the objector and gave the following reasons: a) The protest lacks merit, is incompetent, bad in law, and otherwise an abuse for the following reasons. b) The protestor is neither a beneficiary under the deceased's written Will dated 25th January 2020 nor recognized as a dependent or spouse under the Law of Succession Act (Cap 160). At the time of reading the will, she admitted she was remarried, estranged from the deceased, and had no issue with being excluded from the will. c) The Protestor was aware of the will, and she knew that her children were the only ones being provided for in the will. d) The Protestor has no locus standi to challenge the distribution of the deceased's estate as she is a stranger in law to the estate. High Court at Nyandarua Probate &Administration No. E040 of 2025 Page 2

page 2 of 3

3. The protestor claims an estate right through her marriage to the deceased, but has not provided any supporting documents. When I mention documents, I do not necessarily mean a marriage certificate. It has been argued that she separated from the deceased and remarried. If this is correct, she would not be considered a dependent of the deceased. 4. When the will of the deceased was read during the funeral, the protestor indicated she was present. The proposed distribution she opposes was filed on May 29, 2023. She submitted her affidavit of protest only on May 8, 2026. Without an explanation for the delay, it appears her action is an afterthought. She knew she was excluded from the will since she is not a beneficiary. 5. The summons for confirmation of the grant dated May 29, 2023, has included Mary Anisha Waithira John, Stephen Wang’ang’a John, and Prince Wang’ang’a John, contrary to the protestor's claim. 6. Based on the analysis of the evidence from the protest and the parties’ submissions, I conclude that the protest has no merit and is therefore dismissed with costs. Delivered and signed at Nyandarua, this 25th day of June 2026 KIARIE WAWERU KIARIE JUDGE High Court at Nyandarua Probate &Administration No. E040 of 2025 Page 3

page 3 of 3