1. The Late Jackson Kamau Gaichinga died intestate. Grant of Letters of Administration Intestate was issued to Minnie Njeri Kamau, his widow; Kenneth Chege Kamau, his son; and John Njuguna Gaichinga, his brother. The grant was confirmed on 14 th June, 2019.
2. The matter has been reactivated by an application dated 25 th November, 2024, filed by Minnie (applicant), and Kenneth is named as the respondent. The application seeks the following orders;
I. This application be certified as urgent and be heard ex parte in the first
instance;
II. The Respondent Kenneth Chege Kamau, be restrained by himself, his
servants, agents and otherwise howsoever from blocking, obstructing,
uprooting and destroying fences, destroying electric power supply,
obstructing water connections and exposing the applicant’s residence house and property to security risks in Title Number Tigoni/Karambaini/39 (Homestead), where the applicant resides and has resided even during the lifetime of her husband, the late Jackson Kamau Gaichinga (Deceased);
III. The Respondent, Kenneth Chege by himself, his agents, servants,
representatives and otherwise howsoever, be restrained from entering into the Applicant’s residential premises, harassing her and demanding that she vacates the house, uprooting the perimeter hedge/fence, crushing and destroying water and electricity connections in the house;
IV. The Respondent Kenneth Chege Kamau, by himself, his agents, servants, drivers and other workers and otherwise howsoever be restrained from obstructing road access into the Applicant’s house, by pouring stacks and heaps of quarry rocks, under the pretext of road construction, or for any other purposes;
V. These orders be served upon the officer commanding Tigoni Police Station who shall ensure they are complied with.
3. The issue at hand concerns the property Tigoni/Karambaini/39, which is referred to in the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant as “homestead”. In the Certificate, the property devolves to all six beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate, jointly in equal shares.
4. The applicant claims that the respondent has engaged in reckless acts of destruction, rendering the home unsafe and exposed. She also argues that what are claimed to be home improvements are actually attempts to harass her, and that there has been no consultation regarding these actions. The applicant has requested the court to issue a restraining order to prevent the respondent from entering the premises, obstructing her access and occupation of the property, and interfering with the fence, electric supply, and water supply.
5. The respondent argues that the information in the application is false, as they have coexisted peacefully with the applicant, who is their stepmother, residing in the home without obstruction. He states that the actions mentioned were merely home improvements intended to upgrade the homestead for a family reunion held in December 2024. He acknowledged that a perimeter wall was built, a new gate installed, driveway roadworks carried out, a gravesite created, and that he installed floodlights and hired a security company.
6. The issue for determination is whether the applicant has made out a good case for the grant of the reliefs sought.
7. As earlier stated, the property in issue devolves to all six beneficiaries jointly in equal shares. Each beneficiary with a claim to the property has rights over it and cannot exclude others without a court order or mutual agreement.
8. It is argued that the applicant has been living in the premises, but she moved to another property she developed. Although the respondent claims the move was part of the mediation agreement, the certificate of confirmation grants the applicant an equal share of the property, similar to the other beneficiaries.
9. Courts have a duty to preserve the estate’s assets so they are not wasted or dissipated during the litigation process.
10. After analyzing the reported actions, I conclude they were home improvements. Since the property is devolving to all six beneficiaries, the home improvements should have been undertaken in consultation with all beneficiaries. The applicant states she was not consulted, whereas the respondent claims the applicant was uncooperative.
11. Given the unique circumstances of this case, the prayers for injunctive relief concerning the homestead property (intended to be jointly owned by all six beneficiaries) would greatly disrupt the established agreement that assigns collective ownership among them. The conclusion having been drawn that the activities in question pertain to home improvements, and there being no evidence demonstrating any actual damage to the estate, the applicant has not passed the test for the grant of an injunction.
12. The administrators should coordinate effectively to manage the property moving forward. The most effective approach is for all parties to agree on any improvements and the terms of access and occupation, ensuring they do not infringe on each other’s rights.
13. The law requires the Personal Representative to complete administration of the Estate within six months of confirmation of the grant of Letters of Administration or such longer time as the Court may allow. They also have an obligation to produce to the Court a full and accurate inventory of the assets and liabilities of the Deceased, as well as a full and accurate account of all the dealings therewith and the completed administration.
14. The upshot is that the application dated 25 th November, 2024 is without merit and is dismissed, each party to bear their own costs.
15. The interest of justice in this case demands that the administration of the estate be brought to a swift and conclusive resolution. The administrators are given six months to finish the estate administration and submit their accounts. Matter shall be mentioned after six months to confirm the status.
Orders accordingly.
Delivered on 02 nd March 2026 via Microsoft Teams Platform.
C. Kendagor
Judge
In the presence of;
Cc Beryl
Mr. Kamaara, Advocate for the Applicant
Ms. Wachira, Advocate for the Respondent
2. The matter has been reactivated by an application dated 25 th November, 2024, filed by Minnie (applicant), and Kenneth is named as the respondent. The application seeks the following orders;
I. This application be certified as urgent and be heard ex parte in the first
instance;
II. The Respondent Kenneth Chege Kamau, be restrained by himself, his
servants, agents and otherwise howsoever from blocking, obstructing,
uprooting and destroying fences, destroying electric power supply,
obstructing water connections and exposing the applicant’s residence house and property to security risks in Title Number Tigoni/Karambaini/39 (Homestead), where the applicant resides and has resided even during the lifetime of her husband, the late Jackson Kamau Gaichinga (Deceased);
III. The Respondent, Kenneth Chege by himself, his agents, servants,
representatives and otherwise howsoever, be restrained from entering into the Applicant’s residential premises, harassing her and demanding that she vacates the house, uprooting the perimeter hedge/fence, crushing and destroying water and electricity connections in the house;
IV. The Respondent Kenneth Chege Kamau, by himself, his agents, servants, drivers and other workers and otherwise howsoever be restrained from obstructing road access into the Applicant’s house, by pouring stacks and heaps of quarry rocks, under the pretext of road construction, or for any other purposes;
V. These orders be served upon the officer commanding Tigoni Police Station who shall ensure they are complied with.
3. The issue at hand concerns the property Tigoni/Karambaini/39, which is referred to in the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant as “homestead”. In the Certificate, the property devolves to all six beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate, jointly in equal shares.
4. The applicant claims that the respondent has engaged in reckless acts of destruction, rendering the home unsafe and exposed. She also argues that what are claimed to be home improvements are actually attempts to harass her, and that there has been no consultation regarding these actions. The applicant has requested the court to issue a restraining order to prevent the respondent from entering the premises, obstructing her access and occupation of the property, and interfering with the fence, electric supply, and water supply.
5. The respondent argues that the information in the application is false, as they have coexisted peacefully with the applicant, who is their stepmother, residing in the home without obstruction. He states that the actions mentioned were merely home improvements intended to upgrade the homestead for a family reunion held in December 2024. He acknowledged that a perimeter wall was built, a new gate installed, driveway roadworks carried out, a gravesite created, and that he installed floodlights and hired a security company.
6. The issue for determination is whether the applicant has made out a good case for the grant of the reliefs sought.
7. As earlier stated, the property in issue devolves to all six beneficiaries jointly in equal shares. Each beneficiary with a claim to the property has rights over it and cannot exclude others without a court order or mutual agreement.
8. It is argued that the applicant has been living in the premises, but she moved to another property she developed. Although the respondent claims the move was part of the mediation agreement, the certificate of confirmation grants the applicant an equal share of the property, similar to the other beneficiaries.
9. Courts have a duty to preserve the estate’s assets so they are not wasted or dissipated during the litigation process.
10. After analyzing the reported actions, I conclude they were home improvements. Since the property is devolving to all six beneficiaries, the home improvements should have been undertaken in consultation with all beneficiaries. The applicant states she was not consulted, whereas the respondent claims the applicant was uncooperative.
11. Given the unique circumstances of this case, the prayers for injunctive relief concerning the homestead property (intended to be jointly owned by all six beneficiaries) would greatly disrupt the established agreement that assigns collective ownership among them. The conclusion having been drawn that the activities in question pertain to home improvements, and there being no evidence demonstrating any actual damage to the estate, the applicant has not passed the test for the grant of an injunction.
12. The administrators should coordinate effectively to manage the property moving forward. The most effective approach is for all parties to agree on any improvements and the terms of access and occupation, ensuring they do not infringe on each other’s rights.
13. The law requires the Personal Representative to complete administration of the Estate within six months of confirmation of the grant of Letters of Administration or such longer time as the Court may allow. They also have an obligation to produce to the Court a full and accurate inventory of the assets and liabilities of the Deceased, as well as a full and accurate account of all the dealings therewith and the completed administration.
14. The upshot is that the application dated 25 th November, 2024 is without merit and is dismissed, each party to bear their own costs.
15. The interest of justice in this case demands that the administration of the estate be brought to a swift and conclusive resolution. The administrators are given six months to finish the estate administration and submit their accounts. Matter shall be mentioned after six months to confirm the status.
Orders accordingly.
Delivered on 02 nd March 2026 via Microsoft Teams Platform.
C. Kendagor
Judge
In the presence of;
Cc Beryl
Mr. Kamaara, Advocate for the Applicant
Ms. Wachira, Advocate for the Respondent