Githaiga v Kibelenge & 6 others (Environment and Land Civil Appeal E020 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4208 (KLR) (1 July 2026) (Judgment)

 **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NYERI** **ELC CIVIL APPEAL. E020 OF 2025** **DANIEL NGATIA GITHAIGA…..…..………APPELLANT/APPLICANT** **-VERSUS-** **SAMUEL KARIUKI KIBELENGE……….………………1ST RESPONDENT** **WILLIAM MURAYA GITHAIGA………..……………2ND RESPONDENT** **NYERI COUNTY LAND REGISTRAR…………...……3RD RESPONDENT** **ALLAN MWANGI WANJOHI…………………………..4TH RESPONDENT** **GERALD WAWERU GATHONJIA……………………..5TH RESPONDENT** **GEORGE WACHIENI MUNGA…………………...…….6TH RESPONDENT** **JUDY WAMUYU MAINA………………………………7TH RESPONDENT** ***(An appeal from the judgment and decree in Othaya PM ELC E008 of 2021, delivered by Hon. Sandra Ogot on May 30, 2025).*** **JUDGMENT** 1. The Appellant herein filed an appeal against the judgment in Othaya PM ELC E008 of 2021, delivered by Hon. Sandra Ogot on the 30th of May 2025. The Appellant filed a Memorandum of Appeal dated 5th June 2025, which sets out the grounds of appeal, in summary, that the learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact in declaring that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th interested parties in Othaya Magistrate ELC case E008 of 2021 have a share in LR Othaya/Kiahagu/67 and that they obtained title deeds legally, yet they are not beneficiaries, dependents, or even creditors of the estate of the late Githaiga Wambugu, and that in Othaya Magistrate Succession E025 of 2023, the Court Succession process is near completion. 2. It is the Appellant’s contention that the 1st-4th Interested Parties in the trial court were intermeddlers in the estate of the Deceased, in violation of section 45 of the Succession Act; thus, the title deeds were a nullity and cannot be regularized by the Court. 3. The Appellant also raised grounds that the learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact in finding that he had legally sold a portion of his father's land to Mr. Allan Mwangi Wanjohi, the 1st interested party, yet except for the handwritten sales agreement allegedly dated May 2006, there is no other evidence to support that finding. He also states that at no time did he have any land dealings with the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Interested Parties, and that the purported sales agreements they filed in court were fraudulent. He further argues that the Green Card filed in court did not show that his name had been entered in the register, so he lacked the legal capacity to transfer any parcel of land that he would have inherited from his father's estate. He also argues that the 4th respondent did not file any transfer forms attested by an advocate showing him transferring any portion of the estate of his late father. 4. The appellant hereby respectfully requests: 5. **THAT the judgment and orders of the principal Magistrate dated 30th May 2025 in Othaya MELC cause Number E008 OF 2021 be set aside and this appeal be allowed.** 6. **THAT the costs here and below be borne by the Respondents.** **Summary of the suit before the trial court.** 1. The lawsuit filed before the trial court was initiated by the Plaint dated 1st September 2021. In this document, the Plaintiff, who is the Appellant herein, brought the action both on his own behalf and as the personal representative of his deceased father, Stanley Githaiga Wambugu, also known as Githaiga Wambugu. The Plaintiff asserted that his deceased father became the registered proprietor of L.R. Othaya/Kiahagu/67, encompassing an area of 2.8 acres, on 2nd April 1958. 2. The Plaintiff named his siblings in the Chief's letter in his bundle dated 26th July 2021, namely Samuel Kariuki Kibelenge, William Muraya Githaiga, Fellista Wangùi Gichuki, and Jenelica Wangari Nderitu. His nephews are Stanley Githaiga Kariuki and Samuel Kariuki Wangechi, children of the Plaintiff's late sister. 3. The Plaintiff averred that his children were concerned that, since their grandfather’s death in 1990, no court succession had been completed and the land had not been subdivided and shared among the beneficiaries, including the Plaintiff. It was decided that the Plaintiff’s son, Washington Mwangi Ngatia, would visit the Nyeri Land Registry to purchase the certificate of official search to initiate the court succession process. 4. At the Land's office, he was advised that L.R Othaya/Kiahagu/67 had been closed, and the plaintiff's son was advised to request the Green Card, which the Nyeri Land Registrar issued on December 1, 2020. 5. The Plaintiff was shocked to learn that on 22nd May 2006, illegal entries had been made to the title deed, and that new titles L.R Othaya/Kiahagu/2330, 2331, and 2332 were issued in 2013. There is no evidence in the green card that court succession had been completed before the issuance of the titles. 6. The Plaintiff’s mother, Grace Mumbi, and wife of the deceased, Stanley Githaiga Wambugu, died in December 2012 without inheriting the deceased’s estate. As per the annexed Green Card, she had been omitted as a result of the corrupt scheme perpetrated by unscrupulous individuals in collaboration with land officials. 7. According to the Plaintiff, of the seven survivors/dependents of the deceased, only three appear on the Green Card: Samuel Kariuki Kibelenge, William Muraya Githaiga, and Stanley Githaiga Kariuki. A stranger, Allan Mwangi Wanjohi, who is not the deceased's child, also appears on the Green Card. 8. Through a letter dated 27th May 2021, the Plaintiff's son requested a certificate of official searches for titles Othaya/Kiahagu/2330 and 2332, which had been unlawfully acquired, but to date, he claimed that the Nyeri Land Registry has not issued the two searches. 9. Again, through a letter dated 27th May 2021, the son of the Plaintiff requested a Green Card for Othaya/Kiahagu/2331, as information that had been obtained was that 2331, which had emanated from Othaya/Kiahagu/67, had further been subdivided. At around the same time, the plaintiff had been informed by a registry official, upon perusal of the registry file, that there was no documentation in it to support the issuance of the titles. The land registrar refused to approve the request, as indicated in the letter, erroneously stating that his office had advised that the grant should be challenged in court. Yet no grant has ever been issued concerning L.R Othaya/Kiahagu/67, the mother title. 10. The Plaintiff averred that the actions of the defendants amounted to intermeddling with the estate of the deceased and the resultant titles that emanated from the land were obtained fraudulently and are also in clear violation of section 45 and 82 of the Laws of Succession Act and section 26 of the Land Registration Act. 11. The plaintiff sought the following orders: 12. **A declaration that the subdivision of the parcel of land L.R OTHAYA/KIAHAGU/67 registered in the name of the deceased Githaiga S/o Wambugu was irregular, fraudulent, illegal, null and void.** 13. **An order directing the 3rd defendant to revoke and/ or cancel the title deeds for L.&30 OTHAYA/KIAHAGU/2330,2331 and 2332 or any other title deeds that could have further emanated from the three titles. c. An order directing the 3rd defendant, Nyeri Land Registrar, to rectify the register and revert the suit land to its original registration number L.R OTHAYA/KIAHAGU/67 and in the name of the registered proprietor Githaiga S/O Wambugu(now deceased)** 14. **The costs of this suit** 15. **Any other or further relief as this court may deem just to grant.** 16. The Defendants filed their respective statements of defense, denying the Plaintiff’s allegations of fraud. The 1st and 2nd Defendants averred that the title deed issued on May 22, 2006, in the names of Samuel Kariuki Kibelenge, Allan Mwangi Wanjohi, William Muraya Githaiga, and Stanley Githaiga Kariuki was a first registration of title, and that no title deed ever existed in the name of the Late Stanley Githaiga Wambugu, alias Githaiga Wambugu, as alleged. 17. Further, the 1st & 2nd Defendants aver that they are aware that the Plaintiff exchanged his prospective share of the property with one Allan Mwangi Wanjohi under a written sale agreement dated 23rd May 2006, in which the Plaintiff received Kshs. 180,000/= in cash together with a property in Laikipia, namely Limuria Plot No. 150 in Waichakehiri Farmers Co. Limited, which they claim he sold and squandered. 18. The said Allan Wanjohi was enjoined as an interested party, and he averred that he was introduced to the Plaintiff. They informed the interested party that the land was an inheritance and that each son had his portion. They agreed to his acquisition of the Plaintiff's portion, subject to an exchange of existing land and additional payment. 19. The Interested Party subsequently exchanged his property, Tigithi/Matanya Block 10/150, with the Plaintiff and paid Kshs, 60,000/= to process the Title. Later, they entered into a written Agreement with the Plaintiff on 23rd May 2006, and an additional payment of Kshs, 180,000/= was made to the Plaintiff, who registered the Title. 20. The Interested Party further avers that he has been in occupation of the said parcel of land for the past 16 years without any interference from any party until June 23, 2022, and July 8, 2022, when Napier grass was stolen from his land. 21. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Interested Parties also filed a joint statement of defense and counterclaim, averring that they are bona fide purchasers for value without notice and that they hold Title Deeds in respect of Title Number Othaya/Kiahagu/2633, measuring approximately 0.05 Hectares, and Title Number Othaya/Kiahagu/2634, measuring approximately 0.05 Hectares, being the resultant subdivisions of Title Number Othaya/Kiahagu/67. 22. In the trial court, an ex parte judgment was entered on February 11, 2022. It appears to have been set aside on appeal from the trial court’s decision dismissing the application to set the judgment aside, and the suit was heard afresh with all the parties present. 23. The substantive hearing began on January 23, 2025, when the Plaintiff, PW 1, adopted his witness statement and bundle of documents in Court. On cross-examination, he stated that he met the 1st Interested Party through Waichigo, who confirmed that there was land with a ready title in Laikipia for sale. He bought it by a verbal agreement for Ksh.60,000/= and lived on it for 15 years. He denied entering into the Agreement for sale dated May 23, 2006, and added that the ID number recorded therein as his number was incorrect. He stated that he could not have sold his father’s land without succession. 24. A site visit was conducted on the suit property on January 30, 2025, at the Court’s direction, before the close of the Plaintiff’s case. The Plaintiff pointed out the portion where he stated he lived, which was his father’s house, that the 1st Interested Party now claims. 25. The Defense case proceeded on March 13, 2025, when the 1st Defendant, DW 1, identified the Plaintiff as his younger brother. He stated that he is the eldest and that his father had shown him how his parcel of land was to be subdivided; shortly thereafter, their father died. He stated that he went to live in Laikipia for a while and that when he returned, they decided to subdivide the shamba and proceed with the succession case, which no one protested. He only heard of complaints later. 26. He stated that the chief asked the Plaintiff why he was not inheriting a portion of his father’s land, and the Plaintiff replied that he had a deal with someone. 27. On cross-examination by the Plaintiff, DW 1 stated that he received fake titles from the 1st Interested Party. His literate sons told him the titles were fake because they had not followed procedure in obtaining them. He denied knowing that the interested party had been on the suit property for 18 years and stated that he thought the houses built there belonged to the Plaintiff. 28. DW 1 also denied knowing that his nephew, who had inherited his deceased mother's land, had sold it to the 2nd - 4th interested parties. 29. The 1st Interested Party, Allan Wanjohi, also gave his evidence before the trial court. He adopted his witness statement dated 1st March 2024 and his bundle of documents. Therein, he stated that he bought a parcel of land from the Plaintiff, in the presence of his brother, the 1st and 2nd Defendants, land which he was informed was their inheritance, with each having a portion allocated to them. The agreement was that he would exchange the portion belonging to the Plaintiff, approximately 0.24 Ha, with the one he owned in Kieni, known as Tigithi/Maranya, block 10/150, and that he would make an additional payment, which he did. They applied for consent to subdivide the suit land, which was approved, and paid an additional 60,000/= first, then later 120,000/=. 30. On May 22, 2006, they acquired a joint title deed in the names of all the Defendants and his name, covering 1.13 Ha, and later applied for a mutation to subdivide the land on December 9, 2011. The 1st Interested Party subsequently acquired title to his parcel of land known as Othaya/Kiahugu/2333, the portion he stated he bought from the Plaintiff. He stated that he has lived with the Defendants as his neighbors since then. 31. On cross-examination, the Interested Party denied ever being charged with fraud or trespass. He stated that it was the 1st Defendant who insisted that the Plaintiff could not sell his land without a replacement parcel. The initial title was registered in his name, the defendants', and in the name of Stanley Githaiga Kariuki, their nephew, who later sold it to two people. 32. John Wambugu Ndirangu, a witness for the Interested Party’s case, adopted his witness statement dated July 4, 2024, as his evidence in chief. Therein, he stated that he had known the Plaintiff since 2000, when they ran a business selling cows, and that he had known the Interested Party since 2006, when the Plaintiff called him to serve as a witness to a land transaction, which he accepted. 33. They met at a hotel in Nyeri town, where the Plaintiff agreed to sell a portion of land in Othaya for Kash.180,000/= in exchange for the interested party’s portion in Kieni. An agreement was drafted and signed by all parties. They accompanied the interested party to the bank, where he withdrew cash, and the Plaintiff took the money. 34. Thereafter, he states that he followed up on the subdivision after being summoned to the surveyor’s office to witness and confirm it. Later, he took the two parties to Kieni, where the interested party subsequently transferred ownership of his parcel of land to the Plaintiff. 35. On cross-examination, the witness stated that the Plaintiff told him he was selling his land because he needed money due to an ongoing court case and that he had discussed the sale with his family beforehand. However, none of his family members were present on the day the agreement for sale was signed, which he stated was drawn by the 1st Interested Party. He also confirmed that he witnessed the 1st Interested Party give the Plaintiff money for the land transaction. 36. Gerald Waweru Gathonjia, the 2nd Interested Party, also gave evidence and adopted his witness statement dated September 9, 2024, in which he confirmed that he has authority from the 3rd and 4th Interested Parties to make the statement on their behalf. 37. He stated that they entered into agreements for the sale of portions of Title Number Othaya/Kiahagu/67 from one of the registered owners, Stanley Githaiga Kariuki, who was registered as the owner of 0.2 Ha thereof. He added before the Court that the other registered owners were also present during the transaction. 38. After the transaction, the mother title was subdivided, and the resulting titles were registered as LR. Othaya/Kiahagu/2633 and LR. Othaya/Kiahagu/2634, respectively. 39. He added that they are bona fide purchasers for value without notice, have a beneficial interest in the suit property, and had no knowledge of any fraud, if any. 40. After the hearing concluded, the parties filed written submissions, and the Trial Court delivered its judgment on May 30, 2025. The Trial Court found that the Plaintiff and the said Stanley Githaiga sold their portions of the suit property and that there was no fraud in the transactions, because the parties sold the portions donated to them by the deceased. The Trial Court's final orders were as follows: **1. The Plaintiff’s suit against the defendants and the Interested Parties is hereby dismissed with costs;** **2. The current status quo as prayed for by the 1st Interested Party is hereby maintained; 3. The 2nd – 4th Interested parties’ counterclaim is allowed as prayed, and orders are issued as follows:** **a) A declaration is hereby issued that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Interested parties have a beneficial interest in a portion containing by measurement 0.10 ha (formerly title Number Othaya/Kiahagu/2633 and Othaya/Kiahagu/2634) comprised in Title Number Othaya/Kiahagu/67; b) A declaration is hereby issued that a Constructive Trust has been created in favour of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Interested Parties over a portion containing by measurement 0.10 ha (formerly title Number Othaya/Kiahagu/2633 and Othaya/Kiahagu/2634) comprised in Title Number Othaya/Kiahagu/67 being the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Interested Parties equitable and beneficial interest thereof;** **c) An order of Permanent Injunction is hereby issued restraining the Plaintiff and the Defendants and their servants and or agents or anyone else claiming under their name from evicting the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Interested Parties and or committing any acts amounting to interruption of quiet possession and peaceful enjoyment of a portion containing by measurement 0.10ha (formerly title Number Othaya/Kiahagu/2633 and Othaya/Kiahagu/2634) comprised in Title Number Othaya/Kiahagu/67, being the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Interested Parties’ equitable and beneficial interest thereof;** **d) The 2nd-4th Interested parties are awarded the costs of the suit as well as the Counterclaim.** 1. All parties filed their submissions, which the Court has duly read and considered. **Analysis and determination** 1. This is a first appeal; therefore, the principles governing the hearing of a first appeal apply. As was held in the case **of Selle & Another v Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd & Others [1968] EA 123**, this principle was enunciated thus: ***“...this court is not bound necessarily to accept the findings of fact by the court below. An appeal to this court ... is by way of retrial and the principles upon which this court acts in such an appeal are well settled. Briefly put they are that this court must reconsider the evidence, evaluate it itself and draw its own conclusions though it should always bear in mind that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses and should make due allowance in this respect..."*** 1. Thus, this Court, sitting as a first appellate court, is obliged to re-evaluate the evidence on record, even while recognizing that it did not have the opportunity to hear the witnesses as they presented the evidence. 2. The Appellant herein instituted the suit before the Trial Court, claiming that the property registered in the name of his father, Stanley Githaiga Wambugu, alias Githaiga Wambugu (Deceased), whose estate he represents, known as L.R Othaya/Kiahagu/67, measuring 2.8 acres, was illegally and fraudulently subdivided before his succession case came to a close and before confirmation of the grant was made, which is a violation of the law on intermeddling with the estate of a deceased person. 3. Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act reads as follows: *“****45. No intermeddling with property of deceased person*** ***Except so far as expressly authorized by this Act, or by any other written law, or by a grant of representation under this Act, no person shall, for any purpose, take possession or dispose of, or otherwise intermeddle with, any free property of a deceased person.*** ***(2) Any person who contravenes the provisions of this section shall—*** ***be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand shillings or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding one year or to both such fine and imprisonment; and be answerable to the rightful executor or administrator, to the extent of the assets with which he has intermeddled after deducting any payments made in the due course of administration.”*** 1. Additionally, Section 82 of the Act provides that: ***“Personal representatives shall, subject only to any limitation imposed by their grant, have the following powers—*** ***to enforce, by suit or otherwise, all causes of action which, by virtue of any law, survive the deceased or arising out of his death for his personal representative;*** ***to sell or otherwise turn to account, so far as seems necessary or desirable in the execution of their duties, all or any part of the assets vested in them, as they think best:*** ***Provided that—*** ***ii. no immovable property shall be sold before confirmation of the grant…”*** 1. The Appellant also relied on the apex Court’s decision in **Dina Management Ltd v County Government of Mombasa & 5 others [2023] KESC 30 (KLR) (21 April 2023) (Judgment),** which stated that the root of the resultant titles was fraudulent and that they ought to be canceled. The Learned Judges of the Supreme Court held as follows in that case: ***" Where the registered proprietor’s root title was under challenge, it was not enough to dangle the instrument of title as proof of ownership. It was the instrument that was in challenge, and therefore, the registered proprietor must go beyond the instrument and prove the legality of the title and show that the acquisition was legal, formal, and free from any encumbrance, including interests which would not be noted in the register……*** ***Having found that the 1st registered owner did not acquire title regularly, the ownership of the suit property by the appellant thereafter cannot therefore be protected under Article 40 of the***[***Constitution***](https://kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2010/constitution)***. The root of the title having been challenged, as we already noted above the appellant could not benefit from the doctrine of bona fide purchaser."*** 1. In re-examining the evidence presented to the Trial Court, the 1st Interested Party testified that he bought his portion of the suit land, which he was entitled to inherit from his father, from the Plaintiff in exchange for his parcel of land in Kieni and the sum of Kshs.180,000/-. As evidence, he filed a copy of their Agreement for sale dated 23rd May 2006, executed by the Plaintiff, the Interested Party, and two witnesses, one of whom was a witness to the Interested Party’s case, in keeping with the law that agreements for the sale of land should be written and attested by two witnesses. However, the Plaintiff refuted the said agreement and denied having sold his portion of the suit land to the 1st Interested Party. I note that no document examiner was brought to Court to prove that the Plaintiff’s signature was forged onto the agreement of sale dated 23rd May 2006. 2. The Court of Appeal in the case of **Mbuthia Macharia v Annah Mutua Ndwiga & another [2017] eKLR** found that the evidential burden of proof in a trial is always shifting, and it is incumbent on the person who wishes the Court to believe the facts they state, as quoted herebelow: ***“The legal burden of proof normally rests upon the party desiring the court to take action; thus a claimant must satisfy the court or tribunal that the conditions which entitle him to an award have been satisfied . In respect of a particular allegation, the burden lies upon the party for whom substantiation of that particular allegation is an essential of his case. There may therefore be separate burdens in a case with separate issues.”*** ***The legal burden is discharged by way of evidence, with the opposing party having a corresponding duty of adducing evidence in rebuttal. This constitutes evidential burden. Therefore, while both the legal and evidential burdens initially rested upon the appellant, the evidential burden may shift in the course of trial, depending on the evidence adduced. As the weight of evidence given by either side during the trial varies, so will the evidential burden shift to the party who would fail without further evidence.”*** 1. In this case, the Appellant had the burden of proof to demonstrate to the Court that the signature on the Agreement for sale dated May 23, 2006, was not his, but he failed to do so. 2. After this transaction, the 1st Interested Party was registered, together with the Plaintiff’s brothers, who were the defendants in the trial court, and with Stanley Githaiga Kariuki, their nephew and the son of their deceased sister, as proprietors of the suit property L.R Othaya/Kiahagu/67. The said Stanley Githaiga then sold his portion to the 2nd-4th Interested Parties, who are the 5th-7th Respondents herein. Resultant subdivisions were created, and titles were issued in individual names. 3. I note that the issue of selling a deceased person’s land has long been one that the Courts have grappled with since time immemorial. I do not, however, know whether the 1st Interested Party joined the deceased’s succession case as a beneficial owner or whether the case was stayed pending the decision in the ELC dispute. The Court of Appeal found that a constructive trust was created in a case where the Respondent sold land before his title was processed. Thus, in **Macharia Mwangi Maina & 87 Others v Davidson Mwangi Kagiri [2014] eKLR**, the Court held: ***“The evidence on record reveals that the appellants are in possession of plots in L.R No. 6324/10 and as such they come within the protection in Section 30 (g) of the Registered Land Act. We find that the respondent, having put the appellants in possession of the suit property, created an overriding interest in favor of the appellants in relation to L.R. No. 6324/10. It is our considered view that the Honourable Judge erred in law in failing to give due consideration to the fact that the appellants were in possession and occupation of L.R No. 6324/10 prior to the title being issued and registered in the name of the respondent.*** ***It is our considered view that the respondent created an implied or constructive trust in favour of those persons who had paid the purchase price pending the sale of all the 240 plots. In Mwangi & another –vs – Mwangi (1986) KLR 328, it was held that the rights of a person in possession or occupation of land are equitable rights which are binding on the land and the land is subject to those rights; the absence of any reference to the existence of a trust in the title documents does not affect the enforceability of the trust since the reference to a trustee under Section 126 (1) of the Registered Land Act is merely permissive and not mandatory. In Mutsonga – vs- Nyati (1984) KLR 425 and Kanyi – vs- Muthiora (1984) KLR 712, it was held that the equitable doctrines of implied, constructive and resulting trusts are applicable to registered land by virtue of Section 163 of the Registered Land Act which provides for the application of the common law of England as modified by equity.”*** 1. In a case where the purchasers had bought the land before the deceased's death, the Court held that they should be considered in the distribution of the Estate and found that: In **re Estate of Nasotokini Ole Sane alias Nasotokini Lesane (Deceased) [2019] eKLR:** ***“The purchasers in the instant matter had been in occupation of the land in question for over 30 years of vacant possession, the have been tilling and cultivating the land for farming purposes, they have constructed homes and, in my view, such proprietary rights cannot be taken away by reason that there is no transfer before the death of the deceased. The administrators cannot omit or abandon the particular admitted fact which was made in the process of obtaining the earlier grant.”*** 1. During the site visit conducted by the Court, it was noted that the 1st Interested Party was already in occupation of the disputed portion of land and had constructed developments thereon, a fact the parties were aware of. 2. It was in the interest of justice for the purchasers that the Trial Court implied a constructive trust regarding the sale and the resulting titles that the Interested Parties acquired after entering into genuine transactions with the deceased's beneficiaries. 3. I am therefore of the view that there is no need to interfere with the Trial Court's decision. The Learned Judges of Appeal in the case of **Makube v Nyamuro[1983] eKLR** held that: ***“A Court of Appeal will not normally interfere with a finding of fact by the trial court unless it is based on no evidence, or on a misapprehension of the evidence, or the judge is shown demonstrably to have acted on wrong principles in reaching the findings he did. I therefore now turn to the criticisms made in the memorandum of appeal that he so misdirected himself in material respects that the decision ought not to stand.”*** 1. In this matter, it would have been desirable to cancel the titles held by the Interested Parties and the resulting titles created before succession for intermeddling, but that will be unnecessary, since the titles were created after the sale of the beneficiaries' interests, which must be factored into in the pending succession cause. The purchasers' interests should be considered in the distribution of the estate. 2. Therefore, the appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with costs. **Dated, signed, and delivered virtually at Nyeri on this 1st day of July 2026.** **E. K. MAKORI** **JUDGE** **In the Presence of:** **Appellant (in person)** **Ms. Njau for the 5th to 7th Respondents.** **Denis - Court Assistant**