REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 745 OF 2010 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JULIUS MUGO MAINA (Deceased) CHARLES ALEXANDER ST KIAI .......................................................................1 APPLICANT MONICA MUTHONI ND NJAU .......................................................................2 APPLICANT VERSUS HELLEN WAHU ............................................................................................ .....PROTESTER RULING The Notice of motion dated 24th day of March, 2025 seeks the following orders. 1. That this Honourable Court be pleased to review, set aside and vacate its ruling issued on 27th January, 2025 revoking the summons for confirmation of grant and the resultant titles excised from Land Parcel No. Loc.14/Kiiru/3758. 2. That the Honourable Court be pleased to reinstate the summons for confirmation of grant for fresh determination on its merits, considering the newly discovered evidence that was not available at the time of the ruling. 3. That the Honourable Court do make a finding that the documents relied upon in reaching the impugned decision are forgeries and were fraudulently introduced to mislead the court and perpetrate an injustice. 4. That the Honourable Court do make a finding that the revocation of the excised titles has gravely and unfairly impacted innocent third parties who lawfully purchased portion of the subject property from the respondent, acquired legal titles and developed the land. These bonafide purchasers for value, who are not part of the family dispute will suffer undue hardship and irreparable loss should the revocation order stand. Order 45 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, provide; ‘Any party aggrieved by an order or decree of the court may apply for review if new and important evidence has been discovered, which despite due diligence was not within their knowledge or available at the time the decree was passed’. The new and important evidence is framed as follows; SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 745 OF 2010 1
page 1 of 3
a) The verifying affidavit dated 15th October, 2019 which allegedly granted the 1st applicant authority to act on behalf of the purported 2 nd applicant is a manufactured document. b) The affidavit in support of the citation allegedly signed by the respondent on 19th August, 2010 contains a signature that is glaringly inconsistent with other documents signed by the same respondent in court record. The same affidavit bears an I.D No. 26305387, while the respondent’s actual I.D No. is 28221691, a clear indicator of fraud aimed at deceiving this Honourable Court. A perusal of the affidavit of support of citation dated 19th August, 2010 shows that it was drawn by an Advocate a Mr. Andrew Kariuki who was Counsel for the respondent at the time It was commissioned. The Deponent signed and I.D No. 26305387 indicated. Secondly, the affidavit in support of summons for confirmation of grant of Administration intestate dated 2nd February, 2012 was drawn by Advocate Andrew Kariuki her Counsel and it was commissioned. Deponent signed I.D No. 28221691 was noted and indicated. There is filed in court a verifying affidavit dated 15th October, 2019 received in court on 15th October, 2019 vide receipt No. A0527367. It authorized the 1st applicant to conduct this matter on her behalf and his The applicant in this application was aware of these documents at all times. She knew of their existence. She did not raise any issues against these documents at the time. It is only after the court ruling delivered on 27th January, 2025 that she is now calling the documents ‘manufactured’ and forgeries. She has not demonstrated how those documents are manufactured and forged. Hers are mere allegations. These documents were lying in the file for more than ten (10) years. She cannot be heard to state that they constitute new evidence. She has not demonstrated that she recently found them to be forgeries and what processes she undertook to discover that the documents were forged. This application has no merit and it is dismissed with costs. RULING DELIVERED virtually this 25th day of March, 2026. _____________________________ MARTIN M. MUYA JUDGE In the Presence of: Mrs. Wahito - For Respondent SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 745 OF 2010 2
page 2 of 3
Court assistant – Isack SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 745 OF 2010 3
page 3 of 3