1. The 2 nd petitioner in this cause filed an application to revoke a grant that had been issued to the 1 st petitioner. In a Ruling dated the 3 rd July 2024, this court revoked the said grant and appointed the 2 nd Petitioner as the administrator.
2. Imelda Wamalwa filed an application dated the 15.9.2024 brought under section 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Section 82 and 93 of the Law of Succession Act and Article 40 and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya. The applicant seeks the following orders;
i. Spent
ii. That pending the hearing and determination of the application this Hnourable Court be pleased to issue an order of stay of execution of its Ruling and Orders delivered on the 3 rd of July 2024 and specifically the orders cancelling and reverting back the Estate of the deceased herein, all titles in respect of the parcels of land LR Nos W. Bukusu/ N. Myanga/ 3010,3937,3005,3004,3009,3001,3008,3936,3005,3000,3003,3002 and 3935 as issued pursuant to the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant dated the 19 th March 2012.
iii. That pending the hearing and determination of the application this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of temporary injunction restraining the Respondent herein or any other person acting as her behest from forcefully evicting, harassing and/or interfering with the Applicant’s quiet and peaceful possession of all those parcels of land L R Nos W. Bukusu/N.Myanga/ 3010,3937,3005,3004,3009,3001,3008,3936,3005,3000,3003,3002 and 3935.
iv. That upon the hearing and determination of the Application, this Honourable Court be pleased to set aside and/or vary its orders on the 3 rd of July 2024, and specifically the orders that directed the cancellation of the titles and the reversion of all those parcels of land L R Nos. W. Bukusu/N.Myanga/ 3010,3937,3005,3004,3009,3001,3008,3936,3005,3000,3003,3002 and 3935.
v. That the costs of this Application be provided for.
3. The application is supported by the grounds on the face of the application and the supporting affidavit of the applicant dated 24.3.2025. Counsel for the applicant explained in court that the application bore an erroneous date of 15.9.2024, as the matter was filed on 24.3, and that both the Certificate of urgency and the supporting affidavit bore the date of 24.3.2025. Imelda states as follows: she is the daughter of the late Cornelius Wanyonyi Wamalwa (Cornelius) and the legal representative of his estate. In 2012, Derrick Naulikha Nabiswa petitioned this court for a grant in respect of the estate of the deceased, and it was issued to him pursuant to the demise of the previous administrator, his father, Cosmas Charles Wangalwa (also deceased). The grant was issued on 15.3.2012 and confirmed on 19.3.2012. In the intervening period, Cornelius entered into an agreement with the said administrator for the purchase of various parcels of land measuring 0.05Ha, 0.047Ha, 0.166Ha, 1.247Ha and 0.079Ha to be hived from property L R No. W. Bukusu/ N. Myanga 147. As a consequence, he was listed as the beneficiary of the said parcels of land in the certificate of confirmation of grant dated 19.3.2012. After the confirmation of the grant, Cornelius entered into other agreements for the sale and purchase of eight other parcels of land. Upon subdivision of the original parcel belonging to the deceased, the parcels of land purchased by her father included L R Nos. W. Bukusu/ N. Myanga/3010, 3937, 3005, 3004, 3009, 3001, 3008, 3936, 3005, 3000, 3003, 3002 and 3935 , all of which were transferred to Cornelius and certificates of title issued to him pursuant to the certificate of confirmation dated 19.3.2012.
4. She deposes further that she has recently learnt of the Ruling dated 3.7.2024, which revoked the grant issued to Derrick and cancelled all titles issued pursuant to the confirmed grant. She states that the court's directions gravely prejudiced the proprietary rights and interests of the Estate of the late Cornelius, and that she was not made privy to the proceedings and was condemned unheard. She avers that, at the time Derrick sold and transferred the suit parcels to her father, he had the requisite capacity and authority to do so pursuant to the certificate of grant issued on 19.3.2012, and that her father was an innocent purchaser for value without notice, as he was never privy to any fraudulent conduct or misrepresentation on the part of Derrick in obtaining the grant. She further avers that the Land Registrar may at any time now effect the orders of the court, which entail the cancellation of the titles issued to her late father and his estate. The respondent has already threatened to evict her and her family from the parcels of land. She has relied on the provisions of sections 92 and 93 of the Law of Succession Act.
5. In the 2 nd application dated 23.7.2025, brought under section 47 of the Law of Succession Act, Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules the 2 nd Protestor /Applicant Robert Tukai seeks the following orders;
i. Spent
ii. Spent
iii. That pending the hearing and determination of the protests on record, the status quo be maintained
iv. That costs be in the cause.
6. The application is supported by grounds on the face of the application and by the applicant's affidavit dated 23.7.2025. He deposes as follows: he has the express leave of Maurice Mangoli, the 2nd Protestor, to swear the affidavit. He filed an affidavit of protest dated 6.5.2025, and the 2nd Protestor filed another affidavit of protest dated 1.7.2025. The protests relate to Land Parcel No. W. BUKUSU/N.MYANGA/147. The protests are awaiting hearing and determination. The petitioners have unlawfully and forcibly entered the suit Land Parcel and are in the process of cultivating the Land. He has reported the unlawful entry into the parcel to Myanga Police Station. It is prudent that the status quo be maintained.
7. The application was opposed by Redempta (Administrator/Petitioner) and Derrick (Respondent/Beneficiary). In her replying affidavit dated 2.5.2025, in response to the application dated 24.3.2025, and in a supplementary affidavit dated 12.5.2025, Redempta deposes that the orders sought should not be granted, as the applicant is not part of the estate or a beneficiary. The applicant bought land from one Derrick, who was the administrator of Cosmas, who was a beneficiary of the estate of one Dismas. The buildings on the suit land were built by the late Dismas Wangalwa. The proceedings were revoked, the entire process nullified, and the titles cancelled. The applicant should file a claim in the Land and Environment Court. The seller can surrender his share to the applicant.
8. Derrick Naulikha Nabiswa filed a reply affidavit dated 16.5.2025. He deposes as follows: he petitioned for a grant of letters of administration in respect of the estate of his late grandfather to take over and continue the duties of administration initially undertaken by his late father. This court revoked the grant issued to him on the 3rd July 2024 and directed the cancellation of all titles issued pursuant to the confirmed grant, and such titles reverted to the estate of the deceased. The applicant is deliberately misleading the Court by falsely alleging that he sold land to the late Cornelius Wanyonyi after the confirmation of the grant. The late Cornelius is fully aware of the process and circumstances through which he acquired the land he claims ownership of, and that he never sold land to him. Thus, the claim that Cornelius was an innocent purchaser for value without notice is baseless, as Cornelius entered into an unlawful sale agreement with the initial administrator without the consent of all beneficiaries.
9. Derrick’s response to the application dated 23.7.2025 was that the protestors have absolutely no interest in parcel no. 147. As a beneficiary of the deceased’s estate, he has a legal right to cultivate the various parts of the estate’s land. The protestors have no valid titles and have no relationship with the late Dismas. The buildings were built by the late Dismas, and therefore the protestors should channel their claim to the appropriate authority. He has never sold land to the protestors. The alleged sales were solely executed by his late father, who is a beneficiary of the deceased’s estate. This was done long before the commencement of the succession cause and without the consent of all the beneficiaries.
10. Imelda filed a response in her affidavits dated 7.5.2026 and 27.5.2025. She deposes as follows. Cornelius bought the land from Derrick in his personal capacity as an administrator and was issued with the certificate of confirmation of the grant. As the administrator of the estate, Derrick, pursuant to the sale agreements between Derrick and Cornelius, applied to be registered as a proprietor by transmission and thereafter hived from parcel no. 147 to Cornelius and 6 other persons, including himself. Upon the partition, the late Cornelius was issued with the resultant certificate of title of the suit parcels pursuant to the certificate of confirmation of grant issued on the 19.3.2012. The Respondent has constantly harassed them since she was issued with the grant. She has attempted to forcibly evict them. They have been in the suit land for about 10 years.
11. Parties filed written submissions. The Applicant (Imelda) filed skeleton submissions dated 3 rd June 2026. She submitted that the issues for determination are: whether the application is merited, and whether the orders setting aside the orders issued on 3rd July 2024 directing the cancellation of the titles registered in the name of the Estate should be set aside. The Applicant relied on section 93 of the Law of Succession Act (the Act), stating that she is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice from a duly authorised representative of the deceased' s estate, and that, as such, the title she acquired is protected by section 93 of the Act. It was further submitted that under section 82 of the Act, a person duly authorised by law to manage and deal with the estate of the deceased who enters into an agreement and subsequently transfers an interest in any property of the deceased' s estate, whether movable or immovable, has that transfer protected under section 93 of the Act, and that it should not be invalidated by a subsequent revocation of such grants. Reliance was placed on the following cases to support her claim under section 93 of the Act: In the matter of the Estate of Josia Mantu alias Mantu Mugwika (deceased) 55/16; in the matter of the Estate of Teresia Nyanchero Matundura (deceased), Succession Cause no. 62/09; and William Onkoba Matundura & Sarah Moraa Moracha vs Julius Moracha Matundura & Anna Ondieki [2014] KEHC 186 KLR. It was argued that when Derrick sold and transferred the suit parcels of land to the Applicant' s father, he had the requisite capacity and authority to do so pursuant to a certificate of confirmation of grant issued by the court on 19. 3. 19.3.2012.It was also submitted that under sections 92 and 93 of the Law of Succession Act, the validity of the transfer and/or disposition in the land pursuant to a confirmed grant issued by a court of law shall not be affected by the subsequent revocation of grant that may be issued, and as such the interest of the applicant herein in the suit property ought not to have been affected by the summons for revocation of grant.
12. The 1st Protestor filed written submissions dated 8th June 2026. His application seeks to maintain the status quo. His main issue is whether the status quo should be maintained over the estate of the deceased in respect of the grant, so that the estate of the deceased is preserved to prevent intermeddling, wastage or irreversible dealings pending the full hearing. In support of the argument that the said order will protect against criminal acts or intermeddling, the 1st Protestor relied on the following cases; Re Estate of M’Ngarithi M’ Miriti [2017] eKLR and Gitau & Others vs Wandai & Others [1989] KLR 231.
13. It was further submitted that the Respondents will not suffer any prejudice from maintaining the status quo. It was submitted that allowing dealings risks irreparable harm through the dissipation of assets, especially land, which cannot be easily restored, and that the balance of convenience favours preservation. Reference was made to the case Re Estate of Kiplangat Temorigi (Deceased).
14. In her written submission, the petitioner stated that the applicants are strangers and intermeddlers in the estate of Dismas Wanhalwa and have come to court with false allegations. They gave false information in the chief’s letter, in which they called themselves sons and daughters of the deceased, a claim that is not true. At the time of confirmation, they misled the court by claiming to be legal beneficiaries of the estate, which is not true. The applicants have not told the court how they are related to the deceased.
15. Derrick Nabisia filed a written submission dated 2.6.2026. The Respondent, Derrick, singled out the following issues for determination; whether the applicant had satisfied the requirements to issue an order of stay of execution of the Ruling and orders delivered on 3rd of July 2024 (1st issue); whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to the Court to issue a temporary injunction (2nd issue); and whether the Court can set aside and/or vary its orders issued on 3rd July 2024 (3rd issue). On the 1st issue, it was submitted that the application dated 15.9.2024 was filed too late and that there was no explanation for the delay. It was filed 3 months after the delivery of the Ruling. The order of 3.6.2024 is not an executable order, and therefore the Court cannot grant a stay order. A stay order cannot operate in a vacuum. A stay order is an interim order, an equitable remedy designed to maintain the status quo and preserve the subject matter of a live dispute pending the outcome of either an appeal or a definite secondary determination. It is fundamentally preventive, not curative. Reliance was placed on the case of Re Estate of Njoroge Mburu (2018), where the Court stated that a stay of execution applies only where there is a decree and an order, and that in this case the applicant is no longer the proprietor of the parcels of land, as they reverted to the estate of the deceased. The grant was revoked, and any subsequent transaction of land forming part of the estate of the deceased becomes null and void, and the land reverts to the estate of the deceased pursuant to the Ruling of 3.7.2024. Reliance was further placed on the case of Global Tours & Travels Limited v Nairobi Muriu Market & 3 Others, where the Court of Appeal re-emphasised that a stay of execution cannot be granted to arrest a situation that has already taken place, as there is nothing to stay. A stay of execution cannot restore life to a revoked instrument. It was further submitted that the applicants have failed to demonstrate substantial loss she is likely to suffer, that the Court cannot issue orders in vain, and that the 1st Petitioner ceased having powers over the estate of the deceased. That granting the stay order would indirectly revive a revoked grant, thereby defeating the purpose and effect of section 76 of the Act.
16. On the 2nd issue, it was submitted that the sections and order cited by the applicant in the application are inapplicable to succession matters, that this constitutes a violation of Rule 63 of the rules under the Act, and that the onus is on the applicant to show that she should be granted the injunction. On the last issue, it was submitted that the court does not act in vain, that the applicant has not demonstrated any valid or sufficient reasons for the court to set aside or vary its orders of 3rd July 2024, and that the court cannot issue orders in a vacuum.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
17. I have considered the two applications, the rival affidavits, the submissions, and the law under the Act Cap 160. The issues for determination are whether the orders sought in the two applications are warranted.
18. I will begin with the application dated 23.7.2025. In this application, the applicant seeks an order to maintain the status quo. The applicants are protesters. They claim that their protest has not yet been heard and that the petitioners have unlawfully and forcibly entered parcel no. 147 and are cultivating the land.
19. The Court of Appeal in the case of Shimmers Plaza Limited v National Bank of Kenya Limited (2015) eKLR defined “ status quo ” as follows:
“status quo in normal English parlance means the present situation, the way things stand as at the time the order is made, the existing state of things. It cannot therefore relate to the past or future occurrences or events... All it means was that everything was to remain as it was as at the time the order was given. If there was any transaction that was going on in respect of the land in question, it had to freeze and await the discharging of the court order.”
20. The protestors merely seek to maintain the status quo. They have failed to inform this court of the current status of land parcel no. 147. Their affidavit is vague and does not assist this court in determining the current state of affairs in parcel no. 147 or the protestors' involvement in that parcel. The attached photos and the OB number do not demonstrate the current state of affairs; the photos show unidentified persons, and there is no indication of when they were taken. Further, the OB does not indicate any report made at the police station. They have also failed to explain their relationship to the deceased, whether they are beneficiaries or bona fide purchasers. In my view, the protestors' application lacks merit and is dismissed.
21. On the application filed by Imelda, the dispute is whether she is a bona fide purchaser of the parcels of land hived off from parcel no. 147; she relies on section 93 of the Act. She seeks a stay of execution, an injunction, and an order to stay or vary the order dated 3.7.2024.
22. Derick has submitted that the applicant came to court after three months and that the delay is unexplained. In her affidavit, she has explained that she recently learnt of the Ruling delivered on 3.7.2024. Though she has not explained the delay or when she learnt of the Ruling, I find that the delay is not unreasonable.
23. Derrick has also challenged the applicant’s prayer for an injunction. This is my view: section 47 of the Act confers on the High Court broad discretionary power to make any order necessary for the execution of its duties and the protection of the estate. Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules empowers the court to make orders necessary to achieve the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the court process. Rule 63(1) of the Probate and Administration Rules applies specific Civil Procedure rules (such as Order 40 on temporary injunctions) to probate proceedings where relevant. The Court of Appeal in Floris Piezzo & Another –vs- Giancarlo Falasconi (2014) eKLR, while considering whether an injunction can issue in a Succession Cause, stated as follows.
“We have carefully considered the grounds of appeal, rival written and oral submissions, and the law. The application before the high Court was for temporary injunction to restrain the appellants from dealing with the suit premises in a manner inimical to the estate of the deceased. The question which arose and had to be determined first was whether the Court had jurisdiction to grant an injunction in a Succession Cause. The appellants took the position that the Court had no such jurisdiction whereas the Respondent took the contrary position. However, the High Court was persuaded that Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules reserved the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to allow for the grant of injunctions in deserving cases. We are in total agreement with this conclusion. We have no doubt at all that the Law of Succession Act gives the Court wide jurisdiction in dealing with testamentary and administration issues of an estate. Indeed Section 47 of the said Act gives the Court jurisdiction to entertain any application and determine any dispute under the Act and to pronounce such decree and orders as may be expedient. It cannot be said that such decrees and orders would exclude injunction orders. In other words, we are of the same view that Section 47 of the Act gives the Court all-embracing powers to make necessary orders, including injunctions where appropriate to safeguard the deceased’s estate. This section must be read together with Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules which further emboldens Court’s jurisdiction to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of Court. We would imagine such orders would also include injunctive orders.”
24. In Re Estate of Jeremiah Ngiri Kibati (Deceased) [2019] eKLR and Re Estate of Elijah Ngari (Deceased) [2019] eKLR , the court, whilst dealing with the issue of the issuance of conservatory orders in succession matters, stated that an applicant must satisfy the following conditions: that the suit property is at risk of being disposed of, alienated, or transferred to the applicant’s detriment unless conservatory orders of inhibition are issued; that the refusal to grant orders of inhibition would render the applicant’s suit nugatory; and that the applicant has an arguable case.
25. The legal framework governing the grant of injunctive relief is well established in our jurisprudence. The principles were articulated in Giella v Cassman Brown (1973) EA 358. In an application for an interlocutory injunction, the applicant must satisfy the following requirements: establish a prima facie case; demonstrate irreparable injury if a temporary injunction is not granted; and, in case of any doubt, show that the balance of convenience favours them.
26. I have perused the court record. When Derrick applied for confirmation of the grant, he included the Applicant’s father as a beneficiary; at that time, Derrick was the administrator. The record shows that the Applicant’s father was listed as a beneficiary of the deceased’s estate and received his share of the property as set out in the certificate of confirmation of grant dated 19.3.2012. The misrepresentation, if any, was made by Derrick after he was issued with the grant. Upon applying for confirmation of the grant, a certificate of confirmation of grant dated 19.3.2012 was issued to Derrick, then the administrator, before this court revoked the grant. The green card on record, which was attached to the Petitioner’s affidavit in support of revocation of grant dated 19.2.2024, shows that before Cornelius became the owner of the parcels of land indicated, Derrick was the owner of parcel no. 147; the entries are dated 19.9.2013. Derrick claims that it was his father who sold the land to Cornelius. The issue of whether the Applicant is a bona fide purchaser needs to be interrogated. This court lacks the jurisdiction to determine this issue. The title deeds exhibited by the Applicant were registered in 2014. It is apparent that the Applicant, the petitioner, and Derrick are in parcel no. 147. The issue of bona fide purchaser and the validity of the titles in the Applicant’s possession can only be determined in the Environmental and Land Court. Any of the parties can move to the said court for determination of who owns the parcels of land the subject of this application.
27. The principles in Geilla v Cassman Brown (supra) are clear; the court held that an applicant must show that they have a prima facie case with a probability of success, that they will suffer irreparable damage, and that the balance of convenience tilts in their favour (insert an authority). In my view, the Applicant, having acquired titles from a transfer made by Derrick when he was an administrator, has demonstrated a prima facie case. She claims that the Petitioner has threatened her with eviction. There is a dispute over who built the structures on the land. Cancellation of the titles will cause her irreparable harm, and thus the balance of convenience tilts in her favour.
28. So what orders are merited in this matter? I decline to issue a stay of execution of my orders dated 3.7.2024, as the applicant has not challenged the revocation order. I find it appropriate to order the setting aside of the order cancelling the titles and reverting all parcels; prayer 4 is granted. For avoidance of doubt, I have not set aside my order revoking the grant dated 23.2.2012.
29. Since there are threats of eviction and to maintain peace between the parties in the interim, I grant prayer 3 for ninety (90) days only.
30. Final orders;
i. The orders dated 3 rd July 2024 are set aside, specifically those that directed the cancellation of the titles and the reversion of all those parcels of land, L R Nos. W. Bukusu/N.Myanga/3010, 3937, 3005, 3004, 3009, 3001, 3008, 3936, 3005, 3000, 3003, ,3002 and 3935.
ii. An order of temporary injunction shall issue restraining the Respondents herein or any other person acting at her behest from forcefully evicting, harassing and/or interfering with the Applicant’s quiet and peaceful possession of all those parcels of land L R Nos W. Bukusu/N.Myanga/ 3010,3937,3005,3004,3009,3001,3008,3936,3005,3000,3003,3002 and 3935, and be in force for ninety (90) days only and shall be discharged thereafter.
iii. Each party to bear its own costs.
iv. The matter will be listed for mention to obtain directions on the other pending applications.
Dated, signed and delivered virtually on this 31 st Day of July 2026.
R.E.OUGO
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Mr. Bulowa for the Applicant
Redempta Wangalwa /Petitioner
Ms Masengeli - For the Protestors
M/s Akwabi for Derrick Nabiswa.
Filister/ Minah - C/A
Succession cause No. 270 of 2010-RULING 2
2. Imelda Wamalwa filed an application dated the 15.9.2024 brought under section 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Section 82 and 93 of the Law of Succession Act and Article 40 and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya. The applicant seeks the following orders;
i. Spent
ii. That pending the hearing and determination of the application this Hnourable Court be pleased to issue an order of stay of execution of its Ruling and Orders delivered on the 3 rd of July 2024 and specifically the orders cancelling and reverting back the Estate of the deceased herein, all titles in respect of the parcels of land LR Nos W. Bukusu/ N. Myanga/ 3010,3937,3005,3004,3009,3001,3008,3936,3005,3000,3003,3002 and 3935 as issued pursuant to the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant dated the 19 th March 2012.
iii. That pending the hearing and determination of the application this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of temporary injunction restraining the Respondent herein or any other person acting as her behest from forcefully evicting, harassing and/or interfering with the Applicant’s quiet and peaceful possession of all those parcels of land L R Nos W. Bukusu/N.Myanga/ 3010,3937,3005,3004,3009,3001,3008,3936,3005,3000,3003,3002 and 3935.
iv. That upon the hearing and determination of the Application, this Honourable Court be pleased to set aside and/or vary its orders on the 3 rd of July 2024, and specifically the orders that directed the cancellation of the titles and the reversion of all those parcels of land L R Nos. W. Bukusu/N.Myanga/ 3010,3937,3005,3004,3009,3001,3008,3936,3005,3000,3003,3002 and 3935.
v. That the costs of this Application be provided for.
3. The application is supported by the grounds on the face of the application and the supporting affidavit of the applicant dated 24.3.2025. Counsel for the applicant explained in court that the application bore an erroneous date of 15.9.2024, as the matter was filed on 24.3, and that both the Certificate of urgency and the supporting affidavit bore the date of 24.3.2025. Imelda states as follows: she is the daughter of the late Cornelius Wanyonyi Wamalwa (Cornelius) and the legal representative of his estate. In 2012, Derrick Naulikha Nabiswa petitioned this court for a grant in respect of the estate of the deceased, and it was issued to him pursuant to the demise of the previous administrator, his father, Cosmas Charles Wangalwa (also deceased). The grant was issued on 15.3.2012 and confirmed on 19.3.2012. In the intervening period, Cornelius entered into an agreement with the said administrator for the purchase of various parcels of land measuring 0.05Ha, 0.047Ha, 0.166Ha, 1.247Ha and 0.079Ha to be hived from property L R No. W. Bukusu/ N. Myanga 147. As a consequence, he was listed as the beneficiary of the said parcels of land in the certificate of confirmation of grant dated 19.3.2012. After the confirmation of the grant, Cornelius entered into other agreements for the sale and purchase of eight other parcels of land. Upon subdivision of the original parcel belonging to the deceased, the parcels of land purchased by her father included L R Nos. W. Bukusu/ N. Myanga/3010, 3937, 3005, 3004, 3009, 3001, 3008, 3936, 3005, 3000, 3003, 3002 and 3935 , all of which were transferred to Cornelius and certificates of title issued to him pursuant to the certificate of confirmation dated 19.3.2012.
4. She deposes further that she has recently learnt of the Ruling dated 3.7.2024, which revoked the grant issued to Derrick and cancelled all titles issued pursuant to the confirmed grant. She states that the court's directions gravely prejudiced the proprietary rights and interests of the Estate of the late Cornelius, and that she was not made privy to the proceedings and was condemned unheard. She avers that, at the time Derrick sold and transferred the suit parcels to her father, he had the requisite capacity and authority to do so pursuant to the certificate of grant issued on 19.3.2012, and that her father was an innocent purchaser for value without notice, as he was never privy to any fraudulent conduct or misrepresentation on the part of Derrick in obtaining the grant. She further avers that the Land Registrar may at any time now effect the orders of the court, which entail the cancellation of the titles issued to her late father and his estate. The respondent has already threatened to evict her and her family from the parcels of land. She has relied on the provisions of sections 92 and 93 of the Law of Succession Act.
5. In the 2 nd application dated 23.7.2025, brought under section 47 of the Law of Succession Act, Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules the 2 nd Protestor /Applicant Robert Tukai seeks the following orders;
i. Spent
ii. Spent
iii. That pending the hearing and determination of the protests on record, the status quo be maintained
iv. That costs be in the cause.
6. The application is supported by grounds on the face of the application and by the applicant's affidavit dated 23.7.2025. He deposes as follows: he has the express leave of Maurice Mangoli, the 2nd Protestor, to swear the affidavit. He filed an affidavit of protest dated 6.5.2025, and the 2nd Protestor filed another affidavit of protest dated 1.7.2025. The protests relate to Land Parcel No. W. BUKUSU/N.MYANGA/147. The protests are awaiting hearing and determination. The petitioners have unlawfully and forcibly entered the suit Land Parcel and are in the process of cultivating the Land. He has reported the unlawful entry into the parcel to Myanga Police Station. It is prudent that the status quo be maintained.
7. The application was opposed by Redempta (Administrator/Petitioner) and Derrick (Respondent/Beneficiary). In her replying affidavit dated 2.5.2025, in response to the application dated 24.3.2025, and in a supplementary affidavit dated 12.5.2025, Redempta deposes that the orders sought should not be granted, as the applicant is not part of the estate or a beneficiary. The applicant bought land from one Derrick, who was the administrator of Cosmas, who was a beneficiary of the estate of one Dismas. The buildings on the suit land were built by the late Dismas Wangalwa. The proceedings were revoked, the entire process nullified, and the titles cancelled. The applicant should file a claim in the Land and Environment Court. The seller can surrender his share to the applicant.
8. Derrick Naulikha Nabiswa filed a reply affidavit dated 16.5.2025. He deposes as follows: he petitioned for a grant of letters of administration in respect of the estate of his late grandfather to take over and continue the duties of administration initially undertaken by his late father. This court revoked the grant issued to him on the 3rd July 2024 and directed the cancellation of all titles issued pursuant to the confirmed grant, and such titles reverted to the estate of the deceased. The applicant is deliberately misleading the Court by falsely alleging that he sold land to the late Cornelius Wanyonyi after the confirmation of the grant. The late Cornelius is fully aware of the process and circumstances through which he acquired the land he claims ownership of, and that he never sold land to him. Thus, the claim that Cornelius was an innocent purchaser for value without notice is baseless, as Cornelius entered into an unlawful sale agreement with the initial administrator without the consent of all beneficiaries.
9. Derrick’s response to the application dated 23.7.2025 was that the protestors have absolutely no interest in parcel no. 147. As a beneficiary of the deceased’s estate, he has a legal right to cultivate the various parts of the estate’s land. The protestors have no valid titles and have no relationship with the late Dismas. The buildings were built by the late Dismas, and therefore the protestors should channel their claim to the appropriate authority. He has never sold land to the protestors. The alleged sales were solely executed by his late father, who is a beneficiary of the deceased’s estate. This was done long before the commencement of the succession cause and without the consent of all the beneficiaries.
10. Imelda filed a response in her affidavits dated 7.5.2026 and 27.5.2025. She deposes as follows. Cornelius bought the land from Derrick in his personal capacity as an administrator and was issued with the certificate of confirmation of the grant. As the administrator of the estate, Derrick, pursuant to the sale agreements between Derrick and Cornelius, applied to be registered as a proprietor by transmission and thereafter hived from parcel no. 147 to Cornelius and 6 other persons, including himself. Upon the partition, the late Cornelius was issued with the resultant certificate of title of the suit parcels pursuant to the certificate of confirmation of grant issued on the 19.3.2012. The Respondent has constantly harassed them since she was issued with the grant. She has attempted to forcibly evict them. They have been in the suit land for about 10 years.
11. Parties filed written submissions. The Applicant (Imelda) filed skeleton submissions dated 3 rd June 2026. She submitted that the issues for determination are: whether the application is merited, and whether the orders setting aside the orders issued on 3rd July 2024 directing the cancellation of the titles registered in the name of the Estate should be set aside. The Applicant relied on section 93 of the Law of Succession Act (the Act), stating that she is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice from a duly authorised representative of the deceased' s estate, and that, as such, the title she acquired is protected by section 93 of the Act. It was further submitted that under section 82 of the Act, a person duly authorised by law to manage and deal with the estate of the deceased who enters into an agreement and subsequently transfers an interest in any property of the deceased' s estate, whether movable or immovable, has that transfer protected under section 93 of the Act, and that it should not be invalidated by a subsequent revocation of such grants. Reliance was placed on the following cases to support her claim under section 93 of the Act: In the matter of the Estate of Josia Mantu alias Mantu Mugwika (deceased) 55/16; in the matter of the Estate of Teresia Nyanchero Matundura (deceased), Succession Cause no. 62/09; and William Onkoba Matundura & Sarah Moraa Moracha vs Julius Moracha Matundura & Anna Ondieki [2014] KEHC 186 KLR. It was argued that when Derrick sold and transferred the suit parcels of land to the Applicant' s father, he had the requisite capacity and authority to do so pursuant to a certificate of confirmation of grant issued by the court on 19. 3. 19.3.2012.It was also submitted that under sections 92 and 93 of the Law of Succession Act, the validity of the transfer and/or disposition in the land pursuant to a confirmed grant issued by a court of law shall not be affected by the subsequent revocation of grant that may be issued, and as such the interest of the applicant herein in the suit property ought not to have been affected by the summons for revocation of grant.
12. The 1st Protestor filed written submissions dated 8th June 2026. His application seeks to maintain the status quo. His main issue is whether the status quo should be maintained over the estate of the deceased in respect of the grant, so that the estate of the deceased is preserved to prevent intermeddling, wastage or irreversible dealings pending the full hearing. In support of the argument that the said order will protect against criminal acts or intermeddling, the 1st Protestor relied on the following cases; Re Estate of M’Ngarithi M’ Miriti [2017] eKLR and Gitau & Others vs Wandai & Others [1989] KLR 231.
13. It was further submitted that the Respondents will not suffer any prejudice from maintaining the status quo. It was submitted that allowing dealings risks irreparable harm through the dissipation of assets, especially land, which cannot be easily restored, and that the balance of convenience favours preservation. Reference was made to the case Re Estate of Kiplangat Temorigi (Deceased).
14. In her written submission, the petitioner stated that the applicants are strangers and intermeddlers in the estate of Dismas Wanhalwa and have come to court with false allegations. They gave false information in the chief’s letter, in which they called themselves sons and daughters of the deceased, a claim that is not true. At the time of confirmation, they misled the court by claiming to be legal beneficiaries of the estate, which is not true. The applicants have not told the court how they are related to the deceased.
15. Derrick Nabisia filed a written submission dated 2.6.2026. The Respondent, Derrick, singled out the following issues for determination; whether the applicant had satisfied the requirements to issue an order of stay of execution of the Ruling and orders delivered on 3rd of July 2024 (1st issue); whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to the Court to issue a temporary injunction (2nd issue); and whether the Court can set aside and/or vary its orders issued on 3rd July 2024 (3rd issue). On the 1st issue, it was submitted that the application dated 15.9.2024 was filed too late and that there was no explanation for the delay. It was filed 3 months after the delivery of the Ruling. The order of 3.6.2024 is not an executable order, and therefore the Court cannot grant a stay order. A stay order cannot operate in a vacuum. A stay order is an interim order, an equitable remedy designed to maintain the status quo and preserve the subject matter of a live dispute pending the outcome of either an appeal or a definite secondary determination. It is fundamentally preventive, not curative. Reliance was placed on the case of Re Estate of Njoroge Mburu (2018), where the Court stated that a stay of execution applies only where there is a decree and an order, and that in this case the applicant is no longer the proprietor of the parcels of land, as they reverted to the estate of the deceased. The grant was revoked, and any subsequent transaction of land forming part of the estate of the deceased becomes null and void, and the land reverts to the estate of the deceased pursuant to the Ruling of 3.7.2024. Reliance was further placed on the case of Global Tours & Travels Limited v Nairobi Muriu Market & 3 Others, where the Court of Appeal re-emphasised that a stay of execution cannot be granted to arrest a situation that has already taken place, as there is nothing to stay. A stay of execution cannot restore life to a revoked instrument. It was further submitted that the applicants have failed to demonstrate substantial loss she is likely to suffer, that the Court cannot issue orders in vain, and that the 1st Petitioner ceased having powers over the estate of the deceased. That granting the stay order would indirectly revive a revoked grant, thereby defeating the purpose and effect of section 76 of the Act.
16. On the 2nd issue, it was submitted that the sections and order cited by the applicant in the application are inapplicable to succession matters, that this constitutes a violation of Rule 63 of the rules under the Act, and that the onus is on the applicant to show that she should be granted the injunction. On the last issue, it was submitted that the court does not act in vain, that the applicant has not demonstrated any valid or sufficient reasons for the court to set aside or vary its orders of 3rd July 2024, and that the court cannot issue orders in a vacuum.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
17. I have considered the two applications, the rival affidavits, the submissions, and the law under the Act Cap 160. The issues for determination are whether the orders sought in the two applications are warranted.
18. I will begin with the application dated 23.7.2025. In this application, the applicant seeks an order to maintain the status quo. The applicants are protesters. They claim that their protest has not yet been heard and that the petitioners have unlawfully and forcibly entered parcel no. 147 and are cultivating the land.
19. The Court of Appeal in the case of Shimmers Plaza Limited v National Bank of Kenya Limited (2015) eKLR defined “ status quo ” as follows:
“status quo in normal English parlance means the present situation, the way things stand as at the time the order is made, the existing state of things. It cannot therefore relate to the past or future occurrences or events... All it means was that everything was to remain as it was as at the time the order was given. If there was any transaction that was going on in respect of the land in question, it had to freeze and await the discharging of the court order.”
20. The protestors merely seek to maintain the status quo. They have failed to inform this court of the current status of land parcel no. 147. Their affidavit is vague and does not assist this court in determining the current state of affairs in parcel no. 147 or the protestors' involvement in that parcel. The attached photos and the OB number do not demonstrate the current state of affairs; the photos show unidentified persons, and there is no indication of when they were taken. Further, the OB does not indicate any report made at the police station. They have also failed to explain their relationship to the deceased, whether they are beneficiaries or bona fide purchasers. In my view, the protestors' application lacks merit and is dismissed.
21. On the application filed by Imelda, the dispute is whether she is a bona fide purchaser of the parcels of land hived off from parcel no. 147; she relies on section 93 of the Act. She seeks a stay of execution, an injunction, and an order to stay or vary the order dated 3.7.2024.
22. Derick has submitted that the applicant came to court after three months and that the delay is unexplained. In her affidavit, she has explained that she recently learnt of the Ruling delivered on 3.7.2024. Though she has not explained the delay or when she learnt of the Ruling, I find that the delay is not unreasonable.
23. Derrick has also challenged the applicant’s prayer for an injunction. This is my view: section 47 of the Act confers on the High Court broad discretionary power to make any order necessary for the execution of its duties and the protection of the estate. Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules empowers the court to make orders necessary to achieve the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the court process. Rule 63(1) of the Probate and Administration Rules applies specific Civil Procedure rules (such as Order 40 on temporary injunctions) to probate proceedings where relevant. The Court of Appeal in Floris Piezzo & Another –vs- Giancarlo Falasconi (2014) eKLR, while considering whether an injunction can issue in a Succession Cause, stated as follows.
“We have carefully considered the grounds of appeal, rival written and oral submissions, and the law. The application before the high Court was for temporary injunction to restrain the appellants from dealing with the suit premises in a manner inimical to the estate of the deceased. The question which arose and had to be determined first was whether the Court had jurisdiction to grant an injunction in a Succession Cause. The appellants took the position that the Court had no such jurisdiction whereas the Respondent took the contrary position. However, the High Court was persuaded that Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules reserved the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to allow for the grant of injunctions in deserving cases. We are in total agreement with this conclusion. We have no doubt at all that the Law of Succession Act gives the Court wide jurisdiction in dealing with testamentary and administration issues of an estate. Indeed Section 47 of the said Act gives the Court jurisdiction to entertain any application and determine any dispute under the Act and to pronounce such decree and orders as may be expedient. It cannot be said that such decrees and orders would exclude injunction orders. In other words, we are of the same view that Section 47 of the Act gives the Court all-embracing powers to make necessary orders, including injunctions where appropriate to safeguard the deceased’s estate. This section must be read together with Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules which further emboldens Court’s jurisdiction to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of Court. We would imagine such orders would also include injunctive orders.”
24. In Re Estate of Jeremiah Ngiri Kibati (Deceased) [2019] eKLR and Re Estate of Elijah Ngari (Deceased) [2019] eKLR , the court, whilst dealing with the issue of the issuance of conservatory orders in succession matters, stated that an applicant must satisfy the following conditions: that the suit property is at risk of being disposed of, alienated, or transferred to the applicant’s detriment unless conservatory orders of inhibition are issued; that the refusal to grant orders of inhibition would render the applicant’s suit nugatory; and that the applicant has an arguable case.
25. The legal framework governing the grant of injunctive relief is well established in our jurisprudence. The principles were articulated in Giella v Cassman Brown (1973) EA 358. In an application for an interlocutory injunction, the applicant must satisfy the following requirements: establish a prima facie case; demonstrate irreparable injury if a temporary injunction is not granted; and, in case of any doubt, show that the balance of convenience favours them.
26. I have perused the court record. When Derrick applied for confirmation of the grant, he included the Applicant’s father as a beneficiary; at that time, Derrick was the administrator. The record shows that the Applicant’s father was listed as a beneficiary of the deceased’s estate and received his share of the property as set out in the certificate of confirmation of grant dated 19.3.2012. The misrepresentation, if any, was made by Derrick after he was issued with the grant. Upon applying for confirmation of the grant, a certificate of confirmation of grant dated 19.3.2012 was issued to Derrick, then the administrator, before this court revoked the grant. The green card on record, which was attached to the Petitioner’s affidavit in support of revocation of grant dated 19.2.2024, shows that before Cornelius became the owner of the parcels of land indicated, Derrick was the owner of parcel no. 147; the entries are dated 19.9.2013. Derrick claims that it was his father who sold the land to Cornelius. The issue of whether the Applicant is a bona fide purchaser needs to be interrogated. This court lacks the jurisdiction to determine this issue. The title deeds exhibited by the Applicant were registered in 2014. It is apparent that the Applicant, the petitioner, and Derrick are in parcel no. 147. The issue of bona fide purchaser and the validity of the titles in the Applicant’s possession can only be determined in the Environmental and Land Court. Any of the parties can move to the said court for determination of who owns the parcels of land the subject of this application.
27. The principles in Geilla v Cassman Brown (supra) are clear; the court held that an applicant must show that they have a prima facie case with a probability of success, that they will suffer irreparable damage, and that the balance of convenience tilts in their favour (insert an authority). In my view, the Applicant, having acquired titles from a transfer made by Derrick when he was an administrator, has demonstrated a prima facie case. She claims that the Petitioner has threatened her with eviction. There is a dispute over who built the structures on the land. Cancellation of the titles will cause her irreparable harm, and thus the balance of convenience tilts in her favour.
28. So what orders are merited in this matter? I decline to issue a stay of execution of my orders dated 3.7.2024, as the applicant has not challenged the revocation order. I find it appropriate to order the setting aside of the order cancelling the titles and reverting all parcels; prayer 4 is granted. For avoidance of doubt, I have not set aside my order revoking the grant dated 23.2.2012.
29. Since there are threats of eviction and to maintain peace between the parties in the interim, I grant prayer 3 for ninety (90) days only.
30. Final orders;
i. The orders dated 3 rd July 2024 are set aside, specifically those that directed the cancellation of the titles and the reversion of all those parcels of land, L R Nos. W. Bukusu/N.Myanga/3010, 3937, 3005, 3004, 3009, 3001, 3008, 3936, 3005, 3000, 3003, ,3002 and 3935.
ii. An order of temporary injunction shall issue restraining the Respondents herein or any other person acting at her behest from forcefully evicting, harassing and/or interfering with the Applicant’s quiet and peaceful possession of all those parcels of land L R Nos W. Bukusu/N.Myanga/ 3010,3937,3005,3004,3009,3001,3008,3936,3005,3000,3003,3002 and 3935, and be in force for ninety (90) days only and shall be discharged thereafter.
iii. Each party to bear its own costs.
iv. The matter will be listed for mention to obtain directions on the other pending applications.
Dated, signed and delivered virtually on this 31 st Day of July 2026.
R.E.OUGO
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Mr. Bulowa for the Applicant
Redempta Wangalwa /Petitioner
Ms Masengeli - For the Protestors
M/s Akwabi for Derrick Nabiswa.
Filister/ Minah - C/A
Succession cause No. 270 of 2010-RULING 2