Mwachidyogo & another ((Suing as the legal representatives of the Estate of Bakari Omar Mwachidyogo - Deceased) v Denvi Fuel Services Limited & 4 others (Civil Suit E010 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2799 (KLR)

and sworn on 24th November 2025, and 12th November 2025 respectively. The court will expound on the same later in this ruling. 3. It is instructive to note that the Honourable Court has not come across any response from the 3rd and 4th Respondents from assessing the Judiciary CTS Portal and the ELC Registry thereof. II. The case by the Plaintifis/Applicants 4. 5. The Plaintifis/Applicants sought for the following orders:a. That leave be granted to the Plaintifis to amend the Plaint as shown in the Draft Amended Plaint. b. That the proposed Amended Plaint be deemed as duly filed upon payment of the requisite court fees. c. That leave be granted to the Plaintifis to file additional lists of documents and witness statements. d. That costs of this application be in the cause. The application was premised upon grounds, testimonial facts and the averments made out on its face and the supporting afidavit of Saumu Bakari Mwachidogo the 1st Plaintifi/Applicant and who averred as follows that:a. The Plaintifis withdrew the suit against the 4th Defendant through a Notice of Withdrawal of suit dated 7th May, 2025. b. On 9th June, 2025 the Applicants advocate on record informed the Honourable Court of the existence of a Notice of Withdrawal of suit dated 7th May, 2025 and served upon the parties on 20th May, 2025. c. On 5th August, 2025 the 2nd Defendant was served for the second time with a copy of the Notice of Withdrawal of suit. d. None of the Defendants had objected the Notice of Withdrawal of Suit. e. The 4th Defendant is related to the Applicants by virtue of being members of the same family. f. They had a family meeting where they resolved their difierences and agreed to withdraw the suit against the 4th Defendant. g. They intend to call the 4th Defendant as a crucial witness to support their case. h. Following the Notice of Withdrawal of suit, it was necessary to amend the Plaint to refiect the changes and also introduce important facts that would enable this court to reach a just determination. i. No prejudice shall be sufiered by the Defendants if the sought orders were granted as the Defendants shall be at liberty to Amend their Defence. III. The responses by the 1st Defendant/Respondent 6. As already indicated, the 1st Defendant/Respondent opposed the application through filing of a Replying Afidavit sworn by CORNEL SHISANYA its oficer. The deponent averred as follows that:- https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2799/eng@2026-04-29 2

page 2 of 10

a. At the time the Notice of Withdrawal was served upon the 1st Defendant, it had already closed its pleadings awaiting to confirm compliance with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. b. The allegations set out by the Plaintifi on fraud were carried out by the Plaintifis and the 4th Defendant whom they now sought to withdraw the suit against. c. Further, the said 4th Defendant had not conceded to the withdrawal. d. The 1st Defendant urged the court to refer the matter to mediation where all parties involved would benefit from the process hence resolving the matter amicably. IV. The Responses by the 2nd Defendant/Respondents 7. The 2nd Respondent opposed the application vide a Replying Afidavit sworn by one SAMUEL WAMAITHA an Assistant Legal Manager at the 2nd Respondent. The deponent averred as follows that:a. the application was unmerited, unfounded in law and fact and did not lie in the circumstances. b. it was in the interest of justice that the 4th Defendant was not removed and or struck ofi as the 4th Defendant had a special power of attorney which had been duly registered and colluded with the 1st Defendant Respondent to defraud the 2nd Defendant/Respondent as such allowing the withdrawal and amendment of the pleadings would lead to the 2nd Defendant/Respondent sufiering great prejudice. c. the facts as pleaded in the Draft Amended Plaint were not supported by any evidence hence the 2nd Respondent was unable to ascertain with certainty the case which they had to meet at the trial. d. in the interest of fairness and judicial economy, they urged this Honourable Court to dismiss the Plaintifi's application for withdrawal and or amendment, as it lacked merit, discloses no reasonable Cause of action and thus was an abuse of the court process and should be dismissed with costs. V. Submissions 8. On 23rd October, 2025, while all the parties were present in Court, the Honourable Court directed that the Notice of Motion application dated 3rd September, 2025 be canvassed by way of written submissions. 9. Pursuant to that, by the time of penning down the Ruling, from the Judiciary CTS and ELC Registry, only some of the parties – the Plaintifi/Applicants, 1st & 2nd Defendants/Respondents complied. The Honourable Court reserved the 11th February, 2026 for the delivery of the Ruling. Eventually, due to unavoidable circumstances, it was delivered on 29th April, 2026 accordingly. A. The Written Submissions by the Plaintifi/Applicants 10. Through the Law firm of Messrs. Mung’oma Mung’oma Advocates filed their written submissions dated 3rd February 2026 on behalf of the Plaintifis/Applicants. The Learned Counsel made reference to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 on amendment of pleadings upon attaining the leave of court. Further reference was made to the case of “African Airlines International Limited - Versus - Eastern & Southern African Trade Development Banking (P. T. A.) [2006] eKLR on the procedures to be followed when efiecting such amendments. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2799/eng@2026-04-29 3

page 3 of 10

11. At the same time, the Learned Counsel submitted that the provision Order 25 Rule 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 allowed the Plaintifi to discontinue his suit or withdraw any part of his claim upon such terms as to costs, the filing of any other suit, and otherwise, as are just. That the 4th Defendant was the Applicant’s kin and specifically their biological brother. As a result of this, the family resolved to withdraw the suit against the 4th Defendant and instead call him as a crucial witness to support their case. 12. It was submitted that the Notice of Withdrawal was not opposed by either of the parties. Further, the Plaintifis could not be forced to continue with the case against a party whom they did not wish. That it was the filing of the Notice of Withdrawal that necessitated the amendment of the claim to introduce pertinent facts related to the existing cause of action. The parties would sufier no prejudice because any party claiming against the 4th Defendant had the liberty to file third-party proceedings in line with the provision of Order 15 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. 13. In conclusion, the Honourable Court was urged to allow the application as prayed. B. The Written Submissions by the 1st Defendant/Respondent 14. The 1st Defendant/Respondent filed their written submissions dated 27th January 2026. Mr. Cornel Shisanya tendered very brief submissions. He informed the Court that the 4th Defendant was an administrator of the estate of the deceased in the suit. 15. Therefore, according to him, withdrawing him from the suit would be an injustice as he ought to defend himself. That no suficient reasons had been advanced for the amendment and hence it ought not to be allowed. C. The Written Submission by the 2nd Defendant/Respondent 16. The Law firm of Messrs. Mukiri Global Advocates LLP filed their submissions on behalf of the 2nd Defendant/Respondent. It was dated 22nd December 2026. The Learned Counsel identified two issues for determination. Firstly, whether the application was merited and secondly, who was to bear the costs of the application. On the first issue for determination it was submitted that the 4th Defendant was a necessary party in the suit for purposes of having all the issues arising from the dispute resolved. 17. The Learned Counsel averred that the 4th Defendant in the Plaint had been accused of illegally executing guarantee and indemnity through a fraudulent Power of Attorney. He was unlawfully leasing out the property of the estate of the late Bakari Omari Mwachidyogo without the consent of the other beneficiaries. He argued that it was because of the 4th Defendant’s fraudulent actions that the parties were present before court. 18. The Counsel stated that it was alleged that the 4th Defendant was the brain and instigator of the impugned fraud through which the 2nd Defendant was allegedly defrauded his actions he defrauded the 2nd Defendant in the suit. Therefore, arising from this background, the withdrawal of the 4th Defendant from this suit was laced with malice. It was with the intention to absolve the 4th Defendant from the acts of omission and commission of fraud. 19. It was submitted that the 4th Defendant could give his testimony and adduce his evidence as a Defendant. Thus, the Plaintifis could not, at this stage, seek to withdraw him from the proceedings while simultaneously alleging that the late Omari Bakari was coerced and unduly infiuenced by the 1st Defendant to sign documents whose information he allegedly did not understand. The withdrawal of the 4th Defendant from the instant suit would prejudice the 2nd Defendant given that there existed a https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2799/eng@2026-04-29 4

page 4 of 10

Notice of Claim filed by the 2nd Defendant against the 1st and 4th Defendants dated the 16th of July 2024 which remained pending before this Honorable Court. 20. The Learned Counsel asserted that, while the Plaintifi retained the right to withdraw the suit against the 4th Defendant, this court should balance the rights of all parties in the suit. Principally, the Counsel argued that it was through the Power of Attorney that the 4th Defendant used that had led to the institution of this suit. 21. According to the Learned Counsel, for the issues in controversy to be adequately settled, the suit against the 4th Defendant should not be withdrawn as the 2nd Defendant would sufier great prejudice. 22. In the long run, the court was urged to disallow the application and to award the costs of the suit to the 2nd Defendant/Respondent. IV. Analysis and determination 23. I have carefully read and considered the pleadings herein by the Plaintifis/Applicants, 1st & 2nd Defendants/Respondents, the relevant provisions of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and statutes. 24. In order to arrive at an informed, just, equitable and reasonable decision, the Honorable Court has framed the following three [3] issues for its determination. These are: a. What are the legal parameters governing the issues on withdrawal and/or discontinuance of a suit and amendment of pleadings. b. Whether the Notice of Motion application dated 15th October, 2025 has any merit. c. Who bears the costs of the application dated 15th October 2025? ISSUE NO. a). What are the legal parameters governing the issues on withdrawal and/or discontinuance of a suit and amendment of pleadings. 25. Under this sub – heading, the Honourable Court will be examining the main issues of the substratum of this application. These are whether a Plaintifi being a party to a suit may withdraw a suit against any of the other parties. Further, whether upon the withdrawal of the party, whether the said Plaintifi should proceed to cause the amendment of the pleadings and what are efiects of such amendment to the entire suit. 26. Legally speaking, withdrawal of suits are governed by the provision of Order 25 ( 1 ) & ( 2 ) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. It provides as follows:1. Withdrawal by Plaintifi:- At any time before the setting down of the suit for hearing the Plaintifi may by notice in writing, which shall be served on all parties, wholly discontinue his suit against all or any of the Defendants or may withdraw any part of his claim, and such discontinuance or withdrawal shall not be a defence to any subsequent action. 2. (1) Discontinuance - Where a suit has been set down for hearing it may be discontinued, or any part of the claim withdrawn, upon the filing of a written consent signed by all parties. (2) Where a suit has been set down for hearing the Court may grant the Plaintifi leave to discontinue his suit or to withdraw any part of his claim upon such terms as to costs, the filing of any other suit, and otherwise, as are just. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2799/eng@2026-04-29 5

page 5 of 10

27. Based on the above legal ratio, the Plaintifi possesses the right to withdrawal or discontinue a claim against any party. Nonetheless, for a withdrawal and /or discontinuance of suit to be efiective or actualised in law, there are three ( 3) scenarios which may take place. These are by the Plaintifi without the leave of Court, or the Consent of the parties or with the leave of Court as follows:a). Without the leave of Court:- the withdrawal or discontinuance of suit or part of the claim by Plaintifi may take place under the following circumstances. These are:i. at any time before the setting down of the suit for hearing. ii. It is discretionary and the Plaintifi has absolute power to do so. iii. It may by notice in writing to be served upon all parties. iv. It can be wholly discontinuance his suit against all or any of the Defendants or may withdraw any part of his claim; v. It shall not be a defence to any subsequent action. b). By the consent of the parties. - The discontinuance of suit or any part of the claim withdrawn may occur where a written consent duly signed by all the parties has been filed in Court. c). With the leave of Court:- the leave of Court is required for a Plaintifi to discontinue his suit or to withdraw any part of his claim as follows:i). Where a suit has already been set down for hearing; ii). The leave of Court makes a determination upon such terms as to costs. iii). the filing of any other suit, and otherwise, as are just. 28. The High Courts have extensively deliberated on these issues and hence this Court will not be re – inventing the wheel. For instance, in the cases of: “Beijing Industrial Designing & Researching Institute – Versus – Lagoon Development Limited (2015) KECA 365 (KLR)”: “Kenyariri – Versus – Double Win Company Limited & 3 Others (Environment and Land Court Case E288 of 2022) (2025) KEELC 8660 (KLR): 29. With regard to the Amendment of Pleadings. It is trite law that the Honourable Courts have unfettered discretion on amendments of pleadings. Ideally, amendments can be done without or with the leave of Court. The provision of Order 8 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 provides for amendment of pleading where leave of court is required. A party may amend its pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. Rule 3 provides as follows; Amendment of pleading with leave:(1) Subject to Order 1, rules 9 and 10, Order 24, rules 3, 4, 5 and 6 and the following provisions of this rule, the court may at any stage of the proceedings, on such terms as to costs or otherwise as may be just and in such manner as it may direct, allow any party to amend his pleadings. (2) Where an application to the court for leave to make an amendment such as is mentioned in subrule (3), (4) or (5) is made after any relevant period of limitation current at the date of filing of the suit has expired, the court may nevertheless grant such leave in the circumstances mentioned in any such subrule if it thinks just so to do. (3) An amendment to correct the name of a party may be allowed under subrule (2) notwithstanding that it is alleged that the efiect of the amendment will be to substitute a new https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2799/eng@2026-04-29 6

page 6 of 10

party if the court is satisfied that the mistake sought to be corrected was a genuine mistake and was not misleading or such as to cause any reasonable doubt as to the identity of the person intending to sue or intended to be sued. 30. (4) An amendment to alter the capacity in which a party sues (whether as Plaintifi or as Defendant by Counter - Claim) may be allowed under sub rule (2) if the capacity in which the party will sue is one in which at the date of filing of the Plaint or Counter - Claim, he could have sued. (5) An amendment may be allowed under sub rule (2) notwithstanding that its efiect will be to add or substitute a new cause of action if the new cause of action arises out of the same facts or substantially the same facts as a cause of action in respect of which relief has already been claimed in the suit by the party applying for leave to make the amendment. The power of the court to order for amendment of pleadings is provided for in Order 8 Rule 5 which states as follows; General power to amend 1. For the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties, or of correcting any defect or error in any proceedings, the court may either of its own motion or on the application of any party order any document to be amended in such manner as it directs and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as are just. 31. The purpose of amendment of pleadings was discussed in Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Ed. (reissue), Vol. 36(1) at paragraph 76, as follows on the issue: The purpose of the amendment is to facilitate the determination of the real question in controversy between the parties to any proceedings, and for this purpose the court may at any stage order the amendment of any document, either on application by any party to the proceedings or of its own motion. The person applying for amendment must be acting in good faith. Amendment will not be allowed at a late stage of the trial if on analysis of it is intended for the first time thereby to advance a new ground of defence. If the amendment for which leave is asked seeks to repair an omission due to negligence or carelessness, leave to amend may be granted if the amendment can be made without injustice to the other side. 32. Further, in the case of:- “Cofiee Board of Kenya – Versus - Thika Cofiee Mills Limited & 2 Others (2014) eKLR the principles in amendment of pleadings were elaborated as follows:a. Amendments should be allowed which are necessary for determination of the real controversies in the suit; b. The proposed amendment should not alter and be a substitute of the cause of action on the basis of which the original list was raised; c. Inconsistent and contradictory allegations in negation to the admitted position of facts or mutually destructive allegations of fact would not be allowed to be incorporate by means of amendments; d. Proposed amendments should not cause prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated by means of costs; e. Amendments of a claim or relief barred by time should not be allowed; f. No amendment should be allowed which amounts to or results in defeating a legal right to the opposite party on account of lapse of time; https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2799/eng@2026-04-29 7

page 7 of 10

g. No party should sufier on account of the technicalities of law and amendment should be allowed to minimize the litigation between the parties; h. The delay in filing the petitions for amendment should be properly compensated by costs; i. Error or mistake, which is not fraudulent, should not be made the ground for rejecting the application for amendment of pleadings. ISSUE No. b). Whether the Notice of Motion application dated 15th October, 2025 has any merit. 33. Under this Sub – heading, now that the legal parameters on the withdrawal and/or discontinuance of a suit by the Plaintifi has been elaborately spelt out above, the Honourable Court shall endeavour to apply them onto the instant case. Critically, the main pith and substance of this application was upon the Plaintifi withdrawing the suit against the 4th Defendant herein and hence seeking leave of Court in order to amend the Plaint herein accordingly. 34. Prior to proceeding further on the analysis under the sub - heading, it is imperative that the Honourable Court extrapolates on the brief background of this matter. Primarily, I have had ample opportunity to keenly peruse through the filed pleadings in this matter. In particular, the Plaint was filed initially in instituting this suit and the amended one as annexed in the application. The issues giving rise to the suit are based on allegations of fraudulent transfer of the suit property from the deceased herein to the 1st to 3rd Defendant/Respondents as enabled by the 5th Defendant/Respondent. Initially, the Plaintifis/ Applicants who are siblings to the 4th Defendant alleged that the 4th Defendant was the main instigator and/or catalyst in the ostensible fraud having forged a Power of Attorney that enabled him sale and transfer the suit property to the Defendants/Respondents and hence sued him as a 4th Defendant. It is held that the 4th Defendant is related to the Plaintifis/Applicants by virtue of being members of the same family. They had a family meeting where they resolved their difierences and agreed to withdraw the suit against the 4th Defendant. They intend to call the 4th Defendant as a crucial witness to support their case. Subsequently, following a resolution of the aforesaid family meeting, the Plaintifis proceeded to withdraw the suit against the 4th Defendant through a Notice of Withdrawal of suit dated 7th May, 2025. The Notice was served upon the parties on 20th May, 2025. On 5th August, 2025 the 2nd Defendant was served for the second time with a copy of the Notice of Withdrawal of suit. None of the Defendants had objected the Notice of Withdrawal of Suit. According to the Plaintifis/Applicants, following the Notice of Withdrawal of suit, it was necessary to amend the Plaint to refiect the changes and also introduce important facts that would enable this court to reach a just determination. They argued that no prejudice shall be sufiered by the Defendants if the sought orders were granted as the Defendants shall be at liberty to Amend their Defence. 35. On the other hand, the 1st and 2nd Defendants vehemently opposed the application on few grounds. Firstly, the 4th Defendant in the Plaint had been accused of illegally executing guarantee and indemnity through a fraudulent Power of Attorney. He was unlawfully leasing out the property of the estate of the late Bakari Omari Mwachidyogo without the consent of the other beneficiaries. He argued that it was because of the 4th Defendant’s fraudulent actions that the parties were present before court. Secondly, they alleged that the 4th Defendant was the brain and instigator of the impugned fraud through which the 2nd Defendant was allegedly defrauded his actions he defrauded the 2nd Defendant in the suit. Therefore, arising from this background, the withdrawal of the 4th Defendant from this suit was laced with malice. It was with the intention to absolve the 4th Defendant from the acts of omission and commission of fraud. Thirdly, they opined that the 4th Defendant could give his testimony and adduce his evidence as a Defendant. Thus, the Plaintifis could not, at this stage, seek to withdraw him https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2799/eng@2026-04-29 8

page 8 of 10

from the proceedings while simultaneously alleging that the late Omari Bakari was coerced and unduly infiuenced by the 1st Defendant to sign documents whose information he allegedly did not understand. Fourthly, the withdrawal of the 4th Defendant from the instant suit would prejudice the 2nd Defendant given that there existed a Notice of Claim filed by the 2nd Defendant against the 1st and 4th Defendants dated the 16th of July 2024 which remained pending before this Honorable Court. 36. Admittedly, they asserted that, while the Plaintifi retained the right to withdraw the suit against the 4th Defendant, this court should balance the rights of all parties in the suit. Principally, the Counsel argued that it was through the Power of Attorney that the 4th Defendant used that had led to the institution of this suit. 37. In the Draft Amended Plaint, it is alleged that the said 4th Defendant/Respondent was forced to lease the property and that the power of attorney was not signed by him but was forged. The Plaintifi/ Applicants state that the issue had been resolved among them as siblings and that the 4th Defendant would now be their witness as he did not wilfully participate in the fraud. 38. By and large, I have carefully considered all the arguments by the parties. In my view, it is natural that the 4th Defendant is at the centre of the dispute herein, the alleged fraud as from the plaint emanated from documents allegedly belonging to and prepared by him like the Power of Attorney in question. The court has the discretion to either allow both the Withdrawal of the suit against the 4th Defendant and an Amendment or not based on the circumstances of each case. 39. It is instructive to note that the instant case has not commenced and/or set down for hearing. Clearly the provision of Order 25 ( 1 ) and Order 8 (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 are applicable and hence take efiect here. The Plaintifi has the absolute right to withdraw a suit against any party without the leave of Court upon issuance of notice but seek the leave of Court to cause the amendment of the Plaint. In the circumstances, the Defendants/Respondents can always amend the defences to refiect their respective cases based on what has been raised by the Plaintifis/Applicants. The long and short of all this is that it will be incumbent of the Plaintifis/Applicants to prove the new facts that have emerged and the Defendants/Respondents will have the chance to counter them. Furthermore, unlike in the case where the Noah’s Ark the vessel that was closed after Noah’s family and the pairs of every animal species in the world entered it and hence were spared from the global deluge as the story goes under the Scriptures in Genesis Chapters 6, 7, 8 & 9, of the Holy Bible, they may invoke other suitable, fit and appropriate and available legal mechanisms such as instituting a third party proceedings under the provision of Order 1 Rule 15 (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 against the 4th Defendant herein. 40. Consequently, the Honourable Court holds that the withdrawal of the suit against the 4th defendant is proper and hence allowed. Further, that it will proceed to grant leave to allow the amendment as I see no prejudice to be sufiered by the Defendants/Respondents at the moment bearing in mind that the hearing is yet to commence. ISSUE NO. c). Who bears the cost of the application dated 15th October 2025? 41. It is now well established that the issue of Costs is at the discretion of the Court. Costs mean the award that a party is granted at the conclusion of a legal action or proceedings in any litigation. The Proviso of Section 27 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 provides that costs should follow the event unless the court for some good reason orders otherwise. By the event it means the result or outcome of the legal action. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2799/eng@2026-04-29 9

page 9 of 10

42. The whole essence of awarding costs is to restore the successful party to the position as it were prior to the institution of proceeding against them. See the case of “Rosemary Wairimu Munene Ex-parte Applicant – Versus - Ihururu Party Farmers’ Cooperative Society J.R. No. 4/2014” as cited in the case of “Cecilia Karuru Ngayu – Versus - Barclays Bank of Kenya & Another [2016] eKLR”. 43. In the instant case, arising from the surrounding circumstances and inferences, the Honorable Court opines that it is fair, reasonable and proper for costs to be in the cause. IV. Conclusion and Final Disposition 44. Ultimately, upon causing an indepth analysis of the framed issues herein, the Honourable Court based on the principles of Preponderance of Probabilities and the balance of conveniences proceeds to make the following specific orders:a. THAT the Notice of Motion application dated 15th October, 2025 by the Plaintifi/Applicant be and is hereby found to be meritorious and hence allowed as prayed. b. THAT an order made whereby the Plaintifis are granted leave to amend their Plaint and serve it upon the Defendants in the next 14 days from the date of the ruling. c. THAT the Defendants be and are hereby granted corresponding 14 days leave from the date of service to file an Amended Defence if need be. d. THAT upon service the Plaintifi granted 7 days leave to file and serve any additional documents emanating from the amended Defence. e. THAT there be a mention on 21st July, 2026 to ascertain full compliance of these directions/ orders and conducting of a Pre – Trial Conference in accordance with the provision of Order 11 of the Civil procedure Rules, 2010. There shall be a hearing of the matter on 9th November, 2026 preferably through Physical means. f. THAT Costs of the application to be in the cause It is ordered accordingly. RULING DELIVERED THROUGH THE MICRO – SOFT TEAMS VIRTUAL MEANS, SIGNED AND DATED AT KWALE THIS…29TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 ……………………………… HON. MR. JUSTICE L.L NAIKUNI, ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT AT KWALE. Ruling delivered in the presence of: Mr. Daniel Disii, the Court Assistant. M/s. Wangechi Advocate for the Plaintifi/Applicant. No appearance for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th Defendants. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2799/eng@2026-04-29 10

page 10 of 10