https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7012

In re Estate of Muiru Karita (Deceased) (Succession Cause 2461 of 2008) [2026] KEHC 7012 (KLR) (Family) (21 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7012 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Family Succession Cause 2461 of 2008 HK Chemitei, J May 21, 2026 IN THE MATTER THE ESTATE OF MUIRU KARITA (DECEASED) Between Margaret Wairimu Muiru 1st Applicant Samuel Mburu Muiru 2nd Applicant and Mary Wanjiku Muiru Respondent Ruling 1.This ruling relates to the application dated 9th April, 2025 filed by the Applicants, Margaret Wairimu Muiru and Samuel Mburu Muiru; seeking for ORDERS THAT: 1.Spent. 2.Pending the hearing and determination of this application, this honourable Court be pleased to grant an ex – parte order prohibiting the sub – division of parcels No. Nairobi Block 7785/754 and Nairobi Block 7785/388. 3.At inter–partes hearing hereof and upon final determination of this application, this honourable Court be pleased to grant an order prohibiting the sub- division of parcels No. Nairobi Block 7785/754 and Nairobi Block 7785/388. 4.The costs of this application be borne by the Respondent. 2.The application is based on the grounds thereof and supported by affidavit sworn by Samuel Mburu Muiru on 9th April, 2025. 3.He avers inter alia that he is competent to swear the affidavit on behalf of the Applicants. The beneficiaries of the estate have been unable to agree on the proposed subdivision of parcels known as Nairobi Block 7785/754 and Nairobi Block 7785/388. According to him, the disagreement arises from an alleged discrepancy between the acreage reflected in the title documents and the acreage established on the ground through survey, which has complicated and delayed the subdivision process. 4.He further states that the Respondent, Mary Wanjiku Muiru, was only holding the two properties in trust for the rightful beneficiaries but has nevertheless demanded a portion of the properties for herself. He contends that the beneficiaries have objected to the Respondent’s attempts to benefit from the properties, maintaining that her role was merely that of a trustee and not a beneficiary. 5.He adds that the Respondent would not suffer prejudice if the injunctive orders sought are granted. He asserts that the orders are necessary to halt the impugned actions relating to the intended subdivision and to preserve the suit properties pending resolution of the dispute. He also maintains that the matter is urgent as failure to intervene may occasion injustice and irreparable loss or damage to him and the other beneficiaries. 6.The application is opposed vide replying affidavit sworn by Mary Wanjiku Muiru, on 9th June, 2025. 7.She avers inter alia that the 2nd Applicant, Samuel Mburu Muiru, is her biological son. She acknowledges that the parties have encountered difficulties in agreeing on how the suit properties should be subdivided on the ground. She therefore proposes that a government surveyor be engaged to prepare a report and advise on the most economically viable mode of subdivision. 8.She further states that some beneficiaries have already carried out developments on parcel Nairobi Block 7785/388 and contends that the survey report should take such developments into account. She disputes the Applicants’ assertion that she merely holds Nairobi Block 7785/388 and Nairobi Block 7785/754 in trust for other beneficiaries. She describes those allegations as misleading and maintains that, pursuant to the further rectified Certificate of Confirmation of Grant dated 9th April, 2024, she is herself a beneficiary entitled to a share in both properties and not merely a trustee. In support of her position, she annexes a copy of the rectified certificate of confirmation of grant. 9.She further accuses the Applicants of attempting to disinherit her from property she claims rightfully belongs to her under the confirmed grant. Consequently, she urges the Court to dismiss the application. 10.The annexed rectified Certificate of Confirmation of Grant indicates that Nairobi Block 7785/754 and Nairobi Block 7785/388 were distributed among various beneficiaries, with some portions to be held in trust and shared equally among identified heirs, while other portions were allocated directly to named beneficiaries, including the Respondent. The certificate also contains directions regarding subdivision, survey costs, and administration of the estate properties. 11.The Applicants have filed written submissions dated 16th October, 2025. They contend that the suit properties form part of the deceased’s estate and have not yet been fully distributed to the rightful beneficiaries despite the issuance of letters of administration intestate on 12th January, 2010. They argue that the Respondent, who is both a beneficiary and Administrator of the estate, has commenced steps towards subdivision and possible alienation of the properties without consultation or consent of all beneficiaries, thereby necessitating preservation orders to prevent wastage or dissipation of the estate. 12.The Applicants frame three issues for determination, namely whether the Court retains jurisdiction to issue preservatory orders after confirmation of grant, whether they have established a case for restraining subdivision of the suit properties, and who should bear the costs of the application. 13.On jurisdiction, the Applicants submit that the succession Court retains supervisory authority even after confirmation of grant to ensure lawful and equitable administration of the estate and to resolve disputes arising during implementation of the confirmed grant. 14.Reliance is placed on In Re Estate of George M’Mukunga M’Ringera (Deceased) [2021] eKLR, where the Court held that jurisdiction subsists after confirmation of grant for purposes of ensuring fair and lawful implementation of the grant. 15.On the merits of the application, the Applicants submit that they are beneficiaries entitled to shares in the disputed parcels, which they claim were held in trust by the Respondent under the certificate of confirmation of grant dated 11th October, 2010. They accuse the Respondent of proceeding with subdivision and dealings in the properties in a non-consensual and non-transparent manner likely to prejudice their beneficial interests and compromise the final distribution of the estate. 16.They maintain that Administrators owe fiduciary duties to all beneficiaries and that any unilateral action contrary to the agreed distribution framework amounts to mismanagement of the estate. 17.In support of this argument, they cite In Re Estate of M’Mboroki M’Arang’i (Deceased) [2018] eKLR, where the Court emphasized that Administrators must act transparently and in consultation with beneficiaries. 18.The Applicants further argue that unless restrained, the intended subdivision may permanently deprive them of their rightful shares, expose the estate to third-party interests and trigger prolonged litigation and family conflict. They assert that the balance of convenience favours preservation of the status quo because the Respondent would suffer no prejudice from temporary restraint, whereas continued subdivision could occasion irreversible harm to the estate and the beneficiaries’ interests. 19.Consequently, they pray that the Respondent bears the costs of the application since the proceedings were allegedly necessitated by her mismanagement of the estate. In conclusion, the Applicants reiterate that the suit properties remain subject to proper administration and that the Respondent’s actions in moving towards subdivision without full consultation among beneficiaries justify the issuance of preservation orders pending final resolution of the succession process. 20.The Respondent has filed written submissions dated 4th May, 2026. The Respondent states that the dispute concerns Nairobi Block 7785/754 and Nairobi Block 7785/388, in respect of which the Applicants filed a Notice of Motion dated 9th April, 2025 seeking orders to restrain subdivision of the parcels pending hearing and determination of the application. 21.She summarizes the Applicants’ prayers as seeking interim and final prohibitory orders against subdivision of the suit properties. She reiterates the contents of her replying affidavit and states that she is the biological mother of the 2nd applicant. She maintains that the parties had failed to agree on the mode of subdivision on the ground and had therefore proposed that a government surveyor be appointed to advise on the most economically viable manner of subdivision that would consider the interests of all beneficiaries. 22.She further argues that the Applicants’ assertion that she is not a beneficiary of the estate is false and contrary to the rectified Certificate of Confirmation of Grant dated 9th April, 2024. The Respondent contends that the allegations that she held the properties merely as trustee are misleading and intended to unlawfully disinherit her of her rightful entitlement as a beneficiary. She invokes the equitable principle that a party seeking equity must approach the Court with clean hands and argues that the Applicants’ conduct renders the application undeserving of the Court’s discretion. 23.It is further submitted that during previous Court appearances, counsel for both parties had agreed that a joint surveyor be appointed to prepare a report on the proposed subdivision, especially because some beneficiaries had already undertaken developments on Nairobi Block 7785/388. 24.The Respondent denies allegations of intermeddling or unlawful subdivision and maintains that she neither alienated nor improperly dealt with the properties. She asserts that she acted transparently, in good faith and without mismanaging the estate. 25.The submissions further disclose that the Respondent has since passed away, prompting a request that Nancy Wairimu Muiru and Eunice Wanjiru Wanjiku be appointed Administrators as children and beneficiaries of the deceased Respondent. Finally, the Respondent urges that subdivision of the parcels proceed in accordance with the mediation agreement dated 8th April, 2023. Background 26.The genesis of the instant application is the certificate of confirmation of grant dated 11th October, 2010, rectified on 15th December, 2008 and further rectified on 9th April, 2024. 27.According to the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant, Nairobi Block 7785/754 measuring approximately 0.5 acres was allocated in two equal portions. One half share was registered in the names of Mary Wanjiku Karita and Salome Waithera Richard, to be sold to the highest bidder, with the proceeds to be shared equally among the late Veronica Wanjiru, the late Margaret Wairimu Muiru, the late Michael Karita Muiru, the late Alice Wambui Njuguna, Salome Waithera Richard, the late Julius Mburu Muiru and Hannah Wamaitha Kibe. The remaining half share was allocated to Mary Wanjiku Muiru, Eunice Wanjiru Wanjiku, Jane Wambui Muiru, Nancy Wairimu Muiru and Samuel Mburu Muiru, with that portion likewise to be sold to the highest bidder and the proceeds shared equally among them. 28.According to the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant, Title No. Nairobi Block L.R No. 7785/388 was distributed such that one half share was to be registered in the names of Mary Wanjiku Karita and Salome Waithera Richard to hold in trust for the beneficiaries namely the late Veronica Wanjiru, the late Margaret Wairimu Muiru, the late Michael Karita Muiru, the late Alice Wambui Njuguna, Salome Waithera Richard, the late Julius Mburu Muiru and Hannah Wamaitha Kibe, with the said share to be divided equally among them. The remaining half share was to be jointly owned by Mary Wanjiku Muiru, Eunice Wanjiru Wanjiku, Jane Wambui Muiru, Nancy Wairimu Muiru and Samuel Mburu Muiru. 29.The mediation settlement agreement dated 8th April, 2023 provided that Title No. Nairobi Block 7785/ 754 measuring0. 5 acres and registered in the name of Muiru Karita (Deceased) be sold to the highest bidder and the proceeds of sale be shared equally as follows: 1st House – Mary Wanjiku Karita and Salome Waithera Richard (holding half share in trust); and 2nd House – Mary Wanjiku Muiru, Eunice Wanjiru Wanjiku, Jane Wambui Muiru, Nancy Wairimu and Samuel Mburu Muiru to equally share the other half proceeds. 30.The mediation settlement agreement dated 8th April, 2023 provided that Title No. Nairobi Block L. R. No. 7785/388 be divided as follows: 1st House – Mary Wanjiku Karita and Salome Waithera Richard to hold half share in trust; and 2nd House - Mary Wanjiku Muiru, Eunice Wanjiru Wanjiku, Jane Wambui Muiru, Nancy Wairimu and Samuel Mburu Muiru to jointly own the other half. Analysis And Determination 31.I have carefully considered the application dated 9th April, 2025, the supporting affidavit, the replying affidavit, the rival written submissions and the annexed documents including the rectified Certificate of Confirmation of Grant and the mediation settlement agreement dated 8th April, 2023. 32.The issues that arise for determination are whether this Court retains jurisdiction to issue preservatory orders after confirmation of grant; whether the Applicants have satisfied the threshold for grant of injunctive relief restraining subdivision of Nairobi Block 7785/754 and Nairobi Block 7785/388; and who should bear the costs of the application. 33.It is now settled that a succession Court retains supervisory jurisdiction even after confirmation of grant to ensure lawful implementation of the confirmed grant and proper administration of the estate. This Court, therefore, has jurisdiction to intervene where disputes arise concerning execution of the confirmed grant or where the actions of Administrators or beneficiaries threaten the interests of other beneficiaries or the estate itself. 34.In Iномва v Nairobi City Water & Sewerage Company Limited [2026] KEELC 2839 (KLR) the Court pronounced itself as follows: “… 33. In the case of Giella vs Cassman Brown [1973] EA 358, the Court stated the conditions for grant of interlocutory injunctions as follows: “The conditions for the grant of interlocutory injunction are now I think well settled in East Africa. First an applicant must show a prima facie case with probability of success. Secondly an interlocutory injunction will not be normally granted unless the applicant might otherwise suffer irreparable injury which would not adequately be compensated by an award of damages. Thirdly if the Court is in doubt it will decide an application on the balance of convenience...” 35.The Applicants seek prohibitory orders restraining subdivision of the suit properties on the basis that the Respondent was allegedly acting unilaterally and contrary to the interests of the beneficiaries. 36.However, the material placed before the Court demonstrates that the rights and interests of the beneficiaries in Nairobi Block 7785/754 and Nairobi Block 7785/388 had already been expressly defined under the rectified Certificate of Confirmation of Grant and further addressed in the mediation settlement agreement dated 8th April, 2023. 37.The documents on record show that the Respondent was not merely a trustee but was herself one of the beneficiaries entitled to a share in the estate alongside the other beneficiaries. Further, both parties acknowledge that disagreements had arisen regarding the practical mode of subdivision on the ground, particularly due to disparities in acreage and existing developments undertaken by some beneficiaries. 38.Importantly, there is no cogent evidence demonstrating that the Respondent had commenced unlawful alienation, sale or disposal of the properties contrary to the confirmed grant or mediation settlement. The allegation of intermeddling therefore remains largely speculative. 39.The Applicants have not established a prima facie case warranting injunctive relief. The evidence before Court instead reveals an ongoing implementation dispute concerning subdivision and survey of the properties rather than a deliberate attempt to defeat the beneficiaries’ interests. 40.The mediation settlement agreement already contemplated subdivision and sale of the suit properties and the parties had further agreed that a joint surveyor be engaged to advise on an economically viable mode of subdivision while taking into account existing developments on the land. In those circumstances, preserving the status quo by completely prohibiting subdivision would unnecessarily impede implementation of the confirmed grant and the mediated settlement already reached by the parties. 41.Equally, the Applicants have not demonstrated irreparable loss incapable of compensation, particularly because their beneficial interests remain protected under the confirmed grant and mediation agreement. On the contrary, the balance of convenience favours orderly implementation of the confirmed grant through a transparent subdivision process undertaken with participation of all beneficiaries and guided by a professional survey report. 42.Consequently, I find that the Applicants have failed to satisfy the threshold for grant of the preservatory and prohibitory orders sought and I this find no merit in the application. 43.Finally, given the evident disputes regarding acreage, existing developments and implementation of the confirmed grant and considering that this is a family succession dispute, this Court directs that the subdivision and implementation process to proceed strictly in accordance with the rectified Certificate of Confirmation of Grant further rectified on 9th April, 2024 and the mediation settlement agreement dated 8th April, 2023, with the assistance of a jointly appointed government surveyor or other mutually agreed surveyor. The survey report shall consider the acreage on the ground and existing developments by beneficiaries. 44.The application is otherwise dismissed and each party to bear its own costs. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA VIDEO LINK THIS 21ST DAY OF MAY 2026.H K CHEMITEIJUDGE