Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission v Wandavuu Limited & another; Wandavuu Limited (Cross Petitioner); County Government of Machakos & 4 others (Respondent); National Land Commission (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E089 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6924 (KLR)

RULING Background 1. This ruling seeks to determine four notices of motion, three of which have been filed by the 1st defendant, respectively dated 20/01/2025, 20/01/2025 and 28/03/2025 and one by the plaintifi dated 27/01/2025. There is also a notice of preliminary objection (“PO”) filed by the 1st defendant dated 20/01/2025 that is also the subject of this ruling. For the sake of order, this court will shortly highlight each application, in chronological order based on their respective dates of filing, and also highlight the relevant responses thereto. Points of law raised in the 1st defendant’s PO 20/01/2025 & 1st defendant’s motion dated 20/01/2025 2. 3. In the PO, the 1st defendant raises the following points of law: a. The claim contravenes Articles 62, 67 and 68 of the Constitution of Kenya and Clauses 6 and 7 of the Sixth Schedule. b. The court has no jurisdiction to hear the claim. c. The claim is time-barred under the National Land Commission Act. d. The plaintifi has no legal, statutory or constitutional authority to lodge or maintain the claim. e. The only constitutional body with the capacity to review the propriety or legality of dispositions of public land is the National Land Commission, the interested party. Simultaneously, with filing the PO, the 1st defendant also filed a motion that presented similar grounds as the PO, and it sought the following reliefs: a. The plaint dated 24/10/2024 and the claim herein be dismissed. b. Costs of the motion be in the cause. 4. As well as the grounds, the motion is supported by the afidavit of 20/01/2025 by the 1st defendant’s director, Cyrose Nduku Kilonzo, who maintained as follows: a) the only statutory body with the capacity to review the propriety or legality of dispositions of public land is the National Land Commission (“NLC”) and, b) the claim is time barred under the Constitution and NLC Act. 5. In response not only to the PO and other spent issues that were dealt with in a consent that was adopted as an order of the court on 3/04/2025, the plaintifi’s further afidavit deposed on 11/02/2025 by Salad Wato Boru who is the plaintifi’s investigator stated in summary that: a) NLC’s jurisdiction to review all grants and dispositions of public land as provided under Section 14 of the NLC Act, lapsed on 2/05/2017; b) the role to determine the propriety or legality of grants or dispositions over public land now falls on the Environment and Land Court; and 6. C)Under Section 11 of the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission Act (“EACC Act”) and Section 55 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, No. 3 of 2003, the plaintifi has the mandate to undertake investigations into allegations of corruption or economic crimes, and in appropriate cases, to institute civil proceedings against any person for the recovery of public property or confiscation of proceeds of corruption or related to corruption; d) the plaintifi’s suit is properly before this court which has jurisdiction to hear and determine it, and at last, e) Sections 41 and 42 of the Limitation https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6924/eng@2025-10-14 2

page 2 of 11

of Action Act expressly exclude the application of the Act on matters concerning government land, including proceedings towards recovery of government land. 1st defendant’s motion dated 20/01/2025 7. In this one, the 1st defendant sought the following reliefs from this court: a. Leave is given for the 1st defendant (cross-petitioner) to file its defence and cross-constitutional petition out of time. b. The defence and cross-constitutional petition on record be deemed duly filed. c. Costs of the motion be in the cause. 8. This motion is supported on the grounds set out therein and the supporting afidavit of Cyrose Nduku Kilonzo and annexures thereto. Briefiy, it was stated that a) the 1st defendant ought to have filed its defence by 4/12/2024; however, its defence and cross-constitutional petition dated 20/01/2025 were filed 21 days late; b) the delay is not unreasonable and the period between 21/12/2024 and 13/01/2025 is excluded in computing time; c) the 1st defendant's managing director passed away on 27/04/2013 and Machakos/Municipality Block 1/678 (“suit property”) was purchased in 1998, and finally, d) the late Senator Mutula Kilonzo had archived the file and they had made significant efiorts to locate it, hence the delay. 9. In response to this motion, which it sought for its dismissal with costs, the plaintifi filed grounds of opposition dated 23/01/2025 that raised the following grounds: a. The motion is fatally defective as it has been filed by a cross-petitioner (a stranger) to the plaintifi's suit, which suit pertains to proprietary rights over the suit property, which the plaintifi seeks to recover. The suit was instituted vide a plaint as prescribed by the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21 and the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. b. The pleadings to be filed by the 1st defendant ought to have been filed in adherence to Sections 2 & 19 of the Civil Procedure Act & Order 1 Rule 15, Order 7 Rules 1, 3, 5 and 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Failure to so comply renders the motion, defence, and cross-constitutional petition and any other document, incurably defective. c. The cross-petitioner's motion, defence, and cross-constitutional petition as filed are fatally defective as neither the Civil Procedure Act nor the Civil Procedure Rules contemplate the filing of a cross-petition to a plaint. The motion, defence, and cross-constitutional petition are to be struck out with costs to the plaintifi. d. The motion is bad in law, frivolous, and an abuse of the court process as the cross-petitioner (a stranger) has not stated the provisions of the law under which its motion is premised. The cross-petitioner, by filing a cross-constitutional petition in the plaintifi's suit and introducing new parties, has totally caused a disjointed cause of action; allowing the same to stand as filed will cause the plaintifi great prejudice. e. A cross-constitutional petition presupposes the existence of a petition (which is not the case herein) and the same is contemplated under Rule 2 and Rule 15(3) of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules Legal Notice 117 of 2013. f. The cross-petitioner cannot use shortcuts to access the court where there are laid down procedures to be followed. The cross-petitioner is free to file an independent suit if it so wishes. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6924/eng@2025-10-14 3

page 3 of 11

10. g. The cross-petitioner’s motion is incompetent, bad in law, embarrassing, and the sole intent is to delay and complicate the plaintifi's suit. h. The motion and the defence, and cross-constitutional petition are fatally defective, misconceived and ought to be struck out or dismissed with costs to the plaintifi. In a similar manner to the plaintifi, Mr. Peter Kuria, Senior State Counsel for and on behalf of the Hon. Attorney General (AG) and acting for the 2nd to 5th respondents, raised the following grounds in opposition to the motion: a. That the motion is incurably defective, incompetent, frivolous and scandalous and devoid of substance in law or at all, while the verifying afidavit is full of falsehoods and misrepresentations tailored to win the sympathy of the court. b. The cross-petitioner miserably failed to demonstrate by evidence or at all which of its rights were violated by the respondents; hence, the motion is and remains unproven, hearsay and devoid of substance and specificity. c. The motion is woefully and fatally defective as it ofiends the provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules and Constitution of Kenya (protection of rights and fundamental freedoms) practice and procedure rules, 2013, which do not contemplate the filing of such pleadings in the current suit. d. The motion is a non-starter, unknown in law and an abuse of the court process, as the crossconstitutional petition ofiends set out procedures for instituting such pleadings, as no petition is on record to anchor the said cross-constitutional petition. e. The motion is defective and a non-starter as the cause of action as against the 2nd respondent in the cross-constitutional petition cannot stand as the ofice does not exist. f. The motion is bad in law as the cross-petitioner has alleged facts and actions that are unfounded and without basis. Plaintifi ’s motion dated 27/01/2025 3. 12. This motion, whose grounds and afidavit in support thereof were deposed by counsel Culent Simiyu Lunyolo on 27/01/2025, is a repetition of the grounds of opposition dated 23/01/2025, and it is hence superfiuous to rehash them. In this motion, the plaintifi prayed for orders that: a. The court be pleased to strike out the 1st defendant's defence and cross-constitutional petition dated 21/01/2025 for being prejudicial, embarrassing, fatally defective and an abuse of the process of the court. b. The costs of this motion be provided for. The 1st defendant opposed this motion by a replying afidavit sworn by Cyrose Nduku Kilonzo, on 19/02/2025. Concisely and to sum it up, she averred that: a) The plaintifi’s claim raises various constitutional issues, including whether Section 11 (1) (j) of the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission Act, a pre-2010 constitution law, was altered, amended, qualified or, rendered void because of Articles 62, 67, 68 and Schedule 6 of the Constitution and the NLC Act, whether the plaintifi has capacity to lodge and or to maintain the claim, whether the plaintifi is usurping the role of the NLC, whether the claim is time-barred and, whether there is a threatened violation of the 1st defendant's fundamental rights by reason of the claim; and https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6924/eng@2025-10-14 4

page 4 of 11

13. B) that the cross-petition counters the claim by the plaintifi and seeks constitutional interpretation and remedies; c) a cross-constitutional petition is a pleading recognised by law and does not contravene any provisions of the law, thus, it is not substantively or technically fiawed; d) Articles 22 and 23, which ofier remedies for constitutional violations, supersede the Civil Procedures Act and there is a confiict between Articles 22 and 23 of the Constitution and the Civil Procedure Act and Rules; the latter is void to the extent of any inconsistency; e) the suit as filed is brought by the wrong party, before the wrong forum and is deliberately drafted to deny the 1st defendant its day in court; f) this court has jurisdiction under Articles 22, 23 and 165 of the Constitution to consider the cross-petition as a complete defence and cross-constitutional petition against the claim; and 14. G) that separating the plaintifi's claim from the constitutional issues that arise for determination by another High Court of the same status will be duplication in court proceedings concerning the same subject matter, which fiies in the face of the principle of sub judice, and lastly, h) the defendant will be prejudiced if it is denied and shut-out from bringing to court the constitutional questions and constitutional violations. 1st defendant’s motion dated 28/03/2025 15. 16. For the key reason that it erroneously failed to join the plaintifi as a party to the cross-constitutional petition, as is demonstrated by the grounds in support thereof and supported by the afidavit of Cyrose Nduku Kilonzo, on 28/03/2025, the 1st defendant sought the following orders: a. The 1st defendant be granted leave to amend its defence and cross-constitutional petition dated 21/01/2025. b. The costs of the motion be in the cause. In response, the plaintifi opposed the motion, by its grounds of opposition dated 7/05/2025, which raises grounds inter alia; a. The motion is fatally defective as the pleadings to be filed by the 1st defendant ought to have been filed in adherence to Sections 2 & 19 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 1 Rule 15 & Order 7 Rules 1, 3, 5 and 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Failure to so comply renders the motion, amended defence and cross cross-constitutional petition and any other document incurably defective. b. The motion is premature as there is another pending motion dated 20/01/2025 seeking leave for the 1st defendant's defence and cross-constitutional petition to be deemed duly filed. The motion is yet to be heard and determined by the court. c. The amended defence and cross-constitutional petition are fatally defective as there is no petition on record to anchor the 1st defendant's cross-constitutional petition. d. The motion is incompetent, bad in law, embarrassing and an abuse of the court process whose sole intent is to delay and complicate the plaintifi's suit. e. The motion and the amended defence and cross-constitutional petition are fatally defective, misconceived and ought to be struck out or dismissed with costs to the plaintifi. Hearings and submissions 17. As directed by the court on 3/04/2025, the PO and various motions were to be canvassed by a single set of written submissions, and parties were to file and serve them within 30 days thereof. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6924/eng@2025-10-14 5

page 5 of 11

Nevertheless, apart from the well-articulated submissions of M/s. Lunyolo, counsel for the plaintifi, dated 7/05/2025, none of the other parties has filed any written submissions to the time of penning this ruling. If at all, they will be filed; this court will consider them as having been filed out of time. Issues for determination, Analysis and Determination 18. Having carefully considered the PO, motions, their grounds, afidavits either in support or opposition to the motion and the plaintifi’s submissions together with provisions of law and judicial precedents relied upon, it is the considered view of this court that though the precedent setting case of Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs. West End Distributors (1969) EA 696 has long established the principles of POs and settles that a PO must consist of a point of law which has been pleaded or which arises by clear implication out of pleadings and which if argued as a preliminary point may dispose of the suit, it would be needless to deal with the issue of whether the PO has met the legal threshold as one of the motions dated 20/01/2025 which introduces matters of facts has raised similar points as those contained in the PO. 19. Now, back to the issues for determination, it is the considered view of this court that the following issues, which shall be handled sequentially, shall adequately address the matters at hand: a. Whether this court has jurisdiction to hear the claim. b. Whether the plaintifi has the legal capacity to lodge and maintain the claim. c. Whether a cross-constitutional petition is properly suited in this matter, and if so, should the 1st defendant be granted leave to file its pleadings out of time? d. Whether the motion dated 28/03/2025 is premature, if not, should it be allowed? We shall now proceed. a. Whether this court has jurisdiction to hear the claim. 20. Concerning the jurisdiction of this court, it is paramount that this court highlights the relevant law and prevailing jurisprudence on it. On matters of law, in exercise of its role under Article 162(2)(b) of our Constitution that establishes this court, parliament under the Environment and Land Court Act (“ELC Act”) created this court, which is a court of equal status to the High Court, whose jurisdiction is to hear and determine disputes relating to the environment and the use and occupation of and title to land. Of particular interest is Section 13 of the Act, which sets out in detail the jurisdiction of the court. 21. As concerns the prevailing jurisprudence, it is settled law that once the court finds it has no jurisdiction, it must not move one step further but down its tools. In this regard, this court associates itself with the decision of the Supreme Court of Kenya in the case of Samuel Kamau Macharia & another v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & 2 others [2012] eKLR, where it stated: “ A Court’s jurisdiction fiows from either the Constitution or legislation or both… It cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction exceeding that which is conferred upon it by law.” 22. In another decision of In the Matter of Advisory Opinions of the Supreme Court under Article 163(3) of the Constitution- Constitutional Application No. 2 of 2011, the apex Court cited with approval the https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6924/eng@2025-10-14 6

page 6 of 11

celebrated case of Owners of the Motor Vessel ‘Lilian S' v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Limited [1989] eKLR which expressed itself as follows: “ Such a Court may not arrogate to itself jurisdiction through the craft of interpretation, or by way of endeavours to discern or interpret the intentions of Parliament, where the wording of legislation is clear and there is no ambiguity.” 23. Turning to this case, it has not been disputed that the issue in dispute concerns the use and occupation of and title to land. However, the 1st defendant challenges the court’s jurisdiction on 2 grounds: that the NLC Act divests this court ofi its jurisdiction and the claim is statutorily barred. The plaintifi has rebutted this, and in arguing on the 1st limb of this contest, Ms. Lunyolo’s submissions contend that these lines of argument are misplaced, as by Section 14 of the NLC Act, the jurisdiction of the NLC to review all grants and disposition of public land terminated on 2/05/2017 and relied on the decision of Karaini Investment Limited v National Land Commission & 2 others [2021] eKLR which held: “ Parliament deemed it fit to limit the period within which NLC could review grants over public land to establish their legality to five years when it enacted the National Land Commission Act even though the Constitution did not set time limits in Article 68. In this court's view, the role to determine the propriety or legality of grants or dispositions over public land now falls on the ELC and subordinate courts in proceedings commenced under the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission Act for the recovery of lost or irregularly alienated public assets or other legislation." 24. With reference to this limb, Section 14 (1) of the NLC Act, which gave the NLC power to review grants and dispositions, provides as follows: “ (1)Subject to Article 68(c)(v) of the Constitution, the Commission shall, within five years of the commencement of this Act, on its own motion or upon a complaint by the national or a county government, a community or an individual, review all grants or dispositions of public land to establish their propriety or legality.” 25. Accordingly, this Act commenced on 2/05/2012, and the power of the NLC to carry out its mandate under this provision of the law automatically lapsed on 2/05/2017 or thereabouts, and this court fully associates itself with Karaini Investment Limited (Supra). This court is privy that currently, a Bill is pending in parliament seeking such an extension of time. As this court concludes that it is worth pointing out that even at the time of application of this Section 14 (1), which is now lapsed, this proviso never removed this court’s jurisdiction to entertain claims of fraud and illegality as alleged in the plaint. This position stems from this court’s reading of Article 67 (e) of the Constitution as read together with Section 15(3) (b) of the NLC Act. See also the Court of Appeal decision of Safepak Limited v Henry Wambega & 11 others [2019] KECA 510 (KLR). 26. Respecting the 2nd limb, Ms. Lunyolo submits that Sections 41 and 42 of the Limitation of Action Act expressly exclude the application of the Act on matters concerning government land, including proceedings towards recovery of government land. To buttress this, counsel relies on the decision of Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission v Onyango & 4 others (Environment & Land Case 58 of 2009) [2023] KEELC 22231 (KLR) (14 December 2023) (Judgment), which afirmed this position. This court wholly concurs with counsel, as these provisions specifically state that: Section 41: “ This Act does not— https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6924/eng@2025-10-14 7

page 7 of 11

(a) b) enable a person to acquire any title to, or any easement over— (i) Government land or land otherwise enjoyed by the Government; (ii) mines or minerals as defined in the Mining Act (Cap. 306); (iii) mineral oil as defined in the Mineral Oil Act (Repealed); (iv) water vested in the Government by the Water Act (Cap. 372); (v) land vested in the county council (other than land vested in it by section 120(8) of the Registered Land Act (Repealed); or (vi) land vested in the trustees of the National Parks of Kenya; or ………………………… Further, Section 42(1)(d) and (j) : - 27. “ (1) This Act does not apply to— a) …………………………… b) …………………………… c) …………………………… d) proceedings by the Government to recover possession of Government land, or to recover any tax or duty, or the interest on any tax or duty, or any penalty for non-payment or late payment of any tax or duty, or any costs or expense in connexion with any such recovery; or e) …………………………… f) ............... g) ………………………….... i) ……………………………. (j) a proceeding to recover an amount for which a person is liable under section 51 or 52 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act (Cap. 65) or a proceeding under section 55 or 56 of that Act; k) ………………………….” Having considered the law and judicial precedents, this court agrees with M/s. Lunyolo's submissions on both limbs and finds that the plaintifi’s suit is incapable of being time-barred, finds that the NLC does not have jurisdiction to entertain the claim herein and finally, finds that this court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. b. Whether the plaintifi has the legal capacity to lodge and maintain the claim. 28. For this issue, the 1st defendant did not set the legal basis as to why it believes the 1st defendant does not have legal capacity but be that as it may, Section 11 (1) (j) of the Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission Act, Section 55 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act and read together with Section 42(1)(d) and (j) of the Limitation of Actions Act, confers the plaintifi with mandate to https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6924/eng@2025-10-14 8

page 8 of 11

undertake investigations into allegations of corruption or economic crimes, and in appropriate cases, to institute civil proceedings against any person for the recovery of public property or confiscation of proceeds of corruption or related to corruption. To buttress this, this court is guided by the Court of Appeal decision of Boniface Katana Kalaveri v Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission & another [2015] KECA 530 (KLR), which held: ‘It is by virtue of this that Parliament enacted EACCA which gave the 1st respondent the statutory powers contained in the Act as well as the enforcement of Chapter 6 of the Constitution. Indeed, the heading of Section II of the EACCA is “Additional functions of the Commission.” Section II (1) thereof provides as follows: “In addition to the functions of the commission under Article 252 and Chapter six of the Constitution, the commission shall: “ (k) institute and conduct proceedings in court for purposes of the recovery or protection of public property, or for the freeze or confiscation of proceeds of corruption or related to corruption, or the payment of compensation, or other punitive and disciplinary measures.” This in our view was not a curtailment of the powers of the 1st respondent but an expanded mandate that includes the protection of public property, in addition to the powers vested in Chapter 6 and Article 252 of the Constitution. It should be remembered that the Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission, the predecessor of the 1st respondent was not anchored in the Constitution but in an Act of Parliament i.e. ACECA. As the title of that Act suggests, the focus was on corruption and economic crimes.” In consequence, this court agrees with the plaintifi’s counsel’s arguments and finds that the plaintifi has the legal capacity to institute these proceedings. b. Whether a cross-constitutional petition is properly suited in this matter, and if so, should the 1st defendant be granted leave to file its pleadings out of time? 29. As concerns the law, Section 19 of the Civil Procedure Act (“CPA”) provides that every suit shall be instituted in such manner as may be prescribed by Rules. About the matter in dispute, the plaintifi has filed the suit by way of a plaint as envisaged by Order 3 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”), which provides that every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint to the court, or in such other manner as may be prescribed. This mode of instituting the suit has not been challenged by any party. 30. Accordingly, once served with a plaint, it is anticipated that the defendant in this case, the 1st defendant, would file its defence and counterclaim (if need be) as required by Order 7 Rules 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 12 of the CPR. In this case, although the 1st defendant has filed a defence and has sought leave for it to be deemed as properly filed, which this court would have no dificulty in allowing such a plea, as this would serve the interests of justice as anticipated by law, it has, in addition to the defence, filed a cross constitutional petition which not only ofiends Section 19 of the Civil Procedure Act as it has been filed in a strange manner but contravenes Order 2 Rules 6 of the CPR which specifically bars any party to a pleading to make an allegation of fact, or raise any new ground of claim, inconsistent with a previous pleading in the same suit. 31. In the circumstances of this case, the court agrees with Ms. Lunyolo and the AG’s grounds of opposition that a cross-constitutional petition without a primary constitutional petition is unusual in law. Notably, regarding constitutional petitions-which are heard only in certain exceptional https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6924/eng@2025-10-14 9

page 9 of 11

circumstances, the procedure for initiating such petitions, which address redress for violations of fundamental rights and the enforcement of human rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights, is governed by the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules 2013. 32. It follows from reading this law that constitutional petitions are governed by their own strict set of Rules within a distinct regime, and the CPR, which covers, among other pleadings, plaints, does not apply when dealing with a cross-constitutional petition. Guidance is also sought from the Supreme Court’s decision in Nyutu Agrovet Limited v Airtel Networks Kenya Limited; Chartered Institute of Arbitrators-Kenya Branch [2019] KESC 11 (KLR), where at paragraph 76 it stated: “ …alleged breaches of the Constitution cannot be properly introduced by way of an application to set aside an arbitral award. Breaches of the Constitution are properly governed by articles 165(3) and 258 of the said Constitution and cannot by litigational ingenuity be introduced for adjudication by the High Court by way of invocation of section 35 of the Arbitration Act.” 33. Hence, this court associates itself with this decision, which applies in the present case, where, in a dubious and improper manner, the 1st defendant has filed the alleged cross-constitutional petition alleging a violation of the Constitution in response to the plaint, which is not permitted by law. Consequently, this court finds and holds that the cross-constitutional petition is an abuse of court process, it is inadmissible, and it is non-suited in these proceedings. Additionally, it finds that it could not be filed along with the defence. These findings make the determination of issue (d) unnecessary. 34. In the end, and for the above reasons and findings, the 1st defendant’s PO and notices of motions are hereby dismissed, while the plaintifi’s notice of motion dated 27/01/2025 is allowed. Therefore, the following final disposal orders are hereby issued; a. The 1st defendant’s notice of preliminary objection dated 20/01/2025 and notices of motion respectively dated 20/01/2025, 20/01/2025 and 28/03/2025 are hereby dismissed with costs being in the cause. b. The 1st defendant’s defence and cross-constitutional petition dated 21/01/2025 are hereby struck out with costs being in the cause. c. The defendants are hereby granted leave to file their defences and counterclaims (if need be) within 21 days hereof. d. Parties are directed to fully comply with Order 11. e. A mention date shall be given for purposes of pretrial directions. Orders accordingly. DELIVERED AND DATED AT MACHAKOS THIS 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025. HON. A. Y. KOROSS JUDGE 14. 10.2025 Ruling delivered virtually through Microsoft Teams Video Conferencing Platform In the presence of; Josephine Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6924/eng@2025-10-14 10

page 10 of 11

Miss Lunyolo for plantifi. M/s Kethi Kilonzo for 1st defendant. Mr. Kuria for 2nd - 5th respondents. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6924/eng@2025-10-14 11

page 11 of 11