Judge declines Too's son plea for 50-acre and Sh10m 'advance'


When Uasin Gishu Police Commander Ayub Ali Gitonga oversaw the eviction of squatters who had invaded the late Mark Too's land. [Peter Ochieng, Standard]

The High Court has dismissed an application filed by the son of former politician, Mark Kiptarbei Too, to sell off 50 acres as an advance to boost his business.

Ali Mark Too moved to court arguing that he needed to revive his business, noting that it had been adversely affected by the Covid-19 pandemic.

He wanted to be allowed to sell 50 acres of Too’s properties and access Sh16 million from the bank, which would be deducted from the share he will inherit.

He argued that the former nominated MP had a multi-billion estates and what he was asking was a ‘drop in the ocean.’

However, Justice Wananda Anuro said Ali’s application was a misapprehension as the wealth had not been ascertained.

Justice Anuro also said it was uncertain if other persons would show up to claim a share of the wealth left by the politician.

“At this stage, the identification and true values of the properties comprising the estate are yet to be judicially ascertained and confirmed. Similarly, the real number and/or identity of beneficiaries and dependents is also yet to be conclusively ascertained. There is no certainty that other alleged dependents or beneficiaries may not still emerge,” said Justice Anuro.

Too died aged 60 on December 31, 2016.

After his death, Mary Jepkemboi and Sophia Jelimo got into a court battle over who was to manage the wealth. each claimed to be the genuine wife of the deceased. They later struck a deal to manage the estate jointly.

The case, however, has four objectors – Moses Kiprotich, Cepkoech Too, Sammy Waki and Arafat Mohammed Bakari.

In the meantime, Elizabeth Jepkoech, Jennifer Jebet, Sandra Jerop, Kevin Kipkemei and Sharon Jepchumba were listed as interested parties.

Nevertheless, Ali told the court that Too had 13 dependants. 

He claimed that Too was also supporting his businesses.

Ali claimed he had entered an agreement with the others that 50 acres in Soy be allocated to him in addition to Sh10 million advance.

Legal fees

At the same time, he sought to have his lawyer paid Sh6 million as legal fees.

He contended that he was not benefiting from the proposed distribution despite Too being rich. At the same time, he argued that his business was adversely affected by the pandemic.

Ali laid blame on the administrators, claiming that they were not playing ball.

He told the court that he had no other source of income to continue with his previous business venture.

Jepkemoi told the court that she was opposed to the application while Jelimo said she had no issue with the prayers.

According to Jepkemoi, Ali was asking the court to distribute the estate prematurely.

In addition, she said the consent for him to get a part of his inheritance was not signed by all.

She also questioned why Ali did not provide any evidence of the stalled business and overheads to support the amount of money he was seeking.

The rest of the parties did not file responses.

In a rejoinder, Ali said he was left destitute and could not survive without support. He said he needs money, more so to boost his business.

In the end, Justice Wananda observed that Jepkemboi had initially agreed to the mode of distribution but she turned against her initial lawyer and withdrew her consent.

In her withdrawal, she claimed she was duped into signing an affidavit in support of the distribution as she is semi-illiterate.

She claimed the lawyer had told her she was signing documents to seek provision for her grandchildren’s school fees.

She also said the consent never meant that she recognised Sophia Jelimo as Too’s second wife. According to her, some of her children were born before Jelimo started cohabiting with the politician.

She also argued that some of the estate assets were being held by Too in her trust and therefore was not available for distribution.

Justice Wananda said since there was no evidence to show all had signed the consent, then it could not be used as a basis for the court to intervene.