https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6588

In re Estate of Goiyo (Deceased) (Succession Cause 39 of 2018) [2026] KEHC 6588 (KLR) (15 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 6588 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kiambu Succession Cause 39 of 2018 A Mshila, J May 15, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH KINYANJUI GOIYO (DECEASED) Ruling 1.Margaret Mumbi Kimani one of the administrators of the estate of the deceased herein who died on 6/12/2003 filed the Summons for Confirmation of Grant dated 22nd October, 2021 seeking that the Grant of Letters of Administration issued on 29/10/2013 be confirmed. 2.The surviving beneficiaries were listed with the known property of the deceased being named as Gatamaiyu/Kagwe/569 and a schedule of distribution being provided as follows;- Name Description of theProperty Share of Heirs Margaret Mumbi Kimani Gatamaiyu/Kagwe/569 ½ acre Mary Wambui Njuguna 2 acres Mary Wanjiru Ngigi 2 ½ acres David Ndung’u Ikumbi ½ acre Peter Njoroge Karima 1 acre Virginia Thitu Kangara 1.20 acres 3.On 21/07/2022, John Kabiru Njuguna filed his affidavit of protest against the Summons for Confirmation of Grant. He deposed that he is a co-administrator and a grandson to the deceased. The deceased was survived by Susan Waithira Kinyanjui (deceased), Margaret Mumbi Kimani and Njuguna Kinyanjui (deceased). Susan Waithira Kinyanjui (deceased) was said to be survived by her husband John Philip Kibera. That Njuguna Kinyanjui (deceased) is his father and that he is survived their mother Mary Wambui Njuguna and her eleven children. He stated that the applicant did not consult him and that the applicant’s mode of distribution is meant to disinherit John Philip Kibera the legal husband to the late Susan Waithira Kinyanjui. The applicant was said to be working together with Mary Wanjiru Ngigi, Virginia Thitu Kangara in an attempt to disinherit other beneficiaries. That the applicant and Mary Wanjiru Ngige cannot claim from the estate herein as their father Kamau Goiyo was paid Kshs. 10,000/= for the purchase of 2.70 acres. That the inclusion of Virginia Thitu Kangara fraudulent as their no evidence of her as a purchaser as claimed by the applicant. 4.He proposed the mode of distribution as follows;- Name Description of theProperty Share of Heirs Margaret Mumbi Kimani Gatamaiyu/Kagwe/569 ½ acre Mary Wambui Njuguna 3 ¾ acres John Philip Kibera 2 acres Peter Njoroge Karima 1 acre David Ndung’u Ikumbi ½ acre 9.Mary Wanjiru Ngigi in her affidavit dated 27th July, 2022, in support of the summons for confirmation of grant, deposed that she supports the Applicant’s mode of distribution where she was apportioned 2.5 acres. She averred that the 2.5 of all that parcel of land known as Gatamaiyu/Kagwe/569 acres were granted to her by the Kiambu Chief Magistrate Court Land Case No. 22 of 2003 Mary Wanjiru Ngigi VS Kinyanjui Goiyo with the deceased herein Kinyanjui Goiyo getting 5 ¼ acres. The resultant title was cancelled upon revocation of grant herein. She has registered a restriction to safeguard her interest as her portion does not form part of the deceased’s estate and the same should be provided to her as done by the administrator. 10.John Kabiru Njuguna filed his affidavit of protest dated 21/9/2022 against summons for confirmation of grant. He stated that he is aware of the Kiambu Case No. 22 of 2003. To subvert the course of justice therein Margaret Mumbi Kimani and Mary Wanjiru Ngigi have been working in cohorts in their attempt to disinherit the actual beneficiaries. Margaret Mumbi Kimani has been intermeddling with the estate by selling part of the estate to third parties. The court was urged to distribute the land as per the affidavit of protest. 11.Margaret Mumbi Kimani in her replying affidavit dated 22/9/2022 deposed that the Protestor was consulted but refused to sign and even incited other beneficiaries not to sign. John Philip Kibera was married to Susan Waithira Kinyanjui but they parted ways many decades ago and he remarried. John Philip and Susan Waithira never had children and that even after the demise of Susan he was not notified hence never attended the burial. Kamau Goiyo purchased 2.5 acres from the deceased and after his demise, his daughter Mary Wanjiru Ngigi moved to court in Kiambu CMCC No. 22 of 2003. Gatamaiyu/Kagwe/569 measures 7.75 acres with 2.5 acres not forming part of the deceased’s estate as it belonged to Kamau Goiyo. The late Stephen Kingara Njai during his life time bought from Joseph Kinyanjui Njuguna and Mary Wambui Njuguna a piece of land measuring 2 acres on 22nd October, 2012 but later on 19th April, 2013 the measurements were reviewed to 1.20 acres. When Stephen Kangara Njai passed away on 3/3/2021, his widow Virginia Thitu Kangara is entitled to the 1.20 acres. The Protestor was said to be disinheriting Mary Wanjiru Ngigi and Virginia Thitu Kangara. The order of the court in CMCC No. 22 of 2003 was said to be merited as the same were never revoked by the deceased where land parcel Gatamaiyu/Kagwe/569 was to be sub-divided into two portions with Mary Wanjiru Ngigi getting 2.5 acres and the deceased 5 ¼ acres. The 2.5 acres allocated to Mary Wanjiru Ngigi were said not to form part of the deceased’s estate. She denied colluding with Mary Wanjiru Ngigi and Virginia Thitu in a bid to disinherit the beneficiaries herein. She contended that David Ndungu Ikumbi and Peter Njoroge Karima also bought land from the deceased being ½ acre and 1 acre respectively hence their inclusion. She denied intermeddling with the estate as claimed by the protestor. She urged the court to adopt her proposed mode of distribution as stated in the affidavit in support of the confirmation of grant dated 22/10/2021. 12.During the hearing of the protest John Kabiru Njuguna (PW1) wished to adopt his protest dated 21/7/2022 and 21/9/2022 as his evidence. He testified that the deceased was his grandfather being the father to his late father John Njuguna Kinyanjui. The deceased left behind his father, Margaret Mumbi and Susan Waithira. He stated that Susan Waithira was married to John Kibera. He produced the marriage certificate. Mary Wanjiru Ngigi was said to have no claim to her father’s land. He stated that his mother Mary Wambui Njuguna and his brother Joseph Kinyanjui Njuguna wrongly sold land to Virginia. He urged the court to distribute the land as per his proposed mode of distribution in paragraph 13 of his protest. 13.In cross examination he stated that Peter Njoroge Karima was sold 1 acre and David Ndungu Ikumbi was sold ½ acre. He stated that after removing 1 ½ acres the balance of 5 ½ acres should be divided amongst the children of the deceased with Mary Wambui Njuguna being given 3 ½ acres. 14.The protestor closed his case. 15.Margaret Mumbi Kimani (DW1) wished to adopt her replying affidavit and witness statement as her evidence. She stated that Mary Wanjiru Ngige won a case against her father where she was awarded 2 ½ acres. She stated that the deceased sold to John Ngige 1 acre and Ndungu Ikumbi ½ acre. Mary Wanjiru Ngigi should get 2 ½ acres. Further, she stated that Mary Wambui cannot get 3 ¼ acres as the three children have to get equal portions. 16.In cross examination she stated that titles were cancelled due to the revocation. Virginia to get her portion from those who allegedly sold to her after their portions are identified. 17.Mary Wanjiru Ngigi (DW2) wished to adopt her affidavit dated 27/7/2022 as her evidence. She stated that she was given 2 ½ acres vide an order of the court that has never been set aside. 18.Subsequently, parties filed their written submissions. Protestor’s Submissions 19.The Protestor submits Mary Wanjiru Ngigi has no locus to make a claim in place of her deceased’s father as she has not produced any letters of administration issued to her in respect of the estate of her deceased father. Reliance was placed in the case of Trouistik Union International & another vs Mbeyu & another (1993) KLR 230. The Protestor also submitted that Virginia Thitu Kangara is not entitled to a share of the estate as her actions amount to intermeddling with the estate of the deceased. Reliance was placed in the case of Benson Mutuma Muriungi vs C.E.O Kenya Police Sacco & another (2016) KLR. It was submitted that having considered the 1 acre to be distributed to Peter Njoroge Karima and ½ acre to be distributed to David Ndung’u Ikumbi the 6 ¼ acres should be distributed as per paragraph 13 of the affidavit of protest. Applicant’s Submissions 20.The Applicant submits that both parties recognize David Ndungu Ikumbi who had purchased ½ acre from the deceased as well as Peter Njoroge Karima who had purchased 1 acre. The Applicant wished to recognize John Philip Kibera as a beneficiary as he was married to the deceased’s daughter the LATE Susan Waithira Kinyanjui. The Applicant submits that she wishes to abandon her proposal in so far as 1.20 acre that was to devolve to Virginia Thitu KARUGA who bought the same from the Protestor’s family as the same can be litigated elsewhere. It was submitted that the orders in the Land Case No. 22 of 2003 where Mary Wanjiru Ngigi was granted 2 ½ acres have never been appealed, set aside and/or reviewed and that the same were issued to Mary Wanjiru Ngigi herself and not her deceased father as such the issue of locus standi does not arise. The court was urged to distribute the remaining 3 ¾ acres equally amongst the deceased surviving children being the Applicant one Margaret Mumbi Kimani, the protestor’s mother one Mary Wambui Njuguna and John Philip Kibera being the husband to the late daughter of the deceased one Susan Waithira Kinyanjui. Issues for Determination 21.Upon hearing the evidence of the parties and reading their rival submissions this Court has framed only one issue for determination which is what is the appropriate mode of distribution of the deceased’s estate. Analysis 22.It is not disputed that the orders in the land case Kiambu No. 22 of 2003 where Mary Wanjiru Ngigi was granted 2 ½ acres have never been appealed, set aside and/or reviewed and that the Order was issued to Mary Wanjiru Ngigi herself and not her deceased father as such the issue of locus standi does not arise. 23.From the evidence adduced at the hearing it is apparent that the deceased person left no surviving spouse so the applicable law for distribution of the remaining parcel is provided for under Section 38 of the Law of Succession which reads as follows;“ 38.Where intestate has left a surviving child or children but no spouse, the net intestate estate shall, subject to the provisions of sections 41 and 42, devolve upon the surviving child, if there be only one, or shall be equally divided among the surviving children.” 19.Where the siblings have failed to agree on the mode of distribution the Court has no option but to apply the provisions of Section 38 of the Law of Succession as it is not disputed that both parents are deceased; .It is also not in dispute that the deceased was survived by three (3) children; it is also not disputed that the acreage available for distribution is the remaining 3 ¾ acres which acreage shall be distributed equally amongst the deceased surviving children being the Applicant one Margaret Mumbi Kimani, the protestor’s mother one Mary Wambui Njuguna and John Philip Kibera being the husband to the late daughter of the deceased one Susan Waithira Kinyanjui. Findings and Determination 19.For the afore-going reasons this court makes the following findings and determination;i.The Protest is found to be partially with merit and it is hereby partially allowed;ii.Mary Wanjiru Ngigi – to be granted 2 ½ acresiii.The Grant is hereby confirmed on the terms set out in paragraph 19.iv.The parties are at liberty to apply;v.Each party shall bear their own costs.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED VIA TEAMS AT VOI THIS 15TH DAY OF MAY. 2026.A. MSHILAJUDGEIn the presence of;Sanja/ Millicent– Court AssistantMr Nganga h/b for beneficiary Mary WanjiruMr Nganga h/b for Miss Nganga – for beneficiary MargaretMbugua - For the Protestor John