REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MURANGA SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 926 OF 2014 RE ESTATE OF GEORGE WARUI KARIRI (DECEASED) DAVID MAINA KARUMA……………………………….. …..PETITIONER VERSUS ESTHER WANJIRU WARUI………………………….…… RESPONDENT RULING 1. The dispute before the Court concerns three properties of the deceased that are alleged were not covered in the judgment or the partial consent order. These are: i. Title No. Loc. 16/Gatura/390 ii. Title No. Gilgil/Gilgil/Block 1/1850 iii. Title No. Mitubiri/Wempa/Block 1/5493 2. The petitioner submits that these properties should be distributed strictly in accordance with the deceased’s valid written will dated 19th September 2005, which was confirmed by the Court in its judgment of 24th April 2023. Specifically: i. Loc. 16/Gatura/390 was bequeathed to Mary Gakenia Warui. ii. Gilgil/Gilgil/Block 1/1850 was bequeathed to Geofrey Kariri Warui and David Gachuhi Warui. MURANGA SUCC. 926 OF 2014 1|Page
page 1 of 3
iii. Mitubiri/Wempa/Block 1/5493 was bequeathed to Teresia Wahu, to hold in trust for Kariri Karanja and Njugi Karanja, sons of the deceased’s brother. 3. Since no appeal was filed against the judgment confirming the validity of the will, and the time for appeal has lapsed, the petitioner urges the Court to uphold the deceased’s testamentary instructions and proceed to distribute the three properties accordingly. Determination and analysis; 4. Having perused the submissions with regards to the properties said to have been left out in the Judgment of Kanyi Kimondo J in which it declared the will to have passed the test set out in section 11 of The Law of Succession Act and having perused the Will itself, it is my opinion that the properties referred to herein as having been omitted in the Judgment were properly distributed in the will and need to be disturbed. Kanyi Kimondo J confirmed the validity of the will but noted an error in interchanging property titles. The court did not re-list all properties; it only addressed the disputed ones. The Court’s duty was on validity of the will, not re-cataloguing every asset. 5. I am therefore of the opinion that the dispute is without merit. The three properties in question were expressly provided for in the deceased’s valid will dated 19th September 2005, which this Court has already upheld. The Court’s role is not to re list or re catalogue every property but to confirm the validity of the testamentary instrument and ensure distribution in accordance with its terms. Since no appeal has been filed against the judgment affirming the will, and the time for appeal has lapsed, the testamentary instructions must be respected. I therefore find that the properties be MURANGA SUCC. 926 OF 2014 2|Page
page 2 of 3
distributed as per the deceased will date 19 th September 2006 in order to dispose of the dispute. 6. Accordingly, the following orders shall ensue: a. The properties be distributed in accordance with the deceased will as follows: i. Loc. 16/Gatura/390 to Mary Gakenia Warui; ii. Gilgil/Gilgil/Block 1/1850 to Geofrey Warui and David Gachuhi Warui; Kariri iii. Mitubiri/Wempa/Block 1/5493 to Teresia Wahu, to hold in trust for Kariri Karanja and Njugi Karanja. b. Each party should bear their own costs. Dated, Signed and Delivered Virtually on this 25 th day of June, 2026. HON. T. W. OUYA, OGW JUDGE In the presence of: Ms. Odera for Petitioner/Administrator Mr. Gitau for Mr. Wainaina for Respondent Nyabuto – Court Assistant MURANGA SUCC. 926 OF 2014 3|Page
page 3 of 3