In re Estate of Kagiri (Deceased) (Succession Cause 187 of 2009) [2026] KEHC 11689 (KLR) (17 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 11689 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NYERI SUCCESSION CAUSE 187 OF 2009 M MUYA, J JULY 17, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MWAI KAGIRI (DECEASED) BETWEEN CHARLES KAGIRI MWAI .................................................................... PETITIONER AND MOSES MUTHEE MWAI .................................................................... RESPONDENT AND JAMES MURIITHI MWAI (SUBSTITUTED IN PLACE OF JACINTA WANGARI MWAI) ........................................................................................................ APPLICANT RULING 1. This cause was commenced by the Petitioner/Protestor and citation was issued. The substituted applicant Jacinta Wangari Mwai and the respondent Moses Muthee Mwai among others entered appearance in answer to the citation. The matter went to full hearing and distribution of the Estate which comprises of LR. Ruguru/sagana/358 was done. 2. Summons for revocation of the grant was filed by Jacinta Wangari Mwai (now deceased) on grounds of concealment of material facts to the court. The application succeeded and the grant was revoked. 3. The contention by the protestor according to his affidavit of protest is that the Deceased had made his wishes in regard to the distribution of his parcel of land LR. No. Ruguru/sagana/358 into two portions. One comprising of one (1) acre and the other portion comprising of five (5) acres. 4. That the applicants mother was given one (1) acre and the mother of the protestor was given (5) five acres. The protestor had attached a copy of an application for consent before the Land Control Board dated 4th March, 1992. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11689/eng@2026-07-17 1
page 1 of 2
5. It is the contention by the protestor that him and his brothers have developed their respective portions since 1986. 6. It is not in dispute that the protestor is a beneficiary of the Deceased Estate by dint of the fact that his mother was married to the Deceased but the argument advanced by the applicants is that his mother separated with the Deceased and got married elsewhere only to return after the death of the Deceased hence the other children were sired out of wed lock and therefore they are not beneficiaries of the Estate. 7. There is no evidence of that separation if any, under whatever law either customary or statutory. It is contended that the Deceased later got married under Christian Marriage Act. The certificate of marriage alluded to, has many typographical errors including the year of marriage, the place of marriage, etc. 8. That certificate is questionable and it cannot form the basis of a monogamous marriage. I find that the Deceased had two wives. His marriage was polygamous. 9. In accordance with section 40 of the Law of Succession, I hold that the Estate of the Deceased be distributed equally among the (2) two houses. The share of the substituted applicant goes to her two sons. Each party to bear its own costs as this is a family matter. RULING DELIVERED THIS 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026. ..................... MARTIN M. MUYA JUDGE In the Presence of: Chomba for the Petitioner Court assistant – Isaack Molu https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11689/eng@2026-07-17 2
page 2 of 2