Maurice Ang’anya Murono v Emily Shitandi

2. Due to the rival modes of distribution of the estate, directions were taken to the effect that the Protest and summons for confirmation of grant do proceed by way of viva voce evidence. 3. Maurice Angánya Murono (OBW1) testified that he was the first born child of the deceased and that the petitioner is the deceased’s 3rd wife. He adopted his affidavit of protest as his evidence in chief. In his affidavit of protest, he listed all the houses of the deceased and the respective children as well as two children born out of wedlock namely Charles Omondi Murono and Margaret Murono. That his proposal on distribution was as follows: S.Wanga/Bukaya/326(1.42HA) 1st House Martin Owino Maurice Anganya Gaudenzia Wesonga Florence Achieng (late ) Jackline Angatia Caroline Atieno…………………….1.8 Acres jointly 2nd House Selestine Awino Asmini Maero (late ) Christine Mwima (late) Jackline Masakhwe Gladys Akinyi Suleiman Weyimi Consolata Auma………………………..1.8 Acres jointly Uholo/Tingare/8 (4 Acres) 1st House Maurice Angánya Murono Gaudenzia Wesonga Florence Achieng (late ) Jackline Angatia Caroline Atieno Martin Owino………………………………..2 Acres jointly 6th House Aloyce Oduor Michael Mola Vincent Anangwe https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/124/eng@2026-01-19 2

page 2 of 10

Agnes Okwaro Philister Okwaro………………………………..2 Acres jointly Uholo/Tingare/1(2.6 HA) 1st House Maurice Anganya Murono Gaudenzia Wesonga Florence Achieng (late) Jackline Angatia Caroline Atieno Martin Owino 2nd House Asmini Maero Christine Mwima (late) Jackline Masakhwe Gladys Akinyi Suleiman Weyimi Consolata Auma………………………1 Acre jointly 4th House Christopher Owino Rose Akinyi Josephine Adhiambo Joyce Maloba…………………………1/2 Acre jointly 5th House George Saitoti Benard Okutoyi Julius Shikuku Sainabu Achieng Mola Milke……………………………..1 Acre jointly Charles Omondi………………………1 Acre Margaret Murono………………………I Acre Uholo/Tingare/932 (3.7 HA) 3rd House Agnes Wesa Lucas Ouma https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/124/eng@2026-01-19 3

page 3 of 10

Repha Aoko Joshua Mwima Moses Okwako Kenedy Wesonga Daniel Mukhwana Phanice Atieno Richard Ongogo Alfred Keya Florence Atieno………………………….Whole jointly Uholo/Tingare/15 (1.4HA) 4th House Christopher Owino (late) Rose Akinyi Josephine Adhiambo Joyce Maloba…………………………..Whole jointly Uholo Tingare/2 (0.72 HA) 5th House George Saitoti Benard Okutoyi Julius Shikuku Sainabu Achieng Mike Mola……………………………..Whole jointly Uholo/Tingare/4 (2.8 HA) 6th House Aloyce Oduor Michael Mola Francis Ochieng Vincent Anangwe Kelesencia Okwaro…………………..Whole jointly Uholo/Tingare/945 (0.60 HA) Charles Omondi………………………….Whole Ywaya Market plot (unregistered) 2nd House Asmini Maero https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/124/eng@2026-01-19 4

page 4 of 10

Christine Mwima (late) Jackline Masakhwe Gladys Akinyi Suleiman Weyimi Consolata Auma………………………1 Door shop jointly 5th House George Saitoti Benard Okutoyi Julius Shikuku Sainabu Achieng Mike Mola………………………………1 Door shop jointly Uholo/Tingare/1660 (0.40 HA) 1st House Martin Owino Maurice Anganya Gaudencia Wesonga Florence Achieng (late) Jackyline Angatia Caroline Atieno………………………..50 ft x 100 ft plot jointly 2nd House Asmini Maero Christine Mwima (late) Jackline Masakhwe Gladys Akinyi Suleiman Weyimi Consolata Auma………………………..50 ft x 100 ft plot jointly 3rd House Emily Shitandi Agnes Wesa Lucas Ouma Repha Aoko Joshua Mwima Moses Okwako Kenedy Wesonga https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/124/eng@2026-01-19 5

page 5 of 10

Daniel Mukhwana Phanice Atieno Richard Ongogo Alfred Keya Florence Atieno……………………………..50 ft x 100 ft plot jointly 4th House Christopher Owino (deceased) Rose Akinyi Josephine Adhiambo Joyce Maloba…………………………….50 ft x 100 ft jointly 5th House George Saitoti Benard Okutoyi Julius Shikuku Sainabau Achieng Mike Mola………………………………50 ft x 100 ft plot jointly 6th House Leonida Makokha Aloyce Oduor Michael Mola Francis Ochieng Vincent Anangwe Kelesencia Okwaro……………………….50 ft xx 100 ft plot jointly plot Charles Omondi Murono………………………50 ft x 100 ft plot Margaret Murono………………………………50 ft x 100 ft Money in bank account Number 068016147504 at Equity Bank ……………………Kshs 60, 520/ to Maurice Anganya To hold in trust for 1st House(Kshs …………………Kshs 60, 520/ to Leonida Musungu Trust for the 2nd House …………………Kshs 60, 520 to Emily Shitandi Murono in trust for the 3rd House https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/124/eng@2026-01-19 6

page 6 of 10

………..Kshs 60, 529/ to Rose Akinyi in trust for The 4th House ………Khs 60, 520/ to Hellen Mukoma Malenya In trust for the 5th House ……….Kshs 60, 520/ to Leonida Makokha in Trust for the 6th House ………….Kshs 30, 260/ to Charles Omondi ……………Kshs 30, 620/ to Margaret Murono On cross examination, he stated inter alia; that the deceased had not subdivided the land before he died; that some of the sons got married and that the deceased had shown them land where they should reside; that Lukas Aneya is the first son of the Petitioner while Martin Owino is the objector’s young brother; that his biological mother separated with the deceased and that he was brought up by the Petitioner; that in his proposal, he did not involve Joshua in parcel number S/Wanga/Bukaya/326 as he had another portion elsewhere; that in his proposal he included Martin Owino in plot No. Uholo/ Tingare/8 despite being considered in plot No. S/Wanga/Bukaya/326; that he allocated himself four parcels of land in his proposals; that Asmin Maero and Christine Mwima are deceased but that he proposed that they get a share on Yuaya market plot; that the Petitioner resides on plot number 932 and not 1660; that Yuaya plot belongs to the County Government and is not in the name of the deceased. He also confirmed that Benard Okutoyi and Julius Shikuku are now serving jail terms for intermeddling with the land and boundaries set by the deceased.That plot number Tingare/2 is near River Nzoia and that the deceased had proposed the beneficiaries that he had proposed to occupy it. That it is not true that the deceased had written a will. That his document had details of equity bank account and that his young brother was a son of the deceased. 4. Charles Omondi Murono (OB-W2) stated that the objector is his brother while the petitioner is his step mother and that the deceased was his father. He confirmed that he did not file affidavit of protest or statement on record. He was however examined in chief as he was listed as a beneficiary. On cross examination, he stated that he agreed with the objector that he be given Uholo/Tingare/945. He confirmed that the Petitioner had proposed that he be given the same parcel Uholo/Tingare/945. That his problem is the entire distribution to family members. On re-examination he still confirmed that there is a problem with the entire distribution. That marked the close of the Objector’s case. 5. Emily Shitanda Murono (PET-PW1), adopted her statement dated 18/6/2025 as her evidence in chief. She stated further that she stands by her proposal, and that the deceased had distributed the estate prior to his death. On cross examination, she stated that she took care of the objector since childhood and who is her step son. That they were to file the petition together but the objector did not show up for the meeting as directed by the court. That the Objector was allocated two acres excised from plot number 8. She stated further that each wife had been given their own parcel by the time of the death of the deceased and that the oldest sons had been given two acres each by the deceased. That they brought in her cowife to plot number 8 as directed by the deceased. She stated further that the deceased had 40 children, 22 of whom were sons and that some of the daughters were yet to be married. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/124/eng@2026-01-19 7

page 7 of 10

6. Leonida Makhokha Murono (PET-PW2) adopted her statement dated 18/6/2025 as her evidence in chief. On cross examination, she stated that she married the deceased in 1991 and she stayed in the Petitioner’s compound for 12 years before the deceased settled her in her in plot No. 4 but it was in a swampy area so the deceased proposed to relocate her to plot No. 8. That she moved to plot number 8 in 2006 and that the objector also has his own portion in the same land parcel. That the said plot no. 8 is 4 acres. That the whole family obeyed the wishes of the deceased except the objector who would always disrupt family meetings. That all the seven older sons of the deceased including the objector were given 2 acres each. That nobody discriminated the objector, on the contrary, it is the objector who misused the burial funds for the deceased. On re-examination, she reaffirmed that the deceased allocated her plot number 4 but later proposed to move her to plot number 8. That marked the close of the Petitioners case. 7. The petitioner opted to rely on the evidence tendered while the Objector filed submissions. 8. The Objector’s submissions by and large seek for revocation of the grant issued to the petitioner. 9. I have considered the proceedings and the Objector’s submissions. I find the issue for determination is whether the objection has merit. 10. Section 66 of the Law of Succession Act states that: When a deceased has died intestate, the court shall, save as otherwise expressly provided, have a final discretion as to the person or persons to whom a grant of letters of administration shall, in the best interests of all concerned, be made, but shall, without prejudice to that discretion, accept as a general guide the following order of preference— (a) surviving spouse or spouses, with or without association of other beneficiaries; (b) other beneficiaries entitled on intestacy, with priority according to their respective beneficial interests as provided by Part V; (c) the Public Trustee; and (d) creditors: Provided that, where there is partial intestacy, letters of administration in respect of the intestate estate shall be granted to any executor or executors who prove the will. 11. Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act provides as follows: A grant of representation, whether or not confirmed, may at any time be revoked or annulled if the court decides, either on application by any interested party or of its own motion— (a) that the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance; (b) that the grant was obtained fraudulently by the making of a false statement or by the concealment from the court of something material to the case; (c) that the grant was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant notwithstanding that the allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently; (d) that the person to whom the grant was made has failed, after due notice and without reasonable cause either- https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/124/eng@2026-01-19 8

page 8 of 10

(e) (i) to apply for confirmation of the grant within one year from the date thereof, or such longer period as the court order or allow; or (ii) to proceed diligently with the administration of the estate; or (iii) to produce to the court, within the time prescribed, any such inventory or account of administration as is required by the provisions of paragraphs (e) and (g) of section 83 or has produced any such inventory or account which is false in any material particular; or that the grant has become useless and inoperative through subsequent circumstances. 12. I note from the objectors submissions that the petitioner failed to seek the consent of other family members in order to petition for the grant. From the wording of section 66 above, the petitioner being a widow of the deceased was perfectly in her place petitioning the court for grant of the letters of administration over the estate of her late husband. Furthermore, no-co-wife has protested or objected to the said grant. In fact, PW2 is the petitioner's co-wife and who is actually in support of the petitioner. It was likewise PW1’s evidence that the court had directed that they sit as a family and agree whether she should petition for the grant together with the Objector. Still, the Objector decided to attend the family meeting. The objector has not rebutted that evidence. 13. It is also the Objector’s case that the Petitioner failed to include the details of the bank account in the distribution. However, the Petitioner rebutted that she did not know any bank accounts details of the deceased and asked the Objector to disclose any if they are within his knowledge. PW2 also testified that the Objector had confiscated a notebook of the deceased that contained all the details of how the deceased shared the family land and other financial details. Indeed in the evidence of the Objector, he mentioned that he got the Equity Bank account details in a notebook of the deceased. That being the position, I find that the Objector was truly notified and involved in the succession proceedings by the Petitioner but that he had become uncooperative forcing the Petitioner to proceed with the rest of the beneficiaries. It is instructive that the rest of the beneficiaries do not have a problem with her except the Objector herein. The Objector’s application for revocation was later abandoned by the Objector and who filed an affidavit of protest dated 20/1/2025 and that the same together with the Petitioner’s summons for confirmation of grant were canvassed by way of viva voce evidence as aforesaid. Hence, the summons for revocation of grant has been overtaken by events. 14. The only issue for determination is now on distribution of the estate. From the evidence on record, it is not disputed that the deceased had given each house parcel of land where they resided and cultivated. I have perused both proposals for the Petitioner and the Objector. A comparison of the same reveals that the Petitioner’s proposal seems to me to be more reasonable as all houses have been catered for. The only addition will be pertaining the money in Equity bank account as presented in the Objector’s proposed mode of distribution. Indeed, the Petitioner has denied the issue of monies in a bank account but that the Objector presented evidence of an Equity Bank account number 0680161147504 and the proposed mode of distribution of the funds therein. The Petitioner’s attempt to gloss over this asset must be rejected since all the assets of the deceased must be brought on board for distribution among the beneficiaries. Iam satisfied that this extra asset should be included in the schedule of distribution by the Petitioner. 15. In view of the foraging observations, it is my finding that the Petitioner’s summons for confirmation of grant dated 18/11/2024 has merit and is allowed. The Objector’s affidavit of protest dated 20/1/2025 succeeds only to the extent that the share in Equity Bank Account Number 0680161147504 be distributed as proposed by the Objector. I hereby confirm the grant dated 10/10/2014 in the following terms: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/124/eng@2026-01-19 9

page 9 of 10

a. The estate of the deceased except the money in Equity Bank Account Number 0680161147504 shall be distributed in accordance with the Petitioner’s proposed mode of distribution. b. The money in Equity Bank account number 0680161147504 shall be distributed as proposed by the Objector. c. Each party to bear their own costs. DATED AND DELIVERED AT SIAYA THIS 19TH DAY JANUARY 2026. D.KEMEI JUDGE In the presence of: Maurice Ang’anya Murono….……Objector. N/A Luchivya…………..for Petitioner. Maureen/Kimaiyo…..Court Assistant. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/124/eng@2026-01-19 10

page 10 of 10