SHEETAL KAPILA VR NARRIMAN KHAN BRUNLEHNER

1. The objector/applicant filed a Notice of Motion application dated 17th March, 2023 pursuant to the provisions of Sections 1A, 1B, 3A & 95 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 49 Rule 7(2) & (3), Order 50 Rule 6, and Order 51 Rules 1 & 13(1) if the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and any other enabling laws. The objector seeks the following orders -
i) Spent;
ii) That this Honourable Court be pleased to extend time, for such period as it may deem fit and proper, for the defendant to lodge and serve a Memorandum of Appeal against the ruling and order of the Deputy Registrar (Elizabeth Tanui) delivered on 20th February, 2023;
iii)  Spent;
iv)  That pending the hearing and determination of the intended Appeal, this Honourable Court be pleased to grant a stay of the ruling and order of the Deputy Registrar (Elizabeth Tanui) delivered on 20th February, 2023;
v) That the costs of the application be provided for; and
vi)  That this Honourable Court be pleased to grant any other and further orders it deems fit to grant.
2. The application has been brought on the grounds on the face of it and is supported by an affidavit sworn on 17th March, 2023 by Josef Brunlehner, the objector herein. The 2nd respondent, Narriman Khan Brunlehner, filed a replying affidavit sworn on 14th April, 2023. In opposition thereto, Sheetal Kapila, the 1st respondent herein, filed a replying affidavit sworn on 4th April, 2023.
3. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions that were highlighted on 2nd May, 2023. The objector’s submissions were filed on 28th April, 2023 by the law firm of A.G.N Kamau Advocates, the 2nd respondent’s submissions were filed by the law firm of Lilian Amere Machio Company Advocates on 27th April, 2023 and the 1st respondent’s submissions were filed by the law firm of Wandabwa Advocates on 2nd May, 2023.
4. Mr. Kamau, learned Counsel for the objector submitted that vide a ruling dated 20th June, 2022, the Deputy Registrar allowed the 1st respondent to proceed with execution against the 2nd respondent, whereas the 2nd respondent had offered all that property known as Kwale/Galu Kinondo/613 measuring approximately 7.9 acres to the 1st respondent to hold as lien and/or security for payment of his legal fees. He stated that in addition to the said parcel of land, the 1st respondent sought for prohibitory orders to be issued against plots Nos. Kwale/Diani Beach Blocks/35, 1133, 816, 854, 855 and 856. Counsel explained that the objector and the 2nd respondent are husband and wife, respectively, albeit separated, and all the above parcels of land consist of matrimonial property owned by them jointly, though registered only in the name of the 2nd respondent.
5. Counsel for the objector submitted that all the said parcels of land with the exception of Plot No. 613 are encumbered with cautions placed by the objector to protect his interest in the said parcels of land at the time the litigation between them was ongoing at the Mombasa High Court.
6. Mr. Kamau stated that the Deputy Registrar’s ruling of 20th June, 2022 paved way for the 1st respondent to dispose of all the parcels of land in issue including those that the objector had 50% proprietary interest thus prompting the latter to institute objection proceedings. He stated that the objector’s application was heard by the Deputy Registrar and thereafter dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent vide a ruling dated 20th February, 2023. He also stated that the Deputy Registrar indicated that the said ruling would be uploaded on the Judiciary’s e-filing portal on the same day.
7. He stated that the objector being dissatisfied with the said ruling desires to lodge an appeal as provided for under Order 49 Rule 7(2) & (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, which require the filing of an appeal within seven (7) days of the decision of the Deputy Registrar. He stated that was not possible as the Deputy Registrar did not upload the said ruling on the Judiciary’s e-filing portal until the 9th of March, 2023 at night and they received it on 10th March, 2023. Mr. Kamau contended that in the absence of the ruling the objector seeks to appeal against, he could not have filed his appeal on or before the 27th February, 2023 as provided for by law. He stated that it was for the said reason that the applicant was seeking enlargement of time within which to file an appeal from the ruling dated 20th February, 2023 pursuant to the provisions of Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Act.
8. Mr. Kamau relied on the Supreme Court case of Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 others [2014] KLR, where it was held that in dealing with an application for extension of time, Courts should take into consideration the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding and the degree of prejudice to be occasioned on the respondent in the event the application is granted. He submitted that the instant application meets the threshold set out by the above principles.
9. On the length of the delay before instituting the instant application, Mr. Kamau stated that the impugned ruling was delivered on 20th February, 2023 and as such, pursuant to the provisions of Order 49 Rule 7(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, the objector ought to have lodged his appeal against the said ruling on or before 27th February, 2023, but the objector received the said ruling on 10th March, 2023 which is eleven (11) days after the elapse of the seven (7) days period provided for by law. He indicated that the objector filed the instant application on 17th March, 2023, which would have been within the time provided for by the rules, if the impugned ruling had been delivered on 10th March, 2023. He stated that the objector has been diligent in pursuing his right of appeal.
10.  On the reason for the delay, Counsel for the objector explained that it is not disputed that the same was occasioned by the Deputy Registrar and that there was no fault on the part of the objector and/or his Advocate. He submitted that the intended appeal has overwhelming chances of success since from the record, it is clear that other than all that parcel of land known as Kwale/Galu Kinondo/613, all the other parcels of land were encumbered by cautions placed by the objector in the year 2016. He cited the case of Bamburi Cement Limited v Chief Registrar & Attorney General [2018] eKLR and submitted that in law, a disposition that is inconsistent with the caution should not be registered against the said titles.
11.  Mr. Kamau stated that in her ruling dated 20th February, 2023, the Deputy Registrar purported to make an order withdrawing the cautions placed by the objector on the parcels of land in issue and/or declaring them to be of no effect despite the fact that the jurisdiction to deal with matters relating to cautions is vested in the Environment and Land Court. To this end, he relied on the case of Cornella Nabangala Nabwana v Edward Vitalis Akuku & 2 others [2017] eKLR. He contended that the Deputy Registrar did not address herself on the fact that the 1st respondent sought to attach properties encumbered by the objector’s cautions when he had a property which had no encumbrance, that was to be applied as security for payment of his legal fees. Mr. Kamau contended that the Deputy Registrar’s issuance of prohibitory orders to be registered against all the parcels of land herein had no basis in law.
12.  He further contended that the Deputy Registrar failed to find that since the objector was the 2nd respondent’s husband, he had a beneficial interest and entitlement over the parcels of land that form the subject of the objection proceedings hence his objection was sound in law. Mr. Kamau submitted that in the event that the instant application is not allowed, the 1st respondent will suffer no prejudice as he holds a substantial security for the payment of his fees in the form of title documents for all that parcel of land known as Kwale/Galu Kinondo/613, which has no encumbrances whatsoever and he can choose to dispose of the said parcel of land in order to recover his legal fees.
13.  On the issue of stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal, Mr. Kamau relied on the case of Antoine Ndiaye v African Virtual University [2015] eKLR, where the Court held that for an order for stay of execution to issue, it has to be demonstrated that substantial loss may result to an applicant unless the order is made. He submitted that the objector has demonstrated that unless stay of execution is ordered, the objector’s interest in the other six properties in issue will be alienated unlawfully and wrongfully, as he is not indebted to the 1st respondent.
14.  In concluding his submissions, Mr. Kamau stated that the instant application was filed expeditiously and without delay upon receipt of the ruling dated 20th February, 2023. He also stated that the objector has furnished the 1st respondent with security in the form of title documents for all that parcel of land known as Kwale/Galu Kinondo/613 and in addition, the properties forming the substratum of the dispute herein are registered in the name of the 2nd respondent and are encumbered by cautions placed by the objector and their status will not change until these proceedings are fully and finally determined by this Court. He submitted that the said parcels of land operate as security for the due performance of the decree that is being proposed to be appealed from.
15.  Ms. Machio, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent relied on the case of Shalimar Limited v Sadrudin Kurji Khurti & another [2016] eKLR and submitted that from the chronological sequence of events around this matter, it was necessary to file the instant application. She stated that the Deputy Registrar delivered the ruling dated 20th February, 2023 in piecemeal such that parties were only privy to the Court’s final determination. She indicated that it was the said Court’s position that the full and final copy of the ruling would be availed to parties on the Judiciary e-filing platform. Ms Machio stated that the said ruling was made available to the objector on 10th March, 2023, which only served to hamper the objector’s efforts in filing a substantive Memorandum of Appeal.
16.  She referred to the provisions of Order 49 Rule 7(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 which provides that a Memorandum of Appeal should be filed within seven (7) days of the decision of the Deputy Registrar and stated that the process of filing of the Memorandum of Appeal in respect of the ruling dated 20th February, 2023 was rendered impossible as the objector had no reference point upon which his grounds of appeal would be premised on. She referred to the case of Leo Sila Mutiso v Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi - Civil Application No. Nai 255 of 1997 (unreported), cited by the Court in the case of Stanley Kaiyongi Mwenda v Cyprian Kubai [2000] eKLR and JTK v MWK [2021] eKLR and stated that the delay in filing a Memorandum of Appeal was occasioned by factors beyond the objector’s control as the ruling dated 20th February, 2023 was only made available to the objector eighteen (18) days after it was delivered hence he was not in a position to file his Memorandum of Appeal without leave of this Court. She expressed the view that the application herein should be allowed as prayed so as not to abrogate the objector’s right of appeal and not to render the appeal process and any resultant litigation an academic exercise.   
17.  Mr. Wandabwa, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent relied on the case of Karny Zahrya & another v Shalom Levi [2018] eKLR, where the Court outlined some of the considerations to be borne in mind when dealing with an application for extension of time. On the issue of whether the 1st respondent will suffer any prejudice in the event the instant application is allowed, he submitted that the objector claims that he has a legal and equitable interest in the properties herein and owns 50% share in each of them, but at paragraph 7 of the plaint filed by the objector in Mombasa ELC No. 354 of 2016, he admitted that he could not have been registered as the owner of the said properties since he was a foreigner. Mr. Wandabwa contended that the objector’s claim of ownership of these properties is founded on an illegality thus he cannot invoke an equitable interest as he did not come to this Court with clean hands.
18.  Counsel for the 1st respondent relied on the case of Standard Chartered Bank Kenya Ltd v Intercom Services Ltd and 4 others [2004] eKLR, where it was held that a Court of law should not entertain a cause of action founded on an illegality. He contended that the objector is seeking the aid of the Court to preserve alleged rights and interests that are freehold in nature over the suit properties despite the fact that pursuant to the provisions of Article 65 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 he is expressly forbidden from acquiring or retaining any rights or interests over properties of freehold tenure.
19.  In submitting that the impugned ruling is a negative ruling incapable of being stayed and incapable of being injuncted, Mr. Wandabwa relied on the case of Western College of Arts and Applied Sciences v. EP Oranga & 3 others [1976] eKLR and the Court of Appeal holding in the case of Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited v Banking Insurance & Finance Union (Kenya) [2015] eKLR. He submitted that the Deputy Registrar did not order any of the parties to do anything and/or refrain from doing anything, as her ruling was a negative order incapable of execution hence the intended appeal would not be rendered nugatory. He contended that the objector had not met the prerequisites for stay of execution as provided for under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and as enunciated by the Court in the case of Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal [1979] eKLR.
20.  It was stated by Mr. Wandabwa that in as much as the objector received the impugned ruling on 10th March, 2023, the application herein was filed on 17th March, 2023 and no explanation for the delay of seven (7) days has been offered. He further stated that the security the 1st respondent holds in the form of title documents for all that parcel of land known as Kwale/Galu Kinondo/613 is not enough to realize the decretal sum plus interest. He stated that the objector has not indicated that he is ready to provide security even in the form of a bank guarantee and that the objector has 50% interest in 141 titles and he does not stand to suffer any substantial loss as there are still 138 other properties that the 1st respondent has not touched and/or sought to realize in order to satisfy the decretal sum.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION.
21.  On consideration of the application filed herein, the grounds on its face, the affidavit filed in support thereof, the replying affidavits filed by the respondents and the written submissions by Counsel for the parties, the issues that arise for determination are-
i) Whether the application for extension of time to file an appeal against the ruling dated 20th February, 2023 is merited; and
ii) If an order for stay of execution pending appeal should issue.
22.  In the affidavit filed by the objector he deposed that the 2nd respondent is his wife with whom he acquired a large portfolio of properties principally in Ukunda, Kwale County but a matrimonial dispute arose between them, as a result of which he filed various suits against her at the Mombasa Environment and Land Court. That during the pendency of the said suits, he placed cautions against the following properties; Kwale/Diani Beach Block/35, Kwale/Galu Kinondo/1133, Kwale/Galu Kinondo/613, Kwale/Galu Kinondo/816, Kwale/Galu Kinondo/854, Kwale/Galu Kinondo/855 and Kwale/Galu Kinondo/856, in order to protect his interest over the said properties which were acquired during the subsistence of their marriage, which cautions have not been discharged to date.
23.  The objector averred that the 2nd respondent instructed the 1st respondent to act for her in the suits filed at the Mombasa Environment and Land Court and she offered the 1st respondent all that parcel of land known as Kwale/Galu Kinondo/613 as security for payment of his fees in the said suits. He further averred that the 2nd respondent failed to pay the 1st respondent’s fees and as a result, she was sued by the 1st respondent in the suit herein. That a ruling was delivered on 26th January, 2021 by the Court, as a result of which the 1st respondent filed an application for execution against the 2nd respondent, seeking prohibitory orders to be issued against the properties in issue.
24.  The objector deposed that he filed objection proceedings before the Deputy Registrar in order to safeguard half of his proprietary rights and interest in the said properties. It was stated by the objector that vide a ruling dated 20th February, 2023, the Deputy Registrar dismissed his objection with costs to the 1st respondent without fully reading her entire ruling but stated that the said ruling would be uploaded on the e-filing portal on the same day, but that was not the case. He further stated that being aggrieved by the said ruling, his Advocates on record wrote to Court seeking a copy of the impugned ruling so as to enable him file an appeal against it on the same day, and they also made subsequent follow up calls and visits to the Court registry within the days that followed but they were informed by the registry staff that the file in question was yet to be released from the Deputy Registrar’s Chambers.
25.  The objector averred that his Advocates on record wrote to the Deputy Registrar vide letters dated 27th February, 2023 and 8th March, 2023 seeking to have her ruling dated 20th February, 2023 uploaded on the e-filing portal but the said letter elicited no response. He stated that the said ruling was eventually uploaded on the e-filing portal on 9th March, 2023 at night and was subsequently received by his Advocates on record on 10th March, 2023, which means that failure to file an appeal within the prescribed timelines was not intentional but was due to the delay in receiving the said ruling from Court.
26.  The objector averred that the Deputy Registrar failed to recognize that he had an equitable interest in the suit properties sought to be attached which is the substratum for filing an objection to the attachment of the said properties in a dispute where he was not a party. He stated that the objection proceedings related to properties held jointly by husband and wife but the Deputy Registrar failed to direct her mind to the relevant provisions of the law relating to matrimonial property. The objector deposed that the instant application has been filed timeously and the respondents will not be prejudiced in any way if the orders sought are granted.
27.  The 2nd respondent in her replying affidavit averred that she has no objection if the orders sought are granted. She expressed the view that the objector has weighty grounds of appeal on matters that ought to have been taken into account by the Deputy Registrar before delivering her ruling. She averred that prohibitory orders could not be issued against properties that had cautions already placed. The 2nd respondent further averred that she had already deposited with the 1st respondent title documents for all that property known as Kwale/Galu Kinondo/613 as security for their fees thus the Deputy Registrar had no basis in issuing prohibitory orders against all her properties.
28.  The 1st respondent in his replying affidavit deposed that the 2nd respondent is the sole registered proprietor and the absolute and indefeasible owner of the properties covered by the prohibitory order issued on 20th June, 2022. He stated that the application dated 28th June, 2022 was based on the objector’s claims that he owns 50% share in each of the said properties and that he has a legal and equitable interest in them. The 1st respondent was of the view that the Deputy Registrar properly directed herself by finding that the objector’s claim that he has a legal interest in each of the properties herein is not correct.
29.  The 1st respondent averred that in a deed of settlement dated 8th January, 2018, it was agreed that the 2nd respondent would pay the objector half of the proceeds of the sale of any of the properties referred to in paragraph 4 of the objector’s affidavit and that the said deed did not alter the 2nd respondent’s status as the sole registered proprietor of the properties herein. The 1st respondent stated that there is no basis for the objector to claim an equitable interest in the properties herein.
30.  He averred that the Deputy Registrar properly exercised her jurisdiction as it was evident that the objector failed to prove and establish his right to have the attached properties released from attachment. The 1st respondent asserted that the objector has not demonstrated any direct, indirect, or remote relation with the attached properties, to justify the grant of the orders sought herein.
Whether the application for extension of time to file an appeal against the ruling dated 20th February, 2023 is merited.
31.  Under the provisions of Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act, this Court has discretionary powers to consider applications for extension of time within which an appeal can be lodged. Further, the instant application has been filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21 Laws of Kenya and Order 50 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 which state as hereunder –
Section 95
“Where any period is fixed or granted by the court for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by this Act, the court may, in its discretion, from time to time, enlarge such period, even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired”.

Order 50 Rule 6
“Where a limited time has been fixed for doing any act or taking any proceedings under these Rules, or by summary notice or by order of the court, the court shall have power to enlarge such time upon such terms (if any) as the justice of the case may require, and such enlargement may be ordered although the application for the same is not made until after the expiration of the time appointed or allowed:
Provided that the costs of any application to extend such time and of any order made thereon shall be borne by the parties making such application, unless the court orders otherwise.”
32.  Under Order 49 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, an appeal against an application premised on the provisions of Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 other than under Rules 28 and 75, is required to be filed within seven (7) days of the decision of the Deputy Registrar. In this case, the ruling delivered by the Deputy Registrar dated 20th February, 2023 was on an application that was filed pursuant to the provisions of Order 22 Rules 48, 51, 52 & 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. As such, an appeal from the said ruling ought to have been filed on or before 27th February, 2023 considering the fact that 26th February, 2023 was on a Sunday.
33.  The Supreme Court in the case of Naomi Wangechi Gitonga & 3 others v Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & 17 others [2018] eKLR set out the guiding principles when it comes to extension of time, as being the conditions which were expressed in the decision in the case of Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 others [2014] eKLR as follows-
“This being the first case in which this Court is called upon to consider the principles for extension of time, we derive the following as the underlying principles that a Court should consider in exercise of such discretion:
1) extension of time is not a right of a party.  It is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the Court;
2) a party who seeks…extension of time has the burden of laying a basis to the satisfaction of the Court;
3) whether the Court should exercise the discretion to extend time, is a consideration to be made on a case-to-case basis;
4) [where] there is a reasonable [cause] for the delay, the delay should be explained to the satisfaction of the Court;
5) whether there will be any prejudice suffered by the respondents if the extension is granted;
6) whether the application has been brought without undue delay; and,
7) whether in certain cases, like election petitions, public interest should be a consideration for extending time.”
34.  Most recently, the Court of Appeal in the case of Ngei v Kibe & another (Civil Appeal (Application) E359 of 2021) [2021] KECA 243 (KLR) (3 December 2021) (Ruling) in allowing an application for leave to appeal out of time held that-
“I have considered the decision in Pothiwalla v Kidogo Basi Housing Cooperative Society Ltd and 31 others [2005] eKLR where the Court, at p.733, called to mind the criteria applied by the Court in exercise of its unfettered discretion in determination of an application under Rule 4, a criteria more succinctly settled in Wasike v Swala [1984] KLR p591 where this Court stated:
“As Rule 4 now provides that the Court may extend the time on such terms as it thinks just, an applicant must now show, in descending scale of importance, the following factors:
a) that there is merit in his appeal;
b) that the extension of time to institute and file the appeal will not cause undue prejudice to the respondent; and
c) that the delay has not been inordinate.”
35.  The ruling sought to be appealed from by the objector was delivered on 20th February, 2023. As explained herebefore, an appeal against the said ruling ought to have been filed on or before 27th February, 2023. It is not disputed that the Deputy Registrar when delivering her ruling dated 20th February, 2023, only stated that the objector’s application dated 28th June, 2022 was dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent, and the full and final copy of the said ruling would be availed to parties on the Judiciary e-filing platform on the same day. The said ruling was however uploaded on the e-filing platform on 9th March, 2023 at night, and the objector’s Advocates on record received a copy of it on 10th March, 2023. That was approximately twelve (12) days after the seven (7) days’ period provided for under the Rules, within which the objector ought to have filed an appeal from the ruling dated 20th February, 2023.
36.  The instant application was filed on 17th March, 2023, which was seven (7) days after the objector and his Advocates on record received a copy of the ruling dated 20th February, 2023. This Court finds that there was no inordinate delay in filing the present application.
37.  On whether the intended appeal is arguable with the possibility of success, it is trite that all the objector has to demonstrate is that he has an arguable appeal with the likelihood of success. The objector has not annexed to his affidavit in support of the application herein, a draft Memorandum of Appeal for this Court to peruse and establish if the intended appeal is arguable. However, the Court of Appeal in the case of Vishva Stone Suppliers Company Limited v RSR Stone [2006] Limited [2020] eKLR held as follows-
“It is appreciated no draft memorandum of appeal is annexed. That default notwithstanding the principle of law set out above on this issue indicates clearly that in the absence of a draft memorandum of appeal the Court can gauge the arguability of an intended appeal from other supportive evidence.”

38.  In his affidavit, the objector deposed that the Deputy Registrar failed to recognize that he had an equitable interest in the land sought to be attached which is the substratum for seeking an objection to the attachment of the property in dispute where he was not a party, and that she also failed to appreciate that since the properties in issue had cautions registered in his favour, no disposition of land that is inconsistent with the said cautions can be validly held to obtain as long as the said cautions are still registered. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the intended appeal is arguable.
If an order for stay of execution pending appeal should issue
39.  On whether an order for stay of the ruling and order of the Deputy Registrar delivered on 20th February, 2023 should issue, stay of execution pending appeal is provided for under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. In her ruling dated 20th February, 2023, the Deputy Registrar dismissed the objector’s application dated 28th June, 2022 with costs to the 1st respondent. I have perused the application that was considered and determined by the Deputy Registrar and my finding is that the order made by the Deputy Registrar was a negative order. In the case of Sonalux Limited & Another v Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited & 2 others [2008] eKLR, the Court of Appeal addressed its mind on whether an order for stay can be granted against a negative order as hereunder –
“As regards the matter before us all we can say is that the ruling of the superior Court (Kasango, J.) in no way ordered any of the parties to do anything or to abstain from doing anything or to pay any sum of money. Consequently, it is incapable of execution. It therefore follows that no order of stay can properly issue relating to that ruling.”
40.  This Court’s finding is that an order for stay of execution cannot issue in the present application since the order issued by the Deputy Registrar on 20th February, 2023 was a negative order incapable of execution.
41.  The upshot is that the application dated 17th March, 2023 is partly successful only in so far as leave to appeal out of time has been allowed. The objector will file his appeal within fourteen (14) days from today. There shall be no order as to costs.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI on this 7th day of July, 2023. Ruling delivered through Microsoft Teams Online Platform.
NJOKI MWANGI
JUDGE
    In the presence of:
    Ms Mwaura h/b for Mr. A.G.N Kamau for the objector/applicant
    Mr. Karani h/b for Mr. Wandabwa for the 1st respondent
    Mr. Ntogaiti h/b for Ms Mwachio for the 2nd respondent
    Ms B. Wokabi – Court Assistant.