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

Okello Makhono Ososo-------------------------------------administrator v Simon Oduory Okeya-----------------------------------applicant/objector

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUSIA SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 298 OF 2013 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE SEBASTIAN MAKHONO OSOSO---DECEASED AND OKELLO MAKHONO OSOSO-------------------------------------ADMINISTRATOR VERSUS SIMON ODUORY OKEYA-----------------------------------APPLICANT/OBJECTOR RULING 1. This decision is an answer to Objector’s summons dated 2nd October 2014 seeking the following substantive prayers:a. That: A grant of letters of administration intestate issued to OKELLO MAKHONO OSOSO on 5TH July 2014 be revoked or annulled, and/or in the alternative the Applicant be included in the list of the beneficiaries (form P& A 5) as a liability/purchaser. b. Costs of this application to be in the cause. 2. The Objector contends that on 19th February 1994, he purchased 0.2 hectares of Bunyala/Bulemia/40 from Josephine Ada Makhono who is the Widow to the Deceased. This court has been shown a Sale Agreement in that respect. The Objector asks this court to rule that the entire family of the Deceased consented to the sale and that in particular two sons of the widow, namely Charles Muyonga and Michael Juma Makhono witnessed the execution of the sale agreement. 3. The complaint by the Objector is the Petitioner has now refused to recognize him as a Beneficiary notwithstanding that his purchasers interest was included in the Chief’s letter of 24th July 2013 introducing the family of the Deceased to this Probate and Administration Court. 4. The response by the Petitioner is that the issue of the sale is one between the Objector and the widow and the house of the Petitioner was not involved. Secondly the Petitioner is in doubt as to the extent of land sold to the Objector arguing that at the time of sale no survey had been carried out on the land. 5. The stance of the Petitioner is that the Objector is not a beneficiary to the Estate of the Deceased. It may in fact be true that the Objector did not have any claim against the Deceased because the purported purchase took place on 19th February 1994, a date after the Deceased had died, the Deceased having died on 5th April 1989. A claim by a Purchaser can only be ventilated elsewhere and not in a Probate and Administration Cause. In the submission filed by the Objector’s Lawyer, it is argued on her behalf that she has occupied the land since the year 1994 and the Deceased

page 1 of 2

family is barred by Section 7 of the Limitations of Action Act Cap 22 from reclaiming that land. That clearly is an argument that can be made before an Environment and Land Court. That is the court to which the Objector must turn to. 6. The Summons for Revocation dated 2nd October 2014 is therefore without merit and is hereby dismissed with costs. 7. As explained to the Parties, this Decision could only be delivered on Notice to them as I was proceeding for my Annual Leave and thereafter for August vacation. That explains the apparent delay. Dated, Signed and Delivered at Busia this 1st day of October 2015 F. TUIYOTT JUDGE In the presence of:Oile …………………Court Clerk Juma……………………………… For the Administrator Luchivya absent…………………………… For the Objector

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.