Court restores land pact in polygamous family estate feud

 High Court in Siaya /JUDICIARY

The estate of Richard Achola (deceased), survived by three widows, descended into turmoil after a fragile promise of peace collapsed barely months after it was sealed in court.

The dispute revolved around the family’s homestead land, a flashpoint that appeared finally settled when all beneficiaries entered into a mediation settlement on November 24, 2024.

Under the agreement, widows Alice Opiyo, Jeniffer Haya and Peres Atieno consented to retain the portions of land each household already occupied, in line with arrangements made by the deceased during his lifetime. Only the main homestead parcel was to be subdivided equally among the three houses.

The settlement was signed by all parties and formally adopted as a binding court judgment on December 10, 2024.

In law, a mediation settlement carries the force of a contract, binding on all parties and not easily set aside, given that it is entered into voluntarily.

But the calm did not last.

Peace unravelled when Andrew Achola, one of the appointed administrators of the estate, moved a surveyor onto the land.

Contrary to the mediation terms, he sought to redistribute the entire estate into equal portions, disregarding the existing occupation on the ground and the court-adopted agreement.

When resistance emerged, Achola sidestepped his co-administrators and other beneficiaries and instead filed a Summons for Rectification of Grant on April 4, 2025—an application ordinarily used to correct clerical or procedural errors.

Crucially, the application was lodged without notifying Caroline Anyango, a co-administrator and beneficiary, or the rest of the family.

The magistrate’s court allowed the application nonetheless.

Caroline was neither served nor afforded an opportunity to object or be heard, a move that effectively rewrote the family’s hard-won consensus.

On April 29, 2025, the court issued a ruling that altered the agreed mode of distribution.

Caroline moved to the High Court in Siaya, challenging the decision.

She argued the magistrate erred in law by disregarding a binding mediation settlement and by violating her constitutional right to a fair hearing.

In a judgment delivered on January 19, Justice David Kemei agreed.

The judge found the lower court had acted in error, noting that there was no confirmed grant capable of rectification in the first place, as no certificate of confirmation had ever been issued reflecting the mediation terms.

The mediation settlement, Justice Kemei held, was binding like any other contract and could not be unilaterally overturned through an application by one party.

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the magistrate’s ruling, and dismissed Achola’s summons in its entirety.

Justice Kemei further issued a fresh grant in the names of the three agreed administrators and confirmed it, directing that the estate be distributed strictly in accordance with the original Mediation Settlement Agreement of November 2024.

With that order, the court restored the family to the path of resolution they had chosen—one forged through consensus, not conflict.