High Court 2579 of 2026

4. Separately, the 2nd Interested Party, Morris Gitau Kihuga, through his Advocates M/s Anassi Momanyi & Company Advocates, filed written submissions dated 11th February 2026 pressing his claim to a larger portion of L.R. Eldoret Municipality Block 4/4, specifically asserting entitlement to not less than 0.1600 hectares or, in the alternative, 0.1261 hectares as reflected in Proposal 3 of the County Surveyor’s Report. Decision 5. The Court has carefully considered all the foregoing documentation, including the Certificate of Incorporation and CR12 of Kihuga Muthuma Family Corporation Limited, the County Valuer’s Report, the County Surveyor’s Report, and the written submissions of M/s Anassi Momanyi & Company Advocates. This Ruling now addresses four discrete but interrelated matters: the adoption of the proposed distribution model with such modifications as the Court considers just; the definitive determination of the portion of L.R. Eldoret Municipality Block 4/4 to be allocated to Morris Gitau Kihuga and the determination of Vincent Njogu Kihuga’s personal claim in respect of L.R. Eldoret Municipality/Block 12/184. 6. M/s Mosongo & Company Advocates, on behalf of the 1st and 4th Petitioners and 30 other Beneficiaries, filed a Proposed Distribution Model comprising Tables A through D. The model translates the decimal percentage matrix from the judgment of 11th October 2024 into specific property allocations anchored on the County Valuer's and County Surveyor's Reports, as this Court had directed. The Court acknowledges this filing as a substantive compliance effort and has considered it carefully. 7. Before turning to the allocations themselves, the Court makes a preliminary observation on the role of the valuation figures in this exercise. The monetary values assigned to individual properties in Table A serve one purpose only. They are to assist this Court in verifying that the distribution achieves rough parity among the 32 primary beneficiaries, each of whom is entitled to an equal share of the net distributable estate under Section 38 of the Law of Succession Act as read with Article 27(4) of the Constitution. The values are not an end in themselves. What matters is that each beneficiary emerges from this exercise with a defined, registrable interest in specific property. The estate of the late James Samuel Kihuga Chege is a diverse portfolio: urban commercial plots, agricultural land, residential parcels, and interests in jointly-owned properties across several counties and the distribution model must reflect that diversity by ensuring that no beneficiary is left with either a purely monetary entitlement on paper or an interest so fragmented as to be incapable of practical enjoyment. It is against this functional standard, rather than arithmetical precision in valuations, that the Court evaluates the model. 8. Approached on that basis, the Court is satisfied that largely Tables B, C and D, taken together, give sufficient effect to the equal distribution mandate. Table B allocates specific properties to named beneficiaries in defined portions or percentage shares. Table C organises those allocations by family house, providing a useful internal check that no house has been systematically advantaged or disadvantaged. The three tables are complementary and together provide a workable roadmap for the preparation of transmission instruments. The Court adopts them in principle as the operative distribution framework, subject to the modifications set out below. 9. The allocation of L.R. Eldoret Municipality Block 4/4 shall be subject to the Court's determination on Morris Gitau Kihuga's portion as set out in Section C of this Ruling. No transmission instrument shall issue in respect of Block 4/4 until that determination has been reflected in the amended tables. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2579/eng@2026-02-27 2

page 2 of 29

10. In respect of properties allocated as undivided shares or as common tenancies, each beneficiary's registrable interest must be defined with precision in the transmission instrument whether by area, by reference to an approved subdivision plan, or by exact fractional share. A transmission that vests property in several beneficiaries without specifying each one's registrable interest will not be accepted. 11. The central outstanding controversy in these proceedings has been the quantum of the portion of L.R. Eldoret Municipality Block 4/4 that ought to be set apart for Morris Gitau Kihuga, one of the beneficiaries of the estate of the late James Samuel Kihuga Chege from House 4. The property, valued at KES 509,800,000 and measuring 0.967 hectares, is the single most valuable asset in the estate portfolio. Morris Gitau Kihuga has been in continuous physical occupation of a defined portion of this property, having established his matrimonial home therein, an occupation that predates these proceedings and was acknowledged in the judgment of 11th October 2024. 12. The County Surveyor’s Report dated 4th February 2026 identified three proposals for the excision of Morris Gitau’s portion: Proposal 1 (0.1228 Ha, valued at approximately KES 64,739,855), enclosing the homestead and gate as occupied by Morris Gitau Kihuga; Proposal 2 (0.0759 Ha, valued at approximately KES 40,014,292), confined to the house, parking, and backyard only; and Proposal 3 (0.1261 Ha, valued at approximately KES 66,479,607), representing the hypothetical 100 feet by 130 feet measurement earlier proposed by Vincent Njogu Kihuga. The Court notes the following positions adopted by the respective parties on the three proposals: a. The 2nd and 3rd Petitioners through their Counsel Tum & Associates expressly adopted Proposal 1 in their Joint Affidavit sworn by Vincent Njogu Kihuga and Antony Kimani Kihuga dated 10th February 2026. Their position was that the portion of 0.1228 hectares, enclosing the homestead and gate, should be distributed to Morris Gitau Kihuga upon his forfeiture of all other estate properties. b. The 1st, 4th Petitioners and 30 other Beneficiaries through Mosongo & Co. Advocates adopted Proposal 2 at 0.0759 hectares as the most practical and realistic distribution in their distribution model. c. M/s Anassi Momanyi & Company Advocates, on behalf of Morris Gitau Kihuga, urged entitlement to 0.1600 hectares as originally offered by the Mosongo represented beneficiaries, or at the very least Proposal 3 of 0.1261 hectares. 13. M/s Anassi Momanyi & Company Advocates, on behalf of Morris Gitau Kihuga, urged the Court to award their client no less than 0.1600 hectares, being the measure originally offered on behalf of the Mosongo-represented beneficiaries, and submitted that the beneficiaries ought not to be permitted to resile from that offer. Counsel pressed the broader consideration that the property houses the deceased's family home, a structure whose preservation speaks to the legacy of the deceased and the continuity of family identity for future generations. Access to that home, both physical and as a matter of dignity, was said to be inseparable from any just allocation of the surrounding land. 14. The Court has carefully weighed the equitable principles applicable to this determination. This Court is called upon to balance the inheritance rights of 32 beneficiaries who are each entitled to an equal share of the estate against the distinct equity that has accrued to Morris Gitau Kihuga through his long, open, continuous and unchallenged occupation of a specific portion of the most valuable asset in the estate. 15. The variance in value between Proposal 2 (KES 40,014,292) and Proposal 3 (KES 66,479,607) is approximately KES 26,465,315, representing less than 2.4% of the total estate value. The variance https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2579/eng@2026-02-27 3

page 3 of 29

between Proposal 1 (KES 64,739,855) and Proposal 3 (KES 66,479,607) is approximately KES 1,739,752, which is negligible. In neither case does the variance so distort the overall distribution matrix as to cause iniquity to the remaining beneficiaries when evaluated against the totality of what each receives from the estate. 16. Having regard to all of the foregoing considerations, the applicable provisions of Section 38 of the Law of Succession Act, Article 27(4) of the Constitution, and the equitable principles enunciated in Rono v Rono (2005) AHLR 107 (KECA 2005), this Court finds that Proposal 3 of the County Surveyor’s Report represents the just, fair and proportionate allocation for Morris Gitau Kihuga. The Court accordingly determines that Morris Gitau Kihuga shall be allocated a portion of L.R. Eldoret Municipality Block 4/4 measuring 0.1261 hectares, as delineated in Proposal 3 of the County Surveyor’s Report dated 4th February 2026. 17. Vincent Njogu Kihuga, through M/s Tum & Associates Advocates, filed a Further Affidavit sworn on 10th February 2026 in which he advances a personal and distinct claim in respect of L.R. Eldoret Municipality/Block 12/184. His case is that during the lifetime of the deceased, James Kihuga Chege allocated the entire parcel to him to establish his matrimonial home and to pursue any business he saw fit. Acting on that allocation, he registered a sole proprietorship known as Kingply Pool Makers on the premises as far back as 12th January 2001, and he has since built both a matrimonial home and business premises on the land. He deposes that the business remains active to this day, that he meets all his tax, licensing and permit obligations in respect of it, and that several employees depend on it for their livelihoods. His claim is therefore not one of a beneficiary simply seeking a share of an asset in the abstract; it is the claim of a person who has, over many years and in plain reliance on a parental allocation, put down roots domestic and commercial on a specific piece of land. On that basis, and noting that this Court has already awarded the other half of Block 12/184 to the Estate of Ngaruiya Kamau, Vincent Njogu Kihuga prays that the estate's remaining half be distributed to him in its entirety rather than divided among the beneficiaries at large. 18. The Court has carefully considered this claim. It is noted at the outset that the claim raises a matter of substance that goes beyond the mere domestication exercise. Vincent Njogu Kihuga is not merely seeking a practical allocation of a property to which he is entitled as part of his per capita share; he is claiming that an additional and superior entitlement has accrued to him by reason of a pre-mortem allocation by the deceased and the developments he subsequently made on the property. This is a claim founded on principles analogous to those applied in Morris Gitau Kihuga’s case, namely, that a beneficiary’s specific occupation and development of an identifiable asset generates an equity that modifies the otherwise equal distribution. 19. However, the Court is mindful of the following important distinctions between Vincent Njogu Kihuga’s claim and that of Morris Gitau Kihuga. First, Morris Gitau Kihuga’s occupation and developments on Block 4/4 were visually confirmed by the Court, all Advocates, the Land Registrar and the Surveyor during the site visit. Vincent Njogu Kihuga’s claim in respect of Block 12/184, by contrast, has not been the subject of any site visit or independent verification by an officer of the court. Second, the claim is presented by way of affidavit evidence only, supported by business registration documents. The other beneficiaries have not had a formal opportunity to respond to this specific claim on the merits, it having emerged in the compliance filing rather than as part of a formal application. It is therefore not a case where he has been overlooked in the distribution; rather, his prayer is that he should receive a greater portion than that to which his equal share entitles him, by reason of the alleged prior allocation and developments. 20. In the course of the litigation of this intestate estate, there has been so much prominence on monetary value of the estate as deducible from the valuation report as an influencer from some of the beneficiaries https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2579/eng@2026-02-27 4

page 4 of 29

to this Court to look at the legal conceptual framework under Section 35, 36, 37, 38 and 40 of the Law of Succession Act on the application and infusion of the doctrines of equality and equity in the devolution of the shares to the beneficiaries. That to me should not be the predominant factor as valuation of an estate is a determinant to achieve a commercial objective and not inheritance. In the initial invitation there was so much emphasis and usage of the word sale and disposal apparently that is not the jurisdiction of the probate Court although leave can be sought where there is compelling and substantial circumstances for the Administrators to dispose off by way of sale some of the assets. This jurisdiction is provided for under Section 47 of the Law of Succession Act which grants the Court authority to entertain applications and determine disputes allowing it to authorize the sale of estate assets to pay debts or for the welfare of the beneficiaries. A sale of an intestate estate can also occur when necessary for the administration of the estate e.g. settling of debts if all beneficiaries consent or the court determines it to be in the best interest of the beneficiaries. The timing is of essence in cases of intestacy as the power to sell or dispose of the deceased property generally arises after grant of letters of grant of administration has been confirmed. This is limited power for the Probate Court for it can only authorize the sale of assets that are undisputedly owned by the deceased during his lifetime. What must be affirmed in law is that the Probate Court is primarily for distributing the deceased’s property and it cannot adjudicate issues of sale involving 3rd parties and such disputes must be handled after the entire distribution has been completed. In the discussion which ensued at the site of one of the disputed properties which is considered prime part of the entire estate one of the beneficiaries has lived and occupied what can now call his matrimonial property for decades. In my view, regarding inheritance rights required by reason of descent during the lifetime of the deceased especially in the context of the right to life under Article 26 and right to Human Dignity in Article 28 of the same constitution those rights evolve to be aligned with constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination. In the context of this inheritance one Morris heir to the estate has continuously been in occupation to the portion of land with improved housing facilities which both his family calls home. The objection to his share is more fundamentally on the valuation done in which his siblings feel that to rank him of having taken a lion share of the estate to their disadvantage. The court was taken through various suggestions including demolishing part of the house as it currently stands so that fairness can be found as between and among the beneficiaries. The critical question is whether it will be in the best interest of one of their siblings to have his matrimonial home destroyed so that justice can not only to be seen but be done on the distribution of the intestate estate of the beneficiaries. While it is true the valuer gave a valuation of the estate but it should not adversely affect the rights or the legitimate expectation of one of their very own who has lived in this same location for a number of years and cannot now be asked to make a fresh start in so far as his rights to inheritance are concerned. I am therefore persuaded that the objection raised including to have the house split so that more portions of the homestead can be available for distribution cannot be said to be said to be a feature of inheritance system in our legal structure. The distribution of the inheritance property is not to impoverish the beneficiaries may it be daughters or sons to the deceased as identified positively to belong to that lineage under Section 29 of the Law of Succession Act. This presupposes that if it is about the value Morris shares in the other suit properties which have been earmarked for distribution some kind of forfeiture can be carried out to allow him the enjoyment of his right to life within this very homestead which he has occupied before and after the demise of his late father. I am therefore inclined to adopt one of the recommendations made by the surveyor who accompanied the court to the site with a view to assist the court in this contentious issue on elements of distribution geared to achieve a fair and proportionate devolution of inheritance right to the beneficiaries. 21. This ruling would be incomplete without emphasising that the primary Judgement of this court which gave rise to the final decree on distribution provided a model using percentages instead of literal identification of shares as contemplated by Section 35, 36, 37, 38, & 40 of the Law of Succession https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2579/eng@2026-02-27 5

page 5 of 29

Act. These provisions underpins the concept of monogamous or polygamous household within their design and architecture of African Families. The percentages and decimals given by the administrators tend to bring out some vagueness and ambiguity. The errors of fact apparently occasioned errors of law apparent on the face of the record which are self-evident patent, and for me do not require any elaborate arguments to discover it or to establish it. The review jurisdiction under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules is not meant to re-litigate the issues but to review the primary Judgement of ruling to bring it in tandem with the Applicable law and facts of the case. To whom shall the provisions apply: i. An application for review of a decree or order of a court, upon some ground other than the discovery of such new and important matter or evidence as is referred to in rule 1, or the existence of a clerical or epithetical mistake or error apparent on the face of the decree, shall be made only to the judge who passed the decree, or made the order sought to be reviewed. ii. If the judge who passed the decree or made the order is no longer attached to court, the application may be heard by any other judge who is attached to that court at the time the application comes for hearing. the iii. If the judge who passed the decree or made the order is still attached to the court but is precluded by absence or other cause for a period of 3 months next after application for review is lodged, the application may be heard by such other judge as the Chief Justice may designate. In the case of Nyamogo & Nyamogo Advocates v Kogo (2001) EA 174, it was held that an error is apparent if it is so manifest and clear that no court would permit such an error to remain on the record. Review of a Judgement of the Court or ruling by the same Judge who heard and determined the issues is not equated to an appeal but it is confined to the scope of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It is important to note that the impugned judgement of the court in its declarations must be clear and precise to be conceived and interpreted by the disputants to the Succession Cause. The real distinction between apportionment of land in percentages and tangible allocations of 1/8. ¼. ½ or and an acre as the case may be dependent upon the net estate of the deceased is more appreciative and in line to the spirit of Section 38 & 40 of the Law of Succession Act. Moreover if one was to send a surveyor to place beacons on the various portions the measure of percentages will place him or her to go deeper into the legal science of mapping and conversion which is extremely unnecessary. I think in my view the model of percentages as a metrics of distribution on immovable assets of the deceased was just made to cause some kind of confusion both to the court and the ordinary reader in the streets who happen to log in into Kenya Law to stay informed on the legal development on Succession Law. I am persuaded beyond doubt that with this background ordained by Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules the amendment of the Certificate of confirmation of grant forming the basis structure on transmission of the estate to the beneficiaries stands reviewed and amended forthwith without further delay by the Deputy Registrar going by the amendment incorporated by the administrators as hereinunder outlined: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2579/eng@2026-02-27 6

page 6 of 29

Valuation report No. LR No. Size in Ha Valuation Value 1 ELD Mun 1.840 Block16(Kamukunji)80 18,000,000 2 ELD Mun 0.06 Block16(Kamukunji)127 800,000 3 ELD Mun 0.05 Block16(Kamukunji)316 5,800,000 4 ELD Mun 0.05 Block16(Kamukunji)317 3,850,000 5 ELD Block2/158/1 Mun 0.05 9,200,000 6 ELD Block2/159/1 Mun 0.05 10,500,000 7 ELD Block2/189/1 Mun 8 ELD Block2/225/1 Mun 9 Report 1,666,667 0.1384 19,500,00 ELD Mun Block 15 (west farmers) 1724 0.1 2,000,000 10 ELD Mun Block 15 (west farmers) 1632 0.1 2,000,000 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 40.47 270,000,000 12 Kapsaret/Kapsaret Block (Yamumbi) 74 1.8 18,000,000 13 Langas Section IV 14 Racecourse/30 2,000,000 16 ELD Mun Block9/17(border farm) 79 28,000,000 590-610 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2579/eng@2026-02-27 3,500,000 7

page 7 of 29

17 ELD Mun Block9/17(border farm) 203 0.4045 22,300,000 18 ELD Block12/84 Mun 0.098 21,450,000 19 ELD Mun Block 7/55 0.0697 108,500,000 20 ELD Mun Block4/4 0.967 509,800,000 21 Laikipia/Diaga/Ethi Block 2/2050 8.12 10,000,000 22 Laikipia Supuko Block 111/1236 0.17 1,000,000 23 Transnzoia/ Kaisagat/125 1.9 4,500,000 24 Muranga Loc3/ Mungaria/495 2.01 11,500,000 25 LR No. 57/766 IR No 0.0201 8,500,000 26 Kiambu/Dagoreti/ Kangemi/S 175 0.09999 20,500,000 Grand total https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2579/eng@2026-02-27 1,112,866,667 8

page 8 of 29

Valuation Ref No. LR Number 1. Name % share Share in Ha Valuer value ELD Mun John Kimani Block Kihuga 16(Kamukunji)80 Whole 1.840 18,000,000 2. ELD Mun Corporation Block 16(Kamukunji)127 Whole 0.06 800,000 3. ELD Mun Stephen Block Muthuma 16(Kamukunji)316 Ndungu Whole 0.05 5,800,000 4. ELD Mun Donald Block Kamuro 16(Kamukunji)317 Kihuga Whole 0.05 3,850,000 5. ELD Mun Anthony Block2/158/1 Kimani Kihuga Whole 0.05 9,200,000 6. ELD Mun Peter Kibira Block2/159/1 Kihuga Whole 0.05 10,500,000 7. ELD Mun Elizabeth Block2/189/1 Wanjiku Kariungi Whole 0.0297 1,666,667 8. ELD Mun James Njogu Block2/225/1 Kihuga Whole 0.14 19,500,00 9. ELD Mun Block 15 (west farmers) 1724 Michael Kinyanjui Kihuga Whole 0.10 2,000,000 10. ELD Mun Block 15 (west farmers) 1632 Peter Kibira Kihuga Whole 0.10 2,000,000 11. LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 Antony Kimani Kihuga 8.0 3.25 21,691,474 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2579/eng@2026-02-27 9

page 9 of 29

Corporation 23.4 9.49 63,281,185 Donald Kamuro Kihuga 5.0 2.02 13,500,000 Eliud Njogu Kihuga 8.5 3.43 22,893,510 Elizabeth Jepchumba Chesire & Victoria Gathoni Gitau 7.5 3.04 20,250,000 Elizabeth Wanjiku Kihuga 7.8 3.14 20,941,474 Francis Ndungu Kihuga 3.0 1.22 8,108,141 James Njogu Kihuga 5.6 2.26 15,108,141 Mary Wambui Gichure 3.8 1.56 10,391,474 Michael Kinyanjui Kihuga 1.7 0.69 4,608,141 Peter Kibira Kihuga 8.2 3.31 22,108,141 Peter Mucheru Kihuga 7.5 3.06 20,383,141 Stephen Muthuma Ndugu 1.1 0.43 2,852,035 Vincent Njogu Kihuga 8.8 3.58 23,883,141 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2579/eng@2026-02-27 10

page 10 of 29

12. Kapsaret/ Kapsaret Block (Yamumbi) 74 Francis Ndungu Kihuga 100 Whole 18,000,000 13. Langas 590-610 Section IV Peter Mucheru Kihuga 100 Whole 3,500,000 14. Racecourse/30 Elizabeth Wanjiku Kariungi 100 Whole 2,000,000 16. ELD Mun Block 9/17 (border farm) 79 Michael Kinyanjui Kihuga 100 Whole 28,000,000 17. ELD Mun Block 9/17(border farm) 203 Antony Kimani Kihuga 16.7 0.07 3,716,667 Job Mbugua Ndungu 38.8 0.16 8,652,035 Mary Wambui Gichure 16.7 0.07 3,716,667 Eliud Njogu Kihuga 27.9 0.11 6,214,631 Peter Mucheru Kihuga 50.0 0.05 10,725,000 Vincent Njogu Kihuga 50.0 0.05 10,725,000 18. ELD Mun Block12/84 19. ELD Mun Block 7/55 Corporation Whole 0.07 108,500,000 20. ELD Mun Block 4/4 Corporation 0.8254 0.8254 435,177,567 Eunice Wambui Ndungu 0.0656 0.0656 34,608,141 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2579/eng@2026-02-27 11

page 11 of 29

Morris Gitau Kihuga 0.0759 0.0759 40,014,292 21. Laikipia/ Diaga/Ethi Block 2/2050 Elizabeth Wanjiku Kihuga Whole 8.12 10,000,000 22. Laikipia Supuko Block 111/1236 Eliud Njogu Kihuga Whole 0.17 1,000,000 23. Transnzoia/ Kaisagat/125 Eliud Njogu Kihuga Whole 1.90 4,500,000 24. Muranga Loc John Kimani 3/ Kihuga Mungaria/495 Whole 2.01 11,500,000 25. LR No. 57/766 IR No Francis Ndungu Kihuga Whole 0.02 8,500,000 26. Kiambu/ Dagoreti/ Kangemi/S 175 Mary Wambui Gichure Whole 0.10 20,500,000 Grand Total https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2579/eng@2026-02-27 1,112,866,667 12

page 12 of 29

Name Next Kin of Eunice Wambui Ndungu Valuer Ref # LR Number Share in Ha Amount 20 ELD Mun Block4/4 0.066 34,608,141 Total 34,608,141 Anthony Kimani Kihuga 5 ELD Mun Block 2/158/1 0.05 9,200,000 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 3.25 21,691,474 17 ELD Mun 0.07 Block 9/17(border farm) 203 3,716,667 Total 34,608,141 Eliud Njogu Kihuga 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 3.43 22,893,510 22 Laikipia Supuko Block 111/1236 0.17 1,000,000 23 Transnzoia/ 1.90 Kaisagat/125 4,500,000 17 ELD Mun Block9/17(border farm) 203 6,214,631 Total Grace Wangui (deceased) 34,608,141 Samuel Kihuga Thairu 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 0.168 900,869 19 Eld Mun Block 7/55 0.004 1,544,603 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2579/eng@2026-02-27 13

page 13 of 29

20 Eld Mun Block 4/4 0.044 2 Eld Mun 0.003 Block 16 (Kamukunji)127 Total Mary Edith Njeri Thairu 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 0.168 900,869 19 Eld Mun Block 7/55 0.004 1,544,603 20 Eld Mun Block 4/4 0.044 6,195,175 2 Eld Mun 0.003 Block 16(Kamukunji)127 11,389 8,652,035 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 0.168 900,869 19 Eld Mun Block 7/55 0.004 1,544,603 20 Eld Mun Block 4/4 0.044 6,195,175 2 Eld Mun 0.003 Block 16 (Kamukunji)127 Total Phylis Njoki Thairu 11,389 8,652,035 Total Henry Kibiku Thairu 6,195,175 11,389 8,652,035 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 0.168 900,869 19 Eld Mun Block 7/55 0.004 1,544,603 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2579/eng@2026-02-27 14

page 14 of 29

20 Eld Mun Block 4/4 0.044 2 Eld Mun 0.003 Block 16 (Kamukunji)127 Total 34,608,141 Robert Kihuga Bate 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 0.168 1,801,738 19 Eld Mun Block 7/55 0.004 3,089,205 20 Eld Mun Block 4/4 0.044 12,390,349 2 Eld Mun 0.003 Block 16(Kamukunji)127 Total Martin Kimani Bate 22,778 17,304,071 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 0.168 1,801,738 19 Eld Mun Block 7/55 0.004 3,089,205 20 Eld Mun Block 4/4 0.044 12,390,349 2 Eld Mun 0.003 Block 16 (Kamukunji)127 Total 22,778 17,304,071 Total Moses Ndungu Kihuga (deceased) 11,389 8,652,035 Total Nancy Nyambura Bate (deceased) 6,195,175 34,608,141 Mark Kihuga Ndungu 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 0.168 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2579/eng@2026-02-27 900,869 15

page 15 of 29

19 Eld Mun Block 7/55 0.004 1,544,603 20 Eld Mun Block 4/4 0.044 6,195,175 2 Eld Mun 0.003 Block 16 (Kamukunji)127 Total Phylis Njoki Ndungu 8,652,035 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 0.168 900,869 19 Eld Mun Block 7/55 0.004 1,544,603 20 Eld Mun Block 4/4 0.044 6,195,175 2 Eld Mun 0.003 Block 16(Kamukunji)127 Total Job Mbugua Ndungu 17 ELD Mun 0.003 Block 9/17(border farm) 203 Wanjiku 8,652,035 8,652,035 3 ELD Mun 0.003 Block16 (Kamukunji)316 5,800,000 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 2,852,035 0.003 Total Elizabeth Kariungi 11,389 8,652,035 Total Stephen Muthama Ndungu 11,389 8,652,035 7 ELD Mun Block2/189/1 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2579/eng@2026-02-27 1,666,667 16

page 16 of 29

11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 3.14 20,941,474 21 Laikipia/ Diaga/Ethi Block 2/2050 8.12 10,000,000 14 Racecourse/30- Total Esther Njoki Oyaro 34,608,141 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 0.54 3,603,476 19 ELD Mun Block7/55 0.00 6,178,411 20 ELD Mun Block4/4 0.05 24,780,699 2 Eld Mun 0.00 Block 16(Kamukunji)127 Total Mary Wambui Gichure 2,000,000 45,555 34,608,141 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 1.56 10,391,474 17 ELD Mun 0.07 Block9/17(border farm) 203 3,716,667 26 Kiambu/ Dagoreti/ Kangemi/ S 175 20,500,000 0.10 Total 34,608,141 House One Total 311,473,270 House 2 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2579/eng@2026-02-27 17

page 17 of 29

Lucy Wangechi Muturi 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 0.54 3,603,476 19 ELD Mun Block7/55 0.00 6,178,411 20 ELD Mun Block4/4 0.05 24,780,699 2 Eld Mun 0.00 Block 16(Kamukunji)127 Total Peter Kibira Kihuga 34,608,141 6 ELD Mun 0.05 Block2/159/1 10,500,000 10 ELD Mun Block 15 (west farmers) 1632 0.10 2,000,000 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 3.31 22,108,141 Total Sarah Wambui Gathere 45,555 34,608,141 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 0.54 3,603,476 19 ELD Mun Block7/55 0.00 6,178,411 20 ELD Mun Block4/4 0.05 24,780,699 2 Eld Mun 0.00 Block 16(Kamukunji)127 Total https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2579/eng@2026-02-27 45,555 34,608,141 18

page 18 of 29

Dorcas Kihuga Nyambura 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 0.54 3,603,476 19 ELD Mun Block7/55 0.00 6,178,411 20 ELD Mun Block4/4 0.05 24,780,699 2 Eld Mun 0.00 Block 16(Kamukunji)127 Total 34,608,141 Jackline Jemima Gathigia Kihuga 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 0.54 3,603,476 19 ELD Mun Block7/55 0.00 6,178,411 20 ELD Mun Block4/4 0.05 24,780,699 0 Eld Mun 0.00 Block 16(Kamukunji)127 Total John Njogu Kihuga (deceased) 45,555 45,555 34,608,141 Irene Nyokabi Chege 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 0.54 3,603,476 19 ELD Mun Block7/55 0.00 6,178,411 20 ELD Mun Block4/4 0.05 24,780,699 0 Eld Mun 0.00 Block 16(Kamukunji)127 Total https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2579/eng@2026-02-27 45,555 34,608,141 19

page 19 of 29

Stephen Gitau Kihuga (deceased) Elizabeth Jepchumba Chesire & Victoria Gathoni Gitau 19 ELD Mun Block7/55 0.00 2,563,284 20 ELD Mun Block4/4 0.02 10,280,956 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 0.22 21,745,001 2 Eld Mun 0.00 Block 16(Kamukunji)127 Total 18,900 34,608,141 Donald Kamuro Kihuga 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 0.27 15,296,956 19 ELD Mun Block7/55 0.00 3,081,006 20 ELD Mun Block4/4 0.05 12,357,462 4 ELD Mun 0.05 Block 16(Kamukunji)317 3,850,000 2 Eld Mun 0.00 Block 16(Kamukunji)127 22,717 Total 34,608,141 House two Total 276,865,129 House 3 Michael Kihuga Kinyanjui 9 ELD Mun Block 15 (west farmers) 1724 0.10 2,000,000 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 0.69 4,608,141 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2579/eng@2026-02-27 20

page 20 of 29

16 ELD Mun Block9/17(border farm) 79 Total Sarah Wamboi Kihuga 34,608,141 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 0.54 3,603,476 19 ELD Mun Block7/55 0.00 6,178,411 20 ELD Mun Block4/4 0.05 24,780,699 2 Eld Mun 0.00 Block 16(Kamukunji)127 Total Vincent Njogu Kihuga 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 3.58 23,883,141 18 ELD Mun 0.05 Block12/84 10,725,000 34,608,141 20 ELD Mun Block4/4 0.0759 Total Esther Wanjiku Kihuga 45,555 34,608,141 Total Morris Gitau Kihuga 28,000,000 40,014,292 40,014,292 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 0.54 3,603,476 19 ELD Mun Block7/55 0.00 6,178,411 20 ELD Mun Block4/4 0.05 24,780,699 2 Eld Mun 0.00 Block 16(Kamukunji)127 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2579/eng@2026-02-27 45,555 21

page 21 of 29

Total John Kimani Kihuga 34,608,141 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 0.08 531,871 19 ELD Mun Block7/55 0.00 911,930 20 ELD Mun Block4/4 0.01 3,657,616 1 ELD Mun 1.84 Block16(Kamukunji)80 18,000,000 24 Muranga 2.01 Loc3/ Mungaria/495 11,500,000 2 Eld Mun 0.00 Block 16(Kamukunji)127 6,724 Total David Gathondu Kihuga 34,608,141 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 0.54 3,603,476 19 ELD Mun Block7/55 0.00 6,178,411 20 ELD Mun Block4/4 0.05 24,780,699 0 Eld Mun 0.00 Block 16 (Kamukunji)127 Total George Ngombe Kihuga 45,555 34,608,141 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 0.54 3,603,476 19 ELD Mun Block7/55 0.00 6,178,411 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2579/eng@2026-02-27 22

page 22 of 29

20 ELD Mun Block4/4 0.05 0 Eld Mun 0.00 Block 16 (Kamukunji)127 24,780,699 45,555 Total 34,608,141 House three total 282,271,280 House 4 Francis Ndungu Kihuga 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 1.22 8,108,141 12 Kapsaret/ Kapsaret Block (Yamumbi) 74 1.80 18,000,000 25 LR No. 57/766 IR No 0.02 8,500,000 Total 34,608,141 Tabitha Jane Njeri Wanjira Muchema Kihuga(deceased) 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 0.618 1,801,738 19 ELD Mun Block 7/55 0.004 3,089,205 20 ELD Mun Block 4/4 0.044 12,390,349 2 Eld Mun 0.003 Block 16 (Kamukunji)127 Total Dennis Kihuga Muchema 22, 778 17,304,071 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 0.618 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2579/eng@2026-02-27 1,801,738 23

page 23 of 29

19 ELD Mun Block7/55 0.004 3,089,205 20 ELD Mun Block4/4 0.044 12,390,349 2 Eld Mun 0.003 Block 16 (Kamukunji)127 Total 17,304,071 Total Susan muthoni Kihuga 34,608,141 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 0.54 3,603,476 19 ELD Mun Block7/55 0.00 6178,411 20 ELD Mun Block4/4 0.05 24,780,699 2 Eld Mun 0.003 Block 16(Kamukunji)127 Total Peter Mucheru Kihuga 45,555 34,608,141 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 3.06 20,383,141 13 Langas 590-610 Section IV - 3,500,000 18 ELD Mun 0.05 Block12/84 Total Serah Wamboi Kihuga 22, 778 10,725,000 34,608,141 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 0.54 3,603,476 19 ELD Mun Block7/55 0.00 6178,411 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2579/eng@2026-02-27 24

page 24 of 29

20 ELD Mun Block4/4 0.05 2 Eld Mun 0.003 Block 16 (Kamukunji)127 Total Margaret Kihuga 24,780,699 45,555 34,608,141 Nyambura 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 0.54 3,603,476 19 ELD Mun Block7/55 0.00 6178,411 20 ELD Mun Block4/4 0.05 24,780,699 2 Eld Mun 0.003 Block 16 (Kamukunji)127 Total James Njogu Kihuga 45,555 34,608,141 8 ELD Mun 0.14 Block2/225/1 19,500,00 11 LR No 772/7 IR No 8266 15,108,141 2.26 Total 34,608,141 House Four total 242,256,987.91 Grand Total 1,112,866,667.00 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2579/eng@2026-02-27 25

page 25 of 29

Advocate Group Name Valuer value Mosongo Kihuga Muthuma Family Corporation Ltd Esther Njoki Oyaro 34,608,141 Samuel Kihiga Thairu 8,652,035 Mary Edith Thairu Njeri 8,652,035 Henry Kibiku Thairu 8,652,035 Pyhlis Njoki Thairu 8,652,035 Robert Kihuga Bate 17,304,071 Martin Kimani Bate 17,304,071 Mark Ndungu Kihuga 8,652,035 Pyhlis Njoki Ndungu 8,652,035 Lucy Wangeci Muturi 34,608,141 Sarah Gathere Wambui 34,608,141 Dorcas Kihuga Nyambura 34,608,141 Jackline Jemima Gathiaga Kihuga 34,608,141 Irene Nyokabi Chege 34,608,141 Elizbeth Jepchumba Chesire & Victoria Gathoni Gitau 34,608,141 Donald Kihuga Kamuro 34,608,141 Sarah Kihuga Wamboi 34,608,141 Esther Kihuga Wanjiku 34,608,141 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2579/eng@2026-02-27 26

page 26 of 29

John Kimani Kihuga 34,608,141 David Kihuga Gathondu 34,608,141 George Kihuga Ngombe 34,608,141 Jane Njeri Muchema 17,304,071 Dennis Muchema Kihuga 17,304,071 Susan Kihuga Muthoni 34,608,141 Serah Kihuga Wamboi 34,608,141 Margaret Nyambura Kihuga 34,608,141 Corporation Total 674,858,752 Peter Kihuga Mucheru 34,608,141 Francis Kihuga Ndungu 34,608,141 James Njogu Kihuga 34,608,141 Mary Gichure Wambui 34,608,141 Job Mbugua Ndungu 8,652,035 Mosongo Total Tum 821,943,352 Tum Group Anthony Kimani 34,608,141 Peter Kibira Kihuga 34,608,141 Michael Kihuga Kinyanjui 34,608,141 Vincent Kihuga Njogu 34,608,141 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2579/eng@2026-02-27 27

page 27 of 29

Stephen Ndungu Muthuma Tum total 8,652,035 147,084,600 Wambua Other Eliud Njogu KIhuga 34,608,141 Momanyi Morris Gitau Kihuga 40,014,292 Odero Elizabeth Kariungi 34,608,141 Wanjiku Eunice Wambui 34,608,141 Odero Total 69,216,282 Others total 143,838,715 Grand total 1,112,866,667 22. To this end, it shall remain as reflected in the distribution model and shall be transmitted accordingly. With this in mind the Deputy Registrar of the High Court be and is hereby directed to issue an amended certificate of confirmation to form the basic structure of distribution to this long protracted litigation. 23. In the premises the following orders shall abide: a. That the Proposed Distribution Model Comprising Tables A through D filed by M/s Mosongo & Company Advocates is hereby adopted as the operative distribution framework for the amendment of the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant dated 11th October 2024, subject to the modifications directed in this Ruling in terms of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act as construed with Section 1(A), 1(B), 3, & 3(A) of the same Act and also in furtherance of this objective order 45 Rule (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules as also read with Rule 73(1) of the Probate and Administration Rules b. That in line with the observations made by this court in the presence of some of the beneficiaries and the administrators one Morris Gitau Kihuga is hereby allocated a portion of L.R. Eldoret Municipality Block 4/4 measuring 0.1261 hectares as delineated in the Proposal clause 3 of the County Surveyor's Report dated 4th February 2026. The Administrators shall ensure that the amended distribution model reflects this allocation. c. That an order be and is hereby made for the benefit of one Vincent Njogu Kihuga's personal claim that the estate's entire half-share of L.R. Eldoret Municipality/Block 12/184 be allocated exclusively to him is hereby dismissed. d. That no transmission instrument shall be presented to the Land Registry Uasin Gishu County in respect of any charged property unless a valid discharge of charge has first been obtained by the administrators. The Administrators https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2579/eng@2026-02-27 28

page 28 of 29

shall ensure this condition is satisfied in respect of L.R. Eld Mun Block 2/158/1, L.R. Eld Mun Block 2/159/1, L.R. Eld Mun Block 7/55, and Kapsaret/Kapsaret Block 1 (Yamumbi) 74 before presenting transmission instruments for those properties. 24. e. That a declaration be and is hereby made that no disposal or sale of the intestate estate shall be deemed to take place unless and until the shares have been beaconed as stipulated in the surveyors report which will act as a guide in the distribution of the estate. f. That a declaration be and is hereby made that any such leave for sale of the estate before transmission to the beneficiaries as per the certificate of grant of confirmation shall be granted on application to this court. g. That in terms of Section 82, 83, & 84 of the law of Succession Act, the administrators functions are well spelt out both in the letter and spirit of the law. As a consequence there shall be no further delay to distribute the estate within the canons of the law. h. That in respect of this matter I make no orders as to costs given the nature of this matter. Orders accordingly. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AND SHARED VIA CTS AND E-MAILS AT ELDORET ON THIS 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 R. NYAKUNDI JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2579/eng@2026-02-27 29

page 29 of 29