Muguro v Mungai & another (Family Appeal E008 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 8153 (KLR) (11 June 2026) (Ruling)

Muguro v Mungai & another (Family Appeal E008 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 8153 (KLR) (11 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8153 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Murang'a Family Appeal E008 of 2025 TW Ouya, J June 11, 2026 Between Daniel Mwangi Muguro Applicant and John Ngigi Mungai Respondent and Jesus Winner Ministry Interested Party (Being an application of stay of execution of the ruling of Hon. A.A. Okullo Resident Magistrate in Murang’a Succession Cause No. 218 of 2020) Ruling 1.The Applicant’s Notice of Motion dated 2nd May 2025 seeks orders of stay of execution of the ruling delivered on 13th March 2025 pending appeal, together with ancillary reliefs including status quo orders and prohibition against further succession proceedings. The application seeks for Orders:a.That this application be and is hereby certified urgent and heard Exparte in the first instanceb.That this Hon. Court be and is hereby pleased to order stay of execution of ruling delivered ion 13.3.2025 by the Hon. A.A. Okullo, Resident Magistrate in Murang’a Succession cause No. 218 of 2020 by issuance of status quo orders against the Respondent from evicting the Interested Party herein from L.R. No. 4367206 formerly Maragwa L.R. 2266 pending the hearing and determination of this application.c.That the Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of prohibition to the Respondent not to initiate any succession cause or application for amendment of grant before any Court in respect of spent estate of the late Milliam Wambui Ngugi pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal.d.That costs of this application be provided for. 2.The application is supported by the Applicant’s grounds that the ruling of 13th March 2025 on the Respondent’s revocation application was issued in a vacuum, as the estate of the late Miriam Wambui Ngugi had already been fully administered in Murang’a Succession Cause No. 218 of 2020, with a confirmed grant on 26th July 2021. 3.The Applicant maintains that L.R. No. 2266, formerly part of the estate, was disposed of to the Interested Party, Jesus Winner Ministry, and that the consequence of the impugned ruling gravely prejudices the Interested Party as the lawful owner of the property. He stresses that the deceased had settled the Respondent’s mother in Mombasa, and it is inequitable for the Respondent to now attempt to reclaim a share from him and his brother, Samuel Njuguna Joel. 4.In his Supplementary Affidavit, the Applicant elaborates that a fresh petition would greatly prejudice all persons who purchased portions of the estate, as it would recall their title deeds for nullification, including the Respondent’s mother’s plot No. 1456 in Maragua, which she sold before settling in Mombasa. He explains that the estate originally comprised mother title No. 1061 registered in the name of his grandmother, Miriam Wambui Ngugi, which gave rise to plots Nos. 1456 and 1457. Plot No. 1456 was sold by his grandmother and the proceeds given to the Respondent’s mother, who used them to purchase land in Mombasa where she settled with her family. Plot No. 1457 was sold to one Onesmus Muchoki, while the remainder became L.R. No. 2266 measuring 0.12 hectares, which belonged to the Applicant and his brother and has since been sold to the Interested Party. 5.The Applicant therefore contends that the Respondent’s application, filed twenty‑two (22) years after the demise of the deceased, amounts to an afterthought and busybody litigation. He asserts that the delay is inordinate, circumstances on the ground have materially changed, and the subordinate court erred in revoking a confirmed grant when the estate had already been spent. On this basis, he urges this Court to allow the application as prayed. 6.In his Replying Affidavit, the Respondent avers that he is a grandson of the deceased and a cousin to the Applicant. He invokes Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act and Rule 44 of the Probate and Administration Rules, 1980, to emphasize that a grant of representation, whether confirmed or not, may at any time be revoked or annulled, and therefore nothing prevents a court from revoking a confirmed grant. He contends that the registration of the property in the Interested Party’s name is immaterial if the process of obtaining the grant offended the law, as was the case with the Applicant’s petition before the subordinate court. 7.The Respondent alleges that the Applicant secretly obtained the grant without involving him or his siblings, thereby causing family animosity, and of disposing of property that formed part of their late mother’s inheritance. He further argues that the Interested Party was not a party to the proceedings before the subordinate court, did not seek joinder, and can only pursue its claim in the fresh petition directed by the court. 8.Further, the Respondent maintains that the Applicant lacks locus standi to seek stay orders on behalf of the Interested Party, challenges the applicability of the provisions under which the application was brought, and underscores that the impugned ruling gave all parties an opportunity to file a fresh petition where any Interested Party or creditor may prove their claim. He concludes that the application is devoid of merit and amounts to an abuse of the court process. 9.In his written submissions, the Respondent argued that the application dated 2nd May 2025 seeking stay of execution is misconceived and lacks merit. He submitted that under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, substantial loss must be demonstrated, yet the Applicant has failed to show any prejudice that would arise if a fresh succession cause is filed as directed by the trial court. He emphasizes that execution alone does not amount to substantial loss, citing Mukuma v Abuoga and Silverstein v Chesoni (Court of Appeal) 10.The Respondent reiterated that the Applicant has no locus standi to seek orders on behalf of the Interested Party, which was neither a party to the succession proceedings nor joined in the appeal. He stresses that the Interested Party has not authorized the Applicant to litigate on its behalf, and if it had a genuine claim, it ought to have joined the trial court proceedings. 11.On jurisdiction, the Respondent submits that the High Court cannot determine questions of land ownership or title, which fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under Articles 162(2) and 165(5) of the Constitution, as reinforced in Re Estate of Prisca Ong’ayo Nande (Deceased). He argues that the Applicant’s reliance on land ownership issues is misplaced and outside the court’s mandate. 12.Finally, the Respondent maintains that the Supplementary Affidavit merely repeats matters already determined by the trial court, and that the application is frivolous, an abuse of process, and incapable of being granted. He prays that the application be dismissed with costs. 13.Having carefully considered the application dated 2nd May 2025, the affidavits in support and in reply, together with the parties’ submissions, I have isolated the following issues for determination:i.Whether the Applicant has satisfied the threshold for grant of stay of execution pending appeal.ii.Whether the Applicant has locus standi to seek orders on behalf of the Interested Party.iii.Whether this Court has jurisdiction to grant the orders sought.iv.Whether the application is merited. 14.On the first issue, the law governing stay of execution pending appeal is Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which though not directly applicable to succession proceedings, may be invoked by dint of Section 47 of the Law of Succession Act which provides that:“The High Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any application and determine any dispute under this Act and to pronounce such decrees and make such orders therein as may be expedient…” 15.Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules provides:“Nothing in these Rules shall limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.” 16.These two provisions anchor the court’s power to exercise jurisdiction judiciously. In the same breath discretion must be guided by the law. Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules gives the criteria for the grant of stay of execution. The Applicant must demonstrate substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay, and provision of security. The Applicant has argued that the revocation of the grant gravely prejudices the Interested Party who purchased L.R. No. 2266, and that recalling titles would disrupt settled transactions. However, the Respondent has correctly pointed out that execution alone does not amount to substantial loss, and the Applicant has not shown what irreparable prejudice he personally stands to suffer if a fresh petition is filed. I am not persuaded that the threshold of substantial loss has been met. 17.On locus standi, the Applicant seeks orders ostensibly to protect the Interested Party, Jesus Winner Ministries, from eviction. Yet the Interested Party was not a party to the succession proceedings in the subordinate court, has not sought joinder in this appeal, and has not authorized the Applicant to litigate on its behalf. The Applicant cannot purport to prosecute claims for a stranger to the proceedings. I find that he lacks locus standi to seek orders on behalf of the Interested Party. 18.In Nduva & 3 others v Ndar & 3 others; Ng’ang’a (Intended Interested Party) [2024] KEHC 8118 (KLR), the High Court reiterated that an intended Interested Party must apply for joinder under the Civil Procedure Rules. A party cannot be dragged into proceedings at the whim of another litigant without its consent or application. In the instant case, there is neither application nor consent of the Interested Party to be joined in these proceedings and therefore the Appellant cannot purport to litigate on behalf of the Interested Party. 19.It is now upon of this court to consider its jurisdiction in this matter and whether the orders sought are capable of being granted. The Applicant prays for stay of execution of the ruling of 13th March 2025, status quo orders to restrain eviction of the Interested Party from L.R. No. 43672016 (formerly Maragwa L.R. 2266), and an order of prohibition against initiation of any succession cause or amendment of grant in respect of the estate of the late Miriam Wambui Ngugi. These prayers inevitably touch on questions of ownership, registration, and occupation of land. 20.Under Articles 162(2)(b) and 165(5) of the Constitution, such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court, which is empowered to determine disputes relating to title, use, and occupation of land. The subordinate court in any event directed that a fresh petition be filed, thereby affording any Interested Party or creditor, including the Interested Party if it so wishes, an opportunity to prove its claim. The Applicant’s contention that recalling titles would prejudice purchasers is a matter that can only be ventilated in the proper forum but not through the present application. 21.Resultantly, I find that the Applicant has not satisfied the criteria for stay of execution pending appeal, lacks locus standi to litigate on behalf of the Interested Party, and seeks reliefs that are beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. The application dated 2nd May 2025 is therefore devoid of merit and amounts to an abuse of the court process. It is accordingly dismissed with costs to the Respondent. 22.Final Orders: Application dismissed with no orders as to costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY ON THIS 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.HON. T. W. OUYA, OGWJUDGEIn the presence of:Daniel Mwangi Muguro – Appellant in personNo appearance for Respondent and Interested PartyNyabuto – Court Assistant