Khan & another v Mwatарна & 6 others (Civil Case E015 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3594 (KLR)

3. Upon service, the application was opposed by the 1st & 2nd Plaintifis/Respondents through a Replying Afidavit and whose contents the court will expound on later in this ruling. II. The case by the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Applicants 4. 5. The 1st and 2nd Defendants/Applicants sought for the following orders: a. Spent. b. That there be a stay of proceedings and/or Judgment in the matter pending the hearing and determination of this application inter partes. c. That the 1st and 2nd Defendant/Applicant be granted leave to file a Defence out of time. d. That the costs of this Application be in the cause. The application was premised upon the grounds, testimonial facts and the averments made out from a 10 Paragraphed Supporting Afidavit sworn by Swalehe Abdalla Mwatapha. The deponent averred as follows that:a. He was the 1st Defendant/Applicant herein and with the authority of the 2nd Defendant/ Applicant to swear the afidavit on his behalf. Therefore, he was competent to swear this afidavit. b. The delay in filing a Defence was not deliberate but occasioned by lack of financial resources and other compelling personal circumstances beyond the deponents control. c. The Applicants had a good and arguable defence raising triable issues as set out in the annexed draft Defence. d. They had also obtained new and material evidence and identified key witnesses who were previously unavailable and who could support their case. e. Unless the orders sought were granted, the Applicants stood to sufier substantial prejudice, including the risk of an adverse Judgment being entered against them without their case being heard. f. The delay was neither inordinate nor calculated to obstruct justice, and the Plaintifis shall not sufier any prejudice that could not be remedied by costs. g. The Applicants were prepared to do the best they could to ensure eficient conclusion of the matter. h. The Applicants faced the imminent risk of a Judgment being entered, yet it had a strong and arguable defence raising triable issues. i. Unless the said application was heard on priority, the Applicant stood to sufier grave prejudice that could not be remedied through costs alone. III. The case by the 1st & 2nd Plaintifis/Respondents 6. As already indicated, the Plaintifis/Respondents opposed the application dated 23rd July, 2025 though filing a 26 Paragraphed Replying afidavit sworn by Gulnar Sultan Khan the 1st Plaintifi who averred follows that:a. He was the 1st Plaintifi/Applicant herein and on behalf of the 2nd Plaintifi/Applicant herein. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3594/eng@2026-04-30 2

page 2 of 10

b. This matter was fixed for hearing on 20th June, 2025 and it proceeded for hearing whereby only the Attorney General appeared. c. The Law firm of Messrs. Lilan Koech & Company Advocates were on record for the 1st and 2nd Defendants but they filed an Application dated 22nd January, seeking to cease acting for the 1st and 2nd Defendants. d. The Application to cease acting was heard on 24th March, 2025 and it was granted. e. The same Advocates who withdrew had now come back and sought to represent the 1st and 2nd Defendants. f. The said Advocates informed this Honourable Court that they had served their Application seeking to withdraw upon their Clients who never responded to it. g. The 1st and 2nd Defendants were served with the summons, they entered appearance and filed their Defence and Counter Claim. h. The issues raised in the purported Statement of Defence annexed to the Applicant's application were not new. They were the same ones as stated in their Defence on record. i. There was no delay in filing the Defence as alleged in the afidavit of Swalehe Abdalla Mwatapha. The Defence was filed on time. j. No explanation had been given as to why the 1st and 2nd Defendants did not attend the hearing on 20th June, 2025 yet they were served. k. There was no dispute that the Defendants were served. They were not alleging that they were sick or give any reason on their nonattendance. l. The two Defendants had always acted in the same manner they are doing. In Judicial Review 27 of 2009, they were served but ignored/refused to respond and attend Court. m. It was their tactic that once a matter was finalized, they go back and file fresh matters as they did in the proceedings before the Kwale Magistrate's Court. That the Applicants were aware that the proceedings of the Msambweni Land Disputes Tribunal had been quashed but they went to the Kadhi's Court at Msambweni, then went to the Kwale Principal Magistrates Court on 20th June, 2014, used the same proceedings of the Tribunal that had been quashed in Judicial Review 27 of 2009 and obtained an order from the Court on 20th June, 2014 directing the Land Registrar to register them as owners. n. Since the proceedings of the Tribunal were quashed by Justice Ibrahim in his Judgement delivered on 1st September, 2009, the Defendants could not have relied on those proceedings to get the Court orders to have them registered as owners of the suit land. o. The green cards produced by the Respondents show that their names were cancelled and the registrar used the Court order dated 20th June, 2014 to register Ramadhan Swalehe Mwatapha and Swalehe Abdalla as owners on 24th June, 2014 and issued them with a Title Deed. p. The Defendants trace their claim of ownership through the proceedings from the Msambweni Land Disputes Tribunal of which even without the decision of the Court in Judicial Review 27 of 2009, the Proceedings of the Msambweni Land Disputes Tribunal are a nullity and therefore cannot be the source of ownership by the Defendants. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3594/eng@2026-04-30 3

page 3 of 10

q. The Defendants were abusing the Court Process. They could not claim that they never had money to instruct their Advocate and that's why they never participated in the proceedings. r. The Defendants appeared for themselves at the Msambweni Tribunal. They filed applications for adoption of the Tribunal's Judgement before the Kwale Magistrate's Court and entered appearance and filed defence on their own in this matter. s. The two Defendants were very much aware of the litigation process and could not be held to be ignorant of what happened in our Courts also that the Defendants had no Defence which could raise any triable issue. t. The Plaintifis were not executing the Judgement in Judicial Review 27 of 2009. We are also not relying on ELC No. 2 of 2015 as claimed. The land belonged to the Plaintifis/Respondents and her late husband and the cancellation of their Title through the Msambweni Land Disputes Tribunal was a nullity. Equally the entrance of the Defendants' names in the sub-divisions on the pretext that Case No. 2 of 2015 was dismissed was a nullity as there is no order from the High Court directing the Kwale Land Registrar to Register the Defendants as owners of the land. u. The Plaintifis/Respondents had been incurring expenses travelling from Mombasa as well as spending on Advocate's expenses from Nairobi. v. The Green Card for plot number Kwale/Diani S.S/201 showed that the two Defendants first used the Msambweni Land Disputes Tribunal proceedings and obtained the orders on 20th June, 2014, cancelled our Title and were issued with a Title for that plot on 24th June, 2014. The subsequent entries on dismissal of case No. 2 of 2015 were entered on the registry when the Defendants were already the registered owners and that case have nothing to do with the Defendants' ownership of the land as it did not grant them the land. w. The deponent lastly prayed that the application be dismissed with costs. IV. Submissions 7. On 19th November 2025, the Honourable Court directed parties to canvass the application by way of written submissions. Pursuant to this, all the parties had complied. 8. The Honourable Court reserved 2nd March, 2026 to deliver its ruling. Eventually, it was delivered on 30th April, 2026 accordingly. A. The Written Submissions by the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Applicants 9. 10. The Law firm of Messrs. Lilan Koech & Co Advocates filed a written submissions dated 27th January, 2026 on behalf of the Applicants. Mr. Kiptoo Advocate commenced his submissions by raising the following issues for determination by this Honourable court: a. Whether the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Applicants had Shown Suficient Cause for the Delay; b. Whether the Intended Defence by the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Applicants raised Triable Issues and were entitled to leave to file a Defence out of time. On the first issue. The Learned Counsel submitted that the delay by their part was caused by factors beyond their control due to financial dificulties and logistics clearly hindered their ability to defend the suit. It was a situation way out of their control. The court was urged to exercise its discretion https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3594/eng@2026-04-30 4

page 4 of 10

and allow the Applicants be heard on merit. To buttress on this point, reliance was placed in the case of “Wabururu ((Suing as the Administrator Ad Litem of the Estate of Francis Wabururu Njau Deceased)) – Versus - Kagia & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 750 'A' of 2017) [2024] KEELC 4404 (KLR) (28th May, 2024) (Ruling). 11. The Learned Counsel averred that the Applicants delays were not deliberate but they were hardships clearly beyond their control. That the delay to file a Defence in time and attend to the hearing was not a delay tactic in all sense. Further reliance was placed in the case of: “Philip Keipto Chemwolo & another- Versus - Augustine Kubende [1986] KECA 87 (KLR)”. The court was urged to exercise its discretion and allow the Applicants to be heard on merit and in exercising its mandate of promoting justice and fairness in line with the provision of Articles 50 (1) and 159 (2) (a) and (d) of the 2010 constitution of Kenya. 12. As to whether the Intended Defence by the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Applicants Raises Triable Issues and were entitled to leave to file a defense out of time. The learned Counsel averred that the draft Defence by the Applicants clearly set out bona fide triable issues which ought to proceed to full hearing. That where a defence filed out of time raised pertinent and arguable triable issues, this Honourable Court ought, in the exercise of its discretion, to admit the same and allow the matter to be determined on its merits. 13. The Learned Counsel asserted that the claim in issue pertained to the ownership of the suit land. It was an issue that deserved that all parties be heard by merit. That this would require scrutiny and perusal of pleadings by the Court to determine the matter. Reliance was placed in the case of:- “Job Kilach – Versus - Nation Media Group Limited, Salaba Agencies Limited & Michael Rono [2015] KECA 846 (KLR)”. 14. It was submitted that the Applicants had demonstrated that the Defense annexed in the supporting afidavit dated the 23rd July, 2025 raises triable issue which the Honorable Court needed to examine and hear the parties concerned. 15. In conclusion, the Applicants prayed that the Application dated 23rd July, 2025 be allowed as prayed, with costs in the cause. B. The Written Submissions by the Plaintifis/Respondents. 16. The Law firm of Messrs. Osundwa & Co Advocates filed their written submissions dated 4th March, 2026 on behalf of the Plaintifis/Respondents. Dr, Chitembwe Advocate commenced by stating that the right to be heard never dictated that parties could participate in proceedings when they deemed fit. The Learned Counsel argued that the Applicants were well aware of the suit before court at the time of hearing but chose not to participate in the suit. That the reasons given for the delay were not satisfactory but amounted to an abuse of the court process. 17. That a defence could not be filed after the matter had already been conclusively heard. 18. The court was urged to disallow the application ad proceed to render Judgement in the matter. V. Analysis and Determination 19. I have keenly assessed and read through the pleadings filed by both the 1st and 2nd Defendants/ Applicants and the Plaintifis/Respondents herein, the written submissions, the cited authorities by the parties, the relevant provisions of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and the statutes. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3594/eng@2026-04-30 5

page 5 of 10

20. For the Honorable Court to arrive at an informed, just, fair and reasonable decision, it has crystallized the matters emanating from the application dated 23rd July, 2025 into the following three (3) issues for its determination: a. Whether the Notice of Motion application dated 23rd July, 2023 has any merit or not. b. Whether the parties are entitled to the reliefs sought. c. Who will bear the Costs of the application dated 23rd July 2025? ISSUE No. a). Whether the Applicants have made a case for grant of the orders sought. 21. Under this sub – title, the Honourable Court will be critically assessing whether the application by the Applicants has merit or not. The 1st and 2nd Defendants/Applicants have sought for two prong reliefs – an order of stay of proceedings and arresting of the impending Judgement in order for them to be able to file their Defence out of time. 22. The court has considered the arguments by both parties herein. This being a Court of record, it is imperative that a brief background of the suit is discussed for context. This suit was first filed before the court on 7th March, 2023. The 1st and 2nd Defendants/Applicants herein in the instant application filed a joint statement of defence on 7th March, 2024. The matter was mentioned before court on several occasions including 14th March, 2024, 23rd May, 2024, 13th June, 2024, 30th September, 2024, 6th November, 2024 and 23rd January, 2025 respectively with various applications including a preliminary objection by the Plaintifis and which was eventually withdrawn. 23. On 25th February, 2025, being the hearing date for the suit was confirmed by the Plaintifis’ Counsel on record. However, in the course of the proceedings, the Court was informed by the Advocate for the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Applicants on record that they had filed an application to cease acting for the said parties. Being trite law whereby there exist an interlocutory application, it has to be granted precedence. Thus, the Court provided the appropriate direction on how to dispose ofi the matter. On 24th March, 2025, the application to cease acting was allowed after it was confirmed that it had been served upon the Applicants. The Applicants were then given time to seek fresh legal representation under the provision of Article 50 ( 2 ) ( g ) & ( h) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and/or appear in person as per the requirement of law under Order 9 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. The matter was thus scheduled for hearing on 3rd April 2025. 24. Subsequently, the scheduled hearing for 20th June, 2025 proceeded on in the presence of Counsel for the Plaintifis/Respondents and counsel for the 6th and 7th Defendants. The 1st and 2nd Defendants/ Applicants did not appear before court despite being aware of the hearing date as evidenced by the afidavit of service dated 23rd April, 2025, sworn by Said Chitembwe Advocate. The 1st Plaintifi tendered her testimony and closed her case. The defence also closed its case. 25. Legally speaking, stay of proceedings is not to be granted lightly. The High Court has deliberated on this issue and hence this Court will not be re – inventing the wheel. For instance, in the case of:- “Kenya Wildlife Service – Versus - James Mutembei [2019] eKLR”, the Court observed: “ Stay of proceedings is a grave judicial action which seriously interferes with the right of a litigant to conduct his litigation. It impinges on the right of access to justice, right to be heard without delay and overall, right to fair trial. Therefore, the test for stay of proceedings is high and stringent.” https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3594/eng@2026-04-30 6

page 6 of 10

26. Similarly, Ringera J in the case of:- “Global Tours &Travels Limited; Nairobi HC Winding Up Cause No. 43 of 2000” persuasively stated thus:“ As I understand the law, whether or not to grant a stay of proceedings or further proceedings on a decree or order appealed from is a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised in the interest of Justice .... the sole question is whether it is in the interest of justice to order a stay of proceedings and if it is, on what terms it should be granted. In deciding whether to order a stay, the court should essentially weigh the pros and cons of granting or not granting the order. And in considering those matters, it should bear in mind such factors as the need for expeditious disposal of cases, the prima facie merits of the intended appeal, in the sense of not whether it will probably succeed or not but whether it is an arguable one, the scarcity and optimum utilization of judicial time and whether the application has been brought expeditiously” 27. Also illumination on the threshold for stay of proceedings is the following passages in Halsbury’s Law of England, 4th Edition. Vol. 37 page 330 and 332, that:“ The stay of proceedings is a serious, grave and fundamental interruption in the right that a party has to conduct his litigation towards the trial on the basis of the substantive merits of his case, and therefore the court’s general practice is that a stay of proceedings should not be imposed unless the proceeding beyond all reasonable doubt ought not to be allowed to continue.” “This is a power which, it has been emphasized, ought to be exercised sparingly, and only in exceptional cases.” “It will be exercised where the proceedings are shown to be frivolous, vexatious or harassing or to be manifestly groundless or in which there is clearly no cause of action in law or in equity. The Applicant for a stay on this ground must show not merely that the Plaintifi might not, or probably would not, succeed but that he could not possibly succeed on the basis of the pleading and the facts of the case.” 28. The court has noted that there already exists a Defence on record by the 1st and 2nd Defendants herein. Infact, the Defence includes a Counter - Claim raised by the said parties under the provision of Order 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. The court does not in any way understand the logic behind the application seeking to file a Defence out of time when a defence is already on record. Further, the purpose intended to be served by staying the proceedings and arresting the Judgement of the court over this suit is not graphically demonstrated. This is for the simple reason that the matter has been before court severally and in the instances the Applicants herein were represented and were well aware of the dates. 29. When Counsel on record for the Applicants ceased acting for the Applicants on 24th March 2025, the said parties were given three months to procure services of another Counsel and chart out a way forward with regards to how they would proceed with the matter. The court record can bear witness to this. The Applicants failed to appear before court for hearing and the matter thus proceeded in their absence. Had the Applicants been keen on defending the claim against them and pursuing their Counter - Claim, they would have sought for more time to procure legal services as they have said that they were financially constrained by the time the matter was heard. 30. This notwithstanding, the Applicants are now seeking for stay of the proceedings and the arrest of delivery of the Judgement as the case for both parties has already been closed. This is all superfiuous. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3594/eng@2026-04-30 7

page 7 of 10

The first issue is the propriety of a party intercepting the delivery of a reserved decision by filing an intervening application. Kimaru, J in the case of:- “Rev. Madara Evans Okanga Dondo – Versus Housing Finance Company of Kenya Nakuru Hccc No. 262 of 2005” held as follows: “ The court will always invoke its inherent jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of the due process of the court. The jurisdiction of the court, which is comprised within the term “inherent”, is that which enables it to fulfil itself, properly and efiectively, as a court of law. The overriding feature of the inherent jurisdiction of the court is that it is part of procedural law, both civil and criminal, and not part of the substantive law; it is exercisable by summary process, without plenary trial, it may be invoked not only in relation to the parties in pending proceedings, but in relation to anyone, whether a party or not, and in relation to matters not raised in litigation between the parties; it must be distinguished from the exercise of judicial discretion; it may be exercised even in circumstances governed by rules of the court. The inherent jurisdiction of the court enables the court to exercise control over process by regulating its proceedings, by preventing the abuse of the process and by compelling the observance of the process. In sum, it may be said that the inherent jurisdiction of the court is virile and viable doctrine and has been defined as being the reserve or fund of powers, a residual source of powers, which the court may draw upon as necessary whenever it is just or equitable to do so, in particular to ensure the observance of the due process of law, to prevent improper vexation or oppression, to do justice between the parties and to secure a fair trial between them.” ISSUE No. b). Whether the parties are entitled to the reliefs sought. 31. Under this Sub – heading, the Honourable Court holds that from the history of the suit, it is clear that the 1st and 2nd Defendants have not been keen on proceeding with the suit based on their conduct. It is also noteworthy that there has been a protracted legal battle between the parties herein over the suit property. In as much as the court is vested with inherent powers to make orders that ensure justice is met and which include the power to stay proceedings and to arrest a Judgement, it is a power which ought to be invoked very sparingly and in exceptional circumstances and not to assist a person who is intent upon abusing the process of the Court. Being a discretionary power, as held in the now famous case of:- “Shah – Versus - Mbogo [1967] EA 116 at 123B”, the discretion is intended to be exercised to avoid injustice or hardship resulting from accident, inadvertence or excusable mistake or error, but is not designed to assist the person who has deliberately sought whether by evasion or otherwise to obstruct or delay the course of justice. 32. Aditionally, I am in agreement with the case of:- “Sir Udo Udoma, CJ in Musa Misango – Versus - Eria Musigire and Others Kampala HCCS No. 30 of 1966 [1966] EA 390”, expressed himself as follows:“ Now it is unquestionable that, both under the inherent power of the court, and also under a specific rule to that efiect under the Judicature Act, the court has a right to stop an action at this stage if it is wantonly brought without the shadow of an excuse, so that to permit the action to go through its ordinary stages up to the trial would be to allow the Defendant to be vexed under the form of legal process when there could not at any stage be any doubt that the action was baseless. But from this to the summary dismissal of actions because the judge in chambers does not think that they will be successful in the end lies a wide region, and the courts have properly considered this power of arresting an action and deciding it without trial as one to be very sparingly used, and rarely, if ever, excepting in cases where the action is an abuse of legal procedure. They have laid down again and again that this process is not intended to take the place of the old demurrer by which the defendant challenged https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3594/eng@2026-04-30 8

page 8 of 10

the validity of the Plaintifi’s claims as a matter of law. It is evident that our judicial system would never permit a Plaintifi to be “driven from the Judgement seat” in this way without any court having considered his right to be heard except in cases where the cause of action was obviously and almost incontestably bad.” 33. The Applicants have invoked the provisions of sections 1A,1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 and Article 50 ( 1 ) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 on the right to a fair hearing. Indeed, these provisions of the law were to ensure that matters are heard expeditiously and fairly. In the case of:“Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat – Versus - Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & Others [2013] eKLR” the Court of Appeal in discussing the application of the overriding objective principle had this to say “the “O2” principle does not cover situations aimed at subverting the expeditious disposal of cases or appeals, mistakes or lapses of counsel, or negligent acts, or dilatory tactics or acts constituting abuse of the court process (See the case of “Kenya Commercial Bank – Versus - Kenya Planters Cooperative Union Nai Civil Application No.85 of 2010 (UR) 62 of 2010”. 34. In circumstances of this case, it is the strong view by the Honourable Court that the Applicant’s reliance on the overriding objectives of the court is not only misguided, misplaced but also in total disregard of the intended purpose of the overriding objective principle. The Applicants were given the opportunity to ventilate their case but failed to use it, they cannot now turn and blame anyone for their indolence. 35. For these reasons, therefore, the court is not convinced that a case has been made for grant of the orders sought. ISSUE No. c). Who will bear the Costs of the application dated 23rd July, 2025? 36. It is trite 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 legal action and proceedings in any litigation. 37. The provision of Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, Chapter 21 Laws of Kenya, provides as follows with regard to costs:“ (1) 38. Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, and to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, the costs of and incidental to all suits shall be in the discretion of the court or judge, and the court or judge and the court or judge shall have full power to determine by whom and out of what property and to what extent such costs are to be paid, and to give all necessary directions for the purposes aforesaid; and the fact that the court or judge has no jurisdiction to try the suit shall be no bar to the exercise of those powers: Provided that the costs of any action, cause or other matter or issue shall follow the event unless the court or judge shall for good reason otherwise order. By the event it means the result or outcome of the legal action. However, the only consideration is the “event” as was held in the Supreme Court of Uganda in the case of:- “Impressaing Fortunato Federice – Versus – Nabwire” where the court stated:“ The efiect of section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act is that the Judge or court dealing with the issue of costs in any suit, action, cause or matter has absolute discretion to determine by whom and to what extent such costs are to be paid; of course like all judicial discretions, the discretion on costs must be exercised judiciously and how a court or judge exercises https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3594/eng@2026-04-30 9

page 9 of 10

such discretion depends on the facts of each case. If there were mathematical formula, it would no longer be discretion… while it is true that ordinarily, costs should follow the event unless for some good reason the court orders otherwise, the principles to be applied are(i) under Section 27 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, costs should follow the event unless the court orders otherwise. This provision gives the judge discretion in awarding costs but that discretion has to be exercised judicially. (ii), A successful party can be denied costs if it is proved that but for his conduct the action would not have been brought… It is trite law that where judgement is given on the basis of consent of parties, a court may not inquire into what motivated the parties to consent or to admit liability.” 39. In the case of:- “Orix Oil (Kenya) Limited – Versus - Paul Kabeu & 2 Other [2014] eKLR” the court stated: “ …the court should have been guided by the law that costs follow the event, and the Plaintifi being the successful party should ordinarily be awarded costs unless its conduct is such that it would be denied the costs or the successful issue was not attracting costs. None of those deviant factors are present in this case and the court would still have awarded costs to the Plaintifi, which I do." 40. Taking into account the circumstances of the suit and instant application, the court opines that the Plaintifis/Respondents are entitled to the costs of the application herein. 41. Conclusions and Final Disposition 42. Having conduct an in-depth analysis of all the framed issues herein, on the Preponderance of Probabilities, this Honorable Court finds that the Defendants/Applicants herein have not been able to established some suficient cause to the satisfaction of the Court that it is in the interest of justice not to grant the orders sought. Specifically, the Honourable Court proceeds to grant the following orders: a. That the Notice of Motion application dated 23rd July, 2025 by the Defendant/Applicant be and is hereby found to lack merit and hence is disallowed entirely. b. That Judgement of this matter is set for delivery on 1st July, 2026 thereof. c. That costs of this application to be and is hereby awarded to the Plaintifis/Respondents to be borne by the 1st & 2nd Defendants/Applicants jointly and severally. It Is Ordered Accordingly. RULING DELIVERED THROUGH THE MICRO – SOFT TEAMS VIRTUAL MEANS, SIGNED AND DATED AT KWALE THIS 30TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 ……………………………… HON. MR. JUSTICE L.L NAIKUNI, ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT AT KWALE. Ruling delivered in the presence of: a. Mr. Daniel Disii, the Court Assistant. b. Dr, Chitembwe Advocate for the Plaintifi/Respondent. c. Mr. Kitur Advocate holding brief for Mr. Kiptoo for the 1st & 2nd Defendants/Applicants. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3594/eng@2026-04-30 10

page 10 of 10