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

High Court 1693 of 2026

In re Estate of Elizabeth Anyango Bita Luyera (Deceased) (Succession Cause 307 of 2009) [2026] KEHC 1693 (KLR) (16 February 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 1693 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT BUSIA SUCCESSION CAUSE 307 OF 2009 WM MUSYOKA, J FEBRUARY 16, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ELIZABETH ANYANGO BITA LUYERA (DECEASED) RULING 1. On 4th July 2025, I delivered a ruling, where I declared that Samia/Budongo/20 was registered equally between Risper Auma Mbita and Elizabeth Anyango Bita Luyera. Risper Auma Mbita is alive, while Elizabeth Anyango Bita Luyera is deceased. The estate herein is of Elizabeth Anyango Bita Luyera. Only the ½ share, in Samia/Budongo/20, due to Elizabeth Anyango Bita Luyera is available for distribution in these proceedings. 2. I declared that Risper Auma Mbita and her children were not entitled to participate in these succession proceedings, as the ½ due to Elizabeth Anyango Bita Luyera should devolve upon her children or descendants, which did not include the children of Risper Auma Mbita. I revoked the grant made to Risper Auma Mbita, and appointed the grandchildren of Elizabeth Anyango Bita Luyera to administer their grandmother’s estate. 3. What I am invited to determine is a summons for confirmation of the grant, dated 15th July 2025, which appointed the said grandchildren of Elizabeth Anyango Bita Luyera. They propose to distribute the whole of Samia/Budongo/20, instead of the ½ share of Elizabeth Anyango Bita Luyera. However, they allocate 5.15 hectares to Risper Auma Mbita, and share the other 4.03 hectares amongst themselves. The sharing is not exactly at 50:50, but, if that is how the position is on the ground, I shall leave it as such. The beneficiaries of the 4.03 hectares are said to be Wilfred Oundo Obara, Chrispinus Magero Obara, Francis Ojiambo Magero and Stephen Wafula Okumu; while the 5.15 hectares is allocated to Risper Auma Mbita, wholly, as it should be. 4. The application was heard on 17th December 2025. 9 individuals attended court, being Francis Ojiambo Magero, Moses Juma, Lucy Makokha, Stephen Ouma Ogola, Chrispinus Magero Obara, Wilfred Oundo Obara, Silas Onyango, Miriam Makokha and Risper Auma Mbita. I heard from each of them. 5. Moses Juma identified the deceased as his step-grandmother, and Risper Auma Mbita as his biological grandmother. That would mean that he is from the house of Risper Auma Mbita. He complained that https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/1693/eng@2026-02-16 1

page 1 of 3

the administrators were seeking to displace them. He confirmed them to be from the house of Elizabeth Anyango Bita Luyera, but dismissed them as Ugandans. Lucy Makokha was also from the house of Risper Auma Mbita, being a daughter in law. Her husband, the late Emmanuel Makokha Bita, was a child of Risper Auma Mbita. He said that her late husband had been given a portion of the share due to Elizabeth Anyango Bita Luyera, by his father. She claimed that the portion was taken away from her by Ojiambo. She identified them as the children of Teresa, a daughter of Elizabeth Anyango Bita Luyera. 6. Silas Onyango was from the house of Risper Auma Mbita. He did not support the application. He was a son of the late Emmanuel Makokha Bita. He asserted that his father had been given the land of Elizabeth Anyango Bita Luyera by their father. He claimed that Okumu had been given land elsewhere by his mother, Teresa, which was part of Elizabeth Anyango Bita Luyera’s land. He asserted that the rest were given land in Uganda. Miriam Makokha was also from the house of Risper Auma Mbita, and a son of the late Emmanuel Makokha Bita. He did not support the proposals, saying they had been given Elizabeth Anyango Bita Luyera’s land. 7. Risper Auma Mbita said Elizabeth Anyango Bita Luyera was her aunt and co-wife. Their late husband, ostensibly the original owner of the land, had shared Samia/Budongo/20 equally between them. She said that her share was meant for her and her children, while Elizabeth Anyango Bita Luyera’s share was meant for her, that is Elizabeth Anyango Bita Luyera, and the late Emmanuel Makokha Bita, who was a son of Risper Auma Mbita. She said Elizabeth Anyango Bita Luyera had 2 daughters, Marita and Teresa. Marita had no children; while Teresa’s children were the 2 administrators and the others, being Obara, Okumu and Francis. She said 2 of Elizabeth Anyango Bita Luyera’s children lived in Uganda. She did not support the application, saying that Elizabeth Anyango Bita Luyera had taken the late Emmanuel Makokha Bita as her own child, to live with. She stated Okumu and his Ugandan brother should sort out the issues without involving her. 8. Stephen Ouma Ogola was from the house of Elizabeth Anyango Bita Luyera, being a grandson, whose mother was a daughter of Elizabeth Anyango Bita Luyera. He supported the application. Magero Chrispinus was from the house of Elizabeth Anyango Bita Luyera, being a grandson of Teresa Apondi, a child of Elizabeth Anyango Bita Luyera. He supported the application. 9. On 4th July 2025, I delivered a comprehensive ruling on the ownership and sharing of Samia/ Budongo/20, as between Elizabeth Anyango Bita Luyera and Risper Auma Mbita. As Elizabeth Anyango Bita Luyera is now dead, I also gave directions on how her ½ share was to be shared out. If anyone did not agree with me, they should have appealed, for I had given leave, of 30 days. The issues being raised, by members of the house of Risper Auma Mbita, seek to re-open the matters that I addressed and resolved in the ruling of 4th July 2025. Those matters are now water under the bridge. The ½ share due to Elizabeth Anyango Bita Luyera should devolve to the children of her daughter, Teresa, who have been identified. They appear to have agreed on that sharing. The issue relating to the entitlement of the late Emmanuel Makokha Bita, falls under what I have discussed above. An appeal should have been filed against my findings and holdings, relating to the ½ share of Elizabeth Anyango Bita Luyera, in the ruling of 4th July 2025. 10. The offspring of Elizabeth Anyango Bita Luyera may be Ugandans. No proof has, however, been provided. Anyhow, nothing prevents them from inheriting what is due to their grandmother, who died in 1992, after the Law Act, Cap 160, Laws of Kenya, had come into force. 11. I note, though, that the applicants, in the affidavit in support of the application, have listed the late Emmanuel Makokha Bita, as one of the dependents of Elizabeth Anyango Bita Luyera. They have not listed his siblings. That would be acknowledgement of what Risper Auma Mbita said, that the late Emmanuel Makokha Bita could have been given a portion of that land, and was probably utilising it. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/1693/eng@2026-02-16 2

page 2 of 3

The administrators ought to provide for the late Emmanuel Makokha Bita out of the ½ share due to Elizabeth Anyango Bita Luyera. I shall not confirm the grant for now. I shall postpone the application, to allow time to the administrators to provide a share for the late Emmanuel Makokha Bita, for they have listed him as a beneficiary/dependent, which would mean entitlement. 12. The matter shall be mentioned, on 17th March 2026, by which date the applicants ought to file an affidavit, proposing provision to the estate or family of the late Emmanuel Makokha Bita. Final orders, or further directions, shall be made or given thereafter. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT, AT BUSIA, ON THIS 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026. WM MUSYOKA JUDGE Mr. Arthur Etyang, Court Assistant. Messrs. Francis Ojiambo Magero, Wilfred Oundo Obara, Stephen Okumu Wafula, Chrispinus Oundo Obara and Risper Auma Bita. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/1693/eng@2026-02-16 3

page 3 of 3

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.