In re Estate of the Late Boniface Kieti Ndambuki (Deceased) (Succession Cause E038 of 2023) [2025] KEMC 359 (KLR)

Shares Account Number 9104 at Centum Investment The Protestors dispute this inventory. They contend that parcels Masii/Vyulya/1173 and 1174 are unknown to them, and no proof of ownership has been adduced to link them to the Deceased. The Protestors’ Case 4. PW1, Mathew Ndeto Kieti, identified himself as the son of the Deceased and the Chairman of the family. He testified that he signed the Afidavit of Protest on behalf of his siblings, having been granted authority to do so by the other Protestors. PW1 asserted that Land Parcel No. Masii/Mithini/284, measuring approximately 5.2 hectares, had been subdivided and sold by the Deceased to various creditors and family members over a period of time. 5. PW1 produced an agreement dated the 23rd of October 1988 and stated that on this date, the Deceased sold a portion, described as “three terraces,” of land to one Tom Nzuki for a consideration of Kshs 40,000. He further testified that Tom Nzuki subsequently sold this land to Beatrice Ngemi, who occupied and used it for over 30 years. In the chain of transactions, Beatrice allegedly sold it to Regina Nthenya Ndeto in 2024. PW1 argued that this portion, measuring approximately 0.55 Ha, is unavailable for distribution as it belongs to a third-party purchaser. 6. PW1 claimed to have personally purchased separate portions of Parcel 284 from his father. He produced an agreement dated 10th January 1993, purporting to show a purchase of a portion measuring 0.57 Ha. He further produced an agreement dated 11th September 2011, alleging a purchase of 0.18 Ha. He described this portion as containing buildings for a nursery school. Regarding the consideration for this 2011 sale, he said the deceased used the money to pay college fees for the grandchild Dennis Mumo (Onesmus Mumo Kieti’s son), who was joining Kakamega Medical School. He paid Kshs 70,000. 7. PW1 testified to transactions involving his brother, Onesmus Mumo Kieti, citing an agreement dated 2nd February 1997 for the purchase of 0.39 Ha. He stated that the Deceased used the money to pay school fees for his siblings. One being the Applicant, Immaculate Nzila Kieti. He produced school fees receipts bearing the name of the Petitioner, Nzila Kieti, from Machakos Girls High School. He testified to a second purchase by Onesmus of 0.87 Ha on 13th June 2004, stating that the Deceased needed money, and they bought a cow with some of it. 8. PW1 explained that 0.49 Ha of Parcel 284 was sold to the first-born sister, Sabina Nduku Kieti, on 5th July 1995. He averred that the Deceased had taken a loan with the Agricultural Finance Corporation (AFC). He bought four cows, which died of East Coast Fever. He had no money to pay for the loan. Sabina took a loan to save the land from being auctioned. He produced the sale agreement and a Certificate of Oficial Search to prove the existence of the AFC charge and its subsequent clearance. 9. PW1 testified that Albert Muli Kieti purchased multiple portions. He cited an agreement dated 18th May 1996, under which Albert paid Kshs 40,000. There is another agreement dated 3rd April 2005, under which the Deceased purchased the land for Kshs 100,000. He increased the price to Kshs 120,000 when his brother delayed payment. He asserted that no one has interfered with Albert's possession since these dates. 10. Regarding their late brother, Anthony Wambua Kieti, PW1 testified that he was not working and was therefore given 0.50 Ha of Parcel 284 as an inter vivos gift. He stated that his late brother, Anthony Wambua Kieti, who was not working, was given 0.5 Ha as a gift. The wife, Mary (DW3), stays on the land. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/359/eng@2025-12-19 2

page 2 of 11

11. PW1 testified that Parcel 1179 (approx. 0.29 Ha) was similarly unavailable for distribution, having been entirely alienated during the Deceased’s lifetime. He claimed it had been distributed as follows: 0.0556 Ha sold to PW1 (captured in the 1993 agreement, 0.0725 Ha given to Anthony Kieti (Deceased) as a gift, 0.0586 Ha sold to Albert Kieti (in the 1996 agreement) and 0.0751 Ha sold to Sabina Nduku Kieti. 12. According to the Protestor, Parcel Masii/Mithini/278 is the only property remaining in the estate available for distribution. This parcel contains the Deceased's homestead. PW1 testified that the Deceased had gifted the homestead to his grandson, Boniface Muoki (son of Sabina). He further alleged that Sabina had been compensated with a portion of this land (0.17 Ha) after her initial portion in Parcel 284 was sold by Onesmus to Albert. PW1 raised complaints regarding the Petitioner's conduct on Parcel 278. He testified that she has built a house on the site of my Deceased’s house. She demolished their father’s house when he developed dementia and blocked the way. He insisted that the family graveyard and the access road leading to it must remain communal property, held in trust, and not be distributed to any single beneficiary or blocked by the Petitioner. 13. On Centum Shares, PW1 testified that the Deceased gave them to Onesmus Kieti and handed the share certificate to him. He also gave evidence regarding Masii/Mithini/275, which he said is registered in the name of their grandfather, Ndambuki Nzau. The Deceased sold a portion of it to his grandson, Robert Kieti, through an agreement dated 7th February 2010. According to him, the Deceased gave strict orders that his daughters should share the remainder. 14. Upon cross-examination, PW1 was subjected to rigorous questioning regarding the validity and form of the sale agreements. He confirmed that the plot numbers were not indicated in almost all agreements. He also confirmed that the acreage is not stated for a portion of 284, but said it is known. Regarding the sale to Tom Nzuki, he admitted that there is a handwritten insertion that is not countersigned. Regarding the school fees receipts, he confirmed that it is not indicated who paid. 15. PW1 acknowledged that the title deeds for the lands were issued as far back as 31st July 1972, yet the Deceased never executed any formal transfers to the alleged purchasers during his lifetime. PW1 explained the absence of surveyors and precise acreage in the agreements by stating that when the Deceased was selling the land, there was no time to engage a surveyor. They traditionally used sisal. In most cases, siblings were witnesses. The Petitioner's Case 16. The Petitioner, DW1 Immaculate Nzila Kieti, adopted her witness statement and denied the existence of any valid sales. She characterised the agreements produced by the Protestors as forgeries intended to disinherit her. Regarding the agreement dated 10/1/1993 by the Protestors, she stated that the Deceased did not sell the land. She pointed out that her late brother Anthony, who allegedly witnessed some agreements, did not sign them. She asserted that all the purported witnesses are deceased. 17. DW1 denied the narrative that her brother, Onesmus, paid her school fees via land sales. She confirmed that she was in Machakos Girls' and pointed out that the receipts do not have her admission number. DW1 testified that she resides on Parcel 278, where her father settled her. She painted a picture of severe familial hostility, stating that they want to destroy her borehole pipes after claiming ownership of the graveyard. She produced P3 Forms for herself and her daughter to prove physical assault and cited multiple OB Numbers filed at Masii Police Station (e.g., OB 22/10/12/2022, OB 15/14/5/2022) regarding damage to her property. 18. Under cross-examination, DW1 confirmed she is not a handwriting expert and had not filed a report from a Forensic Document Examiner to prove the alleged forgeries. She confirmed she had filed reports https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/359/eng@2025-12-19 3

page 3 of 11

with the DCI, but no arrests or prosecutions for forgery had been undertaken against her siblings. She stood by her plea for equal distribution of the entire estate, including the portions her siblings claimed to have bought. 19. DW2, Peter Ngui Mutundu, a retired Senior Assistant Chief and the Deceased’s nephew, testified in support of the Petitioner. He stated that in 2017, he attended a family meeting where siblings were attempting to evict Mary Mwihaki (widow of Anthony). He claimed he asked the Deceased about land sales, and the Deceased allegedly confirmed he had not sold any land but had merely shown his sons where to construct, “two benches” each to settle. 20. DW3, Mary Mwihaki Wambua, the widow of Anthony, also testified in support of the Petitioner. She denied knowledge of any sales and claimed the Protestors were harassing her. Submissions by the Parties 21. 22. Following the close of evidence, the parties filed written submissions which the Court has carefully considered. The Protestors, through the firm of Fred K. Musyimi & Associates, filed submissions dated 16th October 2025. They framed four main issues for determination: a. Whether Masii/Vyulya/1173 and 1174 form part of the estate. b. Whether Masii/Mithini/284 and Masii/Vyulya/1179 are available for distribution. c. Whether Masii/Mithini/278 should be distributed as proposed by the Protestors. d. Whether Centum shares should be distributed to Onesmus Mumo Kieti. Counsel for the Protestors drew the Court’s attention to Section 3 of the Law of Succession Act (Cap 160), which defines “estate” as “free property.” “ free property", in relation to a deceased person, means the property of which that person was legally competent freely to dispose during his lifetime, and in respect of which his interest has not been terminated by his death;” They argued that property sold by the Deceased, even if not formally transferred, ceased to be free property because he had disposed of his beneficial interest. 23. Addressing the issue of the validity of the agreements, Counsel relied on the recent persuasive authority of Re Estate of Cheptoo Arap Koisum (Deceased) [2025] KEHC 6087 (KLR). In that case, the High Court held: “ While formal transfers were not completed and documentation may be lacking, the court recognizes that rural land transactions do not always follow strict formalities. The substantial developments on these parcels constitute compelling evidence that the deceased had indeed alienated these properties during his lifetime, though the process of formal transfer remained incomplete. Accordingly, I direct the administrators to facilitate proper transfer to the respective occupants who have demonstrated long-standing possession and development...” 24. Counsel submitted that the use of the term “Levu” in the agreements was a suficient description of the land in the Kamba customary context, and the lack of formalities should not vitiate the clear intention of the Deceased. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/359/eng@2025-12-19 4

page 4 of 11

25. On creditors, counsel argued that the purchasers (Mathew, Onesmus, Sabina, Albert, Tom Nzuki) are valid creditors under Section 83 of the Act, which requires the personal representative to pay the deceased's debts. Counsel further averred that the obligation to transfer the land is a debt of the estate. 26. On gifts inter vivos (the portions given to the late Anthony Wambua and the homestead given to the grandson Boniface Muoki), the Protestors relied on Re Estate of the Late Gedion Manthi Nzioka (Deceased) [2015] eKLR, where the court stated: “ In law, gifts are of two types. There are gifts made between the living persons (gifts inter vivos), and gifts made in contemplation of death (gifts mortis causa).” Counsel also cited paragraph 7 of Halsbury’s Laws of England 4th Edition, Volume 20 (1) that: “ Where a gift rests merely in promise, whether written or oral, or in unfulfilled intention, it is incomplete and imperfect, and the court will not compel the intending donor, or those claiming under him, to complete and perfect it, except in circumstances where the donor’s subsequent conduct gives the done a right to enforce the promise…” Counsel argued that by putting Anthony and Sabina into possession and allowing them to build and settle, the Deceased's conduct created a binding equitable obligation that removed these assets from the distributable estate. 27. The Petitioner, through D.M. Muumbi & Company Advocates, filed submissions dated 27th October 2025. The Petitioner argued that this Court lacks jurisdiction to determine the validity of disputed land sales. Counsel cited the locus classicus Owners of the Motor Vessel "Lillian S" v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd. (1989): “ Jurisdiction is everything. Without it a court has no power to make one more step.Where a court has no jurisdiction there would be no basis for a continuation of proceedings pending other evidence. A court of law must down its tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction…” 28. Counsel relied on Re Estate of William Koike Riyies (Deceased) [2024] KEHC 4177 (KLR) and, in High Court Succession Cause Number 864 of 1996 [2015] eKLR Peter Igamba Njoroge, the court held as follow in the latter: “ Even if there was material establishing that there was such a trust, I doubt that the resolution of this issue would be a matter of the probate court. The mandate of the probate court under the Law of Succession Act is limited. It does not extend to determining issues of ownership of the property and declaration of trusts. It is not a matter of the probate court being incompetent to deal with such issues but rather that the provisions of the Law of Succession Act and the relevant subsidiary legislation do not provide a convenient mechanism for determination of such issues. A party who wishes to have such matters resolved ought to file a substantive suit to be determined by the Environment and Land Court. Consequently and for the reasons above stated, I must find and hold that this court has no jurisdiction to resolve the proprietory interest on land based on the alleged trust. In this case therefore, the only path legally open to the applicants is to institute separate proceedings to articulate their claim/rights in the right forum and which is the Environment and Land Court.” https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/359/eng@2025-12-19 5

page 5 of 11

29. Counsel submitted that the mandate of the probate court under the Law of Succession Act does not extend to determining issues of ownership of property and the determination of trusts. A party that wishes to have such matters resolved ought to file a substantive suit to be determined by the Environment and Land Court. The Petitioner maintained that since the titles are still in the Deceased's name, they are estate property, and any claim of purchase must be litigated in the Environment and Land Court (ELC) before the Probate Court can act on it. 30. Counsel argued that the purported sale by Beatrice Ngemi to Regina Nthenya Ndeto in 2024 constituted intermeddling as it occurred after the Deceased's death but before the confirmation of the grant. They cited Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act: “ Except so far as expressly authorized by this Act, or by any other written law, or by a grant of representation... no person shall, for any purpose, take possession or dispose of, or otherwise intermeddle with, any free property of a deceased person." 31. On distribution, the Petitioner prayed for strict equal distribution of all assets pursuant to Section 38 of the Law of Succession Act, which states: “ Where an intestate has left a surviving child or children but no spouse, the net intestate estate shall... be equally divided among the surviving children." Analysis and Determination 32. Having considered the pleadings, the oral testimonies, the documentary evidence, and the rival submissions of learned counsel, the Court identifies the following issues for determination: a. Do parcels Masii/Vyulya/1173, 1174 and Masii/Mithini/275 form part of the estate? b. Does this Court have jurisdiction to determine the validity of the alleged sales of Masii/ Mithini/284 and Masii/Vyulya/1179, or is this the preserve of the Environment and Land Court? c. If jurisdiction exists, were valid interests created in Parcels 284 and 1179 that exclude these properties from the distributable estate? d. Did the Deceased validly gift portions of Masii/Mithini/278 and Centum Shares to specific beneficiaries? e. How should the net estate (specifically Parcel 278) be distributed, taking into account the principle of Hotchpot under Section 42 of the Law of Succession Act? Determination of the Estate Inventory (Parcels 1173, 1174 & 275) 33. The Administrator listed Masii/Vyulya/1173 and 1174 as estate assets. The Protestors explicitly denied knowledge of these properties. In probate proceedings, the burden of proving that an asset forms part of the estate lies with the person asserting it. Although the Administrator produced searches for Parcels 278, 284, and 1179, no certificate of oficial search or title deed was tendered for Parcels 1173 and 1174. Consequently, Parcels Masii/Vyulya/1173 and 1174 are struck ofi the schedule of assets for lack of proof. 34. The evidence on record, including the testimony of PW1 and the Copy of Certificate of Search produced, confirms that Parcel Masii/Mithini/275 is registered in the name of Ndambuki Nzau, the Deceased's father. It is not registered in the name of the Deceased, Boniface Kieti Ndambuki. It does https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/359/eng@2025-12-19 6

page 6 of 11

not, therefore, form part of the free property of Boniface Kieti Ndambuki available for distribution in this cause. This Court cannot distribute land registered in the name of a Deceased’s father without a separate grant or transmission process. To do so would distribute property that legally belongs to another estate. Accordingly, Parcel Masii/Mithini/275 is excluded from the schedule of distributable assets in this cause. The Court’s Jurisdiction 35. The Petitioner argued that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the Protestors' claims regarding land sales, citing the exclusive jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court (ELC). While the ELC has specialised jurisdiction over disputes relating to occupation and title, the Probate Court is vested with the specific mandate under Section 83(e) of the Law of Succession Act to “pay out of the estate of the deceased... all other debts and liabilities... before any distribution of the estate.” Additionally, the definition of “estate” under Section 3 is limited to “free property.” The Probate Court must, of necessity, determine what constitutes free property. If a deceased person sold land and received consideration but failed to efiect a transfer before death, he holds the land merely as a trustee for the purchaser. 36. Additionally, the dispute here is primarily between beneficiaries (siblings) regarding the distribution of the estate. The “purchasers” are essentially the beneficiaries themselves (Mathew, Onesmus, Albert, Sabina). The Court finds that it has the requisite jurisdiction to examine the evidence of sales to determine the composition of the net distributable estate, only as relates to the beneficiaries of the estate, and not third-party purchasers. To hold otherwise would be to abdicate the Court's duty to distribute the estate to the rightful owners. 37. In relation to the portion allegedly sold to Regina, Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya and the Environment and Land Court Act confer exclusive jurisdiction upon the ELC to hear and determine disputes relating to: 38. “ (a) Environmental planning and protection, climate change, land use planning, title, tenure, boundaries, rates, rents, valuations, mining, minerals and other natural resources; b. Compulsory acquisition of land; c. Land administration and management; d. Public, private and community land and contracts, choses in action or other instruments granting any enforceable interests in land; and e. Any other dispute relating to the environment and land.” The claim by Regina Nthenya Ndeto involves a chain of transactions: Deceased to Tom Nzuki to Beatrice Ngemi to Regina Nthenya, spanning over 36 years. While the Applicant appears to acknowledge the sale in her reply to the protest, she disputes the acreage and contends that the land was not measured at the sale. These are substantive land law issues that require a full trial with pleadings, discovery, and, probably, expert evidence from a land surveyor, which the summary nature of probate proceedings cannot accommodate. As noted in Re Estate of William Koike Riyies (supra), the jurisdiction of a court handling a succession matter does not extend to determining issues of ownership of the property and declaration of trusts. A party who wishes to have such matters resolved ought to file a substantive suit to be determined by the Environment and Land Court. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/359/eng@2025-12-19 7

page 7 of 11

39. This Court declines to determine the validity of the claim by Regina Nthenya Ndeto or the estate of Tom Nzuki within these proceedings. Distributing this 0.55 Ha portion to the beneficiaries would ignore a potentially valid third-party interest. Conversely, awarding it to Regina would be adjudicating a land dispute without proper jurisdiction. Consequently, the subject portion shall be registered in the joint names of the administrators, to be held in trust until they either agree to a transfer to the third party or the third-party files an appropriate land suit to determine their share. Validity of Sales (Parcels 284 & 1179) 40. The Protestors allege that Parcel 284 (5.2 Ha) and Parcel 1179 (0.29 Ha) were sold ofi in their entirety. The Petitioner argues that the property remains estate property. I have examined the impugned agreements. I agree with the Petitioner that they lack specificity, as they use an informal method to identify the alleged alienated portions as “Levu” (terraces) and “benches” rather than land reference numbers. The specific acreages appear to be retrospective calculations. Furthermore, the Deceased lived for decades after these alleged sales yet never transferred the titles. 41. This Court holds that the sale of land is a transaction requiring the highest degree of formality and specificity. While the Law of Succession Act allows a court to recognise inter vivos transfers that created a trust, the primary document, the contract of sale, must be suficiently specific to be enforceable. The contract must identify the property with precision. Many agreements fail to cite the particular land reference number, leaving it unclear which parcel the “terraces” were carved from. PW1 confirmed under cross-examination that no surveyor was engaged in these transactions and that the family used “sisal” to mark boundaries. While customary, this practice lacks the legal precision required to remove land from the “free property” of the estate. 42. Although there is no cogent evidence that the agreements and school fee receipts were forged, the Court finds that the sale agreements, in their current form, are invalid as formal instruments of transfer. They lack the requisite specificity to constitute a perfected alienation of land. Consequently, the lands purported to be sold (Parcels 284 and 1179) remained legally registered in the name of the Deceased at the time of his death. Since the legal title never passed, these parcels technically form part of the estate. However, a finding of contract invalidity does not necessarily extinguish the equitable rights of those who paid consideration and took possession. This distinction will be critical in the distribution phase, but for the purpose of determining the validity of the agreements themselves, the Court holds that they are void for uncertainty. Inter Vivos Gifts 43. The Protestors have advanced a claim that the Deceased gifted a house to his grandson, Boniface Muoki (the son of the 2nd Protestor, Sabina Nduku Kieti), at Masii/Mithini/278. Notably, their proposed distribution schedule is silent on whether he should get the portion allegedly given to him. Nonetheless, I will define the said grandchild’s portion as it has been mentioned in the evidence and highlighted in the Petitioner’s submissions. The question of who qualifies as a beneficiary in an intestate estate is governed by Section 29 of the Law of Succession Act (Cap 160). Section 29(a) defines dependants as the wife or wives, or former wife or wives, and the children of the deceased, whether or not maintained by the deceased immediately before his death. Section 29(b) provides for the deceased’s parents, step-parents, grandparents, grandchildren, step-children, children whom the deceased had taken into his family as his own, brothers and sisters, and half-brothers and half- sisters, as were being maintained by the deceased immediately before his death. 44. The law creates a clear hierarchy. Children of the deceased (Section 29(a)) are automatic dependants. Grandchildren (Section 29(b)) are conditional dependants. The condition precedent for a grandchild https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/359/eng@2025-12-19 8

page 8 of 11

to inherit is proof of maintenance by the deceased immediately before death. Boniface Muoki’s mother, Sabina Nduku Kieti, is alive. She is the 2nd Protestor in this cause and is actively claiming a substantial share of the estate. There is no evidence on record, such as school fees receipts, medical bills, or guardian afidavits, demonstrating that Boniface Muoki was being maintained by the Deceased immediately before his death, as required by Section 29(b). The claim is merely that the Deceased gifted him the homestead. There is no valid deed of gift or transfer instrument. An unperfected oral gift of land is unenforceable. Allowing Boniface Muoki to inherit the homestead directly would bypass the living parent (Sabina) and violate the statutory order of succession. It would allow the House of Sabina to inherit twice. The homestead on Parcel Masii/Mithini/278 is therefore available for distribution among the valid beneficiaries (the children of the Deceased). Distribution of the Estate among valid beneficiaries 45. The Court has found the sale agreements to be technically invalid and has excluded the grandson. Yet, the evidence on record incontrovertibly shows that the Deceased’s sons and one daughter (Sabina) have been in occupation of specific portions of land for decades, claiming them as purchases or gifts. The Administrator prays for an equal distribution of the entire estate under Section 38 of the Law of Succession Act. However, Section 38 applies to the “net intestate estate.” Section 42 of the same Act introduces the principle of hotchpot, requiring the Court to take into account any property “paid, given or settled” to a child during the deceased’s lifetime. I rely on Section 42 of the Law of Succession Act, which embodies the principle. It states: “ Where- (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... that property shall be taken into account in determining the share of the net intestate estate finally accruing to the child, grandchild or house.” 46. In Estate of Monica Wamaitha Kihara (Deceased) [2025] KEHC 16423 (KLR), the court held as follows in relation to the principle: “ A consensus having failed, this Court must distribute the estate. The starting point is section 38 of the Act equal division among the 6 children. However, section 38 is explicitly made subject to section 42, which requires that any advancements or gifts inter vivos given by the intestate to a child, grandchild or house, shall be taken into account in determining the share of the nest intestate estate finally accruing to the child, grandchild or house. This is the principle of hotchpot. Its purpose is to ensure equity and prevent a beneficiary from double-dipping – receiving a large advancement during the deceased’s life and then claiming an equal share of the remainder.” 47. While the sale agreements failed as formal transfers, the court must ensure that the distribution does not disrupt the current settlement and occupation of the land. Ordering an equal distribution of all the deceased's free assets has the potential to create further disharmony within the family. I accordingly distribute the assets as follows: a. Parcel Masii/Mithini/284 (Approx. 5.2 Ha) Mathew Ndeto Kieti- 0.57 Ha and 0.18 Ha Onesmus Mumo Kieti-0.39 Ha and 0.87 Ha Sabina Nduku Kieti- 0.49 Ha https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/359/eng@2025-12-19 9

page 9 of 11

Mary Mwihaki Wambua (On behalf of her late husband, Anthony Wambua Kieti)- 0.50 Ha. Albert Muli Kieti-0.6538 Ha and 0.85 Ha Regina Nthenya Ndeto (Third Party)- The 0.55 Ha claimed by her is excluded from this distribution list and held in trust by the administrators. b. Parcel Masii/Vyulya/1179 (Approx. 0.29 Ha) Mathew Ndeto: 0.0556 Ha. Albert Muli Kieti: 0.0586 Ha. Sabina Nduku: 0.0751 Ha. Mary Mwihaki Wambua: 0.0725 Ha. c. Parcel Masii/Mithini/278 (Approx. 0.6 Ha) Sabina Nduku: She claims 0.17 Ha (The Petitioner confirmed Sabina has a home on the land) The residue shall be shared equally among the five daughters who did not get a share of the other property, Immaculate Nzila, Agatha Munyiva, Juliana Mbatha, Florence Nzisa, and Antonia Syevose. d. Centum Shares The Protestors claim that these were gifted to Onesmus Mumo Kieti and that the certificate was delivered to him. There is no evidence of a transfer of the shares to the said beneficiary. It shall therefore be distributed equally among all the beneficiaries of the Estate. Final Orders 48. Consequently, the Grant of Letters of Administration is confirmed as follows: Asset Beneficiary / Mode of Distribution Masii/Mithini/284 (Approx. 5.2 Ha) 1. Mathew Ndeto Kieti: 0.57 Ha + 0.18 Ha 2. Joint names of the Administrators: 0.55 Ha 3. Onesmus Mumo Kieti: 0.39 Ha + 0.78 Ha 4. Mary Mwihaki Wambua: 0.50 Ha 5. Sabina Nduku Kieti: 0.49 Ha 6. Albert Muli Kieti: 0.6538 Ha + 0.85 Ha Masii/Vyulya/1179 1. Mathew Ndeto Kieti: 0.0556 Ha (Approx. 0.29 Ha) 2. Mary Mwihaki: 0.0725 Ha 2. Albert Muli Kieti: 0.0586 Ha https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/359/eng@2025-12-19 10

page 10 of 11

2. Sabina Nduku Kieti: 0.0751 Ha Masii/Mithini/278 1. Sabina Nduku Kieti: 0.17 Ha (Approx. 0.6 Ha) 2. Family Graveyard & Access Road: To be set aside for communal family use but separately registered (as the acreage may be below the minimum threshold for registration). 2. Residue (approx. 0.4 Ha): be shared equally among the following beneficiaries a. Immaculate Nzila Kieti b. Agatha Munyiva Kieti c. Juliana Mbatha Kieti d. Florence Nzisa Kieti e. Antonia Syevose Kieti Centum Investment Shares (A/C 9104) To be shared beneficiaries. equally among all Each party shall bear their own costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY THIS 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025. HON. C.C. OLUOCH, CHIEF MAGISTRATE SIGNED BY: HON. CHARITY OLUOCH https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/359/eng@2025-12-19 11

page 11 of 11