Mburugu & another v Ahmed & 3 others

iii. That the Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order reopening the Plaintiff’s case for purposes of crossexamination of the Plaintiff; and their witnesses. iv. The Honourable court be pleased to recall the plaintiff and for cross examination by the 1st and 2nd defendant’s counsel. v. The Honourable court be pleased to allow the 1st and 2nd defendants to tender evidence in support of their defence by enlarging the time within which they can file their witness statements and List and bundle of documents. vi. That this Honourable court be pleased to enlarge time for the defendants/Applicants to state their case and produce their evidence and/or address the court generally in this suit. vii. That the 1st and 2nd defendant statement of defence, list of witness statements and list of documents annexed hereto be deemed as dully filed and served. viii. In the alternative, the Honourable court be pleased to order that the suit do start de novo. 3. The subject application is premised on the various /diverse grounds. The grounds are: The subject suit came up for hearing on the 18.06.2026; the 1st and 2nd defendants’ counsel mistook the date to be for pre-trials; the applicants’ counsel was not prepared for hearing; the applicants’ counsel Page 2 of 23

page 2 of 23

sought indulgence of the court and an adjournment; the application for adjournment was declined; the court proceeded to and fixed time allocation for hearing; the applicants’ counsel was unable to participate in the scheduled hearing; the failure on behalf of the applicants’ counsel was precipitated by network failure; and because of the applicants’ absence, the matter proceeded for hearing without the participation of the applicants. 4. In addition, it has been averred thus: The Applicants had not filed their lists and bundle of documents, and witness statements; the Applicants needed time to file and serve the said documents. Furthermore, it has been contended that the Applicants herein have a triable defence, including, the defence of bona fide purchase for value. 5. Moreover, it has been contended that when the court gave directions as pertains to the hearing and time allocation, the court did not indicate that the hearing shall proceed physically in court. To this end, it has been posited that the applicants’ counsel remained on the virtual platform, waiting to be admitted. However, it has been averred that even when the matter was called out, the applicants’ counsel was unable to address the court because of net work-related issues. 6. The application is supported by the affidavit of Abdi Basid Ahmed, the 2nd defendant/applicant. The deponent of the affidavit has reiterated the grounds contained in the body of the application. In addition, the deponent has averred that when their advocate[s] realized that the matter was proceeding for hearing in open court, their advocate, namely; Mr. Kiogora Mugambi, sent his court clerk to court and when the court clerk Page 3 of 23

page 3 of 23

arrived in court, same [court clerk], found the court door already locked from inside and the court was in session and the matter was proceeding physically. 7. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have contended that same have established sufficient cause and reason, to enable the subject application to be allowed. Moreover, it has been averred that unless the application is allowed, the Applicants shall be disposed to suffer prejudice and injustice. In any event, it has been posited that the Applicants have a right to fair hearing in terms of Articles 25 [c] and 50 [1] of the Constitution, 2010. 8. The plaintiffs/Respondents [hereinafter referred to as the respondents] have opposed the application vide a replying affidavit sworn on the 01.07.2026. The replying affidavit has been sworn by Johnson Mbaabu Mburugu, the 1st respondent. 9. The deponent of the replying affidavit has asserted thus: The subject suit was initially fixed for hearing on the 14.05.2026; the scheduled hearing could not take off because of an application for leave to amend the plaint; the said application for leave to amend the plaint was allowed by consent; thereafter the court issued various directions, including the filing and exchange of list and bundle of documents; list of witnesses; and witness statement. Additionally, it has been averred that the court also included default clauses, in the event of default by either party. Page 4 of 23

page 4 of 23

10.The deponent of the replying affidavit has further averred thus: The respondents duly filed and served the amended plaint; the Respondents also filed their attendants’ documents; the Respondents also filed an affidavit of service denoting service of inter alia the amended plaint and the directions of the court issued on the 14.05.2026. 11.It was the further assertion by the deponent of the replying affidavit that despite service of the amended plaint, the Applicants herein did not file or serve their amended statement of defence. In addition, it has also been averred that the directions of the court issued on the 14.05.2026, were clear, unambiguous and explicit. Further, it has been posited that the Applicants were aware of the hearing date. 12.Additionally, the deponent of the replying affidavit has posited that the Applicants were present when the hearing date was fixed. To this end, it has been deposed that the contention by the applicants’ counsel that same was not aware of the hearing date, was a deliberate and intentional tactic, to obstruct and defeat the scheduled hearing. Moreover, it has been asserted that on the scheduled hearing date, the Applicants counsel was present and same mounted an application for adjournment, which application was declined. 13.It was the further deposition by the deponent of the replying affidavit that after the applicants’ application for adjournment was declined, the court issued directions pertaining to the hearing. In addition, it has been posited that the court fixed the time for hearing, in the presence and participation of all the advocates. Page 5 of 23

page 5 of 23

14.Be that as it may, the deponent of the replying affidavit has averred that when the matter was called out during the allocated time, neither the Applicants nor their counsel, namely; Mr. Kiogora Mugambi, were present. Moreover, it has been averred that the subject matter was called out both in the virtual plat form and in the open court; and that the applicants’ advocate was not present. 15.Additionally, it has been asserted that the grounds which are being relied upon by the applicants, to partake of the discretion of the court, are the same grounds and reasons, which had been canvassed before the court to underpin the adjournment, which was declined. Furthermore, it has been averred that the grounds contained in the body of the application, are misleading and reeks of dishonesty. Towards this end, it has been averred that the Applicants are merely intent on abusing the due process of the court. 16.Premised on the foregoing assertions, the Respondents have invited the court to find and hold that the application beforehand, is not only misconceived but constitutes a deliberate attempt to frustrate the expeditious hearing and determination of the suit. The Respondents have implored the court to dismiss the application and to proceed and to set down the matter for judgment. 17.The 3rd and 4th Respondents [represented by the Honourable Attorney General] did not file any response to the application. Page 6 of 23 Nevertheless,

page 6 of 23

learned senior state counsel Ms. Miranda, appeared before the court and intimated that same was opposed to the application. 18.The application came up for hearing on the 16.07.2026, whereupon the advocates for the respective parties covenanted to canvass the application vide oral submissions. The court thereafter, proceeded to and issued directions. Suffice it to state that the application proceeded for hearing vide oral submissions, in the manner proposed by the advocates for the parties. 19.Learned counsel for the Applicants adopted the grounds contained in the body of the application; reiterated the contents of the supporting affidavit; and thereafter highlighted four [4] key issues. The issues are: The Applicants are entitled to the right to fair hearing; the Applicants ought not to be condemned for the mistake of their counsel; the applicants’ counsel was unable to participate in the hearing because of reasons/circumstances beyond his control; and the Applicants have established sufficient cause/justifiable grounds to warrant the setting aside of the proceedings of the court. 20.Based on the foregoing submissions, the counsel for the Applicants has invited the court to find and hold that the Applicants deserve an opportunity to be heard. In addition, it has also been contended that the court is seized of the requisite discretion, to allow the Applicants to file their statements of defence; List and Bundle of Documents; and witness statements. Page 7 of 23

page 7 of 23

21.Learned counsel for the Respondents adopted the written submissions dated the 02.07.2026, which had been filed alongside the replying affidavit, which had been filed by the 1st respondent/ the plaintiff. The counsel for the respondent highlighted four [4] key issues. The issues are: The applicants’ counsel is being dishonest with the court; the subject matter was duly called out both in the virtual platform and open court; the Applicants counsel and the Applicants were absent; no plausible reason has been availed to the court; and the mistake of counsel, does not by and of itself, afford the Applicants a blanket defence, to obstruct the due process of the court. 22.Learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents have thereafter cited various decisions. The decisions are: Karinga Gaciani and 11 others versus Ndege Kabibi Kimanga and another [2023] eKRL; and Habo Agencies Limited versus Wilfred Odhiambo Misingo [2015] eKLR, respectively. 23.Premised on the foregoing, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/Respondents has invited the court to find and hold that the Applicants have neither accounted for their failure to attend court and participate in the scheduled hearing, nor have the Applicants established a sufficient cause, to warrant the exercise of equitable discretion in their favour. 24.The Honourable attorney general was present in court on behalf of the 3 rd and 4th respondents, when the application was heard. The Honourable Attorney General, represented by Ms. Miranda, Senior State Counsel, intimated to the court that the same shall leave the matter to the court to Page 8 of 23

page 8 of 23

determine on the basis of the affidavit evidence; the submissions; and the record of the court. 25.Having reviewed the application dated the 22.06.2026; the grounds underpinning the application; the supporting affidavit thereto; and upon considering the replying affidavit sworn in opposition thereto; and taking into account the submissions canvassed before the court, two [2] key issues crystalize for determination. The issues are: Whether the Applicants have established /demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant the exercise of discretion in their favour; and whether the grant of the subject application would occasion a miscarriage of justice or otherwise. 26.Regarding the first issue, namely; whether the Applicants have established sufficient cause or otherwise, it is imperative to observe that every applicant seeking to partake of or benefit from the equitable discretion of the court, the current Applicants not excepted, are enjoined to approach the court in good faith; and to place before the court candid and honest explanations [if any], to warrant the exercise of such discretion. It is instructive to underline that a party seeking to benefit from the discretion of the court, must not resort to dishonesty; misrepresentation; deceit; and untoward conduct, whose effect is to defile the cause of justice. 27.Simply put, it is incumbent upon every applicant to approach the seat of justice with candor. It is only when a court of law, is approached with candor and honesty, that the court will consider whether to exercise its equitable discretion, in favour of the applicant or otherwise. It bears repeating that equity frowns upon inequitable and deceitful conduct and Page 9 of 23

page 9 of 23

dishonesty. Put differently, he who seeks equity, must come to Court with clean hands. 28.In the case of Njoroge v Kimani [2022] KECA 1188 (KLR), the Court of Appeal addressed the necessity to approach the court in good faith and with candor. 29.The court stated thus: “12. In order to exercise its discretion whether or not to grant condonation, the court must be appraised of all the facts and circumstances relating to the delay. The applicant for condonation must therefore provide a satisfactory explanation for each period of delay. An unsatisfactory explanation for any period of delay will normally be fatal to an application, irrespective of the applicant’s prospects of success. Condonation cannot be had for the mere asking. An applicant is required to make out a case entitling him to the court’s indulgence by showing sufficient cause, and giving a full, detailed and accurate account of the causes of the delay. In the end, the explanation must be reasonable enough to excuse the default. 13.Equally important is that an application for condonation must be filed without delay and/or as soon as an applicant becomes aware of the need to do so. Thus, where the applicant delays filing the application for condonation despite being aware of the need to do so, or despite being put on terms, the court may take a dim view, absent a proper and satisfactory explanation for the further delays.” Page 10 of 23

page 10 of 23

30.Have the Applicants approached the court in good faith and with candor? I beg to observe that when the subject matter came up for hearing on the 18.06.2026, learned counsel for the Applicants indeed attended court and participated in the initial proceedings – the call over. 31. During the call over, learned counsel for the applicant intimated to the court that same [sic] imagined that the matter was coming up for pre-trial directions and not for hearing. In addition, learned counsel posited that same had not been served with the amended plaint. Moreover, counsel contended that same was not aware of how the hearing date was fixed. 32.Premised on the foregoing, learned counsel sought an adjournment. Similarly, learned counsel implored the court to direct the Plaintiffs to serve the amended plaint. 33.The application for adjournment was opposed by learned counsel for the plaintiffs. It was pointed out that the 1st and 2nd Respondents had been duly served with the amended plaint and an affidavit of service was duly filed. To this end, learned counsel for the plaintiffs referenced the affidavit of service sworn on the 22.05.2026. In addition, counsel also posited that the Applicants were present before the court on the 14.05.2026, when the directions pertaining to the hearing of the matter were taken /issued. 34.The application for adjournment was duly considered by the court and thereafter the court rendered an elaborate ruling. The ruling pointed out a number of issues, inter alia; the amended plaint had been duly served; the affidavit of service denoting service was duly filed; the Applicants were Page 11 of 23

page 11 of 23

present when the hearing date was fixed; the Applicant’s contention that same were not aware of the hearing date was [sic] a pretense. 35.Furthermore, the court also observed that the orders of the court issued on the 27/02/2026; and 14.05.2026, were laced with the default clause and therefore all the parties were enjoined to comply with and abide by the directions. Equally, the court also drew the attention of the parties to the provisions of Sections 1 A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, Chapter 21 Laws of Kenya. 36.Based on the various observations by the court, whose details are captured vide the ruling rendered on the 18.06.2026, the court declined the adjournment and directed that the hearing shall proceed at 11:00 am. 37.When the matter was called out at 11:00 am, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the 3rd and 4th defendants were present. Similarly, the plaintiffs, who are husband and wife, respectively, were present. For good measure, neither the counsel for the 1st and 2nd defendants [applicants] nor the named parties were present. Suffice it to state that the proceedings of the court of even date [the 18.06.2026] were conducted both virtually and physically. 38.At this juncture, it is imperative to reference the contents of paragraph 27 of the replying affidavit sworn by Johnson Mbaabu Mburugu [the 1 st defendant]. Page 12 of 23

page 12 of 23

39. The named paragraph state thus: “That on the 18.06.2026, before this suit commenced hearing, the court called Mr. Kiogora Mugambi Advocate, three times in the virtual court but he did not respond. He did not appear in court physically either. Equally none of the 1st and 2nd defendant was in court.” 40.It is also instructive to reproduce paragraph 28 of the said replying affidavit. The same states thus: “That the allegations by the 1 st and 2nd defendants’ advocate that he was logged in virtually cannot be true because the court would have seen him.” 41.It suffices to underscore that the averments by/on behalf of the 1 st respondent, whose details have been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs, have not been controverted. Moreover, the contents of paragraphs 27 and 28 of the replying affidavit, accord with the record of the court. 42.I beg to point out that the failure by the Applicants to file and serve a further affidavit, in an endeavor to challenge the assertions on behalf of the 1st respondent, denotes that the Applicants herein have conceded the said assertions. Simply put, the failure to file a further affidavit, has left the deposition by the 1st respondent uncontroverted. Page 13 of 23

page 13 of 23

43.To my mind, the Applicants herein cannot resort to falsehoods;deceit; and misrepresentations, in an endeavor to partake of and benefit from equitable discretion. It is also important to highlight that the Applicants had also attempted to mislead the court that same had not been served with an amended plaint, a fact, which the Applicants knew to be incorrect. 44.Other than the reliance on falsehoods, it is also important to underscore that the Applicants herein had failed to comply with and abide by the directions of the court, which were made/issued on the 27/02/2026; and 14.05.2026. In particular, the Applicants had neither filed nor served their lists and bundle of documents and the witness statements. Notably, the Applicants herein and their counsel, appear to be persons who thrive on misrepresentations and dishonesty. 45.I also wish to highlight the contents of paragraph 5 of the supporting affidavit sworn by Abdi Basid Ahmed. For coherence, paragraph 5 states thus: “That my advocate on record Mr. Kiogora Mugambi sent his court clerk to find out whether the matter was proceeding virtually or physically and found that the court door was already locked from inside and the court was in session and the matter proceeding physically without a notice.” 46.The contents of the said paragraphs are not only curious, but puzzling. Firstly, learned counsel Mr. Kiogora Mugambi, had himself purported to have been in the court virtual plat form, but could not [sic] address the Page 14 of 23

page 14 of 23

court. How could the same counsel [if at all] be sending his court clerk to find out whether the matter was proceeding virtually or physically? 47.Secondly, it is contended that the matter was said to be proceeding physically in court without notice. Surely, learned counsel Mr. Kiogora Mugambi, was present in court during the call over and participated in the proceedings. 48. Certainly, the said counsel had due notice of the directions of the court, including the time allocation and the procedures for undertaking the plenary hearing. It is not lost on me that the court conducted a hybrid system of hearing, namely; virtual and physical. 49.Thirdly, there is the startling allegation that the hearing of the matter was being conducted in open court, but the court door, had been locked from inside. There is no gain saying that the said assertion, is not only premised on hearsay, but same borders perjury. It is not open for an advocate, let alone Mr. Kiogora Mugambi, to propagate falsehoods and alarming assertions. 50.To my mind, both the Applicants and their learned counsel, cannot be allowed to use malicious allegations; falsehoods; deceit; and perjurious statements, to partake of equitable discretion. I am afraid that the conduct that is exhibited vide the supporting affidavit, cannot be dignified with discretion. 51.Additionally, I wish to point out that the contention that the mistake of counsel ought not to be visited on the client, does not apply hook, liner Page 15 of 23

page 15 of 23

and sinker. The plea can only be invoked and be applied in favour of a client, who can show exercise of diligence. Where the client, like the ones beforehand, are wanting in diligence and bona fides, the defence of mistake of counsel cannot apply. 52.In the case of Gaciani & 11 others v Kimanga & another [2023] KESC 23 (KLR), the Supreme Court [the apex court], underlined the guidelines to be adopted, before the plea of mistake of counsel can be invoked in favor of an applicant. 53. The apex court stated thus: “9 Having considered the application, affidavit in response and submissions filed, we now opine as follows: (i)Rule 36(1) of the Supreme Court Rules is couched in mandatory terms and requires that a person intending to appeal to the Supreme Court shall within 14 days of the decision of the Court of Appeal, file the notice of appeal. Rule 36(4) further states that in lodging an appeal on a matter of general public importance, it shall not be mandatory to obtain such certification before filing the notice of appeal; (ii)Whereas mistakes of an advocate ought not to be visited upon a litigant, there must be cogent and credible evidence, the Applicants have not demonstrated any efforts or due diligence, through evidence or correspondence of the follow up with the advocates or to pursue their rights as we found in George Kang’ethe Waruhiu v Esther Nyamweru Munene & another Civil Application No 18 of 2020 [2021] eKLR. It is not enough for a Page 16 of 23

page 16 of 23

party to simply blame the advocates on record for all manner of transgressions. Courts have always emphasized that parties have a responsibility to show interest in and to follow up on their cases even when they are represented by counsel, and it does not matter whether the party is literate or not.” 54. Finally, I wish to point out that dishonesty, perjury, misrepresentation and inequitable conduct, on the part of a litigant or counsel, defeats the existence of sufficient cause. Put differently, sufficient cause cannot be discerned from falsehoods. In any event, sufficient cause is antithetical to falsehood[s] and dishonesty. 55.In the case of Wachira Karani v Bildad Wachira [2016] KEHC 6334 (KLR) , the court [Mativo J – as he then was] cited various decisions and thereafter stated as hereunder: “"sufficient cause" is an expression which has been used in large number of statutes. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", in as much as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case and duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a curious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that party had not acted in a negligent manner or there was want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or the party cannot be alleged to have been "not acting diligently" or "remaining inactive." However, the facts and Page 17 of 23

page 17 of 23

circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously" 56.I have said enough to demonstrate that the Applicants herein have neither established nor demonstrated sufficient cause. Absent sufficient cause, a court of law cannot exercise discretion in favor of an applicant. Moreover, there is no gain saying that the discretion of the court cannot be invoked in favour of a party who has demonstrated a concerted effort to obstruct, delay or defeat the due process of the court. [See the holding in the case of Philip Keipto Chemwolo & another v Augustine Kubende [1986] KECA 87 (KLR)]. 57.I now wish to turn to the second issue. The second issue touches on whether a miscarriage of justice will accrue if the orders sought are granted or otherwise. I start by highlighting that the parties and their advocates participated in the proceedings of the court taken on the 27.02.2026. The directions issued on even date were explicit and devoid of ambiguity. In addition, the court set timelines and included default clauses. 58.Additionally, I wish to point out that the timelines and the directions that were set vide the orders of 27.02.2026, were never varied and or reviewed. On the contrary, the directions issued on the 14.05.2026 were additional in nature, insofar as the parties, were afforded further latitude to file and serve additional list and bundle of documents where necessary. Page 18 of 23

page 18 of 23

59.The Applicants herein are aware of the directions issued on the 27.02.2026 and 14.05.2026. However, and despite being aware of the same directions, the Applicants have neither sought to review or set same aside. Nevertheless, the Applicants are before the court seeking for enlargement of time to file a statement of defence; list and bundle of documents; and witness statements. 60.I beg to underscore, that this is a court of record. It then means that the record of the court must be consistent. Where a party is privy to previous directions and same is seeking to obtain further directions, which are at variance with the previous directions, then it behooves such a party, to seek review or variation of the previous orders, beforehand. 61.I am afraid that this court cannot be invited to supplant the subsequent orders on the face of the directions issued on the 27.02.2026 and 14.05.2026, which orders/directions, remain in situ. 62.Additionally, I wish to point out that a party cannot disregard lawful directions of the court and the set timelines and thereafter revert to court and seek accommodation. Suffice it to state that the timelines set by the Rules and by the court, are intended to facilitate the realization of the overriding objectives. [See Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, Chapter 21 Laws of Kenya.] 63.Other than the foregoing, I am also alive to the fact that the granting of the subject application, [if at all] would have ripple effect. Firstly, if leave was granted to file a statement of defence [in the manner sought], Page 19 of 23

page 19 of 23

then the plaintiffs would be obliged to consider filing and serving of a reply to the statement of defence. 64.Additionally, the filing of list and bundle of documents and witness statements, in the manner sought, long after the plaintiffs have testified, would mean that the plaintiff shall be inclined to also file additional list and bundle of documents and witness statement. It is instructive to state that the right to fair hearing entails the right to tender evidence and to challenge the evidence of the adverse party, if any, by way of cross examination. 65.In my humble view, the granting of the subject application, would have the consequence of reverting the matter back to the pre-trial stage [case conferencing]. Such kind of an endeavor would constitute improper use [mis use] of judicial time. A party cannot be allowed to play lottery with the due process of the court. Moreover, the parties and their advocates, are enjoined to adhere to the overriding objectives of the court. 66.Before concluding on this issue, I am reminded of the ratio in the case of Said Sweilem Gheithan Saanum v Commissioner of Lands (being sued through Attorney General) & 5 others [2015] KECA 284 (KLR). 67.The Court of Appeal stated thus: “ “Justice shall not be delayed” is no longer a mere legal maxim in Kenya but a constitutional principle that emphasizes the duty of the advocates, litigants and other court users to assist the court to ensure the timely and efficient disposal of cases. The principles which are reiterated by sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Page 20 of 23

page 20 of 23

Procedure Act are intended to facilitate the just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of disputes. The principle cannot therefore be a panacea which heals every sore in litigation, neither is it a licence to parties to ignore or contravene the law and rules of procedure. We agree, with respect, with the learned Judge’s conclusion that the suit in the High Court was not properly handled by the appellant’s advocate. The court cannot be invited to turn a blind eye in the face of such inordinate delay and in the absence of sufficient explanation. Likewise, it cannot be fashionable for parties to blame their advocate and disclaim that the mistakes made by their advocates, who they have themselves appointed cannot be visited upon them.” 68.To my mind, the Applicants chose their learned counsel. Having chosen the counsel, the Applicants indicated that the same shall stand or fall by the actions of their chosen counsel. I am not persuaded that the conduct of the applicants’ counsel and by extension the applicants, deserve condonation. Neither, I am I keen to sanitize deceit; and dishonesty, with exercise of discretion. Conclusion 69.The Applicants herein sought to partake of and benefit from the equitable discretion of the court. It was therefore incumbent upon the applicants to place before the court cogent and plausible reasons to warrant the exercise of discretion in their favor. Fundamentally, the Applicants were obliged to be honest and candid with the court. Page 21 of 23

page 21 of 23

70.Moreover, there is no gainsaying that whosoever seeks equity must approach the seat of justice with clean hands. It suffices to reiterate that equity frowns upon dishonesty; falsehoods; and perjury. 71.Despite the foregoing, the Applicants and their learned counsel, choose a dangerous path. The Applicants and their counsel ought to be reminded of Sections 113 and 114 of the Penal Code, Chapter 63 Laws of Kenya. 72.Be that as it may, I am convinced that the equitable discretion of the court, cannot be deployed, to aid a party, who intentionally and deliberately, seeks to delay, obstruct or defeat the due process. Suffice it to posit that the provisions of Article 159 [2] [a] and [b] of the Constitution, 2010, ought and must be given meaning. 73.Simply put, the subject application is not only mischievous, but same constitutes an abuse of the due process of the court. The application, is a sure candidate for dismissal, so as to vindicate the principles espoused in Article 10 [2] [b] of the Constitution, 2010. Final orders: 74.Pulling the threads together, the final orders that commend themselves to the court are: i. The Application dated the 22.06.2026 be and is hereby Dismissed. ii. Costs of the application be and are hereby awarded to the Plaintiffs/Respondents only. Page 22 of 23

page 22 of 23

iii. The costs in terms of clause [ii] above shall be agreed upon and in default taxed in the conventional manner. iv. The matter shall now proceed for crafting of the Judgment. v. Judgment shall be delivered on the 17.09.2026, at 2:30 p.m. 75.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU ON 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2026. OGUTTU MBOYA; FCIArb; CPM [MTI-EA]. JUDGE. In the presence of: Court Assistant: Zakayo Mr. Nyamu Nyaga for the Plaintiffs/Respondents Ms. Miranda Senior State Counsel Defendants/Respondents N/a for the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Applicants. Page 23 of 23 for the 3rd and 4th

page 23 of 23