In re Estate of Nderito (Deceased) (Succession Cause 307 of 2006) [2026] KEHC 8535 (KLR) (18 June 2026) (Ruling)

In re Estate of Nderito (Deceased) (Succession Cause 307 of 2006) [2026] KEHC 8535 (KLR) (18 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8535 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Succession Cause 307 of 2006 HK Chemitei, J June 18, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE PETER CHARLES NDERITO (DECEASED) Between Angela Wambui Nderito Applicant and John Kangethe Nderitu 1st Respondent Florence Auma Nderitu 2nd Respondent Elizabeth Wariaro Nderitu 3rd Respondent Ruling 1.In her application dated 9th February 2026 the Applicant is seeking orders that:(a)This Court be pleased to review the orders made on 29th January 2026 in particular that “the second and third Respondents and in particular Florence Auma and her daughters Tanya Wariara Nderitu and Wambui Nderitu are directed to provide unhindered access to the Administrator specifically to carry out valuation of land parcel number 3734/707 Lavington property in execution of the grant” which is incorrect.(b)This Court be pleased to review or vary the orders made on 29th January 2026 to the orders for police assistance to remove the illegal trespassers at Lavington home parcel number 3737/707.(c)This Court makes any other expedient orders. 2.The application is premised on the grounds thereof and the sworn affidavit of Angela Wambui Nderito dated same date. 3.The substance of the application among other issues is that this Court’s consolidated ruling dated 29th January 2026 mistyped the parcel of land or property in issue namely LR No. 7741/286 instead of LR No. 3734/707 which they were requesting for the police assistance in executing the earlier orders of the Court as the Administrator of the estate. 4.The application has been supported by the 1st Respondent John Kang’ethe Nderitu vide his affidavit sworn on 23rd February 2026. 5.The 2nd and 3rd Respondents have opposed the application through the grounds of opposition dated 5th March 2026 in which they have stated that the application is misconceived as the prayers they seek to review are in tandem with the application dated 16th December 2024. 6.They have argued that the Court cannot grant the same as it is introducing fresh twist to the application and in any case a party is bound by its pleadings. 7.Without belaboring the point, I find the application not sincere. The application dated 16th December 2024 clearly requested the Court to deal with LR No. 3734/707 and not the Kitusuru LR No. 7741/286. The opposition therefore by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents is legitimate. 8.The main question which seems to run across the application is whether the 2nd Respondent stays with her family at the Lavington property. According to the Applicant, that was the import of the impugned ruling. However, it appears to me that the Applicant is suggesting that there are other goons staying therein and that the 2nd Respondent stays at Kitusuru. 9.The substance of the consolidated ruling in my view is not the question as such of occupation but the execution of the orders of valuation and subsequent disposal of the properties as directed by myriads of orders from this Court. 10.I respectfully do not find any reason to review the orders of 29th January 2026 as the quoted parcel of land is the Lavington property and not the Kitusuru one as insinuated by the Applicant. I implore the Applicant to look at prayer two of her application which I allowed. 11.The Lavington property is not in dispute that it was the place where the deceased treated it as a matrimonial home. According to the Applicant there are strangers or goons who are living there. The only available evidence are some photographs which seem to show the process server posting some notice at the gate. 12.The Applicant indicated that they were chased away by the said goons when they attempted entry. It is noted that none of the parties herein claim to be staying in the premises and more particularly the Respondents. 13.In the premises and so as to further the execution of the grant the prayer for police assistance to access the premises is legitimate as earlier ordered. 14.That police assistance however does not include eviction of whoever stays in the premises as this Court does not have jurisdiction to do so unless properly moved if necessary. I state so because what is before Court is access for purposes of valuation and subsequent disposal of the same. 15.If indeed it is found out later that there are strangers/goons in the premises who are for lack of better words “trespassers” and not the deceased beneficiaries herein, then the Administrator may have the liberty to move the right Court for eviction. 16.In this vein I need to bring out the Applicant’s ex-parte application dated 7th March 2026 which seeks this Court to summons the police officer in charge of Spring Valley Police station to explain why he has failed to execute the orders of this Court dated 20th November 2024. 17.According to the Applicant’s affidavit dated the same date the said police officers failed to execute the orders because of the confusion in the consolidated ruling dated of 29th January 2026 in which it was stated that the 2nd Respondent stayed in Lavington instead of Kitusuru. 18.I think the issues are unnecessarily convoluted. It is apparent that the issue of police involvement is for purposes of providing security as earlier mentioned above and not for eviction or removal of any of the parties from the premises they occupy. 19.Again, for repetition purposes this Court does not in my humble and respectful way have jurisdiction to order any eviction. Its mandate is to point out the beneficiaries to an estate and subsequently indicate their entitlement. 20.The next phase is transmission of the estates to the said rightful inheritors. In this case the grant was long confirmed and it was decided that some of the properties be valued and sold and the proceeds shared out. I have not seen any prayers of eviction of any of the known beneficiaries. 21.It is therefore the responsibility of the police to ensure that safety and protection is accorded to the Administrator and by extension the beneficiaries as the grant is executed. 22.I think that I have explained myself clearly and in particular the Applicant’s application dated 7th March 2026 and in the event that the said police station or any other failed to honor the orders of this Court then the Applicant be at liberty to move the Court. The issue of Lavington and Kitusuru for now is settled in terms of directives above. 23.In the premises the two applications dated 9th February 2026 for review and 7th March 2026 for police assistance for the above reasons are disallowed. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI VIA VIDEO LINK THIS 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.H. K. CHEMITEIJUDGE, FCIArb.