Mase & 2 others v Land Registrar Bomet & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 69 of 2018) [2026] KEELC 1568 (KLR)

3. c. The Plaintifi is improperly challenging a lawful process of succession that was concluded under Succession Cause No. 184 of 2015 and where both families were accorded a share. d. The Plaintifi has not come to Court with clean hands, having failed to comply with the prior Court order and instead filed this suit with the aim of frustrating execution. e. Costs of this application and the main suit be awarded to the Defendants. The application is based on the grounds on its face and the supporting afidavit sworn by the 3rd Defendant/Applicant on 16th May, 2025. Factual Background. 4. The Plaintifis/Respondents commenced the present proceedings vide the Plaint dated 28th August, 2018 which Plaint was amended on 5th July, 2022. In the amended Plaint, the Plaintifis/Respondents seek the following prayers; a. A declaration that the cancellation of the title numbers Kericho/Kipsonoi S.S/1072, 1073 and 1074 and reinstatement of Kericho/Kipsonoi S.S/321 was irregular, illegal and in excess of jurisdiction and the issuance of titles Kericho/Kipsonoi S.S/1618 and 1618 (sic) are also illegal and irregular. b. That the titles Kericho/Kipsonoi S.S/1072, 1073 and 1074 be reinstated upon cancellation of title numbers Kericho/Kipsonoi S.S/1618 and 1619. c. Costs. d. Any other orders may be issued as deem fit. 5. The 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents and the 3rd Defendant/Applicant have entered appearance and at the time of writing of this ruling have not filed their Statements of Defence. 6. The application under consideration first came up for hearing on 8th July, 2025 when the Court directed that it be canvassed by way of written submissions. It was mentioned severally to confirm filing of submissions and on 9th December, 2025, it was reserved for ruling. The 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s Contention. 7. The afidavit in support of the application dated 16th May, 2025 is incomplete; some pages are missing. This may have happened during the process of uploading it on the Judiciary Case Tracking System. 8. The 3rd Defendant/Applicant contends that they filed Succession Cause No. 184 of 2015 and were issued with a Grant of Letters of Administration on 20th February, 2017. 9. He also contends that the issues raised in the present suit are directly and substantially the same as those adjudicated in an earlier suit that had been filed. He goes on to state that the present suit is res judicata. 10. He further contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the same cause of action as doing so will ofiend the doctrine of finality of litigation. 11. It is his contention that the Plaintifis/Respondents suit is frivolous, vexatious, and amounts to an abuse of the Court process as it is designed to delay the execution of the previous judgement and the succession proceedings. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1568/eng@2026-02-19 2

page 2 of 11

12. It is also his contention that he has filed the application under consideration in good faith and that the Plaintifis/Respondents will not sufier any prejudice if the suit is struck out. 13. He ends his deposition by urging the Court to strike out the suit with costs. The Plaintifis/Respondents Response. 14. In response to the 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s application, the Plaintifis/Respondents filed a Replying Afidavit sworn by the 3rd Plaintifi/Respondent on 12th September, 2025. 15. He deposes that the 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s application does not meet the threshold of res judicata. 16. He also deposes that the parties in HCC No. 59 of 2003 and the present suit are difierent. 17. He further deposes that the present suit is still pending which means no final decision has been reached. He goes on to state that raising the issue of res judicata at this stage of the proceedings is premature and legally untenable. 18. It is his deposition that his deceased father, one Kimase Arap Sambai died in the year 2012. He goes on to state that before his death, that is in the year 2010, he ( Kimase Arap Sambai) subdivided land parcel No. Kericho/Kipsonoi SS/321 into land parcel No’s Kericho/Kipsonoi S.S/1072, 1073 and 1074. 19. It is also his deposition that his deceased father transferred land parcel No’s Kericho/Kipsonoi S.S/1072 and 1074 to Jonathan Kibii Mase, John Kiplangat Mase, Paul Kipngeno Mase and Richard Kipyegon Ruto and they were issued with title deeds. 20. It is further his deposition that his deceased father obtained the consent of the Land Control Board before making the aforementioned transactions. 21. He deposes that in the year 2012, citation proceedings were commenced over land parcel No. Kericho/ Kipsonoi SS/321 and that at the time of commencement of the said citation proceedings, the said parcel of land was not in existence as it had been closed upon subdivision. 22. He also deposes that he was never served with the citation proceedings. 23. He further deposes that his siblings and him did not commence any succession proceedings because their deceased father subdivided the suit parcel of land before his demise. 24. It is his deposition that their deceased father was the registered proprietor of land parcel No. Kericho/ Kipsonoi SS/1073. 25. It is also his deposition that the Bomet Land Registrar allegedly secretly cancelled the titles of land parcel No’s Kericho/Kipsonoi SS/1072, 1073 and 1074 without following due process. He goes on to state that the Land Registrar reinstated the original title number which was Kericho/Kipsonoi SS/321. 26. He ends his deposition by stating that the Land Registrar’s actions were illegal, unprocedural, null and void as the Land Registrar did not have jurisdiction to do so. He goes on to state that the said titles should be reinstated through an order of the Court. Issues for Determination. 27. The 3rd Defendant/Applicant filed his submissions on 5th September, 2025, the Plaintifi/Respondent filed submissions on 5th November, 2025 while the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents filed submissions on 26th September, 2025. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1568/eng@2026-02-19 3

page 3 of 11

The 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s Submissions. 28. The 3rd Defendant/Applicant submits that the present proceedings relate to land parcel No. Kericho/ Kipsonoi S.S 321 which was subject to previous litigation and succession proceedings. 29. The 3rd Defendant/Applicant also submits that the decisions of the said Courts were implemented and changes made to the green card of the suit parcel of land. 30. The 3rd Defendant/Applicant further submits that in Kericho Civil Case No. 59 of 2003 Kiplangat Arap Sitienei vs Kimase Sambai, the Court found that the Defendant therein was holding land parcel No. 321 in trust for both parties. 31. It is the 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s submissions that the Court also directed that land parcel No. 321 be equally subdivided within thirty days’ failure to which the Deputy Registrar would execute the necessary transfer documents. 32. It is also the 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s submissions that the said judgement was upheld and enforced in ELC Case No. 53 of 2003. 33. It is further the 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s submissions that the Plaintifis/Respondents unlawfully subdivided land parcel No. 321 into land parcel No’s 1072, 1073 and 1074. 34. The 3rd Defendant/Applicant submits that the Land Registrar cancelled the said subdivision and reverted the title back to No. 321. 35. The 3rd Defendant/Applicant also submits that in Citation Cause No. 35 of 2012, the Court delivered a ruling on 5th May, 2015 which authorized him to file succession proceedings for the estate of Kimase Arap Sambai (deceased). 36. The 3rd Defendant/Applicant further submits that he filed Succession Cause No. 184 of 2015, a grant was issued and confirmed on 20th February, 2017. 37. It is the 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s submissions that land parcel No. 321 which measures 22 Ha was subdivided into two equal portions. 38. It is also the 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s submissions that 11Ha was registered to him to hold in trust for his family while 11Ha was registered to the Plaintifi/Respondents. 39. The 3rd Defendant/Applicant then submits on the following issues; 40. a. Whether the present suit is res judicata. b. Whether the Plaintifis/Respondents suit constitutes an abuse of the Court process. c. Whether the 3rd Defendant/Applicant is entitled to the orders sought. The 3rd Defendant/Applicant relies on Sections 7 and 34 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 2 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the judicial decisions of Uhuru Highway development Ltd vs Central Bank of Kenya & 2 Others [1996] eKLR, ET vs Attorney General & another [2012]eKLR, John Florence Maritime Services Ltd vs Cabinet Secretary for Transport & Infrastructure & 3 Others [2015] eKLR, Accredo AG & 3 Otgers vs Stefiano Uccelli & another [2019]eKLR, Henderson v Handerson [1843] 67 ER 313 and submits that the question of ownership of land parcel No. 321 was determined in ELC Case No. 59 of 2003 and afirmed in ELC Case No. 53 of 2003. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1568/eng@2026-02-19 4

page 4 of 11

41. The 3rd Defendant/Applicant also submits that the present suit is res judicata, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the Court process. 42. The 3rd Defendant/Applicant concludes his submissions by urging the Court to strike out the Plaintifis/Respondents suit. The Plaintifis/Respondents Submissions. 43. The Plaintifis/Respondents submit on whether the present suit res judicata. 44. The Plaintifis/Respondents rely on Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, the judicial decisions of Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission vs Maina Kiai & 5 Others [2017] eKLR, John Florence Maritime Services Ltd vs Cabinet Secretary for Transport & Infrastructure & 3 Others [2015] eKLR, Henderson v Handerson [1843] 67 ER 313 and submit that the 3rd Defendant/Applicant has not demonstrated that the issues raised in the present suit were adjudicated in a former suit. 45. The Plaintifis/Respondents rely on Sections 107 and 109 of the Evidence Act and submit that the 3rd Defendant/Applicant bears the evidentiary burden of proving that a similar suit was filed, the subject matter is the same, that the parties are the same and that judgement was delivered. 46. It is the Plaintifis/Respondents submissions that the 3rd Defendant/Applicant did not avail any such evidence. 47. The Plaintifis/Respondents reiterate the averments of their Replying Afidavit, rely on the judicial decisions of In Pattni vs Ali & 2 Others [2005] EA 337, Pop-In (Kenya) Ltd & 3 Others vs Habib Bank AG Zurich [1990] KLR 509 and submit that the fraudulent cancelation of titles for land parcel No’s Kericho/Kipsonoi SS/1072, 1073 and 1074 constitute a fresh cause of action that has not been litigated upon. 48. The Plaintifis/Respondents conclude their submissions by urging the Court to dismiss the 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s application with costs. The 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents Submissions. 49. The 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents submit that Kiplangat Arap Sitienei (the 3rd Defendant/ Applicant’s father) and Kimase Sambai (The Plaintifis/Respondents father) filed a land ownership complaint over land parcel No. Kericho/Kipsonoi SS/321 at the Land Dispute Tribunal in the year 2002. 50. The 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents also submit that the Land Dispute Tribunal transferred the dispute to the High Court in Kericho which case was registered as Civil Case No. 59 of 2003. 51. The 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents further submit that the Court delivered judgement on 3rd July, 2009 and found that Kimase Sambai was holding land parcel No. Kericho/Kipsonoi SS/321 in trust for Kiplangat Arap Sitienei. 52. It is the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents submissions that subsequently, the title deeds for land parcel No’s Kericho/Kipsonoi SS/1072, 1073 and 1074 which were the resultant subdivisions of land parcel No. Kericho/Kipsonoi SS/321 were cancelled. 53. It is also the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents submissions that the land reverted back to land parcel No. Kericho/Kipsonoi SS/321 before it was later subdivided into land parcel No’s Kericho/Kipsonoi SS/1618 and 1619. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1568/eng@2026-02-19 5

page 5 of 11

54. It is further the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents submissions that since the parties in Kericho HC Case No. 59 of 2003 were deceased, the 3rd Defendant/Applicant filed Citation Cause No. 35 of 2012 against the Plaintifi/Respondent (sic) who was named as the 2nd Citee. 55. The 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents submit that the Court in the citation cause confirmed that the decree issued in Kericho HC Case No. 59 of 2003 ought to be executed and he therefore granted the 3rd Defendant/Applicant authority to apply for letters of administration in the ruling delivered on 5th May, 2015. 56. They also submit that the 3rd Defendant/Applicant thereafter filed Bomet HC Succession Cause No. 184 of 2015 and a confirmed grant issued on 20th February, 2017 which provided that land parcel No. Kericho/Kipsonoi SS/321 be subdivided into land parcel No’s Kericho/Kipsonoi SS/1618 & 1619. 57. They further submit that Bomet HC Succession Cause No. 184 of 2015 issued orders of security and the land was subdivided on 2nd October, 2017. 58. The 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents submit that the Plaintifis/Respondents and the 3rd Defendant/Applicant are before the Court as representatives of the estates of their respective fathers who previously litigated over the same subject matter. 59. After setting out the background of the dispute, the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents submit on whether the suit is res judicata. 60. The 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents rely on Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the judicial decision of John Florence Maritime Services Limited & Another vs Cabinet Secretary for Transport and Infrastructure & 3 Others [2015] eKLR and submit that the issues raised herein were conclusively determined in Kericho HC Case No. 59 of 2003 which found that land parcel No. Kericho/Kipsonoi SS/321 ought to be subdivided into two. 61. The 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents also submit that the assertions on the Amended Plaint are intended to mislead the Court to make a decision that will result in a miscarriage of justice. 62. The 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents further submit that the Plaintifis/Respondents have never applied for review and/or sought to set aside the judgement delivered on 3rd July, 2009 in Kericho HC Case No. 59 of 2003 and the subsequent Court proceedings. 63. The 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents rely on Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, the judicial decision of Jasbir Singh Rai & 3 Others vs Tarlochan Singh Rai & 4 Others [2014] eKLR and urge the Court to allow the 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s application with costs. Analysis and Determination 64. I have considered the 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s application, the response thereto and the rival submissions. It is my view that the only issue that arises for determination is whether the application dated 16th May, 2025 has merit. 65. The prayers sought in the application under consideration have been set out in the preceding paragraphs but I will nonetheless replicate them as hereunder; a. That the entire suit be struck out as it is res judicata, the issues herein having been substantially heard and determined in a previous judgement by a Court of Competent jurisdiction in respect of LR No. Kericho/Kipsonoi S.S/321. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1568/eng@2026-02-19 6

page 6 of 11

b. The Plaintifi’s (sic) current application is an abuse of the Court process, raises no new triable issues, and seeks to re-litigate matters already conclusively determined. c. The Plaintifi (sic) is improperly challenging a lawful process of succession that was concluded under Succession Cause No. 184 of 2015 and where both families were accorded a share. d. The Plaintifi (sic) has not come to Court with clean hands, having failed to comply with the prior Court order and instead filed this suit with the aim of frustrating execution. e. Costs of this application and the main suit be awarded to the Defendants. 66. Prayer (a) seeks that the Court finds that the suit is res judicata. 67. The 3rd Defendant/Applicant submits that in Kericho HC Case No. 59 of 2003, the Court found that Kimase Sambai (deceased) was holding land parcel No. Kericho/Kipsonoi S.S/321 in trust for Kiplangat Arap Sitienei (deceased). 68. The 3rd Defendant/Applicant also submits that the issue of ownership of land parcel No. Kericho/ Kipsonoi S.S/321 was conclusively determined in the said suit. 69. The 3rd Defendant/Applicant further submits that Kimase Sambai (deceased) unlawfully subdivided land parcel No. Kericho/Kipsonoi SS/321 into three portions which was contrary to the judgement of the High Court. 70. It is the 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s submissions that the Land Registrar cancelled the titles of the resultant subdivisions and the land reverted back to land parcel No. Kericho/Kipsonoi SS/321 before it was later subdivided into two equal portions. 71. The 3rd Defendant/Applicant also submits that the Plaintifis/Respondents intend to re-open issues already litigated upon. 72. The Plaintifis/Respondents on the other hand contend that the issue of cancellation of titles for land parcel No’s Kericho/Kipsonoi SS/1072, 1073 and 1074 have not been litigated upon and therefore this suit is not res judicata. 73. The 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents concur with the submissions of the 3rd Defendant/Applicant and submit that the present suit is res judicata. 74. Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act provides as follows; “ No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court. Explanation. — (1) The expression "former suit" means a suit which has been decided before the suit in question whether or not it was instituted before it. Explanation. — (2) For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provision as to right of appeal from the decision of that Court. Explanation. — (3) The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1568/eng@2026-02-19 7

page 7 of 11

Explanation. — (4) Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit. Explanation. — (5) Any relief claimed in a suit, which is not expressly granted by the decree shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused. Explanation. — (6) Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating.” 75. In Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 others - v- Royal Media Services Limited & 5 others [2014] eKLR the Supreme Court expressed itself as follows on the issue of res judicata: “ (317) The concept of res judicata operates to prevent causes of action, or issues from being re-litigated once they have been determined on the merits. It encompasses limits upon both issues and claims, and the issues that may be raised in subsequent proceedings…. [319] There are conditions to the application of the doctrine of res judicata: 76. (i) the issue in the first suit must have been decided by a competent Court; (ii) the matter in dispute in the former suit between the parties must be directly or substantially in dispute between the parties in the suit where the doctrine is pleaded as a bar; and (iii) the parties in the former suit should be the same parties, or parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title Karia and Another v. The Attorney General and Others, [2005] 1 EA 83, 89. (Emphasis supplied)” In the judicial decision of Christopher Kenyariri vs Salama Beach [2017] eKLR the Court stated as follows on the ingredients to be satisfied when determining res judicata; “...the following elements must be satisfied...in conjunctive terms; 77. a) The suit or issue was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit. b) Former suit between same parties or parties under whom they or any of them claim. c) Those parties are litigating under the same title. d) The issue was heard and finally determined. e) The Court was competent to try the subsequent suit in which the suit is raised.”[Emphasis Mine] The 3rd Defendant/Applicant has attached a copy of the judgement delivered in Kericho HC Case No. 59 of 2003 on 3rd July, 2009. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1568/eng@2026-02-19 8

page 8 of 11

78. The parties are; “ Kiplangat Arap Sitienei versus Kimase Arap Sambai” 79. The parties in the present suit are; “ John Kiplangat Mase, Peter Kibet Bii, Paul K. Mase and Richard Ruto versus The Land Registrar, Bomet, the Attorney General and Richard Kiprono Langat” 80. It is evident that the parties in Kericho HC Case No. 59 of 2003 and the present suit are not the same. 81. However, I note that it is not disputed that Kiplangat Arap Sitienei (deceased) who was the Plaintifi in Kericho HC Case No. 59 of 2003, was the 3rd Defendant’s father and that Kimase Arap Sambai (deceased) who was the Defendant in Kericho HC Case No. 59 of 2003 was the Plaintifis/Respondents father. 82. The 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents submit that the Plaintifis/Respondents and the 3rd Defendant/Applicant are before this Court as legal representatives of the estates of their deceased fathers. This is a misrepresentation. 83. A perusal of the Amended Plaint shows that the Plaintifis/Respondents have instituted the present proceedings in their own capacity while the 3rd Defendant/Applicant has also been sued in his individual capacity. 84. The parties in the present suit and Kericho HC Case No. 59 of 2003 are therefore not the same. 85. In Kericho HC Case No. 59 of 2003, Kiplangat Arap Sitienei (deceased) sought the following prayers; 86. 87. a. A declaration that Kimase Arap Sambai was holding land parcel No. Kericho/Kipsonoi S.S/321 in trust for him. b. An order to compel Kimase Arap Sambai to facilitate the survey, subdivision and transfer of one half of land parcel No. Kericho/Kipsonoi S.S/321 to him. c. Costs of the suit. d. Interest. In the present suit, the Plaintifis/Respondents seek for the following prayers in the Amended Plaint; a. A declaration that the cancellation of the title numbers Kericho/Kipsonoi S.S/1072, 1073 and 1074 and reinstatement of Kericho/Kipsonoi S.S/321 was irregular, illegal and in excess of jurisdiction and the issuance of titles Kericho/Kipsonoi S.S/1618 and 1618 (sic) are also illegal and irregular. b. That the titles Kericho/Kipsonoi S.S/1072, 1073 and 1074 be reinstated upon cancellation of title numbers Kericho/Kipsonoi S.S/1618 and 1619. c. Costs. d. Any other orders may be issued as deem fit. In Kericho HC Case No. 59 of 2003, the issues raised therein were whether the Defendant therein was holding land parcel No. Kericho/Kipsonoi S.S/321 in trust for the Plaintifi while in the present https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1568/eng@2026-02-19 9

page 9 of 11

suit, the Plaintifis/Respondents challenge the manner in which the titles for land parcel No’s Kericho/ Kipsonoi S.S/1072, 1073 and 1074 were cancelled. 88. It is not disputed that land parcel No’s Kericho/Kipsonoi S.S/1072, 1073 and 1074 were resultant subdivisions of land parcel No. Kericho/Kipsonoi S.S/321. 89. My view, therefore, is that the issues raised in Kericho HC Case No. 59 of 2003 and the present suit are difierent. 90. Consequently, I find that the present suit is not res judicata. 91. Prayer (b) of the application under consideration is as follows; “ b. The Plaintifi’s (sic) current application is an abuse of the Court process, raises no new triable issues, and seeks to re-litigate matters already conclusively determined.” 92. The 3rd Defendant/Applicant seeks that the Court finds that the Plaintifis/Respondents current application is an abuse of the Court process, raises no new triable issues and seeks to relitigate matters already conclusively determined. 93. A perusal of the Court record shows that there is no pending application filed by the Plaintifis/ Respondents. I cannot therefore determine in respect of which matters the 3rd Defendant/Applicant is alleging re-litigation . 94. Prayer (c) of the application under consideration seeks that this Court makes a finding that the Plaintifis/Respondents are challenging a lawful succession process that was concluded in Succession Cause No. 184 of 2015 while prayer (d), seeks that the Court makes a finding that the Plaintifis/ Respondents failed to comply with a prior Court order and they have therefore filed the present suit with the aim of frustrating execution. 95. None of the parties submitted on these prayers. 96. It is my view that the Court cannot consider the said prayers on their merits as they are asking the Court to take into consideration extraneous issues at this preliminary stage of the proceedings. 97. Under prayer (d), the 3rd Defendant/Applicant seeks that the Court makes a finding that the Plaintifis/ Respondents failed to comply with a prior Court order. 98. It is important to note that no details of the alleged prior order have been availed and if at all there is any such non-compliance, there are procedures provided for in law that the 3rd Defendant/Applicant can pursue. Disposition. 99. Taking the foregoing into consideration, I find that the application dated 16th May, 2025 lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed with costs. 100. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT KERICHO THIS 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026. L. A. OMOLLO JUDGE. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1568/eng@2026-02-19 10

page 10 of 11

In the presence of: Mr. J.K. Rono for the Plaintifi/Respondent. Mr. Ojwang for the 1st and 2nd Defendant/Respondent. Mr. Koech for the 3rd Defendant/Applicant. Court Assistant; Mr. Joseph Makori https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1568/eng@2026-02-19 11

page 11 of 11