Wafula (Derivatively on behalf of Trans Nzoia Investment Company Limited) v Walubengo & 6 others (Environment and Land Case 74 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 2206 (KLR) (16 April 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 2206 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KITALE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND CASE 74 OF 2019 CK NZILI, J APRIL 16, 2026 BETWEEN PASCAL WAFULA (DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF TRANS NZOIA INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED) ................................................... PLAINTIFF AND RONALD SAWENJA WALUBENGO ............................................. 1ST DEFENDANT PAUL SIMIYU WEKESA ................................................................. 2ND DEFENDANT GEORGE IMBERA LUDISI ............................................................ 3RD DEFENDANT KALORI ISOSI ................................................................................. 4TH DEFENDANT MUNDEBE INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED ..................... 5TH DEFENDANT VIPUL RATILAL DODHIA ........................................................... 6TH DEFENDANT CHERANGANI INVESTMENTS COMPANY LIMITED ........... 7TH DEFENDANT RULING 1. The court has looked at the application dated 19/3/2026, the preliminary objection, and the replying afidavits by the respondents to the applications. The law allows a litigant to change legal representation at any stage with leave of the court. I find no basis to deny the applicant leave in the absence of any genuine reason under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules from his former lawyers on record. 2. As regards the rest of the prayers in the notice of motion, I uphold the preliminary objection dated 7/4/2024, that this court lacks jurisdiction to deal with matters touching on the management, governance, and control of the afiected party, to whom the suit property was reverted to by the judgment of this court. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2206/eng@2026-04-16 1
page 1 of 3
3. The court has come across another application dated 6/4/2026, which ideally is similar to the instant one. It is hereby struck out with no order as to costs. 4. As to the application dated 15/4/2026, the court in a ruling dated 12/11/2025, pronounced itself at paragraphs 43 - 51 on the issue of legal representation to take over the execution of the decree on behalf of the afiected party, without the authority of the 3rd and 4th defendants or the afiected party, to issue notice for the 6th and 7th defendants and other tenants or occupiers of the suit property to vacate the suit premises in line with the law. 5. That ruling generated a notice of appeal dated 12/11/2025 by the Firm of Kraido & Co. Advocates, on behalf of the appellant. The said law firm also applied for a stay of that ruling on behalf of the plaintifis by an application dated 18/2/2026, whose ruling is on 3/6/2026. 6. The court has this morning come across a notice of withdrawal dated 19/3/2026, which was filed a day after the parties appeared before me, argued the said application seeking to withdraw the application despite the pending ruling. Equally, there is a letter dated 24/3/2026, surrendering the original decree issued on 2/7/2025 to the Deputy Registrar, in line with the ruling of 12/11/2025. This makes the pending ruling academic and as overtaken by the events. 7. The consequence is that this court is already functus oficio and the issues raised in the application dated 15/4/2026 are not only res judicata, but also fall outside the jurisdiction of this court in so far as who are the current bona fide directors of the afiected party, with capacity to resolute on which law firm can represent it in the execution process if there is any, or the running of the afiairs of the afiected party/company. 8. As to the issues raised on the execution process, paragraph 45 of the ruling dated 12/11/2025 addressed the same. Now that the original decree has been surrendered to be extracted and issued with the concurrence of the 6th and 7th defendants, who are the applicants, the issues raised by the application herein fall under Order 22 and Order 49 of the Civil Procedure Rules. 9. The court declines to usurp the powers of the Deputy Registrar. The upshot is that the application dated 15/4/2026 is struck out with no orders as to costs. 10. Further, in view of the notice of withdrawal dated 19/3/2026, the orders dated 18/3/2026 are reviewed to the extent that the application dated 18/2/2026 is marked as withdrawn with costs to the respondents. 11. File marked closed, save for any post-judgment execution processes. 12. Orders accordingly. RULING DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS/OPEN COURT AT KITALE ON THIS 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2026. In the presence of: Court Assistant - Dennis Mwemeke for the 6th and 7th defendants present Kraido for the plaintifi absent Muhanda for the 1st and 5th defendants present 5th defendant present https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2206/eng@2026-04-16 2
page 2 of 3
Omulama for the 3rd and 4th defendants absent Applicant in person. HON. C.K. NZILI JUDGE, ELC KITALE. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2206/eng@2026-04-16 3
page 3 of 3