https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/13105

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU** **SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. E020 OF 2025** **DK RONO, J** **18 AUGUST 2026** **IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF FESTUS M’RINGERA M’MUGAMBI (DECEASED)** **BETWEEN** **KENNETH MBURUGU RINGERA**.................................**1ST OBJECTOR/APPLICANT** **CATHRYN KITHIIRA**......................................................**2ND OBJECTOR/APPLICANT** **GRACE NTHUURWA KITHINJI**...................................**3RD OBJECTOR/APPLICANT** **AND** **MARY NTIBUKA M’RINGERA**........................................**PETITIONER/RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. Before the Court is the Chamber Summons dated 14 July 2026, brought under a Certificate of Urgency by Kenneth Mburugu Ringera, Cathryn Kithiira and Grace Nthuurwa Kithinji, hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Applicants”. The application concerns the estate of Festus M’Ringera M’Mugambi (the deceased), who died intestate on 30 July 2024. 2. The Applicants describe themselves as biological children of the deceased. They seek, principally, enlargement of time within which to lodge an objection and cross-petition to the petition for a grant of letters of administration; interim directions concerning the rental income generated by specified estate properties; appointment of the 1st Applicant as a co-administrator; and an account of rental income allegedly collected from January 2026. 3. The application is opposed by Mary Ntibuka M’Ringera, the Petitioner/Respondent. The Respondent maintains that the administration of the estate has not been conducted in secrecy or to the exclusion of the Applicants. She relies, among other matters, upon family meetings allegedly held on 12 August 2024, 28 December 2024, 26 July 2025 and 12 December 2025, and upon documents concerning the management and distribution of estate income. 4. The application therefore raises questions both as to the Applicants' participation in the succession proceedings and as to the appropriate interim arrangements for the preservation and management of the estate pending determination of the substantive succession dispute. 5. The Applicants seek, in substance, the following orders: 6. Leave to file an objection and cross-petition out of time; 7. Interim orders directing that rental income from properties known as Ntima/Igoki/2178, Ntima/Igoki/2335 and Abothuguchi/Kariene/3819 be deposited into a joint interest-earning account in the names of the parties' advocates or into Court; 8. Appointment of the 1st Applicant as a co-administrator of the estate; and 9. An order compelling the Respondent to account for rental income collected from January 2026 to the date of the application. 10. The application is supported by the affidavits sworn by the Applicants. Their case, in summary, is that the succession proceedings were commenced without their knowledge and that they became aware of the existence of the cause only on 7 July 2026. They contend that the Respondent has exercised exclusive control over the estate and its rental income and that, unless the Court intervenes, there is a risk that their interests as beneficiaries may be prejudiced. 11. The Applicants further contend that the estate generates substantial rental income, stated to exceed Kshs.480,000 per month. They express concern regarding the manner in which that income has been managed and seek its placement in a neutral account pending determination of the succession dispute. 12. The Respondent disputes the allegation that the succession process was conducted secretly. Her evidence is that the family had, on several occasions, discussed the deceased's estate and its administration. 13. Particular reliance is placed on meetings said to have taken place on 12 August 2024, 28 December 2024, 26 July 2025 and 12 December 2025. 14. The Respondent further contends that the Applicants were not excluded from the management or benefit of the estate. In particular, she relies upon evidence that the 1st Applicant was designated an authorised signatory to the estate's Equity Bank accounts at Makutano and Gatimbi branches. 15. The Respondent also relies upon payment vouchers and M-Pesa confirmations showing payments of Kshs.110,000 to the 1st and 2nd Applicants in December 2025, which she describes as “Christmas gifts”. 16. It is the Respondent's position that the proposed transfer of all rental income to an advocates' account would interfere with the ordinary management of the estate, including payment of wages to askaris and caretakers and settlement of utility and other property-related expenses. 17. Having considered the application, the affidavits, the documents exhibited thereto and the respective submissions, I respectfully consider the following issues to arise for determination: 18. Whether the Applicants have demonstrated sufficient cause for enlargement of time to lodge an objection and cross-petition and thereby participate in the succession proceedings; 19. Whether the circumstances disclosed justify interim intervention by the Court in the management of the estate's rental income and the rendering of accounts; and 20. Whether the Court should, at this interlocutory stage, appoint the 1st Applicant as a co-administrator of the estate. 21. The Court is not, at this stage, called upon to determine the ultimate entitlement of any beneficiary to the estate or to pronounce finally upon the competing accounts concerning the administration of the estate. Those matters will properly arise upon hearing the substantive proceedings. The task presently is to determine what orders are just and appropriate to preserve the rights and interests of all concerned pending that determination. *Enlargement of Time to Lodge an Objection and Cross-Petition* 1. The Applicants' principal complaint is that they were not informed that the present succession proceedings had actually been commenced. They maintain that although they may have been aware of family discussions concerning the estate, they only became aware of the Court proceedings on 7 July 2026. 2. The Respondent, on the other hand, relies upon the several family meetings as evidence that the Applicants were aware of the intended succession process and were participating in discussions concerning the estate. 3. There is therefore a distinction that ought not to be overlooked between knowledge that a family is contemplating or discussing succession proceedings and actual knowledge that a petition has been filed in Court and that a person whose interest may be affected is required to take a particular procedural step within a prescribed period. 4. What is clear is that the Applicants assert an interest in the estate as children of the deceased, and that they seek to participate in proceedings concerning the administration of their deceased father's estate. The Respondent has not disputed their familial relationship with the deceased. 5. In the circumstances of this case, I consider that the Applicants have demonstrated sufficient cause for being afforded an opportunity to formally participate in the proceedings. Their assertion that they became aware of the cause only on 7 July 2026 cannot, on the material presently before the Court, be rejected as plainly untenable. 6. More importantly, permitting the Applicants to file an objection and cross-petition will enable the Court to determine the competing claims upon their merits rather than foreclosing them on a procedural question before the parties' respective interests have been fully ventilated. 7. The prejudice occasioned to the Respondent by such an order is, in my view, capable of being addressed through appropriate directions as to filing and hearing. On the other hand, refusing the Applicants an opportunity to participate may have consequences which cannot readily be remedied if orders affecting the administration or distribution of the estate are subsequently made in their absence. 8. I accordingly find that the Applicants should be permitted to lodge their objection and cross-petition within the period prescribed in the orders made at the conclusion of this ruling. *Management of Rental Income* 1. The second question concerns the Applicants' prayer that rental income generated from Ntima/Igoki/2178, Ntima/Igoki/2335 and Abothuguchi/Kariene/3819 be deposited into a joint interest-earning account in the names of the advocates or into Court. 2. The rationale for that prayer is the Applicants' allegation that the Respondent has exercised exclusive control over the income generated by the estate and that the funds are at risk of being dissipated. 3. An order transferring the income generated by an estate from its existing mode of management to a Court or advocates' account is not a routine administrative order. It potentially affects the day-to-day functioning of the estate and may have consequences for tenants, employees, service providers and the preservation of the properties themselves. 4. The fact that an administrator or person managing estate property incurs expenditure in the course of managing it does not entitle that person to retain unrestricted control over estate funds. The Court has an obligation to ensure that estate property is preserved and properly accounted for pending its lawful distribution. 5. The evidence placed before the Court presents a somewhat more nuanced picture than the allegation of complete exclusion might suggest. The Respondent relies upon minutes of family meetings which indicate that the 1st Applicant was involved in discussions concerning the estate. In particular, the material before the Court indicates that he supplied his identification documents and KRA PIN for purposes of being included as an authorised signatory to the estate's bank accounts. 6. The Respondent also relies upon payment vouchers and M-Pesa confirmations showing that the 1st Applicant and the 2nd Applicant received Kshs.110,000 each in December 2025. Those documents do not, by themselves, establish that the estate has been managed perfectly or that all beneficiaries have been treated equally. Nor do they amount to a final determination that the sums paid to the Applicants constituted their proper entitlement from the estate. 7. They do, however, constitute evidence inconsistent with the proposition that the Applicants were wholly excluded from participation in or benefit from the estate. The Respondent has explained that estate income is utilised, among other things, to pay askaris and caretakers and to meet utility and other expenses associated with the properties. 8. That explanation is not, in itself, a licence to expend estate funds without accountability. It does, however, demonstrate that the proposed order would alter the existing administration of the properties and may interfere with legitimate expenses necessary for their preservation. The appropriate question is therefore whether there is sufficient evidence of imminent dissipation, misappropriation or other conduct warranting the drastic intervention sought. 9. On the material presently before the Court, I am not satisfied that such a case has been established to the threshold necessary to justify directing that all rental income be removed from the existing estate accounts and placed in an advocates' joint account or into Court. 10. The appropriate remedy where there is uncertainty concerning estate income is ordinarily to require proper disclosure and accounting, rather than to presume misappropriation. I therefore decline, at this stage, to direct that the rental income be deposited into a joint advocates' account or into Court. *The Question of Accounts* 1. The Applicants have sought an account of rental income collected from January 2026 to date. The production of an account will also assist the Court when dealing with the substantive objection and cross-petition. It will enable the parties to distinguish between income received, legitimate expenditure incurred in preservation and management of the estate, and any sums distributed or paid to beneficiaries. 2. The Court is therefore satisfied that an order for accounts is appropriate. The account should be sufficiently detailed to identify, in respect of each of the properties concerned, the income received, the date and source of each receipt, expenditure incurred, the nature and purpose of that expenditure, and the balance remaining. 3. Such an order is not intended to prejudge the validity of any particular expenditure. Any disputed expenditure may be addressed after the parties have had an opportunity to examine the account and raise specific objections. *Appointment of a Co-Administrator* 1. The appointment of an administrator is a substantive matter. The Court is required to consider the persons entitled to representation, their respective interests, the circumstances of the estate and the suitability of the proposed administrator or administrators. 2. At the present stage, the Applicants have not yet filed their objection and cross-petition. Their respective positions concerning the administration and distribution of the estate have therefore not been fully crystallised. Further, the Court has not heard the parties on the substantive question of who ought to obtain representation of the estate. It would therefore be premature to determine that question merely as an interim incident of the present application. 3. The appropriate course is therefore to reserve the question of representation for determination after the objection and cross-petition have been filed and the competing positions have been properly placed before the Court. 4. The prayer for immediate appointment of the 1st Applicant as co-administrator is accordingly declined, without prejudice to the Applicants' right to seek such appointment in the substantive proceedings. 5. Accordingly, the Chamber Summons dated 14 July 2026 is determined as follows: 6. The Applicants are granted leave to file and serve their Objection and Cross-Petition within Fourteen (14) days from the date of this ruling. 7. Upon filing, the Applicants shall serve the Objection and Cross-Petition upon the Petitioner/Respondent, who shall be at liberty to respond within Fourteen (14) days. 8. The prayer for an order directing that rental income from Ntima/Igoki/2178, Ntima/Igoki/2335 and Abothuguchi/Kariene/3819 be deposited into a joint interest-earning account in the names of the advocates or into Court is declined at this stage. 9. The Petitioner/Respondent shall, within twenty-one (21) days, file and serve upon the Applicants a comprehensive account of the rental income received from 1 January 2026 to the date of the account, identifying the respective property from which the income was received. 10. The account shall also disclose the expenditure incurred from the said rental income, including the nature, date and purpose of each material expenditure, together with such supporting documentation as is reasonably available. 11. The prayer for the immediate appointment of the 1st Applicant as a co-administrator is declined, without prejudice to the Applicants' right to pursue the question of representation in the substantive objection and cross-petition. 12. The parties shall thereafter obtain directions for the hearing and determination of the substantive objection and cross-petition. 13. Costs of the application shall be in the cause. **DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2026.** D.K RONO **JUDGE** Top of Form Bottom of Form