https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7328

M’ringera & another v Ringera (Petition E016 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 7328 (KLR) (26 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7328 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Meru Petition E016 of 2025 SM Githinji, J May 26, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 1, 2, 3, 10, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 40, 43, 47 (1), 48, 60, 162, 165 (3) (b), 258 AND 259 (1) (b) OF THE CONSTITUTION AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA (SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION AND PROTECTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF THE INDIVIDUAL) HIGH COURT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE RULES, 2006, RULES 11-23 AND IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLES 20, 40, 43 AND 47 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND IN THE MATTER OF MERU HIGH COURT SUCCESSION CAUSE NUMBER 21 OF 2007 Between Evangeline Muyange M’ringera 1st Petitioner Johnston Mutungi Riungu 2nd Petitioner and Jacob Munene Ringera Respondent Ruling 1.For determination is the Notice of Motion dated 1/7/2025 under Articles 22, 23, 40, 43 and 47 of the Constitution, Rule 23 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules and Sections 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking that:1.Spent2.Spent3.Pending the hearing and determination of the Petition, there be a stay of execution and/or enforcement of the said orders and an order preserving the status quo as pertains to land parcel LR Abothuguchi/Katheri/5695, specifically that:i.The 1st Petitioner shall remain in possession and occupation of the property; There shall be no interference, eviction, alienation, or dealings whatsoever by the Respondent or his agents.4.A conservatory order be issued restraining the Respondent, his agents, servants or anyone acting at his behest from evicting, interfering, entering, alienating, or in any other way dealing with LR Abothuguchi/Katheri/5695 pending hearing and determination of the Petition.5.The costs of this Application be provided for. 2.The application is premised on the grounds that are on the face of it and supported by the affidavit sworn by the 1st Petitioner on even date. She averred that she was the widow and the administrator of the estate of Isaac M’Rongera M’Ikunyua pursuant to a certificate of confirmation of grant issued in Meru High Court Succession Cause No. 21 of 2007. She lawfully subdivided and distributed the estate to her children and grandson, the 2nd Petitioner herein, but her son, the Respondent herein instituted ELC Case No. 12/2022 at Githongo Law Courts seeking her eviction from her matrimonial home situated on LR No. Abothuguchi/Katheri/5695. The said court lacked jurisdiction over high court succession matters, and unless the orders sought are granted, she risks imminent eviction, destruction of her matrimonial home, and desecration of her late husband’s grave, in violation of her rights under Articles 28, 40, 43 (1) (b), and 47 of the Constitution.She believes that the actions of the Respondent are a collateral attack on the probate process disguised as an E.L.C suit, which offends the finality of a confirmed grant under the Law ofSuccession Act. She verily believes this court has the constitutional duty to issue conservatory orders to protect her rights pending the determination of the Petition herein. 3.The Respondent swore a replying affidavit on 18/7/2025 in opposition to the application. He averred that L.R Nos. Abothuguchi/Katheri/2239 and Ontulili/Katheri/574 formed the estate of his father, which was distributed by High Court Succession Cause No. 21/2007. Upon finalization of the cause, L.R No. Abothuguchi/Katheri/2239 was subdivided to facilitate sharing among the beneficiaries, but the 1st Petitioner fraudulently subdivided his share, being L.R No. Abothuguchi/Katheri/4518 into L.R Nos. Abothuguchi/Katheri/5695 and 5696, and secretly transferred the former to the 2nd Petitioner, to defeat his interest. He filed Githongo E.L.C Case No. 12/2022, and despite obtaining favourable orders therein, the 1st Petitioner declined to transferto him L.R Nos. Abothuguchi/Katheri/5695 and 5696. When the 1st Petitioner refused to surrender the original title deeds, he obtained the land control board’s consent to transfer theland in his name, and thereafter the transfer was effected. He accused the 1st Petitioner of forum shopping, abusing the court process by filing this petition instead of an appeal against the decision of the E.L.C case at Githongo. 4.The application was canvassed by way of written submissions, which were duly filed by Counsel. Analysis and Determination 5.Having considered the application, the replying affidavit and the submissions on record together with the authorities relied on, the issue for determination is whether the orders sought should issue. 6.By way of a brief background, the matter herein relates to the estate of Isaac M’Rongera M’Ikunyua. Pursuant to the confirmation of the grant, the 1st Petitioner proceeded to transfer the estate properties to her name. She then subdivided L.R No. Abothuguchi/Katheri/4518, a resultant subdivision of L.R No. Abothuguchi/Katheri/2239 into L.R Nos. Abothuguchi/Katheri/5695 and 5696. Unperturbed, she transferred L.R No. Abothuguchi/Katheri/5695 to the 2nd Petitioner, a grandson of the deceased, at the expense of the Respondent, a son of the deceased and rightful beneficiary to the estate. The Respondent successfully moved the Environment and Land Court at Githongo and obtained orders for the cancellation of the registration of L.R Nos. Abothuguchi/Katheri/5695 and 5696 in the names of the Petitioners. 7.The Respondent has since acquired title deeds to the said parcels of land in his name. The 1st Petitioner contends that her matrimonial home and the grave of the deceased are situated on L.R No. Abothuguchi/Katheri/5695, and she faces imminent risk of eviction unless the conservatory orders sought are granted. 8.The import of the orders sought by the 1st Petitioner is to restrain the Respondent from enjoying the fruits of his lawful judgment, which remains valid and binding, having neither been reviewed nor set aside on appeal. Such an action would be both untenable and an affront to the tenets of justice. 9.The proper recourse for the 1st Petitioner would have been to challenge the decision in Githongo E.L.C Case No. 12/2022 through an appeal before the Environment and Land Court, rather than improperly invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this court by filing this misconceived and superfluous application. 10.Accordingly, this court is divested of jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought, as the same fall exclusively within the purview of the Environment and Land Court, which alone is properly seized of the jurisdiction to entertain and determine such matter. 11.The upshot from the foregoing is that the application is bereft of merit, and it is hereby dismissed. DATED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.S. M. GITHINJI –JUDGE26/5/2026In the presence of:-Miss Maore holding brief for Miss Bett for the Respondent.Mr. Mwenda for the Petitioner (Absent).