Introduction
1. The deceased person, whose estate is the subject of these proceedings, died on 25th September 2021 at Mombasa Hospital. According to the chief of his ancestral home area of Yala Township, the deceased had six dependants, to wit, Mary Nandi (a first wife, who was said to have deserted her home), Michelle Olwero Eshutchi, Richard Nandi Eshutchi, Grace Margaret Winja (the second wife of the deceased), Mitch Litunya Eshutchi and Margaret Amboko Eshutchi. The deceased also had two children born out of wedlock, who the chief identified as Richards Litunya Eshutchi and Joseph Richard Eshutchi.
2. Michelle Olwero Eshutchi and Richards Litunya Eshutchi filed a petition for letters of administration intestate dated 12th April 2023. I shall hereafter refer to the two as the “petitioners’. In the said petition, they listed the following as having survived the deceased:-
1. Michelle Olwero Eshutchi;
2. Richards Litunya Eshutchi;
3. Richard Nandi Eshutchi;
4. Joseph Richard Eshutchi;
5. Mitch Litunya Eshutchi (minor); and
6. Margaret Amboko Eshutchi (minor).
The petitioners omitted Mary Nandi and Grace Margaret Winja for reasons known to them, even though they had been listed as having survived the deceased by the Chief of the area the deceased ailed from.
3. The petition was gazette on 25th August 2023. The gazette notice was erroneous in that it referred to a petition for grant of probate of a written will rather than as one for letters of administration intestate. For that reason, the publication was deemed erroneous. The court directed that another publication of the notice in the Gazette be done with the correct information.
4. It is necessary to point out that before the publication of the notice in the Gazette for the first time, the objector/applicant filed an objection to making the grant on 23rd June 2023. The court deemed the objection as premature. Consequently, the objection was abandoned.
5. Prior to the publication of the rectified notice in the Gazette, the objector/applicant filed a Chamber Summons application dated 26th October 2023 under sections 27 and 28 of the Law of Succession Act and Rules 49 and 73 of the Probate & Administration Rules seeking provision for her children Mitch Litunya Eshutchi and Margaret Amboko Eshutchi and for payment of their school fees at Tabby Little Friends School.
6. On 8th March 2024, the rectified notice was published in the Gazette pursuant to Rule 17(1) as read with Rule 7(4) of the Probate & Administration Rules, 1980. The objector/applicant had 30 days from the said date to file her objection if she wished to object to the making the grant to the petitioners. The 30-day period elapsed on 7th April 2024. As no objection was filed within the prescribed time, the grant of letters of administration intestate was issued to Michelle Olwero Eshutchi and Richards Litunya Eshutchi on 12th April 2024.
7. On the same day the grant was issued, the objector/applicant filed her objection at 1430pm. The basis of her objection is that “she is the sole lawful widow and heir to the estate of the deceased and that Richard Nandi Eshutchi and Joseph Richard Eshutchi are guilty of reckless and willful misrepresentation and intermeddling with the estate.”
8. On 21st June 2024, her advocates on record, Sherman Nyongesa & Mutubia Advocates, filed the instant Summons vide, in which she sought an extension of time to file the objection.
The Chamber Summons dated 20th June 2024
9. The chamber summons dated 20th June 2024 seek the extension time within which the Objector/Applicant may file an objection and for the objection dated 13th April 2024 to be deemed to have been timeously filed and served. She also seeks costs.
10. The grounds upon which the application is based are set out in the body of the summons and also in the supporting affidavit sworn by the applicant on an even date. Briefly, it is that the objector/applicant got married to the deceased under the customary laws of the Kisa people and that they cohabited together for eight years in Mombasa. Their marriage was blessed with two children, Mitch Litunya Eshutchi and Margaret Amboko Eshutchi. She accused the petitioners/respondents of secretly petitioning for a grant without involving her, leading her to file an objection on 23rd June 2023, which was deemed premature as the gazette notice had not been published. The first gazette notice had errors that required rectification. In the meantime, her children were removed from school, and she had to make an application so that their fees could be paid.
11. She averred that the petition was gazetted for the second time on 8th March 2024. She was unaware of the publication until the 13th of April, 2024, when she instructed her advocates to file the objection. The petitioners never made her aware of the publication. She averred that she had no objection to the petitioners getting their fair share of the estate. She further averred that she only wanted an extension of time to file her objection. Otherwise, she and her children stand to suffer extreme prejudice. She urged that this Court has the discretion to grant the orders sought and that the petitioners/respondents would not suffer prejudice. She further urged that the application had been filed without undue delay.
Response by the Petitioner/Respondents
12. The Petitioners/Respondents filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection and a Replying Affidavit on 9th July 2024. In the former, they raised two objections, firstly that the application was res judicata and secondly, that the objection dated 9th April 2024 and filed on 13th April 2024 was filed outside the timeline of 30 days ordained by sections 67 and 68 of the Law of Succession Act and that it was filed after an unreasonable delay.
13. Michelle Olwero Eshutchi’s affidavit is dated 5th July 2024. She deposed that the application was misguided and averred that it was filed outside the statutory period. The deponent stated that the objector/applicant had evinced an intention to file a cross-petition but never did so. Michelle urged that her appointment was a product of an agreement between the parties so that the school fees for the minor children could be paid.
14. It was averred that the objector/applicant’s advocates knew what was going on and cannot now deny knowledge.
15. Ms. Eshutchi denied that the objector/applicant is a beneficiary of the estate and stated that Grace is a stranger to these proceedings who must not be allowed to address the Court. She prayed that the Court dismisses the application dated 20th June 2024 for lack of merit, having been filed after an inordinate delay and being res judicata.
Further Affidavit of the Objector/Applicant
16. The objector/applicant’s affidavit was sworn on 20th July 2024. She deposed that she wasn’t involved in the process leading to the filing of the petition. It was for that reason that she filed the 1st objection. She stated that the gazettement for the 2nd time was done secretly and that the petitioners/respondents did not share details of the exact date of the gazettement, which action “led to the slight delay in the filing of the Objection”.
17. She denied having consented to the issuance of the grant of letters of administration intestate by the court and stated that the allegation that she did so lacked basis. She urged that as a widow, she has a life interest in the estate and that the petitioners/respondents’ attempts to disinherit her and the children “ought to be frowned upon by this honourable court”.
Written Submissions of the Parties
18. The court directed that the application be canvassed through written submissions. The written submissions of the objector/applicant are dated 26th July 2024 and were filed on even date.
19. On the other hand, those of the petitioner/respondents, dated 24th July 2024, were filed on 25th July 2024. I shall refer to each below.
Submissions of the Objector/Applicant
20. The objector/applicant identified the sole issue for determination as to whether the application is merited. She averred that she was the sole surviving widow of the deceased and was thus entitled to a life interest.
21. Counsel submitted that this Court could extend time under Rule 67 of the Probate & Administration Rules, 1980. In support of this contention, I was referred to the decision of the Court In re Estate of Mary Karugi Mwangi (deceased) [2018]eKLR. Reliance was placed In re Estate of Paul Mwangi Kimamu (deceased) [2020]eKLR for the proposition that a 5-day delay in filing the objection was not inordinate.
Submissions of the Petitioners/Respondents
22. The petitioners/respondents identified two issues as coming up for determination: whether the objection dated 9th April 2024 and filed on 13th April 2024 is merited and, secondly, whether the application dated 20th June 2024 is also merited.
23. It was urged that the objection was res judicata as a previous objection dated 23rd June 2023 was determined. I was referred to the case of Henderson vs Henderson (1843) 67 ER 313.
24. On whether the application dated 20th June 2024 is merited it was urged that the same was misguided, misconceived, and bad in law as an extension of time to file an objection could only be sought before the grant is issued. In support of the said contention Counsel relied on the case of In re Estate of Agnes Ogolas Akoth (deceased) [2016]eKLR
25. It was therefore urged that the application be dismissed.
Analysis
26. It is not in contest that the grant was issued on 12th April 2024 to the petitioners/respondents and that the objection “to the making of grant” was lodged on 12th April 2024, after the grant was issued, and 5 days after the 30-day statutory period within which an objection could be lodged had lapsed. Given the situation can the Court admit an objection after the grant has been issued? If yes, could a delay of 5 days be considered unreasonable?
27. The time within which an objections to the making of grants can be made is provided in Rules 17(1), as read with Rule 7(4), of the Probate & Administration Rules, 1980, and sections 67 and 68 of the Law of Succession Act. I will set out the said statutory provisions below for the sake of clarity.
28. Sections 67 and 68 of the Law of Succession Act provides as follows:-
“67. Notice of application for grant
(1) No grant of representation, other than a limited grant for collection and preservation of assets, shall be made until there has been published notice of the application for such grant, inviting objections thereto to be made known to the court within a specified period of not less than thirty days from the date of publication, and the period so specified has expired.
(2) A notice under subsection(1) shall be exhibited conspicuously in the court house, and also published in such other manner as the court directs.
68. Objections to application
(1) Notice of any objection to an application for a grant of representation shall be lodged with the court, in such form as may be prescribed, within the period specified by such notice as aforesaid, or such longer period as the court may allow.
(2) Where notice of objection has been lodged under sub-section (1), the court shall give notice to the objector to file an answer to the application and a cross application within a specified period.”
29. Rule 17 (1) of the Probate and Administration Rules provides as follow:-
“(1) Any person who has not applied for a grant to the estate of a deceased and wishes to object to the making of a grant which has been already applied for by another person may do so by lodging within the period specified in the notice of the application published under rule 7(4), or such longer period as the court may allow, either in the registry in which the pending application has been made or in the principal registry, an objection in Form 76 or in triplicate stating his full name and address for service, his relationship (if any) to the deceased and the grounds of his objection.
30. Rule 7(4) of the P&A Rules provides as follows:-
“(4) The registrar shall cause to be inserted, at the cost of the applicant, in the Gazette and, if he so decides, in a daily newspaper, and to be exhibited conspicuously in the courthouse attached to the registry where the application is intended to be made, a notice of the application for the grant in Form 60 inviting objections thereto to be made known to that registry within a period, to be specified in the notice, of not less than thirty days from the date of the last of such publications.”
31. I understand Section 68 of the Act and Rule 17 of the Rules as giving me discretion to extend time. However, the discretion to extend time should be exercised, as with all discretions, judiciously, on sound principles and not capriciously or whimsically.
32. Courts have indeed extended the time to file objections. I agree with the holding of the Court In re Estate of Mary Karugi Mwangi (deceased) [2018]eKLR in particular its statement that:-
“16. In my considered view, notwithstanding the Objectors’ failure to explain the late filing of the Objection without leave, they stand to suffer prejudice if the Objection is struck out in limine. Justice in proceedings of this nature cannot be done by barring patently genuine parties from agitating their case. Thus, on its own motion, the court, in exercise of its discretion in the rules deems the Objection as properly filed.”
33. Having said so the above decision is not in all fours with this case. In the Mary Karugi Mwangi case, the grant had not been issued. In this case, the grant has been issued.
34. In my view, then instant objection seeks to prevent something that has already happened. An objection filed after a grant has been issued serves the same purpose as locking the stables after the horses have already bolted. It is akin to delivery of lifesaving drugs after a patient has left the land of the living. The damage that will already have been done will not be remedied. A different action is required altogether. This is also the case with objections made after the grants are issued.
35. I therefore agree wholeheartedly with the decision of JA Makau, J In re Estate of Agnes Ogolas Akoth [2016]eKLR wherein she stated that in Paragraph 14 as follows:-
“In the instant case the objection was filed when the grant had already been made. The delay in filing of the objection of 4 years is inordinate and unexplainable. The objector is objecting to the making of the grant after the objection has already been overtaken by events. The Court cannot stop what has already happened. The law of Succession is crafted in such a manner that the obtaining o grant is not an end to the aggrieved party’s rights. One can challenge the grant by seeking its revocation or annulment or even file a protest to the mode of distribution.”
36. The objector/applicant stated that she was unaware of the petition\'s gazettement. With respect, the notice was published in the Kenya Gazette, so she must be deemed to have been aware of it.
37. In any case, given the nature of this matter, the objector/applicant ought to have filed a caveat under Rule 15 of the Probate and Administration Rules, 1980, so that she could be notified prior to the issuance of the grant. She did no such thing. She only has herself to blame.
38. It is evident from the preceding paragraphs of this ruling that I have not found merit in the application before me. Consequently the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
39. The court notes that the objector/applicant raised weighty issues about how the petition was filed without her involvement. The Rules are broad and give her options she may pursue if she remains aggrieved.
40. Orders accordingly.
Dated and signed at Mombasa this 20th day of September 2024. Delivered virtually via Microsoft TEAMS.
1. The deceased person, whose estate is the subject of these proceedings, died on 25th September 2021 at Mombasa Hospital. According to the chief of his ancestral home area of Yala Township, the deceased had six dependants, to wit, Mary Nandi (a first wife, who was said to have deserted her home), Michelle Olwero Eshutchi, Richard Nandi Eshutchi, Grace Margaret Winja (the second wife of the deceased), Mitch Litunya Eshutchi and Margaret Amboko Eshutchi. The deceased also had two children born out of wedlock, who the chief identified as Richards Litunya Eshutchi and Joseph Richard Eshutchi.
2. Michelle Olwero Eshutchi and Richards Litunya Eshutchi filed a petition for letters of administration intestate dated 12th April 2023. I shall hereafter refer to the two as the “petitioners’. In the said petition, they listed the following as having survived the deceased:-
1. Michelle Olwero Eshutchi;
2. Richards Litunya Eshutchi;
3. Richard Nandi Eshutchi;
4. Joseph Richard Eshutchi;
5. Mitch Litunya Eshutchi (minor); and
6. Margaret Amboko Eshutchi (minor).
The petitioners omitted Mary Nandi and Grace Margaret Winja for reasons known to them, even though they had been listed as having survived the deceased by the Chief of the area the deceased ailed from.
3. The petition was gazette on 25th August 2023. The gazette notice was erroneous in that it referred to a petition for grant of probate of a written will rather than as one for letters of administration intestate. For that reason, the publication was deemed erroneous. The court directed that another publication of the notice in the Gazette be done with the correct information.
4. It is necessary to point out that before the publication of the notice in the Gazette for the first time, the objector/applicant filed an objection to making the grant on 23rd June 2023. The court deemed the objection as premature. Consequently, the objection was abandoned.
5. Prior to the publication of the rectified notice in the Gazette, the objector/applicant filed a Chamber Summons application dated 26th October 2023 under sections 27 and 28 of the Law of Succession Act and Rules 49 and 73 of the Probate & Administration Rules seeking provision for her children Mitch Litunya Eshutchi and Margaret Amboko Eshutchi and for payment of their school fees at Tabby Little Friends School.
6. On 8th March 2024, the rectified notice was published in the Gazette pursuant to Rule 17(1) as read with Rule 7(4) of the Probate & Administration Rules, 1980. The objector/applicant had 30 days from the said date to file her objection if she wished to object to the making the grant to the petitioners. The 30-day period elapsed on 7th April 2024. As no objection was filed within the prescribed time, the grant of letters of administration intestate was issued to Michelle Olwero Eshutchi and Richards Litunya Eshutchi on 12th April 2024.
7. On the same day the grant was issued, the objector/applicant filed her objection at 1430pm. The basis of her objection is that “she is the sole lawful widow and heir to the estate of the deceased and that Richard Nandi Eshutchi and Joseph Richard Eshutchi are guilty of reckless and willful misrepresentation and intermeddling with the estate.”
8. On 21st June 2024, her advocates on record, Sherman Nyongesa & Mutubia Advocates, filed the instant Summons vide, in which she sought an extension of time to file the objection.
The Chamber Summons dated 20th June 2024
9. The chamber summons dated 20th June 2024 seek the extension time within which the Objector/Applicant may file an objection and for the objection dated 13th April 2024 to be deemed to have been timeously filed and served. She also seeks costs.
10. The grounds upon which the application is based are set out in the body of the summons and also in the supporting affidavit sworn by the applicant on an even date. Briefly, it is that the objector/applicant got married to the deceased under the customary laws of the Kisa people and that they cohabited together for eight years in Mombasa. Their marriage was blessed with two children, Mitch Litunya Eshutchi and Margaret Amboko Eshutchi. She accused the petitioners/respondents of secretly petitioning for a grant without involving her, leading her to file an objection on 23rd June 2023, which was deemed premature as the gazette notice had not been published. The first gazette notice had errors that required rectification. In the meantime, her children were removed from school, and she had to make an application so that their fees could be paid.
11. She averred that the petition was gazetted for the second time on 8th March 2024. She was unaware of the publication until the 13th of April, 2024, when she instructed her advocates to file the objection. The petitioners never made her aware of the publication. She averred that she had no objection to the petitioners getting their fair share of the estate. She further averred that she only wanted an extension of time to file her objection. Otherwise, she and her children stand to suffer extreme prejudice. She urged that this Court has the discretion to grant the orders sought and that the petitioners/respondents would not suffer prejudice. She further urged that the application had been filed without undue delay.
Response by the Petitioner/Respondents
12. The Petitioners/Respondents filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection and a Replying Affidavit on 9th July 2024. In the former, they raised two objections, firstly that the application was res judicata and secondly, that the objection dated 9th April 2024 and filed on 13th April 2024 was filed outside the timeline of 30 days ordained by sections 67 and 68 of the Law of Succession Act and that it was filed after an unreasonable delay.
13. Michelle Olwero Eshutchi’s affidavit is dated 5th July 2024. She deposed that the application was misguided and averred that it was filed outside the statutory period. The deponent stated that the objector/applicant had evinced an intention to file a cross-petition but never did so. Michelle urged that her appointment was a product of an agreement between the parties so that the school fees for the minor children could be paid.
14. It was averred that the objector/applicant’s advocates knew what was going on and cannot now deny knowledge.
15. Ms. Eshutchi denied that the objector/applicant is a beneficiary of the estate and stated that Grace is a stranger to these proceedings who must not be allowed to address the Court. She prayed that the Court dismisses the application dated 20th June 2024 for lack of merit, having been filed after an inordinate delay and being res judicata.
Further Affidavit of the Objector/Applicant
16. The objector/applicant’s affidavit was sworn on 20th July 2024. She deposed that she wasn’t involved in the process leading to the filing of the petition. It was for that reason that she filed the 1st objection. She stated that the gazettement for the 2nd time was done secretly and that the petitioners/respondents did not share details of the exact date of the gazettement, which action “led to the slight delay in the filing of the Objection”.
17. She denied having consented to the issuance of the grant of letters of administration intestate by the court and stated that the allegation that she did so lacked basis. She urged that as a widow, she has a life interest in the estate and that the petitioners/respondents’ attempts to disinherit her and the children “ought to be frowned upon by this honourable court”.
Written Submissions of the Parties
18. The court directed that the application be canvassed through written submissions. The written submissions of the objector/applicant are dated 26th July 2024 and were filed on even date.
19. On the other hand, those of the petitioner/respondents, dated 24th July 2024, were filed on 25th July 2024. I shall refer to each below.
Submissions of the Objector/Applicant
20. The objector/applicant identified the sole issue for determination as to whether the application is merited. She averred that she was the sole surviving widow of the deceased and was thus entitled to a life interest.
21. Counsel submitted that this Court could extend time under Rule 67 of the Probate & Administration Rules, 1980. In support of this contention, I was referred to the decision of the Court In re Estate of Mary Karugi Mwangi (deceased) [2018]eKLR. Reliance was placed In re Estate of Paul Mwangi Kimamu (deceased) [2020]eKLR for the proposition that a 5-day delay in filing the objection was not inordinate.
Submissions of the Petitioners/Respondents
22. The petitioners/respondents identified two issues as coming up for determination: whether the objection dated 9th April 2024 and filed on 13th April 2024 is merited and, secondly, whether the application dated 20th June 2024 is also merited.
23. It was urged that the objection was res judicata as a previous objection dated 23rd June 2023 was determined. I was referred to the case of Henderson vs Henderson (1843) 67 ER 313.
24. On whether the application dated 20th June 2024 is merited it was urged that the same was misguided, misconceived, and bad in law as an extension of time to file an objection could only be sought before the grant is issued. In support of the said contention Counsel relied on the case of In re Estate of Agnes Ogolas Akoth (deceased) [2016]eKLR
25. It was therefore urged that the application be dismissed.
Analysis
26. It is not in contest that the grant was issued on 12th April 2024 to the petitioners/respondents and that the objection “to the making of grant” was lodged on 12th April 2024, after the grant was issued, and 5 days after the 30-day statutory period within which an objection could be lodged had lapsed. Given the situation can the Court admit an objection after the grant has been issued? If yes, could a delay of 5 days be considered unreasonable?
27. The time within which an objections to the making of grants can be made is provided in Rules 17(1), as read with Rule 7(4), of the Probate & Administration Rules, 1980, and sections 67 and 68 of the Law of Succession Act. I will set out the said statutory provisions below for the sake of clarity.
28. Sections 67 and 68 of the Law of Succession Act provides as follows:-
“67. Notice of application for grant
(1) No grant of representation, other than a limited grant for collection and preservation of assets, shall be made until there has been published notice of the application for such grant, inviting objections thereto to be made known to the court within a specified period of not less than thirty days from the date of publication, and the period so specified has expired.
(2) A notice under subsection(1) shall be exhibited conspicuously in the court house, and also published in such other manner as the court directs.
68. Objections to application
(1) Notice of any objection to an application for a grant of representation shall be lodged with the court, in such form as may be prescribed, within the period specified by such notice as aforesaid, or such longer period as the court may allow.
(2) Where notice of objection has been lodged under sub-section (1), the court shall give notice to the objector to file an answer to the application and a cross application within a specified period.”
29. Rule 17 (1) of the Probate and Administration Rules provides as follow:-
“(1) Any person who has not applied for a grant to the estate of a deceased and wishes to object to the making of a grant which has been already applied for by another person may do so by lodging within the period specified in the notice of the application published under rule 7(4), or such longer period as the court may allow, either in the registry in which the pending application has been made or in the principal registry, an objection in Form 76 or in triplicate stating his full name and address for service, his relationship (if any) to the deceased and the grounds of his objection.
30. Rule 7(4) of the P&A Rules provides as follows:-
“(4) The registrar shall cause to be inserted, at the cost of the applicant, in the Gazette and, if he so decides, in a daily newspaper, and to be exhibited conspicuously in the courthouse attached to the registry where the application is intended to be made, a notice of the application for the grant in Form 60 inviting objections thereto to be made known to that registry within a period, to be specified in the notice, of not less than thirty days from the date of the last of such publications.”
31. I understand Section 68 of the Act and Rule 17 of the Rules as giving me discretion to extend time. However, the discretion to extend time should be exercised, as with all discretions, judiciously, on sound principles and not capriciously or whimsically.
32. Courts have indeed extended the time to file objections. I agree with the holding of the Court In re Estate of Mary Karugi Mwangi (deceased) [2018]eKLR in particular its statement that:-
“16. In my considered view, notwithstanding the Objectors’ failure to explain the late filing of the Objection without leave, they stand to suffer prejudice if the Objection is struck out in limine. Justice in proceedings of this nature cannot be done by barring patently genuine parties from agitating their case. Thus, on its own motion, the court, in exercise of its discretion in the rules deems the Objection as properly filed.”
33. Having said so the above decision is not in all fours with this case. In the Mary Karugi Mwangi case, the grant had not been issued. In this case, the grant has been issued.
34. In my view, then instant objection seeks to prevent something that has already happened. An objection filed after a grant has been issued serves the same purpose as locking the stables after the horses have already bolted. It is akin to delivery of lifesaving drugs after a patient has left the land of the living. The damage that will already have been done will not be remedied. A different action is required altogether. This is also the case with objections made after the grants are issued.
35. I therefore agree wholeheartedly with the decision of JA Makau, J In re Estate of Agnes Ogolas Akoth [2016]eKLR wherein she stated that in Paragraph 14 as follows:-
“In the instant case the objection was filed when the grant had already been made. The delay in filing of the objection of 4 years is inordinate and unexplainable. The objector is objecting to the making of the grant after the objection has already been overtaken by events. The Court cannot stop what has already happened. The law of Succession is crafted in such a manner that the obtaining o grant is not an end to the aggrieved party’s rights. One can challenge the grant by seeking its revocation or annulment or even file a protest to the mode of distribution.”
36. The objector/applicant stated that she was unaware of the petition\'s gazettement. With respect, the notice was published in the Kenya Gazette, so she must be deemed to have been aware of it.
37. In any case, given the nature of this matter, the objector/applicant ought to have filed a caveat under Rule 15 of the Probate and Administration Rules, 1980, so that she could be notified prior to the issuance of the grant. She did no such thing. She only has herself to blame.
38. It is evident from the preceding paragraphs of this ruling that I have not found merit in the application before me. Consequently the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
39. The court notes that the objector/applicant raised weighty issues about how the petition was filed without her involvement. The Rules are broad and give her options she may pursue if she remains aggrieved.
40. Orders accordingly.
Dated and signed at Mombasa this 20th day of September 2024. Delivered virtually via Microsoft TEAMS.