https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9187

In re Estate of Karau (Deceased) (Succession Cause 2692 of 2006) [2026] KEHC 9187 (KLR) (Family) (25 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9187 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Family Succession Cause 2692 of 2006 HK Chemitei, J June 25, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE JEDIDAH WANJIRU KARAU (DECEASED) Between John Thiongo Thande Applicant and Peninah Njeri Ndombi 1st Respondent Rita Wabugi Gitu 2nd Respondent Reuben Ndungu 3rd Respondent Ruling 1.The application dated 3rd July 2024 seeks the following orders:(a)That this Court be pleased to restrain the 3rd Respondent from entering into or remaining on any portion of the following properties no Kabete/Nyathuna T/1678, T1679, T1680, T1677 and T/197.(b)The 3rd Respondent be restrained whether himself his servants or agents from subdividing the portions of the properties mentioned, fenced with stones posts and barbed wire.(c)That the 3rd Respondent be restrained whether by himself his agents and or servants from disposing of or planting crops or putting any buildings on any portion mentioned on 4 above fenced by him. 2.The application is based on the grounds thereof and supported by the Applicant’s sworn affidavit. 3.The Court however did not see any supporting affidavit but instead one dated 20th July 2024 christened “Further Affidavit of John Thiongo Thande” 4.The above affidavit does not in my view support the application since it does not explain how the 3rd Respondent entered into the parcels in question and how he intends to subdivide or exhibits any construction therein. 5.It does not include the 3rd Respondent as a party in the heading. 6.The application has been opposed by the sworn affidavit of Andrew Kuria Wangunyu dated 2nd October 2024 in which he denies the details of the application. He argues that it is not the 3rd Respondent who is in control of the parcel due to him but instead it was him. 7.That the Applicant was already enjoying the use of the six acres of the consolidated portions and he should therefore let the other beneficiaries enjoy their portions as per the grant. 8.That as per the grant herein all the titles mentioned were to be amalgamated and shared out to each respective sibling/beneficiary and that is why the Applicant was already enjoying his six-acre portion. 9.The 3rd Respondent has been shielded by the deponent herein who depones that the applicant was in the picture of the role of the said 3rd Respondent and that he ought to concentrate on his side of the property. 10.One Margret Wanjiru Karau a beneficiary has equally opposed the application vide the grounds of opposition dated 30th July 2024. She states that the same was meant to delay the just conclusion of the judgement as adopted on 21st May 2019. 11.I have perused the application together with the responses and the history of this cause and I do not find the application meritorious. 12.There is no evidence of any action taken by the 3rd Respondent to prejudice the interest of the applicant or the entire estate for that matter. What the applicant ought to be doing as one of the beneficiaries is to proceed and execute the grant so as to ensure that each of the parties/beneficiaries get their rightful share. 13.The 3rd Respondent is a none entity herein in terms of furthering the confirmed grant. The deponent Andrew Wangunyu already shielded him in his deposition. Neither has he interfered with the Applicant’s six acres he is entitled to and enjoying. 14.The application is otherwise dismissed with no order as to costs. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI VIA VIDEO LINK THIS 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.H. K. CHEMITEIJUDGE, FCIArb.