In re Estate of the Julius Wachira (Deceased) (Succession Cause 214 of 1992) [2026] KEHC 7538 (KLR) (Family) (4 June 2026) (Ruling)

In re Estate of the Julius Wachira (Deceased) (Succession Cause 214 of 1992) [2026] KEHC 7538 (KLR) (Family) (4 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7538 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Family Succession Cause 214 of 1992 HK Chemitei, J June 4, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JULIUS WACHIRA (DECEASED) Between Ernest Macharia Wachira Applicant and Lucy Watiri Muburi 1st Respondent Catholic Diocese Of Muranga 2nd Respondent Njoroge FA Wachira 3rd Respondent Ruling 1.This ruling relates to the application dated 27th February, 2023 filed by the Applicant, Ernest Macharia Wachira, seeking for orders that:1.Spent.2.This honorable Court be pleased to arrest its scheduled ruling delivery in the current suit case No. 214 of 1992 in the Estate of Julius Wachira (deceased) pending hearing and determination of this application.3.The three Respondents to be enjoined in this case and be served with orders to attend the Court.4.That the Respondents do serve the Applicant with the judgment that authorize to evict Applicant and other documents.5.That the cost of this application be provided for. 2.The application is based on the grounds thereof and supported by affidavit sworn by Ernst Wachira Macharia on 27th February, 2023. 3.He avers inter alia that he is one of the beneficiaries of the estate of the late Julius Wachira and that he has brought the application to protect what he considers to be his rightful inheritance. He explains that the deceased died on 9th February, 1981 and that succession proceedings were commenced after letters of administration intestate were issued to Melania Wairimu Wachira in 1992 and subsequently confirmed. 4.Following her death, the grant was amended and transferred to Njoroge F.A. Wachira and Aloise Mwangi Wachira, who later obtained confirmation of the grant. He contends that the Respondents have improperly laid claim to land parcel Loc.9/Kanyenya-ini/574 without supporting documentary evidence and allegedly relied on persons falsely presented as clan members to advance their claim. 5.He further states that although there are ten beneficiaries of the estate, he and other beneficiaries have never been accorded a hearing nor served with notices relating to the proceedings affecting the estate. He traces the ownership history of the disputed land, asserting that it originally belonged to his grandfather, Mathew Muburi Mwangi, who acquired it from David Gakure Karuri. 6.According to him, the family land was initially registered as Loc.9/Kanyenya-ini/392 and was later subdivided into parcels Loc.9/Kanyenya-ini/574 and 575. He avers that parcel 574 was allocated to his grandmother Cecilia Wanjiru, the first wife of Mathew Muburi Mwangi and subsequently transferred to his father, Julius Wachira, in 1971. He maintains that his father developed the land extensively by planting thousands of tea bushes and constructing a permanent residence and that the family has occupied and utilized the property for decades. 7.He also recounts the history of administration of the estate, stating that his mother, Melania Wairimu Wachira, obtained letters of administration in 1992 before her death in 1996. He explains that thereafter Njoroge F.A. Wachira and Aloise Mwangi Wachira became Administrators and obtained a confirmed grant in 2004. 8.He alleges that the 1st Respondent, Lucy Watiri Muburi, entered the suit land through her marriage to Mathew Muburi Muya but that neither her late husband nor his relatives ever asserted a claim over the property during their lifetime. He further states that the 1st Respondent and her son instituted proceedings seeking revocation of the grant and a share of the disputed land, leading to prolonged litigation over ownership of the property. 9.The Applicant deposes that he and another beneficiary subsequently moved the Court to challenge a rectification of the grant and that, by a ruling delivered on 31st July, 2015, the Court restored their rightful shares in the estate. 10.Despite that ruling, he complains that he has not been served with subsequent Court orders, judgments or notices affecting the estate. He alleges that the 1st Respondent’s son has unlawfully interfered with the property by destroying trees, cutting Napier grass and harvesting tea crops belonging to him. As a result, he claims to have suffered substantial hardship, including family disruption, housing difficulties and financial challenges relating to the upkeep and education of his children. 11.He therefore urges the Court to permit him to continue residing on and utilizing the suit land, to protect his occupation and interests in the property and to restrain the Respondents from further interference. 12.The application is opposed vide replying affidavit sworn by Lucy Waitiri Muburi on 15th September, 2023. 13.She avers inter alia that it is incompetent, defective and an abuse of the Court process. She avers that the Applicant has been fully aware of the proceedings and has consistently been served with Court documents, notices and correspondence through the email address he provided. 14.According to her, the Applicant and his brothers have actively participated in the various Court proceedings concerning the estate and the disputed property and therefore his allegations that he was not informed of the proceedings are untrue. She annexes copies of email communications, mention notices and notices of delivery of rulings to demonstrate that service was duly effected. 15.She further deposes that the orders sought by the Applicant have already been overtaken by events. She states that land parcel Loc.9/Kanyenya-ini/574 no longer forms part of the estate of Julius Wachira and therefore there is nothing capable of being preserved or restrained through the present application. She explains that although the Applicant and his brothers had previously been awarded the land through succession proceedings, she successfully challenged that distribution through subsequent litigation. 16.Her efforts to revoke the grant within the succession cause were unsuccessful, prompting her to pursue her claim before the Environment and Land Court. According to her, she instituted Environment and Land Court Case No. 490 of 2017, formerly Nyeri ELC Case No. 159 of 2014, claiming that the suit property had been held in trust for her late husband, Mathews Muburi Muya. She states that after a full hearing, the Environment and Land Court entered judgment in her favour on 27th September, 2018, declaring that Julius Wachira held the land in trust for her late husband, dismissing the defendants’ counterclaim, directing rectification of the register and ordering the defendants to vacate the property. 17.She adds that, pursuant to that judgment and decree, the suit property was transferred into her name on 5th May, 2019 and a new title deed issued in August 2019. She also states that an eviction was lawfully carried out on 29th September, 2020 by licensed auctioneers in execution of the Court decree. 18.Consequently, she argues that the Applicant ’s request to restrain actions relating to the property is futile because the transfer and eviction have already taken place. She maintains that the Applicant ’s grievances should not be pursued within the succession cause since ownership of the property was conclusively determined by the Environment and Land Court and the land ceased to be part of the deceased’s estate upon registration in her name. 19.For those reasons, she urges the Court to dismiss the application with costs, asserting that the Applicant is merely attempting to reopen issues that have already been conclusively adjudicated upon. 20.The parties have not filed written submissions. Analysis and Determination 21.I have gone through the application and the response. 22.The primary issue for determination is whether the Applicant has established a basis for the orders sought, namely: the arrest of a scheduled ruling in this succession cause, the joinder of the Respondents and an order compelling the Respondents to furnish him with the judgment and other documents relating to his eviction. 23.In Muruatetu & another v Republic; Kenya National Commission on Human Rights & 2 others (Interested Parties); Death Penalty Project (Intended Amicus Curiae) [2016] KESC 12 (KLR) the Court pronounced itself as follows: “… 37. From the foregoing legal provisions, and from the case law, the following elements emerge as applicable where a party seeks to be enjoined in proceedings as an interested party: One must move the Court by way of a formal application. Enjoinment is not as of right, but is at the discretion of the Court; hence, sufficient grounds must be laid before the Court, on the basis of the following elements: The personal interest or stake that the party has in the matter must be set out in the application. The interest must be clearly identifiable and must be proximate enough, to stand apart from anything that is merely peripheral. The prejudice to be suffered by the intended interested party in case of non-joinder, must also be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Court. It must also be clearly outlined and not something remote. Lastly, a party must, in its application, set out the case and/or submissions it intends to make before the Court, and demonstrate the relevance of those submissions. It should also demonstrate that these submissions are not merely a replication of what the other parties will be making before the Court …” 24.The Applicant's complaint is principally founded on the allegation that he was not served with notices, judgments or orders affecting his occupation of land parcel Loc.9/Kanyenya-ini/574 and that he stands to suffer prejudice as a beneficiary of the estate. 25.However, the evidence placed before the Court by the 1st Respondent demonstrates that notices of mention dates, rulings and other Court communications were transmitted through the Applicant's email address and that the Applicant and his brothers actively participated in the proceedings over the years. The allegation of complete non-service is therefore not borne out by the material before the Court. 26.Further, the evidence establishes that ownership of land parcel Loc.9/Kanyenya-ini/574 was conclusively determined by the Environment and Land Court in ELC Case No. 490 of 2017, wherein the Court declared that the property was held in trust for the late Mathews Muburi Muya, ordered rectification of the register in favour of the 1st Respondent and directed the defendants to vacate the land. The decree was subsequently executed, the property was transferred to the 1st Respondent in 2019 and an eviction was carried out in 2020. 27.Whether that judgment was correct or not is not a matter that can be revisited through an interlocutory application in a succession cause. The succession Court lacks jurisdiction to sit on appeal over a final determination of the Environment and Land Court, a Court of equal status under Article 162 (2) of the Constitution. Consequently, the Applicant 's prayer seeking to arrest proceedings or effectively suspend the consequences of the ELC judgment is misconceived and incapable of being granted in these proceedings. 28.With regard to the prayer for joinder, the Applicant merely seeks to enjoin the Respondents without demonstrating the necessity of such joinder or the prejudice that would arise if they were not formally added to the proceedings. The principles governing joinder require an Applicant to demonstrate a proximate legal interest, identifiable prejudice and the relevance of the intended participation. The Applicant has not met those requirements. Moreover, the persons sought to be joined are already central actors in the dispute and have actively participated in the proceedings. The prayer for joinder therefore serves no useful purpose. 29.In the end, I hold that the application has been overtaken by events. The property that forms the subject of the dispute no longer forms part of the estate available for distribution, having been transferred pursuant to a valid Court decree. The Applicant's grievances, if any, lie in challenging the ELC judgment through the appropriate appellate or review mechanisms and not through collateral proceedings in this succession cause. 30.Accordingly, I dismiss the application dated 27th February, 2023 for lack of merit. 31.Each party to bear its own costs. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI VIA VIDEO LINK THIS 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.H. K. CHEMITEI.JUDGE, FCIArb.