Mwangi v Mwangi & 9 others

a. An order that the defendants by themselves, their servants, and/or agents be restrained by an Injunction from transferring, charging, and/or in any manner interfering with the ownership of the property which should remain in the name of Mwangi Gikungu. b. A declaration that the Plainti is entitled to a one fth 1/5th share in property LR No Loc 8/ kandegenye/284/1 also known as Plot No 1 Kahuro Market in place of the Defendants. c. An Order that the name of the Plainti be inserted as a co-owner of the whole of LR No Loc 8/Kandegenye/284/1 also known as Plot No 1 Kahuro Market in place of the 1st and 2nd Defendants and the Defendants be ordered to present the necessary forms for registration to the Land Registrar and the County Government of Murang’a. d. In default of prayer (c) above, the Land Registrar Muranga as well as the County Administrator, County Government of Murang’a be authorized and directed to eect the registration of the Plainti and the 3rd to 10 Defendants over the suit land LR No Loc 8/ kandegenye/284/1, also known as Plot No 1 Kahuro Market in the ration of 1/5th and 4/5th in favour of the Plainti and the 3rd to 10th Defendants respectively. e. That the Costs of the suit be awarded to the Plainti f. Any other relief that the Court may deem t and just 2 It is the Plainti’s averment that he is a bonade purchaser for value of the 1st and 2nd Defendants interests in LR No Loc 8/kandegenye/284/1, also known as Plot No 1 Kahuro Market, which is registered in the name of Mwangi Gikungu (Deceased). That through Muranga Succession Cause No 116 of 2007, the Defendants were granted equal shares of the suit property on October 4, 2010. That by virtual of agreements between the Plainti and the 1st and 2nd Defendants respectively, it was their mutual understanding that upon conclusion of Muranga CM Succ 116 of 2007, the Defendants would forthwith and promptly transfer the said 2 shares (one each) in the suit property to the Plainti, since he had paid them the full purchase price. 3 That upon conclusion of the said Succession cause, the 1st and 2nd Defendants have been adamant and reluctant to transfer their portions to the Plainti as agreed. That he now seeks an order of Specic Performance against the 1st and 2nd Defendants over the suit property and the combined shares of the 1st and 2nd Defendants amount to 1/5th of LR No Loc 8/kandegenye/284/1, also known as Plot No 1 Kahuro Market. 4 The Plainti’s claim was opposed jointly by the Defendants via an Amended Statement of Defence dated 18th June, 2021. The Defendants denied in total the allegations made by the Plainti and put him to strict proof. In addition, it is the Defendants’ averment that LR No Loc 8/kandegenye/284/1, also known as Plot No 1 Kahuro Market is registered in the name of all the Defendants jointly and none of the Defendants had sold their share. That the Plainti was in possession of the suit property as a tenant. That the alleged sale agreement referred to by the Plainti is a nullity as at the time of the said sale, the property was registered in the name of Mwangi Gikungu (deceased) and none of the Defendants had capacity to sell or transact with the suit land without the consent of the other Defendants. That the purported sale agreements between the Plainti and the 1st and 2nd Defendants were a forgery scheme by the Plainti to defraud the Defendants of the suit property. 5 Further that the Plainti was a tenant on the suit property and any payment made to any of the Defendants was in furtherance of the said tenancy and not purchase price. That the suit property is registered in the names of the Defendants who are the lawful beneciaries of Mwangi Gikungu https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/15553/eng@2022-12-20 2

page 2 of 10

(deceased), and the Plainti is not entitled to any share of it. That the suit is led in bad faith and is ill motived and it should therefore be dismissed entirely. 6 The matter proceeded via Viva Voce evidence. The Plainti gave evidence for himself and called no witness while the Defendants called three witnesses to support their case. Plainti ’s case 7 PW 1 Paul Nduati Mwangi, testied that he knew the Defendants herein. He adopted his Witness Statement dated November 4, 2014, as part of his evidence and produced the documents contained in his list of documents dated 4November 4, 2014 as P EXB 1-7. 8 On cross examination, he testied that he is a tenant on the suit property and that he had also purchased a share of it. That he used to pay yearly rent of Kshs 30,000/= and that he does not pay that rent now. That he could not recall the last time he had paid rent. That he stopped paying because he once wrote a cheque to the Defendants and they refused to accept it. That he did not recall the date of the said cheque and he had not produced it as an exhibit in Court. That the instant case was for sale of the suit property and not his lease. 9 That he purchased a portion of the suit land from Lawrence Irungu Mwangi and Stephen Ngotho Mwangi on 8/5/2004. That at the time of the purchase, the land was not registered in their names, but it was registered in the name of their father who was deceased. That he had been on the suit land since 1986. That at the time of purchase, he did not carry out a search, but he knew the land was registered in the name of the sellers’ father and not the sellers. That in the sale agreement there was a default clause and the liquidated damages payable for default was Kshs 50,000/= by the defaulting party. That he had not claimed the said Kshs 50,000/= and he wanted the land through Specic Performance remedy. That as per the sale agreement, the land he bought was to be transferred to him after succession. 10 That he had sued the 7th Defendant in her capacity as a beneciary of the suit land, but he did not know that she was deceased. That he never entered a sale agreement with the 3rd -10th defendants, but he had sued them because they were beneciaries of the suit land. That he had sued the 1st and 2nd Defendants because they received the purchase price from him. Defence case 11 DW 1 Stephen Ngotho Mwangi, testied that he knew the Plainti herein and that he was a tenant on the suit land. He adopted his amended Witness Statement dated June 18,2021, as his evidence and produced the documents contained in his list of documents dated November 8,2016 as Defendants’ exhibit 1. 12 On cross examination, he stated that there is a certicate for Conrmation of Grant and the suit property was to be shared equally among the 10 Defendants. That instead of subdividing the property, they registered a partnership called Ignatius Irungu & Partners, and the suit land is to be transferred to the partnership. That the portion bought by the Plainti was not separated. That he had seen the alleged sale agreements and his signature and name appeared on both of them. That the purported signatures in the sale agreement were not his, and he had never gone to the police to report the forgery of his signature. That he did not sell any parcel of land to the Plainti and that the said Plainti was only leasing the land. That the transaction between himself and the Plainti was for rent and not a purchase, and he had a witness to that eect. 13 DW 2 Igantius Irungu Mwangi, testied that he was the 3rd Defendant and he knew the Plainti. That he was testifying on his own behalf and on behalf of the other Defendants. He adopted his https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/15553/eng@2022-12-20 3

page 3 of 10

amended Witness Statement dated June 18, 2021 as his evidence in chief and produced the documents marked DEXB I as his exhibits. 14 On cross examination, he testied that all the Defendants were to share the suit property equally. That in respect of the suit property, they registered a Partnership. That he was not party to the sale agreement alleged by the Plainti and only learned about it in Court. That he did not know if the agreements were forged or not. That he had not seen the said sale agreements and the 1st Defendant had not complained about his signature being forged on the two sale agreements. 15 Further that the Plainti is a lessee and not a purchaser. That the Plainti started leasing the suit land in 1986. That the agreements in Court are for sale and not leasing. That the Plainti was a tenant and he had never sued him for rent and that he did not have a counterclaim against him. 16 DW 3 Anne Wanjiru Kariuki, testied that the 2nd Defendant was her father and that he was deceased. She adopted her Witness Statement dated June 18, 2021, as part of her evidence and she also conrmed that she would rely on DEXB 1 already produced in Court. She testied that she knew the Plainti and that he was a tenant on the suit land. 17 On cross examination, she testied that she did not know that her father signed the impugned sale agreements and that no complaint had been lodged for forgery of her father’s signature. 18 On May 10, 2022, the Court directed the parties to le and exchange written submissions. 19 The Plainti led his written submissions dated June 28, 2022, through the Law Firm of JN Mbuthia & Co Advocates. It is the Plainti’s submissions that while it was regrettable that the 1st and 2nd Defendants obtained money from him while they knew that they lacked capacity to sell the suit land or any portion of it, the said 1st and 2nd Defendants should be bound by the terms of the sale agreements that they signed and their share in the suit land should be given to the Plainti. He relied on the case of Transmara Sugar Co Ltd and Another v Ben Kangwaya Ayiemba & Another (2020) eKLR, where the Court found that not all illegalities vitiate contracts. 20 It is the Plainti further submissions that even though he was a tenant of the suit land, he was not precluded from buying it whole or in part. That the allegations that the monies he paid to the 1st and 2nd Defendant were his rent arrears was unfounded as they had not claimed any arrears owing from him in their pleadings That all the Defendants were beneciaries of the suit land and pursuant to a Succession Cause and therefore they were rightfully parties to this suit. 21 He urged the Court to allow his claim as prayed since he had proved his case against the Defendants on a balance of probability and to the required standard. 21 The Defendants also led their Written Submissions dated July 20, 2022, through the Law Firm of LM Kinuthia & Associates Advocates. The Defendants reiterated their pleadings and statements in Court and raised 3 issues for determination by this Court. 22 It is their submissions that the Plainti had not shown any cause of action against the 3rd -10th Defendants and therefore the claim against them should be dismissed. That in accordance with Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act, the 1st and 2nd Defendants lacked capacity to transact in the suit land and therefore the sale agreements they executed are null and void abinitio. Reliance was placed on Succession Cause No 11 of 2009 In the Matter of the Estae of David Julis Nturibi M’Ithinji (deceased) 2012 eKLR, where the Court dealt with the issues of intermeddling and found that it results to wastage of the estate of a deceased person. It was the further submissions of the Defendants that the 1st and 2nd Defendants were intermeddlers and should be treated as such. The Defendants urged this Court to nd in their favour and dismiss the Plainti’s claim with costs. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/15553/eng@2022-12-20 4

page 4 of 10

23 The Court has carefully read and considered the pleadings by the parties, analyzed the evidence adduced, the rival written submissions and the relevant provisions of law and nds that the issues for determination are; a. Whether the Plainti’s Claim is merited? b. Who should pay costs of the suit? 24 It is not in doubt that the suit property was initially registered in the name of Mwangi Gikungu (deceased). That the said Mwangi Gikungu died in 1986, and a Succession Cause was led in the Chief Magistrates Court in Muranga being Succession Cause 116 of 2007. That a Certicate of Conrmation of Grant was issued on October 4, 2010 and the suit land was transmitted to the Defendants herein, each having an equal share. That pursuant to the Conrmation of Grant, the suit land was transferred to the Defendants herein in their capacity as beneciaries of the late Mwangi Gikungu. Currently the suit property being LR No Loc 8/kandegenye/284/1, also known as Plot No 1 Kahuro Market is registered in the name of all the Defendants jointly. It is also not in doubt that the Plainti has possession of the suit property as a tenant, which he has been since 1986. 25 This Court having outlined the above, will now proceed to analyze and determine the issues identied above. Whether the plainti ’s claim is merited? 26 It is the Plainti’s claim that he purchased a portion of the suit land being the entitlement of the 1st and 2nd Defendants herein in LR No Loc 8/kandegenye/284/1, also known as Plot No 1 Kahuro Market, pursuant to sale agreements dated May 8, 2004 and June 11, 2007 respectively. That he paid the entire purchase price and the 1st and 2nd Defendants promised to transfer to him their entitlements once the succession for the estate of the late Mwangi Gikungu was completed. That since succession was concluded, the 1st and 2nd Defendants have refused to hold up to their end of the bargain and thus prompting him to approach this Court for a remedy. 27 The Defendants on the other hand denied the allegations of the Plainti and stated that there was no sale agreement entered concerning the suit land. That even though sale agreements were indeed executed between the Plainti and the 1st and 2nd Defendants, the said 1st and 2nd Defendants lacked capacity to enter such an agreement as the suit property at the time was still registered in the name of Mwangi Gikungu (deceased), and was not free property. That the actions of the 1st and 2nd Defendants amounted to intermeddling and the same cannot be endorsed by this Court. 28 To address the issue of whether the Claimant’s claim is merited, this Court will rst have to determine whether the alleged sale agreement existed, and if it did, whether the same was valid. Section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act provides;“ No suit shall be brought upon a contract for the disposition of an interest in land unless:(a) (b) The contract upon which the suit is found(i) Is in writing (ii) Is signed by all the parties thereto; and The signature of each party signing has been attested by a witness who is present when the contract was signed by such party.” https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/15553/eng@2022-12-20 5

page 5 of 10

30 This provision came into force in June 2002, as amended and replaced the previous Section 3 of the Law of Contract Act which had provided as follows:“No suit shall be brought upon a contract for the disposition of an interest in land unless the agreement upon which the suit is founded, or some memorandum or note thereof is in writing and is signed by the party to be charged or by some person authorized by him to sign it. Provided that such suit shall not be prevented by reason only of the absence of writing, where an intending purchaser or lessee who has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract:- 31 (i) Has in part performance of the contract taken possession of the property or any part thereof; or (ii) Being already in possession continues in possession in part performance of the contract and has done some other act in furtherance of the contract.” In the case of Patrick Tarzan Matu & Another v Nassim Shariff Abdulla & 2 Others [2009] eKLR Azangalala, J (as he then was), struck out the Plainti’s case where he found that the contract relied upon was in contravention of Section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act and declined to entertain the claim for damages for breach of the contract. Inter alia he stated:“ …The applicant in this case has satised me that there is no agreement between her and the plaintis in terms of the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act which the Plaintis can enforce against her. The plaintis are urging the view that their claim for damages for breach of the contract of sale is sound. With respect, that view cannot be correct. The claims are made pursuant to an agreement that is contra statute or at the very least does not comply with the law. So, the very foundation of their claim is untenable.” 32 In the case of Silverbird Kenya Limited v Junction Ltd & 3 Others [2013] eKLR, an application had been made by the 1st Defendant to strike out the Plainti’s suit on the ground that the lease on which it was anchored had not been signed in contravention of Section 3(3) of the Law of Act. In the suit, the Court stated inter alia:“ …In my view it matters not that the plainti had been let into possession of the premises if the contract pursuant to which the plainti was granted possession was not validated in accordance with the law. The letter of August 19, 2009, in my view does not satisfy the requirements of Section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act to be the foundation of the plainti’s claim against the defendants. Section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act is indeed couched in mandatory terms and does infact divest the Court of jurisdiction in instances where there is no compliance as in the instant case. In the circumstances and by reason of the Law of Contract Act, the plainti’s suit must fail for being in contravention of Section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act, Cap 23 Laws of Kenya.” 33 In the present case, the Sale agreement dated May 8, 2004, is in compliance with Section 3 of the Law of Contract Act and is therefore a valid contract to dispose of the interests in land. 34 Having determined this, the next issue for determination is whether the parties in the said sale agreement had the capacity to deal with the suit land. A perusal of the sale agreements dated May 8, 2004 and June 11, 2007 show that the Vendors were Stephen Ngotho Mwangi, the 1st https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/15553/eng@2022-12-20 6

page 6 of 10

Defendant herein and Lawrence Irungu Mwangi, the 2nd Defendant herein. The said agreements also acknowledged that the property being sold belongs to Mwangi Gikungu, who had died in 1986 and that both the Vendors were his sons are beneciaries of his estate. Both the 1st and 2nd Vendors each sold 1/3rd of the suit land to the Plainti herein at Kshs 45,000/= and Kshs 40,000/= respectively. In addition to the sale price the Purchaser also agreed to be paying an annual amount of Kshs 3,300/ = to Hannah Gichiru until her demise. In the Agreement dated June 11, 2007, both the purchasers conrmed receipt of Kshs 45,000/= and Kshs 40,000/= respectively in full payment of the Purchase price as per their earlier agreement dated May 8, 2004. In addition, the said Hannah conrmed that she had been receiving the agreed annual Kshs 3,300/=. 35 It is settled law that the estate of the deceased person is vested in the legal representative; see KotharivQuaresh (1967)EA 364 and Trouistik Union International and another v Jane Mbeyu and another (1993)eKLR. Under Section 3 of the Law of Succession Act (supra), the term “personal representative” means the executor or administrator as the case may be, of a deceased person. Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act Chapter 21 Laws of Kenya, also denes the term “legal representative”. 36 As such, the 1st and 2nd Defendants are not such representatives or persons in respect of the estate of the deceased herein. As indicated herein above the late Mwangi Gikungu died in 1986, and the Administrators of his estate were only appointed in 2007, when a Succession Cause was led in the Chief Magistrates Court in Muranga being Succession Cause 116 of 2007. The Administrators appointed as evidenced by the Certicate of Conrmation of Grant dated October 4, 2010 were Hannah Gichiru Mwangi, Ignatius Irungu Mwangi and Keziah Irungu Mwangi. It follows therefore that at the time the initial sale agreement was executed the estate of the Late Mwangi Gikungu was yet to be administered and the property was not a free property. 37 In this case, the Plainti claims to have bought the land from persons who were not registered owners and who did not have the right to sell it in the rst place. In addition, the two purported Vendors were not lawful administrators of the said estate and lacked capacity to deal with the suit land in any manner whatsoever and their actions amounted to intermeddling and oended the provisions of section 45 and section 83 of the Law of Succession Act. 38 Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act reads as follows: No intermeddling with property of deceased person. 1. 39 Except so far as expressly authorized by this Act, or by any other written law, or by a grant of representation under this Act, no person shall, for any purpose, take possession or dispose of, or otherwise intermeddle with, any free property of a deceased person. The said Section 45 states further that: No distribution of capital before conrmation of grant (1) No grant of representation, whether or not limited in its terms, shall confer power to distribute any capital assets, or to make any division of property, unless and until the grant has been conrmed as provided in section 71. 82. Powers of personal representatives Personal representatives shall, subject only to any limitation imposed by their grant, have the following powers— https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/15553/eng@2022-12-20 7

page 7 of 10

(b) to sell or otherwise turn to account, so far as seems necessary or desirable in the execution of their duties, all or any part of the assets vested in them, as they think best: Provided that— (i) any purchase by them of any such assets shall be voidable at the instance of any other person interested in the asset so purchased; and (ii) no immovable property shall be sold before conrmation of the grant; 40 With regard to all the above provisions, it is clear that the 1st and 2nd Defendants were in violation of the law when they dealt with the suit property by selling it to the Plainti, while a Succession Cause was yet to be lodged and concluded. The courts have in several instances voided similar sale agreements. 41 In Civil Appeal 343 And 345 Of 2002 At The Court Of Appeal At Nyeri, Jane Gachoki Gathecha v Priscilla Nyawira Gitungu & Another [2008] Eklr, the Court dealt with a situation in which the land of a deceased person was unprocedurally transferred to a third party and the third party thereafter sold to a fourth party. The said fourth party thereafter claimed to be protected under section 93 of the Law of Succession Act. The Court dismissed the claim and in doing so, stated We think, with respect, that there is a fallacy in invoking and applying the provisions of section 93(1) of the Law of Succession Act and the superior Court fell into error in reliance of it. The section would only be applicable where, rstly, there is a “transfer of any interest in immoveable or moveable property”. Kabitau had no interest in plot 321 or any part thereof and therefore he could not transfer any. A thief acquires no right or interest which is transferable in stolen property. The transaction would be void ab initio and the property is traceable. “ 42 At the High Court inChuka Succession Cause No 560 Of 2015; Estate Of M'muthamia Mwendwa (deceased) [2016] EKLR,the Court handled a matter in which the beneciaries of the deceased’s estate also sold property while they were not administrators. Mabeya J stated; .. of course both Speranza and Linus were neither the owners of the properties they were purporting to sell nor were they administrators of the estate. Even an administrator of the estate with a grant which has not been conrmed cannot pass any title to land by dint of section 82 of the Act. Accordingly, Francis Kithinji and John Mutembei are at best intermeddlers who together with Speranza Kaguri and Linus Mwiti have fallen foul of Section 45 of the Act. Of course under that section, intermeddling with an estate of a deceased person is criminal and it attracts criminal sanctions”. 43 In Machakos Hcc 256 Of 2007 In Re Estate Of John Gakunga Njoroge (deceased) [2015] EKLR, the Court dealt with similar facts in which property was claimed by persons who had bought land from the deceased prior to his death and by persons who had bought land from beneciaries to the estate of the deceased. Muriithi J stated: 15. For the transactions between the applicants and the beneciaries of the estate of the deceased entered into before the Grant of Letters of Administration to them and before the Conrmed Grant, the contracts of sale are invalid for oending the provisions of section 45 and 82 of the https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/15553/eng@2022-12-20 8

page 8 of 10

Law of Succession Act. Even if the sale transactions were by the administrators, the dealings with immovable property of the Estate is restricted by the provisions on the powers and duties of the personal representatives under section 82 (b) Proviso (ii), which provides that: “(ii) no immovable property shall be sold before conrmation of the grant” “7. Recovery of consideration If any money or other valuable consideration has been paid in the course of a controlled transaction that becomes void under this Act, that money or consideration shall be recoverable as a debt by the person who paid it from the person to whom it was paid, but without prejudice to section 22.” 44 As seen in the above cases, Courts have held that transactions for land conducted prior to Conrmation of a Grant were void ab initio. This Court is well guided and agrees in toto with the above decisions that where a Certicate of Conrmation of Grant has not been issued in respect of the estate of a deceased person, no person, other than Administrators whose rights are limited, has the capacity to deal and or dispose o the property of a deceased person. Therefore, it is evident that the 1st and 2nd Defendants herein lacked capacity to enter a sale agreement with the Plainti over the suit land, and that the sale agreements dated May 8, 2004, and the one dated June 11, 2007, were void abinitio. 45 This Court cannot therefore eect the said sale agreements, as doing so would amount to permitting an illegality and would y in the face of Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act. In the case of re Estate of Paul Maria (deceased) [2017] eKLR; J Gikonyo observed thus: The restriction provided by law that no immovable property shall be sold or distributed before confirmation of grant is not merely directory or an embellishment. It is a statutory command with fatal consequences on any transaction done in contravention of the said law. Accordingly, acquisition of immovable property of the estate in contravention of the Law of Succession Act is tinctured with killer poison; and is unlawful acquisition; thus property so acquired does not enjoy the protection of property rights under article (40)(6) of the Constitution.” 46 The duty of this Court is to do justice and even after reaching the conclusion above, it is not blind to the fact that the Plainti had paid monies to the 1st and 2nd Defendants pursuant to the sale agreement dated 8th May 2004. DW 1 in his testimony before this Court denied having executed the sale agreement and alleged that his signature as seen on the said sale agreement and on subsequent agreements was forged by the Plainti. This Court however notes that while the 1st Defendant alleged forgery, he failed to substantiate the said claim with evidence as required by Section 109 of the Law of Evidence Act Cap 80. This Court is therefore inclined, based on the evidence placed before it, to believe the testimony of the Plainti that indeed there was a sale agreement entered between himself and the 1st and 2nd Defendants. That pursuant to the execution of the said sale agreements, the Plainti paid monies to the said Defendants. Since this Court has herein above invalidated the Sale agreements between the Plainti and the 1st and 2nd Defendant, the Plainti is therefore eligible to pursue the 1st and 2nd Defendant for a refund of the Purchase Price and any damages he may have suered as a result of the said transaction. (ii) Who should pay costs of this suit? 47 Although costs of an action are at the discretion of the court, the general rule is that costs shall follow the event. (See section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21)). Consequently, a successful litigant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/15553/eng@2022-12-20 9

page 9 of 10

should normally be awarded costs of an action unless, for good reason, the Court directs otherwise. See Hussein Janmohamed & Sons v Twentsche Overseas Trading Co. Ltd [1967] EA 287. 48 The Court herein is aware that the Plainti herein is the losing party but the said loss was not of his doing alone. The Court is therefore of the view that the appropriate order to make is for each party to bear his own costs. 49 The Upshot of the foregoing is that the Plainti has failed to prove his case against the Defendants herein jointly and severally on the required standard of balance of probability. For the above reasons, the Plainti’s claim stated in the amended Plaint dated December 18, 2020{{^}} is found devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed entirely with an order that each party to bear its own costs. 50 It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT MURANGA THIS 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022. L. GACHERU JUDGE Delivered virtually; In the presence of Mr. Mbuthia for the Plainti Mr. L. M. Kinuthia for the 1st – 10th Defendants Joel Njonjo – Court Assistant L. GACHERU JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/15553/eng@2022-12-20 10

page 10 of 10