In the Estate of LAZARO MULLEI KYAI

1. Lazaro Mullei Kyai died on 20^th June 2001 at the age of 81 years old.
2. Muthina Lazaro and Nicholas Mutunga Kiilu identifying as the 3^rd wife and grandson of the deceased filed Citation Machakos P & A No. 263 of 2013 against Maria Kavindu Lazaro . The citation was heard on merit and on 23/03/2015, the Court (Hon Mutende L J) directed the citee, Maria Kavindu Lazaro to petition for the grant of letters of administration.
3. On 10/04/2015, Maria Kavindu Lazaro filed Machakos Succession cause no. 210 of 2015 petitioning for grant of letters of administration her capacity as the wife of the deceased. She listed those who survived the deceased as follows

Kiasyo Lazaro   -1 ^st wife-deceased

Kiilu Lazaro Mullei  -deceased

Philiph Lazaro Mullei  -deceased

Grace Nzula Mullei  -daughter

Maria Kavindu Lazaro           -2^nd wife

Sirdig Makewa Lazaro  -son

Ndinda Lazaro   -daughter

Maria Nduku Lazaro  -daughter

Bosco Mwisya Lazaro  -son

Muthini Lazaro                       -3^rd wife

Kimuyu Lazaro   -son

Mutinda Lazaro   -son

Wambua Lazaro   -son

Ndanu Lazaro   -son

1. His estate comprised of
2. Plot No. 4236 Mutitu Adjudication Section.
3. Plot No. 488 Uthiuni Sub-Location, Mbooni Location (Mutitu Adjudication Section).
4. Plot No. 983 Uthiuni Sub-Location, Mbooni Location (Mutitu Adjudication Section).
5. On 20/02/2017, the matter was transferred to this court. The record shows the grant was issued to her on 23/06/2017.
6. Maria Kavindu Lazaro had died on 24/03/2017.
7. By Summons dated 25^th July 2017 her daughter Dr. Maria Nduku Mullei  sought appointment as administrator de bonis. The application was allowed and the grant made to her on 28/09/2017.
8. Vide Summons for confirmation of grant dated 09/09/2019 and filed on 11/09/2019 she sought the following orders

1. ‘Nicholas Mutunga Kiilu, Kikuyu Lazaro, Mutinda Lazaro, Wambua Lazaro and Ndanu Lazaro be subjected to DNA testing at Government Laboratories (Government Chemist-Nairobi) within 30 days with costs to be paid by Nicholas Mutunga Kiilu and Muthina Lazaro.’

2. The grant issued to herself on 28^th September 2017 be confirmed

1. The beneficiaries of the estate were served with the summons for confirmation.
2. Affidavits of protest were filed in response by Muthina Lazaro Nicholas Mutunga Kiilu  and Elizabeth Ndunge Onesmus the interested party.
3. The matter was heard by way of viva voce evidence. I must state here that I did not hear a single witness. The 1^st protester and the interested party and her witnesses were heard by Hon Ong’udi LJ while the 3^rd Protester and all his witnesses and the Petitioner were heard by the Hon Dulu J. I took over this matter when all the parties had filed their written submissions and it was pending Judgment stage. I must therefore, proceed without having heard or seen a single witness testify.
4. I have read the record and the submissions and the issues that arise for determination in my view are:
   1. Whether Muthina Lazaro has established that she was married to the deceased
   2. Whether Muthina Lazaro has established that she had children with the deceased or that her children were dependents of the deceased.
   3. Whether Nicholas Mutunga has established that he is beneficially entitled to the estate
   4. Whether the interested party has established her claim
   5. What orders this court should issue
5. The Petitioners position is that Kiasyo Lazaro was not legally married to the deceased but had the following children with him;
6. Kiilu Lazaro Mullei (deceased)
7. Phillip Lazaro Mullei (deceased)
8. Grace Nzula Mullei (daughter)

The 3^rd Protester Nicholas Mutunga Kiilu claims to be a grandson of the deceased through his Ugandan mother and a son of the deceased namely Kiilu Lazaro Mullei (deceased) . That this claimant has not established that he is indeed a grandson of the deceased.

1. That Maria Kavindu Lazaro (deceased) was the deceased’s wife and had the following children with him;
2. Sadiki Makewa Mullei (deceased)
3. Jane Ndinda Mullei (daughter)
4. Maria Nduku Mullei (daughter)
5. Bosco Mwikya Mullei (son)
6. That Muthina Lazaro was not a wife and she alleged to have the following children with him;
7. Kikuyu Lazaro
8. Mutinda Lazaro
9. Wambua Lazaro
10. Kyalo Lazaro
11. Ndanu Lazaro
12. It is the Petitioners position that if Muthina establishes her marriage with the deceased and proves that the children are biologically of the deceased, then she can be allocated Plot No. 488 Uthiuni Sub-Location, Mbooni Location (Mutitu Adjudication Section).
13. That if the DNA shows that Mutunga Kiilu is related to the deceased, then he can be allocated Plot No. 983 Uthiuni Sub-Location, Mbooni Location (Mutitu Adjudication Section) to hold in trust for himself and on behalf of the children of Kiasyo Lazaro(deceased) according to the allocation by the deceased’ s father or as the honorable court shall direct. She deposed that Mutunga Kiilu has built on that plot.
14. Elizabeth Ndunge Onesmus brings her protest as a purchaser. It is her case that the deceased was the lawful owner of inter alia plot No. 4236 Mutitu Adjudication Section. That in his lifetime on 31/07/1999, 22/10/1999 and 13/10/2000, he sold a portion thereof to Johnes Kivuva Muthoka measuring 116ft x 116ft x 68ft x 6ft which is equivalent to 361 square feet. She deponed that Johnes Kivuva Muthoka and his wife Hellen Syombua Kivuva sold the plot to her on 23/02/2016 and 21/04/2017 and the purchase price was paid in full.
15. The matter was heard through viva voce evidence with each party adopting their witness statements, and getting cross examined on the same.
16. Muthina’s testimony and that of her witnesses was that she was married by the decased through Kamba customary law, that her parents were paid mbui sya nteo, that she had children with the deceased, that she had photographic evidence which was not before court of her relationship with the deceased. That one of her children was born after the demise of the decased,and one before she married the deceased. She said she was born in 1973 and marries in 1987. It turned out from the evidence that at the time she alleges to have been married she was 14 years old.
17. Mutunga’s testimony was that his father had a Ugandan wife and he himself, as per his certificate of birth was born in Arua Uganda but concealed that from the Kenya authorities when he obtained his Identity card. He claimed that the other beneficiaries from the 1^st house could not lay claim to the estate because they were far
18. The petitioner, Dr. Maria Nduku Mulei testified that she is the administrator of the estate and a daughter of the deceased.
19. She disputes the relationships alleged by The protesters and avers that if the same are established she has no problem giving the protesters  shares of the estae.

The Submissions

Submissions by the Interested Party

They were filed by the firm of O.N Makau & Mulei

1. On the issue of marriage, counsel submitted that section 43 of the Marriage Act 2014 will give direction on how to resolve it. That according to Muthina’s evidence, she was married under customary law and all the beneficiaries were aware of it. That the chief’s letter specifically shows that the deceased had three wives and the applicant has not tendered any evidence to prove that her mother was the only wife of the deceased. He submitted that according to the letter dated 19/04/2013, plot No. 4236 is registered under the names of the deceased, Maria Kavindu Lazaro and Muthina Lazaro. That even the mode of distribution proposed by the applicant has included the name of Muthina Lazaro.
2. Relying on Samuel Ndegwa Waithaka –vs- Agnes Wangui Mathenge & 2 Others (2017) eKLR, he submitted that the standard of proof in Civil cases is on the balance of probabilities i.e where a court considers that, on the evidence, the occurrence of the event was more likely than not.
3. He submitted that proof of customary marriage was brought out clearly by the Court of Appeal in Kimani –vs- Gikanga(1965) EA 735 where it was observed that;

“To summarize the position; this is a case between Africans and African Customary law forms a part of the law of the land applicable to this case. As a matter of necessity, the customary law must be accurately and definitely established. The court has a wide discretion as to how this should be done but the onus to do so must be on the party who puts forward customary law. This might be done by reference to a book or document reference and would include a judicial decision but in view, especially of the present apparent lack in Kenya of authoritative text books on the subject, or any relevant case law, this would in practice usually mean that the party propounding customary law would have to call evidence to prove that customary law, as would prove the relevant facts of his case.”

1. He submitted that the proposal to have the DNA of the children tested is unreasonable since it is impractical to have the DNA of the deceased extracted.
2. On the issue of the plot purchase, he submitted that the agreement between the deceased and Johnes Kivuva satisfies all the requirements of section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act and no one has challenged it in any way. That the fact is well known to all the beneficiaries save for the petitioner. It was also his submission that the documents produced in court were not challenged.
3. On whether the summons for confirmation of grant has merit, he submitted that the Succession Act makes it mandatory to annex a consent executed by all the beneficiaries. That the applicant did not comply and has conducted these proceedings as a lone ranger. That it is also evident that the applicant never produced any grant of letters of administration showing when she was appointed as an administrator

Submissions by the Petitioner

1. Through the firm of Kivuva Omuga & Co. Advocates, the petitioner submitted that she was issued with grant of letters of administration on 28/09/2017 and the same has not been revoked cancelled or annulled by any court of competent jurisdiction. She relied on the Estate of Damaris Njeri Kimani-Deceased (2015) eKLR where the court stated that;

“8.  The effect of Section 79 of the Act is that the administrator upon her appointment as such substituted the deceased as the legal owner of the property that makes up the estate.  She has all the rights and powers of a legal owner.  She can for that reason enter into legally binding contracts over the property, she can enforce any cause of action which arises over the property, she can enforce contracts touching on the property, she can defend suits which arise over estate property, she can dispose of such property by way of sale, she can invest estate property, she can insure the property, she can lease or hire it out, among others.”

1. Consequently, she submitted that she is competent to make and prosecute the application for siblings DNA testing and to oppose the protests. She contended that the prayer for DNA has not been opposed in the pleadings and throughout the proceedings. She submitted that despite Muthina knowing that the paternity of her children is contested, she did not avail their birth certificates to court.
2. She submitted that Nicholas Mutunga Kiilu has Ugandan origin and did not avail his valid identification documents in court hence there is a lot of doubts if Muthina’s children and Nicholas Mutunga Kiilu are the deceased’s children and grand-child respectively.
3. Relying of section 107 of the Evidence Act, Chapter 80 of the Laws of Kenya, she submitted that whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist. She also submitted that parties are bound by their pleadings hence the protestors are bound by their specific protests.
4. As regards the protest by Elizabeth Ndunge Onesmus, she submitted that this court is sitting as a succession court hence has no jurisdiction to adjudicate over a land dispute. She relied on Owners of the Motor Vessel Lilian S –vs- Caltex Oil (K) Ltd for the submission that jurisdiction is everything and without it, the court has no power to make one more step.
5. As regards the protest by Muthina Lazaro, she submitted that it is her duty to establish her marriage under customary law and has failed to do so. That according to her pleadings and evidence in court, she was born in 1973 and got married in 1987 when she was 14 years old. She contended that Muthina Lazaro was therefore a minor and lacked locus standi to enter into any marriage recognizable in Kenya. She submitted that any purported marriage, customary or otherwise is null and void ab initio.
6. As regards the submissions filed by the firm of O.N Makau & Mulei Advocates), the petitioner submitted that the same is an abuse of court process because the firm is purporting to speak for Muthina Lazaro yet it is representing Elizabeth Ndunge Onesmus. She dissociated herself with the issues as framed therein as they do not in any way reflect the true position and trajectory of the matter. For instance, she cited issue number one and submitted that the same is totally misguided as there is no way Muthina Lazaro could have been married to the petitioner who is the Administratix of the estate.
7. She also submitted that the firm had resorted to an irregular method of adducing evidence through written submissions hence denying other parties to the litigation the opportunity to challenge it. She urged the court to guard against Advocates who should know better than to make the court appear like a ‘kangaroo’ court where everything goes. She also urged the court to disregard any factual position introduced by the protestors through written submissions.
8. Further, she submitted that each matter should be decided on its own circumstances and merit. That it is not always in all succession matters that are lodged and determined in our courts where consent of all beneficiaries is attached or is possible to obtain at the time of filing. She contended that in contested matters like the one before court, such consent is not applicable.

Issues for determination

1. Having looked at the summons for confirmation of grant, the affidavits of protest, the responses, rejoinder, evidence on record and rival submissions, it is my considered view that the following issues arise for determination;
2. Whether the 1^st Protestor, Muthina Lazaro, was married to the deceased under customary law;
3. Whether the children of Muthina Lazaro were sired by the deceased;
4. Whether Mutunga Kiilu is a grandson of the deceased;
5. Whether this court has jurisdiction to determine the 2^nd Protestor’s claim;
6. Which orders should the court issue?

Whether the 1^st Protestor, Muthina Lazaro, was married to the deceased under customary law;

1. The 1^st Protestor’s case is that she was married to the deceased under Kamba customary law but the petitioner maintained that she had been employed as a worker at the deceased’s home. Muthina Lazaro has the burden of proving her marriage to the deceased as she is the one claiming it. In the case of Njoki –vs- Mathara & Others; Civil Appeal No. 71 of 1989 (UR), the court held that;

“a)  The onus of proving a customary marriage is on the party who claims it.

b)  The standard of proof is the usual one for civil action, balance of probabilities.

c) Evidence as to the formalities required for a customary law marriage must be proved to the above standard.”

1. In Gituanja –vs- Gituanja (1983) KLR 575, the Court of Appeal held that a customary marriage is a matter of fact to be proved through evidence.
2. In his book; Marriage and Divorce, 1st edn, (1968) 28 Dr. Cotran summarizes the essentials of a valid Kamba customary marriage as follows:- Capacity, Consent, Slaughter of a billy goat, Marriage consideration and Cohabitation. There is also the case of Re Estate of Stephen Kimuyu Ngeki (1998) eKLR where J.W Mwera, J. (as he then was) stated that Akamba customary marriage follows an elaborate course and emphasis seems to lie more with payment by the groom of 3 traditional goats called Mbui Sya Ntheo.
3. I have also looked at several judicial proceedings where witnesses gave evidence on the issue of marriage under Kamba customary law. In Andrew Manunzyu Musyoka (deceased) [2005] eKLR;

Steven Mututu Mutisya (DW2) testified as an expert on Kamba customary law.  He said that a marriage is contracted when goats of “Ntheo” are paid to the girl’s  parents and that even if dowry is not paid “Ntheo” has to be paid and concludes a marriage.  He said that  if a woman leaves the husbands home with children and one dies the body has to be taken back to the man’s home for burial.  Similarly, if the woman dies when at her parents home, the body has to be taken back to the husbands home if “Ntheo” had been paid. A lady can only inherit from her father’s estate if she divorces her spouse by returning  “Mbui sya ulee” – where goats are returned to the husband by the woman.

1. In Re estate of James Simu Nthiwa [2005] eKLR there was a contestation as to whether the deceased was married;

The objector was the deceased’s mother, She averred that he was not married as he had never informed her of it nor had any dowry been paid in accordance with kamba customary law where goats called “Mbui sya ntheo” are taken to the girl’s parents and one is slaughtered.  She also denied that there were any negotiations with the parents of any girl with a view to marriage.  She visited him once in 1977 at his place of work and did not see any woman living with the deceased.

1. Consequently, it is clear that the most important element of a Kamba customary marriage is the payment of 3 goats (mbui sya ntheo) by the groom.
2. Muthina Lazaro testified that she got married to the deceased as the third wife sometimes in 1987. She said that the only thing she had to show were photos which they took together but she did not produce any photos in evidence. She said that the deceased paid ntheo and there were four witnesses i.e Mbindyo (deceased), Rhoda, Alice and Mutisya. She did not call any of the surviving witnesses to testify and the only people who said one said one or two things about the alleged marriage were witnesses called by other parties to the case. For instance, Johnes Kivuva Muthoka was a witness for the 2^nd protestor and he said that Muthina was the deceased’s wife and the deceased used to talk about her.  He did not claim to have been a witness to any ntheo ceremony.
3. Esther Mutanu Kingoo was a witness for Mutunga Kiilu but she also said that she had been paid by Muthina Lazaro to testify. She claimed to have sat in a meeting which resolved that Muthina Lazaro was a wife of the deceased but had no document to present to court with regard to the alleged marriage. She claimed to be the chairperson of a clan but had nothing to prove and did not produce minutes to show that there was a meeting. Basically, her evidence was inconsistent and incredible.
4. There was also Dr. Andrew Kavulia Mulei who was also a witness for Mutunga Kiilu. He said that the deceased was his step brother and Muthina Lazaro was the deceased’s third wife. He said that the deceased and Muthina Lazaro lived together when he was alive. He was however not present at the alleged ntheo ceremony but claimed to have been told about it.
5. From the evidence on record, there is really nothing to base a conclusion that ntheo goats were paid to Muthina Lazaro’s parents. Perhaps the most damning evidence is the probability that she may have been underage at the time of the alleged marriage.
6. Taking Muthina Lazaro’s year of birth as 1973, the implication is that she was 14 years old in 1987 when she allegedly got married under Kamba customary law. Considering that the age of majority in Kenya is 18 years, Muthina Lazaro was a minor and lacked capacity to enter into any marriage recognizable in Kenya. Section 2 of the Age Majority Act cap 33 provides: “A person shall be of full age and cease to be under any disability by reason of age on attaining the age of eighteen years”.
7. The upshot is that Muthina Lazaro did not prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the requisite formalities were performed.

Whether the children of Muthina Lazaro were sired by the deceased

1. Muthina Lazaro pleaded that the deceased sired five children with her. Section 29 of the Law of Succession Act provides as follows;

For the purposes of this Part, "dependant" means;

1. the wife or wives, or former wife or wives, and the children of the deceased whether or not maintained by the deceased immediately prior to his death;
2. Such of the deceased’s parents, step-parents, grandparents, grandchildren, step-children, children whom the deceased had taken into his family as his own, brothers and sisters and half brothers and half sisters, as were being maintained by the deceased immediately prior to his death; and;
3. Where the deceased was a woman, her husband if he was being maintained by her immediately prior to the date of her death.
4. Consequently, having opined that Muthina Lazaro did not establish her alleged marriage to the deceased, the paternity of her children is important if they are to be considered as beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate.
5. In her evidence in court, Muthina Lazaro could not remember the specific years of birth but insisted that all her children were sired by the deceased. Part of her evidence however suggested that one child could have been born before she got married to the deceased and another one after the deceased’s demise. Considering that paternity is contested, the evidence on record is hardly sufficient to conclude that the five children were sired by the deceased.

Whether Mutunga Kiilu is a grandson of the deceased;

1. Mutunga Kiilu pleaded that he is the grandson of a woman called Kiasyo who was the first wife of the deceased. His relationship with the deceased has also been contested by the petitioner.
2. Mutunga’s evidence in court was clear that he was born in Uganda by a Ugandan mother and that he came to Kenya as a little child. Mutunga’s evidence suggested that he is a child of Kiilu Lazaro Mulei (deceased) who in turn was a son of the deceased herein. The petitioner however denied that Mutunga’s father was a son of the deceased. Muthina Lazaro acknowledged that Mutunga is a grandson of the deceased but having opined that she has not established her own alleged marriage to the deceased, the probative value of her evidence is not high.
3. Dr. Andrew Kavulia Mulei, the step brother of the deceased, acknowledged that Mutunga is a grandson in their family. Apart from that acknowledgement however, he did not give any other details like the details of Mutunga’s parents and which one of them was a child of the deceased. I did not see any evidence suggesting that Mutunga’s father was in Uganda at some point in his life so as to raise the probability that he sired Mutunga in Uganda. Further, Mutunga confirmed that at the point of applying for his Identity Card, he did not disclose that he was born in Uganda and it appears that he wanted to pass off as a Kenyan by birth.
4. Mutunga relied heavily on the judgment from Tawa Court which, he said, acknowledged him as a beneficiary of the estate. The fact however is that the Tawa court was sitting as a criminal court and did not delve into the merits of determining whether he was a bona fide beneficiary of the estate of the deceased herein beneficially as is the requirement in a succession cause.
5. There was also no evidence to the effect that the deceased was maintaining Mutunga prior to his death in order for Mutunga to qualify as a dependant under section 29 of the Law of Succession Act. In Sarah Kanini Thigunku –vs- Elizabeth Njuki Thigunku (2016) eKLR, the court had this to say regarding dependency

“For one to be a dependent however, under section 29 aforesaid, it is clear that one must prove dependency. The use of the words…as being maintained by the deceased immediately prior to his death… in that section connotes that one must prove that he was dependent on the deceased before his demise. From the record, there was no evidence to show that either the Appellant or any of her children were dependent on the late Mbungu Thigunku. A mere relationship does not automatically qualify one to be a dependent under section 29 of the Act. Proof of dependency is paramount.”

1. The upshot is that Mutunga’s relationship with the deceased is shrouded in mystery

Whether this court has jurisdiction to determine the 2^nd Protestor’s /interested party’s claim;

1. The 2^nd protestor, Elizabeth Ndunge Onesmus, claims to have bought a portion of the estate property from a man known as Johnes Kivuva who in turn is said to have purchased it from the deceased. The alleged sale is contested by the petitioner who imputes fraud in the whole transaction.
2. The protester did not purchase the land from the deceased but from a third party who stated he was the one who had a sale agreement with the deceased. Her dispute cannot be tied to the estate as she had no contract with the deceased. Hers would be a dispute  ownership.
3. Article 162 (2) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 provides for the Jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court (ELC) as follows;

“(2) Parliament shall establish courts with the status of the High Court to hear and determine disputes relating to –

(a)  ……..

(b) The environment and the use and occupation of, and title to land.”

1. The jurisdiction and powers of the ELC court are clearly defined under Section 13 of the ELC Act, 2013 and pursuant to sections 26 (3) and (4) of the same Act, several magistrates were gazetted to handle land disputes.
2. In Re Estate of Stone Kathuli Muinde (Deceased) [2016] eKLR Musyoka J stated that:

“Such claims to ownership of alleged estate property, as between the estate and a third party, should be resolved through the civil process in a civil suit properly brought before a civil court in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act and the Civil Procedure Rules. This could mean filing suit at the magistrates’ courts, or at the Civil or Commercial Divisions of the High Court, or at the Environment and Land Court. If a decree is obtained in such suit in favour of the claimant then such decree should be presented to the probate court in the succession cause so that that court can give effect to it.”

1. There is also Priscilla Ndubi & Zipporah Mutiga –vs- Gerishon Gatobu [2013] eKLR where the court stated;

“Applying the test of law in section 76 of the Law of Succession Act, the fact that there was an agreement between the deceased and the Applicant for sale of the suit land is important to these proceedings. It seems also that consideration may have passed between the two parties. I am aware that this court does not have jurisdiction to determine the validity or enforceability of the said agreement. Environment and Land Court does; it is the court which is constitutionally mandated to determine such matters.”

1. Consequently, it is my view that hers is a claim of interest in land whose determination is not within the jurisdiction of this court.

Which orders should the court issue?

1. This mandate of facilitating collection and preservation of the estate, identification of those beneficially entitled to the estate and distribution of the estate to them.
2. The Proviso to s. 71 of the LOSA states

Provided that, in cases of intestacy, the grant of letters of administration shall not be confirmed until the court is satisfied as to the respective identities and shares of all persons beneficially entitled; and when confirmed the grant shall specify all such persons and their respective shares.

1. From the foregoing, it is evident that the claims of Muthina and Mutunga to be beneficially entitled are not established. Muthina having filed to establish marriage, and dependency of her children upon the deceased in his life, then she is required needs to establish that her children are biologically related to the deceased.
2. This applies to Mutunga as well.
3. In WKG –vs- JWM & another [2016] eKLR, Sibling DNA testing was ordered to help establish paternity.  The court alluded to Sections 107-9 of the Evidence Act (Cap 80) and was of the view that in paternity cases where both parties were unable to prove paternity or non-paternity, the court could opt for a scientific method for conclusive results.
4. In E.M.M –vs- I.G.M & Another [2014] eKLR, the Court of Appeal allowed sibling sample extraction after the  samples  extracted from the deceased  were found to have  degenerated to the extent that it could not  produce  reliable  DNA profiles for  testing.
5. It is therefore my considered view that Sibling DNA would asit the court in determining the issue.
6. In the circumstances the final orders
   1. The claim by the interested party is not for this court as it is a claim about ownership of land.
   2. The 1^st prayer of the Summons for Confirmation of grant be and is hereby allowed. 
   3. The Petitioner and her siblings to provide DNA at Government chemist and to bear the cost of extraction if any
   4. The DNA test to be carried out by the Government Chemist within 60 days from 22^nd April 2024
   5. Each party will bear its own costs of the DNA tests.
   6. Each party to bear its own costs of this matter.
   7. The Parties to appear before the Deputy Registrar to agree on the details of the DNA testing. The Deputy Registrar to issue notices for parties to appear within 7 days hereof.

Dated, signed and delivered in open court on  18/04/2024