https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9000

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT VIHIGA** **SUCCESSION CAUSE NO 104 OF 2021** **IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ELI AMBUGU S/O MUSIONEKE ALIAS ELI AMBUGU(DECEASED)** **BETWEEN** **LEONARD ONGUGO ODENDO……………………………..………..PETITIONER** **VERSUS** **JANE ALIVIZA KADENGE……..………………………………………….OBJECTOR** **RULING** **INTRODUCTION** 1. The 1st Petitioner herein was Esther Mmboga Ambala. She was deceased, and had not been substituted. The 2nd Petitioner herein was Joseph Odendo Galinga. He was also deceased but was substituted by his son, Leonard Ongugo Odendo, the current Petitioner herein. 2. In her Summons for Revocation of Grant dated and filed on 26th April 2021, the Objector herein sought that the Grant of Letters of Administration that was issued to the said Joseph Odendo Galinga on 31st March 2016 and the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant that was issued on 25th April 2017 **(sic)** be annulled, that the court do revoke registration of title relating to Land Parcel Number South Maragoli/Madzuu/378 (hereinafter referred to as the “subject property) in the names of the said Joseph Odendo Galinga and any further transfer and or subdivision of the subject property from the name of the deceased into the names of the said Joseph Odendo Galinga and or third party and an order be issued rectifying the Registries to make the provision for her. 3. She swore her Affidavit in support of the said Summons on 26th April 2021. She averred that she was the daughter-in-law of Eli Ambugu s/o Musioneke Alias Eli Ambugu (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), the registered owner of the subject property. She further stated that the deceased had five (5) wives and that he apportioned and allocated each child a parcel of land. She pointed out that the said Esther Mmboga Ambala sold Land Parcel Number Evonyogu Kitulu- South Maragoli/Madzuu/957 that had been allocated to her. 4. She stated that she was married to one of the deceased’s son, one Painito Kadenge Ambugu who passed on 1st December1999, and hence was a beneficiary of the deceased’s estate. She said that she and her late husband established their matrimonial home on a portion of the subject property that the deceased allocated to them but they later moved and allocated it to their late son Kennedy Musioneke Kadenge. She averred that she had cultivated and resided on the subject property for over thirty (30) years. 5. She pointed out that the said Joseph Odendo Galinga petitioned for Letters of Administration of the deceased’s estate without her knowledge and having been granted Certificate of Confirmation of Grant dated 19th May 2017, he had threatened to evict her and her family. 6. She asserted that the said Joseph Odendo Galinga did not include her or her children and that he did not recognise that she equally had an interest in the deceased’s estate and in particular, in the subject property. She was emphatic that she would suffer irreparable loss if the application was not allowed. 7. The said Joseph Odendo Galinga swore his Replying Affidavit on 20th June 2022. The same was filed on 23rd June 2022, He averred that the deceased was survived by the Objector’s husband, Ephato Kadenge Ambugu and the said Esther Mmboga Ambala who died soon after confirmation of the Grant of Letters of Administration. He stated that after the death of her husband, the said Esther Mmboga Ambala moved to the subject property herein where she resided until her death. He contended that since she was the *de facto* owner of the subject property, she disposed the same to him on the understanding that she was to remain residing on the said subject property until her death and he was to cater for her funeral costs and obligations, which he said, he undertook after she passed away. 8. He averred that in order to cater for his interest, she made him a Co-Petitioner and the whole estate was distributed to him on 25th April 2017. He contended that the late Kadenge had fraudulently acquired the land necessitating her to initiate legal proceedings vide **Vihiga CMCC No 11 of 2011**. He pointed out that the deceased had allocated the late Kadenge, land within Nandi County, where the Objector who was his widow, resided to date. He was categorical that given the fact that the Objector was not the legal representative of the estate of the late Kadenge, she lacked *locus standi* to file this suit. 9. The matter proceeded by way of *viva voce* evidence. All the witnesses adopted their respective Witness Statements as their examination-in-chief. The Objector’s Witness Statement, List and Bundle of Documents, the Witness Statement of Elijah Ayura Ubaga (hereinafter referred to as “PW 2”), the Witness Statement of Samuel Musaria Ambugu(hereinafter referred to as “PW 3”) were all dated 28th April 2023 and filed on 3rd May 2023. 10. The Witness Statement of Leonard Ongugo Odendo (hereinafter referred to as “DW 1”) was dated 23rd September 2024 and filed on 25th September 2024. The Witness Statement of Hudson Maragu Mwangai (hereinafter referred as “DW 2”) was dated 29th January 2025 and filed on 2nd February 2025. 11. The Objector’s Written Submissions were dated and filed on 18th August 2025 while those of the Petitioner were dated 25th August 2025 and filed on 31st August 2025. The ruling herein is based on the oral evidence and the said Written Submissions which both parties relied upon in their entirety. **LEGAL ANALYSIS** 1. The Objector argued that the proceedings leading to the Confirmation of Grant were defective since beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate were not involved in the proceedings and no consent was sought from them. She stated that the proceedings were filed secretly without involving her although she had interest in the subject property. She averred that she was thus disinherited by the action of the Petitioners. 2. She invoked Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act and further submitted that PW 2 who was the last born son of the deceased herein and PW 3 who was a nephew to the deceased herein confirmed that the subject property was allocated to the deceased’s fourth wife who had one son being the late Painito, and her husband. She contended that PW 3 confirmed that he was present during the family meeting that resulted in the subdivision of land that formed the subject property and South Maragoli/Madzuu/379 and that the subject property was allocated to her husband. 3. She maintained that they settled on the subject property and her children were born there but that she later on moved to Nandi where her late husband had bought land. 4. She was categorical that the said Joseph Odendo had no beneficial interest on the subject property and that the said Esther Mmboga Ambala had no right over the subject property since she had been allocated Land Parcel Number South Maragoli/Madzuu/957, a fact that she said, DW 2 confirmed in his statement. She was emphatic that there was no sale agreement that was produced to show that the said Joseph Odendo bought the land from the said Esther Mmboga Ambala and that the said Joseph Odendo’s Replying Affidavit only indicated that he was to cater for Esther Mmboga Ambala funeral expenses and in return he could have the land whereas DW 2 asserted that the said Joseph Odendo bought the land. 5. She submitted that the mother to the said Esther Mmboga Ambala was buried on the subject property since she had only one child who was married and according to Luhya culture, a daughter could not bury her mother on the land allocated to them. She further submitted that the said Esther Mmboga Ambala was buried at her matrimonial home as DW 2 confirmed. She maintained that she had utilised the land as was shown in the photographs which showed the house of the late Kennedy Musioneke. 6. She submitted that if at all the subject property was sold, that was intermeddling since the same was not free for sale and it did not belong to the said Esther Mmboga Ambala. She cited the case of **Veronica Njoki Wakagoto (deceased) (2013) eKLR**, where it was held that the property of a deceased person could not be lawfully dealt with unless there was a grant because dealing with such property led to intermeddling. She pointed out that the said Joseph Odendo was enjoined as a creditor to the deceased’s estate which was fraudulently done since he was never a creditor in the deceased’s estate. 7. She maintained that the Grant was obtained fraudulently by making a false statement and concealment to the court of material facts as the beneficiaries were not listed and were never informed of the proceedings or consent obtained from them. 8. She referred this court to Rule 7 of the Probate and Administration Rules which required that all beneficiaries were listed in the application for the grant and Rule 26 which required that notice be given to the beneficiaries and their consent be obtained. She was emphatic that since no consent was obtained, the proceedings were defective. She relied on the case of **Antony Karukenya Njeru vs Thomas M Njeru (2014) eKLR**, where the grant was revoked since the proceedings were devoid of consent. 9. On his part, the Petitioner submitted that there was no evidence that was produced to show that the deceased owned Land Parcel Number 975 or that the same was allocated to the said Esther Mmboga Ambala’s mother. He was emphatic that the burial of the said Esther Mmboga Ambala’s mother on the subject property confirmed the said Esther Mmboga Ambala’s connection to the subject property. He invoked Section 107 of the Evidence Act and placed reliance on the case of **Re estate of M’Ngarithi M’Miriti (Deceased) (2017) eKLR**, where the court held that ownership must be proved by credible and admissible evidence and that speculation could not ground a claim. 10. He pointed out that the said Esther Mmboga Ambala had capacity and acted within her right as a beneficiary and that the objection herein could not defeat Joseph Odendo’s proprietary interest because his acquisition was protected under Section 93(1) of the Law of Succession Act. He was emphatic that Joseph Odendo was a purchaser for value, that he acquired the subject property from a duly recognised personal representative and that he had no notice of fraud and, hence his proprietary interest in the subject property was insulated from attack. 11. In this regard, he cited the case of **Re Estate of Mwaura Mutungi (Deceased) (2018) eKLR** where it was held that a third party who acquired property from an administrator in good faith and for valuable consideration had protection even of the grant was subsequently revoked. 12. He was categorical that the Objector’s claim was unsubstantiated since she appeared after the death of the said Esther Mmboga Ambala. He stated that despite the transfer and occupation of Joseph Odendo being open, the Objector, her husband and his other children, who were supposed to be the primary heirs, did not claim the subject property. He averred that her claim that her husband settled on the subject property was contradicted by the fact that he lived and was buried in Nandi and she failed to substantiate her claim that her husband bought the land in Nandi. 13. He claimed that the acquisition by the said Joseph Odendo was not objected to and he cited the case of **Wambui vs Gichuru (2004) eKLR** where it was held that prolonged possession that was uncontested could inform the court’s equitable discretion in favour of the possessor. 14. In her examination-in-chief, the Objector reiterated the averments in her Supporting Affidavit. She was emphatic that at no time did she have prior knowledge of what was happening. She averred that the Grant was obtained by concealing material facts and the rightful beneficiaries were left out. 15. When she was cross-examined, she stated that the said Esther Mmboga Ambala was buried in Isienya while her mother was buried on the subject property. She, however, did that she did not have any evidence to show that the said Esther Mmboga Ambala was buried at Isienya. She was, however, emphatic that the said Esther Mmboga Ambala never lived on the subject property as she lived at her place even when her marriage ended. 16. She pointed out that Land Parcel Number 957 belonged to the said Esther Mmboga Ambala as the deceased gave it to her. She averred that her late husband was buried in Nandi in land that he had purchased. She asserted that the deceased gave her late husband the entire subject property and not a small piece and they built a home before they moved to Nandi. She testified that all her children were born in the subject property. She further stated that she raised Kennedy Musioneke and denied that she did not want him to inherit the subject property. 17. He further stated that his sister, Esther Mmboga Ambala never informed them when the succession was filed and asserted that the Grant was obtained by misrepresentation of facts and some beneficiaries were left out. He asked this court to uphold the deceased’s wishes by revoking the Grant so that his brother’s family could have the rightful share that the deceased allocated to him. 18. PW 2’s evidence was that the deceased allocated land to all his children. He said that he was present when the deceased sub-divided his land into the subject property and Land Parcel Number South Maragoli/Madzuu/379 that he gave to the said Esther Mmboga Ambala. 19. He said that Esther Mmboga Ambala’s mother was buried in the subject property, where Painito lived and had a matrimonial home, because Maragoli culture did not permit her to be buried in her daughter’s land. He testified that Painito lived in the subject property where he established his matrimonial home and cultivated for over thirty (30) years, whereafter he handed over the subject property to his son, Kennedy Musioneke Kadenge. He stated that the house was still on the subject property to date. He asked that this court give the land to the family of Painito as the deceased allocated it to him. 20. When he was cross-examined, he stated that the said Esther Mmboga Ambala and her mother were buried on the subject property and that the Objector’s husband, the late Painito had bought land in Nandi with his own money but that he did not have any agreement to show that he bought the land. He was emphatic that the Objector had the right to get the whole parcel of the subject property. He said that he did not know the said Joseph Odendo Galinga. 21. On re-examination, he testified that Esther Mmboga Ambala was buried where she was married. 22. PW 3 evidence was that the deceased allocated land to all his children. He said that his step-mother was buried in the subject property. He testified that the deceased allocated his brother, Painito, the subject property where he established his matrimonial home and cultivated for over thirty (30) years and whereafter he handed it over to his son, Kennedy Musioneke Kadenge. He stated that the house was still on the subject property to date. 23. He said that his sister, Esther Mmboga Ambala never informed them when the succession was filed and asserted that the Grant was obtained by misrepresentation of facts and some beneficiaries were left out. He asked this court to uphold the deceased’s wishes by revoking the Grant so that his brother’s family could have the rightful share that the deceased allocated to him. 24. When he was cross-examined, he stated that the said Esther Mmboga Ambala was buried where she was married but that her mother was buried in the subject property. He was categorical that the said Esther Mmboga Ambala never lived on the subject property but lived on her land and that Painito had bought the land in Nandi. He pointed out that the subject property belonged to the Objector in its entirety. 25. DW 1 told the court that he was the son to the said Joseph Odendo Galinga. He confirmed that the deceased was the registered owner of the subject property, which he gifted the said Esther Mmboga Ambala during his lifetime. He said that she returned to the said subject property after her marriage failed while the Objector’s husband, Ephato, settled in what was now County of Nandi. He asserted that the said Ephato was interred in the said land where the Objector also resided. 26. When he was cross-examined, he informed the court that his later father bought the subject property from the said Esther Mmboga Ambala in 2018 or thereabouts and at that time, the deceased herein was the registered owner. He stated that Esther Mmboga Ambala was buried on the subject property and not in her matrimonial home. 27. He pointed out that there was someone farming on the subject property where there was a house. He said that he did not know L.R. No South Maragoli/Madzuu/957. He added that he was not aware if the said Painito was given the land in Nandi or if other beneficiaries gave consent before the filing of this suit and distribution of the subject property or if the house of the said Esther Mmboga Ambala was brought down after her demise. He testified that his father was a creditor in the estate of the deceased herein. 28. DW 2’s evidence was that the said Esther Mmboga Ambala approached him twenty (20) years ago to source for a purchaser of Land Parcel Number South Maragoli/Madzuu/957. He pointed out that coincidentally, the said Joseph Odendo Galinga, who was his cousin, was looking for land. He said that he accompanied the said Joseph Odendo Galinga to inspect the land and upon being satisfied with the same, he paid the said Esther Mmboga Ambala a sum of Kshs 250,000/= in instalments. He said that he was part of the witnesses and that he actually appended his signature at the time of execution of the Sale Agreement. 29. He stated that at the time, no one was utilising the land although the said Esther Mmboga Ambala used to cultivate the same. He averred that the Objector only lay a claim to the said land after the said Esther Mmboga Ambala passed away. 30. The court disallowed his application to orally amend his Witness Statement to indicate that the property that he was referring to was the subject property and not Land Parcel Number South Maragoli/Madzuu/ 957. He clarified that Esther Mmboga Ambala sold the subject property which her father had left for her and not Land Parcel Number 957 as was indicated in his Witness Statement. He was emphatic that his assertion that the property the said Esther Mmboga Ambala sold to Joseph Odendo Galinga was Land Parcel Number 957 was an error. 31. When he was cross-examined, he stated that he still signed his Witness Statement even after seeing the mistake. He said that he did not know how many children the deceased had. He stated that the said Esther Mmboga Ambala sold the land that her mother had left her to Joseph Odendo although he could not remember the year. He reiterated that he was a witness during the sale but he did not have the agreement. 32. He pointed out that the said Esther Mmboga Ambala used the land for about twenty (20) years and that the Objector started having problem after her death. He was categorical that the Objector was informed about the succession proceedings but failed to appear in court. He said that he did not have any consent or affidavit that the Objector signed. He averred that the said Esther Mmboga Ambala was buried where she was married. 33. However, when he was re-examined, he told the court that the said Esther Mmboga Ambala was buried where she was born. 34. Notably, there was no dispute that the Objector herein was married to the deceased’s late son one, Painito Kadenge Ambugu and was thus, the deceased’s daughter-in-law. It was also not in dispute that the late Esther Mmboga Ambala was the deceased’s daughter. It was also not in dispute that the subject property herein belonged to the deceased before it devolved to the said Joseph Odendo Galinga. Further, it was not in dispute that the said Joseph Odendo Galinga and Esther Mmboga Ambala, obtained a Grant of Letters of Administration which was confirmed on 19th May 2017 in which the subject property devolved to the said Joseph Odendo Galinga, wholly. 35. A perusal of the proceedings, and especially the Petition for Letters of Administration dated 22nd April 2014 and filed on 25th September 2014, showed that the said Joseph Odendo was mentioned as a creditor of the deceased’s estate. In Paragraph 5 of his Replying Affidavit, the said Joseph Odendo indicated that the said Esther Mmboga Ambala disposed of the land to him on the understanding that she would continue residing on the subject property and he was to cater for her funeral costs and obligations upon her death, which he said he did. 36. Although DW 2 testified that Esther Mmboga Ambala sold the land to the said Joseph Odendo Galinga and that he was a witness to the sale agreement which was entered into in a year he could not remember, no sale agreement was produced to show that indeed, the said Esther Mmboga Ambala disposed of the land to the said Joseph Odendo Galinga. 37. The assertions by the said Joseph Odendo Galinga that he was to pay the funeral expenses and obligations for the said Esther Mmboga Ambala when she died were unrealistic as he could not have known who would die before the other so as to enter into such a sale agreement. He was not God to know that she would die before him. 38. Be that as it may, even if there was such a sale agreement, then the same was unlawful as the said Esther Mmboga Ambala had not obtained the grant of letters of administration in the prescribed manner to give her power to dispose of the deceased’s estate. Her purported sale of the deceased’s subject property, if at all, amounted to intermeddling as was envisaged in Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act that provides as follows:- 39. **Except so far as expressly authorized by this Act, or by any other written law, or by a grant of representation under this Act, no person shall, for any purpose, take possession or dispose of, or otherwise intermeddle with, any free property of a deceased person.** 40. **Any person who contravenes the provisions of this section shall-** 41. **be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand shillings or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding one year or to both such fine and imprisonment; and** 42. **be answerable to the rightful executor or administrator, to the extent of the assets with which he has intermeddled after deducting any payments made in the due course of administration.** 43. If indeed, the said Esther Mmboga Ambala, disposed of the subject property as DW 2 testified, she could not be punished as she was deceased. If she indeed she sold the subject property as DW 2 told this court, she had then left the beneficiaries in a big mess. This court was making a supposition because of the assertions by the said Joseph Odendo Galinga that did not appear to have been plausible and reasonable. 44. Be that as it may, if the said Esther Mmboga Ambala actually disposed of the subject property on the strength that she was the deceased’s daughter, she could still not confer good title of the deceased’s property to the said Joseph Odendo on the basis of the Grant of Letters of Administration and Certificate of Confirmation that they obtained. This is because, she could not have petitioned for a grant of Letters of Administration Intestate without involving the deceased’s rightful beneficiaries. 45. No consent was presented before the court to show that all the beneficiaries to the deceased’s estate executed the requisite consent agreeing to the said Esther Mmboga Ambala and the said Joseph Odendo Galinga being the personal administrators of the deceased’s estate. 46. Rule 26 of the Probate and Administration Rules is very categorical that:- 47. **Letters of administration shall not be granted to any applicant without notice to every other person entitled in the same degree as or in priority to the applicant.** 48. **An application for a grant where the applicant is entitled in a degree equal to or lower than that of any other person shall, in default of renunciation, or written consent in Form 38 or 39, by all persons so entitled in equality or priority, be supported by an affidavit of the applicant and such other evidence as the court may require.** 49. **Unless the court otherwise directs for reasons to be recorded, administration shall be granted to a living person in his own right in preference to the personal representative of a deceased person who would, if living, have been entitled in the same degree, and to a person not under disability in preference to an infant entitled in the same degree.** 50. This court took cognisance of Rule 27 of the Probate and Administration Rules which provides that:- **“Nothing in rule 26 shall operate to prevent a grant being made to any person to whom a grant may be made, or may be required to be made, under the Act.”** 1. However, the order of those who could apply for the grant of letters of administration and be entitled to the property of a deceased were also key. Indeed, Section 39 of the Law of Succession Act Cap 160 (Laws of Kenya) stipulates as follows:- 2. **Where an intestate has left no surviving spouse or children, the net intestate estate shall devolve upon the kindred of the intestate in the following order of priority—** 3. **father; or if dead** 4. **mother; or if dead** 5. **brothers and sisters, and any child or children of deceased brothers and sisters, in equal shares; or if none** 6. **half-brothers and half-sisters and any child or children of deceased half-brothers and half-sisters, in equal shares; or if none** 7. **the relatives who are in the nearest degree of consanguinity up to and including the sixth degree, in equal shares.** 8. **Failing survival by any of the persons mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (1), the net intestate estate shall devolve upon the State, and be paid into the Consolidated Fund.** 9. In the Summons for Confirmation of Grant, the said Joseph Odendo Galinga was listed as a creditor of the deceased’s estate. He was a stranger to the deceased’s estate and did not rank in priority to the deceased’s beneficiaries. He could not have inherited the deceased’s property directly and in priority to the other beneficiaries. 10. This court, therefore, had due regard to the provisions of Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act that deals with annulment and revocation of grants of letters of administration and certificates of confirmation of grants. The same provides that:- **“A grant of representation, whether or not confirmed, may at any time be revoked or annulled if the court decides, either on application by any interested party or of its own motion:-** 1. **that the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance;** 2. **that the grant was obtained fraudulently by the making of a false statement or by the concealment from the court of something material to the case;** 3. **that the grant was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant notwithstanding that the allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently;** 4. **that the person to whom the grant was made has failed, after due notice and without reasonable cause either—** 5. **to apply for confirmation of the grant within one year from the date thereof, or such longer period as the court order or allow; or** 6. **to proceed diligently with the administration of the estate; or** 7. **to produce to the court, within the time prescribed, any such inventory or account of administration as is required by the provisions of paragraphs (e) and (g) of section 83 or has produced any such inventory or account which is false in any material particular; or** 8. **that the grant has become useless and inoperative through subsequent circumstances.”** 9. An order for revocation of the grant could only thus be given if the aforesaid grounds for revocation had been satisfied. A similar finding was arrived at **Re Estate of LAK-(Deceased) [2014] eKLR.** 10. This court could not with certainty determine if the said Esther Mmboga Ambala and Joseph Odendo Galinga acted fraudulently in obtaining the Grant of Letters of Administration or if they acted in ignorance. However, it was evident from the evidence that was adduced during trial, that the said Joseph Odendo Galinga and the said Esther Mmboga Ambala obtained the Grant of Letters of Administration and the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant by concealment of material facts as they did not disclose all the beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate. In addition, the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance as no requisite consents were obtained. 11. This court was persuaded to find and hold that failure to obtain the consent from the beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate and failure to disclose all the beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate were grounds for revocation of a grant of letters administration and certificate of confirmation of grant under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. **DISPOSITION** 1. For the foregoing reasons, the upshot of this court’s decision was that the Objector’s Summons for Revocation of Grant dated and filed on 26th April 2021 was merited and is hereby allowed in the following terms:- 2. **THAT the grant issued to Joseph Odendo Galinga and Esther Mmboga Ambala dated 19th May 2017 in respect to the estate of Eli Ambugu s/o Musioneke alias Eli Ambugu be and is hereby revoked pursuant to Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act.** 3. **THAT all subdivisions, transfers, and dealings with Land Parcel Number South Maragoli/Madzuu/378 done in accordance to the said grant be and are hereby declared null and void and are cancelled forthwith.** 4. **THAT it is hereby directed that the Land Registrar rectifies the register to restore the subject property in the name of the deceased pending fresh administration.** 5. **THAT the Petitioner files a Summons for Confirmation within sixty (60) days from the date of this Ruling.** 6. **THAT this matter be mentioned on 28th July 2026 to confirm compliance and/or for further orders and/or directions.** 7. As this was a family matter and not to escalate any tensions and bad blood, this court deviated from the general principal that costs follow the event and hereby directs that each party will bear its own costs of the Summons for Revocation of Grant dated and filed on 26th April 2021. 8. It is so ordered. **DATED** and **DELIVERED** at **VIHIGA** this **25th** day of **June** 2026 **J. KAMAU** **JUDGE**