Sangahani & 2 others (For and on behalf of Parklands Residents Association) v Nairobi City County Government & 113 others (Environment and Planning Petition E012 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2618 (KLR)

IN THE MATTER OF ONGOING UNAPPROVED, ILLEGAL AND IRREGULAR DEVELOPMENTS AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IN THE PARKLANDS AREA OF NAIROBI CITY COUNTY AND IN THE MATTER OF DENIAL, VIOLATION, INFRINGEMENT OR THREAT TO THE RIGHT TO HUMAN DIGNITY, TO PROPERTY, TO LIFE AND TO A CLEAN AND HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT OF THE PETITITIONERS, THE RESIDENTS/OWNERS/ OCCUPIERS OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE PARKLANDS AREA OF NAIROBI CITY COUNTY AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC BETWEEN KAMALKUMAR RAJINKANT SANGAHANI ........................... 1ST PETITIONER JAGS KAUR ...................................................................................... 2ND PETITIONER TEDDY OBIERO .............................................................................. 3RD PETITIONER FOR AND ON BEHALF OF PARKLANDS RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION AND NAIROBI CITY COUNTY GOVERNMENT ............................. 1ST RESPONDENT COUNTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER (CECM) BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND URBAN PLANNING SECTOR ......... 2ND RESPONDENT COUNTY DIRECTOR OF PHYSICAL PLANNING AND LAND USE PLANNING ,NAIROBI CITY COUNTY ................................... 3RD RESPONDENT PATRICK MBOGO ....................................................................... 4TH RESPONDENT GODFREY AKUMALI ATIEL ..................................................... 5TH RESPONDENT PATRICK ANALO AKIVAGA & 108 OTHERS & 108 OTHERS & 108 OTHERS ......................................................................................... 6TH RESPONDENT RULING A. Background 1. Before this court for determination is the Petitioners/Applicants’ Notice of Motion dated the 9th February, 2026 brought pursuant to the provisions of Section 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act 2010, Order 16 Rule 1 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2020 and Rule 3 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Practice and Procedure Rules) 2013, seeking the following reliefs: i. Spent. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2618/eng@2026-04-30 2

page 2 of 11

ii. That this Honourable Court do suspend the directions/orders made on 2nd February 2026 that the Applicants herein file and serve their submissions on the 4th Contemnor's motion application dated 29th October 2025, pending hearing and determination of this application. iii. That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue witness summonses to (i) Patrick Analo Akivaga (6th Respondent/3rd Contemnor) (ii) Bake Hassan Jamala (Advocate for the 1st to 6th Respondents/Contemnors) (iii) Geofirey Mosiria (4th Contemnor) and (iv) Collins Githuku (Advocate of the High Court of Kenya) to attend court and give evidence on matters relating to the Notice of Motion application dated 29th October, 2025 on a day and time to be fixed by the court. iv. That the court do issue any other consequential orders it deems just and fair in the circumstances. 2. The motion is premised on the grounds set out on its face and supported by the afidavit of Kamalkumar Rajinkant Sanghani, the 1st Petitioner/Applicant of even date. 3. He deponed that vide the motion dated 23rd May, 2025, he and his co- Petitioners/Applicants, instituted contempt of court proceedings against Patrick Mbogo, Godfrey Akumali Atiela, Patrick Analo Akivaga, Geofrey Mosiria, Michael Muge, Hongbing Liu, Liu Bo, Long Yun and Grandpine Company Limited for disobedience of the court orders made on 5th March, 2025. 4. The application was served upon all the parties named therein. In particular, the 6th Respondent/3rd Contemnor, Patrick Analo Akivaga, and the 4th Contemnor, Geofirey Mosiria, were served personally and through their advocates on record, Messrs. Jamal Bake & Associates Advocates. 5. According to Mr Sanghani, in response to the contempt application, the 6th Respondent/3rd Contemnor, Patrick Analo Akivaga, swore a replying afidavit on the 5th June, 2025. He expressly stated therein that he swore the same on his own behalf and on behalf of the 4th Contemnor, Geofirey Mosiria. 6. The application was heard and determined, and in the ruling delivered on 14th October, 2025, the court found that Mr. Mosiria was in contempt of the orders issued on 5th March, 2025. The court thereafter scheduled mitigation and sentencing for 4th November, 2025. 7. Before the scheduled date for mitigation and sentencing, Mr. Mosiria filed a motion dated 29th October, 2025 seeking, among other reliefs, a stay of the mitigation and sentencing proceedings. He also sought orders reviewing, rescinding, varying, reversing and/or setting aside the court’s finding of 14th October, 2025 aforesaid. 8. In the said motion, Mr Mosiria challenges, inter alia, the propriety of service of the pleadings that culminated in the orders issued on 5th March, 2025, as well as the alleged service of the contempt application upon him. He further contests the averments contained in the replying afidavit sworn on 5th June, 2025, disputing the claim that the 6th Respondent, as the 3rd Contemnor, had the requisite authority to swear the afidavit on his behalf. Further, he contests the assertion that the firm of Jamal Bake & Associates Advocates had been instructed to act for him in the contempt proceedings. 9. Mr Sanghani stated that as advised by counsel, in light of the allegations and statements made by Patrick Analo Akivaga and Geofirey Mosiria, it is necessary to summon both of them as witnesses to attend court, testify, and be cross-examined on the statements and depositions contained in the replying afidavits sworn on 5th June, 2025 and 29th October, 2025 respectively. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2618/eng@2026-04-30 3

page 3 of 11

10. It is equally necessary to summon Bake Hassan Jamala of Jamal Bake & Associates Advocates to testify on the issue of representation in the contempt proceedings as well as the process server, Collins Githuku. This will assist them in the drawing and filing of submissions in the motion and allow the court arrive at a fair and just determination. 11. The 6th Respondent/3rd Contemnor, Patrick Analo Akivaga, swore a replying afidavit on the 4th March, 2026. He deponed that Order 16 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, upon which the motion is premised, is intended to facilitate the attendance of witnesses at trial and does not regulate or govern applications seeking leave to cross-examine a deponent on afidavit evidence. This renders the motion incompetent. 12. He explained that he already placed his evidence before this court through the replying afidavit sworn on 5th June 2025, which was duly filed, served, and considered by the court. He is therefore not a witness being summoned to give fresh evidence within the meaning of Order 16 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. The proper legal framework governing the cross-examination of a deponent, if at all, is Order 19 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. 13. Notwithstanding the above and without prejudice thereto, he averred, the jurisdiction of this court to allow the attendance of a deponent for cross-examination under Order 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 is not automatic. It may only issue in limited and exceptional circumstances, including but not limited to instances where there are allegations of matters touching on fraud, mala fide, and authenticity of the facts deponed. The foregoing, he noted, also extends to where there is a confiict of afidavits on record or where the evidence deponed to, is confiicting in itself. He urged that no special circumstances have been demonstrated herein. 14. He opined that the Petitioners rely entirely on unsubstantiated assertions by the 4th Contemnor, who has not tendered any independent or cogent evidence to support the claims that he acted without authority or instructions. If any party were to be cross-examined on those allegations, it ought to be the 4th Contemnor and not himself. 15. He explained that the matters raised by the 4th Contemnor concern his own alleged lack of knowledge or instructions and do not arise from any contradiction, inconsistency, or impropriety within his afidavit that would justify cross-examination. 16. He further contended that the motion is misconceived to the extent that it seeks to compel his advocate to testify on matters protected by advocate-client privilege contrary to Section 134 of the Evidence Act, Cap 80. The Applicants have neither pleaded nor demonstrated the applicability of any of the statutory exceptions under Section 134(1)(a) or (b) of the Evidence Act that would justify lifting that privilege. 17. The cross-examination cannot be used as a fishing expedition or as a means of reopening issues already determined by the court, particularly where the matter is only pending mitigation and sentencing. He therefore urged the court to dismiss the same. 18. The 4th Contemnor filed grounds of opposition dated 9th March, 2026 contending that the motion is incompetent and amounts to an abuse of the court process. He argued that it seeks to reopen and relitigate the contempt proceedings, with the efiect of delaying and prejudicing the hearing of his review application. 19. Further, it is a regurgitation of the Applicants replying afidavit dated 11th November, 2025, which had been filed in response to his review application and seeks to cure a fatal defect in their earlier afidavit, namely the production of electronic evidence without compliance with Section 106 of the Evidence Act. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2618/eng@2026-04-30 4

page 4 of 11

20. As regards the prayer seeking suspension of the directions and orders made on 2nd February 2026, it was contended that the same has no legal basis. The directions in question were proper case management orders requiring the filing of submissions and have not been shown to be illegal, oppressive, impossible to comply with, or otherwise prejudicial in a manner incapable of being remedied by an award of costs. 21. Consequently, that prayer is, in substance, an application for stay of proceedings brought without satisfying the requisite legal threshold and amounts to a collateral attempt to halt the determination of the pending review application. 22. Equally, the plea for witness summons for viva voce evidence, is procedurally improper at this stage. An application for review and/or setting aside, must stand or fall on the established legal thresholds governing such relief, and not on the basis of a fresh evidentiary hearing through the summoning of witnesses. 23. It was asserted that the motion is a backdoor attempt to re-hear and reopen the concluded contempt proceedings through a fishing expedition aimed at filling gaps in the Applicants case through the introduction of fresh evidence by way of witness summons and cross-examination. The 4th Contemnor and the process server Collins Githuku already filed their respective afidavits. 24. Further, the review application challenges the contempt finding on the basis of the record as it existed prior to the ruling and only the 4th Contemnor can seek to introduce fresh evidence if necessary. 25. The Applicants are now attempting to suspend the filing of submissions because they have realised that contempt may not have been proved to the required standard, which is higher than a balance of probabilities though below proof beyond reasonable doubt. 26. On his part, Bake Jamala Hassan filed grounds of opposition dated the 12th February, 2026 premised on the grounds that the motion is misconceived, incompetent and an abuse of the court process as it seeks to compel an advocate to disclose and/or testify on matters protected under advocate-client privilege contrary to Section 134 of the Evidence Act, Cap 80 Laws of Kenya. 27. It was stated that the Applicants have neither pleaded nor demonstrated the applicability of any of the statutory exceptions under Section 134(1)(a) or (b) of the Evidence Act herein and have therefore laid no legal basis upon which the protection of advocate-client privilege herein may be displaced. 28. Further, Bake Hassan Jamal is not a party to these proceedings, having not filed any afidavit in these proceedings nor placed any evidence before this court. As a consequence, no substantive orders can lawfully be sought against him and neither is he capable of being subjected to cross-examination pursuant to Order 19 Rule 2 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 as held in Murgor & Murgor Advocates Kenya Airports Authority [2022] eKLR. 29. It was asserted that the afidavit forming the basis of the impugned application was sworn by Patrick Analo Akivaga, and accordingly, Bake Hassan Jamal cannot in law be cross-examined on facts contained in an afidavit to which he is not the deponent and in respect of which he has sworn no evidence. 30. Further, Rule 8 of the Advocates (Practice) Rules provides that no advocate may appear before any court or tribunal in a matter in which he has reason to believe that he may be required to give evidence, whether orally, by declaration, or by afidavit. In the present case, Bake Hassan Jamala has complied with that rule, in that he has not sworn any afidavit or otherwise placed himself in a position where he may be required to testify. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2618/eng@2026-04-30 5

page 5 of 11

31. Any attempt to compel his attendance for purposes of cross-examination would improperly and unjustifiably convert counsel into a witness in proceedings in which he appears solely in his professional capacity. B. Submissions 32. The parties made oral submissions. Learned counsel Mr. Ndambiri, appearing for the Petitioners/ Applicants, submitted that they seek witness summons to issue against the oficials named in the application so as to compel their attendance in court to give evidence in relation to the motion dated 29th October, 2025. He stated that the application is brought under Order 16 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Rule 3 of the Mutunga Rules. 33. Mr Ndambiri submitted that the summons are necessary because the 4th Contemnor, in his application for review of the orders made on 14th October 2025, has raised issues touching on whether he had authorised Mr. Akivaga to swear an afidavit on his behalf and whether he had instructed the firm of Jamal Bake & Associates Advocates to act for him. 34. He argued that the court has jurisdiction to direct that viva voce evidence be taken in addition to afidavit evidence where necessary to assist the court in arriving at a fair and just determination. In support of that proposition, he relied on the case of MHM vs KNM. Civil Case 23A/2018(HC). 35. He further submitted that the proposed witnesses are required to attend court to testify and be crossexamined, and that none of them has sworn an afidavit for purposes of cross-examination. According to counsel, Order 16 of the Civil Procedure Rules grants the court power to summon such witnesses. In support of that submission, he cited Central Bank of Kenya vs Attorney General Appeal No 3 of 2020-EACJ. 36. On the issue of advocate-client privilege, counsel submitted that the objections raised under Section 134 of the Evidence Act were misconceived because Mr. Bake had not considered the entirety of that provision. He argued that the applicability of privilege depends on whether the communications in question relate to unlawful purposes. 37. Counsel maintained that Mr. Bake could not claim privilege in relation to the question of whether he had been instructed to act for Mr. Mosiria. He added that Mr. Bake had not filed any afidavit in the matter, but could do so if summoned by the court. Counsel therefore urged that the application be allowed, emphasizing that where a party seeks to assist the court in arriving at a just determination, witness summons ought to issue readily. 38. On his part, learned counsel Mr. Munguti, appearing for Bake Hassan Jamala on behalf of the 1st to 5th Respondents, submitted that the application is frivolous and incompetent because it has been brought under Order 16 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which is inapplicable to the relief sought. Counsel argued that Mr. Akivaga had already filed his afidavit, which was considered by the court, and could not now be summoned to give fresh evidence on matters that had already been addressed. 39. Counsel further submitted that the proper provision should have been Order 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, under which the power to order cross-examination of a deponent is discretionary and may only be exercised where suficient grounds and special circumstances have been demonstrated in the interests of justice. 40. According to him, no such special circumstances had been shown in the present case. He contended that the allegations made do not justify the summoning of witnesses and that the 4th Contemnor has https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2618/eng@2026-04-30 6

page 6 of 11

not placed before the court any material to demonstrate that he did not give instructions. He also pointed out that the issue of contempt had already been determined by the court. 41. On the issue of Bake Hassan Jamala, counsel submitted that he is protected by Section 134 of the Evidence Act and that the Applicants have neither pleaded nor established any of the statutory exceptions to advocate-client privilege. He further argued that Mr. Bake is not a party to the proceedings and has not sworn any afidavit upon which he could be cross-examined. In that regard, counsel relied on the decision in Murgor & Murgor Advocates vs Kenya Airports Authority[2022]eKLR 42. He also invoked Rule 8 of the Advocates (Practice) Rules, arguing that since Mr. Bake has not sworn any afidavit, he cannot properly be summoned in his professional capacity. 43. Mr. Ongiti, appearing for the 4th Contemnor, submitted that the motion was filed primarily to halt the directions previously issued by the court. According to counsel, the application is founded on only two issues, both of which have already been raised in the pending review application. 44. He argued that the Applicants are seeking to re-litigate matters arising from the contempt proceedings, yet those matters have already been addressed in their replying afidavit. In his view, the Applicants are now attempting to introduce new issues after judgment without any proper basis for doing so. He therefore urged the court to confine itself to the review application as filed. C. Analysis and Determination 45. Having considered the pleadings and submissions, the issues that arise for determination are: i. Whether the motion is competent? And if so, ii. Whether it is merited? I. Whether the motion is competent? 46. Vide the present motion, the Applicants seek, inter alia, an order suspending the directions issued on 2nd February, 2026 requiring them to file submissions in respect of the 4th Contemnor’s Motion dated 29th October ,2025, together with orders for issuance of witness summons to Patrick Analo Akivaga, Geofirey Mosiria, Bake Hassan Jamala and Collins Githuku to attend court and give evidence in relation to the said review application. 47. The Respondents to the motion assert that not only is it unmerited, it is incompetent. In this regard they assert that Order 16 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules upon which the motion is premised is wrong. 48. Order 16 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides as follows: “ 1. Summons to attend to give evidence or produce documents (1) 49. At any time before the trial conference under Order 11 the parties may obtain, on application to the court or to such oficer as it appoints in this behalf, summonses to persons whose attendance is required either to give evidence or to produce documents.” It is clear that this provision addresses the process by which parties, prior to the trial conference, may apply for and obtain summonses to secure the attendance of witnesses either to give evidence or to produce documents. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2618/eng@2026-04-30 7

page 7 of 11

50. . Having considered the nature of the reliefs sought, this court agrees with the Respondents that the present application is not, strictly speaking, one for summoning witnesses to attend trial within the meaning of Order 16 Rule 1. 51. Rather, what the Applicants seek is to compel attendance of persons to be cross-examined on their averments in afidavits sworn as regards the review motion dated 29th October, 2025. The more appropriate legal framework is therefore Order 19 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which provides: “ (1) Upon any application, evidence may be given by afidavit, but the court may, at the instance of either party, order the attendance for cross-examination of the deponent. (2) Such attendance shall be in court, unless the deponent is exempted from personal appearance in court, or the Court otherwise directs.” in court, or the Court otherwise directs.” 52. So does the invocation of the wrong provision render the motion incompetent, the court thinks not. The law is now settled that a failure to cite the correct provision of law, or the citation of an incorrect provision, is not in itself fatal where the court is otherwise seized of jurisdiction and where the substance of the application is clear. As expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Hermanus Phillipus Steyn vs Giovanni Gnecchi-Ruscone [2013]eKLR: “ The question then is, whether this omission is fatal to the applicant’s case. It is trite law that a Court of law has to be moved under the correct provisions of the law. We note that this Court is the highest Court of the land. The Court, on this account, will in the interest of justice, not interpret procedural provisions as being cast in stone. The Court is alive to the principles to be adhered to in the interpretation of the Constitution, as stipulated in Article 259 of the Constitution. Consequently, the failure to cite [the relevant provision] will not be fatal to the applicant’s cause.” 53. Indeed, courts are obligated under Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution to administer justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities. Further, the motion is also expressed to be brought under Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act as well as Rule 3 of the Mutunga Rules, all of which donate to the court broad procedural authority to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the court. 54. In the circumstances, and guided by the constitutional imperative to determine disputes on their merits rather than on procedural lapses, the court declines to find that the motion is incompetent solely because it invokes Order 16 Rule 1 instead of Order 19 Rule 2. The objection to competence therefore fails. 55. Moving to the merits, as aforesaid, Order 19 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules grants the court power, at the instance of either party, to order the attendance of a deponent for purposes of crossexamination. A reading of that provision makes it clear that the power is discretionary in nature. As with all judicial discretions, it must be exercised judiciously, on the basis of sound reasons and in furtherance of the interests of justice. 56. Speaking to this, the court in G G R vs H-P S [2012] eKLR, expressed thus: “ The law has allowed evidence to be proved by way of afidavits under Order 19. But under Rule 2 of the said Order, the Court may order a deponent of an Afidavit to attend court https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2618/eng@2026-04-30 8

page 8 of 11

to be cross-examined. It would appear that where allegations of matters touching on fraud, mala fides, authenticity of the fats deponed (sic), bad motive among others are raised, crossexamination of a deponent of an Afidavit may be ordered. This also extends to where there is a confiict of Afidavits on record or where the evidence deponed (sic) to is confiicting in itself. Further, the order for cross examination is a discretionary order but as is in all discretions, the same must be exercised judiciously and not whimsically. There should be special circumstances before ordering a cross examination of a deponent on an Afidavit. The court must feel that adequate material has been placed before it that show that in the interest of justice and to arrive at the truth, it is just and fair to order cross examination.” 57. In the circumstances of this case, the Applicants seek to summon Patrick Analo Akivaga, Geofirey Mosiria, Bake Hassan Jamala and Collins Githuku for purposes of viva voce evidence and crossexamination in relation to the motion dated 29th October, 2025. 58. The basis of that request is that the 4th Contemnor has expressly denied authorising Patrick Analo Akivaga to swear the replying afidavit dated 5th June 2025 on his behalf, denied instructing the firm of Jamal Bake & Associates Advocates to act for him, and disputed the question of service of the contempt proceedings. 59. The Respondents contend that the pleas are untenable because, among other things, they amount to an attempt to reopen the concluded contempt proceedings, fill gaps in the Applicants’ case, introduce fresh evidence after judgment and delay the determination of the pending review Motion. 60. They further contend that the application is procedurally improper because the review Motion dated 29th October, 2025 ought to stand or fall on the material already placed before the court through afidavits and submissions. Further that Bake Hassan Jamala cannot be summoned as he has not sworn any afidavit and is protected by advocate-client privilege. 61. As to whether the present application amounts to an attempt to reopen the contempt proceedings, the court is not persuaded that it does. The Applicants do not seek to revisit the merits of the contempt finding or to adduce fresh evidence on the alleged breach of the orders of 5th March, 2025. Rather, the application is confined to issues arising directly from the 4th Contemnor’s review motion. 62. In particular, the 4th Contemnor has denied authorising Patrick Analo Akivaga to swear an afidavit on his behalf, disclaimed instructing the firm of Jamal Bake & Associates Advocates, and disputed service of the pleadings as deponed by Collins Githuku. These assertions go to the core of the impugned proceedings, as they bear directly on questions of representation, participation, and service. 63. In those circumstances, the individuals implicated in those assertions are best placed to clarify them. Patrick Analo Akivaga can explain the basis upon which he swore the afidavit, while Collins Githuku, as the process server, can speak to the issue of service. Their evidence will not reopen the contempt proceedings but will instead assist the court to interrogate the matters raised in the review motion and arrive at a fair and informed determination. 64. As regards Bake Hassan Jamala, Section 134 of the Evidence Act does not provide an absolute bar to his attendance. The provision states thus: “ No advocate shall at any time be permitted unless with his client’s express consent, to disclose any communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of his employment as such advocate, by or on behalf of his client, or to state the contents or condition of any document with which he has become acquainted in the course and for the https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2618/eng@2026-04-30 9

page 9 of 11

purpose of his professional employment, or to disclose any advice given by him to his client in the course and for the purpose of such employment: Provided that nothing in this section shall protect from disclosure— (a) any communication made in furtherance of any illegal purpose; (b) any fact observed by any advocate in the course of his employment as such, showing that any crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his employment, whether the attention of such advocate was or was not directed to the fact by or on behalf of his client.” 65. The Applicants herein do not seek disclosure of privileged communications or legal advice exchanged between advocate and client. Rather, they seek clarification on the anterior question of whether Geofirey Mosiria instructed the firm to act for him at all. That question does not necessarily attract privilege under Section 134 of the Evidence Act. Similarly, Rule 8 of the Advocates (Practice) Rules does not immunize an advocate from attendance where the issue to be determined is whether a retainer existed in the first place. 66. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the court finds no proper basis for summoning Bake Hassan Jamala for cross-examination. He participated in these proceedings purely in his capacity as counsel and did not depone to any afidavit or place evidence before the court upon which he can be examined. 67. In those circumstances, and bearing in mind the need to avoid converting counsel into a witness in matters where they act professionally, the issues raised can be adequately determined on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence of the actual deponents. Consequently, the request to summon him for cross-examination is declined. 68. In the end, the motion dated 9th February, 2026 partly succeeds and the court directs as follows: i. Witness summons do hereby issue compelling the attendance of Patrick Analo Akivaga (6th Respondent/3rd Contemnor), Geofirey Mosiria (4th Contemnor) and Collins Githuku (Advocate of the High Court of Kenya) to attend court for purposes of cross-examination on matters arising from the motion dated 29th October, 2025. ii. Each party shall bear their own costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN NAIROBI THIS 30TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026. ............................. O. A. ANGOTE PRINCIPAL JUDGE ............................. A. OMOLLO JUDGE ............................. C. G. MBOGO JUDGE In the presence of; https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2618/eng@2026-04-30 10

page 10 of 11

No appearance for Petitioner Ms Munguli for Baka for 6th Respondent Mr. Ateka holding brief for Owiti for 4th Contemnor Court Assistant: Tracy https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2618/eng@2026-04-30 11

page 11 of 11