https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9642

In re Estate of Nangubo (Deceased) (Succession Cause 227 of 2009) [2026] KEHC 9642 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9642 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Bungoma Succession Cause 227 of 2009 E Ominde, J June 30, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF RASTO MASINDE NANGUBO ( DECEASED ) Between Daniel Wanjala Masinde Petitioner and Makokha Opicho Job Protestor Ruling 1.This matter was coming up for the hearing of the Summons for Confirmation of Grant dated 4th November 2025 to which a protest was filed by one Makokha Opicho Job by way of an Affidavit of Protest dated 15th May 2026. A Replying Affidavit to the said protest dated 4th June 2026 was filed. 2.However, the court notes that there is on Record a judgement of Hon. Ougo Rose J dated 29th January 2026 and it is based on this judgement that the proposed mode of distribution of the Estate is based. 3.The said Judgement explicitly stated that LR No. Bokoli/Bokoli/612 is not part of the deceased estate. Subsequently the Court on 30th June 2025 directed that the District Surveyor visits the land and determines what the acreage on the ground is so as to guide the subsequent mode of distribution which was then to exclude LR No. Bokoli/Bokoli/612. 4.The Surveyor filed the Report of the Survey he conducted with respect to LR No. Bokoli/Bokoli/612 and LR No. Bokoli/Bokoli/610. In his report, he observed that the Boundaries of both parcels do overlap on the ground in some places and that this is an issue that will need to be sorted out before the final distribution of the estate is done. 5.Upon perusal, I have noted that the summons for confirmation of grant coming up today is with respect to LR. No. Bokoli /Bokoli/610 and LR NO. Bokoli/Bokoli/ 612. The Objector’s Objection is that the Petitioner has included LR. No. Bokoli/Bokoli/ 612 in the summons yet it is not and does not form part of the estate land. 6.In a nutshell, it is the courts finding that in light of the Judgment of Hon. Ougo J which the court notes was never appealed against, the issue raised in the objection is valid and the court therefore need not belabour this point any further and/or any longer. This is why at the mention of the case at the call over when counsel for the Petitioners confirmed the position to be that LR. No. Bokoli/Bokoli/612 is part of the proposed mode of distribution, the court having appraised itself of the judgement beforehand, stated that it will not then consider the objection but will instead give directions. 7.This is because this court is of a concurrent jurisdiction with Hon. Ougo J and the Hon. Judge having determined the issue of the estate of deceased vis-à-vis LR. No. Bokoli/Bokoli/612 then renders that issue moot and spent in so far as this court is concerned and there is therefore no need for the court in applying its precious time to any protest related to this particular issue. 8.In this regard, the court now hereby directs that the summons for Confirmation shall proceed only with respect to LR No. Bokoli/Bokoli/610 and excluding LR No. Bokoli/Bokoli/612. Further, the court directs that the parties are to engage among themselves and decide on the issue of the overlapping boundaries of LR. NO. Bokoli/Bokoli/610 and LR. No. Bokoli/Bokoli/ 612 as observed by the District Surveyor. 9.If they are not able to Agree, the party objecting to the District Surveyor’s Report is at liberty to avail an alternative Surveyor who however, must perform his exercise in the presence of all the parties. The Petitioner thereafter shall file an Amended Summons for Confirmation of grant as shall be appropriate. Mention on 7th October 2026. READ DATED AND SIGNED AT BUNGOMA ON 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026E. OMINDEJUDGE