Charles Rono & 2 others v Alice Chepkorir Soi

Charles Rono Son Esther Keter Daughter Alice Soi Daughter Hellen Mutai Daughter David Rono Son Emily Rono Daughter Benjamin Soi Son Joseph Rono Son Wesley Ngeno Grandson 2nd Household Selly Mongesoi Widow Wilter Chebet Daughter Justus Maina Son Wesley Rono Son Judy Chepngeno Daughter Benard Rono Son Mercy Chemutai Daughter 4. The 1st and 2nd Petitioners stated that the deceased’s first wife passed on while the 3rd Petitioner was alive and was in occupation of Kericho/Kongotik/776. That the children from the first household were currently utilizing Kericho/Merigi/134, 1133, 1134, 1135, 1136, Kericho/Kongotik/776 and Molo Lek - Chebara BLOCK 4/296. The 1st and 2nd Petitioners further stated that Jeremiah Rono (deceased) was a member of the first household and his share would ben allocated to one of his sons, Wesley Ngeno. 5. It was the 1st and 2nd Petitioners case that Alice Chepkorir Soi and Alice Chepkoech Soi were co-wives of their late brother, Samwel Soi and shall share their respective shares as a unit. That daughters from the first household namely Ludia Chepkemoi Langat, Esther Keter, Hellen Mutai and Emily Rono had elected to have their shares allocated to their siblings from the 1st household. 6. The 1st and 2nd Petitioner proposed the following: Kericho/Merigi/134 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/14668/eng@2025-10-21 2

page 2 of 11

Beneficiary Shares Nature Of Title Deed Benjamin Soi 0.8 acres Absolute Elizabeth Chemutai Mongesoi 0.8 acres Absolute Alice Chepkoech Soi and Alice Chepkorir Soi 2.3 acres Tea plantation (to hold in trust for the benefit of the estate of Samwel Soi (Deceased) Joseph Rono 0.6 acres Absolute Wilfred Rono 5.0 acres Absolute Kericho/Merigi/1133 Beneficiary Shares Nature Of Title Deed Elizabeth Chemutai Mongesoi 5.2 acres Absolute Joseph Rono 5.4 acres Absolute Kericho/Merigi/1134 BENeficiary Shares Nature Of Title Deed Wesley Ngeno 3 acres To hold in trust for the benefit of the estate of Jeremian Rono (Deceased) Kericho/Merigi/1135 Beneficiary Shares Nature Of Title Deed Benjamin Soi 5.2 acres Absolute Wilfred Rono 1.0 acres Absolute Alice Chepkoech Soi and Alice Chepkorir Soi 0.7 acres Absolute Beneficiary Shares Nature Of Title Deed Charles Rono 6.0 acres Absolute Kericho/Merigi/1136 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/14668/eng@2025-10-21 3

page 3 of 11

7. It was the 1st and 2nd Petitioner’s case that the land parcel known as Molo-lek-chabara Block 4/296 comprises of a quarry abd arable and for the purpose of distribution, the arable area shall be referred as section A and the quarry shall be referred to as section B. Section A of Molo-lek-chabara Block 4/296 Beneficiary Shares Nature Of Title Deed David Rono 7.0 acres Absolute Charles Rono 1.0 acres Absolute Elizabeth Chemutai Mongesoi 1.0 acres Absolute Wilfred Rono 1.0 acres Absolute Benjamin Soi 1.0 acres Absolute Section B of Molo-lek-chabara Block 4/296 Beneficiary Shares Nature Of Title Deed David Rono 0.1 acres Absolute Charles Rono 0.1 acres Absolute Elizabeth Chemutai Mongesoi 0.1 acres Absolute Wilfred Rono 0.1 acres Absolute Joseph Rono 0.1 acres Absolute Benjamin Soi 0.1 acres Absolute Access Road 0.4 acres 8. The 1st and 2nd Petitioners stated that the 2nd wife (3rd Petitioner) of the deceased was married in the year 1977 when all the properties had been acquired by the deceased and the 1st wife. That the children of the 2nd household were educated courtesy of the proceeds of the cows that were given as dowry for the daughters from the 1st household. 9. It was the 1st and 2nd Petitioners’ case that sometime in the year 1978, the 1st wife relocated to Merigi and left her house which stood in Kericho/Kongotik/776 where the 2nd wife (3rd Petitioner) currently resided. That the 1st wife used the said house on several occasions when conducting her farming activities until her demise in the year 2013. It was the 1st and 2nd Petitioners’ further case that the children from the 1st household wanted to distribute Kericho/Kongotik/776 equally among the two households thus: - https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/14668/eng@2025-10-21 4

page 4 of 11

Kericho/Kongotik/776 Beneficiary Shares Nature Of Title Deed Selly Mongesoi 10.13 acres To hold in trust for herself and her children in equal shares Elizabeth Chemutai Mongesoi and Charles Rono 10.13 acres To hold in trust for themselves and their siblings from the 1st household. Protests 10. Alice Chepkorir Soi filed her Affidavit of Protest on 13th May 2022. She stated that the 1st and 2nd Petitioners’ proposed mode of distribution was defective and bad in law. That she was a widow to the late Samwel Kibet Soi (deceased) who was the deceased’s son. 11. It was the Protestor’s case that the deceased had two houses, the first house consisted of 12 units while the second house was made up of 7 units. That the deceased prior to his death had identified and distributed his estate as follows: Kericho/Merigi/134 Beneficiary Shares Wilfred Rono 5.4 acres Alice Chepkoech Soi and Alice Chepkorir Soi 3.0 acres Kericho/Merigi/1133, 1134, 1135 And 1136 (subdivisions From Kericho/Merigi/164) Beneficiary Shares Charles Rono 5.75 acres Elizabeth Chemutai Mongesoi 2.87 acres Joseph Rono 5.75 acres Wesley Ngeno and Josephat Ngeno 2.87 acres Justus Maina 3.82 acres Benjamin Soi 5.75 Acres Molo - Lek - Chebara Block 4/296 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/14668/eng@2025-10-21 5

page 5 of 11

Beneficiary Share David Rono Whole Share Kericho/Kongotik/776 To go to the 2nd household to be held by Selly Mongesoi in trust for her and her 6 children Wilter Chebet, Justus Maina, Wesley Rono, Judy Chepngeno, Benard Rono and Mercy Chemutai 12. The Protestor stated that each beneficiary has been in occupation of the parcels of land allocated to them and that the 1st and 2nd Petitioners had always been aware of the aforementioned mode of distribution. That the 1st Petitioner helped the deceased curve out and identify each portion for each beneficiary. 13. It was the Protestor’s case that the 1st and 2nd Petitioners had sidelined her in an attempt to disinherit her, David Rono, Wilfred Rono and the entire 2nd household. That she had been in occupation of 3 acres in Kericho/Merigi/134 together with her co-widow for over 40 years. 14. The Protestor stated that the daughters of the 1st household ha not agreed to have their shares allocated to their siblings from the 1st household. That the 1st and 2nd Petitioners, Wilfred Koech abd Joseph Rono had intermeddled with the deceased’s estate by selling off portions of the estate to third parties. The Protestor further stated that the beneficiaries of teyh deceased’s estate had developed abd cultivated their respective portions during the deceased’s lifetime and the proposed mode of distribution by the 1st and 2nd Petitioners would disrupt their occupations. 15. The 3rd Petitioner filed her Affidavit of Protest on 13th May 2022. Her proposed mode of distribution was similar to that of the Alice Chepkorir Soi (Protestor). The 3rd Petitioner further stated that all the beneficiaries had been in occupation of the parcels of land allocated to them by the deceased in his lifetime. 16. It was the 3rd Petitioner’s case that each house had its matrimonial home. That the 1st household’s matrimonial home was located In Kericho/Merigi/164 which had now been subdivided into Kericho/ Merigi/1133, 1134, 1135 and 1136 while her matrimonial home (2nd household) was located in Kericho/Kongotik/776 where she had resided since the year 1977. 17. The 3rd Petitioner stated that the 1st house occupied 48.2 acres of the estate while the 2nd house occupied 20.26 acres. That the 1st and 2nd Petitioners had sidelined her and the 2nd household and their proposed distribution ensured that the 1st household occupied 58.33 acres while the 2nd household would occupy 10.13 acres. 18. It was the 3rd Petitioner’s case that she had peacefully existed with her co-wife and they occupied their respective portions. That the 1st and 2nd Petitioner’s proposed mode of distribution would disinherit the 2nd household, Alice Soi (Protestor) and her co-wife, David Rono and Wilfred Rono off the portions they had occupied for over 40 years. 19. This court directed that this Protests be heard by way of written submissions. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/14668/eng@2025-10-21 6

page 6 of 11

The 3rd Petitioner and Protestor’s written submissions 20. Through their written submissions dated 25th June 2025, the Protestors submitted that the 3rd Petitioner was the surviving widow of the deceased and that prior to his death, the deceased had distributed his estate equally among his widows and children. That according to the 2nd Petitioner, the daughters of the first household had renounced their shares and this was corroborated by Ludia Chepkemoi Langat. 21. It was the Protestors’ submission that the deceased carried out inter vivos distribution of his estate and the beneficiaries had peacefully occupied their respective portions. That the 1st and 2nd Petitioners’ proposed distribution disregarded the deceased’s intentions and sought to benefit beneficiaries who had already alienated their shares. It was the Protestors’ further submission that the 1st Petitioner assisted the deceased in allocating the estate. 22. The Protestors submitted that the current occupation of the beneficiaries in their respective portions was not in dispute. That the 2nd Petitioner focused solely on the parcel of land occupied by the 3rd Petitioner and the 2nd household. That the claim that the 1st wife used the land was unsubstantiated and were not proved. 23. It was the Protestors’ submission that the court should consider the deceased’s wishes and uphold his allocation. They relied on sections 28 and 42 of the Law of Succession Act. It was the Protestors’ further submission that the 2nd Petitioner and Joseph Rono had sold their inherited shares and their proposed mode of distribution was self-serving and against the law. They relied on estate of the late Siwanyang Ngilotochi (Deceased) (2021) eKLR. The 1st Petitioner’s submissions 24. Through his written submissions filed in this court on 24th July 2025, the 1st Petitioner submitted that he was close to his father prior to his death and the deceased told him how his estate should be distributed. That in Kericho/Merigi/134, Wilfred Rono would get 4.0 acres, Alice Soi would get 3.0 acres and Joseph Rono would get 0.6 acres. 25. In regards to Kericho/Merigi/1133, Joseph Rono would get 6.0 acres, Wilfred Rono would get 1.0 acre, Wesley Ngeno would get 1.0 acre, Josephat Ngeno would get 1.0 acre and Vincent Kipkirui would get 1.0 acre. The 1st Petitioner further submitted that in regards to Kericho/Merigi/1134, Elizabeth Mongesoi would get 3.0 acres, in Kericho/Merigi/1135, Charles Rono would get 7.0 acres, in Kericho/ Merigi/1136, Benjamin Soi would get 7.0 acres and in Molo - Lek - Chebara BLOCK 4/296, the deceased directed that David Rono to fully own it. 26. In regards to Kericho/Kongotik/776, the 1st Petitioner submitted that the deceased allocated the whole parcel to the 2nd household and that the 1st household had no dispute about it. The 2nd Petitioner’s submissions 27. Through her written submissions dated 17th July 2025, the 2nd Petitioner submitted that the 3rd Petitioner came into the deceased’s life after he had acquired all the property with the 1st wife (Raeli Mongesoi). That upon the deceased’s death, the late 1st wife still used Kericho/Kongotik/776 for farming and that the 2nd household forcefully took over the parcel after the 1st wife’s death in the year 2013. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/14668/eng@2025-10-21 7

page 7 of 11

28. It was the 2nd Petitioner’s case that some properties were acquired through proceeds of dowry payment of the 1st household’s daughters. That dowry was still highly regarded under the Kipsigis cultural practices and that this court should consider it when distributing the estate. It was the 2nd Petitioner’s further submission that the parcels Kericho/Merigi/134, 1133, 1134, 1135 and 1136 where beneficiaries of the 1st household resided were rocky, sloppy, hilly and unproductive compared to Cheboin farm 29. The 2nd Petitioner submitted that the deceased had not distributed his estate during his lifetime. That the 3rd Petitioner and the Protestor had not provided evidence that the deceased had distributed his estate inter vivos and had taken steps to transfer the parcels to them. They relied on estate of the late Gedion Manthi Nzioka (Deceased) (2015) eKLR. The 2nd Petitioner further submitted that the deceased did not demarcate any portion of his estate. 30. It was the 2nd Petitioner’s submission that the Protestors/ mode of distribution was inequitable, unfair and discriminative since it allocated 3 acres to the 2nd Petitioner on the assumption that daughters were not entitled to equal shares with their brothers. She relied on Stephen Gitongs M’murithi v Faith Ngira Murithi (2015) eKLR and Article 27 of the Constitution of Kenya. That all children of the deceased were entitled to an equal share of the deceased’s estate. 31. The 2nd Petitioner submitted that the children of Jeremiah Rono (deceased) namely Wesley Rono, Josephat Ngeno and Vincent Kipkuri were content with the 3 acres they had been allocated. The 2nd Petitioner further submitted that no portion of the deceased’s estate had been sold off to third parties. That her proposed mode of distribution was not disruptive as it sought to accommodate the beneficiaries who had settled and developed their respective portions with exception to an instance where a beneficiary currently occupied more that whet they were entitled. The 2nd Petitioner asked this court to adopt her proposed mode of distribution. 32. I have gone through the entire court record and considered the 1st and 2nd Petitioner’s proposed mode of distribution, the Protestor and 3rd Petitioner’s proposed mode of distribution, the Protestor and 3rd Petitioner’s written submissions dated 25th June 2025, the 1st Petitioner’s written submissions filed on 24th July 2025 and the 2nd Petitioner’s written submissions dated 17th July 2025. I sieve two issues for my determination: i. Whether the deceased distributed his estate prior to his death ii. What is the just and fair mode of distribution of the deceased’s estate. i. Whether the deceased distributed his estate prior to his death 33. It was the Petitioner and the 3rd Protestor’s contention that the deceased had divided his estate prior to his death and settled every beneficiary on their respective parcels. It was on this ground that they anchored their preferred mode of distribution. On the other hand, the 2nd Petitioner denied that the deceased had divided his estate prior to his death. 34. I have considered the Affidavits of the 2nd Petitioner, 3rd Petitioner and the Protestor together with their respective submissions. The Protestor and the 3rd Petitioner stated that the deceased had settled the two households in their respective parcels and the two households had lived on their respective parcels harmoniously for over 40 years. They also stated that Charles Rono (1st Petitioner) assisted the deceased in subdividing and allocating the parcels to the beneficiaries. On the other hand, as I have stated above, the 2nd Petitioner stated that the deceased did not distribute his estate in his lifetime. However, the 2nd Petitioner goes ahead and stated that children from the 1st household were settled and currently https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/14668/eng@2025-10-21 8

page 8 of 11

used Kericho/Merigi/134, 1113, 1134, 1135, 1136 and Molo - Lek - Chebara Block 4/296. The 2nd Petitioner also stated that the 3rd Petitioner occupied Kericho/Kongotik/776 during the deceased’s lifetime. 35. I have also looked and considered the 1st Petitioner’s submissions. The 1st Petitioner acknowledged the deceased had distributed his estate during his lifetime. It is instructive to note that the 1st Petitioner and the 2nd Petitioner were members of the 1st household. 36. From the above chronology, it is clear to me that the deceased had settled his two households during his lifetime. I find the 2nd Petitioner to be untruthful and insincere. On one hand, she acknowledges that two households were settled in their respective parcels and on the other hand, she flatly denies the same. 37. Flowing from the above, it is my finding that the deceased had distributed his estate during his lifetime. ii. What is the just and fair mode of distribution of the deceased’s estate. 38. Section 28 of the Law of Succession Act provides: In considering whether any order should be made under this Part, and if so what order, the court shall have regard to— 39. (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. Section 42 of the Law of Succession Act provides: Where— 40. (a) an intestate has, during his lifetime or by will, paid, given or settled any property to or for the benefit of a child, grandchild or house; or (b) property has been appointed or awarded to any child or grandchild under the provisions of section 26 or section 35,that property shall be taken into account in determining the share of the net intestate estate finally accruing to the child, grandchild or house. Ordinarily, the law contemplates equal sharing of the deceased’s estate. However, the court has discretion when distributing the free estate of the deceased and may take into account the current circumstances on the ground or as in the present case, where deceased had distributed his estate in his lifetime. InRe Estate of S B S [2014] KEHC 5697 (KLR), Mabeya J. held: “ The other factor which I have taken into consideration is the developments undertaken by individual beneficiaries. There are those who told the Court that they have already https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/14668/eng@2025-10-21 9

page 9 of 11

constructed permanent homes in certain areas. In this regard, the court has tried to ensure that while trying to maintain equity, the lives of the beneficiaries are to be disrupted at the minimum……” 41. In Murumba v Natili [2023] KEHC 18759 (KLR), the court held: “ ……The Court is bound to respect the wishes of the deceased on how his children share his possession after death.” 42. Similarly, the Court of Appeal in Margaret Wanja Elija v Peter Ngari Elijah Kimani [2013] KECA 393 (KLR) held: “ ……..There is nothing in the law of succession Act cap 160 laws of Kenya which authorizes a court of law to disregard a deceased person’s wishes on how his estate is to be distributed especially where the same is within the parameters permitted by the said succession Act, and it is also fair to the satisfaction of the court and all or a majority of the beneficiaries of the deceased’s’ estate….” 43. In the present case, the Protestor and 3rd Petitioner stated that the deceased had allocated the 2nd household the whole share of Kericho/Kongotik/779 during his lifetime. This was where the 3rd Petitioner’s matrimonial home was built, a fact that was confirmed by both the 1st and 2nd Petitioners. The Protestor and 3rd Petitioner also stated that the deceased had allocated the whole share of Molo Lek - Chebara 4/296 to David Rono, a fact that was corroborated by the 1st Petitioner. 44. As I have already stated earlier in this Ruling, the 2nd Petitioner was insincere and untruthful. She acknowledged that the matrimonial home of the 2nd household was located in Kericho/Kongotik/779 yet she wanted half the share. She also submitted that members of the first household occupied Kericho/Merigi/134, 1133, 1134, 1135 and 1136 but appeared unsatisfied because they were rocky, hilly and sloppy. It appears to me that the 2nd Petitioner was driven by greed and malice when she came up with her proposed mode of distribution. 45. From the record, it is evident that beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate had long been settled on their respective portions. In balancing the scales of justice, I am not convinced by the 2nd Petitioner’s mode of distribution because I find it went against the deceased’s wishes. That said, it is my finding that the Protestor’s preferred mode of distribution contained in her Affidavit of Protest dated 12th May 2022 represented the deceased’s wishes and I therefore uphold it. 46. In the end, I make the following orders: I. The Grant dated 15th April 2021 is hereby confirmed. II. The deceased’s estate shall be distributed in accordance to the Protestor’s mode of distribution contained in her Affidavit of Protest dated 12th May 2022. III. The Administrators of the estate shall render a proper and accurate account of the deceased’s estate within three months of today’s Ruling. IV. This being a family matter, each party to bear their own costs. RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT BOMET THIS 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025. .......................... HON. JULIUS K. NG’ARNG’AR https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/14668/eng@2025-10-21 10

page 10 of 11

JUDGE Ruling Delivered in the presence of; Susan/Siele Court Assistant 1st petitioner - Absent 2nd Petitioner - Present Mungai for 3rd Petitioner No appearance for the Protestor https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/14668/eng@2025-10-21 11

page 11 of 11