Ochieng (Suing on his Own behalf and on behalf of:) & 112 others v Kabarak Farm Ltd & 23 others; County Government of Trans Nzoia & 9 others (Interested Party) (Environment & Land Petition 3 of 2017) [2022] KEELC 2975 (KLR)

STANLEY SHAKILO ....................................................................... 6TH PETITIONER JAMIN WEKESA .............................................................................. 7TH PETITIONER GODFREY WANJALA ..................................................................... 8TH PETITIONER SIMON ENGOLAN .......................................................................... 9TH PETITIONER JOSEPH OCHIENG ....................................................................... 10TH PETITIONER ALEX MALAKWEN ...................................................................... 11TH PETITIONER WYCLIFF WAFULA ...................................................................... 12TH PETITIONER STEPHEN MABOKO ..................................................................... 13TH PETITIONER FRED MUTORO ............................................................................ 14TH PETITIONER WILSON KIMONGO .................................................................... 15TH PETITIONER SIMON MATETE ........................................................................... 16TH PETITIONER WALTER LUI .................................................................................. 17TH PETITIONER FRANCIS WEKESA ....................................................................... 18TH PETITIONER PATRICK WANGIRA ................................................................... 19TH PETITIONER DISMASS WAFULA ....................................................................... 20TH PETITIONER MARGARET NASAMBU .............................................................. 21ST PETITIONER RONALD BARASA ....................................................................... 22ND PETITIONER NICKSON WEKESA ..................................................................... 23RD PETITIONER AGNES KARORI ........................................................................... 24TH PETITIONER LAZARO WEKESA MARAN ....................................................... 25TH PETITIONER JONES NASAMBU ......................................................................... 26TH PETITIONER JOEL MUNG’ARE .......................................................................... 27TH PETITIONER GRACE N. LUTURIAN ................................................................ 28TH PETITIONER LABAN WEFILA ............................................................................ 29TH PETITIONER LINET KWAMBOKA .................................................................... 30TH PETITIONER STANLEY SIATAKO ....................................................................... 31ST PETITIONER RUTH CHEPCHUMBA ................................................................ 32ND PETITIONER WILLIAM N. MARUTI ................................................................ 33RD PETITIONER PETER WANYONYI ..................................................................... 34TH PETITIONER GRACE CHEMAYEK KUTWA .................................................... 35TH PETITIONER RHODAH N. MNUPI ................................................................... 36TH PETITIONER MATAYO MWALATI ..................................................................... 37TH PETITIONER https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/2975/eng@2022-06-21 2

page 2 of 10

JACOB S. MSIEBEBE ..................................................................... 38TH PETITIONER JANE N. SUDI ................................................................................ 39TH PETITIONER FLORENCE KERUBO OMOYO .................................................. 40TH PETITIONER JUMA NYONGESA ........................................................................ 41ST PETITIONER RICHARD WEKESA WANDERA .............................................. 42ND PETITIONER EUNICE BARASA ......................................................................... 43RD PETITIONER BENSON NAMUNYU ................................................................... 44TH PETITIONER RONALD NALULWE .................................................................... 45TH PETITIONER FRED W. MAKHAPILA ................................................................ 46TH PETITIONER JOHN SIMIYU ................................................................................ 47TH PETITIONER ISAAC MKENDA ........................................................................... 48TH PETITIONER BENSON M. WASILWA ................................................................ 49TH PETITIONER CYLUS L. LUCHACHA ................................................................ 50TH PETITIONER KENNEDY W. JUMA ..................................................................... 51ST PETITIONER NANCY MUNYASIA ..................................................................... 52ND PETITIONER JAMES WANJALA ......................................................................... 53RD PETITIONER RICHARD KIMENGICH ............................................................. 54TH PETITIONER KATHLEEN K. M .......................................................................... 55TH PETITIONER PETER KITUYI MFUTI ............................................................... 56TH PETITIONER W. WANJALA ................................................................................. 57TH PETITIONER EVERLYNE LUTURIAN .............................................................. 58TH PETITIONER EDWIN NAMSHULE .................................................................... 59TH PETITIONER JANIFER SIMATWA ..................................................................... 60TH PETITIONER RAFAEL SIMATWA ....................................................................... 61ST PETITIONER PATRICK MADEGWA MATASO ................................................ 62ND PETITIONER METRINE LUSIKE ........................................................................ 63RD PETITIONER MARY N. NYONGESA .................................................................. 64TH PETITIONER AGNES MLONGO ......................................................................... 65TH PETITIONER WYCLIFFE MPALIO ..................................................................... 66TH PETITIONER ISAAC WASAI ................................................................................ 67TH PETITIONER TITUS KITUYI .............................................................................. 68TH PETITIONER TERESA KERUBO ......................................................................... 69TH PETITIONER https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/2975/eng@2022-06-21 3

page 3 of 10

WEKESA B. MASINDE ................................................................. 70TH PETITIONER JOYCE KEMUMA ........................................................................... 71ST PETITIONER TOM JOSEPH OMOYO ................................................................ 72ND PETITIONER WILKISTER MORAA ................................................................... 73RD PETITIONER LOICE NYAMBURA ..................................................................... 74TH PETITIONER WILFRED SHIRENGO ................................................................. 75TH PETITIONER JAMES NGUNGI ............................................................................ 76TH PETITIONER MARY NAFUNA ............................................................................ 77TH PETITIONER MELABI WAMBIA ......................................................................... 78TH PETITIONER DORIS BWARI ............................................................................... 79TH PETITIONER ESTHER KINUTHIA .................................................................... 80TH PETITIONER EMELDAH K. OKOTOYI .............................................................. 81ST PETITIONER EMILLY NEKESA .......................................................................... 82ND PETITIONER JOSPHAT WAFULA ...................................................................... 83RD PETITIONER JOSEPH MASIKA .......................................................................... 84TH PETITIONER ANDREW MAJIMBO ................................................................... 85TH PETITIONER ROBERT WANJALA ..................................................................... 86TH PETITIONER CALEB WANJALA ......................................................................... 87TH PETITIONER ROSELINE ONZERE ..................................................................... 88TH PETITIONER GRACE KANANU ......................................................................... 89TH PETITIONER MOURICE NYONGESA ............................................................... 90TH PETITIONER JOSEPH MHEMBERI ..................................................................... 91ST PETITIONER DAVID NYUKURI ......................................................................... 92ND PETITIONER MARK RAJA OKWARA .............................................................. 93RD PETITIONER JOHN OJIMU ................................................................................. 94TH PETITIONER HUMPHREY W. BARASA ............................................................ 95TH PETITIONER CLEOPHAS B. MAYENDE ........................................................... 96TH PETITIONER CHILSON MLUPI .......................................................................... 97TH PETITIONER NELSON SITOKI ........................................................................... 98TH PETITIONER ALICE N. WEKESA ....................................................................... 99TH PETITIONER FRANCIS SIATI ........................................................................... 100TH PETITIONER REUBEN KACHUI ....................................................................... 101ST PETITIONER https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/2975/eng@2022-06-21 4

page 4 of 10

KENNEDY WAFULA .................................................................. 102ND PETITIONER TOM SIMIYU ............................................................................... 103RD PETITIONER WAMALWA SANYANDA ........................................................... 104TH PETITIONER JOHN MAKOKHA TALEWA ..................................................... 105TH PETITIONER ERNEST POPOI ........................................................................... 106TH PETITIONER ROSELYNE KHAKASA .............................................................. 107TH PETITIONER YOHANA WAFULA .................................................................... 108TH PETITIONER JOSEPHAT MBITO ...................................................................... 109TH PETITIONER HELLEN WAFULA ...................................................................... 110TH PETITIONER PHILISTER N. NYONGESA ...................................................... 111TH PETITIONER BEN MLANGO ............................................................................. 112TH PETITIONER IRINE OMUNAKI VIHIMA ...................................................... 113TH PETITIONER AND KABARAK FARM LTD ................................................................ 1ST RESPONDENT ABMA INVESTMENT LTD ......................................................... 2ND RESPONDENT KIPSINENDE FARM LTD ........................................................... 3RD RESPONDENT LINSHIRE LTD .............................................................................. 4TH RESPONDENT SIMON MBUGUA THUNGU ...................................................... 5TH RESPONDENT KENNETH HAMISH WOOLER KEITH (BEING SUED AS EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF NICHOLAS BIWOTT) ................................... 6TH RESPONDENT DESTERIO ANDADI OYATSI (BEING SUED AS EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF NICHOLAS BIWOTT) ........................................................... 7TH RESPONDENT ELIZABETH KLEM (BEING SUED AS EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF NICHOLAS BIWOTT) .................................................................. 8TH RESPONDENT SETTLEMENT FUND TRUSTEE ............................................... 9TH RESPONDENT COMMISSIONER FOR LANDS ................................................ 10TH RESPONDENT LAND REGISTRAR, TRANS-NZOIA COUNTY .................. 11TH RESPONDENT DIRECTOR, LAND ADJUDICATION & SETTLEMENT TRANS-NZOIA COUNTY ...................................................................................... 12TH RESPONDENT COUNTY LANDS SURVEYOR TRANS NZOIA COUNTY . 13TH RESPONDENT CABINET SECRETARY FOR LANDS, HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 14TH RESPONDENT NATIONAL LAND COMMISSION .......................................... 15TH RESPONDENT INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ...................................... 16TH RESPONDENT https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/2975/eng@2022-06-21 5

page 5 of 10

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS ............................ 17TH RESPONDENT NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF KENYA ........................................ 18TH RESPONDENT ATTORNEY GENERAL ............................................................. 19TH RESPONDENT CABINET SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR & COORDINATION ............................................................................. 20TH RESPONDENT DOMINIC K. SINGOEI (AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF 205 MEMBERS OF KIMNON INVESTMENT CO) .................................................. 21ST RESPONDENT ALBERT K. TOO (AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF 205 MEMBERS OF KIMNON INVESTMENT CO) .................................................................... 22ND RESPONDENT WALTER K. KEMBOI (AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF 205 MEMBERS OF KIMNON INVESTMENT CO) .................................................. 23RD RESPONDENT KAPSITWET RIVER ESTATE LTD ......................................... 24TH RESPONDENT AND COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF TRANS NZOIA ................. INTERESTED PARTY AREA MP, KWANZA CONSTITUENCY ............................. INTERESTED PARTY KENYA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION ......................... INTERESTED PARTY ELDORET EXPRESS LTD ...................................................... INTERESTED PARTY JOHN LONYANGAPUO ......................................................... INTERESTED PARTY HENRY KIPLAGAT KIPTIONY ........................................... INTERESTED PARTY JOHN PORIOT (ON OWN BEHALF AND AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF 80 OTHERS NAMED IN THE APPLICATION DATED 26/8/2017) ................................................................................. INTERESTED PARTY MOSES CHELELGO (ON OWN BEHALF AND AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF 296 OTHERS NAMED IN THE APPLICATION DATED 24/6/2019) ................................................................................. INTERESTED PARTY JOB SANG (ON OWN BEHALF AND AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF 296 OTHERS NAMED IN THE APPLICATION DATED 24/6/2019) ................................................................................. INTERESTED PARTY DANIEL KIBUNDO (ON OWN BEHALF AND AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF 296 OTHERS NAMED IN THE APPLICATION DATED 24/6/2019) ................................................................................. INTERESTED PARTY RULING On stay of execution of Decree 1. This is a Ruling on an application filed by the 6th Respondent/Applicant on 18/05/2021. It was dated 17/05/2021. It was brought under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, Rule 32 of https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/2975/eng@2022-06-21 6

page 6 of 10

the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013 and all other enabling provisions of law. The application sought the following orders: (1) …spent (2) …spent (3) There be a stay of execution of the Judgment and Decree of the Honourable Court rendered on 03/03/2021 pending the hearing and determination of the 6th Respondent/Applicant’s Appeal against the judgment and decree. (4) This Court be pleased to give any further or other orders as it may deem just and expedient. (5) Costs incidental to this application abide with the results of 6th Respondent/Applicant’s Appeal. 2. The Application was based on eleven (11) grounds and supported by an afidavit sworn by Kenneth Hamisi Wooker Keith, learned counsel but who was one of the executors of the estate of the 6th Respondent/ Applicant, on 17/05/2021 and filed on 18/05/2021 together with the Application. 3. The Applicant is the 6th Respondent in the Petition. He stated, in the grounds in support of the Application, that he was aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Court rendered on 3/05/2021; he filed a Notice of Appeal against the said judgement and decree; he believed that there were reasonable grounds of appeal and that without a stay of execution of the appeal the same would be rendered nugatory and academic exercise; that there was a likelihood of substantial loss resulting since he would be compelled to pay Kshs. 1,500,000/= for unlawful arrest, Kshs. 1,500,000/= for malicious prosecution and Kshs. 3,000,000/= for unlawful eviction yet the Petitioners were persons of limited means hence unable to repay the sums if the appeal was successful. He then posited that he was willing to abide by any conditions the Honourable Court would find just and equitable to issue as a condition for stay of execution, including depositing security for due performance of the decree if the appeal was not successful; and the Petitioner would sufier no prejudice if the application, which he stated was brought timeously, was granted. 4. The Deponent of the Supporting Afidavit reiterated the contents of the grounds in support of the Application. However, he attached to the Afidavit the copy of the impugned judgment of this Court and gave a detailed summary of the find reliefs in it. He then stated that the execution of the sums in the judgment would occasion the 6th Respondent irreparable harm in the event the Appeal succeeded. He stated that the Applicant was willing to give security by way of a bank guarantee or in the alternative deposit the sum in question in Court if directed to do so. He prayed for the application to be allowed. 5. The Application was not opposed. 6. On 11/06/2021 the Applicant filed written submissions dated 16/06/2021. In them he referred to the Application dated 11/05/2021 yet the same was dated 17/05/2021. The content of the submissions was on all fours about the Application dated 17/05/2021. In summary the 6th Applicant stated that he relied on Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and the list of authorities he attached to the submissions. They included the High Court case of HGE v SM [2020] eKLR and G.N. Muema P/A (Sic) Mt View Maternity & Nursing Home v Miriam Maalim Bishar & another [2018] eKLR both of which gave the principles the Court should rely on in applications of such a nature, and which he summarized in the submissions. 7. On substantial loss, he relied on the High Court case of Victory Construction v BM (a minor suing through next friend one PMM) [2019] eKLR. In it the Court relying on the earlier case of Century https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/2975/eng@2022-06-21 7

page 7 of 10

Oil Trading Co. Ltd v Kenya Shell Ltd, Nairobi Milimani 1561 of 2007 held that where execution of a monetary decree is sought to be stayed the financial position of the Applicant and Respondent become an issue in case of considering whether substantial loss would result, and the Court has to strike a balance between the interests of the Applicant seeking to preserve the status quo and those of the Respondent. 8. In regard to whether the Application was made with unreasonable delay, the Applicant relied on the case of Focin Motorcycle Co. Limited v Ann Wambui Wangui & another [2018] eKLR. On security for due performance of the decree he relied on the case of HE. V SM (supra) and Focin (supra) together with those of Lee G. Muthoga v Habib Zurich Finance Ltd & Anor (2016) eKLR and Arun C Sharma v Ashana Raikundalia T/A A Raikundalia & Co Advocates & 2 Others [2014 eKLR. And, lastly, about whether there was reasonable belief that the appeal was based on sustainable grounds that had good prospects of success, the Applicants relied on the case of Daniel Walter Rasugu v. Johana Nyakwoyo Buti & 2 Others [2008] eKLR. Analysis and Determination 9. The fact that an Application is not opposed does not necessarily lead to an automatic grant of thereof. The Court is enjoined to examine its merits or otherwise and make a finding on them. As such I have carefully considered the Application and the afidavit in support, the submissions on record as well as the law and the case law cited. I find two issues for determination. These were: a. Whether the Applicant has satisfied the criteria for grant of stay of execution pending appeal. b. Who to bear the costs of the Application? 10. I begin by analyzing whether the application is merited by way of a demonstration of meeting the requirements for grant of an order for stay of execution pending appeal. First, it is not lost sight of the fact that the grant of an order of such a nature is discretionary and is given by a Court acting judiciously, that is to say, a Court weighing all circumstances of the case and acting reasonably within the law by applying its mind properly to the law. It is now settled law in regard to applications for stay of execution of judgment pending (an intended) appeal that certain conditions have to be met by an applicant. The Applicant has to place himself within the parameters set out in Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. 11. The said provision states that: “ No order for stay of execution shall be made under subrule (1) unless- 12. (a) the court is satisfied that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order is made and that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and (b) such security as the court orders for the due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding on him has been given by the applicant. The provision gives three conditions that ought to be satisfied, namely: i. That substantial loss may result in case the order is not granted ii. The application is brought without undue delay iii. Security for due performance of the decree has been ofiered by the Applicant. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/2975/eng@2022-06-21 8

page 8 of 10

13. To purport to reinvent the wheel on the import and interpretation of this provision would be overly ingenious. I will not take time to do so as of now. Rather I will restate them and add other or further conditions that other courts, including this one, have previously added to the three. This, looking at what my brother and sister judges have stated over the issue, I would summarize it by taking an excerpt from one authority as hereunder: In Civil Appeal No.107 of 2015, Masisi Mwita -vs- Damaris Wanjiku Njeri (2016) eKLR, the Court held that:“ The application must meet a criteria set out in precedents and the criteria is best captured in the case of Halal & Another..Vs…Thornton & Turpin Ltd, where the Court of Appeal (Gicheru JA, Chesoni and Cockar Ag. JA) held that:“The High Court’s discretion to order stay of execution of its Order or Decree is fettered by three conditions, namely; - Suficient Cause, substantial loss would ensue from a refusal to grant stay, the Applicant must furnish security, the application must be made without unreasonable delay. “In addition, the Applicant must demonstrate that the intended Appeal will be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted as was held in Hassan Guyo Wakalo…Vs…Straman EA Ltd (2013) as follows:“In addition the Applicant must prove that if the orders sought are not granted and his Appeal eventually succeeds, then the same shall have been rendered nugatory.” These twin principles go hand in hand and failure to prove one dislodges the other” 14. In the instant case the Applicant emphasized that he had filed a Notice of Appeal against the said judgement and decree of the Court and that he believed that there were reasonable grounds of appeal. The belief itself in there being reasonable grounds of appeal is not one of the conditions that the law requires that it be fulfilled. The Applicant ought to demonstrate that he has an arguable appeal. By the appeal being arguable does not mean that it must succeed. However, he must show that the grounds of appeal raise points which the appellant Court can consider as worth urging before it. The applicant failed to do this. He ought to have demonstrated that the appeal would not be a frivolous one. 15. Again, the Applicant contended that the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory and academic exercise if a stay of execution of the judgment was not granted. He gave a breakdown of the sums of money that he would lose which would amount to substantial loss in case the execution was not stayed. Moreover, he argued that the Petitioners were persons of limited means hence would be unable to repay the sums if the appeal was successful. In a bid to safeguard the sums due under the decree, the Applicant stated that he was willing to abide by any conditions this Court would find just and equitable to issue as a condition for stay of execution, including depositing security for due performance of the decree if the appeal was not successful. 16. Having considered the totality of the facts, arguments and submissions herein, and considering the fact that this Court has already found that the rights of the Respondents in the instant were violated, they were unlawfully evicted from the respective portions of land they occupied and were maliciously prosecuted, even if it can be and was argued that they are of limited, they are human like the Applicant and deserved and still do human dignity. This Court is of the view, and doing the best it can do, balancing all the interests of the parties, that it would be in appropriate to grant a stay of execution of the decree herein pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal, under the following conditions: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/2975/eng@2022-06-21 9

page 9 of 10

a. That the applicant pays half of the decretal sums in all the limbs in the judgment to the Respondents within thirty (30) days of this ruling, in default of which the orders herein shall lapse. b. The Applicant shall deposit the balance of the decretal sum in Court within the said period of thirty (30) days failure of which the stay of execution orders herein shall lapse. c. The Applicant shall file and serve the record of appeal herein within the next sixty (60) days of this ruling, in default of which the orders herein shall lapse irrespective of whether or not conditions (a) and (b) above shall have been fulfilled. d. The the1re shall be no order as to costs of the instant Application. Orders accordingly. RULING, DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KITALE VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL THIS 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022. DR. IUR FRED NYAGAKA JUDGE, ELC, KITALE. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/2975/eng@2022-06-21 10

page 10 of 10