REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KAKAMEGA SUCCESSION CAUSE NO: 380 OF 2013 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ABUTALO MUSUNGU BULALO......................................................................................DECEASED AND HENRY OMUSENJERI MUSUNGU.....................PETITIONER/RESPONENT VERSUS REUBEN ANGACHI OKOYANA.............................OBJECTOR/APPLICANT RULING The application dated 8th August, 2013 is seeking an order of injunction against the petitioner in relation to 1 ¾ acres of land out of plot number BUTSOTSO/ESUMEYIA/621. The application is supported by the applicant’s affidavit parties agreed to argue the application by way of written submissions. The applicant contends that he has been all along occupying the portion of land as it was given to him by the deceased. He helped to pay school fees for the children of the deceased and he was given that portion and has developed it. The petitioner has tried to evict him from the portion of land and has brought prospective purchasers he would like the petitioner to be restrained before the succession cause is finalized. The applicant maintains that he lives on the suit land with his family and filed a citation against the petitioner which triggered the filing of this cause. I have not seen a replying affidavit or submissions by the petitioner. Since the objector contends that he has been living on the suit land with the authority of the deceased I do find that the applicant has established a prima facie case with probability of success against the petitioner. He would suffer irreparable damage if the orders are not granted. I find the application to be merited and the same is granted as prayed. Costs shall follow the outcome of the main suit. Dated, signed and Delivered at Kakamega this 3rd day of July 2014. SAID J. CHITEMBWE JUDGE
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.