Aleli (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of the Late William Juma Luyoko) v Onyango & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 1 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1957 (KLR) (9 April 2026) (Ruling)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT BUSIA ELC NO 1 OF 2024 MOHAMOUD JUMA ALELI (suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of the late WILLIAM JUMA LUYOKO ….……. PLAINTIFF = VERSUS = ANGELINE ATIENO ONYANGO …………………..… 1ST DEFENDANT OPONDO ANINDO EVERISTO ……………..………. 2ND DEFENDANT THE LAND REGISTRAR, BUSIA …………………… 3RD DEFENDANT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ……………...………… 4TH DEFENDANT R U L I N G 1. If there was any evidence needed to prove that at times, what happens in succession proceedings with regard to land BUSIA ELC NO. 1 OF 2024 – RULING Page 1 of 14 invariably affects land disputes, this is one such case. The pungent smell emanating from BUSIA CHIEF MAGISTRATES COURT SUCCESSION CAUSES NO E379 of 2023 and NO E201 of 2023 has now pervaded into these proceedings and from the look of things, that smell is unlikely to disappear soon. A sad scenario indeed. 2. On 25th July 2024, I allowed an application by MOHAMOUD JUMA ALELI (the Plaintiff) dated 4th September 2023, in which he had sought against ANGELINE ATIENO ONYANGO, OPONDO EVERISTO, THE LAND REGISTRAR BUSIA and the ATTORNEY GENERAL (the 1st to 4th Defendants respectively) the main order that pending the hearing and determination of this suit, an order of injunction be issued restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants, employees or others from trespassing, tilling, cultivating, developing or using the land parcels NO BUKHAYO/BUGENGI/13917, 13918, 9336 and 9335. 3. Upon service of that order upon the Defendants, the 2 nd Defendant approached this Court vide his Notice of Motion BUSIA ELC NO. 1 OF 2024 – RULING Page 2 of 14 dated 29th August 2024 seeking an order of temporary injunction to restrain the Plaintiff from interfering with his quiet enjoyment of the land parcel NO BUKHAYO/BUGENGI/13918 pending the hearing and determination of the suit herein. But what is important for purposes of this ruling is that the 2nd Defendant asked me to discharge the injunctive orders issued on 25th July 2024 because, although the Plaintiff had approached this Court on the basis that he was the Legal Administrator of the Estate of WILLIAM JUMA LUKOYO, that Estate already had legal Administrators namely KRISPINUS MASIGA JUMA and TOPISTA ADIKINYI JUMA. 4. Faced with the doubt as to who between the Plaintiff, KRISPINUS MASIGA JUMA and TOPISTA ADIKINYI JUMA was the valid legal administrator to the estate of WILLIAM JUMA LUKOYO, this Court took the only natural decision to discharge the injunctive orders issued on 25th July 2024 and advised the parties to go back to the Succession Court and have the record set straight. BUSIA ELC NO. 1 OF 2024 – RULING Page 3 of 14 5. What the Plaintiff did, this time joined by WILBRODA AUMA PAMBA, HASSAN JUMA and LOICE SHISIA MUKAMBA, was to go back to the succession Court in Chief Magistrate Succession Cause NO E379 of 2023 seeking for the revocation and annulment of the Grant issued to KRISPINUS MASIGA JUMA and TOPISTA ADIKINYI JUMA. That application was allowed vide a ruling delivered by HON R. ODENYO on a date which has not been specified in that ruling. 6. Armed with that ruling, the Plaintiff has now returned to this Court vide his Notice of Motion dated 2nd July 2025 and premised on the provisions of Order 12 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules. He seeks against the Defendants the following substantive orders: 1) Spent. 2) Spent. 3) Spent. 4) That the Honourable Court be pleased to reinstate the orders issued on 25th July 2024 BUSIA ELC NO. 1 OF 2024 – RULING Page 4 of 14 pending the hearing and determination of the main suit. 5) That costs of this application be provided for. The Motion is anchored on the grounds set out therein and supported by the Plaintiff's affidavit of even dated. The thrust of the Motion is that this Court by it’s ruling delivered on 25th July 2024 issued an order of injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering in any manner with the land parcels NO BUKHAYO/BUGENGI/13913, 13918, 9336 and 9335 pending the hearing and determination of the suit herein. That order of inunction was however set aside vide my ruling dated 8th April 2025 in which I advised the parties to go back to the succession Court to confirm which between the Grant issued to the Plaintiff in BUSIA CHIEF MAGISTRATES COURT SUCCESSION CAUSE NO E201 of 2023 and the Grant issued to KRISPINUS MASIGA JUMA and TOPISTA ADIKINYI JUMA, both in respect of the Estate of WILLIAM JUMA LUKOYO, is the valid one. It is the BUSIA ELC NO. 1 OF 2024 – RULING Page 5 of 14 Plaintiff’s case that he has since the delivery of my ruling gone back to the succession cause which as now revoked the Grant issued to KRISPINUS MASIGA JUMA and TOPISTA ADIKINYI JUMA. Based on that revocation, it is fair and just for this Court to reinstate the orders issued on 25th July 2024 to preserve the suit property pending the hearing of this suit. 7. The following documents are annexed to the Motion: 1) Copy of Limited Grant of Letters of Administration and Ad Litem issued to the Plaintiff on 13th October 2023 in BUSIA CHIEF MAGISTRATES COURT SUCCESSION CAUSE NO E201 of 2023 in respect to the Estate of WILLIAM JUMA LUYOKO. 2) Copy of the un-dated Ruling by HON R. ODENYO in BUSIA CHIEF MAGISTRATES’ SUCCESSION CUASE NO E379 of 2023 revoking the Grant issued to KRISPINUS MASIGA JUMA and TOPISTA ADIKINYI JUMA on 15th August 2023. BUSIA ELC NO. 1 OF 2024 – RULING Page 6 of 14 8. The Motion is opposed and the 1st Defendant has filed a replying affidavit dated 14th October 2025 in which she has averred, inter alia, that the Plaintiff, purporting to be the son of WILLIAM JUMA LUYOKO used a forged death certificate in obtaining the Grant to the said Estate and that infact, the son of WILLIAM JUMA LUYOKO is KRISPINUS MASIGA JUMA who obtained the death certificate which pre-dates the one used by the Plaintiff. That infact KRISPINUS MASIGA JUMA has now filed an application in BUSIA CHIEF MAGISTRATES COURT SUCCESSION CAUSE NO E379 of 2023 for the appointment of Administrators and the same was coming up on 4th November 2025. Therefore, the issue of the forged death certificate needs to be addressed first. The other issues raised in the said replying affidavit are not really relevant to this Motion as they touch on events that occurred on 3rd June 2010 when the 1st Defendant appeared before the NAMBALE LAND CONTROL BOARD to sub- divide the suit land and that she has been in occupation of the same since 2010. Those are issues which will only fall for BUSIA ELC NO. 1 OF 2024 – RULING Page 7 of 14 consideration when this suit is finally heard. And at this rate, that is a long way to come judging by this Motion and the other Motions pending in the succession Court. 9. The 2nd Defendant in his replying affidavit dated 12th September 2025 has also taken the same trajectory in opposing the Plaintiff’s Motion. He too has deposed, inter alia, that the Plaintiff used a forged certificate of death while applying for the Grant to the Estate of WILLIAM JUMA LUYOKO and other Applicants have now applied for Grant in respect to that Estate. The 2nd Defendant has also averred at length on the ownership of the land in dispute which issues, as I have already stated above, will be determined at the trial of this suit and are not relevant for purposes of this Motion. 10. The Plaintiff filed a further affidavit, un-dated, in which he too addresses the issues with regard to the forged death certificate of the deceased which he says was only an error which was rectified. Further, that the application coming up on 8th September 2025 in the succession cause NO E379 of BUSIA ELC NO. 1 OF 2024 – RULING Page 8 of 14 2023 is frivolous. He also makes lengthy reference to the ownership of the land in dispute which, as I have already said, is not relevant for purposes of this Motion. 11. The Motion has been canvassed by way of written submissions. The same have been filed by MS NYANDORO instructed by the firm of NYANDORO & COMPANY ADVOCATES for the Plaintiff, MS NABULINDO instructed by the firm of D. K. NABULINDO & COMPANY ADVOCATES for the 1st Defendant and by MS MYRA instructed by the firm of MAINA KINGARA & COMPANY ADVOCATES for the 2nd Defendant. 12. I have considered the Motion, the rival affidavits and the submissions by counsel. 13. In my view, the main issue is whether this Court should reinstate the orders of injunction which had been issued on 25th July 2024 but were set aside on 8th April 2025. Notwithstanding the lengthy affidavits by the parties and the submissions by counsel, the swift and short answer to the Motion is that it is for dismissal on the following grounds: BUSIA ELC NO. 1 OF 2024 – RULING Page 9 of 14 14. Firstly, the orders issued on 25th July 2024 were injunctive orders pending trial. Order 40 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that: “Where a suit in respect of which an interlocutory injunction has been granted is not determined within a period of twelve months from the date of the grant, the injunction shall lapse unless for any sufficient reason the Court orders otherwise.” As this Court crafts this ruling, it is obvious that the injunctive orders issued on 25th July 2024 lapsed some three weeks after the Motion was filed which was on 2 nd July 2025. This case has not even commenced trial and it is un-likely to be determined within the twelve (12) months statutory period set out in Order 40 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Indeed, any possibility of extending the said order of interlocutory injunction is now water under the bridge. The injunctive order having lapsed, there is nothing which this BUSIA ELC NO. 1 OF 2024 – RULING Page 10 of 14 Court can reinstate. The term lapse is defined in the BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY TENTH EDITION as: “The termination of a right or privilege because of a failure to exercise it within some time limit or because a contingency has occurred or not occurred.” The interlocutory order of injunction having lapsed by operation of the law and the same having not been extended by this Court, there is no order which can be reinstated. Any order for extension could only have been made, and on application, before it lapsed. 15. Secondly, even as this Court grapples with this Motion, it has been averred by the Defendants, and confirmed by the Plaintiff, that there is infact an application dated 8th September 2025 and filed in BUSIA CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT SUCCESSION CAUSE NO E379 of 2023 in which KRSIPINUS MASIGA JUMA seeks the appointment of TOPISTA ADIKINYI JUMA, KRIPINUS MASIGA JUMA, GRACE NABWIRE JUMA and HASSAN JUMA as BUSIA ELC NO. 1 OF 2024 – RULING Page 11 of 14 Administrators to the Estate of WILLIAM JUMA LUKOYO. The Plaintiff has by his further affidavit described that application which was coming up on 4th November 2025, as frivolous, an abuse of the Court process and a waste of judicial time. That may very well be so. However, the fact of the matter is that for as long as the muddle arising out of the two Grants remains unresolved, nobody is sure, let alone this Court, as to who of the parties herein has the locus standi to sue or be sued in these proceeding. Let me adopt the analogy of a plane waiting on the runway to take off. For as long as the debris left behind by flights BUSIA CHIEF MAGISTRATES COURT SUCCESSION CAUSES NOS E201 and E379 of 2023 remains on the runway, the plaint herein and with it, the various Motions on which it is anchored are going nowhere. My advise to the parties is to urgently prioritize the determination of all the issues pending in the succession causes so that there is clarity as to who is the legitimate legal Administrator to the Estate of the late WILLIAM JUMA LUKOYO. Unfortunately, this Court has no BUSIA ELC NO. 1 OF 2024 – RULING Page 12 of 14 role to play in that exercise and can only fold its hands and wait. 16. The up-shot of all the above is that having considered the Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion dated 2nd July 2025, I issue the following disposal orders: 1) The Motion is dismissed. 2) Costs to the Defendants. BOAZ N. OLAO JUDGE 9 TH APRIL 2026 Ruling dated, signed and delivered by way of electronic mail on this 9th day of April 2026 with notice to the parties. BOAZ N. OLAO JUDGE 9 TH APRIL 2026 Explanatory notes: BUSIA ELC NO. 1 OF 2024 – RULING Page 13 of 14 This ruling was due for delivery on 26th January 2026. However, following my transfer to Iten Court from Busia Court, I had to prioritize my part heard cases as well as delivering pending judgments and ruling since the transfer was effective 15th January 2026. That has caused the delay in delivering this ruling, among others. The same is regretted. BOAZ N. OLAO JUDGE 9 TH APRIL 2026 BUSIA ELC NO. 1 OF 2024 – RULING Page 14 of 14