Njuguna

JUDGMENT 1. This suit was instituted pursuant to a plaint dated 3 May 2018. The plaint was subsequently amended by the amended plaint dated 8 October 2018. The orders sought are as follows: a. Ksh. 50,000/= being the cost of the valuation report; b. A declaration that the defendant is the trespasser on the land comprising parcel L.R. No. 2109 (M20/2); c. An order of permanent injunction, restraining the Defendant, its agents, servants, employees, successors in title, or anyone acting on its behalf from further trespassing on parcel L.R No. 2109 (M20/2) Malindi, in particular, from excavating and removing soil and rocks from parcel L.R No. 2019 (M20/2) Malindi, causing degradation of the suit land and leaving the land unrehabilitated or otherwise. d. An order directing that the Defendant restore the suit land to its prior position or pay in lieu thereof the sum assessed as the cost of such restoration. e. An order to render accountability of all the benets derived and restitute the same to the Plainti. f. General damages. g. Exemplary/Punitive damages h. Interest at court rate 2. The plaintis called two witnesses who testied in support of the case, PW1, Kenneth Magema Kimani, and Edwin Odour, a registered practicing valuer. 3. PW1 testied that he is an administrator of the estate of Walter Ndungu Kimani and, together with the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th plaintis, is an administrator of the estates of Joel Njuguna Mbugua, Walter Ndungu Kimani, and Arthur Kabui Ngwiri, the owners of the suit land parcel number LR 2109 (M20/2) Malindi, in which they are jointly registered as proprietors. He stated that, together with the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th plaintis, who are administrators and have authorized him to testify on their behalf, he has been in possession of the suit property. 4. PW1 told the Court that on diverse dates in the years 2016 and 2017, the defendant entered the plaintis’ property, carried out excavation, removed soil from the suit property, destroyed trees and vegetation on the property, carried away marram from the said land, left it open and un-rehabilitated, leaving the land bare. The said illegal excavation has resulted in a depreciation of the land's market value, rendering it unsuitable for agricultural activities, development, and occupation. PW1’s prayer to the Court is for judgment to be entered in favor of the plaintis as prayed for in the amended plaint. 5. PW2, Mr. Edwin Oduor, testied that he is a valuer by profession working at Basemark Valuers. He informed the Court that he received instructions from the plaintis herein to conduct a valuation of the degradation of the suit property following excavation activities undertaken by third parties. He visited the property and conrmed that 10 acres had been excavated to a depth of 21 feet, with soil and stones removed. He produced two reports he had prepared, the rst dated 27 October 2017, which is attached to the plaintis’ list of documents dated 3 May 2018, and the second dated 2 October 2018, which is attached to the plaintis’ supplementary list of documents dated 11 October 2018. In the https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18613/eng@2025-12-11 2

page 2 of 10

valuation report dated 2 October 2018, the registered valuer states that the damage to the suit land includes destroyed topsoil, harvested quarry stones, and gaping dug-outs that pose environmental and health hazards. 6. He asserted that the damaged land requires between 1000 and 1500 tons of soil, stones, and concrete per acre to ll the large quarries left after excavation. The report includes photographic evidence of the property's damage. In the report, he values the damaged portion as follows: Current fair market value (10 acres) - 20,000,000; Value of damaged land (10 acres) - 8,000,000; Value of land restoration (10 acres) - 10,000,000. PW2 produced his reports dated 27 October 2017 and 2 October 2018 as evidence before the Court, together with the annexed photos showing the gravity of the excavations and the extent of the damage. 7. The defendant called a witness, Yasin Khan, who holds the position of Human Resources and Administration Manager with the defendant. Mr. Khan testied that the land specied in the suit is L.R. 2109 (M20/2) Malindi, which is allegedly owned by the plaintis and is purportedly distinct from the land on which the defendant entered into an agreement with Karisa Mbui Maguo, Katana Mbui Maguo, Kazungu Karisa, and Nzungo Kazungu Kaingu. The latter parcel of land is the site where the defendant has been conducting excavation activities, specically on Plot No. M20 Quarry 5 MLDKLF. 8. Further, he avers that at no time did the plaintis occupy the property and that the defendant did not see any of the plaintis at the site, either during the physical inspection of the site or during the period the site was visited for purposes of excavation. The defendant conducted due diligence to establish ownership of the land, and there was no evidence that the plaintis owned the property. Karisa Mbui Maguo, Katana Mbui Maguo, Kazungu Karisa, and Nzungo Kazungu Kaingu had been in continuous possession and occupation of the suit land for a long time. Their grandparents entered into occupation in 1900, a fact conrmed by the area chief. 9. He further asserted that the quotations of Kshs. 50,000 for the valuation report, Kshs. 8 million for the land's market value after depreciation, and Kshs. 10 million for expenses associated with rehabilitating and restoring the land constitutes a signicant overestimate. 10. At the close of the cases for both parties, I acknowledge receipt of written submissions from learned counsel for the plaintis, Mr. Githinji, and from learned counsel for the defendant, Mr. Gachau, with much appreciation, as the submissions went a long way toward assisting the court in reaching a determination on the issues raised in the matter. 11. Based on the foregoing, I frame the following issues for the court's determination: whether the defendant trespassed on the plaintis’ land; whether the plaintis are entitled to the orders sought; and who should bear the costs of the suit. Whether the Defendant Trespassed on the Plainti ’s Land. 12. Mr. Githinji submits that the plaintis have demonstrated that the property on which the defendant undertook quarrying belonged to them, as evidenced by the title document and conrmed by the valuation reports. 13. On the contrary, Mr. Gachau contends that this claim relates to the defendant being sued for trespass. He states there is a fundamental discrepancy in the identication of the property trespassed upon. From the plainti’s pleadings, the plainti has referred to dierent properties. Paragraph 4 of their amended plaint refers to parcel L.R. 2109 (M20/2), while paragraph 9 of the amended plaint refers to https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18613/eng@2025-12-11 3

page 3 of 10

land parcel L.R. No. 2019 (M202/2), Malindi. In the amended plaint, their prayer under number (iii) mentions parcel L.R. No. 2019 (M20/2). 14. Further, the plaintis, in their documents, have produced two Valuation Reports, one dated 27 October 2017 and another dated 2 October 2018. Both valuation reports describe the property alleged to have been trespassed as Portion No. 2109 (Title No. 4507), Malindi, in the Malindi-Sabaki Area, Kili County. The valuation reports include a certicate of postal search that describes the property as Plot Number Portion 2109, Malindi, Title Number LT. 36, FOLIO 63, FILE 4507. 15. Based on the foregoing, Mr. Gachau asserts that there is a discrepancy between the description of the land that was valued and the land that the plaintis allege the defendant trespassed upon. He contends that the parties are bound by their pleadings, and it is clear that the plaintis are unclear as to which property was trespassed upon. 16. It is well settled that parties are bound by their pleadings and may not introduce new facts or evidence at the stage of submissions. See Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & Another v Stephen Mutinda Mule & 3 others (2014) eKLR, which cited with approval the decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in Adetoun Oladeji (NIG) v Nigeria Breweries PLC SC 91/2002. 17. Counsel submitted that the defendant entered into a lease agreement dated 23 December 2016 with the interested parties, under which the interested parties leased to the defendant the parcel of land known as Plot No. M20 Quarry 5 MLD-KLF, measuring one acre and situated at Kikombetele Village in Sabaki Location within Kili County. The defendant’s activities were strictly conned to a dierent parcel, Plot No. M20 Quarry 5 MLD-KLF, as evidenced by the lease agreement with the interested parties. The interested parties in this matter are the owners of the suit property, Plot No. M20 Quarry 5 MLD-KLF, where the defendant was to excavate soil. 18. Because the property was ancestral and the interested parties lacked title to the land, the Area Chief had to be involved, and his stamp appears on the lease agreement. The Area Chief therefore wrote a letter dated 23 December 2016, certifying and conrming that the interested parties had jointly agreed to allow the defendant to excavate murram on a portion of M20 at Sabaki, where their grandfathers had lived since 1900. 19. Mr. Gachau avers that the plaintis have not provided conclusive proof that the parcel leased to the defendant and the one they claim ownership of and trespass to are one and the same. On the contrary, the defendant never entered or conducted any activity on L.R. No. 2109 (M20/2), L.R. No. 2019 (M202/2), Malindi, Plot Number Portion 2109-Malindi Title Number LT. 36, FOLIO 63, FILE 4507. 20. The defendant therefore submits that it is a stranger to the plaintis' named parcels in their pleadings and the documents produced in court. The defendant negotiated and executed the lease with the interested parties who were in actual occupation and possession of Plot No. M20 Quarry 5 MLD-KLF and had long-standing ancestral ties to the land. The plaintis’ allegations of trespass are misplaced, misconceived, and directed at the wrong party with respect to the land parcel in question. 21. Further, the defendant, in their defense, has clearly stated that the property alluded to in the amended plaint, purportedly belonging to the plaintis, is dierent from the land on which the defendant entered into an agreement with the Interested parties. 22. Equally, the plaintis did not le any reply to the defence. Under Order 2 Rule 12(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, this omission results in a joinder of issue, meaning the plaintis are taken to have issued a general denial of the Defence. However, this general denial does not amount to a specic traverse of the defendant’s material averments, particularly the fact that the defendant’s excavation https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18613/eng@2025-12-11 4

page 4 of 10

activities were conned to Plot No. M20 Quarry 5 MLD-KLF and not L.R. No. 2109 (M20/2), the parcel claimed by the plaintis. 23. Mr. Gachau contends that the plaintis have failed to meet the burden of proof required under Section 107 of the Evidence Act. They have neither clearly identied the parcel allegedly trespassed upon nor provided credible evidence linking the defendant’s activities to the land they claim to own—the defendant’s occupation and use of Plot No. M20 Quarry 5 MLD-KLF were lawful, authorized, and unrelated to the plaintis' property. As such, the claim for trespass must fail. 24. Furthermore, the plaintis’ pleadings are silent on the specic size of the portion allegedly excavated by the defendant. They merely allege trespass without specifying the extent of the aected land. The only mention of size appears in the valuation report, which states that ten (10) acres were allegedly excavated. However, this does not establish which specic part of the land was aected, as the property is approximately 200 acres. No survey map, beacon verication, or expert report has been tendered to assist this Honourable Court in determining the exact location of the alleged excavation within the larger parcel. Without such specicity, the valuation report remains speculative and disconnected from the central question of liability. It cannot, on its own, sustain a claim for trespass or support a monetary award for damage. 25. Mr Gachau further states that the Valuation Reports in relation to this matter primarily address the property’s value, restoration costs, and the value of the alleged damaged land. Valuers are responsible for conducting extensive research, gathering data, and analyzing factors that can aect an asset's value. While the plaintis rely on two valuation reports to assert that the defendant trespassed on their land, it must be noted that a land valuer prepared them. Valuers are not mandated by law to determine the precise location, extent, or boundaries of land parcels. These are roles that fall within the purview of a Surveyor. Only a Government Surveyor or a Licensed Surveyor is legally permitted to undertake title surveys, including the demarcation, boundary conrmation, or identication of land for purposes of title and ownership. See Mohammed Kahiya Osman v Abdi Farah; Sahara Hassan Dikir (Interested Party) [2021] eKLR. 26. Regarding what constitutes trespass, I concur with the arguments presented by both parties, which cite relevant legal principles and judicial precedents on the tort of trespass. In Clerk & Lindell on Torts (17th Edition), paragraph 17-01, trespass is dened as follows: “ An unjustiable entry by one person upon the land in possession of another. Removing any part of the soil of land also constitutes trespass.” 27. Section 3(1) of the Trespass Act (Chapter 294 of the Laws of Kenya) provides that: “ Any person who without reasonable excuse enters, is or remains upon or erects any structure on, or cultivates or tills or grazes stock or permits stock to be on, private land without the consent of the occupier thereof shall be guilty of an oence.” 28. The tort of trespass to land occurs when a person, without lawful justication, enters another's land and interferes with the possessor's use of it. The essential element of trespass is unlawful entry onto land in another's possession. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18613/eng@2025-12-11 5

page 5 of 10

29. I agree with the holding in Thiribi alias Karinguri v Thimangu & another (Environment and Land Appeal E002 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 1772 (KLR) (20 March 2024) (Judgment), cited by the defendant. The court stated as follows: “ Two elements must be proved for a claim of trespass to be sustained: ownership and illegal intrusion. The manner of the acquisition of land in Kenya is governed by Section 7 of the Land Act, Sections 24 – 26 of the Land Registration Act, and Article 40 of the Constitution. The burden is on he who alleges ownership under Section 107 – 112 of the Evidence Act to prove the fact of ownership. In Park Towers Ltd vs John Mithamo Njika & others (2014) eKLR, the court said that where trespass is proved, a party need not prove any loss or damage, for it is actionable per se.” 30. In this matter, the plaintis produced documentation showing ownership of the suit property. As demonstrated, the suit land belonged to Joel Njuguna Mbugua, Walter Ndungu Kimani, and Emlyn James Ngwiri. PW1 visited the land after being alerted by friends and stated that he found the defendant’s machinery on the suit land. He also noted evidence of excavation, as the defendant was excavating and loading soil/murram into their lorries and taking them away. 31. The defendants' justication is that they agreed with the interested parties herein, who claim to possess part of the suit property described as Plot No. M20 Quarry 5 MLD-KLF, stating that an agreement had been entered into at the chief’s oce. PW2, a registered valuer engaged by the plaintis, went to the suit land and conrmed that excavation had been conducted on the property. He prepared a report to this eect. 32. Based on the evidence and proceedings in this matter, the interested parties applied to join this proceeding and pleaded adverse possession of the portion they allegedly leased to the defendant. The ruling dated 22nd of July 2023, which allowed joinder, reported as Njuguna (Suing as the legal administratrix and personal representative of the Late Joel Njuguna Mbugua) & 4 others v SS Mehta & Sons Limited (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 166 of 2018) [2023] KEELC 19934 (KLR) (22 September 2023) (Ruling). This court held: “ Looking at the test for joinder, the intended interested parties to have shown that they are real and necessary parties in this suit having been the ones who entered an agreement with the defendant in the harvest of sand on the suit property. They have shown they are proper parties to be joined and their joinder will not be triing. They have also shown that the orders the plainti may obtain from this court directed to the defendant will aect them. They have also further shown that any decree emanating from this court will directly aect them and may not be enforced without their participation. They have also shown that their presence will be necessary to enable the court to eectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. This is more so having disclosed they have another parallel suit with this one if not harmonized - will lead to multiplicity and proliferation of suits whose impact will be to slow the determination of the current suit.” 33. In an application for consolidation of this suit with the current one, a ruling dated 7th December 2023 concerning the adverse claim by the interested parties against the plaintis, reported as Njuguna (Suing as the legal administrator and personal representative of the Estate of the Late Joel Njuguna Mbuga) https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18613/eng@2025-12-11 6

page 6 of 10

& 4 others v SS Mehta & Sons Limited; Maguo & 3 others (Interested Parties) [2023] KEELC 22430 (KLR) this court held as follows: “ The causes of action in the two matters are dierent. In the present suit, the plainti seeks an award of damages and other monetary compensation exemplary /punitive because of the defendant’s acts of wastage and trespass on the plainti’s land parcel No. LR 2019 (M 202/2) Malindi. The plainti contends to be the registered landowner. While ELC Case No. E5 of 2021 O.S., the plaintis are seeking adverse possession allegedly of 20 acres out of a parcel known as Plot No. M20/2. The rights of the plaintis seeking adverse possession have not crystallized. The issue of impeachment of title will be core in ELC Case No. E5 of 2021 O.S. In my view mixing the two will convolute issues, let the two les run parallel.” 34. What ows from the foregoing is that the suit property under discussion here is acknowledged to be registered in the names of the plaintis. The 20 acres claimed by the interested parties are under adjudication in another matter, as shown by the above proceedings. Elsewhere, the 20 acres form part of the more expansive 200 acres that constitute the title held by the plaintis, the registered owners. They hold superior rights over the interested parties, who must await a verdict on whether their rights as adverse possessors have crystallized. 35. The defendant entered the plaintis’ property and conducted excavations without their permission, constituting trespass. The defendant’s removal of murram from the land was done without the consent or approval of the plaintis or the estate of the deceased registered owners of the land. As previously mentioned, under Section 3(1) of the Trespass Act (Cap. 294) of the Laws of Kenya, any individual who enters or remains on private land without authorization commits trespass. The defendant failed to exercise proper diligence in verifying the land's ownership. A letter from the chief alone cannot be deemed sucient due diligence for land transactions, particularly given the prevalence of squatters in the coastal region. Additionally, the plot known as Plot No. M20 Quarry 5 MLD-KLF is not registered, nor did the defendant visit the land registry to conrm its registration status, as the interested parties are already in court seeking to be declared adverse possessors of the title held by the plaintis, in which the plot described constitutes part of the plaintis’ expansive 200-acre land. The interested parties were not the plaintis' agents. See also Miaraho Limited v Synohydro Corporation Limited [2019] KEELC 446 (KLR). 36. I therefore make a nding that the defendant was a trespasser on the plainti's land. Measures of Damages and Reliefs 37. Among the reliefs sought by the plainti is a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from further trespass on the suit property in the future. There will be no diculty in granting this relief to ensure the status of the suit is maintained. 38. Regarding measures of damages for trespass, the court in Philip Ayaya Aluchio v Crispinus Ngayo [2014] KEHC 7055 (KLR), which was cited by the defendants and with which I agree, highlighted: “ It has been held that the measure of damages for trespass is the dierence in the value of the plainti's property immediately before and immediately after the trespass or the cost of restoration, whichever is less. See Hostler – VS – Green Park Development Co. 986 S. W 2d 500 (No. Ct. App. 1999).” https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18613/eng@2025-12-11 7

page 7 of 10

39. Additionally, Donaldson J. outlined the basic principle for evaluating general damages of this kind in Dodd Properties (Kent) Limited and others v Canterbury City Council and others [1980] 1 All ER 928, stating: “ The general object underlying the rules for the assessment of damages is, so far as possible by means of monetary award, to place the plainti in the position which he would have occupied if he had not suered the wrong complained of be that wrong a tort or a breach of contract. In the case of a tort causing damage to real property, this object is achieved by the application of one or other of two quite dierent measures of damage, or occasionally, a combination of the two. The rst is to take the capital value of the property in an undamaged state and to compare it with its value in a damaged state. The second is to take the cost of repair or reinstatement. Which is appropriate will depend on a number of factors, such as the plainti’s future intentions as to the use of the property and the reasonableness of those intentions. If he reasonably intends to sell the property in its damaged state, clearly the diminution in capital value is the true measure of damage. If he reasonably intends to continue to occupy it to repair the damage, clearly the cost of repairs is the true measure. And there may be in between situations.” 40. Confronted with a question analogous to the current matter, Nyamweya J rearmed the aforementioned approach in Duncan Nderitu Ndegwa v Kenya Pipeline Company Limited & Another [2013] eKLLR, asserting as follows: “ The general principles as regards the measure of damages to be awarded in cases of trespass to land where damage has been occasioned to the land is the amount of diminution in value or the cost of reinstatement of the land, and not both. The overriding principle is to put the claimant in the position he was prior to the iniction of the harm. The test that guides the court in deciding which of the two measures of damages to employ is the reasonableness of the said reinstatement in light of the extra costs that may be incurred by the defendant in this regard.” 41. The valuation reports prepared by Basemark Valuers, dated 27 October 2017 and 2 October 2018, assess the extent of damage and the costs associated with restoration. Any other contrary report never challenged these reports. The Basemark Valuation Report dated 2 October 2018 estimates that between 1,000 and 1,500 tonnes of soil, stones, and concrete per acre would be necessary to restore the excavated land. Furthermore, the report indicates that the transportation cost for one lorry of material to the site would range between Kshs. 3,000 and Kshs. 7,000. 42. In conclusion, these reports demonstrate that the 10-acre portion of the property, which was trespassed upon by the defendant, was rendered unusable due to the extent of excavation activities; the area had not been rehabilitated by the persons responsible for the excavation. According to PW2’s assessment, the property's market value in 2017 was appraised at KShs. 20,000,000, and the value of the land destroyed was estimated at KShs. 8,000,000. The diminution in the property's value is therefore Kshs 12,000,000, which this court awards as general damages. 43. I agree with the defendant that, for punitive damages, the case of Stelco Properties Limited & Another v Njugo Ventures Limited & Another (2021) eKLR is applicable, with which I align, where the court relied on the case of Godfrey Julius Ndumba Mbogori & Another v Nairobi City County (2018) https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18613/eng@2025-12-11 8

page 8 of 10

eKLR, which set out the principles that should guide the court in awarding exemplary and punitive damages as follows: “ The appellants claimed for exemplary and punitive damages. Exemplary damages are essentially dierent from ordinary damages. The object of damages in the usual sense of the term is to compensate. The object of exemplary damages is to punish and deter. We are guided by the case of Rookes V Barnard [1964] AC 1129 where Lord Devlin set out the categories of case in which exemplary damages may be awarded which are: i) in cases of oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by the servants of the government, ii) cases in which the defendant’s conduct has been calculated to make a prot for himself which may well exceed the compensation payable to the plainti and iii) where exemplary damages are expressly authorized by statute. Lord Devlin also gave expression to 3 considerations which must be borne in mind in any case in which an award of exemplary damages is being claimed. The rst category is that the plainti himself must be the victim of the punishable behaviour; the second category is that the power to award exemplary damages must be used with restraint for it constitutes a weapon and can be used either in defence of liberty or against liberty and thirdly, the means of the defendant, irrelevant in the assessment of compensation, are material in the assessment of exemplary damages.” 44. See also Abdalla & 2 others v County Government of Kili & 2 others [2023] KEELC 19898 (KLR) where this court held: “ The next head is whether this court should order exemplary damages or aggravated damages for the continued trespass given the total disrespect of the orders issued by this court in 2017, which gave injunctive relief in the interim, and that the rst defendant was to desist from further dumping waste at the suit land until the current suit was heard and determined. In addition, the rst defendant has failed to follow the procedure for the establishment of a dumpsite as provided by law – by seeking an EIA Report from the second defendant and obtaining the necessary licence thereto. The rst defendant has been in agrant disrespect of the law of the land to the detriment of the plaintis who have all along brought their grievances to the attention of the rst defendant. Lord Devlin’s principle in Loudon v. Ryder [1953] 2 QB 202, has been cited by the plainti as a persuasive authority to be applied in this case where it was observed that ‘punitive damages could be awarded based on a ‘ne which has to hit the defendant hard if he has disregarded the rights of others and to show that that sort of conduct does not pay’. That could be germane, in this case, but from the prayers sought there is no plea for exemplary or punitive damages.” 45. In the present case, none of the conditions justifying an award of exemplary damages have been met. The defendant entered into a lease agreement with the interested parties regarding a property for which they had no good title to pass. There is no evidence that the defendant’s conduct was oppressive, arbitrary, or unconstitutional, nor was any malice or intentional wrongdoing proved. 46. The other prayers namely: an order directing the defendant to restore the suit land to its prior condition or, in lieu thereof, pay the sum assessed as the cost of such restoration; and an order requiring the defendant to render an account of all benets derived and to restitute the same to the plainti will be a duplication in view of the general damages already awarded. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18613/eng@2025-12-11 9

page 9 of 10

47. As noted in the proceedings, the defense and counterclaim by the interested parties fell by the wayside after the court directed that they proceed in another forum and that their inclusion in this matter was vexing. I need not comment further. 48. This will constitute the nal orders of this court: a. A declaration is hereby issued that the defendants' acts of excavation on land comprised of Parcel LR No. 2109 (M20/2), Malindi, constituted trespass. b. An order of permanent injunction does issue, restraining the defendant, its agents, employees, successors in title, or anyone acting on its behalf from further trespassing on parcel number LR No. 2109(M20/2) and, in particular, from excavating and removing soil and rocks from parcel LR No. 2109(M20/2), Malindi. c. The Plaintis are awarded General Damages. Kshs. 12,0000,000/- to be borne by the defendant. d. The Plaintis are also awarded Costs and Interest at the court rate. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY IN MALINDI ON DECEMBER 11, 2025. E. K. MAKORI JUDGE In the presence of: Mr. Githinji for the Plaintis Mr. Gachau for the Defendants Jill: Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18613/eng@2025-12-11 10

page 10 of 10