Blasio Arani Gori (deceased) v Henry Mokua Arani

4. All orders obtained herein be vacated, set aside, annulled and/or dismissed ex debito justitiae 5. Costs of the application be awarded to the Applicant. 3. The grounds upon which the application is premised are set out in the summons, the supporting affidavit and the written submissions. In essence, the Applicant contends that the proceedings culminating in the ruling of this court dated 20th November 2025 were initiated by persons lacking locus standi to represent the estate of the deceased original petitioner, Blasio Arani Gori; that the objection proceedings in Kisii HCSC No. 176 of 1995 abated upon the death of the objector and could not lawfully be revived; that the subject matter had previously been litigated in Nyamira CMCC ELC No. 2 of 2020 and determined by consent; that the present proceedings amount to an impermissible reopening of matters arising from Kisii HCSC No. 176 of 1995 and culminating in the grant issued on 29th March 1996, approximately twenty-nine years prior to the ruling of 20thNovember 2025; that the court was misled into assuming jurisdiction; and that the proceedings are tainted by fraud, misrepresentation, collusion and abuse of the court process, thereby rendering all orders made herein liable to be vacated as a matter of justice. 4. The application was opposed by way of a Replying Affidavit worn by Peter Nyachoti Ariaga on 17th March 2026. The deponent describes himself as a beneficiary of the estate and avers that the grant issued on 29th March 1996 was lawfully revoked on account of exclusion of beneficiaries, and that the present proceedings are aimed at restoring lawful administration of the estate. 5. He further deposes that the Applicant’s father had previously caused the estate property to be registered in his own name to the exclusion of other beneficiaries, necessitating the intervention of the court to cancel the resultant titles and revert the property to the name of the deceased for proper administration. 6. On locus standi, the deponent maintains that the 2nd Respondent, Alice Kerubo Arani, is a lawful widow of the deceased Blasio Arani Gori, and that her status has been recognised in prior proceedings, including Nyamira HCJR E002 of 2024, as well as in succession proceedings where she obtained a limited grant. 7. The deponent denies the allegations of fraud, collusion and abuse of court process, and asserts that the Respondents are properly before the court as beneficiaries seeking equitable distribution following the revocation of an irregular grant. 8. It is further deposed that the issues raised by the Applicant relating to other proceedings, including land disputes, are extraneous to the present succession cause and do not affect the jurisdiction of this court. 9. The court has carefully considered the entire record of the proceedings including the ruling dated 20th November 2025, which forms the central reference point for the present application and the Applicant’s written submissions dated 22ndApril 2026. 10. In the ruling dated 20th November 2025, this court undertook a detailed examination of the process through which the grant issued on 29th March 1996 had been obtained and implemented, and made a definitive finding that the grant had been obtained through concealment of material facts and through proceedings that were defective in substance, particularly for failure to disclose all beneficiaries and to involve them in the succession process. 11. The court further found that the administrator, acting on the strength of that defective grant, subdivided the estate property known as North Mugirango/Boisanga/1681 into parcels North Mugirango/BOISANGA/4531 and North Mugirango/Boisanga/4532 and caused the same to be https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6715/eng@2026-04-30 2

page 2 of 5

registered solely in his name, thereby excluding other beneficiaries and appropriating the estate property in a manner inconsistent with the law. 12. Upon those findings, the court revoked both the grant and the confirmed grant issued on 29th March 1996, cancelled the resultant subdivisions, and directed the restoration of the register to the name of the deceased pending proper administration of the estate. The effect of that determination was substantive, in that it nullified the legal foundation of the earlier succession proceedings and restored the estate to the position of an unadministered estate requiring lawful administration in accordance with the Law of Succession Act. 13. Against that background, the issues that fall for determination are the following: 1. Whether the present proceedings are barred by the doctrine of res judicata 2. Whether this court is functus officio and therefore lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present proceedings 3. Whether the Applicant has established a legal basis for setting aside or vacating the orders made on 20th November 2025 4. What orders should issue. 14. The first issue for determination is whether the present proceedings are res judicata as contended by the Applicant. 15. While the principles emerging from the authorities cited by the Applicant are well settled, their application must be examined within the specific context of succession proceedings and, more particularly, the legal effect of revocation of a grant under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. 16. The doctrine of res judicata, as articulated in Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd (1969) EA 696, John Florence Maritime Services Limited v Cabinet Secretary for Transport and Infrastructure & 3 Others [2015] eKLR and Henderson v Henderson (1843) 67 ER 313, bars re-litigation of matters that have been finally determined or that ought to have been raised in earlier proceedings, a principle equally applicable to applications as affirmed in Mburu Kinyua v Gachini Tuti (1978) KLR 69 and Uhuru Highway Development Limited v Central Bank of Kenya & 2 Others [1996] eKLR. 17. However, those authorities must be read alongside the statutory framework governing succession. The decisions in In the Estate of the Late John Wanjohi Kariithi (Deceased) [2020] eKLR and Andrew Mwangi Kabungo v Robinson Gichohi Richard & Another [2017] eKLR, which recognise the applicability of res judicata within succession proceedings, do not negate the express jurisdiction conferred upon the court under Section 76. 18. Whereas the doctrine applies to succession proceedings, as recognised in In the Estate of the Late John Wanjohi Kariithi (Deceased) [2020] eKLR and Andrew Mwangi Kabungo v Robinson Gichohi Richard & Another [2017] eKLR, it must be reconciled with the express jurisdiction conferred upon the court under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. 19. In the present case, the ruling of 20th November 2025 did not determine the rights of the parties to distribution of the estate, but instead nullified a defective grant and restored the estate to the name of the deceased. As submitted by the Respondents and supported by Jamleck Maina Njoroge v Mary Wanjiru Mwangi [2015] eKLR and In the Matter of the Estate of L.A.K (Deceased) [2014] eKLR, such revocation reopens the process of administration. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6715/eng@2026-04-30 3

page 3 of 5

20. In those circumstances, there is no final determination capable of grounding the plea of res judicata. The present proceedings constitute a continuation of lawful administration following the invalidation of an irregular grant. The plea of res judicata therefore fails. 21. The second issue is whether this court is functus officio. The doctrine, as explained in Raila Odinga & Others v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & Others [2013] eKLR and Telkom Kenya Limited v John Ochanda [2014] eKLR, bars a court from revisiting a matter once it has rendered a final decision. 22. However, in succession proceedings, that principle must be read together with Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act, which expressly permits revocation of a grant “at any time.” The court therefore retains jurisdiction where the validity of a grant is in issue. 23. The intervention by this court on 20th November 2025 was an exercise of that statutory jurisdiction and did not amount to a re-litigation of a concluded matter. The doctrine of functus officio is therefore inapplicable. 24. The third issue is whether the Applicant has established a basis for setting aside the orders made on 20th November 2025. The Applicant challenges locus standi, raises abatement of earlier proceedings, relies on prior litigation, and alleges fraud and collusion. 25. On locus standi, the principles in Trouistik Union International & another v Jane Mbeyu & another [1993] KECA 89 (KLR), Virginia Edith Wambui Otieno v Joash Ochieng Ougo [1987] eKLR and Said Sweilem Gheithan Saanun v Commissioner of Lands & 5 others [2014] eKLR establish that representation of an estate vests in a duly appointed personal representative. However, the present proceedings concern the validity of the grant itself, and a party asserting a beneficial interest is entitled to challenge such grant. 26. The contention that earlier proceedings abated does not defeat the court’s jurisdiction under Section 76, which is continuing in nature. 27. The reliance on prior proceedings, including Nyamira CMCC ELC No. 2 of 2020, does not validate a grant that has been found to be defective. Once a grant is revoked, all acts founded upon it are liable to collapse. The Applicant’s reliance on Willis Ondii Odhiambo v Gateway Insurance Co. Ltd [2014] eKLR is misplaced, as that authority concerns limitation of actions and does not apply to revocation proceedings under Section 76, which may be invoked at any time. 28. On the issue of ownership of the estate property, the Respondents’ position is supported by Kanyi v Muthiora [1984] KLR 712 and Isack M’Inanga Kiebia v Isaya Theuri M’Lintari & another [2018] eKLR, which affirm that registration does not extinguish customary trust and that beneficial interests may subsist notwithstanding the register. 29. The Applicant’s reliance on In the Estate of Alice Mumbua Mutua (Deceased) [2017] eKLR and Monica Wangari Njiru & 4 Others v Eunice Wanjiru Igamba & Another [2016] eKLR is misplaced. Those authorities address disputes relating to ownership and trust, whereas the present issue concerns the validity of a grant obtained through defective proceedings under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. 30. The allegations of fraud, misrepresentation and collusion have not been proved. No credible evidence has been placed before the court to substantiate them. 31. In the circumstances, the Applicant has failed to establish any lawful basis for setting aside the orders made on 20th November 2025. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6715/eng@2026-04-30 4

page 4 of 5

32. In light of the foregoing analysis, this court makes the following orders: 1. Accordingly, the Summons dated 17th March 2026 is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. 2. For the avoidance of doubt, the orders issued on 20th November 2025 remain valid and binding, and the administration of the estate shall proceed in accordance with those directions. 3. Costs of this application shall be borne by the Applicant. DELIVERED AT NYAMIRA THIS 30th DAY OF April 2026 WAMAE.T. W. CHERERE JUDGE Appearances Court Assistant - Hilda For 1st Administrator – N/A For 2nd Administrator – Mr. Onyancha for Nyamwange & Co. Advocates For 3rdAdministrator – Ms. Bundi for Bundi Grace & Co. Advocates For Objector – Mr. Aminga for Nyariki & Co. Advocates https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6715/eng@2026-04-30 5

page 5 of 5