In re Estate of the late Samuel Kamau Wanjiru (Deceased) (Succession Cause 447 of 2016) [2026] KEHC 6735 (KLR) (14 May 2026) (Ruling)

In re Estate of the late Samuel Kamau Wanjiru (Deceased) (Succession Cause 447 of 2016) [2026] KEHC 6735 (KLR) (14 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 6735 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nakuru Succession Cause 447 of 2016 SM Mohochi, J May 14, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE SAMUEL KAMAU WANJIRU (DECEASED) Between Judy Wambui Gichuki alias Judy Wambui Kamau Applicant and Teresiah Njeri Kamau 1st Administrator Margaret Wangechi Muturi 2nd Administrator Ruling 1.Before me is a Summons dated 19th March 2025 filed pursuant to seeking for the following relief(s);a.Spentb.Spentc.Spentd.That the grant of letters of administration to Terezah Njeri Kamau and Margaret Wangechi Muturi made on 1st August, 2017 and subsequently confirmed on 30th October, 2018 be revoked.e.That the Honourable Court do issue directions as to the administration of the estate. 2.The said application is based on the following and is supported by the sworn affidavit by the Applicant;i.That the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance.ii.That the grant was obtained fraudulently by concealment from the Court of the person’s beneficiary entitled under the estate.iii.That the administrator herein did not disclose to the Court the relationship between the deceased and the applicant.iv.That the consent was not sought nor given by persons entitled and with capacity to apply for letters of administration in the capacity of the present administrator as the administrator applied for the same without the knowledge of the Applicant.v.That, the administrator herein misled the Court in the application for letters of administration to the detriment of the person beneficiary entitled therein.vi.That, the applicant is entitled to benefit under the estate whose interest have been vested in the administrator who misled the Court in application for the same.vii.That, the administrators vide their actions have every intention of disinheriting the Applicant from the only estate she is dependent on. 3.The Applicant further depones that;i.That, she swore the affidavit on her own behalf and on behalf of her son SJK (minor) hereinafter referred to as the subject, a son of the deceased and a beneficiary of the estate.ii.That, she is the wife of the late Samuel Kamáu Wanjiru (deceased).iii.That, in the year 2007, the deceased did visit her guardian’s (Leah Muthoni Kiarie) home and proposed to marry her and her guardian agreed save that her guardian proposed that she should first complete her college studies.iv.That, between the year 2007 and 2009, she was in college at Tracom College and it is the deceased who paid her college fees with the full knowledge of her guardian.v.That, since 2009 when she cleared college to the time of death of the deceased, they were living with the deceased as husband and wife.vi.That, they lived in a house in Nakuru which was furnished by the deceased.vii.That, when the deceased died, she took part in the funeral arrangements.viii.That, the deceased had made known to his mother, Hannah Wanjiru Kamau about their marriage as she would often reach out to her.ix.That, the deceased had planned to introduce her and her unborn child to the 2nd Respondent sometime in December 2011 but unfortunately, he died before then.x.That, from their union with the deceased, they were blessed with the subject who was born on the 24th August, 2011.xi.That, when the deceased died, she was expectant of the subject.xii.That, before the demise of the deceased, she and her unborn child depended on him for their daily upkeep.xiii.That, after the sudden demise of the deceased and to ensure her unborn child is recognized by the family of the deceased, she filed a matter serialized as Nakuru HC Civil Suit No.118 of 2011 against the Respondents seeking to stop the interment of the deceased remains before samples are extracted from it for DNA analysis.xiv.That, indeed the Court granted the order on 26th May, 2011 for extraction of the DNA samples from the deceased's body during the postmortem.xv.That, the DNA was conducted and it was confirmed that the subject is the son of the deceased herein.xvi.That, the 1st Respondent is fully aware of the said position as she fully participated in the proceedings in the said suit.xvii.That, on the 22nd March, 2012, she filed citation proceedings against the Respondents vide Nakuru Citation Cause No.187 of 2012 seeking to have them take out letters of administration for the estate of the deceased.xviii.That, the 1st Administrator/Respondent replied to the said application for proposed citation to accept or refuse letters of administration intestate vide a response dated 8th January, 2013.xix.That, as such the 1st Administrator was aware of my interest in the estate herein but proceeded to file this cause in secret.xx.That, an order was made in the citation cause on 27th June, 2016 that the 1st Citee in this case the 1st Administrator to take out letters of administration intestate relating to the estate of Samuel Wanjiru Kamau within 30 days from the date of the ruling, in default the Citor to be at liberty to apply.xxi.That, upon the demise of the deceased, an inquest was lodged vide Nairobi Milimani Inquest No.1 of 2014 which was to establish the cause of death of the deceased as he died under mysterious circumstances.xxii.That, the inquiry proceedings were to be concluded before the succession proceedings could be commenced as the 1st Administrator was a person of interest in the events leading to the death of the deceased.xxiii.That, the said inquest proceedings were concluded vide a ruling delivered on 18th October, 2023 where the Court ruled that the death of the deceased was accidental.xxiv.That, she instructed her advocates on record of the said position and they were in the process of following-up on the succession proceedings when they learnt that the 1st Administrator had filed a petition for letters of administration intestate and even obtained the Certificate of Confirmation of grant which has been even rectified severally.xxv.That, the grant of letters of administration in respect of the aforesaid estate were made to Terezah Njeri Kamau and Margaret Wangechi Muturi on the 1st August, 2017 and subsequently confirmed by this Court on 30th October, 2018.xxvi.That, the 1st Administrator instituted this succession cause without taking into account her entitlement therein nor consulting her.xxvii.That, the entire succession cause proceeded on a low down based on the allegation by the 1st Administrator that there were no other persons entitled to the estate which was not true as she was well versed of the Applicant’s position and the earlier citation proceedings.xxviii.That, the 1st Administrator with the intention of disinheriting her and her child from the estate, filed this new succession cause without disclosing of their existence.xxix.That, the proceedings are defective as the administrators concealed from this Court her interest as well as entitlement in an effort to disinherit her and to vest the properties of the solely to herself and children.xxx.That, she had been advised by her advocates on record whose counsel she verily believed to be true, that the administrators were required to obtain consents from person with equal or lesser priority to them in the application for letters of administration whose consents were not obtained thereby negating the application for letters of administration.xxxi.That, the administrators herein did mislead this Court in the said application that they had obtained such necessary consents thereby imputing their intention to disinherit us.xxxii.That, it is therefore mete and just that this Honorable Court do revoke the grant as prayed to provide the opportunity to include and take into account the beneficiaries entitled under the estate herein.xxxiii.That, no prejudice will be occasioned to any party if the said orders are granted but this will only preserve the estate for the benefit of those legally entitled therein. Respondents’ Case 4.The application is opposed by the 1st Administrator/Respondent, through her replying affidavit sworn on the 24th April 2025 in which she avers as follows;i.That she is the duly Appointed Co-administrator of the Estate of Samuel Kamau Wanjiru and the only widow of the deceased the late Samuel Kamau Wanjiru who passed away on the 15th day of May 2011.ii.That Judy Wambui Gichuki alias Judy Wambui Kamau is an imposter and was never known to her in her husband’s life and had never been introduced the deceased’s family.iii.That the Applicant only surfaced after the death of the deceased and she has never had anything concrete or tangible to show to the effect that she had and only or relationship recognizable under the law.iv.That the deceased was settled with her at their matrimonial home at Nyahururu within Title No 806 within Muthaiga Estate and he had many other properties including Nakuru Town.v.That, she personally took over the development of their property located in Nakuru which was still under construction even after the demise of the Deceased and that, it is not true that the Applicant was settled in Nakuru Deceased property as she has been in charge of the same since his demise.vi.That, the deceased who had many properties including one located in Nakuru would have settled the Applicant if indeed she was a wife to him.vii.That it is not true that the Applicant took part in the funeral arrangements of her late husband and her name does not appear anywhere either in the obituary or any public known document that state the known marital status of her late husband.viii.That, there is no evidence whatsoever that the deceased in his lifetime ever knew that he had caused conception to the Applicant of the alleged Samuel Jones Kamau (a child) or that the alleged child was dependent to him.ix.That, neither the Applicant nor her child were recognizable under the law of Succession Act Cap 160 of the Laws of Kenya as his dependent at death.x.That further, the legal recognition of parentage often requires more than just a biological connection especially if the child was born out of wedlock and the deceased did not formally acknowledge or recognize the child during his life time.xi.That, to the best of her knowledge and belief the deceased herein Samuel Kamau Wanjiru did not during his lifetime formally acknowledge the Applicant herein nor have alleged subject as his child or make any provision for them in his life or in any testamentary document.xii.That, being the only known widow of the deceased, she was close to him and he never mentioned to her the Applicant or to other family members.xiii.That, to the best of her knowledge the Applicant has been married to other individual even as the time of the demise of her husband and she is even currently blessed with other children with her current husband.xiv.That the deceased had a recognized family consisting her as the spouse and two children.xv.That allowing inheritance solely on DNA evidence, without any prior acknowledgement or provisions by the deceased could significantly impact the inheritance right of the deceased established family.xvi.That she does not totally agree with the alleged DNA result as alleged by the applicant herein on the ground that she was never involved at all during the extraction of the DNA samples of her deceased husband neither was his family doctor involved to confirm the authenticity of the said samples and this may be another case of fraudulent claim of parentage for inheritance purposes.xvii.That the determination of the inheritance rights in this matter should consider not only the biological link but also the legal framework regarding parentage; the actions and the intentions of the deceased during his life time, and the interest of the established family.xviii.That, this Court should carefully consider the legal principles governing inheritance and the specific circumstances of this case before recognizing the alleged Samuel Jones Kamau as an heir to the estate of the deceased.xix.That citation proceedings were filed by the applicant herein the Court on 27th June, 2016 granted her 30 days to take out the letters of administration intestate of Samuel Wanjiru Kamau her deceased husband.xx.That the said Court order did not direct that she do serve the Applicant herein neither was it ruled out that she had any interest in the estate of the deceased.xxi.That in compliance with the said Court orders she filed the relevant proceedings in Court and the relevant Gazette notice was issued and which is a public document within the reach of all public domain.xxii.That, the Applicant was well aware of the said Court orders issued to her and it is now beyond any human comprehension that she now comes back after 9 years with accusations of secrecy in the filling the said proceedings.xxiii.That, the Applicant is the one guilty of laches and undue delays in this matter and should not be granted an opportunity to abuse the Court process.xxiv.That further, the inquest proceeding as cited by the Applicant commenced in the year 2014 and the said inquest proceedings did not bar anyone from filing succession proceedings.xxv.That, in any event the citation order was issued back in the year 2016 after commencement of the inquest proceedings and nothing barred her from complying with the Court Orders that were issued by this Court and which the Applicant was very well aware of.xxvi.That, the Applicant herein has no interest known by the operation of the law to the estate of the deceased and considering the period taken by her only shows her intention to disrupt the peaceful administration of the estate of the deceased my late Husband Samuel Kamau Wanjiru.xxvii.That in any event the inquest proceedings were concluded back in the year 2023, as has been confirmed by the attached Judgement of the Applicant her claim over the said inquest that the Respondent was a suspect does not hold any water as the judgement of the Court did not find any evidence that disclosed any offence that was committed by any person as per Section 387(a) of the Criminal Procedure code .xxviii.That, the Applicant does not qualify to be a beneficiary of the estate of the deceased neither was her consent required dulling the filling of summons for the confirmation of grant which was done openly and the grant confirmed by the Court.xxix.That the grant of the letters of confirmation intestate and the certificate of confirmation obtained through proper procedure and of grant was based on the information which was well known to me and which does not include the Applicant as a legal spouse.xxx.That, revocation of grant based on the Applicant’s unsubstantiated claim of marriage would be prejudicial to the rightful beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased 5.I had directed parties to file written submissions of which only the Respondent filed in addition to a detailed statement of account. 6.The Respondent framed a solo issue as to whether the Applicant has established grounds for revocation of grant under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. 7.Whether the Applicant has established grounds for revocation of grant under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act? 8.The Respondent submits that Section 76 of the Act was clearly expounded in the case of re Estate of Prisca Ong’ayo Nande (Deceased) [ 2020] eKLR as follows:“Under section 76, a Court may revoke a grant so long as the grounds listed above are disclosed, either on its own motion or on the application of a party. A grant of letters of administration may be revoked on three general grounds. The first is where the process of obtaining the grant was attended by problems. The first would be where the process was defective, either because some mandatory procedural step was omitted, or the persons applying for representation was not competent or suitable for appointment, or the deceased died testate having made a valid will and then a grant or letters of administration intestate was made instead of a grant of probate, or vice versa. It could also be that the process was marred by fraud and misrepresentation or concealment of matter, such as where some survivors are not disclosed or the Applicant lies that he is a survivor when he is not, among other reasons. The second general ground is where the grant was obtained procedurally, but the administrator, thereafter, got into problems with the exercise of administration, such as where he fails to apply for confirmation of grant within the time allowed, or he fails to proceed diligently with administration, or fails to render accounts as and when required. The third general ground is where the grant has become useless and inoperative following subsequent circumstances, such as where a sole administrator dies leaving behind no administrator to carry on the exercise, or where the sole administrator loses the soundness of his mind for whatever reason or even becomes physically infirm to an extent of being unable to carry out his duties as administrator, or the sole administrator is adjudged bankrupt and, therefore, becomes unqualified to hold any office of trust.” 9.That, the power of the Court in revoking grant is one which is drastic and which is normally done judiciously and not meant to aid parties seeking to introduce unproven claims after the estate has been lawfully administered. 10.That, in this instant, the Applicant bears the burden of proving to the required standard that the Respondent indeed obtained the grant fraudulently or by concealment of material facts. The Applicant herein has failed to bring out the grounds set out under Section 76 of the Law of Succession. 11.The grant herein was obtained through a legitimate process, and no evidence has been tendered to demonstrate that there was fraud, concealment of material fact or any defect in the proceedings. 12.The allegation that the Applicant bore a child allegedly sired by the deceased cannot sustain an application for revocation. If at all the Applicant knew of this matter, the proper remedy ought to have been for an application for review and not revocation of grant. 13.That, even assuming that the existence of a DNA result confirms paternity, such proof does not in itself invalidate the grant or meet the threshold of revocation of grant. It is not in dispute that the deceased died before the birth of the alleged subject. 14.That, the Applicant in this case has not demonstrated how the administrators had knowledge of the alleged subject’s existence or paternity at the time of petition, nor that such fact was intentionally withheld form the Court. 15.It is the Respondents submissions that where paternity is claimed by a party, such evidence constitutes new evidence that is capable of being addressed through review or appeal of the grant or adjustment of the distribution, but cannot retrospectively render a lawful grant being fraudulent or defective. 16.That in the case of the estate of Njiru Njagi Sussession Cause No. 81 A of 2007 the High Court in Kiambu relied on the case of Re Estate of Juma Shitseswa Linani (Deceased) (2021) eKLR where the Court held:“Where a person is unhappy with the process of confirmation of Grant, such person ought not to move Court under section 76 for revocation of grant. Instead, the person should file an appeal against the orders made by the Court on distribution or apply for review of the said orders. This is because the Court confirming the grant becomes functus officio so far as confirmation of the grant is concerned, and cannot revisit the matter unless upon review.” 17.That, where new facts emerge in a matter, the appropriate remedy lies in review unless the statutory grounds set out in Section 76 of the Succession Act have been satisfied. 18.That the application is a clear attempt to reopen succession proceedings through unsubstantiated allegations. 19.The Applicant has failed to demonstrate how the Respondents concealed material facts, given that the alleged child was not recognized at the time of petition. 20.It is the Respondents submissions that the Applicant has failed to meet the threshold of revocation of grant under Section 76 of the Law of succession. In any event, the Applicant’s grievance, if any, lay in an application for review or appeal and not revocation. 21.The Respondent humbly urges this Court to dismiss the application with costs. Analysis and Determination 22.I have scrutinized and considered the Summons for Revocation the Affidavit(s) in support and in opposition and the Respondents written submission with one sole issue manifest for determination by this Court being whether the Applicant has established sufficient grounds for revocation? 23.This Court has the jurisdiction to entertain this application as is provided for in Section 47 of the Law of Succession Act as read with Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules. Section 47 of the Law of Succession Act provides as follows: -“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:Provided that the High Court may for the purpose of this section be represented by Resident Magistrates appointed by the Chief Justice.” 24.The law relating to Revocation or annulment of a Grant is stipulated in Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act which provides;“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:a.that the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substanceb.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;c.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;d.that the person to whom the grant was made has failed, after due notice and without reasonable cause either—i.to apply for confirmation of the grant within one year from the date thereof, or such longer period as the Court order or allow;ii.or to proceed diligently with the administration of the estate; oriii.to produce to the Court, within the time prescribed, any such inventory or account of administration as is required by the provisions of paragraphs of section 83 or has produced any such inventory or account which is false in any material particular;e.That the grant has become useless and inoperative through subsequent circumstances.” 25.The guiding principles for Revocation of a Grant was espoused in the case of Matheka & Another Vs Matheka [2005] KLR, where the Court of Appeal held as follows;“From the foregoing, it is clear that a grant may be revoked either by application by an interested party or on the Court’s own motion. But even when revocation is by the Court upon its own motion, there must be evidence that the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance, or that the grant was obtained fraudulently by making of a false statement or by concealment of something material to the case, or that the grant was obtained by means of untrue allegation of facts essential in point of law or that the person named in the grant has failed to apply for confirmation or to proceed diligently with the administration of the estate. The grant may also be revoked if it can be shown to the Court that the person to whom the grant has been issued has failed to produce to the Court such inventory or account of administration as may be required.” 26.Section 26 of the Law of Succession Act envision provision for dependants not adequately provided for by will or on intestacy as follows;“Where a person dies after the commencement of this Act, and so far as succession to his property is governed by the provisions of this Act, then on the application by or on behalf of a dependant, the Court may, if it is of the opinion that the disposition of the deceased's estate effected by his will, or by gift in contemplation of death, or the law relating to intestacy, or the combination of the will, gift and law, is not such as to make reasonable provision for that dependant, order that such reasonable provision as the Court thinks fit shall be made for that dependant out of the deceased's net estate”. 27.Section 28 of the Law of Succession Act provides Circumstances to be considered by Court in making order. In considering whether any order should be made under this Part, and if so what order, the Court shall have regard to: —a.the nature and amount of the deceased's property;b.any past, present or future capital or income from any source of the dependant;c.the existing and future means and needs of the dependant;d.whether the deceased had made any advancement or other gift to the dependant during his lifetime;e.the conduct of the dependant in relation to the deceased;f.the situation and circumstances of the deceased's other dependants and the beneficiaries under any will;g.the general circumstances of the case, including, so far as can be ascertained, the testator's reasons for not making provision for the dependant. 28.Section 29 unpackages the meaning of “dependant”. For the purposes of this Part, "dependant" means—1.the wife or wives, or former wife or wives, and the children of the deceased whether or not maintained by the deceased immediately prior to his death;2.such of the deceased's parents, step-parents, grandparents, grandchildren, step-children, children whom the deceased had taken into his family as his own, brothers and sisters, and half-brothers and half-sisters, as were being maintained by the deceased immediately prior to his death; and3.where the deceased was a woman, her husband if he was being maintained by her immediately prior to the date of her death. 29.Without spending too much ink, the Applicant who alleges must prove by providing evidence in this instance it’s the finding that the following facts remains allegations without proof;i.That, in the year 2007, the deceased did visit her guardian’s (LEAH MUTHONI KIARIE) home and proposed to marry her and her guardian agreed save that her guardian proposed that she should first complete her college studies.ii.That, between the year 2007 and 2009, she was in college at Tracom College and it is the deceased who paid her college fees with the full knowledge of her guardian.iii.That, since 2009 when she cleared college to the time of death of the deceased, they were living with the deceased as husband and wife.iv.That, they lived in a house in Nakuru which was furnished by the deceased.v.That, when the deceased died, she took part in the funeral arrangements.vi.That, the deceased had made known to his mother, Hannah Wanjiru Kamau about their marriage as she would often reach out to her.vii.That, before the demise of the deceased, she and her unborn child depended on him for their daily upkeep. 30.This Court is unable to find that the Applicant falls within Section 29 of the Law of succession Act as a dependant to the deceased’s estate in however as much as she might have been in a romantic relationship with the deceased as she exhibited in the two photographs produced in evidence. She thus has no standing as such and her pleas are rejected. 31.However, Nasciturus is one of the most well-known legal fictions that exist in justice, especially in inheritance law. It basically means should a child-in-womb be born alive then such a child acquires rights enjoyed by any other children who were alive at the time such rights arose. 32.The nasciturus fiction is a legal principle ingrained in the Law of Succession Act Section 3 (2) and (3) of provides the interpretive context of a child as follows;“(2)References in this Act to "child" or "children" shall include a child conceived but not yet born (as long as that child is subsequently born alive) and, in relation to a female person, any child born to her out of wedlock, and, in relation to a male person, any child whom he has expressly recognized or in fact accepted as a child of his own or for whom he has voluntarily assumed permanent responsibility.(3)A child born to a female person out of wedlock, and a child as defined by subsection (2) as the child of a male person, shall have relationship to other persons through her or him as though the child had been born to her or him in wedlock”. 33.Children constitute a vulnerable group entitled to protection, the Supreme Court in the case of CMM (Suing as the Next Friend of and on Behalf of CWM) & 6 others Vs Standard Group & 4 others [2023] KESC 68 (KLR), at para. 47 held that;“Article 53(2) constitutes an enforceable right of the child, not merely a guiding principle. As a self-standing right, it also reinforces the broader framework of human rights under Chapter Four of the Constitution and applies to all aspects of the law, whether civil or criminal, that affect a child, in accordance with the principle of the best interests of a child”. 34.The Respondents are responsible for identifying all legal claimants, including children born out-of-wedlock and spouses in polygamous unions. This is part of the due diligence expected before confirmation of grant. 35.An administrator cannot feign ignorance or stay put to only await those that would turn up. In this instance whereas the Respondents have all along contended that the Applicant was never a wife to the deceased, they were aware of the DNA profile sampling undertaken on the subject born after the demise of the deceased and we're thus obligated to undertake due diligence to determine if the subject qualified as a dependent under the law of succession. Unfortunately, they failed and have remained dismissive of the same. 36.On the converse the Order by Emukule J allowing extraction of DNA samples for analysis was made out of judicial proceedings of which the Respondents were fully aware of as the same was to be served upon the Respondents’ Advocates and they cannot now argue they were never involved or were unaware of. The onus was upon them either to participate or contest the same. 37.The proceedings and orders emanating from the citation by A. Ndungu J dated 27th June 2016 further cements the fact of knowledge of the claims by the Applicant including the paternity of the subject. 38.To this Court the fatality of the grant obtained and confirmed arises herein it was conscious and deliberate on the part of the Respondents not to even bother to establish the subject's entitlement and on the converse, they withheld their knowledge of the subject that was material, away from the Court to obtain the grant and its confirmation. 39.The Subject herein has been proven to be a son of the deceased with full entitlement to benefit from the deceased estate. 40.I have equally noted the manner and form of confirmation of the grant wherein the entire estate is to be held in trust for the two children of the 1st Respondent which trust may be inappropriate for the subject herein. 41.In consideration of the appropriate remedy this Court is persuaded that sufficient basis has been laid warranting recall and review of the rectified confirmed grant dated 30th October 2018 to safeguard the interested of the subject minor. 42.I decline to revoke the grant as sought by the Applicant but order the following;i.The Application dated 19th March 2025 is without merit and the same is dismissed.ii.The rectified confirmed grant dated 30th October 2018 is hereby recalled under Section 47 Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules and is of no effect forthwith.iii.The Administrators Respondents shall forthwith and not later than 60 days from the date of this ruling file a fresh summons for confirmation of grant including the subject (SJK) minor’s share to be held in trust until the Age of majority by the Applicant.iv.In the interim an order is issued preserving the entire estate of the deceased pending a fresh confirmation of grant hearing.v.I shall not grant any costs in this matter.vi.The Matter shall be mentioned after sixty (60) days to confirm compliance.vii.Any party aggrieved has the leave of the Court to Appeal within the next thirty (30) days. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT BUSIA THIS 14TH DAY OF MAY 2026.MOHOCHI S.M.PRESIDING JUDGE