Farah Dahir Osman v Yussuf Dahir Osman

5. That the deceased died leaving the estate in debt in form of a loan of which was settled by him. He deposed that from the year 1995 to 2005, he has invested Kshs. 4.5 million towards the loan repayment and the improvement of plot number 186. That in the year 2005, the three families began a Succession Cause that led to an out of court settlement where two families were paid Kshs. 5,000,000/- between the year 2017 and 2018. He further stated that in the year 2020, the third family was paid Kshs.1.5 million as a gift and further, he developed the property by spending Kshs.22,000,000/-. 6. That upon his return into the country, the petitioner started creating disturbance by locking out the tenants and further demanding for rent. It was his statement that the petitioner is his blood brother and that despite trying to sit him down and make him understand, the same has been in vain. He annexed receipts and bank statements allegedly used in the process of developing and/or improving the estate. He also annexed an agreement entered in the Kadhi’s Court Case No. 12 of 2005, Mukhtar Dahir Osman and Shamsa Dahir Osman vs Fatuma Musa Haran and Farah Dahir Osman where the consent read as follows: “ By consent: 1. That the suit by the 1st plaintiff be and is hereby suspended until payment of final instalment as provided in (2) below when the suit will be withdrawn. 2. That the defendants to pay the 1st plaintiff Kshs. 5,000,000/- in two instalments i.e. i. That Three million to be paid to the 1st plaintiff upon signing his consent letter. ii. Two million to be paid within 12 months commencing on 01.02.2017. iii. The amount to be paid through Bank Account No. 29xxxxxxx1 under the name Salula Hassan Yussuf (1st plaintiff’s mother), First Community Bank. 3. The amount above to be paid as final payment to the 8th and 9th beneficiaries (Mukhtar Dahir Osman and Muhumed Dahir Osman) in Case No. 12 of 2005 (Kadhi’s court which they were entitled to in the estate of Dahir Osman Hirsi. 4. In default of any instalment, the 1st plaintiff to be at liberty to pursue any legal option available.” 7. The said consent agreement was co-signed by Advocates Paul Mugwe and Garane & Associates Advocates for the plaintiff and 2nd defendant respectively. 8. Consequently, by consent, parties filed a consent dated 14.01.2022 stating that the matter had been settled and therefore, the 2nd plaintiff had no claim on the estate of the deceased. 9. By a letter dated 02.11.2018 co-stamped by Paul Mugwe advocate and Garane & Somane Advocates confirmed Kshs. 2,000,000/- banked in the Account No. 29xxxxxxx1 belonging to one Salula Hassan Yussuf (1st plaintiff’s mother). Thus the 8th and 9th beneficiaries were listed as having no further claim on the estate. 10. The matter thus proceeded for hearing. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6188/eng@2026-04-30 2

page 2 of 11

11. PW1, the petitioner, Yussuf Dahir Osman, a resident of Garissa Ndogo, stated before the court that the deceased was his biological father, who passed away in the year 1995. He informed the court that the deceased was survived by a widow and fourteen children. He further explained that five of his siblings had since died, namely Abdi Dahir Osman, Abdullahi Dahir Osman, Muhumed Dahir Osman, Sahara Dahir Osman, and Khatra Dahir Osman. He also mentioned Fatuma Musa Haran, who is a widow. 12. The petitioner testified that the deceased had left behind plot number 186, which is both commercial and residential in nature. He prayed that the court determines the share of each beneficiary in accordance with the Law of Succession Act, emphasizing that this was his sole request. He added that he was unable to disclose the total monthly income derived from the said plot, as the property is registered in the name of Farah Dahir Osman. 13. PW2, Hibo Dahir Osman, a resident of Denmark, testified that the plot in question was in the hands of the appellant. He stated that the respondent had sought maintenance from the appellant but the appellant declined, asserting that the property was meant for inheritance. He explained that the respondent had no means of livelihood and expressed dissatisfaction that the matter had proceeded to court, remarking that the appellant, being the elder brother, ought to have assisted them. He suggested that the appellant should either provide monthly maintenance or allocate the respondent his rightful share of the inheritance in accordance with Islamic law. 14. On cross-examination, Hibo Dahir Osman stated that he had last been in Kenya in the year 2014. He testified that he had heard from others that the appellant had entered into a contract involving payment of debts, but clarified that there was no debt attached to the plot. He further claimed that the petitioner had taken a significant amount of money from him and asserted that he had evidence to that effect. He added that he had heard that the construction on the plot was carried out using proceeds derived from the very plot, emphasizing that the plot was commercial in nature. 15. DW1, Farah Dahir Osman, testified that the deceased was his father. He stated that the plot in question belonged to his late father and not to him personally. He clarified that he had not altered the particulars of ownership. He further told the court that he was not aware of any cattle left behind by the deceased. He explained that his father had died on 26.06.1995, and although this date differed from the one indicated in the petition, he had no objection, considering it a mere mistake. He acknowledged that the respondent was entitled to a share of the plot as a beneficiary, but emphasized that he was the one who had preserved the property after his father’s death. 16. He prayed that the court takes into account his investment in the property, stating that between 1995 and 2005 he had invested a total of Kshs. 22,000,000/-. He elaborated that he had spent Kshs. 4.5 million, paid Muktar and Muhammad Dahir Kes. 5,000,000/- as their share from the plot, and also paid Shamsa Dahir Osman Kes. 1.5 million in accordance with the directions given by the elders. He added that later, the beneficiaries agreed to develop the plot with Kshs. 37,000,000/-, and that this development took place between 2022 and 2024. 17. On cross-examination, DW1 stated that he had constructed a one-storey building on the plot and had consulted his brothers who were in Kenya during the process. 18. DW2, Hassan Dahir Osman, testified that the deceased was his father, whom he believed had died in 1995. He stated that at the time of his father’s death, the property left behind was not in good condition. He explained that his father had another family, and that their mother had passed away in 2016. He further told the court that the other family had already been paid their shares by DW1. He added that the property was currently under the control of his mother’s children together with Farah, who had undertaken renovations on the house. DW2 mentioned that he had assisted in the https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6188/eng@2026-04-30 3

page 3 of 11

renovation by providing water for the construction blocks, and that the property was now in good shape. He emphasized that after the extensive renovations were completed, he personally did not receive any income from the property, as the appellant was servicing a heavy debt. 19. On cross-examination, DW2 reiterated that the property was being used to pay off debts. 20. Upon hearing the matter, the trial Kadhi via a judgment delivered on 07.07.2025 made the following orders: 21. 22. i. The respondent is directed to submit a full inventory and current valuation of the estate within 30 days. ii. The parties shall do forensic audit to ascertain any debt owed or development investment incurred by the respondent. iii. Upon verification, net estate shall be distributed among the surviving 9 heirs in accordance with Quran 4:11. iv. The court will oversee the final distribution through an administrator jointly appointed by all heirs or the court. v. Pending full distribution, the respondent shall pay interim monthly maintenance to the petitioner from the rental income. vi. Parties are discouraged from unilateral dealings with the estate. Any dispute arising shall be brought before this court. The appellant filed submissions dated 29.09.2025 urging in reference to the following issues: i. Whether the consent judgment recorded in respect of KUSUCC No. 12 of 2005 takes precedence? ii. Whether the expenses incurred in the development of the estate should form basis of distribution of estate and if so, has the appellant proved the same? iii. Costs. In regards to the first issue, the appellant submitted that vide consent judgment dated 20.01.2017 and 24.10.2018 touching on the subject matter, the parties agreed on how to compensate the 1st and 2nd family. That it is well settled in law that a consent judgment or order has a contractual effect and can only be set aside on grounds which would justify setting aside a contract or if certain conditions remain to be fulfilled, which are not carried out. To that end, reliance was placed on the Court of Appeal decision in J.M. Mwakio vs Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd Appeal No. 28/1982 E.R and in the case of Hirani vs Kasam (1952) 19 E.A C at page 134 where It was stated that: The mode of paying the debt, then is part of the consent judgment. That being so, the court cannot interfere with it except in such circumstances as would afford good ground…’’ 23. This court was further urged that estate accounts should include a comprehensive record of all financial transactions and activities related to the administration of a deceased person’s estate. That the same provides a clear overview of how the estate’s assets were managed, debts settled and expenses paid and generally how funds were distributed. Reliance was placed on the case of Re estate of Francis Andachila https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6188/eng@2026-04-30 4

page 4 of 11

Luta (deceased) Succession Cause No. 875 of 2012 [2022] KEHC 1600 (KLR) where the court held that: I will start with creditors. These have priority over the survivors. The survivors are entitled the net intestate estate. Net intestate is defined under Section 2(1) of the Law of Succession Act to mean the estate of the deceased less funeral expenses, debts, liabilities and administrative expenses…’’ 24. That the appellant proved the expenses owing to the estate and therefore, this court ought to grant the same. As such, he urged that his appeal ought to be allowed as the same has merit. Additionally, that the appeal be allowed with costs. 25. The respondent filed submissions dated 14.11.2025 opposing the appeal thus urging the court to dismiss the same. The respondent came up with the following as issues for determination: i. Whether the consent dated 20.01.2017 and 24.10.2018 is valid. ii. Whether the learned Kadhi erred in law and fact in finding that the appellant did not prove expenses allegedly incurred in the development of the estate. iii. Whether the trial Kadhi relied on a fake Death Certificate. iv. Who is legally mandated to invest in the estate of the deceased. v. Whether the trial court erred in not recognizing the estate of the deceased had already been adjudicated. vi. Whether the appellant should be ordered to file statement of accounts. 26. On the first issue, the respondent submitted that the appellant did not produce any proof of a consent dated 20.01.2017 and 24.10.2018 that was allegedly arrived at by the parties. 27. That Rule 123 of the Kadhi’s Court Procedure and Practice Rules states as follows: “ 2. 28. Whoever desires any court to give judgement as to any legal right or liability which is dependent on the existence of facts which he or she asserts must prove those facts” It was urged that even in a case where parties have consented, the Court has powers to set aside the consent. That, that notwithstanding, succession matters are commenced by Petitions and concluded by confirmation hearings resulting to grants under Section 2[3] and [4] of Law of Succession Act, hereinafter, LSA which provides as follows; “ Subject to Subsection [4], the provision of this Act shall not apply to testamentary or intestate succession to the estate of any person who at the time of his death is a Muslim to the intent that in lieu of such provisions the devolution of the state of any such person shall be governed by Muslim Law. [4]. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part VII relating to the administration of estates shall where they are not inconsistent with those of Muslim Law apply in case of every Muslim dying before, on or after the 1st January,1991” https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6188/eng@2026-04-30 5

page 5 of 11

29. The court was referred to the case of Board of Trustees National Social Security Fund vs Micheal Mwalo [2015] Eklr where it was held as follows: “ The judgement arose from the consent of the parties to the suit. The law pertaining to setting aside of consent judgements or consent orders has been clearly stated. A court of law will not interfere with a consent judgement except in circumstances such as would provide a good ground for varying or rescinding a contract between parties. To impeach a consent order or a consent judgement, it must be shown that it was obtained by fraud, or collusion or by an agreement contrary to the policy of Court” 30. That just as it was stated in the 1st issue for determination in the trial court’s judgement of 7.07.2025, the appellant was in control of the Deceased’s estate since 1995 and made a number of changes and/ or innovations allegedly worth Kshs. 22million that he has not accounted for and without the beneficiaries’ consent. That it is trite that when a Muslim dies, the following happens in order of priority; a. Deceased funeral expenses are paid. b. His debts are discharged. c. If there was a will then payment of legacy. d. Distribution of the estate to his heirs according to Islamic law. 31. That noting that the appellant and the respondent are on the same level in terms of entitlement of the estate, no one has superior right than the other. 32. Counsel contended that, without prejudice to the foregoing arguments, that consent judgements can be set aside and therefore, the trial court was justified in setting aside/disregarding the alleged consent judgement. 33. On whether the learned trial Kadhi erred in law and fact in finding that the appellant did not prove expenses allegedly incurred in the development of the Estate, the respondent urged that it is not contested that the subject property belongs to the deceased and further, it’s not contested that transfer of ownership has never been done. That the fact that the appellant embarked on the process of improving the suit property, that in itself was wrong as the same amounted to intermeddling contrary to Section 45 of the LSA. 34. It was further contended that in as much as the appellant faulted the trial Kadhi for failing to recognize the costs that he spent in improving the estate, no evidence was provided before the Kadhi to support such allegations. According to the respondent, mere production of receipts without accompanying proof of ownership, source of funds or evidence that the developments were undertaken with the consent of heirs did not meet the evidentiary threshold outlined in Shariah. 35. On whether the trial court relied on a fake Death Certificate, the respondent urged that the allegation is unsupported and simply speculative. That the issue herein was not pleaded and therefore, the same cannot be raised at this stage. That parties are bound by their pleading and therefore, dwelling in the issue herein is vexatious. 36. On the question that the suit before the Kadhi was res judicata, it was urged that then the appellant would have raised the issue in form of a preliminary objection before the trial court. Additionally, that the alleged consent agreement was not produced before the court and therefore, the trial Kadhi cannot https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6188/eng@2026-04-30 6

page 6 of 11

be faulted for finding otherwise. In the same breadth, that noting that the appellant has been in control of the estate of the deceased, he thus ought to be compelled to render accounts for all the while. 37. On costs, this court was urged to find that the suit herein be dismissed with costs to the respondent. 38. I have considered the grounds of appeal together with the submissions by the parties. Issues for determination are as follows: 39. i. Whether the suit herein is res judicata? ii. Whether the suit forms part of the estate of the deceased herein? iii. Whether the appellant is deserving reimbursement in the obtaining circumstances? iv. What are the appropriate orders in the circumstances herein? The Court heard the appeal herein with the aid of two assessors pursuant to Section 65 (1) (c) of the Civil Procedure Act, which provides for appeals to the High Court from the original decree of a Kadhi’s Court as follows: “ c) from a decree or part of a decree of a Kadhi’s Court, and on such an appeal the Chief Kadhi or two other Kadhis shall sit as assessor or assessors.” 40. In their opinion which unfortunately is not signed, the two Hon. Kadhis found that the 2nd and 3rd families having been compensated, the estate should be shared amongst the siblings of the 1st family. That the respondent illegally took possession of the estate and made improvements without the other beneficiaries’ consent intermeddling with the estate of the deceased. That the respondent was holding the subject property in trust and for the benefit of the other beneficiaries. 41. In conclusion, the Hon. Kadhis held that; the respondent and all the children of the 1st wife are entitled to their respective share of the estate property in accordance with the Islamic Law; respondent to provide a full accounting within a specified period of time to prove income generated from the property since completion, expenses and debts incurred, details of any debts outstanding and provided accounts be audited. 42. That after verifying the accounts and settling the liabilities, the remaining estate be shared out amongst the beneficiaries from the 1st family. 43. It is worth noting that there is only one contested property which is plot number 186 Garissa Township as the property at Jirirot remains disputed. 44. On whether the suit before the trial Kadhi was res judicata, pertinently, the provisions of Order 3 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules prohibit the raising of issues by installments. 45. For good measure, the said provisions stipulate as hereunder: 4. Suit to include the whole claim [Order 3, rule 4] (1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim. (2) Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of or relinquishes any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion omitted or relinquished. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6188/eng@2026-04-30 7

page 7 of 11

(3) 46. A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits, except with the leave of the court, to sue for all such reliefs he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted. Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act spells out as follows: No court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such court’’. 47. The scope of the doctrine of res judicata has been elaborated in various decisions. However, it is apposite to take cognisance of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & another vs Muiri Coffee Estate Limited & 3 others (Motion 42 & 43 of 2014 (Consolidated)) [2016] KESC 6 (KLR) (19 May 2016) (Ruling) where the court held as follows: Res judicata is a doctrine of substantive law, its essence being that once the legal rights of parties have been judicially determined, such edict stands as a conclusive statement as to those rights. It would appear that the doctrine of res judicata is to apply in respect of matters of all categories, including issues of constitutional rights. Such a perception has a basis in comparative jurisprudence; in the Ugandan case of Hon. Norbert Mao v. Attorney-General, Constitutional Petition No. 9 of 2002; [2003] UGCC3, the petitioner brought an action on behalf of 21 persons from his constituency, for declarations under Article 137 of the Uganda Constitution, and for redress under Article 50 of that Constitution. The matter arose from an incident in which oficers of the Uganda Peoples Defence Forces attacked a prison, and abducted 20 prisoners, killing one of them. Unknown to the petitioner, another action had already been filed under Article 50, seeking similar relief; and Judgment had been given in Hon. Ronald Reagan Okumu v. Attorney- General, Misc. Application No.0063 of 2002, High Court HCT 02 CV MA 063 of 2002. The Constitutional Court dismissed the petition, on a plea of res judicata, declining the petitioner’s pleas that certain important constitutional declarations now sought, had not been accommodated in the earlier Judgment…’’ 48. In my view, the main issues that were canvassed in Kadhis Court No. 12 of 2005, Mukhtar Dahir Osman and Shamsa Dahir Osman vs Fatuma Musa Haran and Farah Dahir Osman were in relation to the fact that the other two houses (widows of the deceased) had sued Fatuma Musa Haran, mother to the parties herein in a succession cause related to the estate of the deceased herein. The suit was thus settled by way of the parties signing a consent buying out the other two families so that they don’t make any claim on Plot No. 186 at Garissa Township and consequently the suit was withdrawn. 49. It therefore follows that the suit property remained solely for the use of the 1st family being the parties in this suit. As such, it is my finding that the suit before the Kadhi was not res judicata. What the petitioner brought to court was in reference to the determination of their respective shares in Plot No. 186 at Garissa Township given that the other families shares had been bought by the appellant. Therefore, there was no case that was determined on merit to bar any subsequent proceedings in the same estate. In any event the beneficiaries from the 1st house save for the respondent were not parties. To that extent the doctrine of res judicata cannot apply. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6188/eng@2026-04-30 8

page 8 of 11

50. On whether the Plot No. 186 at Garissa Township forms part of the deceased person’s estate, the answer is to the positive as the parties testified that the suit property belonged to the deceased only that it was in a bad state. As to the ascertainment of the heirs entitled, it is not disputed that they are children from the first house. 51. The respondent urged that it is not in contest that the subject property belongs to the deceased and further, it is not contested that a transfer of ownership has never been done. That the fact that the appellant embarked on the process of improving the suit property, that in itself was wrong as the same amounted to intermeddling contrary to Section 45 of the LSA. 52. Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act provides that: - 53. “ (1) Except so far as expressly authorized by this Act, or by any other written law, or by a grant of representation under this Act, no person shall, for any purpose, take possession or dispose of, or otherwise intermeddle with any free property of a deceased person. (2) Any person who contravenes the provisions of this section shall –(a)be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand shillings or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding one year or both fine and imprisonment …” Intermeddling in regards to a Muslim estate, the Court of Appeal in the case of Abdisatar Haji Mohamed & another vs Omar Ahmed & another [2017] KECA 619 (KLR) had this to say: …To that end the learned Judge concluded that the power of attorney had no backing in law and was therefore of no effect. As such, the appellant had no lawful authority to administer the estate in any manner and in purporting to so act and carrying out the activities he was accused of by the respondents, he was simply intermeddling with the estate of Haji which is not allowed in law’’. 54. In the instant case, facts are different for the reason that, two families were bought off from claiming their shares in the suit property. From the annexed bank documents and consents filed, it seemingly looks like that was the agreement reached as no person ever raised an issue towards the signing of the consents. And that in my view could inform the reason why the other families haven’t been joined as parties in this suit. Although in the literal sense there was intermeddling, the same was in good faith was sanctioned by the other beneficiaries especially from the 2nd and 3rd house and later upheld by the trial court. 55. From the facts herein, it is not controverted that the development was improved by the appellant as all the witnesses have testified to that effect. Further, the appellant annexed receipts to support the fact that he single- handedly paid off the other families and further, developed and/or improved the suit property. I am alive to the evidence of PW2 who also stated that the money used to develop and/or improve the suit property came from him and further, that some of the monies came from the said property. It is not in dispute that the suit property prior to the death of the deceased was in bad shape as all witnesses have testified to that effect. 56. The appellant submitted that the property is currently servicing the debts realized in buying off the other families and also the monies used in developing/ and improving the storey house. 57. It is not disputed that the appellant paid to buy off the other families as recorded in the consent agreements in Kadhis Court No. 12 of 2005, Mukhtar Dahir Osman and Shamsa Dahir Osman vs https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6188/eng@2026-04-30 9

page 9 of 11

Fatuma Musa Haran and Farah Dahir Osman? The other families were bought off so that the suit property could remain to the parties herein with their siblings for their sole inheritance. The evidence by the appellant and his witnesses were not controverted by the respondent that indeed, two families were bought from claiming from Plot No. 186 at Garissa Township. I find that this is a valid question that must be settled for the reason that the consents as backed by bank statements, had the blessings of the trial Kadhi then as the same led to the settling of the matter. 58. In as much as the respondent urged that it was proper for the trial Kadhi to set aside the consents, I find otherwise. My finding is buttressed by the fact that the consents were entered with the blessings of the court and as such, were adopted as court orders. Noting that the same have never been varied, appealed, reviewed or set aside, they remain valid orders. In any event, a court has inherent power under Section 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules which provides that: Nothing in these Rules shall limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.” 59. In regards to the development and/or improvements on the suit property, the appellant stated that he proceeded with the same after obtaining consent from his siblings who are living in Kenya and that he has not changed the ownership of the suit property. The same is buttressed by the evidence of his siblings who stated they were in the know of the developments only that they did not know where the rent proceeds were being taken as the appellant told them that the proceeds were paying debts. 60. It must be noted that the object of the court is to uphold substantive justice. In the same breadth, it is my considered view that substantive justice will be done by ensuring that all the beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased are not left out when the proceeds of the suit property are shared and are given their share of the Estate in question but forgetting the appellant’s contribution too. 61. I do agree with the trial court and indeed the Kadhi assessors that proper accounts were not tendered by the respondent to establish the extent of cleared debts, outstanding debts, compensation to the 2nd and 3rd families and the rent being collect since renovation was completed. To that extent, the appeal partly succeeds and partially fails. The commending orders to make are follows: 1. A declaration be and is hereby made that plot number 186 Garissa township is part of the deceased’s estate; 2. That the said property be shared out amongst the beneficiaries from the first family in accordance with the Islamic Family Law. 3. That the expenses incurred in improving the property be subjected to forensic audit by an auditor jointly appointed by the petitioners and the respondent and the report be tabled before the trial Kadhi within 45 days for implementation of the orders herein. 4. That the appellant to submit a proper statement of accounts regarding the rent collected from the property since renovation was completed and how the same has been spent. 5. That the property be valued by a mutually agreed valuer to ascertain the value of the estate less the expenses incurred in improving the property and the compensation made to the 2nd and 3rd families by the appellant. 6. That the net value of the estate be shared amongst the entitled heirs from the first house in accordance with the Islamic law. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6188/eng@2026-04-30 10

page 10 of 11

62. 7. That any beneficiary can buy out the share of another beneficiary and in case of a disagreement, the property be sold competitively and the proceeds be shared in accordance with the Islamic Law. 8. That mention before the trial Kadhi on 30-6-2026 to confirm compliance. As regards costs, each party to bear own costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 30TH DAY OF APRIL 2026. J.N. ONYIEGO JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6188/eng@2026-04-30 11

page 11 of 11