REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KABARNET
CRIMINAL CASE NO.E004 OF 2023
REPUBLIC ..........................................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
KKR .............................................................................. ACCUSED SUBJECT
RULING ON DISPOSITION
1. KKR was charged with Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code .
It was alleged that on 1 st March, 2023 at Kurumbopsoo Sub-location, Kapropita Location, Baringo Central Sub/county, Baringo he murdered his father Daniel Rotich.
2. In the bail ruling dated 27 th April, 2023, the court (Ngetich J,) as she then was found that the accused was a minor aged 16 years old. The court directed that due to the hostility prevailing at his home – he be held in a remand home for his own safety. The court stated:–
‘ Report from the family indicate that the accused has been a troublesome for a long period of time especially when under the influence of alcohol and drug substance; is mentally unstable and are opposed the accused being admitted to bond stating that they are still in fear that he will do more harm to the family and for his son safety since the community at large is still hostile to him; further none of the family members has offered to stand surety for the accused’.
The local administration stated that the accused is always under the influence of alcohol and substance use and are opposed to his being released on bond as the environment is still very hostile and if released his life will be in danger and his family may also be forced relocate for fear of being harmed by the accused.’
3. On 13 th February, 2024 a plea agreement was entered into and recorded by the court.
4. The subject was represented by Mr. Chepngoswa holding brief for Mr. Mwaita. In the Ruling dated 1 st October, 2024 – the record indicates;
From pre-sentence report and mental assessment done, the subject suffers from Schizophrenia. He requires medication and close supervision. The family are however not ready to welcome him back home for fear of being harmed by the subject. There is no doubt that the medical condition coupled with drug abuse may have driven the subject to commit the heinous act against his father who he said used to take him for treatment. Without support from his family on treatment, the subject is likely to relapse and commit offences again therefore endangering himself and those around him.
I have considered prosecution’s prayer to sentence the subject as an adult as the family are not willing to accept and assist him with treatment .
I also take note of the fact that at the time of committing the offence, he had the mind of a child and is still a child aged 17 years and he should be treated as a child while sentencing.
In view of the above and taking into consideration the fact that Schizophrenia is a lifelong mental condition. I am of the view that it will be in the interest of justice to commit the accused in a mental facility for treatment . Review to be done at a later date to determine whether he can be placed on probation.
A further ruling dated 2 nd October, 2025 made orders –The pre-sentence report indicate that the accused was of violent character within the community but has been dealt with locally until he committed the current offence. The local administrator is opposed to the minor being released to the community. He said the family are not willing to accept him and the community hostile towards him.
In view of the comments above and my finding that the minor was a minor aged 16 years at the time of the offence, I am inclined to commit him to a Borstal institution . This will give him opportunity to reflect on his action and reform before being released back to the community .
5. The record shows that following the above directions, on 26 th November, 2025 – Counsel for State requested for age assessment of the subject.
6. By the time I took over the matter on 22 nd April, 2026 the subject had not been committed to any Borstal Institution and the record showed that the matter was pending age assessment.
7. I sought an explanation from both the Prosecution and Probation why this situation was prevailing yet in the meantime the subject was not undergoing any treatment and was simply being held at the Remand Home. The PACs appeared to have taken the position that the subject was now above the age of 18 and could not be admitted to a Borstal Institution, and that due to his mental health condition, there was no specialised institution / personnel in the Borstal Institution to deal with the condition of the subject. It appeared to me that in those circumstances, the idea was to get him into an adult institution.
8. Three issues immediately presented to this court:
i. whether the DPP was right to seek age assessment at that stage?
ii. Whether the action of the PACs in allowing the subject to continue being held at the Remand Home despite the court order?
iii. what orders this court should make
9. On the issue of age assessment Section 229 of the Children Act 2022 provides for determination of a child’s age . Determination of a child’s age
If the age of a child is uncertain, the magistrate shall estimate the child’s age based on —
(a) a previous determination of age by a magistrate under this Act or any other written law;
(b) statements made by a parent, guardian or any other person likely to have direct knowledge of the age of the child, or a statement made by the child in that regard;
(c) a baptismal certificate, school registration form or school report, or other information of a similar nature;
(d) an estimation of age made by a medical practitioner; or
(e) a report of a social worker, children officer or other authorised officer in that regard
10. It is evident that the age assessment is not necessarily a medical issue. The court has discretion to find the evidence that the will enable it to determine the age .In this case the report from PACs already indicated that the subject was 16 years old at the onset of the proceedings. It appears to this court that there was no reason at all for that request other than to fulfil the original intention by the ODPP to have the subject committed to an adult prison facility .
11. Evidently this would not be in the best interest of the subject and would be in violation of s. 221 of the Children Act
It states : . Criminal liability of a child
( 1) A person under the age of twelve years shall not be criminally responsible for any act or omission.
(2) A child who commits an offence while under the age of fourteen years shall be presumed not to be capable of differentiating between right and wrong, unless the Court is satisfied on evidence to the contrary.
(3) The provisions of this Part shall apply to a person who reaches the age of eighteen years before proceedings instituted against them pursuant to the provisions of this Act have been concluded.
12. The PACs had an obligation to guide the court on the appropriate action at all material times after the orders of the court to avoid the lengthy deprivation of liberty after the order by the court if indeed it was not possible for the subject to be committed to the BI.
13. This subject was 16 when he committed the offence. He has a mental illness. He was entitled to a mode of disposition that took into account his age and mental illness.
14. On account of s. 144 (s) of the Children Act; A child is who is mentally ill is a child in need of care and Protection .
15. Section 150 of the Children Act empowers the Court in respect of children in need of care and protection. At (g) it states that if the child has a disability or other special needs, make an order directing that the Secretary takes such steps as are necessary to meet the special needs of the child ;
16. The subject herein had special needs from the word go. He was entitled to these orders in 2023. Section 225 provides for the consideration of welfare of the child in conflict with the law.
(2) Every child in remand or custodial care who is ill, or who complains of illness, whether physical or mental, shall be examined promptly by a qualified medical practitioner and treated.
17. The inactivity is not entirely the fault of PACs. It is because there is a glaring gap in the child justice system regarding the implementation of the above provisions of the Children Act. The State Department of Children Services and the State Department for Correctional Services are obligated to reform the Children Institutions under their mandate to align them with the Children Act. For instance, in this case to provide within their institutions the services and appropriate rehabilitation programs required by children who have special needs, who commit serious crimes and who turn 18 and above during the proceedings as envisaged by s. 221 of the Act.
18. The case of this subject herein demonstrates this glaring gap. He has stayed in the Remand Home just awaiting the resolution over what should happen to him.
19. The Children Act 2022 turns 4 this year. The two state departments, have a statutory du ty to address the issues presented by the Children Act with respect to children in conflict with the law, while taking into account their best interest. This will resolve the perennial dilemma where children end up in adult prisons which re not equipped to address their special needs.
20. Coming back to the Subject, it became evident that the he could not fit in a Borstal institution because of his special needs. At the same time the parents and the community had a meeting and decided he was not welcome back home.
21. This situation was not tenable and PACS was directed to find an effective solution. They held family group conferences to explain the circumstances of the offender and that the only available option was release to the family and continued treatment as the Borstal Institution could not admit him. PACs filed a further report on 29 th May, 2025. The Report made the following observations and conclusions.
22. On personal history and current status of the subject :
At the time of arrest, he was between 16 and 17 years old. He attended Kisok Primary School from where he sat for his KCPE in 2022 and managed 141 marks out of possible 500. He later engaged in casual jobs within the area which was frequently interrupted by illness. He is said to have started exhibiting unusual behavior in 2019 when he was about 12
The family suspected that he was using bhang, alcohol and Tobacco/Kuber which they related to cause of his mental illness. He was treated for mental disorder but he never adhered to medication hence several relapses. At the time he committed the offence he was mentally sick. After arrest he was on 27 th October, 2024 ordered to be escorted to Mathari mental Hospital for treatment but due to his age he was not admitted but was treated at Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital. He was later confirmed fit to stand trial.
23. On the circumstances of the offence :
The offender says that he cannot remember exactly what had happened and why he committed the offence. According to the family members he arrived home in the evening of the said date and locked both the father and the mother from outside as they were asleep. Using a matchbox, he set his father’s house on fire and sat outside the house laughing as if nothing was happening. The mother raised alarm but by the time neighbours arrived his father had sustained serious injuries and later succumbed to injuries at Baringo Level four Hospital. The subject was later arrested and charged with this offence.
24. On the current family attitude towards the subject :
Initially the family was very bitter with the subject. According to his brother, he robbed them off their bread winner They also claimed that he had not healed and they feared that if released he was likely to commit another offence. They were not ready to accept him back at home.
Following several family conferences held lately where all his mother and siblings and other family members involved, the family .
resolved to have the subject released to his grandfather David Timno who was willing to accommodate him and closely supervise him as arrangements for the cleansing ceremony were made so that the subject could be accepted back home. The family also resolved to assist in ensuring the subject received medical treatment at Baringo Level four Hospital.
25. On community attitudes towards the offender and the offence .
The subject was well known as he had grown up within the community. The area Chief and Community members interviewed agreed with the family members to have the subject relocated the subject to Kabarnet to stay with his grandfather. The area assistant chief and village elder committed to assist in monitoring and follow-up of the subject’s wellbeing including his medication. The assistant chief was also ready to assist the family in preparing for the cleansing ceremony according Tugen culture.
26. In Conclusion the report stated:
The subject before court is currently 19 years of age. He committed this offence when he was about 16. The primary victim was his biological father. According to medical records he suffered Schizophrenia and polysubstance disorder at the time he committed the offence, he was there for mentally sick.. Prior to the incidence he had been treated at Baringo level four hospital but due to lack of proper follow up he had relapsed. Initially the family was very bitter and had totally refused to accept him back home on the ground that he is dangerous and their fears that he would commit another offence.
That after family conferences, the family became now receptive and has committed to ensure he settles and by providing the requisite support.
27. Pursuant to the above agreements and that the security of the subject now guaranteed Probation and After Care Services Recommended : that he be placed on Probation Supervision for three years on the following Rehabilitation and supervisory plan : That During the probation period the department will:-
a) Engage the family in drawing rehabilitation and resettlement plan for the subject.
b) Ensure the subject is closely monitored to adhere to medication if possible
c) Do referral to Baringo Level four Hospital in case of relapse.
d) Provide guidance and counselling to both the subject and family members
e) Seek professional intervention in order to assist him deal with drug issue
f) Provide routine supervision to ensure he abide by any other order by the court.
28. In the circumstances, this recommendation provides the court with a basis for the final orders. These orders must ultimately in the best interests of the Subject.
29. Section 239 of the Children Act provides for Methods of dealing with children in conflict with the law where a child is tried for an offence, and the Court is satisfied as to their guilt, the Court may deal with the case in one or more of several ways provided thereunder.
30. On what the final orders should be; following the recommendations by PACs the following orders issue ;
I. The subject is committed to the care of his grandfather David Timno pending the cleansing ceremony that the family has agreed upon, and thereafter if the family agrees to the same. The family is to ensure that he gets medical attention and medication for the mental illness.
II. The Subject is placed on Probation Supervision in accordance with provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, and in particular the Order to include the recommendations made by the PACs officer; That the Department will;
a) Engage the family in drawing rehabilitation and resettlement plan for the subject.
b) Ensure the subject is closely monitored to adhere to medication if possible
c) Do referral to Baringo Level four Hospital in case of relapse.
d) Provide guidance and counselling to both the subject and family members
e) Seek professional intervention in order to assist him deal with drug issue
f) Provide routine supervision to ensure he abide by any other order by the court.
III. The family (mother and siblings) are required to collaborate with PACs
31. The matter will be mentioned before the Deputy Registrar Quarterly for Progress Reports, the first mention within three months hereof.
32. In addition, the Deputy Registrar to bring this Ruling to the attention of the PS State Department Children Services and PS State Department Correctional Services for their necessary action.
33. Orders Accordingly
Ruling Dated, signed and delivered virtually at Kabarnet High Court this 30 th day of June 2026
Mumbua T Matheka
Judge
Court Assistants: Gladys/Momanyi
Subject present virtually at Eldoret Children Remand Home
Ms. Barasa for Mr. Mwaita for the Subject
Ms. Kosgei for State
Mr. Brian Munyobi for PACs
Ruling (Disposition) HCCRC E004 of 2023 Page 2 of 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KABARNET
CRIMINAL CASE NO.E004 OF 2023
REPUBLIC ..........................................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
KKR .............................................................................. ACCUSED SUBJECT
RULING ON DISPOSITION
1. KKR was charged with Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code .
It was alleged that on 1 st March, 2023 at Kurumbopsoo Sub-location, Kapropita Location, Baringo Central Sub/county, Baringo he murdered his father Daniel Rotich.
2. In the bail ruling dated 27 th April, 2023, the court (Ngetich J,) as she then was found that the accused was a minor aged 16 years old. The court directed that due to the hostility prevailing at his home – he be held in a remand home for his own safety. The court stated:–
‘ Report from the family indicate that the accused has been a troublesome for a long period of time especially when under the influence of alcohol and drug substance; is mentally unstable and are opposed the accused being admitted to bond stating that they are still in fear that he will do more harm to the family and for his son safety since the community at large is still hostile to him; further none of the family members has offered to stand surety for the accused’.
The local administration stated that the accused is always under the influence of alcohol and substance use and are opposed to his being released on bond as the environment is still very hostile and if released his life will be in danger and his family may also be forced relocate for fear of being harmed by the accused.’
3. On 13 th February, 2024 a plea agreement was entered into and recorded by the court.
4. The subject was represented by Mr. Chepngoswa holding brief for Mr. Mwaita. In the Ruling dated 1 st October, 2024 – the record indicates;
From pre-sentence report and mental assessment done, the subject suffers from Schizophrenia. He requires medication and close supervision. The family are however not ready to welcome him back home for fear of being harmed by the subject. There is no doubt that the medical condition coupled with drug abuse may have driven the subject to commit the heinous act against his father who he said used to take him for treatment. Without support from his family on treatment, the subject is likely to relapse and commit offences again therefore endangering himself and those around him.
I have considered prosecution’s prayer to sentence the subject as an adult as the family are not willing to accept and assist him with treatment .
I also take note of the fact that at the time of committing the offence, he had the mind of a child and is still a child aged 17 years and he should be treated as a child while sentencing.
In view of the above and taking into consideration the fact that Schizophrenia is a lifelong mental condition. I am of the view that it will be in the interest of justice to commit the accused in a mental facility for treatment . Review to be done at a later date to determine whether he can be placed on probation.
A further ruling dated 2 nd October, 2025 made orders –The pre-sentence report indicate that the accused was of violent character within the community but has been dealt with locally until he committed the current offence. The local administrator is opposed to the minor being released to the community. He said the family are not willing to accept him and the community hostile towards him.
In view of the comments above and my finding that the minor was a minor aged 16 years at the time of the offence, I am inclined to commit him to a Borstal institution . This will give him opportunity to reflect on his action and reform before being released back to the community .
5. The record shows that following the above directions, on 26 th November, 2025 – Counsel for State requested for age assessment of the subject.
6. By the time I took over the matter on 22 nd April, 2026 the subject had not been committed to any Borstal Institution and the record showed that the matter was pending age assessment.
7. I sought an explanation from both the Prosecution and Probation why this situation was prevailing yet in the meantime the subject was not undergoing any treatment and was simply being held at the Remand Home. The PACs appeared to have taken the position that the subject was now above the age of 18 and could not be admitted to a Borstal Institution, and that due to his mental health condition, there was no specialised institution / personnel in the Borstal Institution to deal with the condition of the subject. It appeared to me that in those circumstances, the idea was to get him into an adult institution.
8. Three issues immediately presented to this court:
i. whether the DPP was right to seek age assessment at that stage?
ii. Whether the action of the PACs in allowing the subject to continue being held at the Remand Home despite the court order?
iii. what orders this court should make
9. On the issue of age assessment Section 229 of the Children Act 2022 provides for determination of a child’s age . Determination of a child’s age
If the age of a child is uncertain, the magistrate shall estimate the child’s age based on —
(a) a previous determination of age by a magistrate under this Act or any other written law;
(b) statements made by a parent, guardian or any other person likely to have direct knowledge of the age of the child, or a statement made by the child in that regard;
(c) a baptismal certificate, school registration form or school report, or other information of a similar nature;
(d) an estimation of age made by a medical practitioner; or
(e) a report of a social worker, children officer or other authorised officer in that regard
10. It is evident that the age assessment is not necessarily a medical issue. The court has discretion to find the evidence that the will enable it to determine the age .In this case the report from PACs already indicated that the subject was 16 years old at the onset of the proceedings. It appears to this court that there was no reason at all for that request other than to fulfil the original intention by the ODPP to have the subject committed to an adult prison facility .
11. Evidently this would not be in the best interest of the subject and would be in violation of s. 221 of the Children Act
It states : . Criminal liability of a child
( 1) A person under the age of twelve years shall not be criminally responsible for any act or omission.
(2) A child who commits an offence while under the age of fourteen years shall be presumed not to be capable of differentiating between right and wrong, unless the Court is satisfied on evidence to the contrary.
(3) The provisions of this Part shall apply to a person who reaches the age of eighteen years before proceedings instituted against them pursuant to the provisions of this Act have been concluded.
12. The PACs had an obligation to guide the court on the appropriate action at all material times after the orders of the court to avoid the lengthy deprivation of liberty after the order by the court if indeed it was not possible for the subject to be committed to the BI.
13. This subject was 16 when he committed the offence. He has a mental illness. He was entitled to a mode of disposition that took into account his age and mental illness.
14. On account of s. 144 (s) of the Children Act; A child is who is mentally ill is a child in need of care and Protection .
15. Section 150 of the Children Act empowers the Court in respect of children in need of care and protection. At (g) it states that if the child has a disability or other special needs, make an order directing that the Secretary takes such steps as are necessary to meet the special needs of the child ;
16. The subject herein had special needs from the word go. He was entitled to these orders in 2023. Section 225 provides for the consideration of welfare of the child in conflict with the law.
(2) Every child in remand or custodial care who is ill, or who complains of illness, whether physical or mental, shall be examined promptly by a qualified medical practitioner and treated.
17. The inactivity is not entirely the fault of PACs. It is because there is a glaring gap in the child justice system regarding the implementation of the above provisions of the Children Act. The State Department of Children Services and the State Department for Correctional Services are obligated to reform the Children Institutions under their mandate to align them with the Children Act. For instance, in this case to provide within their institutions the services and appropriate rehabilitation programs required by children who have special needs, who commit serious crimes and who turn 18 and above during the proceedings as envisaged by s. 221 of the Act.
18. The case of this subject herein demonstrates this glaring gap. He has stayed in the Remand Home just awaiting the resolution over what should happen to him.
19. The Children Act 2022 turns 4 this year. The two state departments, have a statutory du ty to address the issues presented by the Children Act with respect to children in conflict with the law, while taking into account their best interest. This will resolve the perennial dilemma where children end up in adult prisons which re not equipped to address their special needs.
20. Coming back to the Subject, it became evident that the he could not fit in a Borstal institution because of his special needs. At the same time the parents and the community had a meeting and decided he was not welcome back home.
21. This situation was not tenable and PACS was directed to find an effective solution. They held family group conferences to explain the circumstances of the offender and that the only available option was release to the family and continued treatment as the Borstal Institution could not admit him. PACs filed a further report on 29 th May, 2025. The Report made the following observations and conclusions.
22. On personal history and current status of the subject :
At the time of arrest, he was between 16 and 17 years old. He attended Kisok Primary School from where he sat for his KCPE in 2022 and managed 141 marks out of possible 500. He later engaged in casual jobs within the area which was frequently interrupted by illness. He is said to have started exhibiting unusual behavior in 2019 when he was about 12
The family suspected that he was using bhang, alcohol and Tobacco/Kuber which they related to cause of his mental illness. He was treated for mental disorder but he never adhered to medication hence several relapses. At the time he committed the offence he was mentally sick. After arrest he was on 27 th October, 2024 ordered to be escorted to Mathari mental Hospital for treatment but due to his age he was not admitted but was treated at Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital. He was later confirmed fit to stand trial.
23. On the circumstances of the offence :
The offender says that he cannot remember exactly what had happened and why he committed the offence. According to the family members he arrived home in the evening of the said date and locked both the father and the mother from outside as they were asleep. Using a matchbox, he set his father’s house on fire and sat outside the house laughing as if nothing was happening. The mother raised alarm but by the time neighbours arrived his father had sustained serious injuries and later succumbed to injuries at Baringo Level four Hospital. The subject was later arrested and charged with this offence.
24. On the current family attitude towards the subject :
Initially the family was very bitter with the subject. According to his brother, he robbed them off their bread winner They also claimed that he had not healed and they feared that if released he was likely to commit another offence. They were not ready to accept him back at home.
Following several family conferences held lately where all his mother and siblings and other family members involved, the family .
resolved to have the subject released to his grandfather David Timno who was willing to accommodate him and closely supervise him as arrangements for the cleansing ceremony were made so that the subject could be accepted back home. The family also resolved to assist in ensuring the subject received medical treatment at Baringo Level four Hospital.
25. On community attitudes towards the offender and the offence .
The subject was well known as he had grown up within the community. The area Chief and Community members interviewed agreed with the family members to have the subject relocated the subject to Kabarnet to stay with his grandfather. The area assistant chief and village elder committed to assist in monitoring and follow-up of the subject’s wellbeing including his medication. The assistant chief was also ready to assist the family in preparing for the cleansing ceremony according Tugen culture.
26. In Conclusion the report stated:
The subject before court is currently 19 years of age. He committed this offence when he was about 16. The primary victim was his biological father. According to medical records he suffered Schizophrenia and polysubstance disorder at the time he committed the offence, he was there for mentally sick.. Prior to the incidence he had been treated at Baringo level four hospital but due to lack of proper follow up he had relapsed. Initially the family was very bitter and had totally refused to accept him back home on the ground that he is dangerous and their fears that he would commit another offence.
That after family conferences, the family became now receptive and has committed to ensure he settles and by providing the requisite support.
27. Pursuant to the above agreements and that the security of the subject now guaranteed Probation and After Care Services Recommended : that he be placed on Probation Supervision for three years on the following Rehabilitation and supervisory plan : That During the probation period the department will:-
a) Engage the family in drawing rehabilitation and resettlement plan for the subject.
b) Ensure the subject is closely monitored to adhere to medication if possible
c) Do referral to Baringo Level four Hospital in case of relapse.
d) Provide guidance and counselling to both the subject and family members
e) Seek professional intervention in order to assist him deal with drug issue
f) Provide routine supervision to ensure he abide by any other order by the court.
28. In the circumstances, this recommendation provides the court with a basis for the final orders. These orders must ultimately in the best interests of the Subject.
29. Section 239 of the Children Act provides for Methods of dealing with children in conflict with the law where a child is tried for an offence, and the Court is satisfied as to their guilt, the Court may deal with the case in one or more of several ways provided thereunder.
30. On what the final orders should be; following the recommendations by PACs the following orders issue ;
I. The subject is committed to the care of his grandfather David Timno pending the cleansing ceremony that the family has agreed upon, and thereafter if the family agrees to the same. The family is to ensure that he gets medical attention and medication for the mental illness.
II. The Subject is placed on Probation Supervision in accordance with provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, and in particular the Order to include the recommendations made by the PACs officer; That the Department will;
a) Engage the family in drawing rehabilitation and resettlement plan for the subject.
b) Ensure the subject is closely monitored to adhere to medication if possible
c) Do referral to Baringo Level four Hospital in case of relapse.
d) Provide guidance and counselling to both the subject and family members
e) Seek professional intervention in order to assist him deal with drug issue
f) Provide routine supervision to ensure he abide by any other order by the court.
III. The family (mother and siblings) are required to collaborate with PACs
31. The matter will be mentioned before the Deputy Registrar Quarterly for Progress Reports, the first mention within three months hereof.
32. In addition, the Deputy Registrar to bring this Ruling to the attention of the PS State Department Children Services and PS State Department Correctional Services for their necessary action.
33. Orders Accordingly
Ruling Dated, signed and delivered virtually at Kabarnet High Court this 30 th day of June 2026
Mumbua T Matheka
Judge
Court Assistants: Gladys/Momanyi
Subject present virtually at Eldoret Children Remand Home
Ms. Barasa for Mr. Mwaita for the Subject
Ms. Kosgei for State
Mr. Brian Munyobi for PACs
Ruling (Disposition) HCCRC E004 of 2023 Page 2 of 2