SCHOOL OF LAW

EQUITY & THE LAW OF TRUST (BLW 1202)

1ST YEAR, 2ND SEM
MAY – AUGUST 2024 SEMESTER
COURSE INSTRUCTOR: -
CYNTHIA NJOROGE (cynthianjoroge5@gmail.com)

COURSE BREAKDOWN
A. GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE COURSE
1. Course description
Equity and trusts is a unique branch of civil law based on a body of principles made by the
Courts of Chancery, that focusses on bringing balance to the legal system, particularly the
Common Law. The law of trusts was constructed as an adjunct to the law of property, to tend
to situations in which one person holds legal title to a property, but the courts decided it is
fair, just or "equitable" that another person should benefit from the property.

2. Content
With regards to equity, this unit will therefore focus on meaning, nature and origin of equity
and its application within the East African context; maxims of equity; and equitable remedies
(Injunctions, specific performance, accounts, declarations, receivership, repudiation and
restitution).
The Law of Trusts part will focus on; definition of a trust, origin of trusts, terms associated
with trusts, relevant principles of trusts law, common uses of trusts; nature of trusts;
comparison of trusts and other relationships; classifications of trusts; creation of trusts (trust
created by the act of other parties, trusts created by operation of the law, express private
trusts, secret trusts); the three certainties; constructive trusts; charitable trusts; trustees
(capacity, number, appointment of trustees, powers and duties of trustees, vesting of trust
property, retirement of trustees and removal of trustees); trust accounts
3. Mode of instruction
The course will be presented to students in the following format: -
i. Lectures
ii. Tutorials
iii. Group discussions and presentations
iv. Individual presentations
v. Case studies
vi. Problem based learning and mooting.
4. Expected learning outcomes
At the conclusion of the course, the students are expected to be able to:-
i. Trace the historical development from common law to application of equity in Kenya
and
East Africa.
ii. Demonstrate a trust, the concept of trusteeship and the nature of a trust;
iii. Explain powers and duties of a trustee and the rights of beneficiaries;
iv. Explain the application of equitable remedies to legal problems;
v. Explain the relationship between equity and law and identify the position and
application of the law of equity in the Kenyan legal system;
vi. Prepare trust accounts;
5. Course assessment
Grading will be in accordance with Mount Kenya University Grading Policy. A student will
be assessed through: -
i. Continuous Assessments Tests (30%)
ii. Final Examination (70%)
TOTAL 100%
6. Course requirements
i. Class attendance and class participation
Class attendance is mandatory, however students who have medical, family or other
emergencies over the course of the semester are strongly advised to inform the administration,
lecturer and class representative.
Class participation is highly encouraged.
ii. Academic honesty
Students enrolled in this course are expected to exercise a high degree of honesty and
integrity in class attendance, participation, assignments and examinations.
NOTE
 All students are expected to have done advance reading before the lectures
 The Course Director / Lecturer reserves the right to alter the mode of administering
the Continuous Assessment Tests
 The Course Director / Lecturer shall assign specific additional reading during the
course of the semester
 The Course Director / Lecturer reserves the right to change the chronology of
delivery of the topics and to make alterations to the course outline.

B. RECOMMENDED READING (consult the most recent editions)

Core Texts

Penner, J. (2016) The Law of Trusts, 10th ed., Oxford University Press

Pettit, P. (2012), Equity and the Law of Trusts, 12th ed., Oxford University Press
Bakibanga, D.J., (2011), Equity and Law of Trusts, Professional Book Publishers

Further Reading Materials

Martin, J.E., Modern Equity, 21st Ed, Sweet and Maxwell

Kuloba, R. (1986), Principles of Injunctions, Nairobi: EABL

Hayton, David J. & Marshall (1992), Commentary and Cases on the Law of Trusts and
Equitable Remedies, Sweet & Maxwell

Gardner Simon (2003), An Introduction to the Law of Trusts, 2nd Edition, Oxford University
Press 4

Oakley, A.J. (2008), Parker & Mellows: The Modern Law of Trusts, 9th ed., Sweet &
Maxwell

McGhee, John (2005), Snell’s Equity, Sweet and Maxwell

Kimari, M (2013), Accounting for Lawyers, 1st ed., lawAfrica

Burn, E. & G. Virgo (2004) Maudsley and Burn’s Trusts and Trustees, 6th ed., Oxford
University Press

Fryer, A. (1990) The Accounts of Executors: Administrators & Trustees, London McGraw
Hill

Gary Watt (2012) Trusts and Equity 5th ed., Oxford University Press

Jill E. Martin (2009) Modern Equity 18th ed., London : Sweet & Maxwell

Todd and Watt’s, (2011) Cases and Materials on Equity and Trusts, 8th ed., Oxford University
Press

Todd and Wilson (2009) Textbook on Trusts, Oxford University Press

Henry, E. et al, Snell, Principles of Equity, 27th Ed, Sweet & Maxwell

Statutes

Judicature Act Cap 8 Laws of Kenya

Trustee Act, Cap 167 Laws of Kenya

Trustees (Perpetual succession) Act, Cap 164 Laws of Kenya

Public Trustee Act, Cap 168 Laws of Kenya

The Constitution of Kenya 2010

The above materials contained herein are not exhaustive. Students are advised that further
readings may be provided during classes.
N/B: Kenyan case laws can be obtained from the Kenya Law website (www.kenyalaw.org).
For England and American case law, students are advised to look up the databases hosted at
http://www.bailii.org/ and http://www.law.cornell.edu/ respectively.

WEEK 1 I. INTRODUCTION
i. Course description
ii. Course content and course outline

II. OVERVIEW OF LAW OF EQUITY

i. Meaning, nature and origins of equity
 Definition of key terms
 Historical development of equity

Case law
 Re Diplock [1948] Ch. 465
 Re National Assurance Co. [1878] 10 Ch. D
 Gilles v. Department of Human Resources Development, 11
California Rept. 3rd, 313
 Re National Assurance Co. [1878] 10 Ch. D
 The Earl of Oxford case [1615] 21 ER 485
 Tulk v. Moxhaney [1848] 18 LJ 88
 Formbay v. Barker [1903] 2 Ch. 539
 Marquis of Waterford v. Night [1844] 11 cl. & f 633
 Heath v. Ridley [1614] Cro. Jac. D. 9
 Walsh v. Lonsdale [1882] vol 2 Ch. D. 9

Method of teaching: Lecture

Justification: effect method of content delivery

WEEKS 2 III. APPLICATION OF EQUITY IN KENYA AND EAST AFRICA

 Sources of Kenyan Law
 Objectives / aims of equity

Case law
 Ambalal and Co. v. Bowry [1953] 23 EACA 68 (U)
 Abdul Karim Khan v. Mohammed Roshan [1965] EA 289, 294-
269
 Malek Sultan v. Jeraj [1955] EACA 142
 Rajab Binti Salim v. Hamad bin Sulaiman [1962] EA 248
 Bishan Singh Chadha v. Mohiner Singh [1956] All ER
 Shallo v. Maryam [1967] EA 409
 Wakf Commissioners v. Public Trustee [1956] EA 368
 Patel v. Thakore [1965] EA 629
 National House Ltd. V. The Kenya Farmers Association Ltd
[1956] EA 96
 Walsh v. Lonsdale [1882] vol 2 Ch. D. 9
 Bilous v. Bilous [1957] EA 69
 Century Automobiles Ltd. V. Hutchings Biemer Ltd. [1965] EA
304
  Nurdin Bandali v. Lombak Tanganyika Ltd. [1963] EA 304
 Re Commissioner of Income Tax [1891] AC 531
 Re Diplock [1948] Ch. 465

Method of teaching: Lecture and class discussion

Justification: effect method of content delivery

WEEK 3 & 4 IV. MAXIMS OF EQUITY

 Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy (Where
there is a wrong there is a remedy for it) Ibi just ibi remedium
 Equity follows the law.
 Where there is equal equity, the law shall prevail.
 Where the equities are equal, the first in time shall prevail.
 He who seeks equity must do equity
 He who comes to equity must come with clean hands
 Delay defeats equity [Equity aids the vigilant and not the
indolent (Vigilantibus non dorminentibus jura subveniunt)]
 Equity is equality (Equality is equity)
 Equity looks to the intent or substance rather than the form
 Equity looks upon as done that which ought to be done
 Equity imputes an intent to fulfill an obligation
 Equity acts in personam

Case law
 Bendall v. Mc Whitter [1952] 2 QB 466
 Nagel v. Fielden [1966] QB 689
 Lord Dudley and Ward v. Lady Dudley [1705] Prec. Cha. 241,
244
 Re Bostocks Settlements [1912} 2 Ch. 469
 Sextorn v. Horton [1926] 38 ELR 240
 Holmes v. Millage [1893] QB 551
 Edward v. Deckard [1909] 2 KB 903
 Graf v. Hope Building Co-operation [1920] New York Supreme
Court
 Gibb v. Guild [1882] 9 QB 59
 Willoughby v. Willoughby [1756] 1 Term. Rep 763
 Chillingworth v. Chambers [1896] 1 Ch. 685
 Inglis v. Commonwealth Trading Firm of Australia [1972] ALR
591
 Campbell Discount Co Ltd. V. Bridge [1962] AC 600
 Meyers v. Casey [1913] 17 CLR 9
 Re Diplock [1948] Ch. 465
 Cadman v Horner [1810] 34 ER 221
 Cory v. Gertken [1816] 36 ER 250
 Overton v. Bannister [1884] 3 Hare 503; [1884] 67 ER 479
 Kettles and Gas Appliances Ltd. V. Anthony Horden and sons
[1834] 35 SR (NSW)
 Harigan v. Brown [1967] 1 NSWR 342
 Northern Counties of England Fire Insurance Co. v. Whipp
 [1884] 2 Ch. D. 482
 Stocks v. Dobson [1853]
 Caliseh v. Forbes [1871] 7 Ch. App 109
 Mutual Life Insurance Society v. Langley [1886] 32 Ch. D. 460
 Smith v. Clay [1767] 3 BRO CC 639
 Erlanger v. New Sombrero Phosphate Co [1873]
 Hunter v. Gibbons [1856] 156 ER 1281
 Gibb v. Guild [1882]
 Re Steel [1979] Ch. D. 219
 Kivuitu v. Kivuitu [1991] 2 KAR 241
 Griffiths v. Griffiths [1973] 1 WLR 1454
 Fredrick v. Fredrick [1821] 24 ER 582; 93 ER 632
 Howe v. Earl of Dexmouth [1802]
 Parkin v. Thorold [1852] 16 Beav 59
 Re. Kayford [1975] 1WLR 279
 Penn v. Lord Baltimore [1750]
 Richard v. West Partners (Invernes) Ltd. V. Dick [1969] 1 All
ER
 Webb v. Webb [1994] QB 696

Method of teaching: Lecture and class discussions

Justification: effect method of content delivery

WEEK 5 V. EQUITABLE REMEDIES

i. Injunctions
 Meaning, jurisdiction and locus standi
 Classification of injunctions
ii. Specific performance
 The nature of the order
 When it may / may not be granted
 Specific performance and third parties
iii. Rectification

Case law
 Doulton Potteries Ltd. V. Bronotte [1974] 1 NSW 591
 Shah v. AG [1970] EA 216
 Sachoo v. Jopkins [1958] EA 463
 AG v. Block [1959] EA 180
 Glyn v. Keele University [1971] 1 WLR 487
 Giella v. Cassman Brown [1973] EA 358
 E.A. Industries v. Trufoods Ltd [1972] EA 420
 America Cynamide v. Ethicon Ltd [1975] 2WLR 316
 Central Bank of Kenya & Another v. Uhuru Highway
Authorities, Kamlesh Pattni and 3 others (unreported civil
appeal No. 91 of 1991)
 Kenya Tea Development Authority v. Mombasa Exchange Ltd
(High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, civil case no of 1992)
 Mareva Campania Naveira SA v. International Bulk Carriers SA
 [1980] 1 All ER 213
 Red and Bricks Ltd. V. Morris [1970] AC 652
 AG for the Dominion of Canada v. Ritchie [1919] AC 999
 Wolverhampton v. Walsall [1873]
 AG v. Harris [1960] 3 All ER 407
 Jeffreys v. jeffreys [1841] Cr. & Ph. 138
 Rigby v. Connel [1880] 4 Ch. D 482
 South African Territories Ltd. v. Wallington [1898] AC 309
 Beswick v. Beswick [1968] AC 58; [1967] 2All ER
 Manchester Breweries co. v. Combs [1901] 2 Ch 608
 MacKenzie v. Coulson [1869] LR HEQ 469

Method of teaching: Lecture and class discussions

Justification: effect method of content delivery

WEEK 6 CAT 1

WEEK 7 V. EQUITABLE REMEDIES (continued)

 Rescission
 Declaration
 Accounts
 Receivers

Case law
 Gist v. Bailey [1967] Ch 532
 Phillips v. Brooks Ltd. [1919] 2 KB 243
 Erlanger v. New Sombrero Phosphate Co [1873]

Method of teaching: Lecture and class discussions

Justification: effect method of content delivery

WEEK 8 I. INTRODUCTION TO THE LAW OF TRUSTS

i. Definitions
ii. The Origin of Trusts
iii. Terms Associated with Trusts
iv. Nature of trusts
v. The Relevant Principles of Trust Law
vi. Modern Uses of Trusts
vii. Nature of beneficiaries interests and rights

II. TRUSTS DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHER RELATIONSHIPS

/ CONCEPTS

i. Trust and Contract

ii. Trust and Bailment
iii. Trust and Agency
 iv. Trust and Power of Appointment
v. Trusts and estates of Deceased Persons

Case law
 The Earl of Oxford’s Case (1615) 1 Rep. Ch. 1
 Cowan v Scargill [1985] Ch. 270
 Pilcher v Rawlins (1872)
 Peter Gitonga v. Francis Maingi M’Ikiara; Meru HC.CC No. 146
of 2000
 Kanyi v. Muthiora 1984 K.L.R 712 (C.A),
 Macharia Kihari v. Ngigi Kihari Civil Appeal No. 170 of 1993
 Westdeutsche Landesbank v. Islington [1996] 2 All E.R. 961
 Re Baden’s Deed Trusts [1973] Ch. 9
 McPhail v. Doulton (1971) A.C. 424
 Re Cockburn’s Wills Trust (Cockburn v. Lewis [1957] 1 Ch. 438.
 Commissioner of Stamp Duties V. Livingstone [1965] A.C. 694
 Re Leigh’s Wills Trust [1970] Ch. 227
 Saunders v Vautier (1841) 4 Beav. 115

Method of teaching: Lecture and class discussions

Justification: effect method of content delivery

WEEK 9 III. CLASSIFICATION OF TRUSTS

A. INTER VIVOS AND WILL TRUSTS
i. Inter Vivos Trusts
ii. Capacity to Create Trust
iii. Constitution of Trusts
iv. Covenants to settle
v. Exceptions to Equity’s Non-Perfection of Imperfect Gifts
 The rule in Strong v. Bird
 Donatio Mortis Causa
 Dispositions under Will
 Doctrine of Proprietary Estoppel
 Statutory Exceptions

Case law
 Re Estate of The Late Gedion Manthi Nzioka (Deceased) [2015]
eKLR
 Lady Naas v Westminster Bank Ltd [1940] AC 366
 Milroy v. Lord (1862) 4 De G.& J. 264
 Strong v. Bird (1874) LR 18 Eq 315
 Cain v. Moon (1896) 2 Q.B. 283
 Benson Mutuma Muriungi v C.E.O. Kenya Police Sacco &
another [2016] eKLR
 Michael Murage Njunge v Joseph Gathanwa Njunge [2014] eKLR
 Dillwyn v. Llewelyn (1862) 4 De G.F. & J. 517

B. EXPRESS PRIVATE TRUSTS

i. Requirements for Creation of Express Private Trusts: the three

certainities
 Certainty of words or intention and the doctrine of precatory
 trusts:
 Certainty of the subject matter:
 Certainty of objects:

C. SECRET TRUSTS

i. Fully Secret Trusts

ii. Half Secret Trusts
 Rationale for Recognising Secret Trusts
 Fraud Theory
 The Dehors the Will Theory
 Special Problems in Connection with Secret Trusts

Case law
 Knight v. Knight (1840) 3 Beav 148
 Re Diggles (Gregory v. Edmonson (1888) 39 Ch.D 253
 Lambe V. Eames (1871) E.R. Ch. App 57
 Mussoorie Bank Ltd v. Raynor (1882) 7 App. Cas 321
 Re Adams & Kensington Vestry [1884] LR 27 ChD 394
 Comiskey V. Bowring –Hanbury (1905) A.C. 84
 Palmer v Simmonds (1854) 2 Drew 221
 Re London Wine Co (Shippers) Limited (1975) 126 NLJ 977
 Boyce v. Boyce (1849) 16 Sim 476
 Re Kolb’s Wills Trusts (1962) Ch. 531
 Morice v Bishop of Durham [1804] EWHC Ch
 Re Barlow’s Will Trusts [1979] 1 All ER 296
 Inland Revenue Commission v. Broadway Cottages CA 26, (1954)
 McPhail v. Doulton 1971 A.C. 424
 Re Gestetner Settlement (1953) Ch. 672
 McPhail v. Doulton 1971 A.C. 424
 McCormick v. Grogan (1869)
 Ottaway v. Norman [1971] All ER 1325
 Estate of Lucien Freud (2014)
 Re Colin Cooper [1939] 3 All ER 586
 Blackwell v. Blackwell [1929] AC 318
 Re Rees [1920] 2 Ch 59
 Re Stead) (1903) 1 IR 73
 Walgrave v. Tebbs (1855) 25 L.J.Ch 241
 Re Boyes (1884) 32 WR 630
 Re Keen’s Estate (1937) 1 All ER 452
 Re Young (1951) 2 All ER 1245
 Re Pughs Wills Trust (1887) WN 143
 Re Rees (1920) 2 Ch 59

Method of teaching: Lecture and class discussions

Justification: effect method of content delivery

WEEK 10 iii. implied and resulting trusts

 Nature of Resulting Trusts
 Presumption of Advancement

D. CHARITABLE TRUSTS
 i. Features of Charitable Trusts
ii. Four heads of charity
 Trusts for the Relief of Poverty
 Trusts for the Advancement of Education
 Trusts for the Advancement of Religion
 Trusts for other Purposes Beneficial to the Community

Case law

 Re Compton [1945] Ch. 123

 Oppenheim v. Tobacco Securities Trust Co. Ltd (1951) A.C. 297
 Commissioners for Special Purposes of Income Tax v. Pemsel
(1891) A.C. 531.
 Re Glyn’s Will Trusts (1950) 2 All E.R. 1150
 Re Coulthurst (1951) Ch. 661
 Re Shaw [1957]1 LR 729
 Karen Kayemeth Le Jisroel v. IRC [1931] 2 K.B. 465
 Thornton v. Howe (1862) 54 E.R. 1042
 Re Vandervell’s Trust [1971] 1 All E.R. 47
 Re Gillingham Bus Disaster Fund (1958) Ch. 300
 Charles K. Kandie v Mary Kimoi Sang [2017] eKLR
 Njoki v Gachingiri [1989] LLR 17 (HCK)
 Kivuitu v Kivuitu (1982 – 1988) 2 KAR 241
 Karanja v Karanja, (1976) KLR 307
 Yogendra Purshottam Patel v Pascale Mireille Baksh (Nee Patel)
& 2 others [2006] eKLR
 Dyer v. Dyer (1788) 2 Cox Eq. 92,
 Bennet v. Bennet (1879) 10 Ch. D.474
 Tinker v. Tinker [1970] 1 All E.R. 540
 Gascoigne v Gascoigne [1918] 1 K.B. 223

Method of teaching: Lecture and class discussions

Justification: effect method of content delivery

WEEK 11 CAT 2

WEEK 12 &13
F. CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS

i. Features of Constructive Trusts

ii. Practical Situations of Imposition of Constructive Trusts

G. DISCRETIONARY TRUSTS

i. Features of Discretionary Trusts

ii. Uses of Discretionary Trusts

H. PROTECTIVE TRUSTS

i. Features of Protective Trusts

I. QUISTCLOSE TRUST
 Case law
 Macharia Mwangi Maina & 87 Others v. Davidson Mwangi
Kagiri, CA NO. 26 & 27 OF 2011 (Nyeri)
 Mombasa Bricks & Tiles Ltd & 5 others v Arvind Shah & 7 others
[2019] eKLR
 Mara v. Browne (1896) 1 Ch. 199
 Soar v. Ashwell (1893) 2 Q.B. 390
 Boursot v. Savage (1866) L.R. 2 Eq. 134
 Lysaght v. Edwards (1876) 2 Ch.D. 499
 Keech v. Sanford (1726) Sel. Cas. King 61; 25 E.R. 223
 McComick v. Grogan (1869) L.R. 4
 Regal (Hastings) Ltd v. Gulliver & Others [1942] 1 All E.R. 378
 Cleaver v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association (1892) 1 Q.B.
147
 Re K [1986] Ch. 180
 Duffour v. Pereira (1769) 2 Hargr, Jurid. Arg. 304
 Re Locker’s Settlement [1977] 1 W.L.R. 1323
 Re Smith, Public Trustee v. Aspinall [1928] Ch. 915
 McPhail v. Doulton [1974] A.C. 424
 R.A. Securities Ltd v. Mercantile Credit Co Ltd [1995] 3 All E.R.
214
 Re Kayford [1975] 1 W.L.R. 279
 Farepak Foods & Gifts Ltd. [2006] EWHC 3272
 Re Nanwa Gold Mines Ltd[1955] 1 W.L.R. 1080, Re Australian
Elizabethan Theatre Trust (AETT) (1991) 30 FCR 491
 Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd [1970] AC 567

Method of teaching: Lecture and class discussions

Justification: effect method of content delivery

WEEK 14
IV. CY-PRÈS DOCTRINE

i. Cy-Près can be applied where there is a general charitable

intention.
ii. Cy-Près can also be applied where the property passes and the
charity ceases to exist.
iii. The underlying purpose must be exclusively charitable.

V. WAQF

i. The constituents of waqf

ii. The objective and purpose of waqf
iii. The Interpretation of the document of waqf

Case law

 Re Rymer [1895] 1 Ch 19
 Re Spence [1978] 3 All ER 92
 Biscoe V. Jackson [1887] 35 Ch.D 460
 Re Satterwaite [1966]1 WLR 277
 Re Finger’s Wales Trust [1972] Ch. 286
 Chichester Diocesan Fund v Simpson (1944) 2 All ER 60
  Re Clarke (1923)
 Attorney-General v The Ironmongers’ Company [1834] EngR
1042
 Re Lysaght v. The Royal College of Surgeons [1965] 3 W.L.R.
391(Ch.D.)
 Re North Devon & West Somerset Relief Fund [1953] 1 WLR
1260
 Peggs and Others v Lamb and Others: ChD 20 Apr 1993
 Oldham Borough Council v Attorney General: CA 28 Jul 1992

VI. TRUSTEES

i. Appointment of Trustees
ii. Duties of Trustees
iii. Powers of Trustees
iv. Breach of Trust
v. Retirement of Trustees
vi. Investments by Trustees Generally
 Operations of Investments
 Nature of Trust Accounts
 Duties of the trustees with regard to accounts
 Rights of Beneficiaries
vii. Documents

Case law

 Re Tempest (1866) 35 L.J Ch. 632

 Low v. Bouvery (1891) 3 Ch. 82
 Re Brogden (1888) 38 Ch.D. 546
 Turner v. Corney (1841) 5 Beav. 515
 Fry v. Tapson (1884) 28 Ch.D 268
 Eaves v. Hickson (1861) 30 Beav. 136
 Neville v Benjamin (1900) 1 Ch. 723
 Re Musgrave (1916) 2 Ch. 417
 Craddock v. Piper (1850) 1 Mac & G. 664
 O’Rourke v. Darbyshire [1920] A.C. 581
 Bailey v. Gould (1840) 54 E.R.
 Bahin v. Hughes (1886) 31 Ch.D. 390
 Head v Gould (1989) 2 Ch 250
 Knott v. Cottee (1852) 16 Beav. 77
 Re Partington (1887) 57 L.T. 654
 Re Pauling Settlement Trusts (1964) Ch. 303
 Fletcher v. Fletcher (1844) 4 Hare 67

Method of teaching: Lecture and class discussions

Justification: effect method of content delivery

WEEK 15  Course overview

 Tutorial / Revision
 Moot exercises
WEEK 16 & 17 EXAMINATIONS

Course Instructors:

Dominic Mutunga Date____________ Signature

_________________

Approved by:

QC _________________________ Date____________ Signature

________________

HOD_________________________ Date____________ Signature

________________

Dean _________________________ Date____________ Signature

_________________