Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Munika---------------------------------------------------------------------------------deceased v Gabriel Simali Wesonga & 7 others

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUSIA SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 397 OF 2013 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF OLOKO MUNIKA---------------------------------------------------------------------------------DECEASED AND GEORGE ODUOR OLOKO-------------------APPLICANT/OBECTOR VERSUS GABRIEL SIMALI WESONGA THOMAS ODUODI SIMALI MATHEW ODUORI SIMALI MICHAEL SIMALI -----------------------------------RESPONDENTS MARGARET AWINO OSINGO ROSE MAENDE SIMALI MARY SIMALI BONVENTURE CHESA RULING 1. Before this Court is Summons for Revocation or Annulment of Grant dated 14 th August 2014 in which the Applicant seeks the following prayers:a. That the grant of letters of administration in respect of the estate of OLOKO MUNIKA issued to HELENA OTSIENO SIMALI vide Busia SPM Succession Cause No. 81 of 1987 be revoked and annulled. b. That the grant of letters of administration in respect of the estate of OLOKO MUNIKA be issued to the objector/Applicant. c. That pursuant to prayer (a) above the register of land parcel number MARACHI/KINGANDOLE/1275 be rectified by striking off the name of HELENA OTSIENO SIMALI at entries No. 2, 3, & 4 dated 24.5.1989 and the distribution of parcel No. MARACHI/KINGANDOLE/1275 aforementioned amongst all persons beneficially entitled thereto be determined through the cause hearing being succession cause No. 81 of 1987

page 1 of 2

currently registered as P & A No. 397 of 2013. d. That costs of the proceedings be provided for. 2. The Application is not opposed by the Respondents notwithstanding that they are all represented by Ipapu P. Jackson & Co. Advocates. But because the nature of the orders sought are drastic, I postpone the writing of this decision so as to confirm from Mr. Ipapu that he indeed represented all the Respondents. On 25th November 2015, Mr. Ipapu told Court. “I confirm that I represent all 8 Respondents and the Court can proceed to render its decision”. 3. As the Application is not opposed, I would have no reason not to allow it. I allow it as prayed. But state that the orders shall not be used by the Applicant or any other person to change or affect the status quo on the ground. The orders shall not be used to threaten or evict or in any other way to interfere with the possession of any person who may be occupying or using Marachi/Kingandole/1275 at the time of delivery of this Ruling. Dated, signed and delivered at Busia this 16th day of December 2015. F. TUIYOTT JUDGE In the presence of :…………………………..C/Assistant ……………………………for the Objector ……………………………for the Respondents

page 2 of 2

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.