REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MARSABIT
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO E001 OF 2022
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE HUSSEIN EDEMA BARISO Alias BARISO HUSSEIN EDEMA Alias HUSSEIN EDEMA(DECEASED)
BADILU HUSSEIN EDEMA……………………………………..1 st PETITIONER
AMINA HUSSEIN EDEMA…………………..…..…………….2 nd PETITIONER
ADAN HUSSEIN EDEMA……………………..….…….………3 rd PETITIONER
VERSUS
ALIMA HUSSEIN EDEMA…………..…………………..1 st CROSS-PETITIONER
SHARON HUSSEIN EDEMA…………...............…….2 nd CROSS-PETITIONER
RULING
A. Introduction
1. This ruling concerns the objection dated 12 th May 2025 file by way cross-petitioner by the objectors, who are the 1 st wife and daughter respectively of the deceased herein. The petitioners filed their responses in opposition to the same and the parties consented to dispose of the said objection by way of viva voce evidence.
B. Evidence at Trial
(i) Objectors Case
2. OW1 Alima Hussein Edema, stated that she was a resident of Kiwanja Ndege within Marsabit town, and adopted her witness statement and filed documents as evidence in support of her objection. She stated that she was the 1 st wife to the deceased and shared a blissful marriage with him, which lasted for seventy (70) years until his death. She acknowledged the petitioners/respondents as her step children and personally, was not blessed with a child, but her co-wife Habiba Hussein Edema , had been blessed with eight (8) children. After husband passed away, without her knowledge and in her absence, the 2 nd family appeared before the County commissioner-Marsabit, where a will purported to be authored by her late husband was read out. It was her contention that the said will was fake/forged as her deceased husband was unable to read or write, and if indeed he did author the said will, he would have placed his thumb print on the same, as he normally would, with other official/bank documents.
3. She further testified that they had married young and had acquired all the estate property through joint hard work. Since she was not able to conceive, she was the one who brought her co wife, Habiba Hussein Edema into the said marriage as a second wife, to bear children of the marriage. Unfortunately, after their husband passed on, the petitioners, her co wife and her other children had purposefully neglected her and denied her access or any benefit from the deceased estate to her loss and detriment. She thus had to survive on the benevolence of the 2 nd objector, who out of her kind hearted, had accommodated her and took care of her basic needs. She thus urged the court to declare the said will to be null and void and the said estate to be determined on the basis of intestacy.
4. Under cross examination, she confirmed that Habiba Hussein Edema was her Co-wife and she was the one who brought her into the said marriage and paid her dowry with her own money. The will purported to be signed by the deceased was a forgery and did not provide for her share, which was illogical given that the deceased died, when they were in good terms. Further the said will had been read in her absence and the succession proceedings commenced behind her back, which signified bad faith on the part of the petitioners/respondents and believed that it was a sinister scheme hatched by her co-wife and her children to disinherit her.
5. Further OW1, confirmed that the 2 nd objector was the biological daughter of her co-wife but upon birth was handed over to her after 40 days (as dictated by custom) and had since then assumed parental responsibly over her until adulthood. She also confirmed that she had not reported any forgery case to the DCI to investigate but had moved to court to protect her right. In reexamination she reiterated her evidence and stated that upon death of their husband, the 2 nd family had retained possession of most of the estate title deeds and had proceeded to file the succession process without her knowledge. She thus prayed that the Objection be allowed.
6. OWII Sharon Hussein Edema, testified that she was a daughter of the deceased and OW1 was her step mother, who had taken care of her from childhood. She relied on her witness statement and produced her list of documents as exhibits urging the court to entirely rely on the same. After the deceased died on 05.05.2021, her brother’s started to fight over estate property, and eventually after about eight months they discovered that there was a purported will left by the deceased stating how his estate would be distributed. She doubted the authenticity of the said Will as the deceased was illiterate and did not speak or write in English.
7. While growing up she had severally accompanied the deceased to the bank and seen him sign land sale agreements by always appending his thumb print and never signed any document. The will was not signature and was also not witnessed by an independent third party and/or advocate and thus was a nullity. OWII emphasized that the deceased relationship with OW1 was excellent and he would not have left her out without providing for her to enjoy a share of his estate. She further faulted the Petitioners/respondents for being greed as they had immediately upon the deceased death removed OW1 from her house and turned it into a commercial store.
8. She further noted that the deceased left sixteen (16) shops and during his lifetime would give OW1 rent worth Kshs.60,000/= from three (3) shops to sustain her. Other estate income came from monies collected from their PSV land cruiser and tractors. The 2 nd family had taken over possession of all the estate property to their detriment, yet OW1 had substantially contributed to the acquisition of the estate property. She thus urged the court to uphold their objection. Under cross examination OW11 reiterated her earlier evidence and insisted that the will was forged by the petitioner’s and her mother.
9. She further confirmed that she had no grudge against her biological mother, but noted that she and her children had treated OW1 unfairly and thus they were in court to correct the injustice occasion. They also had attempted to resolve the dispute through the area chief and the elders but the said negotiations had failed.
(ii) The Petitioners/Respondents Case .
10. PW1 Aden Hussein Edema adopted their joint replying affidavit to the cross petition as his evidence and also produced the documents in their list of documents as Exhibits in support of their case. He was categorical that the deceased died testate on 05.05.2021 as he had left a written Will directing how his estate would be distributed. After the deceased had died, his Will was read on 15.10.2021 at the County Commissioner’s board room and from then, it had become open knowledge, who in the family had been proposes as the Estate administrators, and how the proposed distribution was to be effected.
11. He also averred that he did not know the 1 st Objector, but acknowledged the 2 nd Objector as his sister. In cross examination he was categorical that the 1 st Objector was not his step mother, but acknowledged that she was listed as the deceased 1 st wife in the Chiefs letter dated 17.01.2024. He insisted that the Will was valid and had no doubt that it had been authored by the deceased as he was literate and could manage his affairs. He also acknowledged that the said will was not signed by the deceased, nobody witnessed the same, but noted that the deceased had ensured that each page was stamped with his official business seal, which made it valid. PW1 further denied forging the said Will and urged the court to uphold the same.
12. PW2 Mr John Jarso Godana, testified and stated that he was a retired teacher, a childhood friend and village mate of the deceased. They had also shared strong friendship ties until his death and was familiar will his Estate. He confirmed that the 1 st Objector was the deceased 1 st wife, but they had parted ways many years ago- approximately thirty-five (35) years before his death. He also confirmed that the 2 nd objector was the deceased daughter, born by Habiba Hussein, but had been given to the 1 st Objector to raise from infancy.
13. Concerning the said Will, before his death, the deceased had visited him at his house sometime in 2020 and requested him to write down his wishes, which he purposed to transmit to his lawyer. He was shown the Will (physical copy in the trial bundle) and confirmed that he was the one who wrote it and translated it verbally to the deceased in Borana language. The said Will was an exact reflection of the deceased wishes as dictated to him. He further clarified that the Will had been made over a period of time and amended severally before the deceased approved the final copy, which is what had been filed in court. The deceased had also confided in him that he would take the said Will to the County Commissioner (DC) for safe custody.
14. PW2 reiterated that the deceased was semi-literate as he could only read and write in Kiswahili and not in English. Further, though the deceased and the 1 st objector had parted ways, he had still been magnanimous and had gifted her a portion of land/plot where she picked rent for her upkeep. The 2 nd objector too had been provided for in a similar manner and thus were not excluded from the Estate as alleged. He reiterated that the said will was not forged and should be honoured by the family as the deceased was not impaired in any manner when he authored the same.
15. In cross examination, PW2 confirmed that the 1 st objector was the deceased 1 st wife and had no proof that they had formally divorced. He acknowledged that the deceased did not know how to read and write in English and that he was the one who authored the said Will over a period of two years from 2018 until January 2020, when they did the final draft. Further the said will was not signed by the deceased nor did he or the deceased advocate witness the same. On being pressed further he acknowledge that the 1 st objector was not provided for in the said Will, yet all the Estate property had been acquired during substance of the said marriage. At page 2 of the said will the deceased had also indicated that “ Habiba and Edema never wanted my existence . ”
B. Determination
16. I have considered the Objection application, response filed and the respective submissions filed by both parties and find that issue raised for determination to be; whether both objectors are beneficiaries of the estate and whether the deceased Will dated 12.01.2020 is valid and if not, what consequential orders should be issued.
(I) Whether both Objectors are valid beneficiaries of the deceased Estate.
17. PW1 and PW2 both confirmed that the 2 nd objector was his sister /daughter of the deceased respectively. As regards the 1 st Objector, though PW1 denied knowing her, it was clear from his demeanor as observed by the court that he was outrightly lying about this fact, yet they had included her and named her in form P&A3 filed as the 1 st wife of the deceased. PW2 also confirmed that she was the deceased 1 st wife and had no proof that they had formally divorced during his lifetime. The area Assistant Chief through his letter dated 17.01. 2024 and the area Chief through his letter dated 21.12.2021 also confirmed that the 1 st Objector was the deceased 1 st wife.
18. Under Section 3(5) of the law of Succession Act, Cap 160 , a woman married under a system of law permitting polygamy is “ a wife for purposes of this Act” and her children are accordingly children within the meaning of the Act. I do therefore hold that both Objectors are direct beneficiaries of the Estate herein and have a valid claim on their share their in.
(ii) Whether the Will dated 12.01.2020 is Valid
19. The validity of a will is dependent on two principal factors, namely the capacity of the testator to make a will at the material time and compliance with the formal requirements for the making of a will. Section 5 of the Law of Succession Act , deals with capacity to make a will, and of testation. The relevant provisions state as follows
‘ 5(1)Subject to the provisions of this Part III, every person who is sound of mind and not a minor may dispose of all or any of his free property by will and may thereby make any disposition by reference to any secular or religious law that he chooses
(2)…………………………..
(3) Any person making or purporting to make a will shall be deemed to be of sound mind for the purposes of this section unless he is, at the time of executing the will, in such a state of mind, whether arising from mental or physical illness, drunkenness, or from any other cause, as not to know what he is doing.
(4)The burden of proof that a testator was, at the time he made any will, not of sound mind, shall be upon the person who so alleges
20. Further Section 11 of the said Act does provide that;
“No written will shall be valid unless; -
(a) The testator has signed or affixed him mark to the will, or it has been signed by some other person in the presence and by the direction of the testator
(b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, is so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will;
(c) The will is attested by two or more competent witnesses, each of whom must have seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the will or have seen some other person sign the will, in the presence, and by the direction of the testator, or have received from the testator a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or of the signature of that other person; and each of the witnesses must sign the will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.
21. From the evidence adduced and having gone through the purported deceased Will dated 12.01.2020, it is clear that the said Will is not signed by the deceased on any of its pages and it is not witnessed by any party. For that reason, without even going to the content/merit of the said Will, it is clear beyond any peradventure the said Will does not meet the statutory requirement of a valid will and the same is declared to be a null and void abinition.
(C). DISPOSTION
22. Consequently, I do find that the Objection dated 12.05.2025 has merit and the same allowed and the deceased will be considered to have died intestate.
23. Both Objectors are valid beneficiaries to the said Estate being the 1 st wife and daughter of the deceased respectively and must get their valid share from the said Estate.
24. Given the obtaining matrix, and in order to fast track completion of the Succession process, I do exercise my discretionary powers under Section 47 of the law of Succession Act, as read with Rule 73 of the probate and Succession Rules to cancel the Gazette Notice Number 3612 dated 21 st March 2025 and direct that each family nominate one person each to be appointed as the new administers to the Estate within the next 21 days from the issuances of this Order.
25. That the Petitioners, who have been acting as the Estate administers are directed to file accounts on how the estate funds/rent and other receivables have been handled from the date of deceased death until 30.09.2026 and to file the said report in court within the next 60 days.
26. That the parties are directed to attempt ADR using court mediation and/or clan elders to attempt settlement (both interim and final) on distribution of the said Estate.
27. Each party will bear their own cost of this Application, since they are member of one family.
20. It is so Ordered
Read, signed, and delivered virtually at MARSABIT on this 21 st day of SEPTEMBER, 2026.
FRANCIS RAYOLA OLEL
JUDGE
Delivered on the virtual platform, Teams this 21 st day of SEPTEMBER, 2026.
In the presence of;
…………N/A……………………….for Petitioner
…………N/A……………………….for Respondent
…………JARSO……………………….Court Assistant
MARSABIT HCC SUCCESSION NO E001 OF 20222
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MARSABIT
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO E001 OF 2022
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE HUSSEIN EDEMA BARISO Alias BARISO HUSSEIN EDEMA Alias HUSSEIN EDEMA(DECEASED)
BADILU HUSSEIN EDEMA……………………………………..1 st PETITIONER
AMINA HUSSEIN EDEMA…………………..…..…………….2 nd PETITIONER
ADAN HUSSEIN EDEMA……………………..….…….………3 rd PETITIONER
VERSUS
ALIMA HUSSEIN EDEMA…………..…………………..1 st CROSS-PETITIONER
SHARON HUSSEIN EDEMA…………...............…….2 nd CROSS-PETITIONER
RULING
A. Introduction
1. This ruling concerns the objection dated 12 th May 2025 file by way cross-petitioner by the objectors, who are the 1 st wife and daughter respectively of the deceased herein. The petitioners filed their responses in opposition to the same and the parties consented to dispose of the said objection by way of viva voce evidence.
B. Evidence at Trial
(i) Objectors Case
2. OW1 Alima Hussein Edema, stated that she was a resident of Kiwanja Ndege within Marsabit town, and adopted her witness statement and filed documents as evidence in support of her objection. She stated that she was the 1 st wife to the deceased and shared a blissful marriage with him, which lasted for seventy (70) years until his death. She acknowledged the petitioners/respondents as her step children and personally, was not blessed with a child, but her co-wife Habiba Hussein Edema , had been blessed with eight (8) children. After husband passed away, without her knowledge and in her absence, the 2 nd family appeared before the County commissioner-Marsabit, where a will purported to be authored by her late husband was read out. It was her contention that the said will was fake/forged as her deceased husband was unable to read or write, and if indeed he did author the said will, he would have placed his thumb print on the same, as he normally would, with other official/bank documents.
3. She further testified that they had married young and had acquired all the estate property through joint hard work. Since she was not able to conceive, she was the one who brought her co wife, Habiba Hussein Edema into the said marriage as a second wife, to bear children of the marriage. Unfortunately, after their husband passed on, the petitioners, her co wife and her other children had purposefully neglected her and denied her access or any benefit from the deceased estate to her loss and detriment. She thus had to survive on the benevolence of the 2 nd objector, who out of her kind hearted, had accommodated her and took care of her basic needs. She thus urged the court to declare the said will to be null and void and the said estate to be determined on the basis of intestacy.
4. Under cross examination, she confirmed that Habiba Hussein Edema was her Co-wife and she was the one who brought her into the said marriage and paid her dowry with her own money. The will purported to be signed by the deceased was a forgery and did not provide for her share, which was illogical given that the deceased died, when they were in good terms. Further the said will had been read in her absence and the succession proceedings commenced behind her back, which signified bad faith on the part of the petitioners/respondents and believed that it was a sinister scheme hatched by her co-wife and her children to disinherit her.
5. Further OW1, confirmed that the 2 nd objector was the biological daughter of her co-wife but upon birth was handed over to her after 40 days (as dictated by custom) and had since then assumed parental responsibly over her until adulthood. She also confirmed that she had not reported any forgery case to the DCI to investigate but had moved to court to protect her right. In reexamination she reiterated her evidence and stated that upon death of their husband, the 2 nd family had retained possession of most of the estate title deeds and had proceeded to file the succession process without her knowledge. She thus prayed that the Objection be allowed.
6. OWII Sharon Hussein Edema, testified that she was a daughter of the deceased and OW1 was her step mother, who had taken care of her from childhood. She relied on her witness statement and produced her list of documents as exhibits urging the court to entirely rely on the same. After the deceased died on 05.05.2021, her brother’s started to fight over estate property, and eventually after about eight months they discovered that there was a purported will left by the deceased stating how his estate would be distributed. She doubted the authenticity of the said Will as the deceased was illiterate and did not speak or write in English.
7. While growing up she had severally accompanied the deceased to the bank and seen him sign land sale agreements by always appending his thumb print and never signed any document. The will was not signature and was also not witnessed by an independent third party and/or advocate and thus was a nullity. OWII emphasized that the deceased relationship with OW1 was excellent and he would not have left her out without providing for her to enjoy a share of his estate. She further faulted the Petitioners/respondents for being greed as they had immediately upon the deceased death removed OW1 from her house and turned it into a commercial store.
8. She further noted that the deceased left sixteen (16) shops and during his lifetime would give OW1 rent worth Kshs.60,000/= from three (3) shops to sustain her. Other estate income came from monies collected from their PSV land cruiser and tractors. The 2 nd family had taken over possession of all the estate property to their detriment, yet OW1 had substantially contributed to the acquisition of the estate property. She thus urged the court to uphold their objection. Under cross examination OW11 reiterated her earlier evidence and insisted that the will was forged by the petitioner’s and her mother.
9. She further confirmed that she had no grudge against her biological mother, but noted that she and her children had treated OW1 unfairly and thus they were in court to correct the injustice occasion. They also had attempted to resolve the dispute through the area chief and the elders but the said negotiations had failed.
(ii) The Petitioners/Respondents Case .
10. PW1 Aden Hussein Edema adopted their joint replying affidavit to the cross petition as his evidence and also produced the documents in their list of documents as Exhibits in support of their case. He was categorical that the deceased died testate on 05.05.2021 as he had left a written Will directing how his estate would be distributed. After the deceased had died, his Will was read on 15.10.2021 at the County Commissioner’s board room and from then, it had become open knowledge, who in the family had been proposes as the Estate administrators, and how the proposed distribution was to be effected.
11. He also averred that he did not know the 1 st Objector, but acknowledged the 2 nd Objector as his sister. In cross examination he was categorical that the 1 st Objector was not his step mother, but acknowledged that she was listed as the deceased 1 st wife in the Chiefs letter dated 17.01.2024. He insisted that the Will was valid and had no doubt that it had been authored by the deceased as he was literate and could manage his affairs. He also acknowledged that the said will was not signed by the deceased, nobody witnessed the same, but noted that the deceased had ensured that each page was stamped with his official business seal, which made it valid. PW1 further denied forging the said Will and urged the court to uphold the same.
12. PW2 Mr John Jarso Godana, testified and stated that he was a retired teacher, a childhood friend and village mate of the deceased. They had also shared strong friendship ties until his death and was familiar will his Estate. He confirmed that the 1 st Objector was the deceased 1 st wife, but they had parted ways many years ago- approximately thirty-five (35) years before his death. He also confirmed that the 2 nd objector was the deceased daughter, born by Habiba Hussein, but had been given to the 1 st Objector to raise from infancy.
13. Concerning the said Will, before his death, the deceased had visited him at his house sometime in 2020 and requested him to write down his wishes, which he purposed to transmit to his lawyer. He was shown the Will (physical copy in the trial bundle) and confirmed that he was the one who wrote it and translated it verbally to the deceased in Borana language. The said Will was an exact reflection of the deceased wishes as dictated to him. He further clarified that the Will had been made over a period of time and amended severally before the deceased approved the final copy, which is what had been filed in court. The deceased had also confided in him that he would take the said Will to the County Commissioner (DC) for safe custody.
14. PW2 reiterated that the deceased was semi-literate as he could only read and write in Kiswahili and not in English. Further, though the deceased and the 1 st objector had parted ways, he had still been magnanimous and had gifted her a portion of land/plot where she picked rent for her upkeep. The 2 nd objector too had been provided for in a similar manner and thus were not excluded from the Estate as alleged. He reiterated that the said will was not forged and should be honoured by the family as the deceased was not impaired in any manner when he authored the same.
15. In cross examination, PW2 confirmed that the 1 st objector was the deceased 1 st wife and had no proof that they had formally divorced. He acknowledged that the deceased did not know how to read and write in English and that he was the one who authored the said Will over a period of two years from 2018 until January 2020, when they did the final draft. Further the said will was not signed by the deceased nor did he or the deceased advocate witness the same. On being pressed further he acknowledge that the 1 st objector was not provided for in the said Will, yet all the Estate property had been acquired during substance of the said marriage. At page 2 of the said will the deceased had also indicated that “ Habiba and Edema never wanted my existence . ”
B. Determination
16. I have considered the Objection application, response filed and the respective submissions filed by both parties and find that issue raised for determination to be; whether both objectors are beneficiaries of the estate and whether the deceased Will dated 12.01.2020 is valid and if not, what consequential orders should be issued.
(I) Whether both Objectors are valid beneficiaries of the deceased Estate.
17. PW1 and PW2 both confirmed that the 2 nd objector was his sister /daughter of the deceased respectively. As regards the 1 st Objector, though PW1 denied knowing her, it was clear from his demeanor as observed by the court that he was outrightly lying about this fact, yet they had included her and named her in form P&A3 filed as the 1 st wife of the deceased. PW2 also confirmed that she was the deceased 1 st wife and had no proof that they had formally divorced during his lifetime. The area Assistant Chief through his letter dated 17.01. 2024 and the area Chief through his letter dated 21.12.2021 also confirmed that the 1 st Objector was the deceased 1 st wife.
18. Under Section 3(5) of the law of Succession Act, Cap 160 , a woman married under a system of law permitting polygamy is “ a wife for purposes of this Act” and her children are accordingly children within the meaning of the Act. I do therefore hold that both Objectors are direct beneficiaries of the Estate herein and have a valid claim on their share their in.
(ii) Whether the Will dated 12.01.2020 is Valid
19. The validity of a will is dependent on two principal factors, namely the capacity of the testator to make a will at the material time and compliance with the formal requirements for the making of a will. Section 5 of the Law of Succession Act , deals with capacity to make a will, and of testation. The relevant provisions state as follows
‘ 5(1)Subject to the provisions of this Part III, every person who is sound of mind and not a minor may dispose of all or any of his free property by will and may thereby make any disposition by reference to any secular or religious law that he chooses
(2)…………………………..
(3) Any person making or purporting to make a will shall be deemed to be of sound mind for the purposes of this section unless he is, at the time of executing the will, in such a state of mind, whether arising from mental or physical illness, drunkenness, or from any other cause, as not to know what he is doing.
(4)The burden of proof that a testator was, at the time he made any will, not of sound mind, shall be upon the person who so alleges
20. Further Section 11 of the said Act does provide that;
“No written will shall be valid unless; -
(a) The testator has signed or affixed him mark to the will, or it has been signed by some other person in the presence and by the direction of the testator
(b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, is so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will;
(c) The will is attested by two or more competent witnesses, each of whom must have seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the will or have seen some other person sign the will, in the presence, and by the direction of the testator, or have received from the testator a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or of the signature of that other person; and each of the witnesses must sign the will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.
21. From the evidence adduced and having gone through the purported deceased Will dated 12.01.2020, it is clear that the said Will is not signed by the deceased on any of its pages and it is not witnessed by any party. For that reason, without even going to the content/merit of the said Will, it is clear beyond any peradventure the said Will does not meet the statutory requirement of a valid will and the same is declared to be a null and void abinition.
(C). DISPOSTION
22. Consequently, I do find that the Objection dated 12.05.2025 has merit and the same allowed and the deceased will be considered to have died intestate.
23. Both Objectors are valid beneficiaries to the said Estate being the 1 st wife and daughter of the deceased respectively and must get their valid share from the said Estate.
24. Given the obtaining matrix, and in order to fast track completion of the Succession process, I do exercise my discretionary powers under Section 47 of the law of Succession Act, as read with Rule 73 of the probate and Succession Rules to cancel the Gazette Notice Number 3612 dated 21 st March 2025 and direct that each family nominate one person each to be appointed as the new administers to the Estate within the next 21 days from the issuances of this Order.
25. That the Petitioners, who have been acting as the Estate administers are directed to file accounts on how the estate funds/rent and other receivables have been handled from the date of deceased death until 30.09.2026 and to file the said report in court within the next 60 days.
26. That the parties are directed to attempt ADR using court mediation and/or clan elders to attempt settlement (both interim and final) on distribution of the said Estate.
27. Each party will bear their own cost of this Application, since they are member of one family.
20. It is so Ordered
Read, signed, and delivered virtually at MARSABIT on this 21 st day of SEPTEMBER, 2026.
FRANCIS RAYOLA OLEL
JUDGE
Delivered on the virtual platform, Teams this 21 st day of SEPTEMBER, 2026.
In the presence of;
…………N/A……………………….for Petitioner
…………N/A……………………….for Respondent
…………JARSO……………………….Court Assistant
MARSABIT HCC SUCCESSION NO E001 OF 20222