Onyango (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Peter Onyango Ochieng) v Ouma (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Jacod Wanzala Ogolla) & another

3. During the pendency of the appeal, Peter Onyango Ochieng passed away on 29th January 2025. To prevent the appeal from abating, the 1st Respondent moved the court to substitute the deceased with Chrispinus Ouma (the 2nd Respondent) as the legal representative. It is undisputed that the 1st and 2nd Respondents are brothers. 4. The Applicant, a son of the deceased, argues that there is an apparent conict of interest. He contends that because the 1st and 2nd Respondents are brothers, the 2nd Respondent is unlikely to protect the interests of the deceased’s estate, which was awarded the land in the ELC court. 5. The Applicant points out that the 2nd Respondent’s substitution was not opposed by the 2nd Respondent himself, suggesting a likelihood of bias or compromise in the main appeal. 6. To safeguard his late father's estate, the Applicant obtained a Limited Grant of Letters of Administration (Ad Litem) from the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Busia on March 6, 2026, specically for the purpose of defending the appeal. 7. The 1st Respondent opposed the application on the grounds of delay by the Applicant in seeking the limited grant. However, the Applicant maintains that the 1st Respondent lacks the moral authority to blame him for the delay, having himself led replying adavits past mandatory deadlines. 8. The 2nd Respondent did not le a response to this application despite being served. 9. The main issues for determination is whether there is a conict of interest that necessitates the Applicant's joinder and whether the interests of justice would be served by granting the orders. 10. Under Article 159 of the Constitution and Section 3A of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, the court is guided by the overriding objective to facilitate the just and proportionate resolution of appeals. A limited grant issued under Section 54 of the Law of Succession Act remains valid until its purpose, in this case, defending the appeal, is fullled or it is otherwise challenged under the proper procedure. 11. The close relationship between the Appellant (1st Respondent) and the substituted Respondent (2nd Respondent) creates a reasonable apprehension that the interests of the deceased's estate may not be vigorously defended. As a son of the deceased with a valid limited grant, the Applicant has a clear interest and locus standi to participate in the proceedings. 12. Having considered the submissions and the adavits on record, I nd the application meritorious to ensure the deceased's estate is adequately represented. I hereby order as follows: a. The Applicant, John Oduor Achieng Onyango, is hereby joined as a Respondent (or Second Respondent) in Kisumu Civil Appeal No. E094 of 2023. b. The title of the appeal shall be amended accordingly to reect this joinder. c. Costs of this application shall abide by the outcome of the main appeal. DATED AND DELIVERED AT KAKAMEGA THIS 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2026. R. NGETICH ………………………………… JUDGE OF APPEAL I certify that this is a true copy of the original Signed https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/2090/eng@2026-07-17 2

page 2 of 3

DEPUTY REGISTRAR https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/2090/eng@2026-07-17 3

page 3 of 3