The Applicant’s Case
3.The applicant states that the family of the deceased including the respondent held a meeting before a mediator and agreed on the management of the properties and later after the deceased’s death, agreed that the rental income will be deposited in an account managed by Mascot Properties Ltd.
4.The rental houses on the suit properties occupied by tenants are accruing a rental income of over Kshs 400,000/- per month. The applicant states that the respondent is collecting rent and not accounting for it and is misappropriating the same. Furthermore, the respondent through her advocates T W Murage & Co Advocates sent a letter to Mascot Properties Ltd stopping them from collecting the rent.
5.The applicant further contends that the deceased was survived by twelve (12) beneficiaries some of whom are below eighteen years of age. The applicant further states that the children of the deceased who depended on their father for basic needs are currently languishing in poverty. As such, the applicant seeks an injunction restraining the respondent from intermeddling with the deceased’s estate.
The Respondent’s Case
6.The respondent’s response is that the deceased died on June 18, 2021 and that he was living with her on premises known as Nairobi/block 251/425. She further states that the deceased is the registered proprietor of land parcels no.s Nairobi/block 251/425 and Nairobi/block 251/315.
7.The respondent states that some family members convened a meeting on July 7, 2021 and she was informed that the issue therein was the hospital bill and burial expenses. The respondent contends that she only knew that mediators were present in the meeting after the meeting ended.
8.The respondent further contends that the issue of management of the two properties was to be taken up by the two proposed administrators being herself, Muchiri Karige and Wairimu Karige Kihoro. The respondent further states that the applicant has never participated in the management of the two properties and the amount stated of Kshs 400,000/- as rent is grossly exaggerated.
9.The respondent states outlined the rent and expenses of the rental houses on Nairobi/block 251/425 is as follows:-46 rooms each at Kshs 3,500/- Kshs 161,000/-9 shops at diverse rental payment expenses Kshs 54,000/-Total Kshs 215,000/-Less cleaner expenses Kshs 4,000/-Caretaker 8,500/- water Kshs 16,000/-Electricity for common area and water pump Kshs 4,000/-Total Kshs 186,000/-Title Nairobi/block 251/315 comprises:-1B rooms at Kshs 3,100 Kshs 55,000/-1 Godown at Kshs 9,000 Kshs 9,000/-Less caretaker salary Kshs 7,000/-Cleaner Kshs 4,000/-Average water bill Kshs 7,000/-Common area and water pump Kshs 2,500/-Total Kshs 44,300/-
10.The respondent contends that the total amount collected when the two properties are full, which is rare is Kshs 230,000/- which amount does not include repairs on the building and rates. The respondent further contends that she was collecting rent at the onset and upon the erection of the building and was paid through Mpesa by the tenants to later deposit the amount to the deceased’s husband account at Family Bank Limited.
11.The respondent further states that she was summoned at the Deputy County Commissioner office in Nyeri where the family members together with the Area Chief Gatitu location requested that she produces copies of title deeds for the properties owned by the deceased to which she states that she obliged.
12.The respondent states that the deceased is survived by 12 children as well as dependants but only her daughters Jane Wambui Karige and Shanice Mugure who are minors and require school fees and maintenance. Further, the respondent contends that her husband, the deceased was not supporting the applicant having separated 25 years ago and the so called dependants are grown up earning their living or are married.
13.The respondent states that there was no such meeting that resolved or agreed to give the management of the properties to Mascot Properties Ltd and she further states that the managing partner Mr Kiaraho is a cousin to the deceased.
14.The respondent further contends that she solely relied on the rental income of the two properties which she built with the deceased and she applied for installation of electricity and water supply and she has been paying land rates and other statutory payments.
15.The respondent states that upon the burial of the deceased, the applicant locked her matrimonial home with the deceased comprised in Aguthi/Gatitu/1914 situated in land measuring 4.5 acres and thereafter the applicant did not allow the applicant access her home. Further, she states that she had planted hay and macadamia getting an income of Kshs 50,000/-. Moreover, the respondent contends that she and the deceased had constructed rental houses on parcel number Aguthi/Gatitu/5548 which were complete but the applicant has taken complete control over the premises. Further, parcel number Marmanet Melwa Block 1/3173 which comprises of an agricultural farm is occupied by Muchiri Karige who has rented the premises out to people.
16.The respondent states that her advocate on record wrote to Mascot Properties Ltd after illegally and unprocedurally attempting to take over control and management of the properties intimidating the tenants therein. As such, the respondent argues that the applicant has not proved that she has intermeddled with the estate of the deceased and she states that she has carried her duties as when her husband was alive.
17.The respondent did not file submissions in this application despite being given time to do so.
The Applicant’s Submissions
18.The applicant reiterates what she deposed in her affidavit and submits that the succession cause began as a citation when the respondent refused to cooperate in filing the succession. The applicant further submits that the respondent has not shown in her replying affidavit how she contributed in the development of the deceased’s properties. The applicant further submits that the estate of the deceased is being wasted in the hands of the respondent and that the respondent has been dealing with the properties of the deceased without a grant.
20.The applicant submits that if the orders sought are not given the respondent shall continue intermeddling with the deceased’s estate while the other 11 beneficiaries languish in poverty.