Ndon’g v Chief Magistrate ‘s Court & 6 others

ordered: "The plaintiff is thereafter directed to honour his agreement with the interested party and sign/and or transfer the suit property." 6) ELC Appeal No. E014 of 2021 & Consent Judgment: The 1 st Interested Party appealed that direction. However, on 17th May 2023, the parties executed a Notice of Withdrawal/Consent stating: "The appellant, registered proprietor of Land Parcel No. Kanyada/Kothidha/561 shall duly transfer to Jeremiah Eddy Obar Ndong the whole of the said land within the next sixty (60) days." On 5th June 2023, the Environment and Land Court (Hon. G.M.A. Ong'ondo, J.) marked the appeal as wholly discontinued pursuant to the terms of the consent. 7) Parallel Suit: Undisclosed to the Applicant, the 2 nd, 3rd, and 4th Interested Parties sued the 1st Interested Party in the Chief Magistrate’s Court. A consent order dated 9th January 2023 was adopted as judgment on 21 st February 2023 (Hon. R.B.N. Maloba, SPM), and a decree issued on 16th June 2023 directing the land to be subdivided: "1. THAT land parcel no. KANYADA/KOTHIDHA/561... be subdivided and registered as follows: a) Elisha Opiyo Achieng... 35% b) The family of Nyagura Okoth, Walter Achungo and Christopher Awino... 30% c) the family of Maende Otegno... 35%" 8) The Present Judicial Review Application the Applicant filed an ex parte Chamber Summons seeking leave for Judicial Review orders of Certiorari and Prohibition (to operate as a stay), grounding the application on the assertions that: a) The parallel suit in ELC Case No. 52 of 2021 resulted in conflicting judicial decisions on the same subject matter. b) The Chief Magistrate acted ultra vires and in breach of natural 2|Page HOMA BAY ELC JR E001 OF 2023, JUDGMENT

page 2 of 18

justice by issuing orders that directly conflicted with the ELC’s final decree and judgment of June 5, 2023. c) The decree in ELC Case No. 52 of 2021 was obtained through collusion and constituted an abuse of court process. 9) Interested Parties’ Responses: 10) The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Interested Parties: Argued that the land was historically held in trust for multiple beneficiaries and was not Achieng’s sole property to sell. They contend that the direction in Civil Case No. 100 of 2010 ordering transfer to Ndong’ was granted without proper pleadings or involvement of all beneficiaries. They maintained that Achieng should only be allowed to transfer his 35% share. 11) Interlocutory Application regarding Ombudsman: The 5th and 6th Interested Parties separately applied to refer the court files to the Office of the Ombudsman for investigation over alleged judgment irregularities and forgery. 12) Ndong’ opposed this, asserting that under Section 30 of the Commission on Administrative Justice Act, the Ombudsman lacks jurisdiction over matters pending before active judicial bodies. 13) SUMMARY OF THE APPLICATION, SUPPORTING & SUPPLEMENTARY AFFIDAVITS 14) The 5th and 6th Interested Parties/Applicants moved this Court by way of a Notice of Motion dated 15th July 2024 brought under a Certificate of Urgency. The Applicants seek the following principal orders: a. That service of the application be dispensed with in the first instance and certified urgent. b. That the ruling slated for 18th July 2024 and further proceedings herein 3|Page HOMA BAY ELC JR E001 OF 2023, JUDGMENT

page 3 of 18

be stayed pending the hearing and determination of this application. c. That the Court be pleased to refer the suit herein together with Homa Bay Chief Magistrate’s Civil Case No. 100 of 2010 to the Commission on Administrative Justice (Ombudsman) for investigation and further orders. d. That costs of the application be provided for. 15) Grounds & Averments in the Supporting Affidavit (Sworn by Joseph Odhiambo Maende on 15th July 2024): a. The Ex Parte Applicant approached this Court seeking to quash the determination/consent order entered in Homa Bay CMC ELC Cause No. E052 of 2021. b. The Ex Parte Applicant based his claim on a decree dated 12th July 2021 issued in Homa Bay Civil Case No. 100 of 2010, which allegedly awarded him the suit property. c. The Applicants contend that the decree relied upon by the Ex Parte Applicant (annexed as JOO-2) is fraudulent. Specifically, order/paragraph (e) contained therein—directing the plaintiff to honor his agreement with the interested party—does not exist in the original judgment or in the decree certified on 6th September 2022 (annexed as JOO-3 and JOO-4). d. Since two conflicting sets of decrees exist from the same court, it is just and proper that the file be referred to the Ombudsman for independent investigation, as this Court lacks the mandate to conduct administrative criminal/forgery investigations. 16) Supplementary Affidavit (Sworn by Joseph Odhiambo Maende on 18th July 2024): a. Re-emphasizes the existence of two divergent judgments/decrees 4|Page HOMA BAY ELC JR E001 OF 2023, JUDGMENT

page 4 of 18

emanating from Homa Bay Civil Case No. 100 of 2010. b. Introduces the handwritten, signed judgment from the primary court file to highlight the material discrepancies between the genuine court record and the typed/extracted documents produced by the Ex Parte Applicant. 17) 18) SUMMARY OF THE OBJECTION & SUBMISSIONS. Grounds of Opposition by 2nd Interested Party and Ex Parte Applicant (Dated 18th July 2024): a. Illogical Premises: Under Section 2 and Section 25 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21), a decree must strictly conform to the judgment. If an irregularity occurs in extraction, it does not amount to a forgery warranting external administrative intervention. b. Relevance: The core issue in this Judicial Review is the decree in ELC Cause No. E052 of 2021, not Civil Case No. 100 of 2010. c. Delay: The application is filed belatedly as an abuse of court process intended solely to stall the delivery of the scheduled ruling. 19) Submissions by the Ex Parte Applicant: a. The Ex Parte Applicant contends that under Section 30(c) and (d) of the Commission on Administrative Justice Act (2011), the Ombudsman is statutorily barred from investigating matters that are active or pending before a court or judicial tribunal. b. Pursuant to Section 47 of the Evidence Act (Cap 80), any party alleging fraud or forgery in a judgment or decree can adduce evidence during a viva voce hearing or trial rather than arresting judicial proceedings. 20) Submissions by the 5th & 6th Interested Parties / Applicants: a. The Applicants argue that a stay of proceedings/arrest of ruling is warranted to prevent substantial loss and preserve the integrity of 5|Page HOMA BAY ELC JR E001 OF 2023, JUDGMENT

page 5 of 18

judicial processes. They rely on Francis Njakwe Githiari & Another v. Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi [2006] eKLR and Wambua Maithya v. Pharmacy and Poisons Board & Others [2019] eKLR. b. They assert that where a decision is founded on a fraudulent document, the court has inherent jurisdiction to arrest its decision to prevent bringing the administration of justice into disrepute. 21) ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION. 22) Upon consideration of the application, the grounds of opposition, and the submissions filed, I formulate the following issues for determination: a. Whether this Court should arrest/stay its ruling and proceedings pending investigations into the alleged forged decree/judgment. b. Whether the Court can or should refer a pending judicial file to the Office of the Ombudsman (Commission on Administrative Justice) for investigation. c. Whether an application challenging a compromise decree by a nonparty/stranger to the original suit is maintainable. d. The legal effect of an uncertified, handwritten, unsigned court document produced without due authority. e. Whether the Applicant has satisfied the threshold for the relief sought. 23) ANALYSIS AND JUDICIAL DECISION. 24) The legal principles governing a stay of proceedings and referral for external administrative investigation: a. Granting a stay of proceedings is a judicial discretion to be exercised carefully, balancing considerations of justice, the rights of the parties, public policy, and the circumstances of the case. b. As observed in Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th Ed., Vol. 37, paras 437 6|Page HOMA BAY ELC JR E001 OF 2023, JUDGMENT

page 6 of 18

& 442) and reaffirmed in Bi-Mocor S.A. v. Bureau Veritas [2006] 2 EA 26, a stay of proceedings is a grave judicial action that halts a party’s right to conduct litigation. Granting a stay is a discretionary exercise that must balance justice, party rights, and public interest. As Gikonyo J. noted in Kenya Wildlife Service v. James Mutembei [2019] eKLR, a stay will only be granted where proceedings are manifestly groundless, vexatious, or an abuse of the court process. c. The right to a fair trial is protected and observed by ensuring that proceedings, once commenced, are concluded as expeditiously as possible. Once proceedings drag, parties are likely to be disadvantaged as witnesses may become unavailable, pass away, or lose memory. d. In some cases, the length of proceedings may have a lasting, irreversible impact on the litigants. In Butt v. Rent Restriction Tribunal [1982] KLR 417, the Court of Appeal held that special circumstances existed given the large amount of rent in dispute between the parties. 25) The Commission on Administrative Justice was established pursuant to Article 59(4) of the Constitution. Section 8 of the Act stipulates the powers of the Commission, which include: a. Investigating any conduct in state affairs or any act or omission in public administration by any state organ. b. Investigating complaints of abuse of power, unfair treatment, manifest injustice, or unresponsive official conduct within the public sector. c. Inquiring into allegations of administrative delay, administrative injustice, discourtesy, misbehavior, inefficiency, or ineptitude within the public sector. 26) Section 30 of the Act sets out the limitations of the Commission, excluding: a. A criminal offense. 7|Page HOMA BAY ELC JR E001 OF 2023, JUDGMENT

page 7 of 18

b. A matter pending before any court or judicial tribunal. c. The commencement or conduct of criminal or court proceedings before a court. 27) Section 34 gives the Commission discretion not to investigate a complaint where adequate remedies exist under any written law or administrative practice. 28) Jurisprudence across Commonwealth jurisdictions reinforces the principle that judicial processes take priority over parallel administrative or investigative delays unless exceptional prejudice is proven: a. Tanzania: In Lujuna Shubi Ballard v. Regional Development Director, Kagera [1987] TLR 89, the High Court emphasized that administrative or investigative oversight cannot supersede an active suit; the court of record remains the sole custodian of its own process. b. Malawi: In The State v. Registrar General ex-parte Ndovi [2008] MWHC 102, the High Court affirmed that statutory administrative tribunals cannot intervene in matters sub judice before the High Court. 29) Courts have discretion to stay civil litigation in light of parallel or related criminal proceedings, normally considering the following factors: a. The plaintiff’s interest in moving forward with the civil allegations. b. The burden on the defendant caused by the proceedings. c. Judicial efficiency. d. The interest of non-parties and the public interest. 30) Courts apply these factors on a case-by-case basis. When determining whether to stay proceedings, a defendant seeking a stay should emphasize the factual similarity between the criminal proceedings and the civil proceedings. The strongest case for deferral of proceedings is where a party under indictment for a serious offense is required to defend a civil or 8|Page HOMA BAY ELC JR E001 OF 2023, JUDGMENT

page 8 of 18

administrative action involving the same matter. Even where criminal charges have not been filed, but the government is investigating potential criminal conduct, a court may grant a stay. 31) Sections 30(b), (c), and (d) of the Commission on Administrative Justice Act are of critical relevance here. Section 30(b) means that the Commission has no jurisdiction to investigate a criminal matter, meaning it lacks jurisdiction over matters of a criminal nature. It therefore goes without saying that it should not perform the role of police detectives and investigators, as the investigation of crime falls within the sole mandate of the police. 32) Section 30(c) means that there is no jurisdiction to investigate a matter that is pending in court. The provision is worded in a manner that limits it to a specific case or matter. The Commission has no jurisdiction to get involved in a matter of which a court or tribunal is seized. That provision is specific rather than general, such that where a specific civil case or cause is filed in court or at a tribunal, and complaints are raised over it, the Commission has no mandate or jurisdiction to carry out investigations into the issues surrounding the same. 33) There ought not to be parallel proceedings or inquiries—one in court and the other before the Commission—over the subject matter of the suit. Thus, when a case is before a court and a complaint is simultaneously raised with the Commission, the Commission lacks jurisdiction to pursue the complaint. 34) It is discernible from reading Sections 30(c) and 30(d) together that they relate to judicial proceedings and demonstrate respect for judicial independence. The Commission may make inquiries into how administrative matters are handled by administrative bodies, but that mandate or jurisdiction does not extend to court cases. The Commission cannot probe into how courts handle cases filed before them, nor carry out investigations into matters already in 9|Page HOMA BAY ELC JR E001 OF 2023, JUDGMENT

page 9 of 18

court. 35) Section 30(d) is related to Section 30(c), but is specifically limited to how individual cases are commenced and conducted. The Commission has no mandate over how criminal and civil cases are initiated or conducted. It cannot probe the police, the prosecution, the courts, advocates, or litigants regarding how cases are initiated or conducted in court by any of those four entities (Republic v. Commission on Administrative Justice; Kenya Reinsurance Corporation Limited & another (Ex parte) [2026] KEHC 6234 (KLR)). 36) Whether an application challenging a compromise decree by a non-party/stranger to the original suit is maintainable: a. The Applicant’s case hinges on the authenticity of a decree dated 12th July 2021, which is the basis of this suit. According to the Applicant, this information is new, credible, and important. b. The Ex Parte Applicant approached this Court to quash the determination in Homa Bay CM CC ELC Cause No. E052 of 2021, where a consent resulted in the subdivision of Land Parcel Kanyada/Kothidha/561 into three (3) portions comprising 35%, 30%, and 35%. Elisha was further required to execute documents for subdivision. Based on the said consent, a decree was issued by the court on 16th June 2023. c. Prior to the consent, judgment had been obtained in CMCC No. 100 of 2010. This was a suit between Elisha Opiyo Achieng (Plaintiff), Nelson Atieno Owuor (Defendant), and Jeremiah Eddy Obar Ndong (Interested Party, now Ex Parte Applicant). This judgment required the Plaintiff (Elisha) to transfer the property to the Interested Party. d. Dissatisfied with the decision requiring him to transfer the land, the late 10 | P a g e HOMA BAY ELC JR E001 OF 2023, JUDGMENT

page 10 of 18

Elisha filed an appeal in Homa Bay ELC Appeal No. E014 of 2021, challenging the decision of Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. T. Obutu dated 16th June 2021. He raised grounds in his Memorandum of Appeal asserting that the learned Magistrate erred in law and fact by directing the Appellant to honor his agreement with the Interested Party without proper evidence or pleadings. e. However, on 17th May 2023, the parties agreed to compromise the appeal on the following terms: i. The Appellant, registered as the proprietor of Land Parcel No. Kanyada/Kothidha/561, shall duly transfer the whole of the said land to Jeremiah Eddy Obar Ndong within sixty (60) days. ii. The Respondent, Jeremiah Eddy Obar Ndong, shall pay all prescribed charges and fees for completing the transfer. iii. The Respondent agrees to pay an additional sum to be agreed upon between himself and the Appellant. iv. The restriction registered following the order given by the Court on 14th February 2023 shall be lifted upon registration of the transfer. f. This compromise consent was adopted into a judgment delivered on 5th June 2023. g. The Ex Parte Applicant states that after judgment was delivered in CMCC No. 100 of 2010, the three interested parties sued the 1st Interested Party, the Land Registrar, and the Attorney General. A consent judgment was filed, and a decree was obtained on 16th June 2023 after the ELC Judge had rendered judgment. 37) In essence, the Applicant seeks to review the directions made in the Judicial Review proceedings—which granted leave to challenge the lower court's 11 | P a g e HOMA BAY ELC JR E001 OF 2023, JUDGMENT

page 11 of 18

findings—and refer the matter elsewhere for investigation. Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules provide strict grounds for review, including the discovery of new and important evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the party's knowledge or could not be produced at the time (Accredo AG & 3 others v. Steffano Uccelli & another [2019] KECA 385 (KLR)). 38) In the case of Nyamogo & Nyamogo v Kogo (2001) EA 170 the Court held as follows: “An error apparent on the face of the record cannot be defined precisely or exhaustively, there being an element of undefinitiveness inherent in its very nature and it must be determined judicially on the facts of each case. There is a real distinction between a mere erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an error on a substantial point of law stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out. An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Again, if a view adopted by the Court in the original record is a possible one, it cannot be an error apparent on the face of the record even though another view was possible. Mere error or wrong view is certainly no ground for review though it may be one for appeal.” 39) In Joseph Odhiambo Maende's affidavit, prayer 2 claims new information regarding the authenticity of the decree dated 12th July 2021. However, the affidavit fails to disclose how and when this new information was discovered. 40) The last condition that the Applicant has to satisfy under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules is whether the Application has been made without undue delay. 12 | P a g e HOMA BAY ELC JR E001 OF 2023, JUDGMENT

page 12 of 18

41) The Orders sought by the Applicant is discretionary and the said discretion must be exercised judiciously. As provided by Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, the Court is enjoined to make Orders that are necessary for end of justice to be met and to prevent abuse of the Court process. 42) In the case of Abdulrahman Hassan V National Bank of Kenya Ltd HCCC No. 446 of 2001 (eKLR) the Court observed that “an unexplained delay in filing for review of more than three months was unreasonable.” 43) The lengthier the delay, the higher the burden placed on an applicant to provide a sufficient explanation (Waithaka v. Bashacki & 2 Others [2024] KEHC 1279 (KLR)). 44) Judgment was delivered on 12th July 2021, yet the Applicant filed this application three (3) years later. Courts have consistently struck out or dismissed applications where parties failed to state the relevant provisions of law or explain long delays (Kennedy Thindiu Thiongo v. Harry Kinuthia Thongo; Stephen Githua Kimani v. Nancy Wanjira Waruingi T/A Providence Auctioneers [2016] eKLR). 45) I find that the Applicant has not endeavoured to explain the delay in filing the Application, the court finds the delay is unexplained and quite unreasonable in the circumstances 46) The established principles for setting aside consent judgments require demonstrating grounds such as fraud, mistake, or misrepresentation that would invalidate a contract (Flora Wasike v. Destimo Wamboko [1982-88] 1 KAR 266; Purcell v. F. C. Trigell Ltd [1970] 3 All ER 671; Brooke Bond Liebig v. Mallya [1975] EA 266). J 47) I find that the present application, camouflaged as an application for stay, is actually an unmeritorious application for review. It was brought under Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which governs injunctions and does 13 | P a g e HOMA BAY ELC JR E001 OF 2023, JUDGMENT

page 13 of 18

not confer powers of review. While bringing an application under the wrong provision renders it defective, the Court will address its substantive merits rather than procedural technicalities. 48) Regarding whether the application discloses an error warranting relief, the substantive Judicial Review application seeks to quash the decree in ELC Cause No. E052 of 2021 pursuant to leave granted on 28th July 2023. The grant of leave was based on the decree supplied from that cause. The appropriate procedure to challenge an order of leave on grounds of nondisclosure is to apply to the Judge who granted leave to set it aside (Njuguna v. Minister of Agriculture [2000] 1 EA 184; Hussein Ali & 4 Others v. Commissioner of Lands & 7 Others [2013] eKLR). 49) Furthermore, the Applicant lacks locus standi to challenge a decree in a suit to which he was a stranger. Locus standi is a fundamental jurisdictional requirement requiring a party to show that their right or interest has been directly breached (The Attorney General v. Malawi Congress Party & Another, Malawi Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1996; Lujuna Shubi Ballonzi Senior v. Registered Trustees of CCM [1996] TLR 203). 50) It is an established principle of civil jurisprudence that a stranger to a compromise decree cannot challenge the compromise by way of an interlocutory application within that same suit. Under comparative common law (e.g., Smt. Anubai Bhiva Turuke v. Bhagwan Shiva Turuke [2017] and Khalil Haji Bholumiya v. Darul Uloom in India), a stranger asserting an independent right must institute a separate, substantive suit. 51) In Kenya, Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v. Mumo Matemo & 5 Others [2014] eKLR reaffirmed that non-parties lack locus standi to alter or challenge court processes in suits where they were not properly joined. 52) I therefore find that the Applicant lacks locus standi to challenge the decree 14 | P a g e HOMA BAY ELC JR E001 OF 2023, JUDGMENT

page 14 of 18

issued in CMCC No. 100 of 2010 within this matter. 53) Irregular Extraction and Evidentiary Value of Court Records: a. The Applicant relies upon an unsigned, handwritten document alleged to be a draft judgment. Order 21 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules dictates that a judgment must be dated and signed by the presiding judge at the time of pronouncing it. An unsigned, handwritten draft bears no legal effect. b. Order 21 Rule 20 outlines the lawful procedure for requesting certified copies of court records upon payment of prescribed fees. Counsel and litigants are strongly admonished against extracting uncertified, internal, or raw files from court registries. Court files are sacred repositories of justice; unauthorized extraction or tampering compromises the integrity of the judicial record. c. While the doctrine that "fraud vitiates everything" (Lazarus Estates Ltd v. Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702; S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath 1994 AIR 853) is a bedrock of common law, fraud must be pleaded specifically and proven strictly by primary, admissible, certified evidence—not by presenting uncertified, unsigned registry papers. d. As supported by Commonwealth jurisprudence (Grobbelaar v. News Group Newspapers Ltd [2002]; Yahaya Kiriisa v. Attorney General & Anor [1994]), judicial discretion must be exercised based on specific circumstances to achieve what is just, fair, right, equitable, and reasonable. 54) On Arresting Judgment/Stay of Proceedings and Jurisdictional Competence: a. The inherent power of a court to stay proceedings or arrest a ruling must be exercised with extreme caution. While the court in Wambua 15 | P a g e HOMA BAY ELC JR E001 OF 2023, JUDGMENT

page 15 of 18

Maithya v. Pharmacy and Poisons Board [2019] eKLR acknowledged the discretionary power to arrest decisions to prevent manifest injustice, such discretion cannot be exercised to derail judicial proceedings where statutory mechanisms exist to address evidentiary disputes. b. Allegations of fraud, alterations, or extraction of irregular decrees are matters of evidence. Under Section 47 of the Evidence Act, a party is at liberty to demonstrate that a decree or judgment presented by an adversary was obtained by fraud or collusion during the substantive hearing. The Judicial Review court possesses full capacity to examine certified court records, compare extracted decrees with signed primary judgments, and make a judicial finding on admissibility and probative value. c. Where criminal forgery within court registries is suspected, the proper course for an aggrieved party is to lodge a complaint with the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) or the Judiciary Police Unit, without staying the court’s determination on the legal merits presented before it. 55) CONCLUSION, VERDICT & ORDERS 56) Upon a thorough evaluation of the matter, I find as follows: a) The Applicant lacks the requisite locus standi to challenge the consent decree in Homa Bay CM CC ELC No. 100 of 2010 within this application, as he was a stranger to those proceedings. b) The prayer to refer the suit to the Commission on Administrative Justice (Ombudsman) is legally incompetent by virtue of Section 30 of the CAJ Act, as the matter is pending before a judicial tribunal. c) The application, while styled as an application for stay, is an unmeritorious attempt to review orders without satisfying the statutory 16 | P a g e HOMA BAY ELC JR E001 OF 2023, JUDGMENT

page 16 of 18

conditions under Section 80 and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, including the failure to account for an unexplained delay of over three years. 56. The handwritten document presented is unsigned, uncertified, and inadmissible, and does not constitute a valid judgment under Order 21 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. 57) ORDERS: 1. THE NOTICE OF MOTION dated 15th July 2024 is hereby found to be devoid of merit and is DISMISSED in its entirety. 2. THE PRAYER to stay court proceedings/ruling and refer the files to the Office of the Ombudsman is REFUSED. 3. COSTS of this application shall abide by the outcome of the substantive Judicial Review proceedings. 2. Orders accordingly. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY AT HOMA BAY THIS 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026. JUSTICE J.W WANYONYI -JUDGE JUDGE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT, HOMA BAY In the presence of; 1. Oyala, present for the ex-parte applicant 2. Ngani Adoyo for the 1st, 2nd and 7th interested Party-Present 3. Obach for the 3rd and 4th Interested Party-Absent 4. Odindo for 5th and 6th Interested party -Absent 5. Kimberly for the 8th Interested party -Present. 17 | P a g e HOMA BAY ELC JR E001 OF 2023, JUDGMENT

page 17 of 18

6. Attorney General for the Respondent -Absent. 7. Court Assistant; Ms. Awino. 18 | P a g e HOMA BAY ELC JR E001 OF 2023, JUDGMENT

page 18 of 18