https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8201

In re Estate of Itegi (Deceased) (Succession Cause 21 of 2019) [2026] KEHC 8201 (KLR) (10 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8201 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nakuru Succession Cause 21 of 2019 JM Nang'ea, J June 10, 2026 RE ESTATE OF JOSEPH MWANGI ITEGI (DECEASED) Between Elijah Maina Mwangi Applicant and Naomi Wangui Maina Respondent Ruling 1.By Notice of Motion dated 28/5/2025 an Administrator of the Estate herein (“the Applicant”) prays for the following orders:-1.That this Honourable Court be pleased to interpret and/or give directions on the effect of an order issued on 5th November 2024 requiring either the sale of the Estate home or the buyout of the Applicant’s share within 120 days. (sic)2.That the Honourable Court do issue further directions and/or orders compelling the Respondents (the Applicant’s siblings) to pay the outstanding balance of Kshs. 5,200,000/= being the unpaid portion of the agreed consideration of Kshs. 6,500,000/= in respect of the Applicant’s rescinded share of the estate home pursuant to the agreement dated 14th December, 2024.3.That in default of payment within a period specified by this Honourable Court, the estate home be sold forthwith and the Applicant be paid their rightful share from the proceeds of sale.4.That costs of this Application be provided for. 2.The Applicant swore an affidavit in support of the Motion. Pursuant to the court’s Ruling of 5/11/2024, he states that he voluntarily rescinded his interest in property described as Nakuru/Municipality Block 2/240 forming part of the Estate herein in favour of compensation of Kshs. 6,500,000/= as agreed with other beneficiaries. He was, however, paid only a sum of Kshs. 1,400,000/- in breach of the beneficiaries’ written agreement dated 14/12/2024, and the Respondent and other beneficiaries allegedly refused to make good the balance of Kshs. 5,200,000/=. The Respondent and other siblings of the Applicant are said to have conveyed that they would only pay the balance when funds are available. 3.The Applicant urges the court to interpret paragraph 30 of the Ruling alluded to hereinabove adding that the court has jurisdiction to determine this Application as a Succession Court notwithstanding that the parties, subsequent to confirmation of the Grant, entered into an agreement/contract that has allegedly been breached. 4.The Applicant contends that he wants his right share of the property in issue and interpretation of the Ruling delivered on 5/11/2024. 5.The Respondent and other beneficiaries oppose the Application through Grounds of Objection dated 25/9/2025. They contend as hereunder;1.The Application is an abuse of the process of succession and has no merit due to the fact that distribution of the Estate is going on well, guided by the Applicant as an Administrator.2.Pursuant to a consent dated 15/5/2025, the Applicant cannot seek interpretation of orders granted on 5/11/2023 as they were overtaken by the consent.3.The only available remedy for the Applicant is to file a civil suit to recover the balance of his share of the property in issue. 6.The Respondent and other beneficiaries of the Estate therefore urge the court to dismiss the Application with costs. 7.The parties filed written submissions. 8.The Applicant’s Advocates submit that as per Re Estate of Juma Shikanda (Deceased) [2021] eKLR, parties cannot vary or displace a court order by private agreement without the leave of the court. By accepting instalment payment the Applicant did not waive his right to pursue his full share through the court, according to Counsel, (see the Court of Appeal’s decision in (Serah Njeri Mwobi vs John Kimani Njoroge (2013) eKLR relied upon by Counsel). 9.The Applicant contends that Administrators are bound to complete administration or transmission of the Estate pursuant to Section 83(1) of the Law of Succession Act. 10.The Respondent did not file submissions. 11.Having perused the Application, the Respondent’s Grounds of objection, the Applicant’s submissions and the record, the following points arise for determination;-a.Whether there is good cause for interpretation of the court’s Ruling of 5/11/2024 as urged by the Applicant.b.The orders commending themselves to the court on this Application. 12.The Ruling dated 5/11/2023 is clear and requires no interpretation by the court. Paragraphs 28, 29 and 30 of the Ruling contain dispositive orders or directions which the parties executed by paying off the Applicant, albeit partly. I therefore decline to give any interpretation of the court’s Ruling, the same being self-explanatory. 13.The Administrators, including the Applicant are obligated to transmit the Estate in compliance with the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant and the Ruling of 5/11/2023. Of course, just like other beneficiaries, the Applicant is entitled to his share of the Estate as determined by the Court. These proceedings have been pending for far too long and need to be brought to a close. 14.The Administrators are directed to render their final accounts of transmission of the Estate by 5/10/2026 when the matter is fixed for mention. Upon perusing the Accounts the court shall give any further necessary directions. No order is made as to costs considering that the parties are siblings. J. M. NANG’EA,JUDGE.RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAKURU THIS 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.In the presence of:Ms Lang’at Advocate for the ApplicantMr. Wachira Advocate for Mr. Ikua Advocate for the RespondentCourt Assistant (Jeniffer)J. M. NANG’EA, JUDGE.