PRESUMPTION OF MARRIAGE BY COHABITATION
Reported By Timon Kosgei
May, 2008
Nairobi Kenya.
In the matter of the Estate of Patrick Kibunja Kamau(Milka Githikia Kamau Vs. Faith Wangechi Kamau[2008] eKLR (www.kenyalaw.org) High Court of Kenya at Nakuru (M.Koome J.),May 16,2008.
Under kikuyu customary law, there can be marriage by cohabitation, which could be presumed where parties have been cohabiting together.
The petitioner, Milka Githikia Kamau, while describing herself as the widow of the deceased petitioned for the letters of grant of administration on 12th February 1999. According to her, the deceased Patrick Kibunja Kamau died on 19th January 1999 at Nyahururu and was survived by herself (as petitioner) and three minor children.
The letters of administration were issued to the petitioner on 13th May 1999. On 7th December 1999 the petitioner applied for the confirmation of the grant. That is when Faith Wangechi Kamau (the applicant) filed a protest, of the grant being confirmed, on the grounds that the deceased was also married to her from 1993. She contended that she had two children with the deceased who also survived the deceased. The applicant contended that she was left out as a widow of the deceased and she protested the confirmation of the grant unless her name and those of her children were included as beneficiaries of the deceased. The petitioner Milka Githikia Kamau however denied any knowledge of the applicant as well as the children. The petitioner also relied on the evidence of one Elkana Kibunja, the father of the deceased who denied that the deceased had married the applicant under the Kikuyu Customary Law since the applicant was never introduced to him or her children.
When the matter came up in court, the petitioner gave evidence and relied on the evidence of her father-in-law Elkana Kibunja and one Leah Nduta, a step-mother of the deceased. It was the petitioner's case that she got married to the deceased in 1981 under the Kikuyu Customary Law and they were blessed with three children. Upon marriage, the petitioner and the deceased cohabited as husband and wife in Mombasa, and then moved to Maralal, then Kabarnet District and finally, Nyahururu.
The deceased was working with the Ministry of Agriculture and as at the time he passed away he was the Deputy Provincial Director of Agriculture based in Nyeri. The deceased is said to have also been running a business at Subukia town centre where he used to visit frequently to check on his business but he would always return to Nyahururu where the petitioner lived with the children. When the deceased was taken to hospital he was at Subukia and he was admitted at the Nyahururu Cottage Hospital where he passed away. Upon his death, meetings to arrange the burial were held at Subukia by friends and relatives. The funeral committee decided that the death of the deceased be announced by way of advertisement in the newspapers but the name of the petitioner or the children were not included. The petitioner sought an explanation from the deceased's father why they were left out in the death announcement, Elkana Kibunja held a meeting with the funeral committee at Subukia and directed that the names of the petitioner and the applicant as well as any other woman claiming to be his wife be included in the death announcement. Thus the name of the petitioner, the applicant and all their children were included in the death announcement and also in the funeral programme
The petitioner denied that all the time they lived with the deceased, the deceased had another wife or that she had met the applicant or her children. The deceased never disclosed to the petitioner that he had another wife. The petitioner also vehemently denied that she had differences with the deceased prior to his death. She denied that the deceased been separated and was living in a hotel in Nyahururu instead of the matrimonial home. Asked why the deceased was taken ill while at Subukia and why the funeral meetings were held in Subukia instead of the matrimonial home in Nyahururu, the petitioner explained that the deceased was at his business premises and it was in Subukia where he had many friends and relatives.
Elkana Kibunja, deceased father supported the petitioner's evidence in every material aspect, and so did Leah Nduta, Elkana Kibunja's wife, and the deceased's step mother
Faith Wangechi the applicant testified that she met the deceased in 1990. They became friends and he is the biological father of her two children. The first child was born in 1991 and the second child was born in 1993. In October 1993, the deceased requested the applicant to start living with him as a wife. They moved in together, moved to Subukia and eventually the deceased bought a plot and constructed a business premises called Village Villas Inn. The applicant was in-charge of the business and the deceased used to live with her.
She contended that the deceased married her and paid Kshs.19,000 as dowry. She contended that she was the one who looked after the deceased when he was in hospital. According to the applicant, she is the second wife of the deceased. She recognised the petitioner as the first wife and urged the court to grant the letters of administration to the two widows.
Her evidence was supported by one Peter Chege, a friend of the deceased who confirmed that she was married to the deceased.
When the matter came up for determination by the court, the single issue for determination was whether the applicant and her children are beneficiaries of the deceased's estate. In particular, whether the applicant was married to the deceased under the Kikuyu Customary Law and whether the deceased was the biological father of the applicant's children or whether he had adopted them under the Customary Law by virtue of the marriage to the applicant.
Counsel for the applicant invited the court to find that there was marriage by cohabitation which could be presumed from the relationship between the deceased and the applicant.
The court also needed to establish whether the applicant had been able to discharge the burden of prove that due to the long cohabitation living as man and wife with the deceased, the court should presume a marriage. On the issue of whether her children were deceased's the court stated that ordinarily if they were the deceased's children they ought to have borne the names of his parents. From the evidence on record, the applicant had not proved that these were deceased's children. No birth certificates were produced or even evidence to show that the deceased used to support them.
The final issue to determine is whether the applicant discharged the burden of prove that by virtue of the long cohabitation she should be presumed a wife of the deceased. On this, the court answered the question on the affirmative. On reaching this answer, the court considered that the deceased used to live with the applicant at Subukia from 1993. The deceased personal effects such as clothes and motor vehicle were retrieved from the applicant's house when the deceased passed away. It is the applicant who took the deceased to hospital when he was taken ill. The funeral meetings took place in Subukia which was recognised as the deceased's residence. The funeral committee included the applicant as the widow of the deceased and she was accorded the full honours of a widow. The deceased who was married to the petitioner under the customary marriage had capacity to marry the applicant.
The court was categorical that it would be unconscionable for it to hold that the applicant was a mere impostor looking out to enrich herself as the petitioner has described her. All those years the applicant must have held legitimate expectations that she was the wife of the deceased and thus entitled to a share of his estate and that denying her a share of the deceased estate would be tantamount to denial of the fundamental rights as regards fair treatment and equality before the law.
In summation, the court held that the applicant can be presumed a wife of the deceased. However, her children could not be declared the beneficiaries of the deceased. The deceased was therefore survived by the petitioner, the petitioner's three children and the applicant who was each entitled to 1/5 of the deceased's estate
CIVIL SERVANTS CORRESPONDENCE PROTECTED BY PRIVILEGE
Reported by BENJAMIN MBATIA
Baseline Architects Ltd. & Others v National Hospital Insurance Fund
High Court of Kenya
[2008] eklr [www.kenyalaw.org]
Warsame J
7th May, 2008
This case raised a fundamental problem of balancing or reconciling two kinds of public interest which may clash due to the stakes involved. On the one hand there is the public interest that harm should not be done to the nation or the public by disclosure of certain documents and on the other hand there is the public interest that administration of justice should not be frustrated by withholding of documents which must be produced in evidence if justice is to be done.
The law is that no one should be compelled to produce documents in his possession which any other person would be entitled to refuse to produce if they were in his possession unless there is mutual consent.
For purposes of public policy and protection, a client may consult an advocate for the purpose of his cause of action and of litigation which is pending and that the policy of the law says that in order to encourage free intercourse between him and his counsel the client has the privilege of preventing his advocate from disclosing anything which he gets when so employed and of preventing its being used against him, although it might otherwise be evidence against him. This privilege also extends to the Attorney General for he provides legal opinion and advise to the Government and all public corporations in areas where his intervention is sought or necessary.
The applicant, the National Hospital Insurance Fund appointed the 2nd respondent as consulting quantity surveyor for a proposed resource centre in Karen Nairobi. The 1st respondent was also instructed to be the lead consultant for the design and supervision to completion of the proposed training centre.
However, a dispute arose between the applicant and the respondents which was referred to arbitration. Thereafter an award was made and published in favour of the respondents to the tune of Kshs. 350 million.
NHIF was aggrieved by the decision of the arbitrator they filed the present application to expunge certain documents from the record. Reason being that the documents were allegedly privileged.
The applicant, in support of the application, submitted that the documents annexed to the respondents' affidavits were in breach of privilege and therefore could not be a basis of adjudication on the issues before court. The applicant's counsel submitted that the evidence adduced in the two affidavits was not admissible because the documents related to an opinion from the Attorney General in respect of an ongoing litigation or advice given by an advocate to his client. Counsel submitted that the information was privileged communication which could not be used against the applicant.
Counsel for the respondents submitted that section 137 and 134 of the Evidence Act (Cap. 80) permitted the respondents to produce the evidence on record. He also submitted that the documents produced were exceptional to the rule of privilege and confidential information. And that the communication with the Attorney General fell within the permitted exceptions of section 137 of the Evidence Act.
The court, after considering counsel submissions, stated that a party to a litigation is not obliged to produce documents which do not belong to him but which have been entrusted to his company by a third party in confidence. It would be an abuse of that confidence to disclose it, without the permission of the owner of the original documents.
The court went further to say that where a document has been communicated voluntarily for a limited and restricted purpose, it would be unjust and unlawful to allow the original or a copy of it to be communicated in any manner except for that purpose.
However the court opined in certain cases a possible injury to public interest must be balanced with another risk which is the frustration of administration of justice by such refusal.
The documents in question were meant for the internal consumption and use of the applicant and other Government bodies who would be concerned or interested in the outcome of the dispute between the parties. The documents from the Chief Executive Officer of the applicant to the Attorney General were marked as confidential because the CEO was seeking an opinion and/or advice of the AG.
The court posed the question whether the documents in question were within the boundary of documents which any right minded person would say clearly ought not to be the subject of production in an action.
The court held that it is of utmost importance that public service should function properly and it cannot do so unless commonplace communications between one civil servant and another are privileged from production. It would be an injustice to civil servants to hold that they are so timid that they would not write freely and candidly unless they know what they wrote could in no circumstances whatsoever, come to the light of the day to be used by a person not intended to see or rely on the contents of such documents.
Public policy requires that the most unreserved communication should take place between public servants and it should not be subject to restraints or limitations. But it is quite clear that if the documents in possession of the respondents was allowed to be produced, used and relied upon in court, that would in essence restrain the freedom of communication and render public officers to proceed in a more cautious, guarded and reserved manner in their communication and concerns.
The contents of the documents clearly showed that the documents belonged to a class which on grounds of public interest must, as a class, be withheld from production. The documents fell within the scope of privilege and confidential correspondence in the course of obtaining legal advice. It would be both wrong and dangerous if parties were allowed to intercept legal opinions between the office of the Attorney General and government departments and to rely on the same for the success of their case, because they thought the documents are favourable to the success of their case.
The balance of public good in the circumstances of this particular case tilted in favour of refusing the production of the subject documents.
GAZETTE NOTICE NO. 4226
THE INSURANCE ACT
(Cap. 487)
APPOINTMENT
IN EXERCISE of the powers conferred by regulation 5(2) of Insurance (Policyholders' Compensation Fund) Regulations, 2004, of the Insurance Act, the Minister for Finance appoints -
Chege Waruingi (Prof.) - (Chairman),
Bill Inamdar,
John Kimeu,
Frank Kimeu,
Frank Muchiri,
Ann Rama,
Kariuki Chege,
to be Trustees of the Policyholders' Compensation Fund, for a period of three (3) years, with effect from 8th December, 2007.
Gazette Notice No. 656 of 2008, is revoked.
Dated the 24th April, 2008.
AMOS KIMUNYA,
Minister for Finance..
APPOINTMENT
IN EXERCISE of the powers conferred by section 5(4) of the Constituencies Fund Act, 2003, the Minister of State for Planning, National Development and Vision 2030, appoints -
LAWRENCE KAHINDI MAJALI
to be the Chairman of the Board of the Constituencies Development Fund, for a period of three (3) years, with effect from 24th April, 2008.
Dated the 14th May, 2008.
W. A. OPARANYA,
Minister of State for Planning,
National Development and Vision 2030.
GAZETTE NOTICE NO. 4228
THE CONSTITUENCIES DEVELOPMENT FUND ACT
(No. 10 of 2003)
APPOINTMENT
IN EXERCISE of the powers conferred by section 5(3) of the Constituencies Fund Act, 2003, the Minister of State for Planning, National Development and Vision 2030, appoints -
Under paragraph (e) -
Joel Muthunga Wanyoike (Eng.),
Jennifer N. Barasa,
Lawrence Kahindi Majali,
Bishop Martin Kivuva (Rt. Rev.),
Maryam Sheikh Abdikadir,
Rebecca Metto Koskei,
Benson Okundi,
Jennifer Karina;
Under section 5 (5) -
Janet Mang'era
Under paragraph (f) -
John Wamakonjio (Dr.),
Simon Kiprono Chelungu,
Omar Jibril Mohamed,
James Oloo Ogundo,
to be members of the Board of the Constituencies Development Fund, for a period of three (3) years, with effect from 24th April, 2008.
Dated the 14th May, 2008.
W. A. OPARANYA,
Minister of State for Planning,
National Development and Vision 2030.
GAZETTE NOTICE NO. 4229
THE LAW OF SUCCESSION ACT
(Cap. 160)
APPOINTMENT
IN EXERCISE of the powers conferred by section 47 of the Law of Succession Act, the Chief Justice appoints -
TERESIA MATHEKA
Senior Resident Magistrate at Nyahururu, to represent the High Court for the purposes of that section with effect from 1st May, 2008.
Dated the 18th April, 2008.
J. E. GICHERU,
Chief Justice.
GAZETTE NOTICE NO. 4230
THE LAW OF SUCCESSION ACT
(Cap. 160)
APPOINTMENT
IN EXERCISE of the powers conferred by section 47 of the Law of Succession Act, the Chief Justice appoints -
BRENDA J. MASINDE
Senior Resident Magistrate at Murang'a, to represent the High Court for the purposes of that section with effect from 1st May, 2008.
Dated the 16th April, 2008.
J. E. GICHERU,
Chief Justice.
GAZETTE NOTICE NO. 4231
THE LAW OF SUCCESSION ACT
(Cap. 160)
APPOINTMENT
IN EXERCISE of the powers conferred by section 47 of the Law of Succession Act, the Chief Justice appoints -
JARED O. MAGORI
Resident Magistrate at Sirisia, to represent the High Court for the purposes of that section with effect from 1st May, 2008.
Dated the 18th April, 2008.
J. E. GICHERU,
Chief Justice.
GAZETTE NOTICE NO. 4232
THE CHILDREN ACT
(No. 8 of 2001)
APPOINTMENT
IN EXERCISE of the powers conferred by section 73 (d) (ii) of the Children Act, 2001, the Chief Justice appoints -
TERESIA MATHEKA
Senior Resident Magistrate at Nyahururu, to preside over cases involving children in respect of Rift Valley Province with effect from 1st May, 2008.
Dated the 18th April, 2008.
J. E. GICHERU,
Chief Justice.
GAZETTE NOTICE NO. 4233
THE CHILDREN ACT
(No. 8 of 2001)
APPOINTMENT
IN EXERCISE of the powers conferred by section 73 (d) (ii) of the Children Act, 2001, the Chief Justice appoints -
BRENDA J. MASINDE
Senior Resident Magistrate at Murang'a, to preside over cases involving children in respect of Central Province with effect from 1st May, 2008.
Dated the 17th April, 2008.
J. E. GICHERU,
Chief Justice.
GAZETTE NOTICE NO. 4234
THE CHILDREN ACT
(No. 8 of 2001)
APPOINTMENT
IN EXERCISE of the powers conferred by section 73 (d) (ii) of the Children Act, 2001, the Chief Justice appoints -
JARED O. MAGORI
Resident Magistrate at Sirisia, to preside over cases involving children in respect of Sirisia and the whole of Western Province with effect from 1st May, 2008.
Dated the 18th April, 2008.
J. E. GICHERU,
Chief Justice.
GAZETTE NOTICE NO. 4235
THE CHILDREN ACT
(No. 8 of 2001)
APPOINTMENT
IN EXERCISE of the powers conferred by section 73 (d) (ii) of the Children Act, 2001, the Chief Justice appoints -
FAITH K. MUNYI
Resident Magistrate, to preside over cases involving children in respect of Coast Province with effect from 1st May, 2008.
Dated the 15th April, 2008.
J. E. GICHERU,
Chief Justice.
GAZETTE NOTICE NO. 4236
THE MAGISTRATES' COURT ACT
(Cap. 10)
INCREASE OF LIMIT OF JURISDICTION
IN EXERCISE of the powers conferred by section 5 (1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, the Chief Justice increases the limit of jurisdiction of -
JULIUS K. NG'ARNG'AR
Senior Resident Magistrate, to Kenya shillings eight hundred thousand only (KSh. 800,000), with effect from 1st May, 2008.
Dated the 18th April, 2008.
J. E. GICHERU,
Chief Justice.
GAZETTE NOTICE NO. 4237
THE MAGISTRATES' COURT ACT
(Cap. 10)
INCREASE OF LIMIT OF JURISDICTION
IN EXERCISE of the powers conferred by section 5(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, the Chief Justice increases the limit of jurisdiction of -
ROBINSON O. OIGARA
Senior Resident Magistrate, to Kenya shillings eight hundred thousand only (KSh. 800,000), with effect from 1st May, 2008.
Dated the 18th April, 2008.
J. E. GICHERU,
Chief Justice
GAZETTE NOTICE NO. 4458
THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY AND PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS ACT
(Cap. 7)
THE PRESIDENTIAL AND PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS
REGULATIONS AND THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY (ELECTION PETITION) RULES
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
(MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS)
ELECTION PETITION NO. 12 OF 2008
AND
IN THE MATTER OF ELECTION FOR MANDERA EAST
PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCY
AND
IN THE MATTER OF PETITION OF SHABAN ALI ISAACK
PRESENTED IN COURT ON 21ST JANUARY, 2008
BETWEEN
SHABAN ALI ISAACK - Petitioner
VERSUS
MOHAMMED HUSSEIN ALI - 1st Respondent
MOHAMMED ABDULLAHI - 2nd Respondent
ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF KENYA - 3rd Respondent
ELECTION PETITION WITHDRAWAL
NOTICE is given that petitioner herein did on the 8th May, 2008, lodge at the office of the Registrar of the High Court an application for leave to withdraw the petition, of which application the following is a copy.
The petitioner shall, through his counsel, apply to the Election Court, on such a date and time as may be appointed by the Election Court, for issuance of the following orders:
(a) That the petitioner be granted leave by the Election Court to withdraw Election Petition No. 12 of 2008 upon such terms as the Election Court may think just and fit.
(b) That each party to bear its own costs.
Grounds:
This application supported by the annexed affidavits of Shaban Ali Isaack and Kioko Kilukumi sworn on the 7th May, 2008, is based inter alia on the following grounds:
(a) The petitioner has represented Mandera East Constituency in the National Assembly for the last fifteen (15) years.
(b) The petitioner's supporters and constituents regard it as a matter of lack of gratitude for him to contest the election of the 1st respondent.
(c) The petitioner does not wish to upset the feelings of his constituents and has therefore considered their request to withdraw the petition.
(d) There is no agreement or terms of any kind whatsoever which have been made and no undertaking has been entered into between the petitioner and any of the respondents in relation to the withdrawal of the petition.
(e) It is just and fair to grant leave to withdraw the petition with no order as to costs.
(f) Further and other grounds to be canvassed at the hearing of this application.
And take notice that under the National Assembly Elections (Election Petition) Rules, any person who might have been a petitioner in respect of the said election may, within seven days after the date of publication of this notice, give notice in writing to the Registrar of the High Court of his intention on the hearing of the application to be substituted as a petitioner.
Dated the 8th May, 2008.
KILUKUMI & COMPANY,
Advocates for the Petitioner.
GAZETTE NOTICE NO. 4459
THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY AND PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS ACT
(Cap. 7)
THE PRESIDENTIAL AND PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS
REGULATIONS AND THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY (ELECTION PETITION) RULES
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
ELECTION PETITION NO. 2 OF 2008
AND
IN THE MATTER OF ELECTION FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA HELD ON 27TH DECEMBER, 2007
BETWEEN
ELIPHAZ WESANGULA KEYA - Petitioner
VERSUS
HIS EXCELLENCY HON. MWAI KIBAKI - 1st Respondent
HON. RAILA AMOLO ODINGA - 2nd Respondent
ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF KENYA - 3rd Respondent
RABAN A. KORALLACH, RETURNING OFFICER FOR MOLO CONSTITUENCY - 4th Respondent
WATSON P. MAHINDA, DEPUTY RETURNING OFFICER FOR
JUJA CONSTITUENCY - 5th Respondent
ELECTION PETITION WITHDRAWAL
IN the election petition for the Presidency of the Republic of Kenya in which Eliphas Wesangula Keya is the petitioner.
NOTICE is given that the above petitioner did on the 20th May, 2008, lodge at the office of the Registrar of the High Court of Kenya an application for leave to withdraw the petition, on the following grounds amongst others:
(a) The formation of a Grand Coalition Government has a direct bearing on the petition as the likely loser and/or winners if the petition was to succeed are already under a Grand Coalition Government.
(b) The prayers sought or recount are not in the best interest of the country in view of the Grand Coalition as they are likely to open a can of worms and plunge the country into fresh skirmishes.
(c) The petitioner was just a voter, moved the court due to the skirmishes and after those concerned failed to seek legal redress.
And take notice that under the National Assembly Elections (Election Petition) Rules, any person who might have been a petitioner in respect of the said petition, may within seven (7) days after the date of publication of this notice, give notice in writing to the Registrar of the High Court of Kenya of his intention on the hearing of the application to be substituted as a petitioner.
Dated the 21st May, 2008.
ELIPHAZ WESANGULA KEYA,
Petitioner.
GAZETTE NOTICE NO. 4461
THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY AND PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS ACT
(Cap. 7)
THE PRESIDENTIAL AND PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS
REGULATIONS
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT
(Cap. 265)
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS RULES
POLLING STATIONS
CorrigendaIN Gazette Notice No. 3934 of 2008:
(a) Page 1098 under Kinango Constituency-015, insert "Reg. Centre No. 015/136, Maiyini feeder School' as a polling centre for "Makamini polling area”.
(b) Page 1102 "under Laikipia West Constituency - 133, in Ol Moran polling area, delete "Reg. No 133/134, Nagum Nursery School”.
Dated the 15th May, 2008.
S. M. KIVUITU,
Chairman,
Electoral Commission of Kenya.
GAZETTE NOTICE NO. 4465
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT
(Cap. 265)
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS RULES
(Sub. Leg.)
NOMINATION CENTRE FOR BY-ELECTION
Corrigendum
IN Gazette Notice No. 3932 of 9th May, 2008 delete the name "Undugu Society Primary School” and insert the name "Nyayo National Stadium” as nomination centre for Laini Shabaa electoral area, Langata Constituency.
Dated the 15th May 2008.
S. M. KIVUITU,
Chairman,
Electoral Commission of Kenya.
GAZETTE NOTICE NO. 4466
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT
(Cap. 265)
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) RULES
APPOINTMENT OF RETURNING OFFICERS AND DEPUTY RETURNING OFFICERS
IN Gazette Notice No. 3461 of 25th April 2008 make the following changes:
(a) On page 977 replace "Irene Masit” as Returning Officer for Kitsuru electoral area, Westlands Constituency with "Alex Khalakuli”.
(b) On page 977 replace "Alex Khalakuli” as Returning Officer for Laini Saba electoral area, Langata Constituency with "Irene Masit”.
In Gazette Notice No. 3933 of 9th May 2008 make the following changes:
(a) On page 1095 replace "Joseph Munene” as Deputy Returning Officer for Kitsuru electoral area, Westlands Constituency with "Grace Mogina”.
(b) On page 1095 replace "Grace Mogina” as Deputy Returning Officer for Laini Shabaa electoral area, Langata Constituency with "Ya'qub Abubakar Omar”.
GAZETTE NOTICE NO. 4468
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT
(Cap. 265)
THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF EMBU
THE EMBU TRADE DEVELOPMENT JOINT BOARD
APPOINTMENT
IN EXERCISE of the powers conferred by section 104(3) of the Local Government Act, the County Council of Embu appoints -
Cllr. Anselimo Kathuri Njeru,
Cllr. John Gichovi Gatumu,
Cllr. Eliud Njiru M'Njamiu,
to be members of the Embu District Trade Development Joint Board.
Gazette Notice No. 6845 of 2004, is cancelled.
Dated the 30th April, 2008.
S. M. KIBAARA,
County Clerk.
GAZETTE NOTICE NO. 4469
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT
(Cap. 265)
THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF MANDERA
THE MANDERA TRADE DEVELOPMENT JOINT LOANS BOARD
APPOINTMENT
IN EXERCISE of the powers conferred by section 104 (3) of the Local Government Act, the County Council of Mandera, appoints -
Cllr. Hussein M. Mohamed,
Cllr. Mohamed B. Barrow,
Cllr. Haji Issakow Molu,
to be members of the Mandera Trade Development Joint Loans Board.
Dated the 9th May, 2008.
A. A. ABDULLA,
County Clerk.
The following subsidiary legislations have been published by the Government Printer:
L.N. No. 48-The Government Lands (Fees) (Amendment) Rules, 2008
L.N. No. 49-The Land Control (Amendment) Regulations, 2008
L.N. No. 50-The Land Disputes Tribunal (Forms and Procedures) (Amendment) Rules, 2008
L.N. No. 51-The Land Titles (Registration Fees) (Amendment) Rules, 2008
L.N. No. 52-The Registration of Titles (Fees) Rules, 2008
L.N. No. 53-The Trustees (Perpetual Succession) (Amendment) Regulations, 2008
L.N. No. 54-The Registration of Documents (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations, 2008
L.N. No. 55-The Registered Land (Amendment) Rules, 2008