https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9189

In re Estate of Muratha (Deceased) (Succession Cause 1013 of 2009) [2026] KEHC 9189 (KLR) (Family) (25 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9189 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Family Succession Cause 1013 of 2009 HK Chemitei, J June 25, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE ZAKAYO MUGO MURATHA (DECEASED) Between Mercy Njeri Mugo Applicant and David Muratha Mugo 1st Respondent Alphas Kahira Mugo 2nd Respondent Ruling 1.The application dated 12th February 2025 seeks orders that:(a)Summons be issued against David Muratha Mugo and Alphas Kahira Mugo Administrators herein to appear before Court and show cause why they should not be committed to civil jail or such term as the Court may deem just.(b)That the Respondents herein be cited for contempt of Court and be committed to civil jail for a term of six months for failing to comply with the orders of this Court issued on 5th December 2024.(c)Warrants of arrest be issued to the said Respondents.(d)Costs of the application be provided for. 2.The application is based on the grounds thereof and the affidavit of the Applicant sworn on 13th February 2025 as well as a further affidavit sworn on 3rd October 2025. 3.The Respondent David Muratha Mugo filed his response vide the affidavits sworn on 5th June 2025 and 25th February 2026 respectively. 4.The substance of the application is that this Court on 5th December 2025 directed the Respondents to file accounts of the estate within 30 days for the period 28th January 2014 to date and in default the Applicant was to take out contempt proceedings. 5.It is the Applicant’s case that the Respondents have disobeyed the said order and thus the need to be cited for contempt. 6.In his replying affidavits sworn on 5th June 2025, the 1st Respondent stated that he had complied with the directives and filed accounts dated 22nd May 2025. He further deponed that he had filed the accounts late because the same did not emanate from the estate but from individual beneficiaries who according to him developed the said properties. 7.He went on to depone that the deceased did not develop any of the properties but were actually done by the beneficiaries including the Applicant’s mother. 8.The Respondent further deponed that they were in the process of transmitting the estate namely Dagoretti Kangemi/240 to Nairobi Block 64/240 by first of all going through the conversion exercise as required by the current laws governing the properties in Nairobi. 9.That subsequently a sub division shall be undertaken so that each of the respective beneficiaries including the Applicant will get their respective portions. 10.He also deponed that the Applicant has been in the picture all along and she has deliberately refused to be involved in the meetings. 11.The Applicant responded in her further affidavit that the respondent was insincere and that they have always excluded her from the meetings. That there were portions of the properties build and constructed by her grandmother. 12.The Court directed the parties to file written submissions which they did and I have perused the same together with the cited authorities. 13.The issue before Court is whether the Respondents have failed to honor the orders of this Court dated 5th December 2024 and therefore liable for punishment. 14.It is no doubt that the Respondents failed to file the accounts within 30 days as directed. They only filed the same in May 2025 which was almost six months thereafter. Clearly, they are in contempt for the reason that they delayed and did not seek any extension of time from this Court. 15.More importantly they were aware of the Courts directive and deliberately failed to honour the same. 16.However, looking at the reasons for the delay I’m inclined to excuse the Respondents. It is not disputed by the Applicant that the estate on the ground seemed to have been distributed and each of the beneficiaries running their respective portions as they await the transmission or conveyancing procedures to be completed. 17.The Applicant has not denied the fact that she was taking care of the portions due to her late mother. She has not vehemently attacked the provided accounts albeit late in the day. 18.What I find the Applicant to be suggesting is the need to have her portion which was due to her mother immediately. 19.Does the application for contempt for now capable of succeeding? For contempt proceedings to succeed there must be evidence that the order itself is clear and unequivocal, the contemnor must do so deliberately and willfully and the evidence must be beyond reasonable doubt. See Stewart Brown Investment Ltd Et Al v. National Import Bank of Jamaica Ltd Et al (2020). 20.I have found above that there was delay and the reasons for the delay could be excused because the accounts emanated from various beneficiaries and not from the estate directly. 21.The Applicant ideally was supposed to poke holes into the said accounts but I have not seen much except to state that her grandmother developed part of the property and that she had been excluded from the table of decisions because she is out in Britain. 22.I do not therefore find merit in the application. The best approach would be to expedite the transmission exercise and meanwhile the Applicant to occupy the identified portion due to her and proceed to utilize it as they await the conveyancing work. 23.For now, I do not find any breach of the order for the reasons stated above. 24.The application is otherwise disallowed with no order as to costs. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA VIDEO LINK AT NAIROBI THIS 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.H. K. CHEMITEIJUDGE, FCIArb.