In the Matter of the Estate of Teresia Njoki Aluoch alias Telesia Njoki Aluoch (Deceased)

2) Plot No. 89 to Rhoda Atieno Aluoch, Grace Akinyi Aluoch, Thomas Mboya Aluoch, Ema Aoko Aluoch, Jacqueline Achieng Aluoch, Joseph Odhiambo Aluoch (deceased) equally; 3) Shares in KENGEN to Rhoda Atieno Aluoch, Grace Akinyi Aluoch, Thomas Mboya Aluoch, Ema Aoko Aluoch, Jacqueline Achieng Aluoch, Joseph Odhiambo Aluoch (deceased) equally; 4) Shares in ABSA bank to Rhoda Atieno Aluoch, Grace Akinyi Aluoch, Thomas Mboya Aluoch, Ema Aoko Aluoch, Jacqueline Achieng Aluoch, Joseph Odhiambo Aluoch (deceased) equally; 5) Cash in Equity Bank account no. 02*********64 to Rhoda Atieno Aluoch, Grace Akinyi Aluoch, Thomas Mboya Aluoch, Ema Aoko Aluoch, Jacqueline Achieng Aluoch, Joseph Odhiambo Aluoch (deceased) equally. 6) Proceeds in Consolidated Bank, Murang’a Branch account no. 6********4 to Rhoda Atieno Aluoch, Grace Akinyi Aluoch, Thomas Mboya Aluoch, Ema Aoko Aluoch, MCSUCC 328 OF 2019 IN THE ESTATE OF TERESIA NJOKI ALUOCH - RULING Page 2

page 2 of 30

Jacqueline Achieng Aluoch, Joseph Odhiambo Aluoch (deceased) equally. 2. Later on, the deceased’s grandchildren, Fauzia Njoki Opiyo and Fatuma Wanjiku Opiyo realized that they had been left out of the succession cause and moved the court for inclusion as beneficiaries. In its decision dated 19 th June 2025, this court (differently constituted) found that Fauzia Njoki Opiyo and Fatuma Wanjiku Opiyo were entitled to the deceased’s estate and directed the administrator, Grace Akinyi, to render an account of the deceased’s estate. On 5th February 2026, the court considered the accounts rendered by the administrator and found as follows; “In distributing the estate I have considered the Affidavits and the annextures that have been adduced in evidence. I already held in my ruling that Fuazia Njoki and her sister are entitled to a share of their father’s estate. it is clear from the accounts rendered by the administrator that the rest of the beneficiaries did infact have gift intervivos and had a share of the estate and that the only portion pending was MCSUCC 328 OF 2019 IN THE ESTATE OF TERESIA NJOKI ALUOCH - RULING Page 3

page 3 of 30

L.R 4980. Fauzia has urged the Court to distribute the said portion to her. I however do note that the grant was duly confirmed and though it has now been revoked, upon its confirmation based on the documentation adduced in Court the same was exchanged and the beneficiaries shared proceeds worth Kshs. 1,800,000 which I shall consider in my ruling. I also note that the beneficiaries have been sharing the proceeds of the rental income to the exclusion of the Applicant herein and I shall equally consider the same in distributing the estate. In distributing an estate the Court should ensure there is equitable distribution and is called upon to ensure that no injustice is caused to the parties. As Jackline has built her land on the said property, I find that it would be inconsiderate of the Court to order her eviction as it is clear based on the documentations that the beneficiaries already sold the land to a third party and exchanged her property. With the same. Essentially the portion that was due to Fauzia and her sister has already MCSUCC 328 OF 2019 IN THE ESTATE OF TERESIA NJOKI ALUOCH - RULING Page 4

page 4 of 30

been sold and being that Jackline has built on the land which evidence I find has sufficiently been adduced, this Court cannot evict her as the said Fauzia will not suffer any prejudice as none has been stated if she is not granted the particular piece of land Having considered all these I will thus factor the Applicant’s share in the distribution of Plot No 89, I note that there are 46 rooms. In rendering the accounts the administrator did not present to Court how many rooms are in the first floor and how much was being collected. I however considered that the rooms in the ground floor generate more income and having noted that the Applicant herein was entitled to the suit property that was disposed off at Kshs. 1,800,000 and that the other beneficiaries have equally been collecting to rent to their exclusion, I hereby distribute all the rooms in the ground floor to the Applicant herein and her sister as their share based on the Kshs1,800,000 that they MCSUCC 328 OF 2019 IN THE ESTATE OF TERESIA NJOKI ALUOCH - RULING Page 5

page 5 of 30

are entitled to together with the rental incomes that they have not been getting to cover for the same. Thereafter all the remaining rooms are further distributed equally to all the beneficiaries and they are at liberty to consider the maintenance and incompleteness of the houses in effecting the distribution. For avoidance of doubt all the rooms in the ground floor are to be distributed to the Applicant and her sister in equal portions and all the other beneficiaries together with the Applicant are to share the rooms from the first floor to third floor per room and each party to get equal share of rooms while also maintaining equitable distribution based on the room size. Parties shall appear before a mediator within 30 days so that each party can get a specific room number to avoid collection of rent by other members and thereafter the Administrator shall file accounts to evidence each room number allocated to each family member for distribution. Parties are liberty to dispose of the property if they MCSUCC 328 OF 2019 IN THE ESTATE OF TERESIA NJOKI ALUOCH - RULING Page 6

page 6 of 30

so wish as the Court could not order disposal as it had to distribute property to the Applicant bearing in mind the circumstances distributed of equally the case. The other properties amongst all beneficiaries. I are have considered the facts in this case and I order each party to bear its own costs of the case. Parties to attend Court on 11th August 2026 to confirm the distribution of the estate.” 3. In a nutshell, the court held that the deceased’s children had benefited from the sale of an asset and had been collecting rental income from the estate to the exclusion of the deceased’s grandchildren Fauzia Njoki Opiyo and Fatuma Wanjiku Opiyo. It took that into account when it found that they were entitled to all rooms on the ground floor of Plot No 89. It then directed all beneficiaries to share the rooms on the first to third floor equally and attend mediation within 30 days to identify the specific room number each beneficiary was entitled to. It also directed the beneficiaries to share the rest of the estate equally. MCSUCC 328 OF 2019 IN THE ESTATE OF TERESIA NJOKI ALUOCH - RULING Page 7

page 7 of 30

B. THE APPLICATION DATED 2ND MARCH 2026 4. There are two applications presently before this court. The first is dated 2nd March 2026. The applicant, Thomas Mboya Aluoch, seeks the following orders; 1) Spent 2) Spent 3) Spent 4) Spent 5) This honorable court be pleased to review the ruling of this court delivered on 5th February 2026 upon a comprehensive audit of the estate being filed in court and a subsequent filing of a summons for confirmation of grant; 6) Costs of this application be provided for. 5. In support of the application, Thomas Mboya Aluoch averred that the administrator did not render comprehensive accounts of the estate prior to the foregoing determination of the court. He claimed that no comprehensive true accounts had been given by MCSUCC 328 OF 2019 IN THE ESTATE OF TERESIA NJOKI ALUOCH - RULING Page 8

page 8 of 30

the administrator and that the accounts were only brought to his attention after the ruling. Thomas averred that the determination of the court had not taken into consideration the true state of the estate. Further that no directions were given for eviction of existing tenants or timelines for their transition. 6. He added that on 16th February 2026, several beneficiaries had attended a mediation session but the settlement agreement dated 16th February 2026 did not reflect the agreement between the parties. He claimed that after the mediation session, the 1 st protestor had written to him and other tenants to give vacant possession of certain rooms or to pay rent to her. Jacqueline Achieng’ Aluoch had also issued notices of payment of rent by the tenants. He claimed that those notices were causing anxiety to the tenants and exposed the estate to legal claims. 7. In response, Fauzia Njoki asserted in her affidavit sworn on 13 th April 2026 that the application dated 2 nd March 2026 did not satisfy the requirements for review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. She averred that the administrator had rendered MCSUCC 328 OF 2019 IN THE ESTATE OF TERESIA NJOKI ALUOCH - RULING Page 9

page 9 of 30

accounts and the applicant herein did not file a response countering the averments made in the affidavit sworn by the administrator. She also pointed out that the court had distributed the entire estate and not just Plot No 89. 8. Regarding the mediation agreement, Fauzia Njoki informed the court that the same was with respect to the other floors on the property and not just the ground floor of the subject plot. She asserted that the rooms on the ground floor of the subject plot were bequeathed to her. She had issued notices to the applicant as he was the one in occupation of the rooms on the ground floor. She concluded by stating that if the applicant was dissatisfied with the ruling of the court, his remedy lay in filing an appeal and not review. 9. In rejoinder, the applicant stated that land parcel Mwerua/Kagio/4980 was bequeathed to Jacqueline Achieng’ and sold off and the proceeds distributed among some beneficiaries pursuant to the revoked confirmation of grant issued on 29 th April 2021. He annexed a copy of a green cards to show that Jacqueline MCSUCC 328 OF 2019 IN THE ESTATE OF TERESIA NJOKI ALUOCH - RULING Page 10

page 10 of 30

Achieng’ had later subdivided land parcel Mwerua/Kagio/4980 into two parcels of land one of which was still registered in her name. C. THE APPLICATION DATED 21ST MAY 2026 10. The 1st protestor, Fauzia Njoki Opiyo also filed an application dated 21st May 2026 seeking the following orders against the 2 nd protestor, Thomas Mboya Aluoch; 1) Spent; 2) THAT this Honorable court be pleased to find that the 2 nd protestor/respondent is in breach of the orders dated 3 rd March 2026; 3) THAT the contemnor, the respondent herein, be ordered to appear in court personally to show cause why he should not be committed to civil jail for failure to obey the court orders aforesaid; 4) THAT this Honorable court be pleased to cite the above contemnor/respondent for being in contempt of court and punish him accordingly; MCSUCC 328 OF 2019 IN THE ESTATE OF TERESIA NJOKI ALUOCH - RULING Page 11

page 11 of 30

5) THAT the honorable court to order the 1st protestor/applicant herein is the beneficial owner of all the rooms on the ground floor of Plot No 89 and thus be allowed to collect rent for the said rooms as per the ruling of this court dated 5 th February 2026 pending hearing and determination of this application and the one dated 2nd March 2026; 6) THAT the honorable court do order the eviction of the tenant brought by the respondent in contravention of orders dated 3rd March 2026 and previous tenant Daniel Okello Omogi t/a Dessa Training College be reinstated and granted vacant possession; 7) THAT the honorable court do order the respondent to pay rent for the room he occupies by operating a cyber café therein on the ground floor or in the alternative vacate and relocate to his own rooms on the other floors as allocated by this court in the ruling dated 5th February 2026 8) THAT the costs of the application be borne by the Respondent in any event. MCSUCC 328 OF 2019 IN THE ESTATE OF TERESIA NJOKI ALUOCH - RULING Page 12

page 12 of 30

11. In support of the application, Fauzia Njoki deposed in her supporting affidavit that Thomas Mboya had been hindering her from benefitting from the portion of the estate granted to her by the court on 5th February 2026. She claimed that Thomas Mboya was in occupation of one of the front big rooms on the ground floor that was allocated to her and her sister and had refused to move his rooms to the 1st to 3rd floors as directed by the court. She claimed that Thomas Mboya had written threatening letters to tenants not to pay their rent to her account and had thus frustrated her from collecting rent from tenants on the ground floor. She claimed that he had evicted Daniel Okello Omogi who had been operating a school trading as Dessa Training college. He had allegedly broken into one of the tenant’s rooms, removed students’ chairs on 28th April 2026 and had since brought in another tenant. Consequently, tenants were confused as to who was supposed to collect rent. 12. In response, Thomas Mboya denied frustrating Fauzia Njoki from any portion of the estate as he was of the position that Fauzia MCSUCC 328 OF 2019 IN THE ESTATE OF TERESIA NJOKI ALUOCH - RULING Page 13

page 13 of 30

Njoki and her sibling were also entitled to benefit from the deceased’s estate. However, Fauzia had disrupted the usual course of collection of rent and management of the estate especially Plot No 89. He stated that the subject plot generated proceeds which took care of several liabilities including insurance, KRA and other utilities that accrued against the estate which were not considered by the court in its distribution of the estate hence creating confusion. He claimed that the liabilities were paid directly to service providers by certain tenants as agreed with the family. He claimed that based on the confusion, tenants had threatened to withhold the payments altogether. 13. Thomas Mboya denied the claim that he had evicted tenants from the plot as alleged by the 1st protestor. He stated that the tenant whom the 1st protestor claimed had been evicted continued to pay rent to the family’s joint account which he did not have exclusive control of. He informed the court that the tenant had only voluntarily surrendered one of the 4 rooms having lost use of it. MCSUCC 328 OF 2019 IN THE ESTATE OF TERESIA NJOKI ALUOCH - RULING Page 14

page 14 of 30

D.ISSUES, ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION 14. The applications dated 2nd March 2026 and the application dated 21st May 2026 raise two broad issues, respectively. The first is whether the orders of the court issued on 5 th February 2026 ought to be reviewed and the administrator directed to give a comprehensive audit of the estate. The second is whether Thomas Mboya should be cited for contempt for disobeying the orders of the court issued on 5th February 2026 and the manner in which those orders of the court should be enforced. I. WHETHER THE ORDERS OF THE COURT ISSUED ON 5TH FEBRUARY 2026 SHOULD BE REVIEWED; 15. The probate court’s powers to review its decisions are provided for under Section 63 (1) of the Probate and Administration Rules as read with Section 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules thus; 63. Application of Civil Procedure Rules and High Court (Practice and Procedure) Rules MCSUCC 328 OF 2019 IN THE ESTATE OF TERESIA NJOKI ALUOCH - RULING Page 15

page 15 of 30

(1) Save as is in the Act or in these Rules otherwise provided, and subject to any order of the court or a registrar in any particular case for reasons to be recorded, the following provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules, namely Order 5, rule 2 to 34 and Orders 11, 16, 19, 26, 40, 45 and 50 (Cap. 21, Sub. Leg.), together with the High Court (Practice and Procedure) Rules (Cap. 8, Sub. Leg.), shall apply so far as relevant to proceedings under these Rules. 45 (1). Application for review of decree or order [Order 45, rule 1.] 1) Any person considering himself aggrieved— (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is hereby allowed, and who from the 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 MCSUCC 328 OF 2019 IN THE ESTATE OF TERESIA NJOKI ALUOCH - RULING Page 16

page 16 of 30

or the order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree or order, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order without unreasonable delay. 16. The Court of Appeal in the case of National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Njau (Civil Appeal 211 of 1996) [1997] KECA 71 (KLR) (27 May 1997) (Judgment) discussed the scope of the court’s powers to review its orders thus; “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 selfevident 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 MCSUCC 328 OF 2019 IN THE ESTATE OF TERESIA NJOKI ALUOCH - RULING Page 17

page 17 of 30

an erroneous conclusion of law. Misconstruing a statute or other provision of law cannot be a ground for review. In the instant case the matters in dispute had been fully canvassed before the learned Judge. He made a conscious decision on the matters in controversy and exercised his discretion in favour of the respondent. If he had reached a wrong conclusion of law, it could be a good ground for appeal but not for review. Otherwise we agree that the learned Judge would be sitting in appeal on his own judgment which is not permissible in law. An issue which has been hotly contested as in this case cannot be reviewed by the same court which had adjudicated upon it.” 17. Thomas Mboya has urged this court to review its orders issued on 5th February 2026 on the grounds that the administrator did not render comprehensive accounts of the estate to determine how the beneficiaries had benefited since she was made an administrator. He averred that the ruling dated 5 th February 2026 was based on falsehoods and misrepresentations which led to the MCSUCC 328 OF 2019 IN THE ESTATE OF TERESIA NJOKI ALUOCH - RULING Page 18

page 18 of 30

consideration of the interests of Fauzia Njoki against the interests of the rest of the beneficiaries. Thomas Mboya claimed that the administrator’s accounts were only brought to his attention after the ruling had been delivered. He therefore urged the court to review its ruling of 5th February 2026 and compel the administrator to render a comprehensive audit of the estate and have summons for confirmation of grant filed. 18. A perusal of the court records is necessary to ascertain the veracity of the assertions made by Thomas Mboya. The record shows that when the ruling dated 19 th June 2025 was delivered and the administrator directed to render a true account of the estate. Thomas Mboya had legal representation. Thomas Mboya’s advocate was present on 6 th August 2025 and on 10th September 2025 when further directions were given on the rendering of accounts. The matter was subsequently mentioned on 12 th November 2025, on 26th November 2025 and on 17th December 2025 for the administrator to render full accounts of the estate and for the parties to file their responses before the subject ruling MCSUCC 328 OF 2019 IN THE ESTATE OF TERESIA NJOKI ALUOCH - RULING Page 19

page 19 of 30

was delivered on 5th February 2026. These mentions for the parties to render full accounts went on for a period of 6 months. Considering the fact that Thomas Mboya was duly represented and also considering the period of time given for the administrator to render full accounts of the estate and the beneficiaries to respond, this court is unpersuaded by the claim by Thomas Mboya that he was oblivious of the averments made by the administrator in her accounts of the estate. 19. In addition, Thomas Mboya based his application for review on the introduction of new facts by production of the green card for land parcel Mwerua/Kagio/4980. He claimed that the court proceeded on the factual premise that certain beneficiaries benefited from the sale of land parcel 4980 to the exclusion of the deceased’s grandchildren. However, the green card he had produced showed that a portion excised from land parcel 4980 was still registered in the name of Jacqueline Achieng’ Aluoch. It was submitted that where a property had been sold and proceeds distributed, there ought to be evidence of transfer, change of MCSUCC 328 OF 2019 IN THE ESTATE OF TERESIA NJOKI ALUOCH - RULING Page 20

page 20 of 30

proprietorship or other documentary proof of the transaction. However, the green card he had produced showed that there was no transfer arising from the alleged sale. 20. The decision of the court which has been reproduced in extenso above shows that the court considered the sale of land parcel 4980 in its re-distribution of the estate. However, what Thomas Mboya conveniently fails to mention is that the court also took into account the fact that the children of the deceased had been receiving proceeds from the estate to the exclusion of Fauzia Njoki and her sister. To put it bluntly, the children of the deceased had been benefiting from the proceeds of the estate for close to a decade before the court held that Fauzia Njoki and her sister were entitled to the estate. The court also considered the fact that the beneficiaries received gifts intervivos in its re-distribution of the estate. The claim that the court only took into account the sale of land parcel 4980 in its decision delivered on 5 th February 2026 is therefore a misrepresentation of the court’s decision. MCSUCC 328 OF 2019 IN THE ESTATE OF TERESIA NJOKI ALUOCH - RULING Page 21

page 21 of 30

21. Additionally, this court makes the following observations regarding the averments made by Thomas Mboya regarding the sale of land parcel 4980. First, the court notes that when she rendered her accounts, the administrator stated that all the children of the deceased, including Thomas Mboya, had received a share of the proceeds from the sale of land parcel 4980. Secondly, the court notes that the administrator annexed a copy of the sale agreement, which was duly executed by Thomas Mboya, to her affidavit sworn on 8th September 2025. Contrary to the assertions made by Mboya, it is apparent that the facts presented before the court prior to its decision delivered on 5 th February 2026 showed that the deceased’s children benefited from the proceeds of the sale of land parcel 4980 to the exclusion of Fauzia Njoki and her sister. 22. Moreover, while Thomas Mboya claims to introduce new facts by way of a green card for land parcel no. 4980, this court notes that in her supplementary affidavit sworn on 25 th November 2025 the administrator disclosed the subdivision of the parcel of land into MCSUCC 328 OF 2019 IN THE ESTATE OF TERESIA NJOKI ALUOCH - RULING Page 22

page 22 of 30

two portions by producing a letter of consent for land parcel 4980. She also produced a copy of an agreement to show that only a portion of the land had been sold. Land parcel 4980 had been bequeathed to Jacqueline Achieng’ with the consent of all the surviving children of the deceased as per the consent to the confirmation of the grant. The applicant’s production of the green card does not therefore raise new and important facts that would justify the review of the orders of the court. The court once again points out that if Thomas was opposed to the accounts rendered by the administrator, he ought to have filed his response as he was duly represented and had ample time to do so. He failed to do so and cannot unravel the process at this stage by way of review. 23. Learned counsel for Thomas Mboya also submitted that once the court revoked the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant, it was legally expected that the administrator should have filed fresh Summons for Confirmation of Grant. The confirmation proceedings would enable the court to ascertain the status of the MCSUCC 328 OF 2019 IN THE ESTATE OF TERESIA NJOKI ALUOCH - RULING Page 23

page 23 of 30

estate and give the beneficiaries an opportunity to canvass fresh Summons for Confirmation. Counsel further submitted that Fauzia Njoki and her sister ought to have inherited as a unit and not two distinct beneficiaries as held by the court in its ruling. What counsel raises in his submissions are what the applicant perceives to be an incorrect exposition of the law by the court. The Court of Appeal in the immediate foregoing authority held that misconstruing provisions of the law cannot be a ground for review. A wrong conclusion of the law is a good ground for appeal and not for review. 24. Based on the foregoing analysis, this court finds the grounds upon which the court can review its orders have not been established by the applicant. The court therefore finds no merit in the application for review of the orders issued on 5 th February 2026. MCSUCC 328 OF 2019 IN THE ESTATE OF TERESIA NJOKI ALUOCH - RULING Page 24

page 24 of 30

II. WHETHER THOMAS MBOYA SHOULD BE CITED FOR CONTEMPT AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ORDERS OF THE COURT ISSUED ON 5TH FEBRUARY 2026 SHOULD BE ENFORCED 25. Fauzia Njoki has moved this court through an application dated 21st May 2026 seeking to inter alia, cite Thomas Mboya for contempt of court’s orders. However, in the submissions filed in support of the application, she abandoned prayers 2 to 4 and instead urged the court to enforce the orders issued on 5 th February 2026. She claimed that Thomas Mboya was still in occupation of one of the rooms allocated to her on the ground floor and had refused to move to his rooms on the 1 st to 3rd floors as directed by the court. She claimed that Thomas Mboya had asked tenants not to pay rent to her account and had even evicted one of the tenants from the ground floor. 26. Thomas Mboya refuted the claim that he had evicted tenants as claimed by Fauzia Njoki. He however claimed that the 1 st protestor had disrupted the usual course of collection of rent and MCSUCC 328 OF 2019 IN THE ESTATE OF TERESIA NJOKI ALUOCH - RULING Page 25

page 25 of 30

the management Plot No 89. He claimed that the proceeds from the plot were used to manage the property and pay insurance, KRA among other utilities. 27. It is noteworthy that the orders of the court issued on 5 th February 2026 have not been set aside, reviewed or appealed against. They remain in force and binding to all parties. Although Thomas Mboya denies the claim that he has evicted some tenants from the subject plot, the court notes that he has not denied Fauzia’s claim that he is in occupation of a room on the ground floor where he operates a cybercafé. There is no legally justifiable reason for why Thomas Mboya is in occupation of rooms allocated to Fauzia Njoki and her sister by a court order. This court concurs with the 1st protestor’s submissions that the expenses required to manage the subject plot can be deducted from proceeds collected from the estate. In any case, the responsibility of managing the subject plot vests in the administrator of the estate, and NOT Thomas Mboya. MCSUCC 328 OF 2019 IN THE ESTATE OF TERESIA NJOKI ALUOCH - RULING Page 26

page 26 of 30

28. Regarding the claim that the orders of the court are ambiguous and have occasioned confusion, this court observes that the orders of the court were quite clear and unambiguous. After considering all the facts, the court held that; “all the rooms in the ground floor are to be distributed to the Applicant and her sister in equal portions and all the other beneficiaries together with the Applicant are to share the rooms from the first floor to third floor per room and each party to get equal share of rooms while also maintaining equitable distribution based on the room size.” 29. To the mind of this court, there is no ambiguity whatsoever in the foregoing orders of the court. The court’s orders were quite clear. 30. This court, sitting as a probate court, has no jurisdiction to reinstate the tenancy of previous tenants or issue eviction orders. Those are matters governed by the Land Act. However, Fauzia Njoki Opiyo and Fatuma Wanjiku Opiyo are entitled to deal with the rooms on the ground floor of Plot No 89 as a proprietor would. Consequently, this court finds merit in the application MCSUCC 328 OF 2019 IN THE ESTATE OF TERESIA NJOKI ALUOCH - RULING Page 27

page 27 of 30

dated 21st May 2026 to the extent that Fauzia Njoki Opiyo and Fatuma Wanjiku Opiyo are hereby allowed to collect rent from the said rooms in equal portions forthwith. 31. The only issue outstanding in this succession cause is the distribution of the rooms from the first floor to the third floor on Plot No 89. There is, on record, a mediation agreement dated 16th February 2026 whereby the parties agreed to sell the 1 st to 3rd floors of Plot No 89 and distribute the proceeds in accordance with the orders of the court issued on 5 th February 2026. Thomas Mboya denies that the parties reached a mediation agreement. Consequently, this court will hear the administrator’s pending application dated 12th August 2026, where she seeks to have Plot No 89 sold and distributed to the beneficiaries. E. CONCLUSION 32. The upshot of the foregoing is that; 1) The application dated 2nd March 2026 is found to be lacking in merit and is hereby dismissed; MCSUCC 328 OF 2019 IN THE ESTATE OF TERESIA NJOKI ALUOCH - RULING Page 28

page 28 of 30

2) The application dated 21st May 2026 is merited to extent that Fauzia Njoki Opiyo and Fatuma Wanjiku Opiyo are hereby declared the beneficial owners of all the rooms on the ground floor of Plot No. 89 and are allowed to collect rent from the said rooms in equal proportions forthwith; 33. Being a family matter, the parties shall bear their own costs of the application. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MURANG’A THIS 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2026. HON. GRACE WAITHĨRA SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE RULING READ VIRTUALLY AND IN OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF; C/A MR. MUYA GRACE AKINYI ALUOCH: PRESENT MR. MBUGUA FOR THE 1ST PROTESTOR FAUZIA NJOKI OPIYO MR. MWANGI FOR THE 2ND PROTESTOR THOMAS MBOYA ALUOCH MCSUCC 328 OF 2019 IN THE ESTATE OF TERESIA NJOKI ALUOCH - RULING Page 29

page 29 of 30

RHODA ATIENO ALUOCH: PRESENT EMA AOKO ALUOCH: PRESENT JACQUELINE ACHIENG ALUOCH: PRESENT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH ODHIAMBO ALUOCH (DECEASED): N/A MCSUCC 328 OF 2019 IN THE ESTATE OF TERESIA NJOKI ALUOCH - RULING Page 30

page 30 of 30