REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KERICHO
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. E012 OF 2025
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KIPSIELE ARAP MOSONIK
ALIAS KIPSIELE A. MOSONIK (DECEASED)
PHILIP KIPNGENO SIELE……..………….………………… PETITIONER/APPLICANT
=VERSUS=
CHRISTINE CHEPKIRUI MOSONIK…………..………………..…………… OBJECTOR
RULING
A. INTRODUCTION
1. Before this court is a Notice of Motion dated 12 th March 2026, brought by the Petitioner Philip Kipngeno Siele, seeking that this Honourable Court do adopt and/or record the Mediation Settlement Agreement dated 14th November 2025 as an order of this Court.
2. The application is opposed by the Objector, Christine Chepkirui Mosonik, by way of Grounds of Opposition and a Replying Affidavit, both dated 19 th March 2026, on the principal ground that she never validly executed or assented to the Agreement.
3. Having considered the application, the affidavits filed on both sides, the annexed mediation documents, the submissions of the parties and the applicable law, I now render this Ruling.
B. BACKGROUND
4. The Petitioner is a son of the deceased, Kipsiele Arap Mosonik alias Kipsiele A. Mosonik, and was granted Letters of Administration Intestate on 30 th April 2025. The Objector, the only daughter of the First House, filed an affidavit of protest to the proposed mode of distribution, following which the dispute was referred to Court Annexed Mediation, registered as Mediation No. KRC/MED/137 of 2025, conducted before Ms Milcen C. Soi, an accredited mediator, on 14 th November 2025. The mediation produced a Mediation Partial Settlement Agreement.
5. The Petitioner's supporting affidavit at paragraph 7 avers that the agreement was signed freely and voluntarily by all parties and or their advocates, without coercion, and reflects the genuine consensus of all parties.
6. The Objector in her replying affidavit dated 19 th March 2026, deposes that she was furnished only with an attendance list to sign, as required by Rule 21 of the Civil Procedure Court-Annexed Mediation, Rules, 2022; that at paragraph 8 she expressly refused to sign the substantive mediation report when asked to do so and was rebuked by the mediator for that refusal; that the printed declaration on the face of the Agreement bears no signature from her .
7. The mediation record placed before the Court shows: (i) the Form 14 cover sheet, whose printed declaration of agreement is left without any signature entered against it, save for the mediator's stamp; (ii) a signature page appended to that form bearing the Objector's name and an accompanying signature; and (iii) a separate signature page attached to the narrative mediation partial settlement agreement, likewise bearing her name, telephone number and signature. The genuineness and effect of these signatures are squarely disputed by the Objector on oath.
C. ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION
8. The issue that falls for determination is a narrow one:
(i) Whether, on the face of the Objector's sworn and unresolved denial that she validly executed /assented or consented to the agreement, this Court may adopt the Agreement.
D. ANALYSIS.
9. This Court's jurisdiction is founded on Section 47 of the Law of Succession Act (Cap. 160) and The Civil Procedure (Court-Annexed Mediation) Rules, 2022. Rule 34 requires such an agreement to be placed before the trial court for adoption. Rule 36 provides that, upon adoption, the agreement takes effect and force as a decree or order of the Court, against which no appeal lies.
10. The character of Rule 36 finality is central to how this Court must approach the dispute before it. An adopted mediation settlement agreement is not an ordinary order open to appellate correction. Mediation earns a finality precisely because it is meant to rest on the free and informed consent of the parties.
11. It follows that where such consent is disputed, the Court cannot treat adoption as a formality or presume regularity from the existence of a signature.
12. To adopt an agreement over a live and unresolved dispute as to its validity is to risk conferring irreversible, unappealable force on an arrangement that would offend Article 50 of the Constitution.
13. Because the consequence of adoption is irreversible and admits no appeal, the ordinary tolerance courts extend to resolving factual disputes, subject to correction on appeal, has no application here. This approach is consistent with the reasoning In Estate of the Late Kibilo Kipkoske A Chumo alias Kipkoske Chumo alias Kipkoske arap Chumo alias Kipkoske Kibiko arap Chumo (Deceased) [2024] KEHC 13224 (KLR) and in Board of Trustees, National Social Security Fund v Micheal Mwalo [2015] eKLR.
14. The Petitioner in this case is burdened only with inconvenience, while premature adoption exposes the Objector to a risk of irremediable injustice. Where the two risks are so unevenly weighted, the law must and does resolve the tension in favour of caution before finality.
15. There exists a genuine and unresolved dispute of fact as to whether the Objector validly executed, assented or consented to the agreement. This is not a denial capable of summary rejection. It is a credible, specific, and sworn account that finds some support in the state of the mediation record itself.
16. Secondly , on the consequence of that dispute for adoption sought, because adoption under Rule 36 of the Court Annexed Mediation Rules, 2022 is final and unappealable, this Court cannot lawfully extend that irreversible consequence to a party whose consent is genuinely disputed without first being actually satisfied that such consent was freely and knowingly given.
17. To do otherwise would expose the Objector to the risk of an irremediable injustice, the risk that she would be permanently bound to a disposition of her late father's estate to which she never, in truth, agreed. That risk is not offset by any countervailing urgency shown by the Petitioner, and it is a risk this Court is not prepared to run.
18. Rule 39 of the Court Annexed Mediation Rules 2022 permits an order or decree arising from a settlement agreement to be set aside, with leave, on limited grounds such as fraud, misrepresentation or fundamental mistakes.
19. That remedy does not answer the present difficulty. It operates only after adoption, requires leave, and would still confront the very conflict now before this Court: the Petitioner's sworn claim that the agreement was freely signed by all parties, against the Objector's sworn account that she refused to sign the substantive agreement and signed only an attendance list.
20. This conflict cannot be resolved on the record placed before the Court alone; it is a question that calls for what, Rule 34(3) exists precisely to meet, before it is adopted into an unappealable order. It is the shield the law provides against adopting a settlement whose validity is in doubt, and it is that shield this Court invokes now, rather than leaving the Objector to the narrower and later remedy under Rule 39.
DETERMINATION.
21. For the foregoing reasons, I find and hold as follows:
(i). There exists a genuine and unresolved dispute as to whether the Objector validly executed or consented to the agreement.
(ii). Adoption of the contested mediation settlement agreement at this stage would extend an irreversible consequence to the Objector.
ORDERS
22. This Court makes the following orders:
(i). The Court defers the adoption of the agreement as an order of this court at this stage.
(ii). That the matter shall be set for hearing on priority basis to clarify contentious issues as to the validity of the agreement. Hearing . On 23.9.26 . Summons to mediator to attend court .
(iii) That parties shall bear their own costs.
It is so ordered.
T. A. ODERA JUDGE
9.7.26
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY VIA TEAMS PLATFORM ON THIS 9 TH DAY OF JULY 2026:
CA BIUSIENEI:
Mwita for objector respondent Mulanga holding brief for Anati for petitioner /applicant
\
2 | Page
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KERICHO
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. E012 OF 2025
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KIPSIELE ARAP MOSONIK
ALIAS KIPSIELE A. MOSONIK (DECEASED)
PHILIP KIPNGENO SIELE……..………….………………… PETITIONER/APPLICANT
=VERSUS=
CHRISTINE CHEPKIRUI MOSONIK…………..………………..…………… OBJECTOR
RULING
A. INTRODUCTION
1. Before this court is a Notice of Motion dated 12 th March 2026, brought by the Petitioner Philip Kipngeno Siele, seeking that this Honourable Court do adopt and/or record the Mediation Settlement Agreement dated 14th November 2025 as an order of this Court.
2. The application is opposed by the Objector, Christine Chepkirui Mosonik, by way of Grounds of Opposition and a Replying Affidavit, both dated 19 th March 2026, on the principal ground that she never validly executed or assented to the Agreement.
3. Having considered the application, the affidavits filed on both sides, the annexed mediation documents, the submissions of the parties and the applicable law, I now render this Ruling.
B. BACKGROUND
4. The Petitioner is a son of the deceased, Kipsiele Arap Mosonik alias Kipsiele A. Mosonik, and was granted Letters of Administration Intestate on 30 th April 2025. The Objector, the only daughter of the First House, filed an affidavit of protest to the proposed mode of distribution, following which the dispute was referred to Court Annexed Mediation, registered as Mediation No. KRC/MED/137 of 2025, conducted before Ms Milcen C. Soi, an accredited mediator, on 14 th November 2025. The mediation produced a Mediation Partial Settlement Agreement.
5. The Petitioner's supporting affidavit at paragraph 7 avers that the agreement was signed freely and voluntarily by all parties and or their advocates, without coercion, and reflects the genuine consensus of all parties.
6. The Objector in her replying affidavit dated 19 th March 2026, deposes that she was furnished only with an attendance list to sign, as required by Rule 21 of the Civil Procedure Court-Annexed Mediation, Rules, 2022; that at paragraph 8 she expressly refused to sign the substantive mediation report when asked to do so and was rebuked by the mediator for that refusal; that the printed declaration on the face of the Agreement bears no signature from her .
7. The mediation record placed before the Court shows: (i) the Form 14 cover sheet, whose printed declaration of agreement is left without any signature entered against it, save for the mediator's stamp; (ii) a signature page appended to that form bearing the Objector's name and an accompanying signature; and (iii) a separate signature page attached to the narrative mediation partial settlement agreement, likewise bearing her name, telephone number and signature. The genuineness and effect of these signatures are squarely disputed by the Objector on oath.
C. ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION
8. The issue that falls for determination is a narrow one:
(i) Whether, on the face of the Objector's sworn and unresolved denial that she validly executed /assented or consented to the agreement, this Court may adopt the Agreement.
D. ANALYSIS.
9. This Court's jurisdiction is founded on Section 47 of the Law of Succession Act (Cap. 160) and The Civil Procedure (Court-Annexed Mediation) Rules, 2022. Rule 34 requires such an agreement to be placed before the trial court for adoption. Rule 36 provides that, upon adoption, the agreement takes effect and force as a decree or order of the Court, against which no appeal lies.
10. The character of Rule 36 finality is central to how this Court must approach the dispute before it. An adopted mediation settlement agreement is not an ordinary order open to appellate correction. Mediation earns a finality precisely because it is meant to rest on the free and informed consent of the parties.
11. It follows that where such consent is disputed, the Court cannot treat adoption as a formality or presume regularity from the existence of a signature.
12. To adopt an agreement over a live and unresolved dispute as to its validity is to risk conferring irreversible, unappealable force on an arrangement that would offend Article 50 of the Constitution.
13. Because the consequence of adoption is irreversible and admits no appeal, the ordinary tolerance courts extend to resolving factual disputes, subject to correction on appeal, has no application here. This approach is consistent with the reasoning In Estate of the Late Kibilo Kipkoske A Chumo alias Kipkoske Chumo alias Kipkoske arap Chumo alias Kipkoske Kibiko arap Chumo (Deceased) [2024] KEHC 13224 (KLR) and in Board of Trustees, National Social Security Fund v Micheal Mwalo [2015] eKLR.
14. The Petitioner in this case is burdened only with inconvenience, while premature adoption exposes the Objector to a risk of irremediable injustice. Where the two risks are so unevenly weighted, the law must and does resolve the tension in favour of caution before finality.
15. There exists a genuine and unresolved dispute of fact as to whether the Objector validly executed, assented or consented to the agreement. This is not a denial capable of summary rejection. It is a credible, specific, and sworn account that finds some support in the state of the mediation record itself.
16. Secondly , on the consequence of that dispute for adoption sought, because adoption under Rule 36 of the Court Annexed Mediation Rules, 2022 is final and unappealable, this Court cannot lawfully extend that irreversible consequence to a party whose consent is genuinely disputed without first being actually satisfied that such consent was freely and knowingly given.
17. To do otherwise would expose the Objector to the risk of an irremediable injustice, the risk that she would be permanently bound to a disposition of her late father's estate to which she never, in truth, agreed. That risk is not offset by any countervailing urgency shown by the Petitioner, and it is a risk this Court is not prepared to run.
18. Rule 39 of the Court Annexed Mediation Rules 2022 permits an order or decree arising from a settlement agreement to be set aside, with leave, on limited grounds such as fraud, misrepresentation or fundamental mistakes.
19. That remedy does not answer the present difficulty. It operates only after adoption, requires leave, and would still confront the very conflict now before this Court: the Petitioner's sworn claim that the agreement was freely signed by all parties, against the Objector's sworn account that she refused to sign the substantive agreement and signed only an attendance list.
20. This conflict cannot be resolved on the record placed before the Court alone; it is a question that calls for what, Rule 34(3) exists precisely to meet, before it is adopted into an unappealable order. It is the shield the law provides against adopting a settlement whose validity is in doubt, and it is that shield this Court invokes now, rather than leaving the Objector to the narrower and later remedy under Rule 39.
DETERMINATION.
21. For the foregoing reasons, I find and hold as follows:
(i). There exists a genuine and unresolved dispute as to whether the Objector validly executed or consented to the agreement.
(ii). Adoption of the contested mediation settlement agreement at this stage would extend an irreversible consequence to the Objector.
ORDERS
22. This Court makes the following orders:
(i). The Court defers the adoption of the agreement as an order of this court at this stage.
(ii). That the matter shall be set for hearing on priority basis to clarify contentious issues as to the validity of the agreement. Hearing . On 23.9.26 . Summons to mediator to attend court .
(iii) That parties shall bear their own costs.
It is so ordered.
T. A. ODERA JUDGE
9.7.26
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY VIA TEAMS PLATFORM ON THIS 9 TH DAY OF JULY 2026:
CA BIUSIENEI:
Mwita for objector respondent Mulanga holding brief for Anati for petitioner /applicant
\
2 | Page