Introduction & Background
1. There are two applications before the court for determination; the Petitioner’s (“Beatrice”) Notice of Motion dated 9 th December 2025 seeking that pending the hearing of the petition, the tenant occupying property L.R No. 337/4141 registered in the minor child’s name pays rent to her for the daily upkeep, maintenance and welfare of the minor. Further, that the Respondent(“Simon”) be restrained from harassing, intimidating or threatening Beatrice and her minor children in any manner and that the court grants any further orders it deems just, necessary and expedient to protect the rights, safety, welfare and dignity of Beatrice and her minor children.
2. This application is supported by grounds on its face and those set out in the supporting affidavit of Beatrice sworn on 9 th December 2025 and it is opposed by Simon through his replying affidavit sworn on 18 th February 2026. The other application is the Notice of Motion dated 18 th February 2026 by Simon that seeks to review and set aside the interim orders issued by the court (Mshila J.,) on 14 th December 2025 and an order directing Beatrice to present herself at the Mlolongo Police Station to answer the accusations against her and in compliance with the court's earlier order that she cannot be arrested without an administrator. Beatrice responded to this application through her replying affidavit sworn on 28 th April 2026.
3. The two applications were canvassed by way of written submissions which are on record and together with the pleadings I will make relevant references to them in my analysis and determination below.
Analysis and Determination
4. From the parties’ pleadings and submissions, the court is being called to determine whether the tenant occupying property L.R No. 337/4141 registered in the minor child’s name should pay rent to Beatrice for the daily upkeep, maintenance and welfare of the minor and whether Simon should be restrained from harassing, intimidating or threatening Beatrice and her minor children in any manner and whether the court should grant any further orders it deems just, necessary and expedient to protect the rights, safety, welfare and dignity of Beatrice and her minor children. The court is also being called to determine whether the interim orders of 14 th December 2025 should be reviewed and set aside and whether Beatrice should present herself at the Mlolongo Police Station to answer the accusations against her and in compliance with the court's earlier order that she cannot be arrested without an administrator.
5. Beatrice’s case is that she was the long-term partner of Edward Githambo Mathai, now deceased, and that she lived with him in their matrimonial home. That following his death, she was forcibly and unlawfully evicted from the home by Simon, who is the Deceased's son, with the assistance of armed police officers. She claims that on or about 28 th November 2025, Simon and about eight armed police officers stormed the home, violently evicted Beatrice and her children without a court order and welded the doors shut. That the Respondents have blocked her access to the property, harassed her and issued death threats and Simon has falsely portrayed her as a mere "employee" to justify the eviction and has threatened third parties with prosecution for assisting her.
6. On his part, Simon depones that it is unclear whose "wife" Beatrice is or whose children the minors are, suggesting she was not a spouse but an employee. He contends that Beatrice's claim that one of the minors is the Deceased's child is false, as a DNA test excluded the Deceased as the biological father and he accuses Beatrice of withdrawing money from the Deceased's M-Pesa account without authorization and stealing property documents from the house, leading to a police investigation. He states that the court should not protect her from lawful criminal prosecution and further claims that Beatrice concealed facts to obtain court orders, including that he had already been appointed as the estate administrator in October 2025.
7. Going through the pleadings and submissions, this is a deeply contested family dispute arising from the death of the Deceased pitying Beatrice who claims to be the Deceased's long-term partner and widow and mother of his children, and Simon, the Deceased's son from a previous relationship, who claims Beatrice was merely a domestic employee. The case raises fundamental constitutional questions about housing rights, due process, police accountability and the protection of children's welfare.
8. On the application for review, I do not think it is in dispute that under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules , an applicant is required to show either that there was an error apparent on the face of record or that there has been discovery of new and important matter which was not available despite the exercise of due diligence or for any other sufficient reason for the court to review. Simon seeks to review the court’s orders on grounds that the court was misled about the existence of an administrator, Beatrice's status as a spouse and the paternity of the children are disputed and that she engaged in criminal conduct
9. The Court of Appeal in National Bank of Kenya Limited v Ndungu Njau T[1996] KLR 469 explained what constitutes an error of law apparent on the face of the record and the scope of review:
A review may be granted whenever the court considers that it is necessary to correct an apparent error or omission on the part of the Court. The error or omission must be self-evident and should not require an elaborate argument to be established. It will not be a sufficient ground for review that another Judge could have taken a different view of the matter. Nor can it be a ground for review that the Court proceeded on an incorrect exposition of the law and reached an erroneous conclusion of law. Misconstruing a statute or other provision of law cannot be ground for review.
10. Simon's arguments about Beatrice's status, paternity of the Deceased and alleged criminal conduct are contested factual issues that require evidence and cross-examination. They are not errors apparent on the face of the record and I find that this ground fails.
11. The Court of Appeal in Rose Kaiza v Angelo Mpanju Kaiza [2009] KECA 422 (KLR) explained as follows in respect of new and important information/discovery:
The motion before the superior court was based on the discovery of new facts. However, it is not every new fact that will qualify for interference with the judgment or decree sought to be reviewed . In the words of the rule itself, it is
“………discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed…….”
The construction and application of that provision has been discussed in many previous decisions but we shall take it from the commentary by Mulla on similar provisions of the Indian Civil Procedure Code, 15th Edition at page 2726, thus:
“Applications on this ground must be treated with great caution and as required by r 4(2) (b) the Court must be satisfied that the materials placed before it in accordance with the formalities of the law do prove the existence of the facts alleged. Before a review is allowed on the ground of a discovery of new evidence, it must be established that the applicant had acted with due diligence and that the existence of the evidence was not within his knowledge; where review was sought for on the ground of discovery of new evidence but it was found that the petitioner had not acted with due diligence, it is not open to the Court to admit evidence on the ground of sufficient cause. It is not only the discovery of new and important evidence that entitles a party to apply for a review, but the discovery of any new and important matter which was not within the knowledge of the party when the decree was made.”
12. Simon relies on a DNA report from 2015 and a Grant of Letters of Administration Ad Litem dated 23 rd October 2025. However, the DNA report was available to Simon long before Beatrice's application and the Grant was obtained before the court’s orders. Under Order 45 , the evidence must be "new and important" and not within the applicant's knowledge despite due diligence.
13. On any other sufficient reason, the "sufficient reason" must be analogous to the other grounds and mere dissatisfaction with the outcome is not sufficient (see Republic v Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal Ex parte Apollo Mboya [2019] KEHC 6379 (KLR). It is not lost to me that the orders of 14 th December 2025 were obtained on ex parte circumstances as Simon was not a party to the hearing when the orders were granted and therefore, he had no opportunity to present his evidence, challenge Beatrice's claims or raise his objections. The court's decision was made based solely on Beatrice's application. It should always be remembered that in all cases of ex parte proceedings, there must be full and frank disclosure to the court of all material facts known to the applicant and that a party seeking equitable remedies must come to court with clean hands hence a party must disclose every relevant fact in the case in order to benefit from the remedy (See Bahadurali Ebrahim Shamji v Al Noor Jamal & 2 Others [1998] KECA 255 (KLR) ] .
14. Going through the pleadings, I find that the evidence does suggest that Beatrice's application may have been materially incomplete. In her application, Beatrice stated that the orders were necessary because "no lawful administrator has been appointed", however, Simon claims he was appointed administrator of the estate in October 2025, and he has attached the Grant Letters of Administration as evidence. In her response, Beatrice deponed that the Grant is misleading as the same is limited in scope and I find that while she disputes its authority, she is not denying its existence. In my view, the existence of this document was a highly material fact that was not disclosed to the court when it was deciding whether to grant protective orders as the court was under the impression no administrator existed at all.
15. Simon also presented a DNA report from 2015 which he claims excludes the Deceased as the biological father of Beatrice's child, P.G. Beatrice, in her application, stated that her child's name appears on a property title, confirming the Deceased's recognition of the child. The DNA evidence directly contradicts this claim and speaks to the very essence of her status as a "widow" and the paternity of the children she is representing. The existence of this report was a fact that could have significantly influenced the court's assessment of her case, especially regarding the child's right to the estate property. In my view, the aforementioned reasons are sufficient reasons for the court to review its order under Order 45
16. As to whether Beatrice should be compelled to present herself at Mlolongo Police Station to answer accusations against her, I note that she was apprehensive of being arrested, detained or prosecuted in relation to the estate of the Deceased in the absence of a lawfully appointed administrator. Now that it has been established that Simon is a lawfully appointed administrator, even if for a limited scope, I see no reason why, like any other citizen, she should not submit to lawful police investigations. Whereas I agree with Beatrice’s submission that using criminal justice process as a “pawn in civil dispute” is unconscionable and an abuse of power, the police retain the constitutional and statutory power to summon her and the interim protection order does not prevent Beatrice from complying with lawful police summons, but she retains her constitutional rights. Therefore, I find and hold that since there is an administrator for the estate of the Deceased, Beatrice is obligated to honour lawful summons from the Police and co-operate with them regarding issues surrounding the estate.
17. Turning to the reliefs sought by Beatrice beginning with whether the tenant occupying L.R No. 337/4141 should pay rent to her for the minor child's upkeep, I am guided by Article 53(2) of the Constitution and section 4(3) of the Children Act(Chapter 141 of the Laws of Kenya) to give primacy, while considering any disputed matters involving children, to the best interest of child. The law provides factors to consider when determining a child’s best interests. In determining what constitutes the best interest of the child, each case is considered on its own peculiar circumstances (see CK v ER [2026] KEHC 3591 (KLR)]. I am also mindful of section 10(2) of the Children Act which provides that “ No differential treatment shall limit any rights of the child under this Act or under the Constitution”
18. From the pleadings, I note that the Deceased's name appears on the child's title document, suggesting recognition and provision. As stated, the court must prioritize the welfare of the minor child and even if paternity is disputed, the child should not suffer deprivation and neglect during the pendency of the proceedings. I therefore find that an interim order for rent payment to Beatrice is justifiable as it ensures the child's immediate welfare and that it is temporary as it can be revisited once paternity and succession issues are resolved. It will also be in the best interests of the child as it prevents the child from suffering while the legal battle continues. I therefore find that an interim order on rent payment ought to be issued pending the resolution of the main petition.
19. On whether Simon should be restrained from harassing, intimidating, or threatening Beatrice and her children, Beatrice alleged forcible eviction with police assistance, the house was welded shut, guards were placed to prevent re-entry, death threats were issued, she was excluded from the Deceased's burial and that she has been rendered homeless. Simon denies these allegations but admits evicting Beatrice and terminating her "employment contract." It is not in dispute that under Article 28 , every person has inherent dignity and the right to have it respected and protected, that under Article 29 , every person has the right to freedom and security of the person, including protection from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment and that under Article 43 every person has the right to accessible and adequate housing. Indeed, the law does not permit eviction without due process, as established in Mitu-Bell Welfare Society v Kenya Airports Authority & 3 others [2021] KESC 34 (KLR) .
20. Going through the pleadings, I find that prima facie , the eviction of Beatrice does not appear to have been procedural as Simon admitted there was no court order and the eviction of children from the home without welfare safeguards is unconstitutional under Article 53 . Therefore, I find that Beatrice has made out a case for an order for Simon to be restrained from harassing, intimidating, or threatening the Petitioner and her minor children, pending the hearing and determination of the main petition.
Conclusion & Disposition
21. In the upshot, I now issue the following orders:
1) The ex parte orders issued on 14 th December 2025 are hereby reviewed and set aside.
2) Pending the hearing and determination of the main petition, the tenant occupying L.R No. 337/4141 shall pay rent into a joint escrow account to be opened in the names of the advocates for the Petitioner and the 4 th Respondent within 30 days of this ruling, for the daily upkeep, maintenance and welfare of the minor children.
3) The 4 th Respondent is restrained from harassing, intimidating, or threatening the Petitioner and her minor children, pending the hearing and determination of the main petition.
4) The 4 th Respondent shall allow the Petitioner, under police protection from Mlolongo Police Station or any other Police Station of her choice, to access the property, Rally View Estate, Mlolongo, House No. 226 to retrieve her personal belongings and those of the children, within 7 days of service of these orders.
5) The Petitioner shall attend and cooperate with any lawful summons issued by the Officer Commanding Station (OCS), Mlolongo Police Station, or any other police station, in connection with any complaints made against her regarding the estate of the Deceased Edward Githambo Mathai.
6) Each party shall bear their own costs of the applications
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED virtually this 3 rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER
2026
............................................................................
J W W MONGARE
JUDGE
IN THE PRESENCE OF
1. N/A for the Petitioners
2. N/A for the Respondents
3. Abdisalan- Court Assistant
2 | Page
1. There are two applications before the court for determination; the Petitioner’s (“Beatrice”) Notice of Motion dated 9 th December 2025 seeking that pending the hearing of the petition, the tenant occupying property L.R No. 337/4141 registered in the minor child’s name pays rent to her for the daily upkeep, maintenance and welfare of the minor. Further, that the Respondent(“Simon”) be restrained from harassing, intimidating or threatening Beatrice and her minor children in any manner and that the court grants any further orders it deems just, necessary and expedient to protect the rights, safety, welfare and dignity of Beatrice and her minor children.
2. This application is supported by grounds on its face and those set out in the supporting affidavit of Beatrice sworn on 9 th December 2025 and it is opposed by Simon through his replying affidavit sworn on 18 th February 2026. The other application is the Notice of Motion dated 18 th February 2026 by Simon that seeks to review and set aside the interim orders issued by the court (Mshila J.,) on 14 th December 2025 and an order directing Beatrice to present herself at the Mlolongo Police Station to answer the accusations against her and in compliance with the court's earlier order that she cannot be arrested without an administrator. Beatrice responded to this application through her replying affidavit sworn on 28 th April 2026.
3. The two applications were canvassed by way of written submissions which are on record and together with the pleadings I will make relevant references to them in my analysis and determination below.
Analysis and Determination
4. From the parties’ pleadings and submissions, the court is being called to determine whether the tenant occupying property L.R No. 337/4141 registered in the minor child’s name should pay rent to Beatrice for the daily upkeep, maintenance and welfare of the minor and whether Simon should be restrained from harassing, intimidating or threatening Beatrice and her minor children in any manner and whether the court should grant any further orders it deems just, necessary and expedient to protect the rights, safety, welfare and dignity of Beatrice and her minor children. The court is also being called to determine whether the interim orders of 14 th December 2025 should be reviewed and set aside and whether Beatrice should present herself at the Mlolongo Police Station to answer the accusations against her and in compliance with the court's earlier order that she cannot be arrested without an administrator.
5. Beatrice’s case is that she was the long-term partner of Edward Githambo Mathai, now deceased, and that she lived with him in their matrimonial home. That following his death, she was forcibly and unlawfully evicted from the home by Simon, who is the Deceased's son, with the assistance of armed police officers. She claims that on or about 28 th November 2025, Simon and about eight armed police officers stormed the home, violently evicted Beatrice and her children without a court order and welded the doors shut. That the Respondents have blocked her access to the property, harassed her and issued death threats and Simon has falsely portrayed her as a mere "employee" to justify the eviction and has threatened third parties with prosecution for assisting her.
6. On his part, Simon depones that it is unclear whose "wife" Beatrice is or whose children the minors are, suggesting she was not a spouse but an employee. He contends that Beatrice's claim that one of the minors is the Deceased's child is false, as a DNA test excluded the Deceased as the biological father and he accuses Beatrice of withdrawing money from the Deceased's M-Pesa account without authorization and stealing property documents from the house, leading to a police investigation. He states that the court should not protect her from lawful criminal prosecution and further claims that Beatrice concealed facts to obtain court orders, including that he had already been appointed as the estate administrator in October 2025.
7. Going through the pleadings and submissions, this is a deeply contested family dispute arising from the death of the Deceased pitying Beatrice who claims to be the Deceased's long-term partner and widow and mother of his children, and Simon, the Deceased's son from a previous relationship, who claims Beatrice was merely a domestic employee. The case raises fundamental constitutional questions about housing rights, due process, police accountability and the protection of children's welfare.
8. On the application for review, I do not think it is in dispute that under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules , an applicant is required to show either that there was an error apparent on the face of record or that there has been discovery of new and important matter which was not available despite the exercise of due diligence or for any other sufficient reason for the court to review. Simon seeks to review the court’s orders on grounds that the court was misled about the existence of an administrator, Beatrice's status as a spouse and the paternity of the children are disputed and that she engaged in criminal conduct
9. The Court of Appeal in National Bank of Kenya Limited v Ndungu Njau T[1996] KLR 469 explained what constitutes an error of law apparent on the face of the record and the scope of review:
A review may be granted whenever the court considers that it is necessary to correct an apparent error or omission on the part of the Court. The error or omission must be self-evident and should not require an elaborate argument to be established. It will not be a sufficient ground for review that another Judge could have taken a different view of the matter. Nor can it be a ground for review that the Court proceeded on an incorrect exposition of the law and reached an erroneous conclusion of law. Misconstruing a statute or other provision of law cannot be ground for review.
10. Simon's arguments about Beatrice's status, paternity of the Deceased and alleged criminal conduct are contested factual issues that require evidence and cross-examination. They are not errors apparent on the face of the record and I find that this ground fails.
11. The Court of Appeal in Rose Kaiza v Angelo Mpanju Kaiza [2009] KECA 422 (KLR) explained as follows in respect of new and important information/discovery:
The motion before the superior court was based on the discovery of new facts. However, it is not every new fact that will qualify for interference with the judgment or decree sought to be reviewed . In the words of the rule itself, it is
“………discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed…….”
The construction and application of that provision has been discussed in many previous decisions but we shall take it from the commentary by Mulla on similar provisions of the Indian Civil Procedure Code, 15th Edition at page 2726, thus:
“Applications on this ground must be treated with great caution and as required by r 4(2) (b) the Court must be satisfied that the materials placed before it in accordance with the formalities of the law do prove the existence of the facts alleged. Before a review is allowed on the ground of a discovery of new evidence, it must be established that the applicant had acted with due diligence and that the existence of the evidence was not within his knowledge; where review was sought for on the ground of discovery of new evidence but it was found that the petitioner had not acted with due diligence, it is not open to the Court to admit evidence on the ground of sufficient cause. It is not only the discovery of new and important evidence that entitles a party to apply for a review, but the discovery of any new and important matter which was not within the knowledge of the party when the decree was made.”
12. Simon relies on a DNA report from 2015 and a Grant of Letters of Administration Ad Litem dated 23 rd October 2025. However, the DNA report was available to Simon long before Beatrice's application and the Grant was obtained before the court’s orders. Under Order 45 , the evidence must be "new and important" and not within the applicant's knowledge despite due diligence.
13. On any other sufficient reason, the "sufficient reason" must be analogous to the other grounds and mere dissatisfaction with the outcome is not sufficient (see Republic v Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal Ex parte Apollo Mboya [2019] KEHC 6379 (KLR). It is not lost to me that the orders of 14 th December 2025 were obtained on ex parte circumstances as Simon was not a party to the hearing when the orders were granted and therefore, he had no opportunity to present his evidence, challenge Beatrice's claims or raise his objections. The court's decision was made based solely on Beatrice's application. It should always be remembered that in all cases of ex parte proceedings, there must be full and frank disclosure to the court of all material facts known to the applicant and that a party seeking equitable remedies must come to court with clean hands hence a party must disclose every relevant fact in the case in order to benefit from the remedy (See Bahadurali Ebrahim Shamji v Al Noor Jamal & 2 Others [1998] KECA 255 (KLR) ] .
14. Going through the pleadings, I find that the evidence does suggest that Beatrice's application may have been materially incomplete. In her application, Beatrice stated that the orders were necessary because "no lawful administrator has been appointed", however, Simon claims he was appointed administrator of the estate in October 2025, and he has attached the Grant Letters of Administration as evidence. In her response, Beatrice deponed that the Grant is misleading as the same is limited in scope and I find that while she disputes its authority, she is not denying its existence. In my view, the existence of this document was a highly material fact that was not disclosed to the court when it was deciding whether to grant protective orders as the court was under the impression no administrator existed at all.
15. Simon also presented a DNA report from 2015 which he claims excludes the Deceased as the biological father of Beatrice's child, P.G. Beatrice, in her application, stated that her child's name appears on a property title, confirming the Deceased's recognition of the child. The DNA evidence directly contradicts this claim and speaks to the very essence of her status as a "widow" and the paternity of the children she is representing. The existence of this report was a fact that could have significantly influenced the court's assessment of her case, especially regarding the child's right to the estate property. In my view, the aforementioned reasons are sufficient reasons for the court to review its order under Order 45
16. As to whether Beatrice should be compelled to present herself at Mlolongo Police Station to answer accusations against her, I note that she was apprehensive of being arrested, detained or prosecuted in relation to the estate of the Deceased in the absence of a lawfully appointed administrator. Now that it has been established that Simon is a lawfully appointed administrator, even if for a limited scope, I see no reason why, like any other citizen, she should not submit to lawful police investigations. Whereas I agree with Beatrice’s submission that using criminal justice process as a “pawn in civil dispute” is unconscionable and an abuse of power, the police retain the constitutional and statutory power to summon her and the interim protection order does not prevent Beatrice from complying with lawful police summons, but she retains her constitutional rights. Therefore, I find and hold that since there is an administrator for the estate of the Deceased, Beatrice is obligated to honour lawful summons from the Police and co-operate with them regarding issues surrounding the estate.
17. Turning to the reliefs sought by Beatrice beginning with whether the tenant occupying L.R No. 337/4141 should pay rent to her for the minor child's upkeep, I am guided by Article 53(2) of the Constitution and section 4(3) of the Children Act(Chapter 141 of the Laws of Kenya) to give primacy, while considering any disputed matters involving children, to the best interest of child. The law provides factors to consider when determining a child’s best interests. In determining what constitutes the best interest of the child, each case is considered on its own peculiar circumstances (see CK v ER [2026] KEHC 3591 (KLR)]. I am also mindful of section 10(2) of the Children Act which provides that “ No differential treatment shall limit any rights of the child under this Act or under the Constitution”
18. From the pleadings, I note that the Deceased's name appears on the child's title document, suggesting recognition and provision. As stated, the court must prioritize the welfare of the minor child and even if paternity is disputed, the child should not suffer deprivation and neglect during the pendency of the proceedings. I therefore find that an interim order for rent payment to Beatrice is justifiable as it ensures the child's immediate welfare and that it is temporary as it can be revisited once paternity and succession issues are resolved. It will also be in the best interests of the child as it prevents the child from suffering while the legal battle continues. I therefore find that an interim order on rent payment ought to be issued pending the resolution of the main petition.
19. On whether Simon should be restrained from harassing, intimidating, or threatening Beatrice and her children, Beatrice alleged forcible eviction with police assistance, the house was welded shut, guards were placed to prevent re-entry, death threats were issued, she was excluded from the Deceased's burial and that she has been rendered homeless. Simon denies these allegations but admits evicting Beatrice and terminating her "employment contract." It is not in dispute that under Article 28 , every person has inherent dignity and the right to have it respected and protected, that under Article 29 , every person has the right to freedom and security of the person, including protection from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment and that under Article 43 every person has the right to accessible and adequate housing. Indeed, the law does not permit eviction without due process, as established in Mitu-Bell Welfare Society v Kenya Airports Authority & 3 others [2021] KESC 34 (KLR) .
20. Going through the pleadings, I find that prima facie , the eviction of Beatrice does not appear to have been procedural as Simon admitted there was no court order and the eviction of children from the home without welfare safeguards is unconstitutional under Article 53 . Therefore, I find that Beatrice has made out a case for an order for Simon to be restrained from harassing, intimidating, or threatening the Petitioner and her minor children, pending the hearing and determination of the main petition.
Conclusion & Disposition
21. In the upshot, I now issue the following orders:
1) The ex parte orders issued on 14 th December 2025 are hereby reviewed and set aside.
2) Pending the hearing and determination of the main petition, the tenant occupying L.R No. 337/4141 shall pay rent into a joint escrow account to be opened in the names of the advocates for the Petitioner and the 4 th Respondent within 30 days of this ruling, for the daily upkeep, maintenance and welfare of the minor children.
3) The 4 th Respondent is restrained from harassing, intimidating, or threatening the Petitioner and her minor children, pending the hearing and determination of the main petition.
4) The 4 th Respondent shall allow the Petitioner, under police protection from Mlolongo Police Station or any other Police Station of her choice, to access the property, Rally View Estate, Mlolongo, House No. 226 to retrieve her personal belongings and those of the children, within 7 days of service of these orders.
5) The Petitioner shall attend and cooperate with any lawful summons issued by the Officer Commanding Station (OCS), Mlolongo Police Station, or any other police station, in connection with any complaints made against her regarding the estate of the Deceased Edward Githambo Mathai.
6) Each party shall bear their own costs of the applications
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED virtually this 3 rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER
2026
............................................................................
J W W MONGARE
JUDGE
IN THE PRESENCE OF
1. N/A for the Petitioners
2. N/A for the Respondents
3. Abdisalan- Court Assistant
2 | Page