High Court 9199 of 2026

Dagoretti/Kangemi/1010 into 19 plots in place of the 14 mandated by the certificate of confirmation issued herein on 21st May 2019. (c) That this Court be pleased to declare null and void the Respondent’s subdivision plan and purported redistribution of the said immovable property known as Dagoretti/Kangemi/1010. (e) That the Court be pleased to sanction the sub division plan of the Applicant of the said Dagoretti/Kangemi/1010 into 14 plots. (f) This Court be pleased to order that the Deputy Registrar execute jointly with the Applicant the estate documents Respondents in continuing the event the to sideline the Applicant in the administration of the estate. (g) Costs to be paid by the respondent. 2. The application is based on the grounds thereof and the sworn affidavit of the applicant dated 10th April 2022. 3. The basis of the application is that the parties entered into a mediation agreement dated 9th May 2019 and the same was adopted as an order of the Court on 21 st May 2019 and a certificate of confirmation of grant was issued to that effect. 4. The Applicant deponed that the Respondents who are his elder sisters do not respect nor consult him neither do they consult the other beneficiaries. 5. That in furtherance of their disrespect the Respondent appointed one John Mwangi Wainaina a surveyor to carry SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 2692 OF 2006 hkc RULING Page 2 of 7 po/

page 2 of 7

out the subdivision of the above parcel of land in line with the confirmed grant. 6. He deponed that his surveyor had equally prepared another sub division which yielded 14 plots as mandated by the Court and that of Mr. Wainaina yielded 19 plots. 7. He deponed that her sister Mary Wanjiku Muchina protested at that subdivision. 8. His deposition therefore suggest that the Respondent’s subdivision goes contrary to the confirmed grant and it was going to disadvantage him and others who were going to get a portion of the land far away from the Nairobi Nakuru highway. 9. The application has been supported by Judith Nguhi Njenga who is a beneficiary of the estate herein. He admits that the meeting was held in the Applicant’s house and that she was humiliated by Andrew Cururu Wanguyu who wanted to assault her. 10. She went ahead to accuse the said Andrew of destroying a fence as well as a stone house and a water tank. 11. She also accused the said Andrew of threatening his tenants as they did not have the notice of demolishing the house. 12. The application has been opposed by the replying affidavits of James Mwangi Wainaina, Hellen Wanjiru Wairimu, Richard Thande all sworn on 5th October 2023. SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 2692 OF 2006 hkc RULING Page 3 of 7 po/

page 3 of 7

13. James Mwangi Wainaina the proprietor of Accurate Geosystems Limited, a surveying agency deponed that he was approached by the Administrators of the estate herein and after several consultative meetings he carried out the subdivision work on the parcel of land. 14. The various proposals were shared to the parties and on 10th February 2022 the parties reached a consensus on one of his proposals and the Applicant got the largest share of the said sub division. He said that the entire sub division was based on the wishes of the parties and that the portions were not equal. 15. That the applicant after the meeting agreed to surrender the original title to the area chief for subsequent titling work. 16. He also exhibited a search document which showed that the Applicant had cautioned the parcel of land. 17. The deponent produced a copy of the survey plan which the parties had agreed on. 18. On her part Hellen Wanjiru Wairimu deponed that she was the Assistant Chief of Gichagi sub location and that she was invited by the Applicant and co administrators for the meeting of 10th February 2022. 19. She said that she chaired the meeting and took the minutes which she later shared with them and that they all signed the minutes signifying their attendance. 20. She produced the said minutes including the hand written and the typed copies. SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 2692 OF 2006 hkc RULING Page 4 of 7 po/

page 4 of 7

21. Richard Thande on his part submitted that the parties were his cousins and he had been invited by Peninah to attend the meeting. He said that he had been aware of the difficulty the family had had in sub dividing the land. 22. He said that in the meeting he met the Assistant Chief and the surveyor Mr. Mwangi and an area elder known as Mr. Kingatua. 23. He deponed that the meeting was chaired by Rev. Njenga who had participated in reconciling the family and as a result reached the settlement which was thereafter filed and adopted as the order of the Court. 24. He said that after the meeting the minutes which had been written by the Assistant Chief were signed by all the parties. 25. The Court thereafter directed the parties to file written submissions which they complied and I have perused the same and does not wish to reproduce them here. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION 26. I think the main issue here really is the execution of the grant as confirmed. Each of the beneficiaries has no objection in the manner and style of the grant. 27. It appears that thereafter and after a long and protracted fights they agreed to have a family meeting on 10 th February 2022 chaired by Rev. Njenga who had brokered the original agreement as well as the Assistant Chief of the area. SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 2692 OF 2006 hkc RULING Page 5 of 7 po/

page 5 of 7

28. I have perused the minutes of that day as well as the survey report prepared by Mr. Mwangi which was available in the meeting and presented to the parties. 29. What is evident is that the survey expanded the plots so as to accommodate interest of the beneficiaries. The meeting took place in the home of the Applicant being one of the beneficiaries. 30. I do not agree with the Applicant that there was any coercion from the area Assistant Chief or at all. The meeting took place in his house. He had the liberty of chasing away any of the intruders if indeed he was not happy. 31. More importantly he signed the minutes of the meeting just like all the other beneficiaries and the witnesses who were present. 32. As for Judith I do not find the argument that Andrew abused and demeaned her to be truthful. If there was any iota of violence then she would not have signed the minutes and in any event the Assistant Chief who was present and a general custodian of peace and harmony in her jurisdiction would have taken relevant steps to arrest the situation. 33. I have also seen the survey works undertaken by the Applicant. The same to say the least was unilateral and did not have the consent of the rest of the beneficiaries. 34. Consequently, I do not find merit in the application. Let the parties proceed to execute the grant as per the SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 2692 OF 2006 hkc RULING Page 6 of 7 po/

page 6 of 7

minutes agreed upon at the home of the Applicant. The variation of the grant by creating more parcels is to the interest of all the beneficiaries. None has been disadvantaged and in any case the Applicant has not denied that he got a bigger share compared to the rest of the beneficiaries. 35. The application is otherwise dismissed with no order as to costs. Dated signed and delivered at Nairobi via video link this 25th day of June 2026. H. K. CHEMITEI JUDGE, FCIArb. SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 2692 OF 2006 hkc RULING Page 7 of 7 po/

page 7 of 7