1. MARTIN OKWARO ARODI (‘the deceased’) passed on in Nyalunya Kisumu on 15/8/1994. He left behind several assets and beneficiaries. This Cause was lodged in 2006.
2. The estate never knew any peace as there was application after application until 5/12/2016 when Majanja J confirmed the grant after protracted proceedings. This was later rectified on 27/6/2024 after other proceedings and mediation took place.
3. Once again, on 11/2/2025, George Omangi Owino lodged another application of even date for the Revocation or Annulment of the grant. The Court directed that the matter be determined by way of viva voce evidence.
4. The applicant testified and closed his case on 24/3/2025. After 3 witnesses for the respondent had testified, it occurred to the Court that this was a matter that had been settled through viva voce evidence by Majanja J in 2016 as stated above. The Court posed several questions to the advocates acting for the parties whether that being the case, the present application should proceed. The advocates submitted on the issues raised.
5. I have considered the record. Considering that the application before me raised issues which need determination, I have decided that it would be prudent to hear the rest of the remaining witnesses then determine those issues and the entire matter in a final ruling.
6. Accordingly, I direct that the remaining witnesses do testify and all the issues be determined in one ruling.
It is so ordered.
2. The estate never knew any peace as there was application after application until 5/12/2016 when Majanja J confirmed the grant after protracted proceedings. This was later rectified on 27/6/2024 after other proceedings and mediation took place.
3. Once again, on 11/2/2025, George Omangi Owino lodged another application of even date for the Revocation or Annulment of the grant. The Court directed that the matter be determined by way of viva voce evidence.
4. The applicant testified and closed his case on 24/3/2025. After 3 witnesses for the respondent had testified, it occurred to the Court that this was a matter that had been settled through viva voce evidence by Majanja J in 2016 as stated above. The Court posed several questions to the advocates acting for the parties whether that being the case, the present application should proceed. The advocates submitted on the issues raised.
5. I have considered the record. Considering that the application before me raised issues which need determination, I have decided that it would be prudent to hear the rest of the remaining witnesses then determine those issues and the entire matter in a final ruling.
6. Accordingly, I direct that the remaining witnesses do testify and all the issues be determined in one ruling.
It is so ordered.