In re Estate of Joseph Gitau Richo (Deceased) (Succession Cause 673 of 1990) [2025] KEHC 13183 (KLR) (Family) (25 September 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation:
[2025] KEHC 13183 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
Succession Cause 673 of 1990
HK Chemitei, J
September 25, 2025
IN THE MATTER THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH GITAU RICHO (DECEASED)
Between
Joseph Gichanga Kinyanjui
Applicant
and
Joseph Gichanga Richu
Respondent
Ruling
1.This ruling relates to the application dated 14th March, 2025 filed by the Applicant, Joseph Gichanga Kinyanjui, seeking for orders that:1.Spent.2.This Honourable Court be pleased to grant an order directing the District Land Surveyor Kiambu to facilitate the subdivision of Dagoretti/Kinoo/600 in accordance with the Court order made on 7th July, 2015.3.That costs of this application be in the cause.
2.The application is based on the grounds thereof and supported by affidavit and further affidavit sworn by Joseph Gichanga Kinyanjui on 14th March, 2025 and 3rd June, 2025.
3.He avers inter alia that he is one of the duly appointed administrators of the deceased’s estate. This Honourable Court previously addressed the subdivision of Dagoretti/Kinoo/600 in an order delivered on 7th July, 2015 by Hon. Lady Justice M. Muigai. The Court approved the subdivision proposed by Geomeasure Surveyors Limited on 5th January, 2015, dividing the land into four equal portions at the higher/developed level and four equal portions at the lower level. The delay in implementing this subdivision is causing undue hardship and prejudice to the estate beneficiaries.
4.He seeks the Court’s intervention to compel the Respondent to act. All administrators and beneficiaries have consented to the mode of subdivision, and this Honourable Court has the authority to grant the necessary orders.
5.That the 7th July, 2015 order explicitly addressed L.R. Nos. Dagoretti/Kinoo/T.408 and Dagoretti/Kinoo/600. Regarding L.R. No. Dagoretti/Kinoo/T.408, the property was sold, and the proceeds shared equally among beneficiaries, with no claims raised since. The sole administrator who executed and attested to the sale was Geoffrey Richu (now deceased), father of the Respondent, Joseph Gichanga Richu. Two surveyor reports on Dagoretti/Kinoo/600 were produced: the Geo Data report was initially to be adopted on condition that Geoffrey Richu and Peter Kiambuthi did not benefit from proceeds of Dagoretti/Kinoo/T.408.
6.In the absence of complaints, the Geo Measure report ultimately superseded the Geo Data report. It is acknowledged that the titles were initially irregularly obtained by Geoffrey Richu, later cancelled by Hon. Lady Justice Muigai on 10th October, 2017.
7.Further that semi-structures have since been erected on Dagoretti/Kinoo/600, and according to both surveyor reports and the 7th July, 2015 ruling, these structures are correctly positioned. As no appeals, reviews, or claims have been filed against the order, the Honourable Court is requested to maintain the status quo regarding the semi-structures and align boundaries as per the ruling.
8.This Honourable Court is respectfully requested to conduct a site visit to the suit property to prevent any misleading claims by the respondent. It is in the interest of justice that this long-standing matter, dating back to 1990, be resolved amicably.
9.The application is opposed vide replying affidavit sworn by Joseph Gichanga Richu on 31st March, 2025 where he avers that he is one of the duly appointed administrators of the deceased’s estate. The ruling by Hon. Lady Justice M. Muigai on 7th July, 2015 was conditional and not final, as it depended on certain facts regarding the distribution of L.R. No. Dagoretti/Kinoo/T. 408, which have not yet been fully determined.
10.The late Samuel Kinyanjui, Edward Ndungu and Peter Kiambuthi signed a consent filed in court agreeing to Option E for the mode of distribution, after which the late Administrator Geoffrey Richu proceeded to subdivide the land accordingly. Titles were issued to Samuel Kinyanjui, Edward Ndungu and Peter Kiambuthi, who later refused to pay for the title deeds, citing unproven allegations of fraud. Nevertheless, the beneficiaries took possession and developed their respective parcels. Given that the beneficiaries have already occupied and improved their portions since 2017, it would be just and equitable for the court to confirm the existing distribution rather than impose a new subdivision, which would cause undue hardship and negate the investments already made.
11.Further that the 2015 ruling has effectively been overtaken by events, as the subject parcel, L.R. Dagoretti/Kinoo/600, was distributed and developed by the beneficiaries. The current application selectively references parts of the earlier ruling while ignoring its conditional nature and subsequent developments. In the interest of justice, the court should recognize the long-standing possession and improvements made by the beneficiaries.
12.The parties have not filed written submissions.
Analysis And Determination
13.I have read the application before this court and the responses thereto. I have also extensively perused the lengthy and well-reasoned ruling of my sister Mungai J dated 7th July 2015.
14.There is no evidence that the said ruling has been set aside by way of an appeal or a review and the same remains valid to that extent.
15.I therefore see no reason why the Respondent is introducing other issues regarding the difficulty of enforcing the same. It is close to 10 years since the same was delivered and the parties are still struggling to enforce it seems. The application in my view is not meant to change anything save for compliance of the said decision.
16.In any event the ruling was conditional and I do not find any reason to interfere with the same otherwise I shall be sitting as an appellate court which is untenable.
17.Hadkinson v. Hadkinson [1952] 2 ALL ER 1952 p. 569 where it was held as follows:"It was the plain and unqualified obligations of every person against, or in respect of, whom an order was made by a court of competent jurisdiction to obey it unless and until it was discharged."
18.In Republic v County Chief Officer, Finance & Economic Planning, Nairobi City County (Ex Parte David Mugo Mwangi) (2018) eKLR the court pronounced itself as follows:
19.“30... It must however be remembered that Court orders are not made in vain and are meant to be complied with. If for any reason a party has difficulty in complying therewith, the honorable thing to do is to come back to court and explain the difficulties faced by the need to comply with the order. Once a Court Order is made in a suit the same is valid unless set aside on review or on appeal.”
20.Consequently, and for the reasons stated above I do find the application meritorious and allow it as prayed.
21.Costs to the Applicant.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA VIDEO LINK AT NAIROBI THIS 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025.H K CHEMITEIJUDGE