1. The deceased, Beritsa Khavetsa Oriko, died on 24/04/2003. On 21/03/2007, the Petitioner Moses Charles Oriko Kiptarus, as her son, applied for a Grant of Letters of Administration Intestate in respect to the estate. In the Petition, he named only himself as the survivor of the deceased and major asset that he listed as comprising the estate was the parcel of land described as Plot No. 54 Chepsaita Scheme (hereinafter referred to as “the suit land”) measuring about 19 hectares. The Petition was duly gazetted and there being no opposition filed, the Grant was issued to the Petitioner on 12/07/2007.
2. However, about 3 months later on 5/10/2007, the initial Objector, Francis Omuguya Oriko, through Messrs Machio & Co. Advocates, filed the Summons dated 4/10/2007 seeking revocation/annulment of the Grant on the grounds that it was obtained fraudulently as the Petitioner concealed the fact that there were other survivors/beneficiaries of the estate, including the Objector. In his Supporting Affidavit, he deponed that the deceased was his wife and the Petitioner is his son. He then stated that the deceased is also the mother of the late Solomon Origo who died in 1987 (and left behind 2 children), Elizabeth Andeyo, Margaret Khavai and Joseph Liambira Origo. He claimed that the suit land is his property and that he simply registered it in the name of the deceased, that he constructed thereon a permanent 4-roomed house that he was using with the deceased, that he has heads of cattle thereon and he has also planted bananas on it and uses it for growing maize. He stated that he did not authorize the Petitioner to apply for the Grant of Letters of Administration in respect to the estate of the deceased nor did the Petitioner consult any member of the family about it and that he was shocked that the Petitioner, his son, had acted as such. He further deponed that he has sold portions of the suit land to 4 different purchasers, as follows:
1. Absalom Kaisha 4.0 acres
2. James Lanukwa 1.0 acres
3. Shadrack Juma 2.0 acres
4. Alfayo Munga 20 acres
3. He then stated that he wanted to administer the estate by himself as the Petitioner, his son, has no right to do so when he (Objector) was still alive.
4. In his Replying Affidavit sworn on 13/11/2007, in opposition to the said Summons, and filed through Messrs Chemitei & Co. Advocates, the Petitioner admitted that the Objector was indeed his father but he deponed that among the persons listed by the Objector as being children of the deceased, the said Joseph Liambira Origo was not born of the deceased and the said Margaret Khavai disappeared since October 2003 and her whereabouts remain unknown. He then stated that the suit land belongs to the deceased who in 1974 paid off a debt of Kshs 400/- which was the purchase price and which was owed to one Harrison Amanga, a brother to one Douglas Owiye, and which sum was collected by the Objector for onward transmission. He deponed that he (Petitioner) is the one who paid all the loan due to the Settlement Fund Trustees (SFT) and after clearing the loan, he had it registered in the name of the deceased, his mother. According to him therefore, it was proper for him to apply for the Grant as he has single-handedly done extensive developments thereon. He deponed further that after the deceased died, the Objector brought in the said Joseph Liambira Origo who is a cousin deliberately to destabilize them. In conclusion, he contended that hia action was proper since he contributed to the payment of the liabilities due in acquisition of the suit land.
5. It was then directed that the Summons be canvassed by way of viva voce evidence. Pursuant thereto, the hearing commenced before Mwilu J (as she then was) on 19/10/2009 when the Objector, testified as PW1. However, before the trial could proceed further, unfortunately the Objector died on 12/12/2012. The trial thus stalled for some time as no one came forward to apply to take over the Objection until two years later on 8/12/2014 when an Application to that effect was made by the current Objector, Joseph Muzee Oriko, through Messrs Kigen & Co. Advocates. Pursuant to the Application, by the Ruling delivered on 13/12/2018 by O. Sewe J, who had since taken over the matter, the late Objector was then substituted by his said other son, one Joseph Muzee Oriko. In the intervening period, the Petitioner had proceeded to file the Summons dated 26/12/2014, seeking confirmation of the Grant but which Application apparently remained in abeyance when the trial commenced.
6. The parties also filed Witness Statements. I will however only recite the Statements made by the witnesses who testified as only those were adopted by the makers thereof as evidence.
Objector’s Witness Statements
7. Joseph Muzee Oriko, who as aforesaid, took over the Objection after the death of the initial Objector, Francis Oriko Omukuya, his father, in his Statement dated 29/03/2019, confirmed that the Petitioner is his brother and stated that his father had 4 wives who have children as follows:
1st wife Berita Khavetsa Oriko (deceased herein) 7 children
2nd wife Pricila Oriko 11 children
3rd wife Rebecca Namayi Oriko 8 children
4th wife Florence Nambeye Oriko 6 children
8. He stated that the deceased left behind two parcels of land, namely, Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/34 and Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/54 (suit land) and, that their father, prior to his death, had distributed the two as follows:
Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/34 Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/54
1. Solomon Oriko 8.0 acres 8. Joseph Muzee Oriko 6.0 acres
2. Moses Charles Oriko 7.0 acres 9. Victor Shikhule Oriko 4.0 acres
3. Elizabeth Ondeyo 5.5 acres 10. Isaac Oriko 4.0 acres
4. Margaret Keya 3.0 acres 11. Cleophus Oriko 4.0 acres
5. Joseph Liambila 6.5 acres 12. John Oriko 4.0 acres
6. Ephamia Andeyo 1.0 acres 13. Robert Oriko 4.5 acres
7. Salome Oriko 1.0 acres 14. Alex Nyapera 5.0 acres
15 Shem Oriko 5.0 acres
16. Patrick Ndalu 5.0 acres
17. Isoka Oriko 5.0 acres
18. Priscila Oriko 1.0 acres
19. Rebecca Oriko 1.0 acres
20. Florence Oriko 1.0 acres
21. Daughters of Priscila, Rebecca and Florence Oriko 4.0 acres
9. Regarding parcel number Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/54, he stated that their father had entrusted it to the deceased (1st wife) to hold in trust for the family members but the Petitioner tried to secretly transfer ownership thereof to himself but this was disputed by their father who however subsequently died. He stated that family (all 4 houses) then appointed him (Joseph Muzee Oriko) to resolve the dispute and thus he joined this case on their behalf. He stated that all beneficiaries are in agreement that the property be distributed as per their father’s wishes as above. He stated further that the dispute has been the distribution of Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/54, as there are no disputes concerning Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/34. He also stated that their father, before his death, with the consent of the deceased and all family members sold part of Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/54, to the following persons:
1. Absalom Kaisha 4.0 acres
2. Alfayo Mango 2.3 acres
3. Joseph Nyangweso 1.4 acres
4. Shadrack Nyangweso 2.0 acres
5. James Lanokwa 1.2 acres
6. Mambo Makokha Wathulekha 1.0 acres
7. Salvation Army Church 0.2 acres
8. Kuta Airest Oiyando 1.0 acres
13.1 acres
10. He stated further that they have taken measurements of the above portions and are ready to deliver ownership to the purchasers according to the Sale Agreements but the Petitioner is opposed to the same and wants the entire property for himself. In conclusion, he stated that once the said portions have been transferred to the purchasers, a total of 8 acres will remain undistributed and the family has agreed to distribute the same in the following manner:
1. Priscilla Oriko 1.5 acres
2. Rebecca Oriko 1.0 acres
3. Florence Oriko 1.0 acres
4. Rose Oriko 0.5 acres
5. Elizabeth Andiyo 1.0 acres
6. Joseph Muzee Oriko 2.0 acres
Petitioner’s Witness Statements
11. The Petitioner, Moses Charles Oriko, in his Statement, insisted that the suit property belonged to the deceased, her mother, who purchased it from one Priscah Jeptanui Misoi in the year 1974, and that they moved into the land in the same year. He stated that the deceased later sold part of the land and put up a permanent house in which she lived until her death in April 2003, that since his father, the initial Objector, was a polygamous man, he only used to visit them but at no time did he ever reside thereon. He stated further that his father, since he had his own separate parcel of land, the said Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/34 and, although their Luhya customary laws dictate that upon death of a polygamous man, he ought to be buried in the 1st wife’s home, he was not so buried, thus indicating that the suit land did not belong to him, but to the deceased.
12. Priscah Jeptanui Misoi stated that in 1968, the Government of Kenya started settling its citizens in various settlement schemes, that she was lucky to be allocated the suit land, Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/54, and that in 1974, she sold the entire land to the deceased. She stated they later went to the Uasin Gishu Land Control Board at Eldoret where she gave her consent for the suit land to be registered in the name of the deceased.
13. Elizabeth Andeya Oriko stated that she is a daughter of the deceased and the initial Objector, Francis Oriko, and their 3rd child. She stated that one Peter Shitakha met with the family members and advised them to register the suit land, Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/54 under their mother’s name since their father had already registered the separate parcel of land, Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/34 under his name and no one was allowed to own more than one property. She stated further that their parents were legally married and were living on the suit land, Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/54 until their demise and that it is not true that the deceased lived in rental houses as alleged by the Petitioner. She then that she objects to the Petitioner being retained as Administrator.
Objector’s Witness Testimonies
14. As aforesaid, PW1 was the initial Objector, Francis Oriko Omuguya, who testified before Mwilu J (as she then was) on 19/10/2009. Led by his Counsel, Mr. Machio, he reiterated the matters contained in his said Affidavit including that the deceased, Berita Oriko, was his wife and that they had 5 children as earlier listed, including the Petitioner, Moses Oriko. Regarding one of the children, Margaret Oriko, he stated that she was a Secondary School teacher but conceded, as earlier alleged by the Petitioner, that she disappeared sometime around 2006 and that they are still looking for her.
15. He also reiterated that he purchased the suit land, Chepsasita Scheme No. 54, in 1974 for Kshs 18,000/- from one Jacob Cheruiyot being the proceeded of the sale of his other separate parcel of land in 1965. He stated that in 1965, the Petitioner was still in school as he was born in August 1955 and in 1974, he was 19 years old. He reiterated that he simply registered the suit land in the name of the deceased, his wife, because purchasers were not allowed to acquire 2 plots in the same Scheme. He also reiterated that he has a 4-bedroomed permanent house on the suit land, which he built around 1997-1998 and that he built the house with money from farming maize. He testified further that he lived in the house with the deceased and the Petitioner lived about 300 metres away in the same suit land. He stated that the whole suit land was 49 acres when he bought it and that the deceased sold portions thereof to 5 people, about 10 acres and the purchasers occupy their portions although there was no formal transfer and the land is still in the name of the deceased.
16. He further testified that a colleague of the Petitioner is the one who informed him that the Petitioner had applied for the Grant herein, that he called his brothers and also the Petitioner to inquire about the issue upon which the Petitioner asked that they go to his Advocate for him to withdraw the same. He urged that the Petitioner should look after his own property and leave the Objector’s alone since he took the Petitioner through school, and that Advocate Chemitei told them that he would arrange for withdrawal of the matter. He then referred to a letter dated 9/1/2008 which, he stated, is evidence that the Petitioner had proposed that the two of them be joint Administrators but which proposal, the Objector refused and that is when he instructed his own Advocate, Mr. Machio, to take up the matter. He reiterated that the Petitioner never spoke to him before he applied for the Grant herein.
17. Regarding the people who should inherit, he stated that it should be Absalom Kaisha-4 acres, James Lanukwa-1 acre, Shadrack Juma-2 acres, and Alfayo Mango-2 acres, and his children, Elizabeth, Joseph, Moses (Petitioner) and his grandchildren, and also one Mamboleo to whom he sold 1 acre to pay school fees for one Philip. He also added that he gave the Salvation Army Church, a portion of 0.2 acres. He pointed out that in the Petition, liability is indicated as “nil” yet he had sold the said portions of the land and the Petitioner is indicated as the only survivor. At this point, the Judge recorded that as the Objector was saying this, he “was very distressed”. PW1 then stated that the Petitioner, his son, is very disrespectful to him and he (Objector) wants the Petitioner to leave him alone as he (Objector) is able to deal with his wife’s estate, and there is no basis for the Petitioner to be a co-administrator.
18. Under cross-examination by Mr. Chemitei, he stated that he has other wives and that the deceased was the 1st wife, 2nd wife is Priscilla Oriko whom he married in 1963, 3rd is Rebecca Oriko whom he married in 1970, and the 4th is Florence Oriko, whom he married in 1982, and that they all have children. He stated that Priscilla lives in the other said separate parcel of land Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/34 with Rebecca and Florence and that the land is 62 acres. Regarding the suit land herein, Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/54, he reiterated that he bought it in 1973 from one Harrison Amanga who is his cousin, that he sold maize and paid Harrison a debt of Kshs 400/-, and that it had a debt with Settlement Fund Trustee (STF). He stated that money was paid by one Mango whom they had sold land to and added that the deceased, his wife, signed for the sales. He denied that the Petitioner paid a cent. He also testified that Joseph Oriko is not a biological son of the deceased and that he brought him to her in 1980. He added that he did not wish to show the suit land to the children of the other wives as they had their own land. Regarding the payment of Kshs 24,170/- paid by the Petitioner to the STF, he reiterated that it was his (Objector’s) money from the proceeds of a parcel of land which he had sold to the said Mango.
19. As aforesaid, after testifying in 2009, the Petitioner (PW1) unfortunately died in 2012 before other witnesses could also testify, and was substituted by his other son, son, Joseph Muzee Oriko. The trial did not however resume for a long time for various reasons, including the existence of out of Court settlement negotiations which however did not bear fruit. It was therefore not until 28/06/2021 when the trial eventually resumed when the said Joseph Muzee Oriko testified before Sewe J as aforesaid.
20. Joseph Muzee Oriko, PW2, led in his testimony by his Counsel, Mr. Kandie, reiterated that the late Francis Oriko Omuguya, was his father. He then adopted his Witness Statement already referred to. In respect to the statements he made in the Witness Statement regarding distribution of the estate, he made the following clarifications:
i) That in respect to the distribution made by their father prior to his death, Solomon Oriko is to get 7.25 acres, and not 8.0 acres as stated in the Statement, and that his name is also erroneously stated as “Simon” instead of “Solomon”.
ii) That Margaret Keya is to get 2.0 acres, and not 3.0 acres.
iii) That instead of Doris Namai Oriko getting 1.0 acre, the same is to instead go to Rose Oriko.
21. He testified further that Margaret Keya disappeared without a trace but is survived by 3 children and that there also 3 children who used to live in that house as dependants of the deceased. He confirmed that the registered proprietor of the suit land Chepsaita/Settlement Scheme/34 is the deceased but contended that it was only so registered in her name in trust for his father who already had 1 plot as the regulations at that time prohibited ownership of 2 parcels of land in the same Settlement Scheme. He reiterated that it is wrong to claim that there was only 1 beneficiary entitled to inherit the suit land, and reiterated that there are also purchasers. He urged that as a family, they have agreed on how to distribute the net estate, that the Petitioner has not been locked out as he will receive 7 acres, and that the family did not give the Petitioner the approval to file for the Grant and he thus did it in secret. He conceded that his father, in his testimony, mentioned only 5 beneficiaries but urged that they also need to take into account the grandchildren whose parents have died or disappeared. He testified further that the entire family is united and living harmoniously, and that only the Petitioner has gone his own way. He thus urged the Court to uphold what the family has agreed on, and that the Grant issued to the Petitioner should be cancelled.
22. Under cross-examination by Mr. Kiboi, he confirmed that he had adopted the testimony of his father and conceded that his father, in his case, had urged the position that the children of the other wives had already been given separate shares of parcels of land elsewhere. He however insisted that what he (PW2) had proposed is what the family decided after their father’s death, and that it is what their father told them before his death. He however conceded that he did not have anything in Court to confirm this allegation that the deceased was registered as owner of the land only as a trustee. He confirmed that in the Green Card for the suit land, the first owner was the Settlement Fund Trustee (SFT) which was registered on 23/4/1978, the 2nd owner was the deceased, who was registered on 28/11/1998, the 3rd the entry was the issuance of the title deed on 9/12/1998, and the 4th (last) entry is a Restriction to remain in force pending the determination of this Succession Cause. He stated that the suit land had been charged to the SFT to secure a loan of Kshs 11,395/- and conceded that there is no entry to show that it was registered in the name of the deceased to hold in trust. He reiterated that the relevant laws did not allow one to be allocated two plots and that this is why his father was registered as owner Chepsaita/Settlement Scheme/34, and the deceased as the owner of the suit land, Chepsaita/Settlement Scheme/54, which he maintained, was in trust for their father. He however denied that his father broke the law by asking for 2 plots. He also conceded that he did not have any Receipt indicating that their father paid the loan to SFT. He further conceded that the Receipt dated 7/01/2004 was issued in the name of the deceased but having died in 2003, she could not have been the one who made the payment.
23. He confirmed that the deceased resided on the suit land for her entire life but conceded that the land is presently occupied by several people. He also conceded that none of the purchasers has lodged any claims in this Succession Cause. He also conceded that he had stated that there are other people residing in the house of the deceased and who have not been included in these proceedings, namely, Peris Makokha and Dennis, that the said persons were not underage in 2007, but have not filed any claim. He however insisted that their father was aware of them. He also testified that the deceased was a step-mother to Efamia Andeyo, Joseph Liambila Oriko and Salome Oriko who were brought by their father for the deceased to take care of, that Efamia died in 2004 and Salome in 2002, but both left behind 2 children each, who are now adults but whom, he conceded, have not contested these proceedings. He reiterated that his sister, Margaret Kabai, who disappeared, also left behind 2 children who are currently above 18 years but conceded that they, too, have not filed any claims in these proceedings. He reiterated that he is himself from the 2nd house.
24. PW3 was Elizabeth Andeyo Oriko. Led by Gemenet Advocate, She testified that she was married but went back home after her marriage collapsed. She stated that the late Objector is her father, the deceased was her late mother, and the Petitioner is her brother. She then adopted her Witness Statement dated 28/10/2021 and stated further that the Petitioner misled the Court that the deceased did not have other children yet he had 4 children, namely, Simon Oriko (who died leaving behind 2 children), Moses Oriko, Elizabeth Oriko, Margaret Oriko and Joseph Liambira. She testified that the suit land is his father’s farm and that it did not belong to her mother (the deceased) but that it was registered in her mother’s name on behalf of all of them. She stated that they have a disagreement regarding the suit land and part of it was bought about by purchasers who bought portions thereof from their father and who should be given their portions. She added that there is a house on the suit land that was built by their father (the late Objector) and that who sold part of the land to repay the Settlement Fund Trustees (SFT) loan. She stated that after the purchasers have been given their portions, the remainder should be distributed among all the beneficiaries. Under cross-examination by Mr. Kiboi, she reiterated that the suit land belonged to their father but conceded that she has no evidence to prove the same. She confirmed that the Green Card indicates the registered owner as the deceased (her mother) and that her father’s name does not appear anywhere therein. She however maintained that it was her father who got the loan and paid for the suit land as her mother was not employed and thus had no income. She conceded that she did not have any Certificate of Birth or a Chief’s letter in Court to confirm that the deceased was her mother. She then stated that her sister, Margaret Keya Oriko, disappeared but left her children who are above 18 years.
Petitioner’s Witness Testimonies
25. DW1 was Priscah Jeptanui Misoi, who testified before me on 18/10/2023. Led by Mr. Kiboi, she adopted her Witness Statement referred to above and reiterated that she is the one who sold the suit land, namely, Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/54, measuring 47 acres (19.5 hectares) to the deceased. She denied that she sold the land to the Objector, the deceased’s husband, and stated that she sold the land to the deceased at Kshs 18,000/- in 1974. She stated that she got the land in 1968 from the Government of Kenya but she later relocated from the area and that is why she does not have the documents as she gave them out to the Settlement Scheme management to effect the transfer to the deceased. Under cross-examination by Mr. Osewe Advocate, she stated that she does not know what job the husband (Objector) was doing but stated that he used to work for the Government. She stated that she did not know where the deceased got the purchase price money from but insisted that it is the deceased who paid her, and that it is possible that her husband contributed. She further testified that when the Government was giving land, one was only eligible to get one parcel of land but she did not know whether some people used their children or relatives to get more than one parcel of land. She conceded that she did not have the Sale Agreement and also that the 1st entry in the Green Card for the land indicates that the land was registered in 1979 in the name of the STF, and the 2nd entry dated 28/11/1988 indicates that the land was transferred to the deceased, and that her (DW1) name does not feature anywhere in the Green Card.
26. DW2 was the Petitioner, Moses Charles Oriko, who testified before me on 6/02/2024, 24/06/2024 and on 7/10/2024. Led by Mr. Kiboi, he, too, adopted his Witness Statement and reiterated the matters therein, including that when his father (initial Objector) died, his cousin, Joseph Muzee Oriko took over the Objection herein. He reiterated that the suit land was registered in the name of the deceased (his mother) on 28/11/1988. He stated that previously the land was owned by the STF and that the Charge to the STF is also indicated in the Search and which was for Kshs 11,395/- registered on 3/4/1979. He then produced the Green Card, the Official Search dated 22/10/1998 and a letter dated 3/10/1998 from Barclays Bank addressed to himself. He testified further that the deceased purchased the land from DW1, Prisca Jeptanui Misio in 1974, and that he was himself born in 1959 so he was about 17 years at the time and was in High School thus fully aware of the transaction and that at that time, his father was residing in the separate parcel of land Chepsaita Setlement Scheme/34. He stated that the deceased, before she purchased the suit land, used to stay in Khisa in Kakamega in a parcel of land belonging to his father but she later moved to Chepsaita in early 1974 when she purchased the suit land, that she first moved into a grass-thatched house on the land, and that they set up a semi-permanent house which was constructed by his mother. He reiterated that his father only used to visit them.
27. He testified that his father, in the separate parcel of land, Chepsaita Setlement Scheme/34 used to live with the Petitioner’s 3 stepmothers, among whom Priscilla Buyeyi died 2 months back, but Rebecca Nanyama and Florence Nambuye are still there. He stated that in that in the deceased’s house, they were 4children – Solomon Oriko (father to Philip Oriko and Noel Oriko), Moses Oriko (the Petitioner), Elizabeth Andeyo and Margaret Khabayi. He then referred to the various documents in his bundle of documents indicating that the deceased was the sole owner of the suit land and also the letter dated 3/10/1998 from Barclays Bank offering to him a loan of Kshs 50,000/- for furnishing of his mother’s house, which loan, he stated, was indeed disbursed but which was, in fact, for finishing of the house, not for furnishing, although he stated that he used the balance for furnishing the house too. He stated that he is the one who paid off the STF loan balance of Kshs 44,707 and also, he is the one still paying the land rates. On sharing of the property which, he stated, is 19 hectares (47.5 acres), he stated that part of the land was sold as follows:
1. Absalom Kaisha 4.0 acres
2. Alfayo Mango 2.0 acres
3. Joseph Nyangweso 2.3 acres
4. Shadrack Nyangweso 2.0 acres
5. James Lanokwa 1.2 acres
6. Mamboleo Wathulekha 1.0 acres
7. Salvation Army Church 0.2 acres
28. According to him therefore, 11.7 acres is what has been sold, leaving a remainder of 35.8 acres out of which the family of his late brother, Simon Oriko are utilizing 10 acres which should remain that way, and not interfered with. He urged that out of the remainder of 25.8 acres, he should be allocated 20 acres, and the remaining 5.8 acres should be distributed to his two sisters; Elizabeth Andeyo and Margaret Khavai who disappeared in 2003 but who left 2 children who have not however asked for any land, that Margaret’s daughter got married and the son lives on his father’s land. He stated that he makes the above proposal because he does not dispute that a portion of the land has been sold and that the proceeds thereof were used to pay school fees for his late brother’s children and that is the reason why he should get a bigger share. He added that he has also incurred a lot of expenses in paying off loans, paying land rent and rates and that he is also the one who has been taking care of the land. He urged the Court to confirm the Grant and stated that he is aware that there are claims by his siblings from the other houses but urged that the property was exclusively his mother’s.
29. Under cross-examination by Mr. Osewe, he stated that he does not know of any foster children whom his mother was taking care of. Regarding Joseph Liambila, he stated that he is not related to the deceased and denied that he was brought up by the deceased. Regarding Ephania Andeyo, he stated that she is deceased and was a step-sister, as she was born out of wedlock but left 3 children. Regarding Salome Oriko, he stated that she, too, is a step-sister and she is also deceased but left 2 children. She however agreed that Joseph, Ephania and Salome, were all raised in the home of the deceased. and that his brother Simon Oriko also left behind 2 children. He conceded that in his Affidavit in support of the Summons for Confirmation dated 26/2//2014, he did not depone that there were any survivors apart from himself.
30. He conceded that he never filed any citation against the Objector (his father) for failing to take the Grant of Letters of Administration as the husband of the deceased nor did he obtain any consents from his siblings to apply for the Grant. He then stated that the deceased was a farmer while his father was also a farmer and a civil servant. Regarding the Receipt for payment of Kshs 24,710/- to the STF, he agreed that the same was paid after the deceased had already died. Regarding sale of the portions of land, he stated that some were sold when the deceased was still alive but 2 were sold after her death. He also confirmed that the purchasers are in occupation of their said portions, that some they recognize and some they do not, and that in som
[...truncated]
2. However, about 3 months later on 5/10/2007, the initial Objector, Francis Omuguya Oriko, through Messrs Machio & Co. Advocates, filed the Summons dated 4/10/2007 seeking revocation/annulment of the Grant on the grounds that it was obtained fraudulently as the Petitioner concealed the fact that there were other survivors/beneficiaries of the estate, including the Objector. In his Supporting Affidavit, he deponed that the deceased was his wife and the Petitioner is his son. He then stated that the deceased is also the mother of the late Solomon Origo who died in 1987 (and left behind 2 children), Elizabeth Andeyo, Margaret Khavai and Joseph Liambira Origo. He claimed that the suit land is his property and that he simply registered it in the name of the deceased, that he constructed thereon a permanent 4-roomed house that he was using with the deceased, that he has heads of cattle thereon and he has also planted bananas on it and uses it for growing maize. He stated that he did not authorize the Petitioner to apply for the Grant of Letters of Administration in respect to the estate of the deceased nor did the Petitioner consult any member of the family about it and that he was shocked that the Petitioner, his son, had acted as such. He further deponed that he has sold portions of the suit land to 4 different purchasers, as follows:
1. Absalom Kaisha 4.0 acres
2. James Lanukwa 1.0 acres
3. Shadrack Juma 2.0 acres
4. Alfayo Munga 20 acres
3. He then stated that he wanted to administer the estate by himself as the Petitioner, his son, has no right to do so when he (Objector) was still alive.
4. In his Replying Affidavit sworn on 13/11/2007, in opposition to the said Summons, and filed through Messrs Chemitei & Co. Advocates, the Petitioner admitted that the Objector was indeed his father but he deponed that among the persons listed by the Objector as being children of the deceased, the said Joseph Liambira Origo was not born of the deceased and the said Margaret Khavai disappeared since October 2003 and her whereabouts remain unknown. He then stated that the suit land belongs to the deceased who in 1974 paid off a debt of Kshs 400/- which was the purchase price and which was owed to one Harrison Amanga, a brother to one Douglas Owiye, and which sum was collected by the Objector for onward transmission. He deponed that he (Petitioner) is the one who paid all the loan due to the Settlement Fund Trustees (SFT) and after clearing the loan, he had it registered in the name of the deceased, his mother. According to him therefore, it was proper for him to apply for the Grant as he has single-handedly done extensive developments thereon. He deponed further that after the deceased died, the Objector brought in the said Joseph Liambira Origo who is a cousin deliberately to destabilize them. In conclusion, he contended that hia action was proper since he contributed to the payment of the liabilities due in acquisition of the suit land.
5. It was then directed that the Summons be canvassed by way of viva voce evidence. Pursuant thereto, the hearing commenced before Mwilu J (as she then was) on 19/10/2009 when the Objector, testified as PW1. However, before the trial could proceed further, unfortunately the Objector died on 12/12/2012. The trial thus stalled for some time as no one came forward to apply to take over the Objection until two years later on 8/12/2014 when an Application to that effect was made by the current Objector, Joseph Muzee Oriko, through Messrs Kigen & Co. Advocates. Pursuant to the Application, by the Ruling delivered on 13/12/2018 by O. Sewe J, who had since taken over the matter, the late Objector was then substituted by his said other son, one Joseph Muzee Oriko. In the intervening period, the Petitioner had proceeded to file the Summons dated 26/12/2014, seeking confirmation of the Grant but which Application apparently remained in abeyance when the trial commenced.
6. The parties also filed Witness Statements. I will however only recite the Statements made by the witnesses who testified as only those were adopted by the makers thereof as evidence.
Objector’s Witness Statements
7. Joseph Muzee Oriko, who as aforesaid, took over the Objection after the death of the initial Objector, Francis Oriko Omukuya, his father, in his Statement dated 29/03/2019, confirmed that the Petitioner is his brother and stated that his father had 4 wives who have children as follows:
1st wife Berita Khavetsa Oriko (deceased herein) 7 children
2nd wife Pricila Oriko 11 children
3rd wife Rebecca Namayi Oriko 8 children
4th wife Florence Nambeye Oriko 6 children
8. He stated that the deceased left behind two parcels of land, namely, Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/34 and Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/54 (suit land) and, that their father, prior to his death, had distributed the two as follows:
Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/34 Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/54
1. Solomon Oriko 8.0 acres 8. Joseph Muzee Oriko 6.0 acres
2. Moses Charles Oriko 7.0 acres 9. Victor Shikhule Oriko 4.0 acres
3. Elizabeth Ondeyo 5.5 acres 10. Isaac Oriko 4.0 acres
4. Margaret Keya 3.0 acres 11. Cleophus Oriko 4.0 acres
5. Joseph Liambila 6.5 acres 12. John Oriko 4.0 acres
6. Ephamia Andeyo 1.0 acres 13. Robert Oriko 4.5 acres
7. Salome Oriko 1.0 acres 14. Alex Nyapera 5.0 acres
15 Shem Oriko 5.0 acres
16. Patrick Ndalu 5.0 acres
17. Isoka Oriko 5.0 acres
18. Priscila Oriko 1.0 acres
19. Rebecca Oriko 1.0 acres
20. Florence Oriko 1.0 acres
21. Daughters of Priscila, Rebecca and Florence Oriko 4.0 acres
9. Regarding parcel number Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/54, he stated that their father had entrusted it to the deceased (1st wife) to hold in trust for the family members but the Petitioner tried to secretly transfer ownership thereof to himself but this was disputed by their father who however subsequently died. He stated that family (all 4 houses) then appointed him (Joseph Muzee Oriko) to resolve the dispute and thus he joined this case on their behalf. He stated that all beneficiaries are in agreement that the property be distributed as per their father’s wishes as above. He stated further that the dispute has been the distribution of Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/54, as there are no disputes concerning Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/34. He also stated that their father, before his death, with the consent of the deceased and all family members sold part of Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/54, to the following persons:
1. Absalom Kaisha 4.0 acres
2. Alfayo Mango 2.3 acres
3. Joseph Nyangweso 1.4 acres
4. Shadrack Nyangweso 2.0 acres
5. James Lanokwa 1.2 acres
6. Mambo Makokha Wathulekha 1.0 acres
7. Salvation Army Church 0.2 acres
8. Kuta Airest Oiyando 1.0 acres
13.1 acres
10. He stated further that they have taken measurements of the above portions and are ready to deliver ownership to the purchasers according to the Sale Agreements but the Petitioner is opposed to the same and wants the entire property for himself. In conclusion, he stated that once the said portions have been transferred to the purchasers, a total of 8 acres will remain undistributed and the family has agreed to distribute the same in the following manner:
1. Priscilla Oriko 1.5 acres
2. Rebecca Oriko 1.0 acres
3. Florence Oriko 1.0 acres
4. Rose Oriko 0.5 acres
5. Elizabeth Andiyo 1.0 acres
6. Joseph Muzee Oriko 2.0 acres
Petitioner’s Witness Statements
11. The Petitioner, Moses Charles Oriko, in his Statement, insisted that the suit property belonged to the deceased, her mother, who purchased it from one Priscah Jeptanui Misoi in the year 1974, and that they moved into the land in the same year. He stated that the deceased later sold part of the land and put up a permanent house in which she lived until her death in April 2003, that since his father, the initial Objector, was a polygamous man, he only used to visit them but at no time did he ever reside thereon. He stated further that his father, since he had his own separate parcel of land, the said Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/34 and, although their Luhya customary laws dictate that upon death of a polygamous man, he ought to be buried in the 1st wife’s home, he was not so buried, thus indicating that the suit land did not belong to him, but to the deceased.
12. Priscah Jeptanui Misoi stated that in 1968, the Government of Kenya started settling its citizens in various settlement schemes, that she was lucky to be allocated the suit land, Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/54, and that in 1974, she sold the entire land to the deceased. She stated they later went to the Uasin Gishu Land Control Board at Eldoret where she gave her consent for the suit land to be registered in the name of the deceased.
13. Elizabeth Andeya Oriko stated that she is a daughter of the deceased and the initial Objector, Francis Oriko, and their 3rd child. She stated that one Peter Shitakha met with the family members and advised them to register the suit land, Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/54 under their mother’s name since their father had already registered the separate parcel of land, Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/34 under his name and no one was allowed to own more than one property. She stated further that their parents were legally married and were living on the suit land, Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/54 until their demise and that it is not true that the deceased lived in rental houses as alleged by the Petitioner. She then that she objects to the Petitioner being retained as Administrator.
Objector’s Witness Testimonies
14. As aforesaid, PW1 was the initial Objector, Francis Oriko Omuguya, who testified before Mwilu J (as she then was) on 19/10/2009. Led by his Counsel, Mr. Machio, he reiterated the matters contained in his said Affidavit including that the deceased, Berita Oriko, was his wife and that they had 5 children as earlier listed, including the Petitioner, Moses Oriko. Regarding one of the children, Margaret Oriko, he stated that she was a Secondary School teacher but conceded, as earlier alleged by the Petitioner, that she disappeared sometime around 2006 and that they are still looking for her.
15. He also reiterated that he purchased the suit land, Chepsasita Scheme No. 54, in 1974 for Kshs 18,000/- from one Jacob Cheruiyot being the proceeded of the sale of his other separate parcel of land in 1965. He stated that in 1965, the Petitioner was still in school as he was born in August 1955 and in 1974, he was 19 years old. He reiterated that he simply registered the suit land in the name of the deceased, his wife, because purchasers were not allowed to acquire 2 plots in the same Scheme. He also reiterated that he has a 4-bedroomed permanent house on the suit land, which he built around 1997-1998 and that he built the house with money from farming maize. He testified further that he lived in the house with the deceased and the Petitioner lived about 300 metres away in the same suit land. He stated that the whole suit land was 49 acres when he bought it and that the deceased sold portions thereof to 5 people, about 10 acres and the purchasers occupy their portions although there was no formal transfer and the land is still in the name of the deceased.
16. He further testified that a colleague of the Petitioner is the one who informed him that the Petitioner had applied for the Grant herein, that he called his brothers and also the Petitioner to inquire about the issue upon which the Petitioner asked that they go to his Advocate for him to withdraw the same. He urged that the Petitioner should look after his own property and leave the Objector’s alone since he took the Petitioner through school, and that Advocate Chemitei told them that he would arrange for withdrawal of the matter. He then referred to a letter dated 9/1/2008 which, he stated, is evidence that the Petitioner had proposed that the two of them be joint Administrators but which proposal, the Objector refused and that is when he instructed his own Advocate, Mr. Machio, to take up the matter. He reiterated that the Petitioner never spoke to him before he applied for the Grant herein.
17. Regarding the people who should inherit, he stated that it should be Absalom Kaisha-4 acres, James Lanukwa-1 acre, Shadrack Juma-2 acres, and Alfayo Mango-2 acres, and his children, Elizabeth, Joseph, Moses (Petitioner) and his grandchildren, and also one Mamboleo to whom he sold 1 acre to pay school fees for one Philip. He also added that he gave the Salvation Army Church, a portion of 0.2 acres. He pointed out that in the Petition, liability is indicated as “nil” yet he had sold the said portions of the land and the Petitioner is indicated as the only survivor. At this point, the Judge recorded that as the Objector was saying this, he “was very distressed”. PW1 then stated that the Petitioner, his son, is very disrespectful to him and he (Objector) wants the Petitioner to leave him alone as he (Objector) is able to deal with his wife’s estate, and there is no basis for the Petitioner to be a co-administrator.
18. Under cross-examination by Mr. Chemitei, he stated that he has other wives and that the deceased was the 1st wife, 2nd wife is Priscilla Oriko whom he married in 1963, 3rd is Rebecca Oriko whom he married in 1970, and the 4th is Florence Oriko, whom he married in 1982, and that they all have children. He stated that Priscilla lives in the other said separate parcel of land Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/34 with Rebecca and Florence and that the land is 62 acres. Regarding the suit land herein, Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/54, he reiterated that he bought it in 1973 from one Harrison Amanga who is his cousin, that he sold maize and paid Harrison a debt of Kshs 400/-, and that it had a debt with Settlement Fund Trustee (STF). He stated that money was paid by one Mango whom they had sold land to and added that the deceased, his wife, signed for the sales. He denied that the Petitioner paid a cent. He also testified that Joseph Oriko is not a biological son of the deceased and that he brought him to her in 1980. He added that he did not wish to show the suit land to the children of the other wives as they had their own land. Regarding the payment of Kshs 24,170/- paid by the Petitioner to the STF, he reiterated that it was his (Objector’s) money from the proceeds of a parcel of land which he had sold to the said Mango.
19. As aforesaid, after testifying in 2009, the Petitioner (PW1) unfortunately died in 2012 before other witnesses could also testify, and was substituted by his other son, son, Joseph Muzee Oriko. The trial did not however resume for a long time for various reasons, including the existence of out of Court settlement negotiations which however did not bear fruit. It was therefore not until 28/06/2021 when the trial eventually resumed when the said Joseph Muzee Oriko testified before Sewe J as aforesaid.
20. Joseph Muzee Oriko, PW2, led in his testimony by his Counsel, Mr. Kandie, reiterated that the late Francis Oriko Omuguya, was his father. He then adopted his Witness Statement already referred to. In respect to the statements he made in the Witness Statement regarding distribution of the estate, he made the following clarifications:
i) That in respect to the distribution made by their father prior to his death, Solomon Oriko is to get 7.25 acres, and not 8.0 acres as stated in the Statement, and that his name is also erroneously stated as “Simon” instead of “Solomon”.
ii) That Margaret Keya is to get 2.0 acres, and not 3.0 acres.
iii) That instead of Doris Namai Oriko getting 1.0 acre, the same is to instead go to Rose Oriko.
21. He testified further that Margaret Keya disappeared without a trace but is survived by 3 children and that there also 3 children who used to live in that house as dependants of the deceased. He confirmed that the registered proprietor of the suit land Chepsaita/Settlement Scheme/34 is the deceased but contended that it was only so registered in her name in trust for his father who already had 1 plot as the regulations at that time prohibited ownership of 2 parcels of land in the same Settlement Scheme. He reiterated that it is wrong to claim that there was only 1 beneficiary entitled to inherit the suit land, and reiterated that there are also purchasers. He urged that as a family, they have agreed on how to distribute the net estate, that the Petitioner has not been locked out as he will receive 7 acres, and that the family did not give the Petitioner the approval to file for the Grant and he thus did it in secret. He conceded that his father, in his testimony, mentioned only 5 beneficiaries but urged that they also need to take into account the grandchildren whose parents have died or disappeared. He testified further that the entire family is united and living harmoniously, and that only the Petitioner has gone his own way. He thus urged the Court to uphold what the family has agreed on, and that the Grant issued to the Petitioner should be cancelled.
22. Under cross-examination by Mr. Kiboi, he confirmed that he had adopted the testimony of his father and conceded that his father, in his case, had urged the position that the children of the other wives had already been given separate shares of parcels of land elsewhere. He however insisted that what he (PW2) had proposed is what the family decided after their father’s death, and that it is what their father told them before his death. He however conceded that he did not have anything in Court to confirm this allegation that the deceased was registered as owner of the land only as a trustee. He confirmed that in the Green Card for the suit land, the first owner was the Settlement Fund Trustee (SFT) which was registered on 23/4/1978, the 2nd owner was the deceased, who was registered on 28/11/1998, the 3rd the entry was the issuance of the title deed on 9/12/1998, and the 4th (last) entry is a Restriction to remain in force pending the determination of this Succession Cause. He stated that the suit land had been charged to the SFT to secure a loan of Kshs 11,395/- and conceded that there is no entry to show that it was registered in the name of the deceased to hold in trust. He reiterated that the relevant laws did not allow one to be allocated two plots and that this is why his father was registered as owner Chepsaita/Settlement Scheme/34, and the deceased as the owner of the suit land, Chepsaita/Settlement Scheme/54, which he maintained, was in trust for their father. He however denied that his father broke the law by asking for 2 plots. He also conceded that he did not have any Receipt indicating that their father paid the loan to SFT. He further conceded that the Receipt dated 7/01/2004 was issued in the name of the deceased but having died in 2003, she could not have been the one who made the payment.
23. He confirmed that the deceased resided on the suit land for her entire life but conceded that the land is presently occupied by several people. He also conceded that none of the purchasers has lodged any claims in this Succession Cause. He also conceded that he had stated that there are other people residing in the house of the deceased and who have not been included in these proceedings, namely, Peris Makokha and Dennis, that the said persons were not underage in 2007, but have not filed any claim. He however insisted that their father was aware of them. He also testified that the deceased was a step-mother to Efamia Andeyo, Joseph Liambila Oriko and Salome Oriko who were brought by their father for the deceased to take care of, that Efamia died in 2004 and Salome in 2002, but both left behind 2 children each, who are now adults but whom, he conceded, have not contested these proceedings. He reiterated that his sister, Margaret Kabai, who disappeared, also left behind 2 children who are currently above 18 years but conceded that they, too, have not filed any claims in these proceedings. He reiterated that he is himself from the 2nd house.
24. PW3 was Elizabeth Andeyo Oriko. Led by Gemenet Advocate, She testified that she was married but went back home after her marriage collapsed. She stated that the late Objector is her father, the deceased was her late mother, and the Petitioner is her brother. She then adopted her Witness Statement dated 28/10/2021 and stated further that the Petitioner misled the Court that the deceased did not have other children yet he had 4 children, namely, Simon Oriko (who died leaving behind 2 children), Moses Oriko, Elizabeth Oriko, Margaret Oriko and Joseph Liambira. She testified that the suit land is his father’s farm and that it did not belong to her mother (the deceased) but that it was registered in her mother’s name on behalf of all of them. She stated that they have a disagreement regarding the suit land and part of it was bought about by purchasers who bought portions thereof from their father and who should be given their portions. She added that there is a house on the suit land that was built by their father (the late Objector) and that who sold part of the land to repay the Settlement Fund Trustees (SFT) loan. She stated that after the purchasers have been given their portions, the remainder should be distributed among all the beneficiaries. Under cross-examination by Mr. Kiboi, she reiterated that the suit land belonged to their father but conceded that she has no evidence to prove the same. She confirmed that the Green Card indicates the registered owner as the deceased (her mother) and that her father’s name does not appear anywhere therein. She however maintained that it was her father who got the loan and paid for the suit land as her mother was not employed and thus had no income. She conceded that she did not have any Certificate of Birth or a Chief’s letter in Court to confirm that the deceased was her mother. She then stated that her sister, Margaret Keya Oriko, disappeared but left her children who are above 18 years.
Petitioner’s Witness Testimonies
25. DW1 was Priscah Jeptanui Misoi, who testified before me on 18/10/2023. Led by Mr. Kiboi, she adopted her Witness Statement referred to above and reiterated that she is the one who sold the suit land, namely, Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/54, measuring 47 acres (19.5 hectares) to the deceased. She denied that she sold the land to the Objector, the deceased’s husband, and stated that she sold the land to the deceased at Kshs 18,000/- in 1974. She stated that she got the land in 1968 from the Government of Kenya but she later relocated from the area and that is why she does not have the documents as she gave them out to the Settlement Scheme management to effect the transfer to the deceased. Under cross-examination by Mr. Osewe Advocate, she stated that she does not know what job the husband (Objector) was doing but stated that he used to work for the Government. She stated that she did not know where the deceased got the purchase price money from but insisted that it is the deceased who paid her, and that it is possible that her husband contributed. She further testified that when the Government was giving land, one was only eligible to get one parcel of land but she did not know whether some people used their children or relatives to get more than one parcel of land. She conceded that she did not have the Sale Agreement and also that the 1st entry in the Green Card for the land indicates that the land was registered in 1979 in the name of the STF, and the 2nd entry dated 28/11/1988 indicates that the land was transferred to the deceased, and that her (DW1) name does not feature anywhere in the Green Card.
26. DW2 was the Petitioner, Moses Charles Oriko, who testified before me on 6/02/2024, 24/06/2024 and on 7/10/2024. Led by Mr. Kiboi, he, too, adopted his Witness Statement and reiterated the matters therein, including that when his father (initial Objector) died, his cousin, Joseph Muzee Oriko took over the Objection herein. He reiterated that the suit land was registered in the name of the deceased (his mother) on 28/11/1988. He stated that previously the land was owned by the STF and that the Charge to the STF is also indicated in the Search and which was for Kshs 11,395/- registered on 3/4/1979. He then produced the Green Card, the Official Search dated 22/10/1998 and a letter dated 3/10/1998 from Barclays Bank addressed to himself. He testified further that the deceased purchased the land from DW1, Prisca Jeptanui Misio in 1974, and that he was himself born in 1959 so he was about 17 years at the time and was in High School thus fully aware of the transaction and that at that time, his father was residing in the separate parcel of land Chepsaita Setlement Scheme/34. He stated that the deceased, before she purchased the suit land, used to stay in Khisa in Kakamega in a parcel of land belonging to his father but she later moved to Chepsaita in early 1974 when she purchased the suit land, that she first moved into a grass-thatched house on the land, and that they set up a semi-permanent house which was constructed by his mother. He reiterated that his father only used to visit them.
27. He testified that his father, in the separate parcel of land, Chepsaita Setlement Scheme/34 used to live with the Petitioner’s 3 stepmothers, among whom Priscilla Buyeyi died 2 months back, but Rebecca Nanyama and Florence Nambuye are still there. He stated that in that in the deceased’s house, they were 4children – Solomon Oriko (father to Philip Oriko and Noel Oriko), Moses Oriko (the Petitioner), Elizabeth Andeyo and Margaret Khabayi. He then referred to the various documents in his bundle of documents indicating that the deceased was the sole owner of the suit land and also the letter dated 3/10/1998 from Barclays Bank offering to him a loan of Kshs 50,000/- for furnishing of his mother’s house, which loan, he stated, was indeed disbursed but which was, in fact, for finishing of the house, not for furnishing, although he stated that he used the balance for furnishing the house too. He stated that he is the one who paid off the STF loan balance of Kshs 44,707 and also, he is the one still paying the land rates. On sharing of the property which, he stated, is 19 hectares (47.5 acres), he stated that part of the land was sold as follows:
1. Absalom Kaisha 4.0 acres
2. Alfayo Mango 2.0 acres
3. Joseph Nyangweso 2.3 acres
4. Shadrack Nyangweso 2.0 acres
5. James Lanokwa 1.2 acres
6. Mamboleo Wathulekha 1.0 acres
7. Salvation Army Church 0.2 acres
28. According to him therefore, 11.7 acres is what has been sold, leaving a remainder of 35.8 acres out of which the family of his late brother, Simon Oriko are utilizing 10 acres which should remain that way, and not interfered with. He urged that out of the remainder of 25.8 acres, he should be allocated 20 acres, and the remaining 5.8 acres should be distributed to his two sisters; Elizabeth Andeyo and Margaret Khavai who disappeared in 2003 but who left 2 children who have not however asked for any land, that Margaret’s daughter got married and the son lives on his father’s land. He stated that he makes the above proposal because he does not dispute that a portion of the land has been sold and that the proceeds thereof were used to pay school fees for his late brother’s children and that is the reason why he should get a bigger share. He added that he has also incurred a lot of expenses in paying off loans, paying land rent and rates and that he is also the one who has been taking care of the land. He urged the Court to confirm the Grant and stated that he is aware that there are claims by his siblings from the other houses but urged that the property was exclusively his mother’s.
29. Under cross-examination by Mr. Osewe, he stated that he does not know of any foster children whom his mother was taking care of. Regarding Joseph Liambila, he stated that he is not related to the deceased and denied that he was brought up by the deceased. Regarding Ephania Andeyo, he stated that she is deceased and was a step-sister, as she was born out of wedlock but left 3 children. Regarding Salome Oriko, he stated that she, too, is a step-sister and she is also deceased but left 2 children. She however agreed that Joseph, Ephania and Salome, were all raised in the home of the deceased. and that his brother Simon Oriko also left behind 2 children. He conceded that in his Affidavit in support of the Summons for Confirmation dated 26/2//2014, he did not depone that there were any survivors apart from himself.
30. He conceded that he never filed any citation against the Objector (his father) for failing to take the Grant of Letters of Administration as the husband of the deceased nor did he obtain any consents from his siblings to apply for the Grant. He then stated that the deceased was a farmer while his father was also a farmer and a civil servant. Regarding the Receipt for payment of Kshs 24,710/- to the STF, he agreed that the same was paid after the deceased had already died. Regarding sale of the portions of land, he stated that some were sold when the deceased was still alive but 2 were sold after her death. He also confirmed that the purchasers are in occupation of their said portions, that some they recognize and some they do not, and that in som
[...truncated]