https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9805

In re Estate of N (Deceased) (Probate & Administration 74 of 1999) [2026] KEHC 9805 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9805 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Bungoma Probate & Administration 74 of 1999 REA Ougo, J June 30, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF GN (DECEASED) Between CSN 1st Petitioner PWN 2nd Petitioner and BON 1st Objector ANN 2nd Objector Ruling 1.By Summons for Confirmation of Grant dated 29th November 2023, the petitioners pray for the following:1.That the Grant of Letters of Administration intestate made to BON, ANN, CSN and PWN on 27th November 2023, be confirmed;2.That costs of this application be in the cause. 2.The application is based on the beneficiaries’ affidavits on the mode of distribution of the deceased’s estate. Further, it is contended that the application was not opposed, as no objections were filed within six months of the Grant of Letters of Administration intestate. The application is also supported by the affidavit of CSN, sworn on 14th November 2023. 3.The objectors opposed the application. They filed several affidavits, which shall be summarised in the evidence adduced at during the trial court. The application and objection were canvassed by way of viva voce evidence. The Objector’s Case OW1 BO 4.BO OW1 adopted her affidavits filed in court on 12th July 2022 and those dated 25th August 2010, 8 May 2010 and 22nd June 2012 as her evidence in chief. She testified that the deceased was her husband, who had three wives: herself, SN (a housewife) and S, JB’s mother. They were married under customary law. She lived on the Khasolo farm, namely plots 1x8 and 5x, for 6 months before she was relocated to Mayanga, plots 3x4 and 3x5, after her house was burnt down. She built a home there after her husband purchased land, and she resided there for four years. She had previously worked at [Particulars Withheld] Training College. 5.Thereafter, the deceased acquired land at the Naitiri scheme, namely plot no. 1x5, where she lived, started farming on the land, and undertook other projects with the deceased. However, since the deceased worked at the Ministry of Agriculture, he was not allowed to own land. He thus put the name of their son, JS, in his stead on acquisition of the property. She has resided there to date. 6.OW1 further stated that her co-wife, S, lived in the ancestral home, namely Khasolo/N West Sabot (Manala), together with the other co-wife, SN. Further, the deceased bought three properties totalling 30 acres at the Nzoia scheme, which were registered in the names of LS, PZ and HB, the sons of SN. Her evidence was that the said sons did not buy the land, as they were in school at the time the properties were acquired. Be that as it may, they were not entitled to make a claim on the deceased's property on that basis. 7.OW1 further testified that the proceeds from the land in Naitiri were used to pay school fees for all of the deceased’s children, together with upkeep. She explained that the deceased further acquired properties, namely Namajanja plot no. xx9 and Kanduyi plot no. x, together with her, through loans and other proceeds. plot no. xx9 was developed into structures that generated rental income. In Kanduyi, they sold maize and set up structures as well. She stated that, all the while, her co-wives did not contribute. However, it generated no income. Further, no properties were in rates arrears. 8.OW1 recalled that the deceased was critically ill and had been diagnosed with prostate cancer, which imposed a heavy financial burden. P, L and P initially assisted but later stopped. With the support of A and the proceeds from maize, PW1 was able to raise funds for treatment. She added that when the deceased was taken to Mukumu Catholic Hospital, P began to assist financially with the medical bills. She recalled that during his hospital stay, the deceased was mistreated by P, A, B and their mother, who sought to have his assets distributed. 9.While in Naitiri, OW1 recalled that the daughter of JEM had visited the deceased, who had been alone in hospital for three days. After his discharge, the deceased stayed with OW1 in Naitiri until his death. He was buried at the first wife’s homestead. 10.During the deceased’s memorial, OW1 recalled being treated with hostility by P and N, despite her having cared for them growing up. She accused them of claiming the deceased’s properties to her exclusion. Three days after the deceased’s death, the clan discussed his estate at the Lufu ceremony, but no distribution took place, as, according to her, the deceased did not want his relatives to divide the property. During cross-examination, she was pointed out that S had three children: J, M and J. It was also noted that the deceased had another wife, Victoria Mangreta, with whom he had two children: T and J. She recalled that the deceased acquired properties so that his sons could inherit them. 11.In the 1984 letter, OW1 stated that the deceased had acquired land while the children were in school. Louis did not obtain a loan to purchase the land, as it was for farming and inputs. If the deceased had shared out the property, it was done in her absence, as she was unaware. On behalf of her family, OW1 stated that she wanted to remain in Naitiri, as she faced hostility over the property in Khasolo. She proposed that plot no. xx5 in Mayanga be given to her children or to herself, as it was vacant at the deceased’s death. Her son Arthur had planted sugarcane there. 12.OW1 further stated that, because J’s grandfather’s land had been purchased for 0W1, it should pass to J. She also expressed a desire to obtain plots 3x4 and 3x5, which had been purchased by the deceased. She emphasised that plot Bungoma/Naitiri/1x5 should remain with her children, with the Khasolo plot to be shared among the other children. Finally, her son KM should be given the 5 acres he built on the Naitiri parcel. 13.OW1 recalled that in 2002 it was agreed that all rent collected be deposited into one account. She was collecting rent. However, when the children were asked to open an account, they refused. The rent was her only source of income and was for her own treatment. She could not say how much money had been collected so far. 14.OW1 further stated that her husband was coerced by SN and members of her family into dividing the property as follows: L.R. No. 150: SN – 18.5 acres, BO – 12 acres, and BN – 7 acres; L.R. No. 145 Khasolo to be shared amongst the male children; L.R. No. 3x9 to be shared with BO and SN, with four and one front doors, respectively; and L.R. No. 3 Kanduyi to be taken by BO. She stated that these pronouncements did not constitute a valid will. 15.OW1 offered to renounce her claim to the Khasolo farm so that PW, NM and CS would receive her share, as she believed they were the only ones entitled to benefit from the deceased’s estate. She also proposed that L.R. No. 3x9, L.R. No. Bungoma/Naitiri/1x5, L.R. No. Bungoma/Naitiri/1x4, L.R. No. W. Bukusu/N Myanga/3x5 and plot no. x Kanduyi be given to her and her house. She further proposed that Mayanga plot no. 24 and Bungoma township plot 305 not be distributed, as they were hers. 16.She proposed that PW, NM, CS and JMB be named as beneficiaries of L.R. No. W. Bukusu/W. Saboti/x0 (Khasolo farm), W. Bukusu/W. Saboti/1x8, L.R. No. Ndivisi/Khalumuli/1xx3 and L.R. No. Ndivisi/Khalumuli/15x2. She produced a letter from BW to the deceased, which she claimed had upset the deceased. She added that her husband was happier living with her than with his co-wife, S. 17.OW1 did not claim the land in the Webuye plot (Ndivisi/Khalumali/15x2) or the Bitovo/Tulienge plot. She claimed only land in Myanga and Naitiri. In summary, she proposed the following distribution: house of OW1 - L.R. No. W. Bukusu/N. Myanga 3x4 and L.R. No. W. Bukusu/N. Myanga 3x5 – 14 acres each; L.R. No. Bungoma/Naitiri125 and L.R. No. Bungoma/Naitiri/1x4 (now Bungoma/Naitiri/4x8) – 42 acres; house of SN – L.R. No. Kakamega/Nzoia/2x – 29.16 acres, L.R. No. Kakamega/Nzoia/x – 29.65 acres, and L.R. No. Kakamega/Nzoia/x – 30.64 acres; and Khasolo farm, L.R. No. W. Bukusu/W. Siboti/5x - 54 acres. VN and SS are to be given half of the Khasolo farm. Ow2 JSN 18.JSN, OW2, relied on his witness statement dated 6th July 2021 and on affidavits filed on 17th February 2022 and 12th July 2022, which he adopted as his evidence in chief. He objected to the petitioners’ proposals on the grounds that they were discriminatory and unfair, as they disinherited some of the deceased’s children. He further argued that they ignored the deceased’s prior settlement of the two wives and the allocation of specific parcels during his lifetime. 19.As the deceased’s second-born son, he testified that the deceased married four wives: SNN, the deceased’s first wife, who bore six sons: LS, PL, HB, P, N and CSN. The second wife, SN, had three children: JM, MM and JB. 20.He testified that the fourth wife, OW1, his mother, also had six sons, namely: AN, JS, KM, DB, PO and EW. JBN was a son of FN, who divorced the deceased. PW2 recalled that the deceased was a civil servant in the [Particulars Withheld] Ministry. While he was away working, all his children grew up together at Naitiri under their mother's care. 21.He acknowledged that his proposals for distribution did not take into account J, M, and the 3rd house, and that he could not remember their mother's name. However, he confirmed that she had two children, namely TN and JN. 22.OW2 conceded that, in his affidavit, he stated that the deceased had two wives. He added that L.R. No. Kakamega/Nzoia/x was bought by the deceased and should form part of the estate. He confirmed that, according to the search results, L.R. No. Kakamega Nzoia/x was registered on 25th May 1993 in the name of Wanyama. The farm was bought in 1966 from the Settlement Fund Trustee. He denied that H and P paid for their properties by loan or otherwise, as they were not employed then. Therefore, the properties should form part of the deceased’s estate. 23.OW2 testified that L.R. No. West Bukusu/North Siboti Siboti/350 and L.R. No. W. Bukusu/North Siboti/1x8 were ancestral land, which S preferred to settle on. He therefore urged that she be given those parcels of land. He denied that it was the deceased's wish for each house to receive a portion of the ancestral land. However, he had no interest in it. 24.Regarding L.R. No. Bungoma Township/3x9 property, located in the township area, he testified that it is a commercial property and that his mother, OW1, had been collecting rent from the deceased’s death to date. He was unaware that the deceased had wanted the same divided amongst the houses. He was also unaware that the Bungoma Municipal Council intended to sell the property for non-payment of rates, and that CS paid 12,300 for the rates to prevent the sale. 25.Regarding the acquisition, that is, L.R. No. Bungoma Township/3x9, OW2 relied on letters dated 17th August 1970 and 4th March 1998, which stated that his father intended the property to belong to his mother. Further, his brother AN paid Kshs. 17,400 towards his father’s debt. His father directed his mother to develop the property and to pay off his debt to the Agricultural Finance Corporation. 26.OW2 recalled that a meeting took place at Mukumu Hospital on 28th November 1998. He added that plot no. x, another commercial property generating rent, was collected by his mother, as it was developed from her proceeds. He confirmed that the plot at Tulienge market was commercial but empty. He added that he was not aware whether a portion of L.R. No. Ndivisi/Alumali 15x2 was gifted to Charles. However, he recalled that a third party once fenced it, saying he had purchased it from Charles. Speaking about L.R. No. Ndivisi/Alumali/1xx3, he confirmed that the parcel is registered in the names of David Mokoti. 27.OW2 stated that he had a problem with the daughters who had not renounced their interest in the deceased’s estate. It was his view that all married sisters were not entitled to a share of the deceased’s estate. However, he was of the view that those who were not married were entitled to a share. He clarified that he had not made a counter-proposal on the mode of distribution. 28.OW2 continued that his step-brothers acquired the following properties as trustees of the family while the deceased was alive: L.R. No. Kakamega/Nzoia/x was registered on 14th May 1969 in the name of PN; L.R. No. Kakamega/Nzoia/x was registered in the name of HW on 14th May 1969. It was later subdivided into plots 234 and 235; L.R. No. Kakamega/Nzoia/2x was registered on 16th May 1969 in the name of LCS It was closed for subdivision on 4th March 2014, giving rise to parcel numbers 675 and 678. 29.He also stated that parcel no. 125 was registered in his name on 14th May 1969, when he resided there. He adduced an application for consent and transfer in respect of this transaction. He maintained that the property should be given to his mother’s family in accordance with his father’s wishes, and that it remains registered in the name of the Settlement Fund Trustee. 30.Regarding L.R. No. Bungoma Township/3x9, he recalled that the court directed that the rent be deposited into a joint account held by all administrators. At that point, he became an administrator of the estate. He was not aware whether it had been accounted for. 31.He recalled that during the deceased's lifetime, H and P were instructed in 1990 to hive off their lands for sale to offset their loans. On 14th May 1969, an irrevocable order for payment of Kshs. 100.00 for the farm was issued on behalf of Naulikha. There was also an authorisation for the Chief Finance Accountant to deduct Kshs. 100.00 on behalf of H.W, effective 14th May 1969. Another irrevocable order for payment of Kshs. 100.00 was issued from LS. 32.OW2 recalled seeing an irrevocable order by the deceased, on his behalf, to deduct Kshs. 100.00, effective 14th May 1969. There was a transfer from himself to the deceased for plot no. 1x5, Naitiri Settlement Scheme. There was an application for consent and a letter of consent to that effect. He confirmed that the deceased had paid for the parcels belonging to P, H and himself. The lands were purchased when they were minors. He also stated that H and P saw the deceased when they failed to pay the debt to the Settlement Scheme. 33.OW2 further stated that 2Ha of L.R. No. Bungoma/Naitiri/1x4 was purchased by his father from W Matingi. He also acquired L.R. No. Bungoma/Naitiri/4x8. He urged this court to give the Myanga farm to his mother, as she had previously been settled there before moving to Naitiri. He also urged that Kanduyi plot no. x be given to his mother because she developed it from the proceeds of maize she had cultivated, as well as the rent collected from the plot. 34.OW2 also proposed that L.R. Nos. Ndivisi/Khalumuli/15x2 and Ndivisi/Khalumuli/1xx3 be subdivided into two families, with 7 portions of 0.4 ha each, and that each household have four plots of equal size. Lastly, the property in Tulienge Market, plot no. 1, be sold, with the proceeds shared equally between the two houses. 35.In summary, OW2 proposed the following: the following parcels be given to OW1: L.R. No. Bungoma Township/3x9, L.R. No. Kanduyi plot no. x, L.R. No. Bungoma/Naitiri 124, L.R. No. Bungoma/Naitiri 125, L.R. No. W. Bukusu/N. Myanga/3x4, L.R. No. W. Bukusu/N. Myanga/3x5, and half of L.R. Nos. W. Bukusu/N. Siboti/5x and W. Bukusu/N. Siboti/1x8. To the house of SN, OW2 proposed that the following properties be given: L.R. No. Kakamega/Nzoia/x, L.R. No. Kakamega/Nzoia/x, half of L.R. Nos. W. Bukusu/N. Siboti/5x and W. Bukusu/N. Siboti/1x8, Webuye Khalumuli plot, and Bitobo plot. OW3 - AMN 36.OW3, OW1’s first-born son, testified that he was born on 4th August 1962. He confirmed that the deceased, his father, had two wives. He adopted his affidavits sworn on 7th May 2012 and 18th October 2023 as his evidence in chief. He confirmed that LS was his step-brother and the owner of parcel no. 23. Plot no. 7 is registered in the name of PL, while plot no. 9 is registered in the name of the late HB. All parcels were purchased, paid for, and belonged to his father in 1966. However, because the deceased worked for the Ministry of Agriculture, he could not register the properties in his name. 37.He also stated that at the time of purchasing plots 7 and 9, P and H were 22 and 18 years old, respectively. In his view, they therefore lacked the capacity to purchase land. He confirmed that OW2 was 3 years old when the land he resides on was purchased. He lived in parcel no. 125 with all his siblings and his mother while growing up. 38.He recalled that OW1 was given the Khasolo farm. However, a misunderstanding led to the arson of their house. The deceased bought land at the Miyendo farm. His stepmother, S, was moved to the Nzoia farm, while plot no. xx9 in Bungoma was developed using produce from the Naitiri parcel. Furthermore, his brother OW2 transferred parcel no. 125 from his own name to their late father. It was not a sale and remains registered in his name. 39.OW3 confirmed that plots no. 3x9 Bungoma and no. 3 Kanduyi are registered in the deceased’s name. POW1 has since been collecting rent for these commercial properties, both before and after the deceased’s lifetime. He recalled the court ordering rent deposits but could not state the amount in the accounts. He was out of the country after opening a Barclays Bank account with OW1. However, since she was unable to run it, it was redundant and closed, so he opted to collect money from the tenants directly. 40.He recalled that his father was unhappy about the repayment of the 3 plots. P and H came to Naitiri with their wives to request permission to sell part of the land to settle the loan. Part of parcels 7, 9 and 23 were sold to pay the loan. 41.OW3 also testified that the structures on plot no. x in Kadunyi were demolished in April 2024. The demolition arose from an ELC dispute and followed the issuance of an injunction against the County Government of Bungoma. He recalled that the beneficiaries had at some point agreed to open a joint account. However, this did not take place because the petitioners failed to appear. Later, they opened account number 80xxxx5, registered at Barclays Bank Eldoret Branch, and deposited Kshs. 4,000.00 on 17th September 2001. Lastly, he was not aware of any application to render accounts. 42.For those reasons, OW3 disagreed with the proposed mode of distribution by the petitioners, as no prior consent was obtained. Further, his siblings did not agree with the proposed mode of distribution, as they did not execute it. He concurred with the averments, dispositions and testimony of OW1, praying that the court share the deceased’s estate in the manner she proposed. 43.Regarding DW3’s statement, he explained that the meeting on 19 January 1999 was a post-burial rite known as Lufu, ordinarily observed by members of the deceased’s family. It was therefore incorrect to say that L.R. No. W. Bukusu/W. Siboti/5x was subdivided by his father. He urged this court not to adopt that contention in its determination. The Petitioners’ Case 44.DW1, Charles Nalyanya Situma, relied on a bundle of documents dated 30th November 2023, comprising his affidavit supporting the application for confirmation of the grant, dated 14th November 2023; an affidavit dated 21st March 2022; a further affidavit dated 15th November 2007; a supplementary list of documents dated 7th December 2015; a further list of documents dated 2nd May 2023; and a witness affidavit dated 22nd July 2021, as his evidence in chief. 45.According to DW1, the deceased died intestate on 7th January 1999, after which the four administrators were appointed. The deceased was survived by four houses, namely: 1st house – SN, married in 1942, settled in L.R. No. W. Bukusu/W. Siboti/5x (Khasolo farm) and had 10 children; 2nd house – VN, married in 1948 but separated in 1954, had 2 children, JN and TN; 3rd house – SS, married in 1955, divorced in 1978 and had 3 children, JN, MM and JB; and 4th house – BO, married in 1961, initially lived on the Khasolo farm and had 7 children. 46.The deceased died, leaving the following assets: L.R. No. W. Bukusu/W. Siboti/5x, L.R. No. W. Bukusu/W. Siboti/1x8, L.R. No. W. Bukusu/N. Myanga/3x4, L.R. No. W. Bukusu/N. Myanga/3x5 (plot no. x, Tulienge Market), L.R. No. Bungoma/Naitiri/1x5, L.R. No. Bungoma/Township/3x9, L.R. No. Ndivisi/Khalumuli/15x2 and L.R. No. Ebukusu/Kanduyi/x. He acknowledged that OW1 had been collecting rent on parcels L.R. No. Bungoma/Township/3x9 and L.R. No. Ebukusu/Kanduyi/7x. He proposed that, once accounts were rendered, the proceeds be shared and distribution of all assets be as follows:Assets Name of Parcel Beneficiaries 1. L.R. No. West Bukusu/West Siboti/5x - 37.5 acres: 18.5 acres 12 acres 7 acres 1st house (SN) divided as follows: LS – 2 acres, BL for PL (deceased) – 2 acres, IB for HB (deceased) – 2 acres, PW – 4 acres, NM – 4 acres and CS – 4.5 acres. 2nd house (BO) divided as follows: AN, JS, KM, DB, PO and EW to each get 2 acres. 3rd house (SSW) – 7 acres to be bequeathed to JB 2. L.R. No. West Bukusu/West Siboti/1x8 - 14 acres: 10.5 acres 3.5 acres The 1st house of SN to divide the portion into acreage of 3.5 acres each going to PW, NM and CS. To the 3rd house of SSW, all to go to JB 3. L.R. No. West Bukusu/North Myanga/3x4 - 14 acres: 12 acres 2 acres 1st house of SN to share 4 acres each to PW, NM and CS 3rd house of SS to give the whole share to JB 4. L.R. No. West Bukusu/North Myanga/3x5 - 14 acres: 12 acres 2 acres 2nd house of BO to divide 2 acres each to AN, JS, KM, DB, PO and EW. To VN's house and bequeathed to JN. 5. L.R. No. Bungoma/Naitiri/1x5 – 37 acres: 9 acres 3 acres 25 acres 1st house of SN – 3 acres to each go to PW, NM and CS. 3rd house of SS – the entire acreage to JB. 2nd house of BO – five acres each to AN, JS, KM, DB, and EW/BO. 6. L.R. No. Bungoma/Naitiri/1x4 (Bungoma/Naitiri/4x8 – 5 acres KM 7. Bungoma Township/3x9 1st house of SN – 4 doors as follows: 1 door each to MT, CM, BW and EN 3rd house of SS – 1 door shared by JB, JN and MM. 8. L.R. No. Ebukusu/Kanduyi/x BON. 9. L.R. No. West Bukusu/North Myanga/3x5 1.5 acres to Bungoma County Council, 0.3ha to NM of the 1st house and 0.3ha to PO from the 2nd house. 10. L.R. No. Ndivisi/Khalumali/15x2 R and HW - 50 × 100ft purchased from deceased; HNW - 50 × 100ft purchased from deceased; ANM - 25 × 100ft (1/2) purchased from the deceased at a consideration of Kshs. 66,000.00 and extra ½ plot of 25 × 100ft allocated to her as part of her benefit from the estate; CS – gifted 80 × 100ft on 19th May 1997; VN house – TN 50 × 100ft full plot allocated to her as her benefit from the estate. Demarcated boundaries to be respected. 11. Rental income from L.R. No. Bungoma Township/3x9 and plot no. x (East Bukusu/South Kanduyi/x) as from 7th January 1999 to date All monies to be collected and deposited to court by the objectors and shared as follows: House of SN shared amongst the following 11 beneficiaries – 45.84% of amount collected: SN (CS on her behalf), LS, MT, PL (BL on his behalf), HB (IB on his behalf), CM, EN (OTM on her behalf), PW, BW, NM and CNS. House of VN – 8.33% for two beneficiaries namely JN and TN. House of SSW – 12.5% for three beneficiaries namely JN, MM and JMBN. House of BO – 33.33% to eight beneficiaries namely BO, AN, JS, ARNM, KM, DB, PO and EW. 12. Farming land sharing – 121.5 acres House of SN – 50 acres; House of VN – 2 acres; House of SSW – 15.5 acres; House of BO – 54 acres. 13. Tulienge Market/1 NN and PO. 14. West Bukusu/N Nyanga/9x1 plot no. 2x PW and AN. 15. 20 cows worth Kshs. 240,000.00 Care of BON. 16. 370 bags of maize as at 7th January 1999 worth Kshs. 370,000.00 Sold by BON. 47.DW1 added that L.R. No. Kakamega/Nzoia/2x, L.R. No. Kakamega/Nzoia/x, L.R. No. Kakamega/Nzoia/x and Bungoma Township/305 were registered in the names of LS, PL, HBW (all his elder brothers) and BO, respectively. Accordingly, they did not form part of the deceased’s estate. 48.Regarding the objectors’ proposed mode of distribution, DW1 objected to it for the following reasons: it failed to take into account the houses of VN and SS; it favoured the house of BO; it included properties in other people’s names that did not belong to the deceased; it failed to take into account the income generated from commercial properties; and it did not indicate the respective shares of each beneficiary, thereby opening a can of worms. 49.DW1 stated that JN and MM renounced their interest in favour of their brother, JBN. He suggested that the distribution proposals set out by the objectors were inequitable. Accordingly, this court ought to consider the proposal as presented. He denied the allegations set out by the objectors. 50.DW1 confirmed that, as a minor, he lived with OW1 on the Naitiri plot from 1973 to 1979, until he completed his CPE, together with all the deceased’s children. His mother, S, never lived there, but they would stay at her Khasolo farm for the holidays. He explained that his father earned a pension of Kshs 234,000.00 as a government officer, though this information was not captured in his proposed mode of distribution. 51.DW1 confirmed that his father was admitted to Mukumu Mission Hospital from early November to 20th November 1998. He had no issue with his late father’s wishes but did not address the sale of maize. At Khasolo, they grew sugarcane and kept bees. P was born in 1946, Louis in 1944, and H in 1948. As at 1966, they were not minors, as H was 18 years, P 20 years, and Louis 22 years. They bought their parcels of land through loans that were ultimately settled. He relied on loan disbursement letters from SFT and receipts as proof of this contention. 52.DW1 maintained that his father developed plot 3x9 single-handedly in 1973, using family resources and retirement benefits, when DW1 was 5 years old. His father explained his wishes regarding his properties to him in 1981, in the absence of OW1’s children. DW1 further stated that the deceased did not inform him that he was supported by POW1 in the purchase of his assets. 53.He testified that the deceased allocated 12 acres under L.R. No. W. Bukusu/W. Saboti/x0 to OW1 on 13th August 1988 and established a boundary. This is the portion she sought to renounce. He had no objection to OW1 and her house having L.R. No. W/Bukusu/N. Myanga 3x5, measuring 12 acres. However, for L.R. No. W/Bukusu/N. Myanga 3x4, he maintained that it be shared in accordance with his proposal. 54.Regarding parcels L.R. No. Bungoma/Naitiri/1x4 and L.R. No. Bungoma/Naitiri/1x5, he proposed that they be divided equitably, with POW1’s family retaining a substantial share. He conceded that, in good faith, plot no. x Kanduyi be retained by OW1, in respect of his father’s wishes, as he had gifted her the plot. On plot no. Bungoma Township/3x9, since their father did not transfer any interest to POW1, he urged this court to distribute it as he had proposed. On L.R. No. Ndivisi/Khalumuli/15x2 and L.R. No. Ndivisi/Khalumuli/1xx3, he urged that the plots be divided before the deceased’s death. His wishes ought not to be interfered with. 55.DW1 later learnt that the structures on plot no. x in Kadunyi were demolished in May 2024. He stated that he saw no wrong in the county government’s actions, as he had no interest in the suit land. For the above reasons, DW1 prayed that the Summons for Confirmation of Grant be confirmed as prayed . DW2- JNN 56.DW2 adopted her affidavit, sworn on 11th March 2015, as her evidence in chief. She testified that the deceased was her father and that he married VN in 1947. She died in 2007, but remarried before her death. She recalled that, together with her sister TNN, they lived with the deceased and her stepmother, SN, until they married. 57.DW2 counted 22 children in total, all of whom were beneficiaries entitled to a share of the deceased’s estate. She therefore did not agree with the proposals set out by OW1. Contrary to the objector’s averments, the deceased died leaving four wives. These included her mother and CS, who bore three children, namely: JNN, MMN and JBN. The deceased divorced CS in 1978. Even after the divorce, those three children continued to live with the deceased and remained under the care of OW1 and SN. 58.DW2 reiterated that the land parcels Kakamega/Nzoia/x, Kakamega/Nzoia/x and Kakamega/Nzoia/2x did not form part of the deceased’s estate, as they are registered in the names of her step-brothers, namely PNL, HBW and LNS, respectively. She urged this court to include plot no. x Kanduyi market and plot no. 2x at Myanga market, which were not listed as forming part of the deceased’s estate. DW3- PNW 60.DW3’s evidence was drawn from his replying affidavit, sworn on 6th June 2011. He stated that the deceased was his neighbour at his Khasolo farm, where the deceased was buried. He further stated that on 19th January 1999, after the deceased’s death, the family held a meeting at which he served as secretary. The meeting discussed the deceased’s beneficiaries, properties and liabilities. He testified that the deceased had four wives: SN, VN, CS and BO. They took inventory of all the deceased’s assets, recalling that W. Bukusu/W. Siboti/5x was subdivided amongst three houses with clear demarcations. PW Nalianya 61.DW4 adopted his affidavit filed on 25th September 2012. He testified that he was born on 28th May 1957 to SN and that there were ten children. He recalled that OW1 had seven children. 62.Upon his mother's death, DW4 filed an application for substitution. He confirmed that his stepmother, OW1, lives in plot Bungoma/Naitiri/1x5, where he lived with his siblings while sitting his CPE exams. He also lived with his mother, S, in Khasolo, together with Charles. They were free to visit any of the three homes, as well as the homes of their brothers in Nzoia. He agreed with the proposals Charles made regarding the mode of distribution. 63.DW4 confirmed that the county government of Bungoma did indeed demolish a house in Kanduyi. However, they were overpowered. The deceased worked in the Ministry of Agriculture and amassed wealth in Khasolo Naitiri and Mayanga. 64.Pursuant to this court's ruling dated 22nd October 2024, OW1 was directed to render an account of the proceeds from plot no. Bungoma Township/3x9 and plot no. x Kanduyi. In compliance with those orders, OW1 filed an affidavit sworn on 10th December 2024, in which she deposed that she was the sole surviving widow of the deceased. 65.OW1 deposed that buildings were erected on plot no. x, Kanduyi. However, those structures were demolished by the County Government of Bungoma in April 2024 to expand Masinde Muliro Stadium. Only ANN challenged the orders in court. 66.In summary, OW1 produced a copy of the raw accounts showing how the rent received was utilised; a copy of her dietary needs and related expenses for the period between the deceased’s death and the year 2003; and records of payments for college fees, medical fees and other expenses from 1998 to date. She proposed that it was in the best interests of the parties that audited accounts be furnished. 67.DW1 filed a supplementary affidavit sworn on 11th June 2025. He deposed that the account rendered by OW1 did not accurately reflect the rent proceeds. Further, OW1 was never authorised to dispose of the rent proceeds as she saw fit. He observed that MS and PNF, who received money from the rent proceeds collected by OW1 for their upkeep and educational needs, were neither biological children of the deceased nor his dependants. Accordingly, OW1 did not have authority to provide financial support to them. 68.For those reasons, the DW1 urged this court to take into account the fact that OW1 and her family utilised the proceeds of rent from 2000 to 2024 and to have those proceeds taken into account in the distribution of the estate. 69.In response to DW1’s affidavit, OW1 filed a supplementary affidavit, sworn on 29th September 2024. She deposed that she had complied with the court’s directions. She added that before the deceased’s death, he had taken care of FNN and MS, the deceased’s nephews. She therefore took over their care upon the deceased’s death. They were therefore dependants of the deceased in accordance with the law. Written Submissions 70.At the close of the parties' evidence, the parties elected to file written submissions. The petitioners filed written submissions and a list of authorities, both dated 29th September 2025. They submitted that land parcels no. Kakamega/Nzoia/x, Kakamega/Nzoia/x and Kakamega/Nzoia/2x were not up for distribution, as they did not belong to the deceased. The properties were not free property within the meaning of section 3 of the Law of Succession Act. 71.Regarding whether the objectors rendered proper accounts, the petitioners cited section 83 of the Law of Succession Act, arguing that the objectors had a statutory duty to render proper accounts. They further accused the objectors of rendering accounts in breach of section 95 of the Law of Succession Act. In its view, the accounts were inaccurate, and the objectors were obliged to refund the estate of the deceased. 72.In distributing the deceased’s estate, the petitioners urged this court to take into account the just and equitable distribution of the deceased’s estate. They also urged this court to take into account section 40 of the Law of Succession Act, as the deceased was polygamous. They prayed that the court distribute the estate in accordance with the proposition, as it was just. 73.The objectors filed written submissions and a list of authorities, both dated 24th October 2025, and a reply to the petitioners’ written submissions dated 4th November 2025. They submitted that the accounts furnished were fully compliant with the law and could not be faulted. They urged this court to consider the first objector’s affidavits explaining those accounts, which left no room for doubt. 74.Turning to the issue of the distribution of the assets, the objectors contended that the properties, namely the land parcels Kakamega/Nzoia/x, Kakamega/Nzoia/x and Kakamega/Nzoia/2x, could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be registered in the beneficiaries' names, as the title deeds showed that the beneficiaries were too young to own property. 75.Be that as it may, the properties were registered in their names in trust for the other beneficiaries. Thus, a constructive trust had arisen under section 28 of the Registered Land Act (repealed). They urged this court to include those assets in the deceased’s estate. In their overall arguments, they urged this court to distribute the estate in the manner they had proposed. Analysis and Determination 76.I have considered the Summons for Confirmation of Grant, the objections raised, and the affidavits; I have also considered the evidence adduced, analysed the parties’ written submissions, and examined the law. It is also important to note that this matter has a long, chequered litigation history. As a result, some of the listed beneficiaries have since passed away, and those considerations shall be taken into account. The main issues for determination shall be stated and analysed in sequence in the paragraphs below: Who are the beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate? 77.The petitioners seek to confirm the grant made on 27th November 2023 to BON, ANN, CSN and PWN. From the evidence, the deceased had married four wives, two of whose marriages had terminated. All wives had children, all of whom were the deceased's. 78.The following were listed as the deceased’s wives and children at the time of his death on 9th January 1999:1.SNN (widow) – 10 children as follows:1.LS2.PL BL3.HB Imelda4.NM Baraza5.PW6.CS7.MT8.CM9.BW10.EN OTM2.BON (widow) – 7 children as follows:1.AN2.JS3.ARNM4.KM5.DB6.PO7.EW3.S alias SN alias CSW (widow) – 3 children as follows:1.JMBN2.JN3.MM4.VN (widow) – 2 children as follows:1.JN2.TN 79.Having set out the above, the objectors stated that, in their view, the deceased’s daughters, particularly those who were married, could not inherit from the deceased’s estate. In fact, OW2 made no proposal for distribution in favour of the third and fourth houses, where the majority of the children were women, while OW1 was of the view that married daughters ought not to inherit from the deceased’s estate. Furthermore, DW1’s evidence was that JN and MM renounced their interest in favour of their brother, JBN. 80.It is apparent that some of the beneficiaries hold the view that married women, or women in general, should not inherit property, or that they are not entitled to bequests in equal proportions to those of their brothers. Are the daughters and the surviving widow of the deceased entitled to a share of the estate? 81.Article 27 of the 2010 Constitution was enacted to outlaw all forms of discrimination. Accordingly, courts are urged to apply this fundamental right when determining the distribution of a deceased’s estate, so that women are not discriminated against in any form during the distribution process. This was the position of the Court in In Re Estate of Solomon Ngatia Kariuki (Deceased) [2008] KEHC 506 (KLR), which held as follows:“The Law of Succession Act does not discriminate between the female and male children or married and unmarried daughters of the deceased person when it comes to the distribution of his estate. All children of the deceased are entitled to stake a claim to the deceased’s estate. In seeking to disinherit the protestor under the guise that the protestor was married, her father, brothers and sisters were purportedly invoking a facet of an old Kikuyu Customary Law. Like most other customary laws in this country they are always biased against women and indeed they tend to bar married daughters from inheriting their father’s estate. The justification of this rather archaic and primitive customary law demand appears to be that such married daughters should forego their father’s inheritance because they are likely to enjoy the inheritance of their husband’s side of the family.” 82.There is no dispute that all the named children are the deceased’s. Those who expressed an opinion on daughters not acquiring property merely stated that daughters should not inherit because they were married. In line with section 38 of the Law of Succession Act (the Act), I find that, as long as paternity is not disputed, all the deceased’s children are entitled to benefit from the estate equally and proportionately. I also find that DW1’s contention lacks any justifiable or evidentiary basis. None of the named beneficiaries affirmatively confirm those assertions before this court. Accordingly, I find that the estate is survived by the deceased’s wives, sons and daughters as the rightful beneficiaries. 83.Secondly, from the evidence adduced at the trial, the following beneficiaries have since passed away: SN, VN, S alias SN alias CSW PL, HB and EN. However, the record shows that no succession proceedings were taken on their behalf, leaving a lacuna. I say this because it is trite law that, upon the death of an individual, that individual’s estate devolves upon a legal representative in accordance with the Law of Succession Act. In fact, it is apparent that the parties were aware of this procedure, but for some reason those estates were not substituted. For instance, SN died on 2nd November 2005. A Notice of Motion, dated 20th September 2021, was filed by PW to substitute her with a legal representative, but the same was never prosecuted. 84.Under section 71 of the Law of Succession Act, the court shall first be satisfied as to the identities and shares of all persons beneficially entitled to inherit before the grant of letters of administration is confirmed. Section 47 of the said Act gives this court the discretion to determine any dispute and to make such orders as may be expedient. While it would have been ideal for the representatives of the deceased parties to participate in these proceedings, this court shall apply the doctrine of substantial justice under Article 159 (2) (d) of the Constitution and make the necessary orders regarding the deceased beneficiaries. I therefore find that the listed wives and children of the deceased fall within the meaning of section 29 of the Law of Succession Act as dependants of the deceased. What properties survived the deceased’s estate? 85.According to the petitioners and the objectors, the deceased died, leaving the following assets as part of his estate:i.Bungoma Township/3x9 measuring 0.03019ha (0.0746 acres);ii.W. Bukusu/W. Siboti/1x8 measuring 4.2ha (10.38 acres);iii.W. Bukusu/W. Siboti/5x measuring 15ha (37 acres);iv.Ndivisi/Khalumuli/15x2 measuring 9.028ha;v.Bungoma/Naitiri/1x5 measuring 14.8ha (36.57 acres);vi.W. Bukusu/N. Myanga/3x4 measuring 5.2 ha (12.84 acres;vii.W. Bukusu/N. Myanga/3x5 measuring 6ha (14.83 acres;viii.Bungoma/Naitiri/4x8 measuring 2.0ha;ix.Money in ABSA bank of Kshs. 83,000.00;x.Kakamega/Nzoia/x measuring 12ha (29.65 acres) title in the name of PNSL on 01/10/1998;xi.Kakamega/Nzoia/x measuring 12.4ha (30.64 acres) title in the name of HWB on 25/05/1993;xii.Kakamega/Nzoia/2x measuring 11.8ha (29.16 acres) title in the name of LNS on 18/08/1994;xiii.Ndivisi/Khalumuli/1xx3 measuring 0.04ha;xiv.Bungoma/Naitiri/1x4 measuring 2.0ha (4.942 acres);xv.East Bukusu/South Kanduyi/7x measuring 37 acres;xvi.W. Bukusu/South Myanga/3x5 “Tulienge market” measuring 0.6ha (1.448 acres) plot 3 Tuliengexvii.East Bukusu/South Kanduyi/x measuring 5.5ha (13.59 acres);xviii.Tulienge Market plot no. x;xix.Farming land sharing – 121.5 acres;xx.West Bukusu/N Nyanga/9x1 plot no. 2x;xxi.20 cows worth Kshs. 240,000.00;xxii.370 bags of maize as at 7th January 1999 worth Kshs. 370,000.00. 86.It is also noted that the parties claimed that the deceased’s estate was survived by several assets. From the evidence adduced, corroborated by green cards and/or certificates of search, the following properties are registered in the deceased’s name:i.Bungoma Township/3x9, measuring 0.03019 ha (0.0746 acres). The deceased became the lessee of the property on 4th February 1971, with the County Council of Bungoma as the lessor. Unpaid property rates for 2021 were addressed to the deceased.ii.W. Bukusu/W. Siboti/1x8, measuring 4.2 ha (10.38 acres). Property registered in the deceased's name on 18th March 1974.iii.W. Bukusu/W. Siboti/5x measuring 15ha (37 acres). According to the search results, the property was registered on 1st November 1972 in the deceased’s name;iv.Ndivisi/Khalumuli/15x2, measuring 9.028 ha. The property was registered in the deceased's name on 28th November 1986.v.Bungoma/Naitiri/1x5 measures 14.8 ha (36.57 acres). According to the letter dated 28th April 2022 from the Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning, the property was registered in the deceased's name on 10th October 1981. A loan was discharged by the SFT in 1984. There is also an application for transfer of the property to the deceased's name, dated 15th August 1979.vi.W. Bukusu/N. Myanga/3x4, measuring 5.2 ha (12.84 acres). According to the search certificate, the property was registered in the deceased's name on 1st March 1971.vii.W. Bukusu/N. Myanga/3x5 measuring 6 ha (14.83 acres). The property was registered in the deceased's name on 21st November 1972.viii.Bungoma/Naitiri/4x8, measuring 2.0 ha. An application for transfer dated 7th March 1991 from LWM to the deceased, together with a letter of consent dated 14th March 1991 approving the transfer, were adduced in evidence to support the claim that the properties belonged to the deceased. 87.I note that some assets not listed above were disputed as to whether the deceased was the proprietor. These are: Kakamega/Nzoia/x, Kakamega/Nzoia/x and Kakamega/Nzoia/2x. 88.According to the evidence on record, Kakamega/Nzoia/x, measuring 12ha (29.65 acres), has a title deed registered in the name of PNL on 14th May 1969. Kakamega/Nzoia/x, measuring 12.4ha (30.64 acres), was issued with a title deed in the name of HWB on 14th May 1969. Kakamega/Nzoia/2x, measuring 11.8ha (29.16 acres), has a title in the name of LNS, registered on 16th May 1969 and issued on 18th August 1994. Plots 9 and 23 have since undergone subdivision. These facts are not disputed. 89.However, according to the objectors, those properties ought to have devolved in the deceased’s name as the proprietors, with OW2 and OW3’s step-brothers holding the properties in trust for the family because OW2 and OW3 were too young to hold them in their own names. They also contended that Bungoma/Naitiri/1x5 was registered in OW2’s name when he was three years old, before being transferred to the deceased. If I were to accept that reasoning, it would follow that OW2’s name as owner of the property at that time was improper, as he was a minor aged three years! 90.Nonetheless, based on the evidence, I find that at the time the properties were purchased in 1966, PNSL, born in 1946, was 20 years old; LNS, born in 1944, was 22 years old; and HWB, born in 1948, was 18 years old. Accordingly, the proprietors’ ages are not a matter of concern, as they had already attained the age of majority. 91.Furthermore, the objectors stated that H and P were instructed in 1990 to hive off their lands for sale to offset their outstanding loans, following their failure to settle them. On 14th May 1969, an irrevocable order for payment of Kshs. 100.00 for the farm was issued on behalf of N. There was also an authorisation for the Chief Finance Accountant to deduct Kshs. 100.00 on behalf of H. W, effective 14th May 1969. Another irrevocable order for payment of Kshs. 100.00 was issued by LS. For these reasons, they contended that the properties belonged to the deceased. 92.I, however, disagree. If the intention was for the properties to devolve into the deceased’s estate, nothing would have prevented the deceased and the registered proprietors from transferring those properties back into the deceased’s name, as was done with Bungoma/Naitiri/1x5. These transactions took place while the deceased was alive. I do not think those properties were registered in trust for the other beneficiaries, and as a result a constructive trust arose. 93.Regarding the issue of a constructive trust, this court is aware of the preamble to the Law of Succession Act, which sets out that it is an Act of Parliament to amend, define and consolidate the law relating to intestate and testamentary succession and the administration of estates of deceased persons; and for purposes connected therewith and incidental thereto. This court therefore lacks the requisite jurisdiction to determine issues of a constructive trust. 94.The objectors cited section 28 of the repealed Registered Land Act, urging this court to apply that provision in this case. As I have already stated, this is not an issue this court can determine, as its jurisdiction is ousted. Furthermore, the distribution herein is governed solely by the provisions of the Law of Succession Act. I will therefore not make a determination on it. 95.In conclusion, I find that the said properties do not form part of the deceased’s estate but belong only to the registered proprietors. They therefore do not form part of the deceased’s estate and shall not be distributed in this succession cause. 96.Regarding parcel no Ndivisi/Khalumuli/1xx3, measuring 0.04ha, the evidence adduced shows that the green card for the parcel of land indicates that the property was registered in the name of the deceased on 28th November 1986. However, on the very same day, it was registered in the name of HDK, who was issued with a land certificate on 5th December 1986 and a title deed on 20th September 2016. 97.On Bungoma/Naitiri/1x4, measuring 2.0ha (4.942 acres), the record shows the property was registered in the name of WM on 4th January 1991. On plot no. East Bukusu/South Kanduyi/7x, measuring 37 acres, the green card shows the property was registered in the name of Mabunde Waswala on 2nd January 1969. 98.The above details were not challenged. I am therefore of the considered view that, so long as the properties remain registered in the names of those third parties, they cannot form part of the deceased’s estate. I also note that OW1 and OW2 stated that Bungoma/Naitiri/4x8 was Bungoma/Naitiri/1x4. However, no evidence was adduced to support that assertion. I am therefore not persuaded that they are the same property. 99.Regarding W. Bukusu/South Myanga/3x5 “Tulienge market plot 3” measuring 0.6ha (1.448 acres), East Bukusu/South Kanduyi/x measuring 5.5ha (13.59 acres), Tulienge Market plot no. x, farming land sharing of 121.5 acres, and West Bukusu/N Nyanga/9x1 plot no. 2x, the parties have not demonstrated, with cogent evidence, that these properties belong to the deceased. I am therefore unable to make any determination on the distribution of these properties, as it cannot be ascertained on the face of the evidence. In re Estate of Atibu Oronje Asioma (Deceased) [2022] KEHC 11046 (KLR), the court held that :“With respect to property, there is only one critical consideration, whether he owned any property. Modern property is subject to registration, and whether a person owns a piece of property is evidenced by documents of registration or ownership. What is in dispute here is land, what would evidence ownership of the subject property would be evidence of registration of the same in the name of the deceased. The probate court only distributes assets that are undisputedly owned by the deceased. Assets that are unccumbered (sic) or the subject of ownership disputes are not undisputedly owned by the deceased, and are not available for distribution by the court until the encmbrnces (sic) are removed or the ownership disputes resolved. Property available for distribution is defined in section 3 of Law of Succession Act as the free propriety of the deceased.” 100.The petitioners also claimed that there were monies amounting to Kshs. 83,000.00 in an ABSA bank account. However, I have not seen any evidence of the bank account number or proof that it belongs to the deceased. I am also unable to have it distributed without that crucial information. In view of the foregoing, I find that only the properties listed in paragraph 86 of this judgment are to be distributed in the deceased’s estate. How should the assets of the deceased be distributed? 101.In determining the mode of distribution, I will analyse each of the deceased’s properties. Starting with the Khasolo farm, I note that W. Bukusu/W. Siboti/1x8, measuring 4.2ha (10.38 acres), and W. Bukusu/W. Siboti/5x, measuring 15ha (37 acres), were purchased by the deceased for SN (the 1st house). It was evidenced that during the holidays, all the deceased’s children stayed with her. 102.OW1 (the 2nd house) on her part, proposed that the entire parcels of land be given to the houses of the 1st house, VN (the 4th house) and SS (the 3rd house) as follows: 1st house – 50% and 3rd and 4th houses to share the remaining 50%. OW2 on his part proposed that 1st house be given the entire portion. 103.DW1, on his part, proposed as follows: for L.R. No. West Bukusu/West Siboti/5x, 18.5 acres to the sons of SN, 12 acres to the sons of OW1 and 7 acres to the son of SS. On plot No. West Bukusu/West Siboti/1x8, 10.5 acres to SN’s three sons while 3 acres be bequeathed to the son of SS. 104.Evidently, OW1 and her house are not interested in the property. For that reason, I will order that the properties be bequeathed as follows: L.R. No. West Bukusu/West Siboti/5x be bequeathed to each of the children, that is sons and daughters, of the 1st house. On plot no. West Bukusu/West Siboti/1x8, each of the children of the 1st, 3rd and 4th houses be distributed 0.9 acres of the said parcel of land. 105.Turning to L.R. No. Ndivisi/Khalumuli/15x2, measuring 9.028ha, OW1 proposed that PW, NM, CS and JMB be made beneficiaries of it. OW2 proposed that the property be subdivided into the 1st and 2nd houses into 7 portions each measuring 0.4ha. 106.On his part, DW1 testified that the property was purchased from the deceased by R and HW - 50 × 100ft; HNW - 50 × 100ft; ANM - 25 × 100ft (1/2); CS – gifted 80 × 100ft on 19th May 1997; and VN house – TN 50 × 100ft full plot allocated to her as her benefit from the estate. 107.DW1’s assertions were not verifiable before this court. There is no evidence that the property was purchased from the said buyers, as it remains registered in the deceased’s name. In those circumstances, I order that the said parcel of land be shared equally amongst all houses. 108.On L.R. No. Bungoma/Naitiri/1x5, measuring 14.8 ha (36.57 acres), the objectors urged this court to retain the parcel in the 2nd house of OW1. DW1, on his part, proposed that the 1st house receive 3 acres each for PW, NM and CS; the 4th house receive the entire acreage for JB; and the 2nd house receive five acres each for AN, JS, KM, DB, and EW/BO. 109.I have considered the conflicting proposals. It is not in dispute that when the 22 children of the deceased were young, they were raised by OW1 on this plot. This evidence was confirmed by OW1, OW2 and DW1. They were all aware that OW1 lived on that parcel of land, a fact also confirmed by DW4. OW1 continues to live there to date. Further, evidence was led that OW1 obtained proceeds from this property to help educate all the children and provide for their upkeep. She generated income from it, a fact that was not denied by the petitioners. It is my view, then, that she ought to reap where she sowed. I therefore do not see any reason why the said property should be shared out among the other houses. In my view, since all the children knew that the property belonged to her, it is only fair that the said parcel be bequeathed to the sons and daughters of the 2nd house. 110.Turning to Bungoma/Naitiri/4x8 measuring 2.0ha, according to DW1 and 42 acres, according to OW1, DW1 proposed that KM be given five acres. On her part, OW1 proposed that the same be given to her solely. Having considered both proposals, I order that the said parcel of land be distributed to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th houses, to each son and daughter, in equal measure. 111.Regarding parcels W. Bukusu/N. Myanga/3x4, measuring 5.2 ha (12.84 acres), and W. Bukusu/N. Myanga/3x5, measuring 6 ha (14.83 acres), OW1 proposed that the properties be retained by her house, as she had lived there before moving to Naitiri. Similar sentiments were expressed by OW2. 112.DW1, on his part, proposed as follows: the 1st house to share 4 acres each among PW, NM and CS; the 4th house to give 2 acres to JB on plot no. W. Bukusu/N. Myanga/3x4; and 12 acres to the 2nd house of BO to divide 2 acres each among AN, JS, KM, DB, PO and EW, while the 3rd house to bequeath 2 acres to JN. 113.In my view, this property should be shared amongst all the beneficiaries, as no one is in actual occupation. However, I am mindful that OW1 once called this place her home. I therefore direct that 50% of plot no. W. Bukusu/N. Myanga/3x4 and 50% of plot no. W. Bukusu/N. Myanga/3x5 be given to her house, including her sons and daughters. The remaining acreage shall be shared equally amongst the sons and daughters of the deceased from the 1st, 3rd and 4th houses. 114.The property, namely L.R. No. Bungoma Township/3x9, measuring 0.03019ha (0.0746 acres), was hotly contested. OW1, OW2 and OW3, in their respective testimonies, stated that the property was not up for distribution, as OW1 was collecting rent from it as a commercialised property, and that this occurred even before the deceased’s death. OW2 and OW3 further added that the said parcel of land was developed from the proceeds obtained in L.R. No. Bungoma/Naitiri/1x5. POW1 further maintained that she bought building materials to develop the land. 115.DW1, in his view, proposed as follows: the 1st house to get 1 door each for MT, CM, BW and EN, and the 4th house to get 1 door shared by JB, JN and MM. DW1 maintained that his father developed plot 3x9 single-handedly in 1973, using family resources and retirement benefits, when DW1 was 5 years old. His father explained his wishes regarding his properties to him in 1981, in the absence of OW1’s children. The deceased did not tell him that he was supported by POW1 in the purchase of his assets. 116.DW1 has stated that the property has four doors. This fact was not disputed by the objectors. All the witnesses are also aware of the activities undertaken by OW1, who has been collecting rent for a considerable period of time. In essence, this is akin to her efforts to run the plot's operations during and after the deceased's death. 117.None of the parties has any concessions to make. The objectors and the petitioners are both claiming the lion’s share of the property. In my view, to ensure a fair distribution of the said asset, it is paramount to acknowledge the efforts of OW1 while balancing the beneficiaries’ right to inherit the deceased's property. For those reasons, I order that the 2nd house receive two doors, the 1st house receive one door, and the 3rd and 4th houses share the last door. 118.Lastly, the petitioners also sought proceeds arising from two plots: rental income from L.R. No. Bungoma Township/3x9 and plot no. x (East Bukusu/South Kanduyi/x) from 7th January 1999 to date. According to DW1, all monies to be collected and deposited with the court by the objectors were to be shared as follows: the 1st house was to be shared amongst the following 11 beneficiaries – 45.84% of the amount collected: SN (CS on her behalf), LS, MT, PL (BL on his behalf), HB (IB on his behalf), CM, EN (OTM on her behalf), PW, BW, NM and CNS. 119.On the 2nd house – 33.33% to eight beneficiaries, namely BO, AN, JS, ARNM, KM, DB, PO and EW. On the 4th house – 8.33% to two beneficiaries, namely JN and TN. Lastly, on the 3rd house of SSW – 12.5% to three beneficiaries, namely JN, MM and JMBN. 120.In line with this proposal, the petitioners filed a Notice of Motion to compel OW1 to render accounts. By a ruling dated 22nd October 2024, this court directed OW1 to render an account of the proceeds from plot no. Bungoma Township/3x9 and plot no. x Kanduyi. In compliance with those orders, OW1 filed an affidavit sworn on 10th December 2024. 121.OW1 deposed that buildings were erected on plot no. x, Kanduyi. However, those structures were demolished by the County Government of Bungoma in April 2024 to expand Masinde Muliro Stadium. Only ANN challenged the orders in court. 122.OW1 produced a copy of the raw accounts showing how the rent received was utilised; a copy of her dietary needs and related expenses for the period between the deceased’s death and the year 2003; and records of payments of college and medical fees and other expenses from 1998 to date. She proposed that it was in the best interests of the parties that audited accounts be furnished. 123.DW1 filed a supplementary affidavit sworn on 11th June 2025. He deposed that OW1's account was not an accurate record of the rent proceeds. Further, OW1 was never authorised to dispose of the rent proceeds as she saw fit. He observed that MS and PNF, who received money from the rent proceeds collected by OW1 for their upkeep and educational needs, were neither the deceased's biological children nor his dependants. Accordingly, OW1 did not have authority to provide financial support to them. 124.For those reasons, DW1 urged this court to take into account the fact that OW1 and her family utilised the proceeds of rent from 2000 up to 2024 and to have those proceeds taken into account in the distribution of the estate. 125.In response to DW1’s affidavit, OW1 filed a supplementary affidavit, sworn on 29th September 2024. She deposed that she had complied with the court’s directions. She added that before the deceased’s death, he had taken care of FNN and MS, the deceased’s nephews. She therefore took over their care upon the deceased’s death. They were therefore dependants of the deceased in accordance with the law. 126.It is also important to note that, since the ownership of plot no. x (East Bukusu/South Kanduyi/x) has not been ascertained, I will not make a determination regarding its proceeds. I will confine my analysis to the parcel of land, namely L.R. No. Bungoma Township/3x9, whose ownership is not contested. 127.This issue of accounts certainly did not augur well for the petitioners, even after the accounts were rendered. The information captured by OW1 is that monies obtained from the property were used to settle her dietary needs and related expenses for the period between the deceased’s death and the year 2003, and to pay college and medical fees and other expenses from 1998 to date. OW1 also, in her evidence, testified that some of the funds were used to cater for the deceased’s health needs. 128.DW1 was dissatisfied with the accounts rendered. In his view, they were not an accurate record. Furthermore, she had no authority to dispose of the rent as she so pleased. In particular, she should not have paid the school fees of MS and PNF, as they were not the deceased's dependants. In rejoinder, OW1 said that those persons were supported by the deceased during his lifetime. 129.DW1’s allegations were not substantiated. The parties did not agree on the manner of rendering accounts, and OW1 cannot be faulted for submitting all information regarding how she had been managing the funds. 130.If I adopt the approach of DW1, I would be opening a can of worms with no end in sight. OW1 does not appear to have mishandled or embezzled the funds. After all, she had been relying on this property for her upkeep even before the deceased passed away. However, going forward, since the parties are beneficiaries of the estate, I think it is prudent that the proceeds from the property be shared. Accordingly, I direct that the properties be shared in the manner in which the property has been distributed. 131.For avoidance of doubt, the 2nd house shall receive the proceeds from 2 doors, the 1st house shall receive the proceeds from 1 door, and the 3rd and 4th houses shall receive the proceeds from the last door. These proceeds shall be shared amongst all surviving beneficiaries, including the widow and the deceased's sons and daughters. 132.DW1 also listed 20 cows worth Kshs. 240,000.00 and 370 bags of maize, as at 7th January 1999, worth Kshs. 370,000.00. However, no proposal for their distribution was made. This court further notes that DW1 proposed that CI be given 6 cows worth Kshs. 72,000.00 in settlement of the birth of SS’s three children. The said sum was to be deducted from the full payment of Kshs. 1,210,000.00, with the balance to be paid to settle any other claims. This proposal was not objected to. At the same time, it is not clear how CI is related to SS, or whether the liability remains. I am therefore unable to make any orders on this as well. 133.Additionally, DW1 proposed that WE had his school fees paid up to 31st July 1999 at [Particulars Withheld] College. It appears that this liability may have been overtaken by events, since what was sought was fees up to the year 1999. Further, this was not raised as an issue pending, warranting the intervention of this court. 134.Having said the above, the following are my orders for the distribution of the ascertained assets of the deceased:1.L.R. No. West Bukusu/West Siboti/5x be bequeathed to each of the children, that is sons and daughters, of the 1st house, SN;2.L.R. No. West Bukusu/West Siboti/1x8, each of the children of the 1st, 3rd and 4th houses, namely SN, S alias SN alias CSW and VN, be distributed 0.9 acres of the said parcel of land;3.L.R. No. Ndivisi/Khalumuli/15x2 to be shared equally amongst all the beneficiaries of all houses namely SN, BONS alias SN alias CSW and VN;4.L.R. No. Bungoma/Naitiri/1x5 be shared amongst the sons and daughters of BON as well as the widow;5.L.R. No. Bungoma/Naitiri/4x8 be shared among 2nd, 3rd and 4th houses, that is the houses of BON, S alias SN alias CSW and VN to each beneficiary, in equal measure;6.L.R. No. W. Bukusu/N. Myanga/3x4 be shared as follows: 50% to the 2nd house, namely BON and the 1st, 3rd and 4th houses, namely SN, S alias SN alias CSW and VN, to share the remaining 50% to all the beneficiaries;7.L.R. No. W. Bukusu/N. Myanga/3x5 be shared as follows: 50% to the 2nd house, namely BON and the 1st, 3rd and 4th houses, namely SN, S alias SN alias CSW and VN, to share the remaining 50% to all the beneficiaries;8.L.R. No. Bungoma Township/3x9 be shared as follows: the 2nd house of BON to get two doors, the 1st house of SN to get one door and the 3rd and 4th houses, of S alias SN alias CSW and VN, to share the last door.9.The rental income of L.R. No. Bungoma Township/3x9 be shared in the manner proposed in order 8 above.10.Being a family dispute, each party shall bear its own costs of the application.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.R.E. OUGOJUDGEIn the presence of:Mr. Amolo - For the 1st & 2nd PetitionersMr. Murunga - For the 3rd & 4th PetitionersWilkister/ Minah – C/As