'1. The Applicant, Enock Okwema Nyangweso, moved this Court by a Notice of Motion dated 17th September 2025 seeking, among others:
1) An order of inhibition restraining dealings with parcel No. 196/Kisii/Manga Settlement Scheme
2) An inhibition restraining the 1st and 2nd Respondents from dealings with the same parcel pending the obtaining of letters of administration
3) A temporary injunction restraining any sale, alienation, transfer, or interference with the parcel
4) Costs.
2. The application is supported by the affidavit of Enock Okwema Nyangweso, sworn on 17th September 2025, where he states that the parcel belonged to his mother, Teresa Nyamboke. He annexes:
(a) EON-1, being the green card to parcel 196/Kisii/Manga Settlement Scheme, which he claims shows irregularities
(b) EON-2, the death certificate of the deceased.
3. The Applicant alleges that the Respondents have unlawfully interfered with the land and altered registry records.
4. The 1st and 2nd Respondents oppose the application through a Replying Affidavit sworn jointly on 15th October 2025. They assert that parcel 196/Kisii/Manga Settlement Scheme was subdivided by the deceased during her lifetime and that it no longer exists. They annex several documents:
a) JOM-1, being copies of title deeds for parcels 1547, 1548, 1549, 1550, 1551 and the corresponding maps demonstrating the subdivision of parcel 196/Kisii/Manga Settlement Scheme
b) JOM-2, a letter dated 8 September 2025 from the Land Registrar, Nyamira, confirming that parcel 196/Kisii/Manga Settlement Scheme was subdivided before the death of the deceased and closed, and further stating that the restrictions placed by the Applicant on the resultant parcels were unprocedural and illegal
c) JOM-3, a letter dated 4 September 2025 from Kuria Muchoki & Co. Advocates requesting the lifting of the restrictions
d) JOM-4, being the e-filing extract and eviction notice from Keroka MCELC/E005/2025, showing that the Respondents have commenced proceedings against the Applicant as proprietors of the resultant parcels
e) the JON annexures, including OB extracts (JON 1.1–1.2, JON 2.1–2.5, and others) showing various reports made against the Applicant, though not directly related to dealings with estate property.
5. The Respondents state that the Applicant was allocated parcel 1553, but he never pursued a title.
6. The Applicant’s written submissions dated 20th November 2025 repeat that parcel 196/Kisii/Manga Settlement Scheme is estate property and that the Respondents have intermeddled with it contrary to section 45 of the Law of Succession Act.
Issues for determination
7. From the pleadings, affidavits and submissions, the issues for determination are:
i. Whether parcel No. 196/Kisii/Manga Settlement Scheme forms part of the free property of the deceased
ii. Whether the Respondents have intermeddled with the estate within the meaning of section 45 of the Law of Succession Act
iii. Whether the Applicant has met the threshold for the grant of inhibitory or injunctive orders.
8. On the first issue, the Applicant relies on EON-1, the green card to parcel 196/Kisii/Manga Settlement Scheme, to assert that the parcel remains intact as part of the free property of the deceased. He has however not provided a certified search or any verification from the land registry confirming the continued existence of that parcel in its original form.
9. The Respondents, on their part, annex JOM-1, comprising the title deeds and corresponding survey maps, as well as JOM-2, the Land Registrar’s letter dated 08th September 2025. These documents collectively demonstrate that parcel No. 196/Kisii/Manga Settlement Scheme was subdivided during the lifetime of the deceased, and upon completion of the subdivision, the register for parcel 196/Kisii/Manga Settlement Scheme was closed. The documents identify the resultant subdivisions as follows:
i. Manga Settlement Scheme/1551, registered in the name of Brian Maoga Maoya
ii. Manga Settlement Scheme/1547, registered in the name of Ephraim Orina
iii. Manga Settlement Scheme/1550, registered in the name of Nimrod Moranga Misiani
iv. Manga Settlement Scheme/1549, registered in the name of Daniel Misiani Nyangweso, the 2nd Respondent
v. Manga Settlement Scheme/1548, registered in the name of James Ombati Nyangweso, the 1st Respondent
vi. Manga Settlement Scheme/1553, which was allocated to the Applicant, Enock Okwema Nyangweso, though he never pursued transfer and the issuance of a title deed in his name.
10. The Respondents’ documentary evidence therefore sets out, with specificity, the number of resultant parcels, the names of the respective proprietors, and the closure of parcel 196/Kisii/Manga Settlement Scheme following subdivision.
11. The Applicant has not tendered any documentary material to contradict these representations. In particular, he has not produced:
1) A certified search showing parcel 196/Kisii/Manga Settlement Scheme is still active
2) Evidence that the subdivision occurred after the death of the deceased
3) Any material impeaching the validity of the survey maps, the resultant titles or the registrar’s confirmation contained in jom-2.
12. In the absence of such evidence, I am unable to find, on a balance of probabilities, that parcel 196/Kisii/Manga Settlement Scheme continues to exist as estate property available for preservation under succession law. The Applicant’s position rests entirely on affidavit allegations unsupported by any independent registry-based documentation.
13. On the second issue, the Applicant alleges that the Respondents have been intermeddling with estate property contrary to section 45 of the Law of Succession Act. He asserts interference with the green card, fraudulent alteration of entries, and attempts to dispose of the property. These assertions, however, are made solely in affidavit form and are not supported by any independent documentary material.
14. The only annexure tendered by the Applicant is EON-1, the green card to parcel 196/Kisii/Manga Settlement Scheme, which by itself does not establish either the continued existence of the parcel after subdivision or any post-death dealings attributable to the Respondents. No transfer instruments, sale agreements, registry correspondence, certified searches, or forensic verification of alleged alterations have been provided.
15. On the other hand, the Respondents rely on JOM-1 (title deeds and maps) and JOM-2 (the Registrar’s letter of 08th September 2025) to demonstrate that the resultant parcels 1547, 1548, 1549, 1550, 1551 and 1553 were lawfully created and registered during the lifetime of the deceased. They further rely on JOM-3 showing their engagement with the Land Registrar when the Applicant placed restrictions on those parcels, and JOM-4, the Keroka MCELC/E005/2025 e-filing extract, showing they have been asserting their proprietary rights openly and through due legal process.
16. The JON annexures, although numerous, relate to interpersonal and criminal allegations but do not, even on a prima facie basis, demonstrate any unauthorised dealing with estate property.
17. The legal position is that intermeddling is proved only where there is evidence of unauthorised taking, possession, disposal or management of the free property of the deceased (see Gladys Nkirote M’Itunga v Julius Majau M’Itunga[2016] eKLR and In re Estate of M’Ngarithi M’Miriti [2017] KEHC 7904 (KLR).
18. The concept presupposes that the property in question is indeed estate property. In this case, the Respondents’ evidence particularly JOM-1 and JOM-2 demonstrates that parcel 196/Kisii/Manga Settlement Scheme was not available as estate property upon the death of the deceased, having been subdivided and closed in her lifetime.
19. The Applicant has provided no evidence to rebut that position. Absent such proof, there is no factual or legal foundation for a finding that the Respondents dealt with estate property after death. Accordingly, the Applicant has not proved intermeddling on a balance of probabilities.
20. On the third issue, the Applicant seeks both inhibitory and injunctive relief. The prerequisites are well settled. Where the property is not established as part of the estate, and where intermeddling is not proved, preservation orders cannot issue. The Court must be satisfied of an identifiable estate interest capable of protection and a demonstrable risk of unlawful dealing. The Applicant has not demonstrated either. His apprehensions, while genuine to him, remain unproven in evidentiary terms.
21. In the totality of the circumstances, the Applicant has not met the statutory or evidential threshold to warrant the preservation orders sought. The Court cannot, in the absence of demonstrated intermeddling or proven estate property, issue orders that would in effect inhibit the exercise of proprietary rights established by documentary evidence and supported by the land registry.
Disposal
22. For the foregoing reasons, the Court makes the following orders:
i. The Notice of Motion dated 17th September 2025 has no merit and it is hereby dismissed
ii. Costs of the application shall be borne by the Applicant
iii. This being a miscellaneous file, it shall be closed
'
1) An order of inhibition restraining dealings with parcel No. 196/Kisii/Manga Settlement Scheme
2) An inhibition restraining the 1st and 2nd Respondents from dealings with the same parcel pending the obtaining of letters of administration
3) A temporary injunction restraining any sale, alienation, transfer, or interference with the parcel
4) Costs.
2. The application is supported by the affidavit of Enock Okwema Nyangweso, sworn on 17th September 2025, where he states that the parcel belonged to his mother, Teresa Nyamboke. He annexes:
(a) EON-1, being the green card to parcel 196/Kisii/Manga Settlement Scheme, which he claims shows irregularities
(b) EON-2, the death certificate of the deceased.
3. The Applicant alleges that the Respondents have unlawfully interfered with the land and altered registry records.
4. The 1st and 2nd Respondents oppose the application through a Replying Affidavit sworn jointly on 15th October 2025. They assert that parcel 196/Kisii/Manga Settlement Scheme was subdivided by the deceased during her lifetime and that it no longer exists. They annex several documents:
a) JOM-1, being copies of title deeds for parcels 1547, 1548, 1549, 1550, 1551 and the corresponding maps demonstrating the subdivision of parcel 196/Kisii/Manga Settlement Scheme
b) JOM-2, a letter dated 8 September 2025 from the Land Registrar, Nyamira, confirming that parcel 196/Kisii/Manga Settlement Scheme was subdivided before the death of the deceased and closed, and further stating that the restrictions placed by the Applicant on the resultant parcels were unprocedural and illegal
c) JOM-3, a letter dated 4 September 2025 from Kuria Muchoki & Co. Advocates requesting the lifting of the restrictions
d) JOM-4, being the e-filing extract and eviction notice from Keroka MCELC/E005/2025, showing that the Respondents have commenced proceedings against the Applicant as proprietors of the resultant parcels
e) the JON annexures, including OB extracts (JON 1.1–1.2, JON 2.1–2.5, and others) showing various reports made against the Applicant, though not directly related to dealings with estate property.
5. The Respondents state that the Applicant was allocated parcel 1553, but he never pursued a title.
6. The Applicant’s written submissions dated 20th November 2025 repeat that parcel 196/Kisii/Manga Settlement Scheme is estate property and that the Respondents have intermeddled with it contrary to section 45 of the Law of Succession Act.
Issues for determination
7. From the pleadings, affidavits and submissions, the issues for determination are:
i. Whether parcel No. 196/Kisii/Manga Settlement Scheme forms part of the free property of the deceased
ii. Whether the Respondents have intermeddled with the estate within the meaning of section 45 of the Law of Succession Act
iii. Whether the Applicant has met the threshold for the grant of inhibitory or injunctive orders.
8. On the first issue, the Applicant relies on EON-1, the green card to parcel 196/Kisii/Manga Settlement Scheme, to assert that the parcel remains intact as part of the free property of the deceased. He has however not provided a certified search or any verification from the land registry confirming the continued existence of that parcel in its original form.
9. The Respondents, on their part, annex JOM-1, comprising the title deeds and corresponding survey maps, as well as JOM-2, the Land Registrar’s letter dated 08th September 2025. These documents collectively demonstrate that parcel No. 196/Kisii/Manga Settlement Scheme was subdivided during the lifetime of the deceased, and upon completion of the subdivision, the register for parcel 196/Kisii/Manga Settlement Scheme was closed. The documents identify the resultant subdivisions as follows:
i. Manga Settlement Scheme/1551, registered in the name of Brian Maoga Maoya
ii. Manga Settlement Scheme/1547, registered in the name of Ephraim Orina
iii. Manga Settlement Scheme/1550, registered in the name of Nimrod Moranga Misiani
iv. Manga Settlement Scheme/1549, registered in the name of Daniel Misiani Nyangweso, the 2nd Respondent
v. Manga Settlement Scheme/1548, registered in the name of James Ombati Nyangweso, the 1st Respondent
vi. Manga Settlement Scheme/1553, which was allocated to the Applicant, Enock Okwema Nyangweso, though he never pursued transfer and the issuance of a title deed in his name.
10. The Respondents’ documentary evidence therefore sets out, with specificity, the number of resultant parcels, the names of the respective proprietors, and the closure of parcel 196/Kisii/Manga Settlement Scheme following subdivision.
11. The Applicant has not tendered any documentary material to contradict these representations. In particular, he has not produced:
1) A certified search showing parcel 196/Kisii/Manga Settlement Scheme is still active
2) Evidence that the subdivision occurred after the death of the deceased
3) Any material impeaching the validity of the survey maps, the resultant titles or the registrar’s confirmation contained in jom-2.
12. In the absence of such evidence, I am unable to find, on a balance of probabilities, that parcel 196/Kisii/Manga Settlement Scheme continues to exist as estate property available for preservation under succession law. The Applicant’s position rests entirely on affidavit allegations unsupported by any independent registry-based documentation.
13. On the second issue, the Applicant alleges that the Respondents have been intermeddling with estate property contrary to section 45 of the Law of Succession Act. He asserts interference with the green card, fraudulent alteration of entries, and attempts to dispose of the property. These assertions, however, are made solely in affidavit form and are not supported by any independent documentary material.
14. The only annexure tendered by the Applicant is EON-1, the green card to parcel 196/Kisii/Manga Settlement Scheme, which by itself does not establish either the continued existence of the parcel after subdivision or any post-death dealings attributable to the Respondents. No transfer instruments, sale agreements, registry correspondence, certified searches, or forensic verification of alleged alterations have been provided.
15. On the other hand, the Respondents rely on JOM-1 (title deeds and maps) and JOM-2 (the Registrar’s letter of 08th September 2025) to demonstrate that the resultant parcels 1547, 1548, 1549, 1550, 1551 and 1553 were lawfully created and registered during the lifetime of the deceased. They further rely on JOM-3 showing their engagement with the Land Registrar when the Applicant placed restrictions on those parcels, and JOM-4, the Keroka MCELC/E005/2025 e-filing extract, showing they have been asserting their proprietary rights openly and through due legal process.
16. The JON annexures, although numerous, relate to interpersonal and criminal allegations but do not, even on a prima facie basis, demonstrate any unauthorised dealing with estate property.
17. The legal position is that intermeddling is proved only where there is evidence of unauthorised taking, possession, disposal or management of the free property of the deceased (see Gladys Nkirote M’Itunga v Julius Majau M’Itunga[2016] eKLR and In re Estate of M’Ngarithi M’Miriti [2017] KEHC 7904 (KLR).
18. The concept presupposes that the property in question is indeed estate property. In this case, the Respondents’ evidence particularly JOM-1 and JOM-2 demonstrates that parcel 196/Kisii/Manga Settlement Scheme was not available as estate property upon the death of the deceased, having been subdivided and closed in her lifetime.
19. The Applicant has provided no evidence to rebut that position. Absent such proof, there is no factual or legal foundation for a finding that the Respondents dealt with estate property after death. Accordingly, the Applicant has not proved intermeddling on a balance of probabilities.
20. On the third issue, the Applicant seeks both inhibitory and injunctive relief. The prerequisites are well settled. Where the property is not established as part of the estate, and where intermeddling is not proved, preservation orders cannot issue. The Court must be satisfied of an identifiable estate interest capable of protection and a demonstrable risk of unlawful dealing. The Applicant has not demonstrated either. His apprehensions, while genuine to him, remain unproven in evidentiary terms.
21. In the totality of the circumstances, the Applicant has not met the statutory or evidential threshold to warrant the preservation orders sought. The Court cannot, in the absence of demonstrated intermeddling or proven estate property, issue orders that would in effect inhibit the exercise of proprietary rights established by documentary evidence and supported by the land registry.
Disposal
22. For the foregoing reasons, the Court makes the following orders:
i. The Notice of Motion dated 17th September 2025 has no merit and it is hereby dismissed
ii. Costs of the application shall be borne by the Applicant
iii. This being a miscellaneous file, it shall be closed
'