https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9244
The dispute lacked merit because the three properties were already expressly provided for in the deceased's valid will, which had been upheld by the court. The earlier judgment was directed at the validity of the will and not at re-listing every asset, so the properties had to be distributed according to the will,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 9244 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner/administrator: David Maina Karuma; Respondent: Esther Wanjiru Warui
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 926 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Omitted Assets/distribution
- Outcome
- Application/dispute dismissed; properties to be distributed under the deceased's will
- Judges
- ["TW Ouya"]
- Legal Topics
- Validity and Effect of a Will, Distribution of Omitted Estate Properties, Effect of Unappealed Judgment, Testamentary Disposition
- 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
David Maina Karuma
Petitioner/administrator
Esther Wanjiru Warui
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Omitted Assets/distribution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the three disputed properties were omitted from the earlier judgment or were already covered by the validated will
- 2 Whether the court should distribute the properties strictly in accordance with the deceased's will
- 3 Whether the absence of an appeal against the judgment affirming the will precludes reopening the issue
Ratio Decidendi
The dispute lacked merit because the three properties were already expressly provided for in the deceased's valid will, which had been upheld by the court. The earlier judgment was directed at the validity of the will and not at re-listing every asset, so the properties had to be distributed according to the will, particularly as no appeal had been filed and the appeal period had expired.
Court Disposition
Application/dispute dismissed; properties to be distributed under the deceased's will
Orders
- Loc. 16/Gatura/390 to Mary Gakenia Warui.
- Gilgil/Gilgil/Block 1/1850 to Geofrey Kariri Warui and David Gachuhi Warui.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT AT MURANGA** **SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 926 OF 2014** **RE ESTATE OF GEORGE WARUI KARIRI (DECEASED)** **DAVID MAINA KARUMA………………………………..…..PETITIONER** **VERSUS** **ESTHER WANJIRU WARUI………………………….……RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. The dispute before the Court concerns three properties of the deceased that are alleged were not covered in the judgment or the partial consent order. These are: 2. Title No. Loc. 16/Gatura/390 3. Title No. Gilgil/Gilgil/Block 1/1850 4. Title No. Mitubiri/Wempa/Block 1/5493 5. The petitioner submits that these properties should be distributed strictly in accordance with the deceased’s valid written will dated 19th September 2005, which was confirmed by the Court in its judgment of 24th April 2023. Specifically: 6. Loc. 16/Gatura/390 was bequeathed to Mary Gakenia Warui. 7. Gilgil/Gilgil/Block 1/1850 was bequeathed to Geofrey Kariri Warui andDavid Gachuhi Warui. 8. Mitubiri/Wempa/Block 1/5493 was bequeathed to Teresia Wahu, to hold in trust for Kariri Karanja and Njugi Karanja, sons of the deceased’s brother. 9. Since no appeal was filed against the judgment confirming the validity of the will, and the time for appeal has lapsed, the petitioner urges the Court to uphold the deceased’s testamentary instructions and proceed to distribute the three properties accordingly. ***Determination and analysis;*** 1. Having perused the submissions with regards to the properties said to have been left out in the Judgment of Kanyi Kimondo J in which it declared the will to have passed the test set out in section 11 of The Law of Succession Act and having perused the Will itself, it is my opinion that the properties referred to herein as having been omitted in the Judgment were properly distributed in the will and need to be disturbed. Kanyi Kimondo J confirmed the validity of the will but noted an error in interchanging property titles. The court did not re‑list all properties; it only addressed the disputed ones. The Court’s duty was on validity of the will, not re‑cataloguing every asset. 2. I am therefore of the opinion that the dispute is without merit. The three properties in question were expressly provided for in the deceased’s valid will dated 19th September 2005, which this Court has already upheld. The Court’s role is not to re list or re catalogue every property but to confirm the validity of the testamentary instrument and ensure distribution in accordance with its terms. Since no appeal has been filed against the judgment affirming the will, and the time for appeal has lapsed, the testamentary instructions must be respected. I therefore find that the properties be distributed as per the deceased will date 19th September 2006 in order to dispose of the dispute. 3. ***Accordingly, the following orders shall ensue:*** 1. ***The properties be distributed in accordance with the deceased will as follows:*** 4. ***Loc. 16/Gatura/390 to Mary Gakenia Warui;*** 5. ***Gilgil/Gilgil/Block 1/1850 to Geofrey Kariri Warui and David Gachuhi Warui;*** 6. ***Mitubiri/Wempa/Block 1/5493 to Teresia Wahu, to hold in trust for Kariri Karanja and Njugi Karanja.*** 1. ***Each party should bear their own costs.*** **Dated, Signed and Delivered Virtually on this 25th day of June, 2026.** **HON. T. W. OUYA, OGW** **JUDGE** **In the presence of:** Ms. Odera for Petitioner/Administrator Mr. Gitau for Mr. Wainaina for Respondent Nyabuto – Court Assistant