Whereas in support of its application, the THEMIS firm, representing Barou KANTE, states: That the deceased Sekou KANTE died in 1978 in Bamako; that he left as the only currently known heirs: his wife: Tenin BALLO and his children: Barou, Bakary and Mamou KANTE, emphasizes the applicant’s counsel; that the deceased’s succession mass comprises two pieces of real property situated in Torokorobougou and Magnambougou (see documents in the case file), and that the heirs presently live under joint ownership. That it is undisputed, under the provisions of Article 815 of the Civil Code, that no one can be forced to remain under joint ownership, which is why he asks that the Court orders the sharing of the estate of the deceased Sekou Kante; Whereas in reply, Maitre Boubacar SOUMARE, on behalf of Mrs Nientao Assitan DIARRA, does not contest the measure sought by the applicant, but believes that the court, having confirmed the quality of non-disputing party of his client, it is undisputed that the latter, uterine sister of Barou KANTE and Bakary KANTE, consented to make realisations on the concession in Torokorobougou where their common mother lived; that Mrs NIENTAO invested, in the said concession, an amount of up to Ten Million Seventeen Hundred and Fifty Three Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Five CFA Francs 10,753,225CFAF (see expert report dated 15th June 2007); that, as pleads Maitre SOUMARE, the rights of Mrs NIENTAO Assitan DIARRA, being in danger of being affected by the execution of the sharing of the estate between the heirs of the deceased Sekou KANTE, she has an interest to intervene as a non-disputing party pursuant to Article 62 of the Social, Commercial and Civil Procedure Code, to seek the separation of the value of her investments from the succession mass; Whereas Barou KANTE, speaking to the Court, affirms that it was with his consent and that of his brother Bakary, that their uterine sister Mrs NIENTAO Assitan DIARRA, carried out work on the concession in Torokorobougou to accommodate their common mother there; Whereas, after Maitre Boubacar SOUMARE, Maitre Diawoye Diatigui DIARRA, in defence of the interests of Bakary KANTE and Mamou KANTE, estimates that Mrs NIENTAO Assitan DIARRA made no constructions on the property of the deceased; that the various realisations were made with the income realised from the renting of stores built by the deceased Sekou KANTE; Whereas, speaking to the Court, Bakary KANTE, confirmed the remarks of his counsel, adding that the stores mentioned above were built by their late father well before their birth; that since 1999, the rental costs of the said stores stood at twelve thousand francs (12,000CFAF) per month, and before, they stood at ten thousand (10,000) CFAF; Whereas Mamou KANTE, defendant, maintains that she is unaware of anything regarding the realisations in question;