https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6819

In re Estate of Jason Njoroge (Deceased) (Succession Cause 14 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 6819 (KLR) (13 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 6819 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Bungoma Succession Cause 14 of 2024 REA Ougo, J May 13, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JASON NJOROGE (DECEASED) Between Anastancia Mweru Njoroge 1st Petitioner Catherine Nyambura Njoroge 2nd Petitioner Jane Wanjiku Njoroge 3rd Petitioner and Geofrey Wainaina Njoroge 1st Protestor John Kamau Njoroge 2nd Protestor Joyce Nduti Njoroge 3rd Protestor Ruling 1.The Petitioners herein jointly obtained a Grant of Letters of Administration over the Estate of the late Jason Njoroge Mwaura (deceased) dated 19th July 2021. The 1st and 2nd Petitioners then moved this Court, vide Summons dated 6th August 2024, for Confirmation of Grant. They sought the following orders:-a.That the Grant of Letters of Administration Intestate made to the said Anastancia Mweru Njoroge, Catherine Nyambura And Jane Wanjiku Njoroge in this matter on the 19th July 2021 be confirmed.b.That this Court be pleased to allow distribution of the Estate as proposed by the Applicant.c.That costs of this Application be in the cause. 2.The Application is supported by the sworn affidavit of the 1st Petitioner of even date and is premised on the grounds, on the face of it, that the mandatory six-month statutory period before confirmation of the Grant has lapsed, there is no objection or any pending application by the dependants, the administrators have continuously and faithfully administered the estate lawfully, it is necessary for the Grant to be confirmed to empower the distribution of the estate, and no beneficiaries shall be unduly prejudiced if the orders sought are granted. 3.In response to the Application, the Protestors herein filed an Affidavit of Protest, sworn by the 1st Protestor, Geoffrey Wainaina Njoroge, on behalf of the other Protestors, dated 4th November 2024, disputing the proposed mode of distribution set out in the Summons for Confirmation of Grant, particularly with respect to the distribution of parcel No. E.Bukusu/S.Kanduyi/230, measuring 0.0435Ha. 4.The 1st Protestor averred that the said property was acquired by his late mother, Christine Wambui Njoroge, the deceased’s 1st wife, on 5th August 1981, as demonstrated by the annexed copy of the Green Card. Consequently, his late father, Jason Njoroge, acquired the said property through transmission upon the demise of their late mother on 29th May 1988. He also averred that his late father remarried the 1st Petitioner herein in 1982 and disputed the assertion that the deceased acquired the property after marrying his second wife, the 1st Petitioner herein. 5.He argued that it would be unfair to have the said property, which belonged to their late mother, shared amongst the surviving beneficiaries of their deceased father, including those from the second household, as proposed by the Petitioner, because the said land only belongs to the 1st household, as children of the 1st wife. 6.It was also contended that the 1st wife purchased the said property without the involvement of the 2nd household, and that the deceased acquired only a life interest in the property on behalf of the 1st wife’s beneficiaries by virtue of being her surviving spouse. Consequently, the property ought to devolve to them as the only children of the deceased and the 1st wife. 7.The 3rd Petitioner also filed a Replying Affidavit dated 12th November 2024, opposing the Mode of Distribution on the ground that it was a ploy to disinherit the beneficiaries of the 1st house, and asserted that the property in question was acquired by their late mother, Christina Wambui Njoroge, as the sole proprietor on 5th August 1981. 8.She averred that their deceased mother died intestate in 1982, leaving the suit property in her name, and that their late father, the deceased herein, married the 1st Petitioner in 1982 and acquired ownership of the said parcel by transmission on 20th May 1988 upon the demise of her late mother. 9.She denied that the parcel in question housed the 1st Petitioner’s matrimonial home and instead asserted that their deceased father sold a banana estate on parcel No. E.Bukusu/S.Kanduyi/1077, whose proceeds were used to build the 1st Petitioner’s matrimonial home on parcel No. Nyandarua/Oljororok Salient/20876, measuring 0.045 HA. She further asserted that the deceased purchased parcel No. Nyandarua/Oljororok Salient/5046, measuring 0.046 HA, which was adjacent to parcel No. 20876. 10.She deposed that the registration of parcel No. 230 in their late father’s name was effected through the succession of their late mother’s estate, and that the 1st Petitioner cannot contend that it was acquired after her marriage to their father. For this reason, it would be unfair to have the said property shared amongst the beneficiaries in the first household as proposed by the 1st Petitioner, yet it was acquired by their mother. She instead proposed that the said property be distributed equally amongst the beneficiaries from the 1st house. 11.In a rejoinder, the 1st Petitioner filed a further affidavit dated 21st November 2024, in which she deposed that she married the deceased in 1982, after his first wife, the late Christina Njoroge, died. She stated that the late Christina was her elder sister, who left behind 10 children of tender age, and that is why she married the deceased to help raise them. She averred that she later solemnised her marriage to the deceased through a church wedding in 2003 and had three children with him, whom she raised alongside her sister’s/1st wife’s 10 children. 12.The 1st Protestor deposed that they lived with the deceased on parcel No. 438, where he had constructed a matrimonial home for his 1st wife and her late sister, and that she was also buried there. Subsequently, in 1989, they moved to parcel No. Bungoma Township/230 with all the children and lived there peacefully with her late husband and thirteen (13) children, and her husband later constructed a matrimonial home for her, where she has been staying for the past 35 years. 13.Her evidence is that she also contributed to the construction of the said house and that the parcel was vacant when they moved in. She further stated that her husband informed her that he had purchased the parcel himself but registered it in his late 1st wife’s name. She also said that the deceased informed them, while he was alive, that his late wife’s children would move to parcel No. 438, which was the 1st wife’s matrimonial home, while she would remain on parcel No. 230, where they have carried out various businesses to date. 14.She stated that the 3rd Petitioner omitted parcel No. 438 and failed to adduce evidence to prove that her late mother/1st wife purchased No. 230. She refuted the assertions that her late husband held the land in trust for the beneficiaries and had only a life interest, because the White Card relied upon contained no clause stating that he held the land in trust or as a life interest. 15.She conceded that the deceased did indeed sell parcel No. E.Bukusu/S.Kanduyi/1077, as averred by the 3rd Petitioner in her affidavit, but stated that the proceeds of the sale were used to purchase a lorry to help run the family business. 16.She asserted that she advised her husband to give her late sister’s children a plot in Nyandarua to keep the family together as one, and stated that the deceased transferred one of the parcels they had purchased in Nyandarua to the 2nd Protestor. She contended that she had occupied the suit parcel No. 230 for over 35 years and noted that none of her step-children raised any issue while the deceased was alive, including the fact that her matrimonial home was constructed therein. She further stated that the parcels she bought with her husband in Nyandarua did not form part of the deceased’s estate, since property jointly owned devolved to the surviving spouse upon the demise of one. 17.She averred that the property at 230 was solely owned by her late husband and could not be given to the protestors, the 3rd Petitioner, or any other beneficiary from the 1st household. She also opposed the mode of distribution set out by the 3rd Petitioner, stating that the deceased had set out his wishes and intentions for the distribution of his estate because he had constructed matrimonial homes for the two wives on different parcels. She added that one of the deceased’s sons, Philip Mwaura, had leased a shop on the said parcel No. 230. 18.The parties took directions before this Court to canvass the matter by way of oral evidence. 19.The Protestors adduced evidence from the 1st Protestor, Geoffrey Wainaina Njoroge, as PW1, who adopted the averments in his Affidavit of Protest and stated that they all moved from parcel No. 438 to Township 230 as a family, where their father built a house in which they all lived with their step-mother. He, however, produced a copy of the Green card and averred that his mother had died in 1982, and at that time parcel No. 230 was registered in her name. He opposed the mode of distribution and stated that their father held the parcel only in trust as the surviving spouse of their late mother. He informed the Court that parcel No. 230, a 50x100 plot, had shops, while No. 438 had rentals. 20.The Petitioners adduced evidence from the 1st Petitioner, Anastancia Mweru Njoroge, and called three more witnesses, namely Njenga Baiya, Jane Wamaitha Maina and Jane Wairimu Mabuka. 21.DW1 Anastancia Njoroge adopted her witness statement dated 10th February 2025 as her evidence in chief and, on cross-examination, denied having lived in Nyandarua or having a matrimonial home there. She also stated that she had lived on parcel No. 230 since 1989 and that succession over the said parcel was completed in 1988. She further stated that the parcel had some shops but was bare at the back when they moved in. On cross-examination by Jane, the 3rd Petitioner, she stated that she had been receiving rent from the shops on 230 for over 7 years and that construction on the said parcel began in 1985, when there was no dispute. She further testified that the deceased took ownership in 1988 and asserted that 230 belonged to her, while the children from the first house were to own 438. 22.DW2 Njenga Baiya testified that he was the deceased’s friend and adopted his witness statement dated 10th February 2025, in which he stated that he had rented a shop at the deceased’s premises on 230 for about 35 years before leaving in 2011, when the deceased told one of his sons, Philip Mwaura, that he could only have the shop if he agreed to pay rent. He further stated that during the deceased’s lifetime, he opposed the family fighting over property, which informed his decision to move the 1st Petitioner from the 1st wife’s matrimonial property in 438 to 230. He also testified that he never paid rent to the 1st wife, that she never showed up at the shop, and that the deceased constructed a house on 230 for the 1st Petitioner, where he would often visit with him when he was sick. He further stated that the 1st Petitioner should be respected for raising all the deceased’s children to the level they now were as successful and respectable members of society. 23.DW3 Jane Wamaitha Maina adopted her witness statement dated 6th February 2025, in which she testified that the deceased constructed a matrimonial home for the 1st Petitioner, who moved from her sister’s house and lived there peacefully for over 30 years, caring for the deceased’s children. She stated that the deceased lived with the 1st Petitioner in Mandizini and then moved to the plot in town, which had a townhouse and buildings. She also stated that all the children’s marriage rites were performed by the deceased and the 1st Petitioner in their matrimonial home on a plot near Naivas Supermarket, where the deceased had set up the 1st Petitioner’s matrimonial home in accordance with the Agikuyu customs. 24.DW4 Jane Wairimu Mabuka also adopted her statement dated 10th February as her evidence-in-chief and testified that she was a sister to the 1st Petitioner and her deceased co-wife, Christina Wambui, who had settled in her matrimonial home near the Chief’s office and Khetia’s Crossroad Supermarket within Bungoma Town. She said that the deceased moved with Anastancia to 230, where there were two structures at the front and the back was bare. DW4 denied on cross-examination that the couple ever lived in Nyandarua and stated that she witnessed the house at 230 being constructed. She stated that Anastancia had stayed in 438 for about 7 years before moving to her house near the stage on 230. She further stated that the Protestors, the 3rd Petitioner and their siblings, were now staying on parcel No. 438 in houses solely built by the deceased and their step-mother, the 1st Petitioner. She said that her late sister never informed her that she owned No. 230 during her lifetime. 25.Jane Wanjiku Njoroge, the 3rd Petitioner, testified against the proposed mode of distribution, stating that she was born in 1968 on parcel No. 1077, then moved to 438 when she was very young. She adopted her statement and averred that parcel No. 230 was purchased by her late mother in 1969, where she planted vegetables before her demise in January 1982. She said that Anastancia lived with their father on 438, then their father transferred No. 230 into his name in 1988, and he later moved onto it with the 1st Petitioner Anastancia. She said that he began construction on No. 230 in 1987 and completed it in 1989. She conceded on cross-examination that the 1st Petitioner paid rates for the said parcels and that her mother was buried on parcel No. 438, but that the Green Card bore the name of their mother. She told the Court that she tried to talk to her mother, the 1st Petitioner, but was told that the parcel belonged to her and her son. The Submissions 26.The Protestors’ submissions, dated 20th August 2025, were made through counsel, who submitted that the evidence on record proved that the deceased acquired ownership of parcel No. 230 by transmission following the demise of its sole proprietor. It was further submitted that, although it formed part of the deceased’s Estate, it was acquired by their mother during her lifetime, and therefore the 1st Petitioner did not contribute to its acquisition. Counsel cited Sections 35 and 37 of the Law of Succession Act regarding the life interest of a surviving spouse, and stated that a surviving spouse cannot dispose of the said property because it is held in trust for the benefit of the surviving children, in this case, those from the 1st house. It was submitted that the 1st Petitioner did not adduce evidence to show that the property was purchased solely by the deceased or by herself. They urged the court to find in favour of the Protestors. 27.The 1st and 2nd Protestor’s Submissions are dated 20th September 2025. Counsel submitted that the main legal point of contention in the estate of Jason Njoroge is the mode of distribution of the deceased's properties among his beneficiaries. Specifically, counsel outlined the following issues as part of the dispute. 28.Firstly, counsel addressed the status of Land Parcel No. Bungoma Township/230 and stated that the 1st and 3rd Petitioners and Protesters dispute whether the land belongs to the deceased’s 1st wife and, consequently, her children, or to the 1st Petitioner. The 1st Petitioner argued that it is her matrimonial home and should be allocated to her. 29.Secondly, there was a dispute over whether the land parcels Nyandarua/Oljororok Salient/20876 and 5046, and E.Bukusu/S.Kanduyi/1077, should be included in the deceased's estate for distribution. The 1st Petitioner contends that these parcels either belong to her by right of survivorship or have already been transferred to a third party. 30.The third issue is whether the deceased expressed specific wishes for the distribution of his estate between his two houses, and whether the court should respect those wishes over the default provisions of the Law of Succession Act. 31.Counsel further submitted that the 1st Petitioner seeks recognition of her beneficial interest in the properties, citing her significant monetary and non-monetary contributions, including raising the ten children of the deceased’s first wife, who was her elder sister. It is also argued that, under the Matrimonial Property Act of 2013, a matrimonial home is defined to include any property owned or leased by one or both spouses and occupied and utilised by them as their family home. Consequently, under Section 35 of the Law of Succession Act, and from the evidence tendered, it was not in dispute that the deceased and the 1st Petitioner settled on the said property as their matrimonial home. Consequently, the Court ought to safeguard the surviving spouse’s right to the matrimonial home because it cannot be distributed in a manner that disinherits her or leads to her eviction. 32.Counsel cited the following cases in support of their arguments: Re. Late Morogo A. Mugun (2019) eKLR, Re Estate of Mwangi Giture (2014) eKLR, Echaria v Echaria (2007) eKLR, Re Ruenji’s Estate (1977) KLR 21, and Florence Kituiru & Ano vs. Jackim Ikunda M’Twerandu & Another (2017) eKLR. 33.The 3rd Petitioner’s submissions are dated 29th July 2025. She submitted that the dispute over ownership and succession of plot 230 concerns its initial registration under her late mother, Christine Wambui Njoroge, and its subsequent transmission to Jason Njoroge, the deceased, after his death. She stated that the disputes were over the rightful ownership claims by the 1st Petitioner and the late Jason Njoroge's beneficiaries, and outlined details of various property ownerships, loans taken against the properties, and family issues linked to the succession dispute. 34.The 3rd Petitioner outlined multiple land plots, including 230, 1077, and 438, in the Bungoma and E. Bukusu S. Kanduyi areas, detailing registered proprietorship, lease terms, and encumbrances such as charges for loans from various banks, as well as cautions registered on the properties related to the late Jason Njoroge’s business activities. 35.She submitted that some encumbrances have been discharged over time, indicating ongoing financial activity related to the properties from the 1960s to the present. It was her position that her late mother left behind 10 children, each facing different struggles, and that she refuted the Petitioner's assertion that they were all successful. Analysis And Determination 36.From the pleadings, the evidence before this Court, and the rival submissions, I note that the following issues are for determination: -i.Whether the protest is merited and ought to be allowed.ii.Whether the Grant should be confirmed in accordance with the proposed mode of distribution. Whether the protest is merited and ought to be allowed. 37.As a preliminary issue, I find it necessary to set out the provisions of the Law of Succession Act regarding the creation of a life interest in the property of a deceased spouse. Section 35 states that:35.Where intestate has left one surviving spouse and child or children1.Subject to the provisions of section 40, where an intestate has left one surviving spouse and a child or children, the surviving spouse shall be entitled to—a.the personal and household effects of the deceased absolutely; andb.a life interest in the whole residue of the net intestate estate:Provided that, if the surviving spouse is a widow, that interest shall determine upon her re-marriage to any person. 38.Section 37 provides: -37.Powers of spouse during life interestA surviving spouse entitled to a life interest under the provisions of section 35 or 36, with the consent of all co-trustees and all children of full age, or with the consent of the court, may, during the period of the life interest, sell any of the property subject to that interest if it is necessary for his own maintenance:Provided that, in the case of immovable property, the exercise of that power shall always be subject to the consent of the court. 39.The Protestors argue that their father had a life interest in parcel No. 230, which they also allege was purchased by their late mother in 1969 during her lifetime. I have considered the evidence tendered in Court in this regard. No sale agreement or other material evidence was adduced by the Protestors to prove that their late mother, Christina Wambui, purchased the property. Instead, they produced a copy of the Green Card, which showed that she was the sole registered owner at the time of her death. My view is that a copy of the Green Card does not necessarily prove that their late mother purchased the property, but merely proves her ownership of the parcel. 40.Whether the land actually belonged to the deceased Christina, held in trust by Jason as the life interest holder on the one hand; or whether it belonged to the deceased Jason as the rightful registered owner upon transmission on the other hand, is a matter this Court cannot delve into for want of jurisdiction. I state so because the subsequent ownership by Jason through transmission was proven by the production of his title document. This was prima facie evidence of ownership. 41.It is clear that the Protestors herein never challenged their father’s ownership of the said land during his lifetime or the succession process that led to him obtaining the title in his name. DW1 and DW2 testified that the deceased leased one of the shops to his son Philip on condition that he paid the requisite rent. I find that this is clear evidence that the said property belonged to the deceased, was recognised as his own by his children during his lifetime, and that he therefore demanded rent from his son, to which the son agreed to pay. 42.On whether the life interest existed as alleged by the Protestors and the 3rd Petitioner, Section 35 is clear on the instances when a life interest terminates or ceases to exist. It does so either upon the death of the surviving spouse/life interest holder or upon their remarriage to another person. In this case, I find that, since the deceased’s 1st wife died in January 1982 and he later married the 1st Petitioner within the same year, upon the recommendation of her family, the life interest ceased to exist. In other words, the alleged life interest over the property No. 230, which was originally registered in his 1st wife’s name, changed upon the deceased’s remarriage to the 1st Petitioner. Since he proceeded to carry out succession much later, in 1989, over the said property, it was now rightfully his own property and not one held in trust for the children under the tenets of a life interest. The fact that the process of succession or the deceased’s ownership of the said parcel was also never challenged by his children from the 1st house during his lifetime supports the position that the said property was vested in him as the rightful and sole proprietor. It therefore became free property available for distribution in accordance with section 40. The fact of his ownership cannot arise now after his death. 43.To further buttress these findings, I have also considered the evidence of DW2 Njenga Baiya, who, in his evidence-in-chief, stated that he initially wanted to purchase property No. 230 from a Somali man, the original owner, and went to Nairobi to raise funds for the purchase. On his return, he found that the deceased, Jason, had already bought it. He further stated that during his tenancy at the shops on the suit parcel, he never saw the 1st wife coming by or demanding rent from him, which indicates that the deceased was the actual proprietor of the said parcel. 44.PW1 also stated in her further affidavit that the deceased told her the property belonged to him because he had purchased it but registered it in his first wife Christina’s name. I note that the 1st Protestor conceded on cross-examination that his father had settled his late mother’s estate and agreed that a couple could purchase property and register it in favour of one of them. Taken together, these testimonies are sufficient to conclude that the 1st Petitioner’s version is more believable, namely that the deceased told her he was the one who purchased the land and registered it in his first wife’s name. 45.The fact that all the witnesses in this case, including the Protestors themselves, stated that the 1st Petitioner lived on parcel 230 means that, indeed, that was the place where she settled with her deceased husband. It is also noteworthy that she first lived with her husband for 7 years on parcel No. 438, where the 1st wife lived and was buried, but moved to and stayed on 230 for over 30 years. I find that this is her matrimonial home, where she settled with the deceased. I further noted that she had been receiving the proceeds of the rent from the shops on parcel No. 230 and had paid the land rates, as confirmed by the 3rd Petitioner. 46.From my analysis, the parties’ past conduct in this case demonstrates that the 1st Petitioner was lawfully settled on parcel No. 230 with the deceased. Secondly, I reject the argument that the deceased obtained a life interest in the said parcel, as no evidence was tendered to prove that he did not purchase the land, as testified by DW1 and DW2, or to question the succession process that led to his ownership of the land. The children of the 1st house ought to have raised questions with their father during his lifetime about transacting business on their mother’s alleged property, particularly regarding the life interest. They ought also to have demanded a share of parcel No. 230 as the surviving children at the point they attained the age of majority, premised on the principles of a life interest under Sections 35 and 37 of the Law of Succession Act 47. I find that the Protestors herein are estopped from challenging their father’s proprietorship over parcel No. 230 and consequently cannot now claim a full share of the said parcel against the 1st Petitioner. This Court cannot also overlook the fact that the 1st Petitioner has built her matrimonial home on the said parcel. To hold and direct that the 1st Petitioner’s matrimonial parcel, where she has settled, should be divided equally amongst the two houses would be unfair, especially where the 1st house has rightfully been allowed to retain the whole share of their deceased mother’s matrimonial property in No. 438. Whether the Grant should be confirmed in accordance with the proposed mode of distribution. 47.Based on the foregoing, I now proceed to determine the Summons for Confirmation of Grant. I have considered the properties of the deceased enlisted on Form P&A 5 filed on 19th February 2019 by the Petitioners and the 3rd Petitioner’s Mode of Distribution in her replying affidavit dated 12th November 2024 as follows: -1.Nyandarua/Ol Jororok Salient/208762.Nyandarua/Ol Jororok Salient/50473.Nyandarua/Ol Jororok Salient/50464.E.Bukusu/S.Kanduyi/34575.E.Bukusu/S.Kanduyi/36566.E.Bukusu/S.Kanduyi/37317.E.Bukusu/S.Kanduyi/60398.E.Bukusu/S.Kanduyi/4389.Bungoma Township/23010.Motor Vehicle Registration No. KBQ 460K11.Shares at Kengen Plc12.Shares At Standard Chartered Bank (k) Limited13.Shares At Kcb Bank Limited14.Shares At Safaricom Plc 48.I have compared the two proposed modes of distribution, filed separately by the 1st Petitioner and the 3rd Petitioner, with the provisions of the law which stipulate equal distribution amongst the surviving beneficiaries of a deceased person’s estate. Evidence was adduced that parcel no. 1077 was sold and therefore does not form part of the deceased’s assets. Taking into consideration the findings made in this case in relation to the listed properties, in particular parcel No. Bungoma Township/230, I direct that the properties shall be distributed as follows: - Index Property Beneficiary Share Nyandarua/ol Jororok Salient/20876 2Nd House/ Anastacia Mweru Njoroge Whole0.045ha Nyandarua/ol Jororok Salient/5047 John Kamau Njoroge Whole0.046ha Nyandarua/ol Jororok Salient/5046 2Nd House/anastacia Mweru Njoroge Whole0.046ha E.bukusu/ S.kanduyi/3457 Measuring 2.04 Ha 1St House And 2Nd House Equal Share E.bukusu/ S.kanduyi/3656 Measuring 1.09 Ha 1St House And 2Nd House Equal Share E.bukusu/ S.kanduyi/3731 Measuring 0.34 Ha 1St House And 2Nd House Equal Share E.bukusu/ S.kanduyi/6039Measuring 0.8 Ha 2Nd House: Gladys Nyambura Njoroge, Phylis Mugure Njoroge And Philip Mwaura Junior Njoroge Equal Share E.bukusu/ S.kanduyi/438 Measuring 0.4ha 1St House Equal Share Bungoma Township/230 Anastancia Mweru Njoroge Whole Motor Vehicle Registration No. Kbq 460k 1St And 2Nd House Equal Share Shares At Kengen Plc 1St And 2Nd House Equal Share Shares At Standard Chartered Bank (k) Limited 1St And 2Nd House Equal Share Shares At Kcb Bank Limited 1St And 2Nd House Equal Share Shares At Safaricom Plc 1st and 2nd House Equal Share 49.In conclusion, I find that the Affidavit of Protest lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. The deceased’s property shall be distributed in accordance with the above schedule. There shall be no orders as to costs since this is a family matter. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY ON THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY 2026.R.E. OUGOJUDGEIn the presence:Miss Natwati - For the 1st & 2nd PetitionerJane Wanjiku Njoroge/ 3rd PetitionerGeoffrey Wainaina Njoroge/1st ProtestorJohn Kamau Njoroge/ 2nd ProtestorJoyce Nduta Njoroge/ 3rd ProtestorMr. Juma Waswa - Absent