Mburugu & another v Ahmed & 3 others

ii. An order for declaration that the erasing of No. 1498 from the map for Mbwaa 1 Land Adjudication Section and inserting of No. 2584 in its place is null and void ab initio. iii. An order requiring the 3rd defendant to remove No. 2584 from its current place in the map for Mbwaa 1 Land Adjudication Section and in its place reinstate No. 1498 to its original place as it was prior to the fraudulent acts combined by the defendants. iv. An order for eviction of the 1st defendant from the plaintiff’s land parcel No. 1498. v. An order requiring the 1st defendant to demolish and/or remove the stone perimeter wall/fence erected and/or constructed round the plaintiffs’ land parcel number 1498 Mbwaa 1 Land Adjudication Section and/or removal of any structure built or constructed on the said land in in default, the Plaintiffs be allowed to demolish and removal be borne by the 1st defendant. vi. An order of permanent injunction restraining the 2 nd defendant, his agents, servants, employees, assignees, and/or anybody else acting on his behalf from selling, disposing of, alienating, interfering, trespassing, and/or in whatsoever manner dealing with the plaintiffs’ land parcel Nos. 1480, 1481, 1482, 1483, 1484, 1485, 1486, 1487, 1488, 1489, 1490, 1491, 1492, 1493, Page 2 of 22

page 2 of 22

1494,1495,1496,1497,1498,1499, 1590, 1591,1592 and 3099 situated in Mbwaa1 Land Adjudication Section in Tigania West Sub County. vii.An order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, employees, assignees, and/or anybody else acting on their behalf from alienating , interfering, erasing from the map for Mbwaa1 Land Adjudication Section, interfering with boundaries and/or in whatsoever manner dealing with the Plaintiffs’ land parcel numbers Nos. 1480, 1481, 1482, 1483, 1484, 1485, 1486, 1487, 1488, 1489, 1490, 1491, 1492, 1493, 1494,1495,1496,1497,1498,1499, 1590, 1591,1592 and 3099 situated in Mbwaa1 Land Adjudication Section in Tigania West Sub County. 3. The Plaintiffs’ suit is premised on various assertions. The assertions are: The Plaintiffs were duly adjudicated as the owners of plot numbers, 1480, 1481, 1482, 1483, 1484, 1485, 1486, 1487, 1488, 1489, 1490, 1491, 1492, 1493, 1494,1495,1496,1497,1498,1499, 1590, 1591,1592 and 3099 situated in Mbwaa I Land Adjudication Section in Tigania West Sub County; the plots in question were duly surveyed; the plots were equally demarcated on the ground; the plots were the subject of various objections; the objections were heard and determined; and the Plaintiffs are entitled to exclusive occupation and possession of the suit plots. 4. Additionally, it has been contended thus: The 3 rd defendant [ the land Adjudication and settlement officer – Tigania West sub – county] colluded with the 1st and 2nd Defendants and interfered with the ground Page 3 of 22

page 3 of 22

placement/location of plot 1498; the said plot 1498 was removed from its surveyed and demarcated ground; the said plot was substituted by plot number 2584; the substitution of plot number 1498 with plot number 2584, was undertaken illegally and unlawfully; there was no objection [if at all] filed by the 1 st and 2nd defendants; and the removal/substitution of plot number 1498 from its lawful location, was fraudulent. 5. Furthermore, it has been asserted thus: upon the discovery of the removal/interference with the ground location of plot number 1498, the Plaintiffs lodged a complaint with the police; the complaint was duly registered and given an O B number; the police commenced investigations into the fraudulent interreference with the ground location of plot number 1498; the police recorded statements from various persons; the persons who recorded statements included Joseph Mawiyoo Mbai – The Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer; the said officer conceded that plot number 2584 does not exist on the ground; the disputed ground relates to plot number 1498. 6. Moreover, it has been contended that: The interference with the ground location/placement of plot number 1498 was undertaken with the collusion and connivance with the 3rd defendant; the offensive action has violated the plaintiffs’ preoperatory rights to the said plots; and the Plaintiffs have established a basis to warrant the grant of the reliefs sought. 7. The 1st and 2nd Defendants filed a notice of appointment of advocates and thereafter filed a statement of defence. The 1st and 2nd defendants denied the claims by /on behalf of the plaintiffs. In addition, it was Page 4 of 22

page 4 of 22

contended that the disputed ground relates to and concerns plot number 2584 and not otherwise. 8. The 3rd and 4th Defendants [represented by the Honourable Attorney General] duly entered appearance and filed a statement of defence. The 3rd and 4th Defendants denied the claims vide the amended Plaint. Moreover, the 3rd and 4th Defendants contended that the Plaintiffs shall be invited to strict proof. 9. The suit was subjected to the usual pre-trial directions on the 27.02.2026. Furthermore, the court issued additional directions on the 14.05.2026. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for hearing. 10.The plaintiffs’ case is premised on the evidence of one witness, namely; Johnson Mbaabu Mburugu. The same testified as PW1. 11.It was the testimony of the witness [PW1] that same is the 1 st plaintiff. In addition, the witness averred that the same is familiar and conversant with the 2nd plaintiff. In particular, the witness posited that the 2nd plaintiff is his wife. 12.It was the further testimony of the witness that the same is conversant with the facts of the case. The witness averred that same has since recorded and filed a witness statement dated the 18.12.2025. The witness thereafter sought to adopt and rely on the witness statement as his evidence in chief. The witness statement was thereafter constituted as the evidence in chief. Page 5 of 22

page 5 of 22

13.Additionally, the witness referenced the list and bundle of document dated the 18.12.2025, containing 17 documents. Thereafter, the witness sought to produce the documents as exhibits before the court. There being no objection to the production of the documents, same were produced and admitted as exhibits P1 – P17, respectively. 14.The witness further testified that same had also filed an amended plaint dated the 14.05.2026, together with a verifying affidavit sworn on even date. The witness sought to adopt and rely on the contents of the amended Plaint. Moreover, the witness also adverted to the reply to the statement of defence filed by the attorney general. In particular, the witness highlighted the reply to the statement of defence dated the 06.02.2026. 15.It was the further evidence of the witness that same had also filed a reply to the statement of defence filed by the 1st and 2nd defendants. The witness adverted to the reply to defence dated the 18.06.2026. 16.On cross examination by learned counsel for the 3rd and 4th Defendants [the Honourable Attorney General], the witness averred that the plots belonging to the 2nd plaintiff and himself were initially adjudicated as Ruiri/Rwarera 1079 and 5165, respectively. However, the witness averred that when the section was split and Mbwaa I Adjudication Section was created, the plots were re-numbered. To this end, the witness averred that the plots were assigned numbers 1480, 1481, 1482, 1483, 1484, 1485, 1486, 1487, 1488, 1489, 1490, 1491, 1492, Page 6 of 22

page 6 of 22

1493, 1494,1495,1496,1497,1498,1499, 1590, 1591,1592 and 3099 situated in Mbwaa I Land Adjudication Section in Tigania West Sub County. 17.It was the further testimony of the witness that the 2nd plaintiff and himself were given 23 plots. Besides, the witness averred that same had previously filed a petition before the Environment and Land Court. In particular, the witness stated that the petition was Meru ELC Number 35 of 2016. 18.Additionally, the witness testified that one of the plots, which has been mentioned in the instant suit is plot number 1498. Moreover, the witness averred that the adjudication process in respect of the 23 plots is still on going. The witness added that same lodged objections in respect of various plots. The witness clarified that there was an objection that was lodged in respect to plot number 1498. 19.It was the further testimony of the witness that though he lodged an objection in respect of plot number 1498, the objection was heard and determined. Furthermore, the witness averred that the 1st and 2nd Defendants were not involved in the objection. 20.While still under cross examination, the witness testified that the objections that were lodged in respect of the 23 plots, have been heard and determined. Moreover, the witness clarified that the objections/complaints were lodged by himself. Page 7 of 22

page 7 of 22

21.It was the further testimony of the witness that even though the objection in respect of plot number 1498 was heard and determined, there was an interference with plot number 1498. The witness averred that the ground location of the said plot was interfered with; the land was subdivided and the ground was substituted with plot number 2584. 22.On re-examination, the witness testified that the objections which he had lodged, were heard and determined. In addition, the witness averred that he has brought before the court a letter dated the 05.11.2025 and whose contents he has relied. 23.It was the further testimony of the witness that the suit before the court does not concern the processes that are on going at the adjudication section. The witness clarified that the suit touches on and concerns the interference with his right to the adjudicated plots, including plot number 1498. 24.In addition, the witness averred that same has testified on his own behalf and on behalf of the 2nd plaintiff. The witness pointed out that the 2nd plaintiff, indeed executed an authority and which authority, has been duly filed with the court. 25.With the foregoing testimony, the plaintiffs’ case was closed. 26.The 1st and 2nd Defendants did not attend court during the plenary hearing. Moreover, the application for adjournment by / on behalf of the 1st and 2nd defendants, was declined. Page 8 of 22 It is also instructive to

page 8 of 22

underscore that the 1st and 2nd Defendants did not file any list and bundle of documents or witness statements. 27.Premised on the foregoing, the case for the 1 st and 2nd Defendants was closed, without any evidence being tendered. 28.The 3rd and 4th Defendants had duly filed a statement of defence. However, the 3rd and 4th Defendants [the Honourable Attorney General] neither filed a list and bundle of documents nor a witness statement. Nevertheless, the 3rd and 4th Defendants were duly represented during the plenary hearing. 29.Be that as it may, learned counsel for the 3 rd and 4th defendant intimated to the court that same had not filed any witness statement. To this end, learned counsel sought to close the case for the 3 rd and 4th defendant, without any evidence. 30.It suffices to state that the case for the 3rd and 4th Defendants was duly closed. 31.Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the advocates for the parties, namely; for the Plaintiffs and the 3rd and 4th defendants, sought time to file and serve written submissions. To this end, the court proceeded to and gave directions as pertains to the filing and exchange of the submissions. 32. The directions were: The Plaintiffs were to file and serve written submissions within 14 days from the date of the directions; the Page 9 of 22

page 9 of 22

Defendants were to file and serve written submissions within 14 days from the date of service; and the Plaintiffs were to extract and serve the directions on filing of submissions upon the 1st and 2nd defendants. 33.The Plaintiffs filed written submissions dated the 26.06.2026 and wherein same [plaintiffs] have highlighted four key issues. The issues are: Whether the Honourable court is seized of the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the plaintiffs’ suit; whether the Plaintiffs have proved their case against the Defendants to the requisite standards; whether the Defendants have an arguable or reasonable defence to the plaintiffs’ case; and what reliefs, if any, ought to be granted. 34.The 3rd and 4th Defendants filed written submissions dated the 13.07.2026 and wherein same have distilled one key issue. The issue is: Whether this court is seized of the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiffs suit and to grant the reliefs sought or otherwise. 35.Having reviewed the amended plaint; the statement[s] of defence filed by the defendants; upon considering the evidence on record; and taking into account the written submissions filed by/on behalf of the respective parties, two [2] key issues emerge for consideration and determination. The issues are: Whether this court is seized of the requisite jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the subject suit or otherwise; and whether the plaintiffs’ have proved their case to the requisite standard. Page 10 of 22

page 10 of 22

36.Regarding the first issue, namely; whether this court is seized of the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the subject suit, it is instructive to recall that the 3rd defendant [the land adjudication and settlement officer – Tigania East/West Sub counties], duly issued to and in favour of the Plaintiffs a letter of consent dated the 30.10.2025 as pertains to the suit properties. The import and tenor of the letter of consent, which were issued by the 3rd defendant, cannot be gainsaid. 37.It is important to highlight that where the adjudication process has commenced or is still ongoing, no suit or proceedings, touching on a parcel of land falling within the adjudication section can be filed or proceeded with, in the absence of the consent of the designated land adjudication and settlement officer. Notably, the absence of such consent will negate the suit and render same [suit] a nullity. 38.Section 30 [1] of the Land Adjudication Act, Chapter 294, Laws of Kenya states thus: “30. Staying of land suits (1)Except with the consent in writing of the adjudication officer, no person shall institute, and no court shall entertain, any civil proceedings concerning an interest in land in an adjudication section until the adjudication register for that adjudication section has become final in all respects under section 29(3) of this Act. (2)Where any such proceedings were begun before the publication of the notice under section 5 of this Act, they shall be Page 11 of 22

page 11 of 22

discontinued, unless the adjudication officer, having regard to the stage which the proceedings have reached, otherwise directs. 39.The importance of the consent by the land adjudication and settlement officer was underscored in the case of Ole Pere & another v District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer, Narok South & 24 others; Pere & another (Interested Parties) [2025] KECA 113 (KLR). 40.The Court of Appeal highlighted the importance of Section 30 [1] of the Land Adjudication Act, though inadvertently stated as section 31 [1]. The court stated thus: “Having concluded as herein above, we find no reason to determine the merits or otherwise of the appeal, save to underscore that the failure to obtain consent as required by Section 31 (1) of the Land Adjudication Act was fatal to the appellants’ case because the mandatory requirements of the said Section cannot be cured by filing a constitutional petition as happened in this case.” 41. If the Plaintiffs herein had not procured or obtained the consent of the land adjudication and settlement officer, I would have had no difficulty, in finding and holding that the court was divested of jurisdiction. However, I have pointed out that the 3 rd defendant herein indeed issued the letter of consent to and in favor of the plaintiffs. Suffice it to underscore that the existence of the letters of consent, have not been challenged or controverted. 42.Additionally, I wish to point out that the crux of the dispute of the dispute before the court does not touch on or concern the ongoing Page 12 of 22

page 12 of 22

process of adjudication. Simply put, the Plaintiffs are not challenging the authority of the 3rd defendant to undertake the adjudication and demarcation process; or to hear the objections [if any], lodged in accordance with the provisions of Section 25 and 26 of the Land Adjudication Act, Chapter 294 Laws of Kenya. 43.On the contrary, the subject suit touches on the legal and fraudulent actions, pertaining to the interference and removal of [sic] plot number 1498 from its lawful ground position and the replacement of same with the [sic] plot number 2584. What I hear the Plaintiffs to be complaining about is to the effect that the 3 rd defendant has colluded with the 1st and 2nd defendant to interfere with the placement of suit property, albeit in the absence of any objection and without regard to the due process of the court. 44.I beg to point out that the issues, which colour the body of the amended plaint, fall within the purview of this court. In any event, the land adjudication and settlement officer has since issued the letter of consent vide Section 30 [1] of the Land Adjudication Act, Chapter 294 Laws of Kenya. The import of the letter of consent is to divest the land adjudication officer of the jurisdiction over the designated plots and to confer jurisdiction on the court. 45.Additionally, I wish to add that the question/issue of jurisdiction, to entertain and adjudicate upon the subject dispute, had been raised by the Defendants during the hearing of the application dated the 18.12.2025. Suffice it to point out that this court rendered an Page 13 of 22

page 13 of 22

elaborate ruling dated the 27.02.2026 and wherein the court found and held that same was seized of the requisite jurisdiction. This court highlighted the question of jurisdiction between paragraphs 16 and 31 of the ruling under reference. Instructively, the court found and held that same was seized of jurisdiction. 46.I wish to point out that the ruling of the court and in particular, the finding to the effect that the court was seized of jurisdiction, constituted an order, which was capable of being appealed against. Suffice it to point out that the Defendants or any of the defendants, could have mounted an appeal to impugn the said finding. 47.To my mind, no appeal was filed to impugn the holding of this court on the question of jurisdiction. In this regard, I am afraid that the learned counsel for the 3rd and 4th defendants, cannot be heard to revisit the same issue of jurisdiction. The submissions by and on behalf of the 3rd and 4th defendants, constitute[s] a subtle invitation to this court, to sit on appeal on its own decision. Such kind of invitation, if acceded to, shall culminate into an absurdity. 48.Finally, I wish to state that the factual controversy that underpins the subject suit are at variance with and distinguishable from the facts in respect of the case of Tobias Achora Osindi and 13 others versus Cyprian Otieno Ogalo and 6 others [2013] eKLR. Put differently, the decision in the said case, is inaplicable to the matter beforehand. Page 14 of 22

page 14 of 22

49.I reiterate that this court is seized of the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the subject dispute. Nevertheless, I must clarify that being seized of the requisite jurisdiction, does not mean that the claimant, shall succeed in the case, without the requisite proof. In any event, it is still incumbent upon the court to interrogate the factual matrix and or return the necessary findings, bearing in mind the provisions of Sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act, Chapter 80 Laws of Kenya. 50.Turning to the second issue, I wish to point out that the evidence that was tendered by / on behalf of the plaintiffs’ [both oral and documentary] were not controverted. In addition, it is also worthy to highlight that the Defendants did not adduce any evidence, before the court. 51.The bottom line is to the effect that this court is called upon to interrogate the evidence on record and to discern whether, the same is cogent, plausible and credible. I am alive to the ratio in the case of Moi v Muriithi & another [2014] KECA 642 (KLR), where the Court of Appeal stated thus: “It is a firmly settled procedure that even where a defendant has not denied the claim by filing of defence or an affidavit or even where the defendant did not appear, formal proof proceedings are conducted. The claimant lays on the table evidence of facts contended against the defendant. And the trial court has a duty to examine that evidence to satisfy itself that indeed the claim has been proved. If the evidence falls short of the required standard of Page 15 of 22

page 15 of 22

proof, the claim is and must be dismissed. The standard of proof in a civil case, on a balance of probabilities, does not change even in the absence of a rebuttal by the other side.” 52.Back to the facts of the case. PW1 [Johnson Mbaabu Mburugu] testified that the suit plots were duly demarcated, surveyed, and thereafter adjudicated in the names of the 2 nd plaintiff and himself. In addition, the witness testified that subsequently, some people interfered with the suit plots and thus same was obliged to mount complaints/objections with the land adjudication department. 53.Additionally, the witness [PW1] testified that the objections which same had lodged were heard and determined. Moreover, the witness averred that upon the determination of the objection[s], the suit plots remained in the names of the 2nd Plaintiff and himself. 54.Be that as it may, the witness testified that sometime in the year 2025, the 1st and 2nd defendants commenced construction on the portion of the land constituting plot number 1498. The witness added that when he confronted the 1st and 2nd defendants, same [ 1st and 2nd Defendants] posited that the impugned construction were being undertaken on parcel/plot number 2584 and not 1498. 55.Owing to the fact that the disputed ground comprised plot number 1498 belonging to and registered in the name of 2nd plaintiff and the witness, the witness testified that same was constrained to and lodged a complaint with the police. In addition, the witness averred that upon lodgment of the complaint with the police, the police commenced investigation and recorded witness statements from various persons Page 16 of 22

page 16 of 22

including the land adjudication officer – Tigania East/West sub counties. 56.Furthermore, the witness testified that the land adjudication and settlement officer wrote a Statement, and indicated that plot number 2584 was non-existent. Besides, it was posited that the land adjudication officer acknowledged that the disputed grounds relates to plot number 1498, belonging to the Plaintiffs and not plot number 2584, being the one associated with the 1st and 2nd Defendants. 57.I hasten to state that the elaborate and comprehensive witness statement filed by the 1st plaintiff; and which elaborated the acts of fraud, including interference with the adjudication map; and alteration of the ground location of plot number 1498, were not controverted. 58.Furthermore, there is no gainsaying that the 3 rd defendant [the land adjudication and settlement officer], who is reported to have recorded the witness statement with the police and conceded the interference with the ground location of plot number 1498, did not file any witness statement before the Court. In addition, the said officer did not testify before the court. 59.To my mind, the sum total of the evidence that was placed before the court; and which evidence, is not only cogent and credible, bespeaks the existence of fraud. There cannot be any other explanation of the adjudication map being altered; interference with the ground location of plot number 1498; super-imposition of plot number 2584 on top of plot number 1498, albeit in the absence of any valid objection. Page 17 of 22

page 17 of 22

60.Premised on the foregoing, and bearing in mind, the law governing proof of fraud, I come to the conclusion that the Plaintiffs have indeed proved their case to the requisite standard. The evidence on record, is cogent and credible. 61.Before concluding on this issue, I beg to reference the holding in the case of Jamal Salim v Yusuf Abdulahi Abdi & another [2018] KECA 14 (KLR), where the Court of Appeal cited with approval the dicta in the case of In Re B(children) (FC) UKHL 35. Lord Hoffman observed that: “If a legal rule requires a fact to be proved (a ‘fact in issue’), a judge or jury must decide whether or not it happened. There is no room for a finding that it might have happened. The law operates a binary system in which the only values are 0 and 1. The fact either happened or it did not. If the tribunal is left in doubt, the doubt is resolved by a rule than one party or the other carries the burden of proof. If the party who bears the burden of proof fails to discharge it, a value of 0 is returned and the fact is treated as not having happened. If he does discharge it, a value of 1 is returned and the fact is treated as having happened.” Conclusion 62. The 3rd and 4th Defendants had impugned the jurisdiction of the court. However, in the course of addressing issue number one, this court found and held inter alia; that the 3rd Defendant had generated and issued a letter of consent in favor of the plaintiffs. In addition, the court also found that the question of jurisdiction had previously been raised and determined vide the ruling delivered on the 27.02.2026. Page 18 of 22

page 18 of 22

63.Other than the foregoing, the court has also found that the totality of the evidence that was tendered by PW1 including the statement that was recorded by the land adjudication and demarcation officer, attest to the fact that there was indeed fraud, which was perpetrated against the property belonging to the Plaintiffs. 64.In a nutshell, there is no gainsaying that the Plaintiffs have placed before the court, cogent and plausible evidence. The plaintiffs’ case is clearly, meritorious. Final orders: 65.Flowing from the analysis elsewhere hereinbefore, the final orders that commend themselves to the court are: i. There and is hereby issued an order of declaration that land parcel number 2584 does not exist on the ground in its current place/position in the map for Mbwaa1 Land Adjudication in Tigania West Sub – County. ii. There be and is hereby issued an order of declaration that the erasing of plot No. 1498 from the map for Mbwaa 1 Land Adjudication Section and inserting of No. 2584 in its place is null and void ab initio. iii. The 3rd defendant be and is hereby ordered and directed to remove Plot No. 2584 from its current place in the map for Mbwaa1 Land Adjudication Section and in its place Page 19 of 22

page 19 of 22

reinstate No. 1498 to its original place as it was prior to the fraudulent and illegal acts committed by the defendants. iv. The 1st and 2nd Defendantsbe and are hereby ordered and directed to vacate plot number 1498 Mbwaa I Adjudication Section within 6o days from the date hereof. v. In default by the 1st and 2nd Defendantsto vacate and hand over vacant possession of plot number 1498 Mbwaa I Adjudication Section in terms of clause [iv] hereof, the Plaintiffs shall be at liberty to evict same. To this end, an eviction order shall issue. vi. In the event of the eviction and demolition being undertaken in terms of clause [v], the costs and expenses incurred, shall be certified by the Deputy Registrar and be borne by the 1st and the 2nd defendants. vii. There be and is hereby granted an order of permanent injunction restraining the 2nd defendant, his agents, servants, employees, assignees, and/or anybody else acting on his behalf from selling, disposing of, alienating, interfering, trespassing, and/or in whatsoever manner dealing with the plaintiffs’ land parcel Nos. 1480, 1481, 1482, 1483, 1484, 1485, 1486, 1487, 1488, 1489, 1490, 1491, 1492, 1493, 1494,1495,1496,1497,1498,1499, 1590, 1591,1592 and 3099 situated in Mbwaa Adjudication Section in Tigania West Sub County. Page 20 of 22 I Land

page 20 of 22

viii. There be and is hereby issued an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, employees, assignees, and/or anybody else acting on their behalf from alienating , interfering, erasing from the map for Mbwaa I Land Adjudication Section, interfering with boundaries and/or in whatsoever manner dealing with the Plaintiffs’ land parcel numbers Nos. 1480, 1481, 1482, 1483, 1484, 1485, 1486, 1487, 1488, 1489, 1490, 1491, 1492, 1493, 1494,1495,1496,1497,1498,1499, 1590, 1591,1592 and 3099 situated in Mbwaa1 Land Adjudication Section in Tigania West Sub County, subject only to compliance with the due process of the law, including but not limited to the provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of the Land Adjudication Act, Chapter 294, Laws of Kenya. ix. Costs of the suit be and are hereby awarded to the plaintiffs. x. The costs in terms of clause [ix] shall agreed upon; and in default be taxed in the conventional manner. xi. In addition, the costs shall be borne by the defendants jointly and or severally. 66.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU ON 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 OGUTTU MBOYA; FCIArb; CPM [MTI-EA]. Page 21 of 22

page 21 of 22

JUDGE. In the presence of: Court Assistant: Zakayo Mr. Nyamu Nyaga for the Plaintiffs Ms. Miranda Senior State Counsel for the 3rd and 4th Defendants N/a for the 1st and 2nd Defendants. Page 22 of 22

page 22 of 22