Judiciary of Kenya v Principal Secretary, State Department of Public Service and Human Capital Development & 6 others

2. On May 26, 2025, Ms. Lutta, on behalf of the State, proposed initiating an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) under the auspices of the National Land Commission, which Ms. Khaoya, representing the National Land Commission, supported. 3. This court agreed to a mediation process because the issues involved government-to-government relations, and it is not advisable for government agencies to initiate legal action against each other. The orders for mediation were issued on June 10, 2025. 4. On June 13, 2025, all involved parties went to the site, and a request was made for the Deputy Registrar of the court to be present. 5. The parties mutually agreed to prepare a Draft Consent Order for endorsement. This draft was to include the estate of Charo Mramba, who allegedly sold the land to the Government, and the plainti was to be given alternative land. 6. The land under dispute is alleged to have been acquired in 2012 utilizing CDF funds from the aforementioned family of Charo Mramba, who died in 1985. The parcel of land encompasses three acres. 7. After the parties reached an agreement, questions arose about how the suit land was acquired— specically, whether the estate of the late Mramba was paid and if there are administrators for the estate. These issues were brought before this court on June 16, 2025, as recorded in the proceedings on that day. 8. On that date, issues were also raised indicating that this court needs to lift the injunction in place, as the Huduma Kenya Secretariat had started construction and an interim certicate for payment had already been raised by the contractor, in addition to the approaching end of the nancial year. The plainti opposed this. 9. The court further directed that additional mediation sessions be conducted to address and narrow the existing gaps. A mention was scheduled for today. 10. The positions of the parties remain unchanged as of today. The plainti contends that consent cannot be obtained by insisting that the injunction should be extended to safeguard its interests. Conversely, the defendants, along with the 1st interested party, assert that the injunctive order should be revoked, as its extension could adversely impact the common good of the people of Kili by aecting the services expected to be provided by the Huduma Centre, and that the impending end of the nancial year may result in a nancial loss. 11. My perspective is that the ownership of the suit property remains an unresolved issue between the plainti and the 2nd defendant. It is also important to note that the nancial year is nearing its end. The contractor handling the Huduma Centre construction has submitted an interim payment certicate for the work that has been completed. It remains outstanding that, as presented by the parties before me, there is a dispute over the ownership of the suit property that can only be resolved during a hearing. 12. Therefore, it is imperative that all parties, including those who have not yet done so, submit their responses to the pending application within fourteen days from the date of this order. Additionally, the applicant is granted leave to le supplementary adavits within seven days after service. The 1st interested party is also permitted to le a Preliminary Objection within seven days of this order, which will be served on all parties, who shall then respond within seven days of service. 13. Since there is contestation on ownership, the orders in place will be extended. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18711/eng@2025-06-19 2

page 2 of 3

DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY IN MALINDI ON THIS 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2025. E. K. MAKORI JUDGE In the Presence of: Mr. Ogutu for the Plainti Ms. Lutta for the Defendants Mr. Binyenya for the 1st Interested Party. Ms. Khaoya for the 2nd Interested Party. Happy: Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18711/eng@2025-06-19 3

page 3 of 3