IN THE MATTER OF ESTATE OF KASAINE OLE KUYONI ALIAS JOSEPH KASAINE

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAJIADO

SUCCESSION CAUSE NO 38 OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF KASAINE OLE KUYONI ALIAS JOSEPH KASAINE– DECEASED

MOSES SAYTANGA…………………..….……………………………ADMINISTRATOR

VERSUS

ROBERT MWANGI……………………………………………………...……PROTESTOR

JUDGMENT

Summons for Confirmation

1. The Administrator, Moses Saytanga, filed Summons for Confirmation of the Grant dated 19th February, 2018 seeking confirmation of the Gran of Letters of Administration Intestate issued to him on 30^th September 2018.
2. He has supported the Chamber Summons by an affidavit sworn by himself on 19^th February 2018. He has deposed that 6 months have lapsed from the date the Grant was issued; that the land parcel Kajiado/Olchoro Onyore/16394 being 1/3 portion out of the land parcel no Kajiado/Olchoro Onyore/53 be transferred to him. He has also attached a consent to the confirmation of the Grant, signed by Margaret Wanjiru Kuyuni, Njenga Kuyuni, Robert Salaton Kuyoni and Moses Saytanga. 

Affidavit of Protest

1. Robert Mwangi filed an Affidavit of Protest on 7^th June, 2022. His claim is that he purchased 7½  acres from Moses Saytanga out of the 1/3 share of Kajiado/Olchoreo-Onyore/53 on 20^th June 2013 and therefore he claims purchaser’s interest. The said affidavit is undated.
2. Robert Mwangi protested the mode of distribution proposed in the Summons for Confirmation of grant. He attached a sale agreement dated 20^th June, 2013 to support his claim. He has stated that the sale agreement formalized other sale agreements for smaller portions of land which he purchased in full.
3. He relied on section 93(1) of the Law of Succession Act and claimed that provisions protects his interests as an innocent purchaser of land. He stated that he was aware that the following grants were revoked in Kajiado Magistrate Court Succession Cause No. 8 of 2002 – Estate of Kasaine Ole Kuyoni and Kajiado High Court Succession Cause No. 110 of 2015 – Estate of Kasaine Ole Kuyoni (formerly Nairobi Succ 2280/13 and Machakos Succ 714/2013). He stated that the revocation of the grant does not defeat his interest as per section 93(1) of the Law of Succession Act. He further stated that he sold part of the property to third parties who have taken possession of the land.

Replying Affidavit

1. The Respondents filed a Replying Affidavit dated 20^th August, 2022 in which he has claimed that the Affidavit of Protest is fatally defective, fraudulent and made in bad faith; that he obtained a Grant of Letters of Administration in the Magistrate Court in Kajiado Succession Cause No. 8 of 2002; that thereafter this grant was revoked which was concluded as Kajiado Succession Cause No. 110 of 2015 vide a ruling delivered on 11^th May, 2016 by Hon. Justice Nyakundi. He denied owning any property known as Kajiado/Olchoro- Onyore/53 and/or entering into any agreement of sale on the said property.
2. He stated that the said agreement is invalid and has no legal basis; that all issues raised in the Affidavit of Protest were settled in the ruling; that from the said ruling it was made clear that he did not have any locus standi to sell the property of the estate and that by the court concluding Succession Cause No. 110 of 2015, it became functus officio.
3. He further stated that the said ruling also revoked, cancelled and/or invalidated all subdivisions and all titles issued on Kajiado/Olchoro- Onyore/53; that the ruling is still in effect as neither parties have appealed or reviewed it; that he applied for a fresh grant in this Succession Cause; that the protestor is aware of the existence of a pending matter before the ELC,  Kajiado in ELC No. 40 of 2019 where he could defend and present his claim and that the Affidavit of Protest be dismissed with costs as it is an abuse of court process.

Supplementary Affidavit

1. Moses Saytanga filed a Supplementary Affidavit dated 11^th December, 2023 in which he reiterated the contents of his Replying Affidavit. In arguing his case he stated that in October 2022 he formally reported the said forged Sale Agreement at Kiserian Police Station and was issued with OB NO 29/10/10/2022 and that the said matter is under active investigation.

Preliminary Objection

1. The Respondent also filed a preliminary objection dated 1^st August, 2022 and filed on 9^th September, 2022 seeking to have the Affidavit of Protest dismissed on the following grounds:
   • 1. That, the said Protest as drawn and canvassed is an appeal of Hon. Justice Nyakundi’s orders which the Honorable Court has no jurisdiction to entertain at all.
     2. That, the said protest is purely res- judicata as all the issues raised were canvassed and settled in the ruling and/or by the orders of this court on 11^th May, 2016 by Hon. Justice Nyakundi.
     3. That this Honorable Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine said Protest because from the Sale Agreement it is purely a land dispute that is between the Respondent in his personal capacity as a Kenyan and not as an administrator of the Estate and hence the same can be handled by the ELC Court.
     4. That the said Protest is incompetently and fatally defective as the same can only be handled by the ELC court vas provided for under the ELC Act.
     5. That as filed and canvassed by the Applicant’s Affidavit of Protest is totally incompetent and incurably defective in law and as such cannot stand or be determined before this Honorable Court.
     6. That the said Affidavit of Protest contravenes section 93 of the Law of Succession Act and all provisions of the succession laws.
     7. That the undated Affidavit in Protest is an afterthought and abuse of the court process and the same has been instituted with ulterior motives to gain some collateral advantage from the Respondent which is an illegitimate use of the court process and ought to be struck out and/or dismissed with costs.

Administrator’s case

1. This Court received evidence from Moses Saytanga testified that all the beneficiaries have agreed to the mode of distribution proposed in the Supporting Affidavit dated 11/10/2019. He stated that they all agreed to get 9 acres with their mother Margaret Wanjiru getting 3 acres.
2. On cross examination he denied knowing the Protestor. He stated that he knew Waweru Mwangi who was his advocate. He denied signing the sale agreement dated 20/6/2013, claiming that the said agreement was fraudulent. He testified that he reported the matter to the police under OB NO 29/10/10/2022 claiming that his signature was forged. He stated that on the strength of the Grant issued by the lower court, he had sold land to several people but that he had not sold 7 ½ acres to the Protestor. 

Protestor’s case

1. The, Protestor Robert Mwangi, adopted his Affidavit filed on 22^nd February, 2022 as his evidence. He testified that he bought land from Moses Saytanga, Injeng’a Kuyoni and their mother Wanjiru Kuyoni as follows: From Moses he bought (2 acres); from Injeng’a he bought (2 acres) and from Robert Kuyoni he bought 7 ½ acres but only got 6 ½ acres because he had a balance of Kshs. 650,000/-. It was his case that the revoked titles were for the 6 ½ acres and that the police had dismissed the OB obtained by Moses as baseless. He urged that Moses’ complaint was dismissed.
2. In cross-examination he stated that the sale agreement is dated 20/6/2013 and it is between him and Mr. Saytanga; that, it does not include the other names of the beneficiaries and that the market value of the said land in 2013 was 1.4 million per care which is the price he bought it for. He however stated that he did not have evidence of the purchase. He denied that Kshs 615,000/- was the purchase price and stated that it was the balance which he had not yet paid.

Submissions

1. Parties filed their respective submissions. The Protestor filed his submissions dated 29^th May, 2024. He submitted on one issue, whether the Protestor is entitled to a share of the deceased’s estate. He submitted that he is well versed with all the matters and events pertaining to this estate having interacted with the family for a long time as evidenced during the hearing and that he is entitled to 6.5 acres out of the estate.
2. He conceded that he did not pay for 1 acre, but he had been given title deeds for 6.5 acres. He cited John Mureithi Gatogo -vs- Lawrence Munene Ndambiri[2020]Eklr – Miscellaneous Succession Cause No. 92 of 2013 to support his case. He relied on Section 93 (1) Of Law of Succession Act to support his claim that the purchaser’s interest is not affected by revocation of grant.
3. He submitted that he is protected as a purchaser under section 93 of the Law of Succession Act. He further reiterated that he proved that he bought the 6.5 acres for which he had been issued with title deeds.

Respondent’s Submissions

1. The Respondents filed submissions dated 3^rd June, 2024. They submitted that the Protest is anchored on section 93 of the Law of succession Act and the sale agreement dated 20/6/2013 between the Protestor and the Administrator herein. They relied on the case of Adrian Nyamu Kiugu -vs- Elizabeth Karimi Kiugu and another (2014) eKLR the court stated that:

“Whereas the above section states that a transfer by person to whom representation has been granted shall be valid notwithstanding any subsequent revocation or variation of the grant either before or after the commencement of this act, I am of the considered view that such transaction can only be relied upon where the legal representative is entitle to grant of representation but not where one is not and where one has obtained the grant fraudulently.  The purchaser in this cause came from the neighborhood of the objector and it is not possible that he did not know of the objector herein.  I therefore find and hold the sale to be invalid.”

1. They also relied on the Court of Appeal case of Jacinta Wanja Kamau -vs- Rosemary Wanjiru Wanyoike and Another (2013) eKLR where the court held that:

“Before the appellant could seek protection as a purchaser under Section 93 of the Act she had first to prove that she is a purchaser. In this case, there was no prima facie evidence that she was a purchaser. In any case, and as provided by Section 82 (b) (II) of the Act, it would have been illegal for Beatrice Njeri Magondu to sell the land before the confirmation of the grant.”

1. They submitted that the Protestor did not provide any evidence to show he was a purchaser; that during his oral evidence he stated that he paid 1.4 Million to the other beneficiaries but did not provide any evidence; that his evidence was contradictory in that the Protestor stated in court that the Kajiado/Olchoro-Onyore/53 was the one pending confirmation while the true position was that the estate of ole Kuyoni, the brother to the Petitioner was the one pending succession; that the Protest was fraudulent and that the grant on which the sale agreement was anchored on has been revoked vide the Ruling dated 11/5/2016.
2. On the issue of whether this court has jurisdiction, they relied on various cases on the face of their submissions including the Supreme Court case of Samuel Kamau Macharia -vs- KCB & 2 others Civil Application No 2 of 2011 where the court held that:

“ A Court’s jurisdiction flows from either the Constitution or legislation or both. Thus, a Court of law can only exercise jurisdiction as conferred by the constitution or other written law. It cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction exceeding that which is conferred upon it by law. We agree with counsel for the first and second respondents in his submission that the issue as to whether a Court of law has jurisdiction to entertain a matter before it, is not one of mere procedural technicality; it goes to the very heart of the matter, for without jurisdiction, the Court cannot entertain any proceedings. This Court dealt with the question of jurisdiction extensively in, In the Matter of the Interim Independent Electoral Commission (Applicant), Constitutional Application Number 2 of 2011. Where the Constitution exhaustively provides for the jurisdiction of a Court of law, the Court must operate within the constitutional limits. It cannot expand its jurisdiction through judicial craft or innovation. Nor can Parliament confer jurisdiction upon a Court of law beyond the scope defined by the Constitution. Where the Constitution confers power upon Parliament to set the jurisdiction of a Court of law or tribunal, the legislature would be within its authority to prescribe the jurisdiction of such a court or tribunal by statute law.’’

1. It was their case that the succession has no jurisdiction to do anything outside this and argued that the Protest as drawn is purely a land purchase transaction whose jurisdiction lies with the ELC Court.
2. On whether the Protestor purchased any property from the deceased, they argued that the Protestor did not purchase any property. They argued that the Protestor did not produce any evidence to support his claim that the beneficiaries had Title ownership in their names before they could even enter into any sale agreement of the said properties; that the introduction of new evidence by the Protestor in his submissions is unfair and is against the all principles of natural justice; that the Protestor has produced numerous title numbers that were never substantiated nor produced in the Protest during oral hearing and that this court should disregard the said submissions as they do not support the Protestor’s case but in turn introduces a new case.
3. They relied on the case of Erastus Wade Opande -vs- Kenya Revenue Authority & Another Kisumu HCCA No 46 of 2007 where the court held that:

“Submissions simply concretise and focus on each side’s case with a view to win the court’s decision that way. Submissions are not evidence on which a case is decided.”

1. Similarly they relied on the Court of Appeal case of Daniel Torotich Arap Moi -vs- Mwangi Stephen Muriithi & Another [2014] eKLR where it was held that:

“Submissions cannot take the place of evidence.  The 1^st respondent had failed to prove his claim by evidence.  What appeared in submissions could not come to his aid.  Such a course only militates against the law and we are unable to countenance it.  Submissions are generally parties’ “marketing language”, each side endeavoring to convince the court that its case is the better one.  Submissions, we reiterate, do not constitute evidence at all.  Indeed there are many cases decided without hearing submissions but based only on evidence presented.’’

Analysis and determination

1. I have read the entire Court record, the Summons for Confirmation, the Supporting Affidavit, the Affidavit of Protest, the Preliminary Objection, the oral evidence and the submissions by the parties. Before I analyze this matter, I have noted that there is an application filed by the Applicant/Protestor dated 27^th May, 2024. Directions have not been given in respect of that Application, and it is still pending. This judgment relates to Summons for Confirmation, the Protest and the PO.
2. The estate of the deceased whose proceedings herein relate is 1/3 of Kajjado/Olchoro- Onyore/53, the original title registered in the names of Loipo Ole Ngutate - 1/3 share; Ngethe Karuga – 1/3 share and Kasaine Kuyoni, the deceased herein – 1/3 share.
3. From the record of the court I have noted that on 11^th May 2016 this Court (Justice Nyakundi) did revoke the titles arising out of the subdivisions of Kajiado/Ochoro-Onyore/53 and all other subsequent titles. He also ordered that this title reverts to the three original registered proprietors.
4. The Administrator herein was issued with the Grant of Letters of Administration intestate dated 30^th September, 2016. This is the Grant sought to be confirmed. It is the Summons for Confirmation that has attracted the Protest, with the Protestor claiming the purchaser’s interest of 6.5 acres or 7 ½ acres. The Administrator and his brother, the Respondents herein, filed a PO to the Protest.
5. In my considered view, the issues arising from these proceedings and which require my determination are:
   • 1. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to determine the interest of the Protestor.
     2. Whether the Grant of Letters of Administration should be confirmed.

Whether this Court is clothed with the requisite jurisdiction to determine the interest of the Protestor?

1. Jurisdiction is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary 9^th to mean “A court’s power to decide a case or issue a decree”. In Words and Phrases Legally Defined Vol. 3, John Beecroft Saunders defines jurisdiction in the following terms:

“By jurisdiction is meant the authority which a Court has to decide matters that are litigated before it or to take cognisance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. The limits of this authority are imposed by the statute, charter or commission under which the Court is constituted, and may be extended or restricted by like means. If no restriction or limit is imposed, the jurisdiction is said to be unlimited. A limitation may be either as to the kind and nature of the actions and matters of which the particular Court has cognisance or as to the area over which the jurisdiction shall extend, or it may partake both these characteristics…. Where a Court takes upon itself to exercise a jurisdiction which it does not possess, its decision amounts to nothing. Jurisdiction must be acquired before judgment is given.”

1. Numerous decisions, including the Court of Appeal decision in Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] eKLR, and the Supreme Court of Kenya decision in Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another vs. Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & others (2012) eKLR  express the view that a court without jurisdiction has no power to proceed further with the matter before it but must down its tools. In Samuel Kamau Macharia case, the Court stated that:

“A Court’s jurisdiction flows from either the Constitution or legislation or both. Thus, a court of law can only exercise jurisdiction as conferred by the Constitution or other written law. It cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction exceeding that which is conferred upon it by law. We agree with counsels for the first and second respondents in his submission that the issue as to whether a Court of law has jurisdiction to entertain a matter before it, is not one of mere procedural technicality, it goes to the very heart of the matter, for without jurisdiction, the Court cannot entertain any proceedings … where the Constitution exhaustively provides for the jurisdiction of a Court of law, the Court must operate within the constitutional limits. It cannot expand its jurisdiction through judicial craft or innovation.  Nor can Parliament confer jurisdiction upon a Court of law beyond the scope defined by the Constitution. Where the Constitution confers power upon Parliament to set the jurisdiction of a Court of law or tribunal, the legislature would be within its authority to prescribe the jurisdiction of such a court or tribunal by statute law.

1. Further, the Court of Appeal in Kakuta Maimai Hamisi -vs- Peris Pesi Tobiko & 2 Others (2013) eKLR stated that: -

“So central and determinative is the jurisdiction that it is at once fundamental and over-arching as far as any judicial proceedings in concerned.  It is a threshold question and best taken at inception. It is definitive and determinative and prompt pronouncement on it once it appears to be in issue in a consideration imposed on courts out of decent respect for economy and efficiency and necessary eschewing of a polite but ultimate futile undertaking of proceedings that will end in barren cui-de-sac. Courts, like nature, must not sit in vain.”

1. The question I wish to pose here is this: Is this Court, sitting as a Probate Court, clothed with the requisite jurisdiction to determine the issues being raised by the Protestor that he is a purchaser for value in regard to this estate?
2. In Pricilla Ndubi and Zipporah Mutiga -vs- Gerishon Gatobu, Meru Succession Cause No. 720 of 2013 the court pronounced itself on the mandate of a Probate Court in the following manner:

“The primary duty of the Probate Court is to distribute the estate of the deceased to the rightful beneficiaries. As of necessity, the estate property must be identified. Thus, where issues on ownership of the property in the estate are raised in a succession cause, they must be resolved before such property is distributed. And that is the very reason why rule 41(3) of the Probate and Administration Rules was enacted so that claims which are prima facie valid should be determined before confirmation.

1. The Court in re Estate of Stone Kathuli Muinde (Deceased) [2016] eKLR held the view that a claim for ownership of property of the estate by a third party lies elsewhere and not with the Probate Court. The Court stated as follows:

“With regard to the assets, one of the questions that may present itself would be the ownership of the assets presented as belonging to the deceased. An outsider may claim that the property does not form part of the estate and therefore it need not be placed on the probate table. The resolution of such questions do not necessitate joinder into the cause of the alleged owner to establish ownership. It is not the function of the probate court to determine ownership of the assets alleged to be estate property. That jurisdiction lies elsewhere.

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. Further, in Alexander Mbaka –vs- Royford Muriuki Rauni & 7 Others [2016] eKLR, the Court stated that:

“It is only where one has established claim against the estate that has already crystalised that he can litigate it before a Family Court.  The claim is to be considered as a liability to the estate.  This Court, in my view, cannot be called upon to ascertain whether or not one has a right to an estate of the deceased where such right has not yet crystalized.  The right must be shown to have crystalized before the Family Court can entertain it.”

1. The answer to the question whether this court, sitting as a Probate Court, is seized with jurisdiction to determine the interest of the Protestor is negative. The court that has jurisdiction is the Environment and Land Court by dint of section 13 of the ELC Act. The Protestor’s claim against the estate is a claim over title to land. He is not a beneficiary or dependant of the deceased. His claim is for 7 ½ acres of 6 ½ acres. It is not clear what size he is claiming. He has a right to approach the ELC to file his claim over that piece of land and adduce evidence to support that claim.
2. Consequently, this court must down its tools in respect of the Protestor’s claim because of lack of jurisdiction.

Whether the Grant should be confirmed and if so, what will be the mode of distribution?

1. To answer this question, I wish to revert to the records of the court and the evidence of the parties. The Administrator testified that the beneficiaries have agreed to share 9 acres each and their mother Margaret Wanjiru will get 3 acres. The Administrator told the court that the beneficiaries have agreed to this mode of distribution as evidenced in the Affidavit dated 11^th October 2019.
2. I have read the Summons for Confirmation dated 19/2/2018 and the Supporting Affidavit sworn by the Administrator on 19/2/2018. The mode of distribution stated by the Administrator is not captured in the supporting Affidavit.  The Consent attached to the Supporting Affidavit signed by Margaret Wanjiru Kuyuni, Njenga Nguiyuni, Robert Salaton Kuyoni and Moses Saytanga does not contain the proposed mode of distribution. The Affidavits dated 11^th October 2019 by Margaret, Njenga, and Robert and that of Moses Saytanga dated 22^nd October 2019 do not support or make any proposals to the mode of distribution.
3. It is instructive to note that the other named beneficiaries did not testify. The only evidence on record is that of Moses Saytanga. This court therefore cannot confirm whether the other beneficiaries have agreed to the mode of distribution and the shares for each beneficiary as claimed by Moses.
4. As deposed in the respective Affidavits stated above, the deceased is the son of Margaret Wanjiru and brother to Moses Saytanga, Njenga Nguiyuni, and Robert Salaton. According to the evidence, the deceased did not have a family. He was not married and did not have children. The mother and brothers indicated in these proceedings are the beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased. There are shortcomings in these proceedings, as far as the Summons for Confirmation is concerned in that all the beneficiaries have not presented evidence to show the mode of distribution and the shares for each of them. Further, there are interested parties whose interests have been catered for in the consents recorded by this court, to which I now turn to address.
5. In the course of these proceedings, and before the court took evidence on 24^th April 2024, Mr. Gituma, advocate for the Estate told the court that the administrator and interested parties had a consent to record. The interested parties involved were named as:
   1. Robert and Diana Mochache with an interest in Kajiado/Olchoro-Onyore/16480 and 16709.
   2. Francis Kissinger Kakai with an interest in Kajiado/Olchoro-Onyore/16485.
   3. Daniel and Elizabeth Bischof with an interest in Kajiado/Olchoro-Onyore/16484.
   4. John Koitei with an interest in Kajiado/Olchoro-Onyore/16708.
   5. Njoroge Mungai Kirumba with an interest in Kajiado/Olchoro-Onyore/16492.
   6. Richard Minisa with an interest in Kajiado/Olchoro-Onyore/16489.
   7. Njoroge Mungai Kirumba and Wallace Kago Muchina Kajiado/Olchoro-Onyore/2248.
   8. Njoroge Mungai Kirumba and Wallace Kago Muchina Kajiado/Olchoro-Onyore/21959.
   9. Penrose Namisi to get one (1) acre to be hived from Kajiado/Olchoro-Onyore/16490. The one acre to be situated between the properties owned by Moses Saytanga and Injenga Kuyuni.
6. The terms of the consent are that upon confirmation of the grant the above identified titles be reinstated to the named Interested Parties. In respect to Penrose Namisi, she was to get one (1) acre hived as shown in Paragraph 44(i) above.
7. The consent order was rectified on 25^th April 2024 to read that the titles to be reinstated to Robert and Diana Mochache were to be reinstated in the name of Robert Mochache and that title number Kajiado/Olchoro-Onyore/17137 in the name of Moses Saytanga shall be reinstated to Robert Mochache upon confirmation of the grant. Mr. Kissinger Kakai representing Diana Mochache confirmed that his client had confirmed that the two titles, Kajiado/Olchoro-Onyore/16480 and 16709 should be reinstated in the name of Robert Mochache alone. Further, on 25^th April 2024, it was agreed that Peter Ngobi Rebo shall be allocated one (1) acre to be hived from the section where he has buried his son to which Moses Saytanga consented.
8. All the parties named in the consent were interviewed by this court and all confirmed the consent as recorded. The consent was adopted by the court as a court order. Following the consent order, the only dispute remaining between the Interested Parties and the Estate was that of the Protestor Robert Mwangi whose determination I have made in this judgment.
9. In my considered view, the parties, having confirmed the consent recorded in court, the issue of interest of the named interested parties is settled in that there is no dispute between the named parties and the estate of the deceased represented by the Administrator Moses Saytanga.
10. To enable the Protestor to pursue his claim in the right forum that he bought land from the estate, this court will order that a portion measuring 7 ½ acres be hived from the estate of the deceased, from an area that is yet to be subdivided between the beneficiaries of the deceased. The 7 ½ acres so hived shall be held pending the conclusion of the dispute between the Protestor and the beneficiaries.
11. In view of my reasoning in this judgment, this court partially confirms the grant in line with the consent of this court entered between the Estate, represented by Mr. Gituma, and the Interested Parties shown under Paragraphs 44, 45 and 46 above. In respect of the mode of distribution to the beneficiaries, and to the Interested Parties as captured in the Consent Order and replicated in paragraphs 44, 45 and 46 of this Judgment, this court will await a Supplementary Affidavit by the Administrator and Consent of all the beneficiaries clearly indicating the mode of distribution of the estate between the Interested Parties named in Paragraphs 44, 45 and 46 above, less 7 ½ acres.
12. Upon filing of the Supplementary Affidavit, this court (Presiding Judge, Kajiado or any other Judge in Kajiado) shall finalize the confirmation of the grant and issue a Certificate of Confirmation accordingly.
13. This file is returned to Kajiado High Court to be placed before the Presiding Judge for further directions on the pending issues.
14. Orders shall issue accordingly.

Dated, signed and delivered this 5^th March 2025.

S. N. MUTUKU

JUDGE

In the presence of:

Mr. Robert Mochache representing

1. Robert Mochache
2. Diana Mochache
3. Daniel Bischof
4. Njoroge Kirumba
5. Namisi Penrose
6. Holding brief for Kakai Kissinger

Mr. Gituma for the Estate and Administrator.