[2023] KEHC 22764 (KLR)
The court found that both applications for stay of execution and preservation of the estate assets pending appeal were merited. The assets in question are immovable and not perishable, and their value is likely to increase over time. Granting the orders would not prejudice the respondents, and it is necessary to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 22764 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Mary Bunyasi; Appellant: Joyce Wandera; Appellant: Christine Omanyo; Appellant: Eunice Omanyo; Appellant: Sarah Omanyo; Respondent: Lucy Mbalanya; Respondent: Davis Omanyo; Respondent: Abraham Omanyo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Busia
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Appeal E006 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Appeal / Ruling on Applications for Stay of Execution and Preservation Orders Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Both applications for stay of execution and preservation of estate assets pending appeal allowed.
- Judges
- WM Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Succession Estate Distribution, Stay of Execution, Preservation of Estate Assets
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mary Bunyasi
Appellant
Joyce Wandera
Appellant
Christine Omanyo
Appellant
Eunice Omanyo
Appellant
Sarah Omanyo
Appellant
Lucy Mbalanya
Respondent
Davis Omanyo
Respondent
Abraham Omanyo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Appeal / Ruling on Applications for Stay of Execution and Preservation Orders Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether stay of execution and preservation orders should be granted pending appeal in a succession matter.
- 2 Whether the estate assets are at risk of dissipation or transfer before the appeal is determined.
- 3 Whether the parties excluded from succession proceedings are entitled to preservation of the estate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that both applications for stay of execution and preservation of the estate assets pending appeal were merited. The assets in question are immovable and not perishable, and their value is likely to increase over time. Granting the orders would not prejudice the respondents, and it is necessary to preserve the estate to ensure the appeal is not rendered nugatory. The court emphasized the need for closure in succession disputes but recognized the appellants' right to seek appellate intervention. Accordingly, both applications were allowed, and directions were given for the filing and service of the record of appeal within 30 days.
Court Disposition
Both applications for stay of execution and preservation of estate assets pending appeal allowed.
Orders
- Stay of execution of the impugned orders granted pending appeal.
- Preservation and inhibition orders issued to conserve the estate assets, specifically subdivisions out of Samia/Bukangala A/52, pending appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
Bunyasi & 4 others v Mbalanya & 2 others (Succession Appeal E006 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 22764 (KLR) (28 September 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 22764 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Busia
Succession Appeal E006 of 2022
WM Musyoka, J
September 28, 2023
Between
Mary Bunyasi
1st Appellant
Joyce Wandera
2nd Appellant
Christine Omanyo
3rd Appellant
Eunice Omanyo
4th Appellant
Sarah Omanyo
5th Appellant
and
Lucy Mbalanya
1st Respondent
Davis Omanyo
2nd Respondent
Abraham Omanyo
3rd Respondent
(An appeal arising from orders made in the ruling of Hon. PA Olengo, Senior Principal Magistrate, SPM, in Busia CMCSC No. 27 of 2016, of 7th October 2022)
Ruling
1. There are 2 applications for determination, dated October 14, 2022 and November 25, 2022.
2. The application, dated October 14, 2022, by the appellants, is principally for stay of execution of those and consequential orders. The appellants are daughters of the late Yohana Omanyo, the deceased herein, whose estate was the subject of the proceedings at the trial court. They were aggrieved by those orders, hence the appeal. They aver that the respondents have been transferring some of the assets of the estate. They would like the orders stayed pending appeal.
3. The application, dated November 25, 2022, is by the 2nd respondent. He too would like the orders in that ruling to be stayed, and an inhibitory order be made to facilitate that, by way of conserving the subdivisions out of Samia/Bukangala A/52. He avers that the 1st respondent had unilaterally caused subdivision of the estate asset, and was threatening to have them transferred to 3rd parties.
4. The reply to the application is by the 1st respondent. She opposes the application dated November 25, 2022, and supports the impugned orders. She accuses the appellants and the 2nd respondent of not cooperating with her, and of generally working to disinherit her.
5. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions, and all the sides have filed written submissions, which I have read through and noted the arguments made.
6. The impugned orders were made on a revocation application, by parties who claimed to have had been excluded from the succession cause. The trial court was of the view that the matter was res judicata. The dispute is over distribution of the estate of a dead person. There is need for closure for the parties. If they feel aggrieved by some order made by the court, they would be at liberty to seek the opinion of a higher court. They have exercised that right, by filing the instant appeal, and the orders sought are for preservation of the estate pending appeal. The respondents would suffer no prejudice, for the assets in question are immovable. They are not perishable, and passage of time only increases their value.
7. My inclination is to allow both applications, which I hereby do. To move the matter forward, let the appellants file and serve their record of appeal, within 30 days. The matter shall be mentioned thereafter, for directions. Orders accordingly.
RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT BUSIA THIS 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023WM MUSYOKAJUDGEMr. Arthur Etyang, Court Assistant.AppearancesMr. Ouma, instructed by BM Ouma & Company, Advocates for the appellants.Ms. Kituyi, instructed by AN Moturi & Company, Advocates for the 1st respondent.Mr. Makokha, instructed by Makokha Wattanga & Luyali, Advocates instructed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents.