'
1. The grant in this matter was made to Musumbi Mwanzia (administrator) on 19th July, 2024. The administrator filed an application for confirmation of the grant dated 3rd October, 2025.
2. Kithio Mwanzia, a beneficiary of the estate, filed a Protest to the confirmation of the grant.
3. The two parties have been unable to reach an amicable resolution despite several attempts at mediation.
4. Upon reviewing the affidavits submitted by both parties in this case, it is clear that there is a dispute regarding the distribution of the deceased’s estate. The two brothers accuse each other of malice and a lack of goodwill in the estate distribution process. The administrator claims that the protestor is intent on delaying the resolution of the matter, while the protestor accuses the administrator of forging his signature on the consent document and failing to provide an account of the estate.
5. I have reviewed the affidavits and noted that the contested properties are referred to by both parties as the prime property of the estate. Both parties are requesting an equitable distribution of these properties.
6. The affidavits and accompanying submissions fall short in providing the necessary detail and context to facilitate a resolution on the fair distribution of the estate. The conflicting claims and the differing values of the properties further complicate matters, as each party lays claim to the prime properties. It is challenging to reach this fair distribution without hearing the parties.
7. This matter shall be set down for hearing. At the hearing, the parties are expected to present their proposals on distribution and provide evidence in support of their claims.
It is so ordered.
'
1. The grant in this matter was made to Musumbi Mwanzia (administrator) on 19th July, 2024. The administrator filed an application for confirmation of the grant dated 3rd October, 2025.
2. Kithio Mwanzia, a beneficiary of the estate, filed a Protest to the confirmation of the grant.
3. The two parties have been unable to reach an amicable resolution despite several attempts at mediation.
4. Upon reviewing the affidavits submitted by both parties in this case, it is clear that there is a dispute regarding the distribution of the deceased’s estate. The two brothers accuse each other of malice and a lack of goodwill in the estate distribution process. The administrator claims that the protestor is intent on delaying the resolution of the matter, while the protestor accuses the administrator of forging his signature on the consent document and failing to provide an account of the estate.
5. I have reviewed the affidavits and noted that the contested properties are referred to by both parties as the prime property of the estate. Both parties are requesting an equitable distribution of these properties.
6. The affidavits and accompanying submissions fall short in providing the necessary detail and context to facilitate a resolution on the fair distribution of the estate. The conflicting claims and the differing values of the properties further complicate matters, as each party lays claim to the prime properties. It is challenging to reach this fair distribution without hearing the parties.
7. This matter shall be set down for hearing. At the hearing, the parties are expected to present their proposals on distribution and provide evidence in support of their claims.
It is so ordered.
'