https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9955
The application for inhibition was dismissed because it was a repeat, parallel attempt to restrain dealings with the property in pending ELC proceedings, which the court treated as abuse of process. Since subdivision had already been undertaken under prior court orders and the estate administration needed finality,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 9955 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner / Applicant: Elias Marete; 1st Respondent: Joyce Kathambi Marete; 2nd Respondent: Jenny Kaigema Gitari
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 50 of 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Application for Inhibition / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- Application dated 16/12/2025 dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
- Judges
- ["SM Githinji"]
- Legal Topics
- Inhibition Order, Abuse of Court Process, Estate Administration, Subdivision of Estate Property, Pending Parallel Proceedings, Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Elias Marete
Petitioner / Applicant
Joyce Kathambi Marete
1st Respondent
Jenny Kaigema Gitari
2nd Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Application for Inhibition / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for inhibition over L.R. No. Ngusichi Settlement Scheme/192 was merited
- 2 Whether the application amounted to abuse of the court process
- 3 Whether the court should permit completion of administration of the estate despite pending ELC proceedings
Ratio Decidendi
The application for inhibition was dismissed because it was a repeat, parallel attempt to restrain dealings with the property in pending ELC proceedings, which the court treated as abuse of process. Since subdivision had already been undertaken under prior court orders and the estate administration needed finality, the ends of justice favored completion of administration rather than further restraint.
Court Disposition
Application dated 16/12/2025 dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Orders
- The prayer for inhibition over L.R. No. Ngusichi Settlement Scheme/192 was declined.
- The application dated 16/12/2025 was dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
In re Estate of Anampiu (Deceased) (Succession Cause 50 of 1999) [2026] KEHC 9955 (KLR) (8 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9955 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Meru Succession Cause 50 of 1999 SM Githinji, J July 8, 2026 Between Elias Marete Petitioner and Joyce Kathambi Marete 1st Respondent Jenny Kaigema Gitari 2nd Respondent Ruling 1.For determination is the summons dated 16/12/2025 under Section 68 of the Land Registration Act, Sections 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 40 Rules 1, 2 & 4 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking that:1.Spent2.Spent3.The Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of inhibition on parcel no. L.R NO. NGUSICHI SETTLEMENT SCHEME/192 pending hearing and determination of the MERU ELC case no. E130 of 2025.4.The cost of the application be provided for. 2.The application is premised on the grounds that the Respondent subdivided the suit property on 28/11/2025, and unless she is restrained, the Applicant will suffer irreparable loss of being unfairly disinherited of her share thereof. The application is made in good faith, and no prejudice will be occasioned to the Respondent in any way, if the prayers sought are granted. 3.The Respondent swore a Replying Affidavit on 20/2/2026 in opposition to the application. She termed the application a non-starter intended to stall the implementation of the grant and the transmission of the portions to the respective beneficiaries. She subdivided the property into 4 portions, each as per the grant and in compliance with the orders of this Court of 29/5/2025. She accused the Applicant of forum shopping and abusing the Court process by filing a similar application dated 21/8/2025 in Meru ELC No. E130/2025. 4.The Applicant swore a Supplementary Affidavit on 17/4/2026 in support of her application. 5.Although Counsel for the Applicant intimated to the Court on 21/4/2026 that they had filed written submissions, none are either in the CTS or the Court file. Counsel for the Respondent was categorical that they would be entirely relying on their Replying Affidavit. Disposition 6.Having considered the application and the responses thereto, I find the singular issue for determination to be whether the application is merited. 7.The inhibition sought is to subsist during the hearing and determination of Meru ELC No. E130/2025. That case is pending determination in the Lower Court, and the applicant has hitherto filed a similar application for inhibition before that Court, in a bid to obstruct the course of justice.That is the epitome of abuse of the Court process, which the Court cannot condone. 8.It is instructive to note that this Court issued the orders of 29/5/2025 directing that the distribution be completed within 6 months. This incessant back and forth litigation need come to an end, so as to bring finality to the proceedings herein. 9.I find that the ends of justice would be best served by permitting the completion of the administration of the estate, particularly since subdivisions have already been undertaken, with a view to bring this otherwise old matter to a close. 10.The upshot from the foregoing is that the application dated 16/12/2025 is in want of merit and it is accordingly dismissed with costs to the Respondent. DATED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026.S.M. GITHINJI –JUDGE8/7/2026In the presence of:-Mr. Kariuki for the RespondentMr. Kiogora Arthi holding brief for Mr. Otieno for the Applicant.