[2022] KEHC 11263 (KLR)

In re Estate of Alloyce Melitus Obiero (Deceased) (Succession Cause 387 of 2001) [2022] KEHC 11263 (KLR) (Family) (13 May 2022) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 11263 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Family

Succession Cause 387 of 2001

M Thande, J

May 13, 2022

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ALLOYCE MELITUS OBIERO

Between

Albert Ober Obiero

1st Applicant

Antoninah Nyakara Obiero

2nd Applicant

and

Jacqueline Moraa Obiero

1st Respondent

Patrick M. Odude

2nd Respondent

Joseph Leo Ochieng

3rd Respondent

Estate Of Felicita Owuor Ochieng

4th Respondent

Ruling

1. Before me is yet another long outstanding matter of the estate of a deceased person that has defied closure, on account of disagreement between the parties. This matter has been pending in Court for 21 years, having been filed in 2001.

2. The deceased herein, Alloyce Melitus Obiero who worked with a company known as NCR (Kenya) Limited, died on 30. 1.00 in a Kenya Airways plane crash in Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire. He was survived by his young widow, Jacqueline Moraa Obiero (Jacqueline) and 2 minor children Albert Ober Obiero (Albert) and Antoninah Nyakara Obiero (Antoninah). The deceased was also survived by his father Joseph Leo Ochieng (Joseph) and his mother Felicita Owuor Ochieng (Felicita) who has since died. The record shows that the estate of the deceased consisted of the following:½ share in Nairobi/Block 97/516Kisumu Koru 67/1252Ngong/Ngong/15201Motor vehicles KAH 333P and KUS 884Insurance claim from Kenya AirwaysAccrued benefits from NCR

3. A grant of letters of administration was on 24. 4.01 issued to Jacqueline and Patrick Odude (Patrick), a brother of the deceased. The administrators were not able to work together and Jacqueline applied for confirmation of grant on her own. The mode of distribution proposed by Jacqueline in respect of the Kenya Airways compensation amounting to USD 300,000 and NCR funds amounting to Kshs. 28,001,000/= was opposed by Joseph and Felicita, who filed an affidavit of protest. The record shows that a trust known as The AMO Children’s Trust Fund (the Trust) in respect of the NCR Funds was created for the benefit of the 2 children of the deceased.

4. In her judgment of 18. 10. 11, Nambuye J. (as she then was) directed that the funds be distributed as follows:Kenya Airways CompensationJacqueline was to get USD 150,000Joseph and Felicita were to get in equal shares, USD 150,000, less Kshs. 1,250,000/= already received,NCR FundsTo be invested for Albert & Antoninah in equal shares and interest to be applied towards their education and general upkeep.The house purchased with a portion of the funds was to be registered in the names of the administrators and the trustees of NCR for the benefit of Jacqueline, Albert & Antoninah.

5. It transpired that at the time of the judgment, the entire Kenya Airways compensation had been exhausted. Joseph and Felicita sought an order that the amount awarded to them of USD 150,000 (equivalent to Kshs. 19,000,000/=) be paid to them from the NCR funds. In his ruling of 9. 5.14, Kimaru, J. directed that the sum of Kshs. 19 million be appropriated from the Trust or from any property purchased from the said funds. He further directed that any income accrued from the funds be shared equally between Joseph and Felicita on the one hand and Jacqueline. Noting that that what had been decreed in Felicita’s favour had not lapsed by reason of her demise, the learned Judge directed that the sum due to her will be released to the administrators of her estate.

6. By an application dated 23. 9.16, Joseph seeks the following orders:1. Spent.2. That this Honourable Court be pleased to make an order directing that the following properties be sold by the administrators and the proceeds be released to the Applicant’s advocates in the satisfaction of the court order of 9th May 2014. i)L. R 330/234ii)L.R 7158/23. That 50% of the income accrued from AMO Trust and NCR held by the trustees of the said funds M/s Alexander Forbes Limited be forthwith released to the Applicant’s Advocates in satisfaction of the court order of 9th May 2014. 4.THAT the original titles for the properties known as L. R. 330/234 and 7158/2 in the custody of Alexander Forbes Limited be forthwith released to the Applicant’s advocates.5. That the firm of P.M.Kamara & Associates Advocates and P.M Ndungu & Company Advocates do jointly sell the two properties known as L. R. 330/234 and L. R. 7158/2 at the current market price subject to a valuation on the two properties being undertaken by a valuer of their choice.6. That the said firms of advocates do deduct the sum awarded to the Applicants and hold any balance pending the filing by the trustees of correct accounts as ordered by the court costs of this application be paid from the said funds.7. That M/s Alexander Forbes Financial Services file with the court within Thirty (30) days a correct statement of account of the AMO and NCR funds.8. That the Deputy Registrar Family Division do sign all documents necessary for implementation of the orders of this court made by Honourable Justice R. Nambuye on 2nd April 2012 and by Honourably Luka Kimaru on 9th May 2014. 9.That the costs of this Applicant be paid by the first respondent and Alexander Forbes Financial Services Limited.

7. In her replying affidavit sworn on 2. 3.17, Jacqueline averred that she uses rental income from the 2 properties for her upkeep and school fees and rent for the children who are currently in university in Canada and England; that the said rent is not enough as each of the children require between Kshs. 4,100,000 – Kshs. 6,200,000/=; that the income is also used for maintenance and repairs of the houses as well as land rent; that since of the demise of the deceased, she has raised the children with no help from her in-laws; that Joseph is well advanced in age and has sufficient support from his grown children and has income from farm produce; that he should consider his grandchildren who still need support from the houses and for the remainder of their lives; that should the Court grant the orders sought, then she and the children who are now adults should be involved in the sale process, and that the proceeds of sale should also be used to offset her lawyer’s outstanding fees; that the amount over and above Kshs. 19 million should be paid to her to cater for her needs and those of her children. She then urged the Court not to grant the orders as the properties are registered in trust for the children.

8. In a replying affidavit sworn on 6. 3.17, James Olubayi, a director with Alexander Forbes (AF) stated that AF has never been trustee, investment manager or custodian of Trust. Accordingly, AF being the wrong party could not comply with Nambuye and Kimaru, JJ’s orders.

9. James Olubayi asserted that the orders ought to have been directed at the trustees of AMO Children’s Trust Fund as per the declaration of trust and deed of appointment. In view of this, AF should forthwith be excused and discharged from any liability or obligation in the matter.

10. Anthony Kilavi, a director with Corporate & Pensions Trust Services Limited (Corporate & Pensions) swore a replying affidavit on 6. 3.17. Anthony Kilavi contended that orders were made by the Court against Corporate & Pensions without it being given an opportunity to be heard; that Barclaytrust Investment Services Limited and Jacqueline created a trust for the sole benefit of the children of the deceased; that Corporate & Pensions was appointed trustee of the Trust upon resignation of Barclaytrust Investment Services Limited; that Corporate & Pensions has carried out its duties in accordance with the law and the trust deed and deed of appointment and has prepared annual financial statements; that the Trust has been run for the sole benefit of the children of the deceased, who are to take in equal shares, the shares of the Trust fund, upon attaining the age of 24; that the Trust purchased 2 properties, Town House No. 7 on L. R. No. 330/234 where the children reside and Town House No. 6 on L. R. No. 7158/2, the rental income of which is used for the maintenance and education of the children; that the orders sought cannot be granted as the properties do not belong to the Trust; that the orders issued by the Court were not directed at Corporate & Pensions; that Corporate & Pensions has instructed its lawyers to draw up a deed of appointment of an extra trustee; that audited accounts were exhibited; that no new capital investment had been made; that granting the orders sought will go against the spirit of the Trust, declaration of the trust and the Trustee Act and the interests of the children of the deceased;

11. The Application is also opposed by Albert by means of his replying affidavit sworn on 27. 4.21 and grounds of opposition of even date. The gist of Albert’s opposition to the Application is that he faults the ruling of Kimaru, J. According to Albert, the Trust fund does not form part of the free property for distribution in succession proceedings and that is why they have filed the application dated 28. 6.17 seeking review of the orders. He stated that L. R. Nos. 330/234 and 7158/2 were acquired upon maturity of the Trust that was set up for the benefit of the children of the deceased. The decision of Kimaru, J. was a variation, alteration and deviation from Nambuye, J’s decision that the NCR funds and interest accrued therefrom be exclusively for the benefit of the children of the deceased. Albert contended that if the orders sought are granted, they will have the effect of disinheriting him and Antoninah thereby occasioning them irreparable suffering. Albert further contended that the deceased and his siblings maintained their parents and upon his demise, his siblings who are persons of means, continued to do so. He urged that the Application be dismissed.

12. By an application dated 28. 6.17, Albert and Antoninah seek the following orders:1. Spent.2. Spent.3. Spent.4. That this Honourable Court be pleased to review and or vary and/or modify the Ruling/Orders made on 18th October, 2011 ordering that half of The Kenya Airways Compensation funds, being 150,000 US Dollars be distributed to Joseph Leo Ochieng and Felicita Owuor Ochieng, less the Kshs. 1,250,000/= already paid out to them.5. That this Honourable Court be pleased to review and or vary and/or modify the Ruling/Orders made on the 9th May 2014 by the Honourable Justice Kimaru to the extent that the same held that the amount distributed to Joseph Leo Ochieng and Felicita Owuor Ochieng should be appropriated from the AMO Children’s Fund, and that any income derived from the said fund should be shared equally between Joseph Leo Ochieng and Felicita Owuor Ochieng on one part, and thewidow of the deceased on the other part as decreed by the earlier court.6. That this Honourable Court be pleased to order that the NCR/AMO Children’s Trust Fund remain invested for the sole benefit of the Applicants, and the assets acquired therefrom be transferred to them as per the Trust Documents.7. That the costs of this Application be provided for.

13. The grounds upon which the Application is premised are set out in the Application and in the supporting affidavit sworn by Albert on 28. 6.17, in which he reiterated his averments in his affidavit in opposition to the application dated 23. 9.16. Albert contended that the Trust was established for the benefit of the Applicants as children of the deceased as per the NCR Staff Retirement Scheme; that the Applicants are aggrieved by Nambuye, J’s order of 18. 10. 11, awarding Joseph and Felicita USD 150,000 from the Kenya Airways compensation, which had at the time been exhausted, having been utilised towards the education and upkeep of the children of the deceased; that the Respondents were aware of this fact but did not disclose the same to the Court; that the Court erred in awarding a hefty sum to Joseph and Felicita and disregarded the needs of the very young children of the deceased; that the Court also disregarded the fact that Joseph and Felicita were also depended on their other children who are persons of means and also failed to consider the other properties of the estate of the deceased.

14. The Applicants are also aggrieved with Kimaru, J’s decision of 9. 5.14 that the amount awarded to Joseph and Felicita be appropriated from the Trust fund and that the interest accruing therefrom be divided equally between Jacqueline on the one part and Joseph and Felicita on the other. The Applicants contend that the Trust fund was not available for distribution as it does not form part of the estate of the deceased; that the Court erred in ordering the sale of properties purchased by the Trust yet there were other properties that could have been liquidated instead; that the Court erred in finding that the estate the amount awarded to the late Felicita should benefit her estate yet that estate is not a dependant of the estate herein.

15. Albert contended that there is an error on the face of the said ruling as the decision of Nambuye, J. had specifically distributed the NCR funds and interest thereon to the Albert and Antoninah. Albert further stated that he and his sister were facing the threat of eviction and discontinuation with their university education in Canada and England as they reside in one of the properties and income from the other caters for their educational needs as per the Trust Deed. In sum, Albert contended that their future as children of the deceased should not be jeopardised by attempts to enforce an award given to their grandparents. He urged that the Application be allowed in the interests of justice.

16. Joseph swore a replying affidavit on 1. 8.17 opposing the Application. He denied all the allegations by Albert and contended that there are no errors on the face of the record that have been raised; that the Application calls on the Court to re-examine the evidence tendered to find that an alternative conclusion in favour of the Applicants should have been arrived at; that the Applicants seek to create a long drawn out process to deny him the fruit of his judgment given his advanced age; that the widow and children of the deceased have substantially benefitted from the estate of the deceased; that the grounds by the Applicants are a rehash, repetition and regurgitation of arguments by Jacqueline before 2 Judges; that the issues of dependency, distribution and apportionment of the estate have been settled; that due to his advanced age, he should not be denied a share of his son’s estate and that he would like to see an end to this endless torment unjustly inflicted upon him. He urged the Court to dismiss the Application and grant leave to sell the 2 properties as sought in his application dated 23. 9.16.

17. Albert filed a further affidavit sworn on 18. 8.17 in which he reiterated his earlier averments.

18. I have given due consideration to the Applications, the rival affidavits and submissions, as well as the cited authorities. Albert and Antoninah had urged that their Application dated 28. 6.17 be heard first. I will therefore deal with this Application. The Application seeks review of the orders of 18. 10. 11 and 9. 5.14.

19. The Applicants submitted that contrary to the Respondents’ assertion, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Application filed by the children of the deceased. They relied on Sections 47 of the Law of Succession Act and Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules.Section 47 provides:The High Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any application and determine any dispute under this Act and to pronounce such decrees and make such orders therein as may be expedient:Rule 73 provides:Nothing in these Rules shall limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.

20. The foregoing provisions leave no doubt in the Court’s mind that it has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the Application for review filed by Albert and Antoninah. Indeed, Article 165 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 confers upon this Court unlimited original jurisdiction in both civil and criminal matters.

21. It is this inherent jurisdiction that this Court will exercise as the Application for review is considered. In this regard, I concur with Ouko, J (as he then was) who in the case of In Re The Matter of The Estate of George M'Mboroki (Deceased) [2008] eKLR, had this to say about the inherent jurisdiction of this Court as set out in Section 47 of the Act and Rule 73:However, and this is the most important aspect of this issue, in my view, the Law of Succession Act like section 3 of Civil Procedure Act has a saving provision as to the court’s inherent jurisdiction…It is therefore accepted that the court retains certain intrinsic authority in the absence of specific or alternative remedy, a residual source of power, which the court may draw upon as necessary whenever it is just or equitable to do so, in particular to ensure the observance of the due process of law, to prevent abuse of its process, to do justice between the parties and to secure a fair trial between them.

22. The law relating review of orders is set out in Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules as follows:(1)Any person considering himself aggrieved—(a)by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or(b)by a decree or order from which no appeal is hereby allowed,and who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree or order, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order without unreasonable delay.

23. This is a succession matter and the applicable substantive and procedural law is the Law of Succession Act and the Probate and Administration Rules. By dint of Rule 63 of the Probate and Administration Ruleshowever, Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rulesis applicable herein. Rule 63(1) provides:Save as is in the Act or in these Rules otherwise provided, and subject to any order of the court or a registrar in any particular case for reasons to be recorded, the following provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules, namely Order 5, rule 2 to 34 and Orders 11, 16, 19, 26, 40, 45 and 50 (Cap. 21, Sub. Leg.), together with the High Court (Practice and Procedure) Rules (Cap. 8, Sub. Leg.), shall apply so far as relevant to proceedings under these Rules.

24. Order 45 of Civil Procedure Rules, allows an aggrieved party to apply for review of an order on the basis of discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after due diligence, was not within his knowledge. Additionally, an aggrieved party may seek review of an order on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason. Such application must be made without unreasonable delay.

25. To begin with, the Court notes that the decisions in respect of which review is sought were delivered on 18. 10. 11 by Nambuye, J. (as she then was) and 9. 5.14 by Kimaru, J. The present Application for review was filed on 29. 6.17, respectively about 6 years and 3 years after the orders were made. This is by no means a reasonable period, and there had been inordinate delay. No explanation for the delay has been proffered by the Applicants or indeed the steps taken by the Applicants to come to Court as soon as practicable. The Court is aware that Albert and Antoninah were minors when their father, the deceased, died and that their interests were taken care of by their mother Jacqueline, in the proceedings in this matter. However, when the decision of 18. 10. 11 was made, Albert was already 18 years old. No reason has been given to the Court as to why he did not apply for review then and did so 6 years later. Additionally, when the decision of 9. 5.14 was made, both Albert and Antoninah were adults aged 21 and 19 respectively. Again, no explanation was given as to why they waited for 3 years to file the present Application for review.

26. In the absence of a plausible explanation for the inordinate delay, the Court cannot exercise its discretion in favour of the Applicants. In this regard, I find guidance in the holding in Aviation Cargo Support Limited v St. Mark Freight Services Limited [2014] eKLR where the­­­­­­­­­ Court of Appeal the Court stated:For the Court to exercise its discretion in favour of an applicant, the latter must demonstrate to the Court that the delay in lodging the record of appeal is not inordinate and where it is inordinate the applicant must give plausible explanation to the satisfaction of the Court why it occurred and what steps the applicant took to ensure that it came to Court as soon as was practicable.

27. The record shows that Jacqueline intended to appeal against the decision of 9. 5.14 for she filed a notice of appeal dated 20. 5.14. It would however appear that Jacqueline abandoned the appeal. Her children now seek that the Court re-examines the matter in the guise of review, claiming an error on the face of the record.

28. Our superior Courts have in numerous pronouncements stated what constitutes an error on the face of the record. The error must be evident on the face of the record and should not require an elaborate argument to be established. In the case of National Bank Of Kenya Limited v Ndungu Njau [1997] eKLR, the Court of Appeal had this to say:A review may be granted whenever the court considers that it is necessary to correct an apparent error or omission on the part of the court. The error or omission must be self evident and should not require an elaborate argument to be established. It will not be a sufficient ground for review that another Judge could have taken a different view of the matter. Nor can it be a ground for review that the court proceeded on an incorrect exposition of the law and reached an erroneous conclusion of law. Misconstruing a statute or other provision of law cannot be a ground for review.

29. The Applicants have argued that the Court erred in finding that the NCR funds formed part of the estate of the deceased. They further contended that the Court erred in awarding a hefty sum to Joseph and Felicita and disregarded the needs of the very young children of the deceased and further disregarded the fact that Joseph and Felicita were also depended on their other children, who are persons of means. The Court was also faulted for failing to consider the other properties of the estate of the deceased. Additionally, the Applicants asserted that the Court erred in finding that the amount awarded to Felicita did not lapse upon her demise. Put differently, the Applicants fault the Court for failing to apply the law correctly.

30. I have carefully considered the grounds upon which the Applicants seek review of the orders of 18. 10. 11 and 9. 5.14. It is clear in my mind that these are issues that would require elaborate arguments. They are not errors apparent on the face of the record. Further, while the said issues may be good grounds for appeal, they cannot sustain an application for review. The issues raised by the Applicants ought to be examined on appeal and not by this Court which lacks appellate jurisdiction. In so finding, I am guided by the holding in Pancras T. Swai v Kenya Breweries Limited [2014] eKLR where the Court of Appeal stated:It seems clear to us that the appellant, in basing his review application on the failure by the Court to apply the law correctly faulted the decision on a point of law. That was a good ground for appeal but not a ground for an application for review. If parties were allowed to seek review of decisions on grounds that the decisions are erroneous in law, either because a Judge has failed to apply the law correctly or at all, a dangerous precedent would be set in which court decisions that ought to be examined on appeal would be exposed to attacks in the courts in which they were made under the guise of review when such courts are factus (sic) officio and have no appellate jurisdiction. The power to review decisions on appeal is vested in appellate courts.

31. In view of the foregoing, I find that the Application dated 28. 6.17 for review, cannot stand.

32. I now turn to the Application dated 23. 9.16. The record shows that on 29. 5.18, Muigai, J. noted that parties agreed that the Jacqueline would put up Title No. Nairobi/Block 97/516 for sale to realise the amount payable to the parents of the deceased. It was further agreed that the sum of Kshs. 300,000/= would be paid to Joseph. This agreement by the parties appears to have compromised the Application in so far of the sale of properties is concerned and it is not for this Court to vary the orders. Indeed, the Court has not been moved to do so.

33. The record further shows that on 26. 11. 18, Muigai, J. directed inter alia as follows:1. The purchase price is Ksh. 24m and the same sale of the said suit property Nairobi/Block 97/516 shall proceed and be completed within 150 days.2. The distribution of Ksh. 24m to all the beneficiaries shall be subject to hearing and determination of the application for review filed on 12. 11. 2018 by any court within the division and the judgments and rulings on record.3. The purchase price shall be available for distribution minus the legal fees and costs to be agreed upon by the parties and counsel.4. Counsel for the 1st Objector Joseph Leo Ochieng to obtain a grant for the estate of Felicita Owuor Ochieng mother of the deceased who is deceased so as to obtain her beneficial interest to her estate.

34. It is noted that out of the sum of Kshs. 19,000,000/= due to Joseph and Felicita, the sum of Kshs. 1,250,000/= and another Kshs. 300,000/= has already been paid. Accordingly, the balance due to satisfy the decree in their favour is Kshs. 17,450,000/=.

35. The prayers pending determination are:i)That50% of the income accrued from AMO Trust and NCR held by the trustees of the said funds M/s Alexander Forbes Limited be forthwith released to the Applicant’s Advocates in satisfaction of the court order of 9th May 2014. ii)That M/s Alexander Forbes Financial Services file with the court within Thirty (30) days a correct statement of account of the AMO and NCR funds.

36. The Court notes that Corporate & Pensions contended that the orders of this Court were made without its participation. Corporate & Pensions reserved its right to apply for the setting aside of the orders. The record does not however have such application. The position therefore is that the orders of the Court remain in force. Corporate & Pensions further asserted that the orders sought cannot be granted as the Trust is for the benefit of the children. It is clear from the record that the honourable Judges before me did make a finding that the NCR funds from which the Trust was established, form part of the estate. Nambuye, J. in her judgment of 18. 10. 11 stated:For the reasons given in (i-xii) this court is satisfied that the NCR funds are part of the distributable estate of the deceased.On his part, Kimaru, J. on 9. 5.14 stated:In the premises therefore, this court directs that the sum of Kshs. 19 million decreed by this court in favour of the Applicants be appropriated from the AMO Trust of NCR or any properties purchased from the said AMO of NCR. Any income that has been accrued from the said funds shall be shared equally between the Applicants and the 1st Respondent as earlier decreed by the court.

37. As indicated herein, these orders remain in force and it is not for me to re-examine the finding of the said Judges. To do so would be venturing in the realm of the appellate Court.

38. The Applicants have asked that 50% of the income accrued from the Trust held by AF be released to their advocates. They also seek that AF be ordered to file accounts in Court within 30 days. It is not clear to the Court why the Applicants seek this of AF. The Trust fund is held by the Trustees. Indeed, paragraph 1 of the Declaration of the Trust dated 25. 5.2000 states:“The Trustees shall hold the Funds for the time being comprising the AMO Children’s Trust Fund upon trust…”

39. In view of the foregoing, any payment to be made from the income of the Trust may only be done by the Trustees. As regards the filing of the accounts the Court notes that Anthony Kilavi on behalf of Corporate & Pensions a Trustee of the fund, vide his affidavits sworn on 6. 3.17 and 30. 7.18 presented to the Court the audited accounts for the Trust for the years 2003-2017. No evidence was placed before me to demonstrate that the accounts filed are not adequate.

40. In the and in view of the foregoing, the Court makes the following orders which are necessary for the ends of justice:1. The Application dated 28. 6.17 lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed.2. The Application dated 23. 9.16 is allowed in the following terms:i)The sale of Title No. Nairobi/Block 97/516 shall proceed and all parties’ counsel shall participate in identifying a purchaser and in the sale transaction.ii)The proceeds of sale shall be deposited in a joint account of all parties’ counsel.iii)After payment of legal fees and costs, the sum of Kshs. 17,450,000/= shall be paid to Joseph Leo Ochieng and the estate of Felicita Owuor Ochieng. The balance after shall be paid to Jacqueline Moraa Obiero and Albert Ober Obiero and Antoninah Nyakara Obiero.iv)The Trustees of The AMO Children’s Trust Fund shall within 30 days, file accounts showing the income derived from the Trust Fund to date.v)The Trustees of The AMO Children’s Trust Fund shall within 30 days pay to Joseph Leo Ochieng and the estate of Felicita Owuor Ochieng 50% of the income accrued from the funds of The AMO Children’s Trust Fund as per the order of 9. 5.14. vi)Mention for compliance on 21. 6.22. 3.This being a family matter, there shall be no order as to costs.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN NAIROBI THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY 2022M. THANDEJUDGEIn the presence of:-……………………………………………………………for the Applicants……………………………………………………………for the 1st Administrator……………………………………………………………for the 2nd Administrator……………………………………………………………1st/Objector/Respondent……………………………………………………………2nd Objector/Respondent…………………………………………………………Court Assistant