Ruth Muthoni Iganjo & Another v Gitonga Mwangi Murithi & 6 Others

RULING ON THE NOTICES OF MOTION DATED 4TH AND 27TH NOVEMBER 2025 1. This matter is set for ruling on the Notices of Motion dated 4 th and 27th November 2025 filed by the Plaintiffs. The Court will deal with the Notices of Motion at the same time. 2. The Notice of Motion dated 4th November 2025 principally seeks orders arising from the alleged disobedience of the orders of this Court made on 18th January 2024 granting a conditional stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of Civil Appeal No. E869 of 2023. The Applicants seek, inter alia, access to and uninterrupted use and occupation of L.R. Nos. 398/7 and 398/8, Naivasha; temporary and permanent injunctive orders restraining the Defendants, their agents and persons acting under them from interfering with the Applicants’ occupation and businesses or dealing with the suit properties; orders requiring the police to facilitate compliance with the Court’s orders and the Applicants’ reinstatement; and orders citing the 1st , 2nd , 3rd , 4th , 5th and 7th Defendants and their advocates for contempt of Court. 3. The Applicants further seek that the alleged contemnors be fined Kshs.2,000,000 each or, in default, committed to civil jail for six months, or both, together with such further orders as the Court may deem just. 4. The Application is premised on the Applicants’ contention that on 18 th January 2024 the Court granted a stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 21st September 2023 pending determination of the appeal. The RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 2 of 35

page 2 of 35

stay was conditional upon the proceeds from L.R. Nos. 398/7 and 398/8 being deposited in a joint interest-earning account between the Applicants and the 7th Defendant with effect from 1st February 2024, and upon the Applicants facilitating the opening of the account by availing comprehensive statements of account. The order expressly provided that the stay would lapse in default of compliance with the stipulated conditions. 5. The Applicants contend that the order was made inter partes and was duly brought to the attention of the Defendants’ advocates. They maintain that they took steps towards compliance by forwarding bank account-opening forms to the advocates for the 7th Defendant on 18th and 29th January 2024, but that the 7th Defendant failed, refused or neglected to execute and return the forms to facilitate the opening of the joint account. 6. The Applicants further allege that, instead of cooperating in the implementation of the stay order, the 7 th Defendant instigated or participated in acts of vandalism and looting at the Applicants’ business premises, resulting in the destruction and loss of accounting documents and business records. They contend that the loss of those records subsequently frustrated their ability to comply with the requirement to furnish comprehensive statements of account. 7. The Applicants maintain that the stay remained valid and subsisting and entitled them to remain in peaceful occupation of the suit properties pending the appeal. They contend that, notwithstanding the subsistence of the stay, the 7th Defendant, through its advocates, wrote to the Naivasha Sub-County Security Committee on 8th September 2025 asserting that the stay had lapsed for alleged non-compliance and seeking the Applicants’ eviction. 8. The Applicants further refer to the Chamber Summons dated 24 th July 2025 filed by the 7th Defendant seeking, inter alia, the setting aside or variation of RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 3 of 35

page 3 of 35

the order of the Taxing Master made on 10 th July 2025 staying taxation of the 7th Defendant’s Bill of Costs. According to the Applicants, the application had not been determined and there was no order declaring the stay of execution granted on 18th January 2024 to have lapsed. 9. The Application is supported by the affidavit of Ruth Muthoni Iganjo, the 1 st Plaintiff, who states that she is an administrator and beneficiary of the estate of the late Francis Iganjo Mutahi, whom she identifies as a shareholder of the 7th Defendant, Kamuta Limited. She states that the family has occupied and utilised the suit properties since 1992, where they established and operated Natures Camp hotel, and maintains that their occupation was authorised by her late husband. 10. The Applicant relies on the ruling and order granting a conditional stay of execution and the correspondence exchanged between the parties concerning compliance with its terms. She maintains that the Plaintiffs took steps towards compliance, including efforts to facilitate the opening of the joint account contemplated by the order, but that the Defendants frustrated the process by failing to execute the necessary documentation. 11. The Applicant alleges that on 28th October 2025, while she was away from the premises, advocates for the 1st , 2nd and 7th Defendants, accompanied by police officers and private security guards, entered the premises and forcibly took possession. She alleges that the main door to her house was broken, her security personnel were removed, and household goods, hotel stock, beds, bedding and other belongings were taken away. Her children, Anthony Waititu Iganjo and Esther Wanjiru Iganjo, are said to have witnessed the incident and subsequently sworn affidavits in support of her account. RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 4 of 35

page 4 of 35

Photographs depicting the alleged damage and removal of property were also annexed. 12. The Applicant contends that the alleged eviction and demolition were undertaken in breach of the subsisting stay and without following the proper execution process. She maintains that the decree dated 17th October 2023 allowed the Plaintiffs 120 days to vacate and that the period was interrupted by the stay. She further argues that, execution having been pursued more than one year after the decree, a Notice to Show Cause and/or leave of the Court was required. She contends that any eviction ought to have been undertaken through the lawful court process by an authorised court bailiff or licensed auctioneer. 13. In her subsequent affidavits, the Applicant challenges the authority of Gitonga Mwangi Muriithi to act as a director of the 7 th Defendant and the authority of Guandaru Thuita & Co. Advocates to act for the company in the absence of a valid board resolution. She also challenges the Replying Affidavit filed by the 7th Defendant on procedural grounds. More significantly, she alleges that some of the documents relied upon by the Defendants in obtaining the judgment and decree were forged and refers to alleged investigations and criminal proceedings arising from the dispute. 14. The Applicant further alleges that, following the Defendants’ takeover of the premises, they assumed control of the businesses, interfered with business records and directed tenants to pay rent to the 7 th Defendant. She contends that this was contrary to the order requiring proceeds from the suit properties to be deposited into the joint account and maintains that the Defendants should account for income received from the properties from February 2024. 15. The Applicant also asserts that the suit properties and businesses were established by her late husband and that the properties were held through RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 5 of 35

page 5 of 35

Kamuta Limited for the benefit of the families associated with the late Francis Iganjo Mutahi, the late James Kanyotu and the late Mwangi Stephen Muriithi. She therefore maintains that the Plaintiffs have a legitimate interest in the properties and that the Defendants have not demonstrated any lawful process by which the Plaintiffs were evicted. 16. In the circumstances, the Applicant’s case is that the Defendants deliberately frustrated compliance with the conditional stay, unlawfully took possession of the suit properties and businesses, interfered with the Plaintiffs’ occupation and rental income, and acted in disregard of subsisting Court orders. She consequently characterises their conduct as unlawful and contemptuous and urges the Court to grant the orders sought to vindicate and uphold the authority and dignity of the Court. The 2nd Defendant’s Replying Affidavit 17. The 2nd Defendant and a director of the 7 th Defendant, Gitonga Mwangi Muriithi, opposed the Notice of Motion through a Replying Affidavit sworn on 25th November 2025. He stated that he was also the legal representative of the estate of the 1st Defendant. He contended that although the Application was presented primarily as contempt proceedings, its substance was an attempt to obtain mandatory injunctive relief and reopen issues that had already been conclusively determined. He relied on the judgment delivered on 21st September 2023, which dismissed the Plaintiffs’ suit, allowed the 7th Defendant’s Counterclaim, and ordered the Plaintiffs and their agents to give vacant possession of the suit property, failing which they would be evicted with the assistance of the OCS Naivasha Police Station. RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 6 of 35

page 6 of 35

18. The deponent further alleged that the Plaintiffs had approached the Court with unclean hands and had failed to disclose related proceedings before the ELC Court at Nakuru, and accused the Plaintiffs of forum shopping. He also disputed the claim that the family of Francis Iganjo Mutahi had occupied the suit property since 1992, maintaining that the deceased had occupied it only in his capacity as an employee and farm manager until his death in 2002, after which another farm manager took over. He equally disputed the assertion that the deceased was a shareholder of the 7th Defendant. 19. Regarding the conditional stay of execution, the deponent acknowledged that the Court had granted a stay on 18 th January 2024 subject to conditions, including depositing proceeds from the suit properties into a joint interestearning account and furnishing comprehensive statements of account. He stated that the Court subsequently directed the Plaintiffs to comply within 30 days and to open the account in the joint names of the advocates. According to him, the Plaintiffs failed to provide the required comprehensive accounts, which were necessary to establish the occupants of the premises, the terms and duration of occupation, farming activities, income received and expenditure incurred. He maintained that merely forwarding bank accountopening forms did not amount to compliance with the Court’s orders. 20. He therefore contended that the conditional stay lapsed automatically upon the Plaintiffs’ failure to satisfy its conditions, thereby entitling the 7 th Defendant to proceed with execution, including eviction with police assistance. He denied allegations that the 7th Defendant had orchestrated vandalism to frustrate compliance, arguing that the Plaintiffs should instead have sought a review or extension of the stay if compliance had been impeded. He further alleged that the Plaintiffs had remained on the property RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 7 of 35

page 7 of 35

and continued collecting income from farming, the boat landing bay, hotel and catering operations, and leasing of premises to third parties without accounting to the 7th Defendant, thereby depriving it of the use, enjoyment and income from its property. 21. Finally, the deponent relied on the 7th Defendant’s constitutional right to property under Article 40 and argued that there was no sufficient basis for further restricting those rights. On the issue of contempt, he maintained that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and carry penal consequences, hence requiring a higher standard of proof than the ordinary balance of probabilities. He argued that the Applicants had failed to establish any culpability on his part and that the Application was further undermined by alleged non-disclosure, deceit and abuse of the Court process. He consequently urged the Court to dismiss the Application with costs. The 3rdDefendant’s Replying Affidavit 22. Jane Gathoni Muraya-Kanyotu, the 3rd Defendant, opposed the Application through her Replying Affidavit sworn on 21st May 2026. She contended that there was no evidence demonstrating compliance with the conditions attached to the conditional stay granted on 18 th January 2024, particularly evidence that the comprehensive statements of account had been furnished. 23. She maintained that, by reason of the Applicants’ failure and/or refusal to comply with the conditions, the stay had lapsed in accordance with the express terms of the Court’s order. Consequently, she contended that there was no subsisting stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 21 st September 2023 and that the successful litigant was entitled to proceed with execution and enforcement of the judgment. RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 8 of 35

page 8 of 35

24. On contempt, the 3rd Defendant contended that contempt could only be established where there existed a clear, valid, binding and enforceable order capable of being disobeyed. She maintained that the stay orders were neither directed at nor issued against her and that the Applicants had not demonstrated her personal involvement, or that of her advocates, in the alleged disobedience. 25. She further contended that, given the quasi-criminal nature of contempt proceedings, the alleged contemnor and the acts or omissions constituting contempt ought to be clearly and precisely identified. She maintained that the Applicants had failed to meet that threshold and ought first to have sought the issuance of a Notice to Show Cause. 26. The 3rd Defendant further stated that the only subsisting stay related to taxation of the 7th Defendant’s Bill of Costs, which order the 7th Defendant had complied with and in respect of which the application dated 24 th July 2025 had been filed. She accused the Applicants of material non-disclosure and approaching the Court with unclean hands and urged that the Application be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the Court. The 4th Defendant’s Replying Affidavit 27. The 4th Defendant, Margaret Nyakinyua Murigu, in her Replying Affidavit sworn on 18th May 2026, stated that she was an administrator of the estate of the late James Kanyotu. 28. She deponed that judgment was delivered on 21st September 2023 dismissing the Plaintiffs’ suit and allowing the 7 th Defendant’s Counterclaim with costs. She acknowledged that on 18 th January 2024 the Court granted a RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 9 of 35

page 9 of 35

conditional stay pending appeal, subject to the deposit of proceeds from L.R. Nos. 398/7 and 398/8 in a joint interest-earning account and the provision of comprehensive statements of account. 29. She maintained that the Court expressly directed that failure to comply would result in the stay lapsing and that the Plaintiffs failed to comply with both conditions. In particular, they neither provided the requisite statements nor opened the contemplated joint account. The stay therefore, in her view, lapsed automatically. 30. She further stated that although the Taxing Master on 10 th July 2025 stayed taxation of the 7th Defendant’s Bill of Costs dated 22nd November 2023, there was otherwise no valid and subsisting stay of execution. She contended that the events alleged to have occurred on 28 th October 2025 did not alter or excuse the Applicants’ earlier non-compliance. 31. The 4th Defendant further asserted that the Court was functus officio as regards the substantive dispute and that, in the absence of a valid stay, the decree holder was entitled to proceed with taxation and execution notwithstanding the pending appeal. She maintained that the allegations of contempt had not been proved. 5th Defendant’s Replying Affidavit 33. The 5th Defendant, Mary Wanjiku Kanyotu, swore her Replying Affidavit on 21st May 2026. She characterised the Application as misconceived, incompetent, devoid of merit and an abuse of the process of the Court. 34. She contended that the Plaintiffs were attempting to reopen matters conclusively determined by the judgment of 21st September 2023, by which RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 10 of 35

page 10 of 35

the 7th Defendant’s Counterclaim was allowed. She maintained that the Court was functus officio on the merits of the dispute. 35. She acknowledged the conditional stay granted on 18 th January 2024 but maintained that the Applicants had failed to demonstrate compliance with the conditions concerning the joint interest-earning account and comprehensive statements of account. She therefore contended that the stay automatically lapsed and that the successful party became entitled to proceed with execution. 36. On contempt, she maintained that there was no clear, valid, binding and enforceable order capable of being disobeyed at the material time. She further stated that the stay order was not directed at her personally and that no specific participation, involvement or complicity on her part had been demonstrated. 37. She further contended that the alleged contemnors and the acts constituting the alleged contempt had not been sufficiently particularised and that the Applicants ought first to have sought a Notice to Show Cause. 38. She maintained that the only subsisting stay concerned taxation of the 7th Defendant’s Bill of Costs and that the 7th Defendant had complied with that order. She consequently urged the Court to dismiss or strike out the Application with costs. Replying Affidavit by the Advocates for the 1st, 2nd and 7th Defendants 39. The 1st , 2nd and 7th Defendants opposed the contempt proceedings against them and their advocates. They argued that contempt proceedings are quasicriminal and must clearly identify the alleged contemnor, the specific breach, and the conduct complained of. They maintained that the general RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 11 of 35

page 11 of 35

reference to “the Defendants and their Advocates” was insufficient and that no specific advocate or act of contempt had been identified. 40. The Defendants further argued that the conditional stay granted on 18 th January 2024 had lapsed because the Plaintiffs failed to provide the required comprehensive statements of account. They denied frustrating compliance with the order and maintained that the Plaintiffs’ prior failure made further compliance impossible. Consequently, they contended that there was no subsisting stay of execution by 28th October 2025. 41. They also denied allegations that their advocates encouraged vandalism or looting, stating that there was no evidence to support those claims. They maintained that the Taxing Master’s order of 10th July 2025 only stayed taxation of the 7th Defendant’s Bill of Costs and did not stay execution of the decree. They therefore opposed the applications for reinstatement, injunctions, police involvement, and contempt orders. Notice of Motion Dated 27th November 2025 42. The Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Motion dated 27th November 2025, alleging that their residential and business premises had been evicted and demolished despite a subsisting stay of execution. 43. They seek to have several Naivasha security and police officers summoned to Court to explain their involvement in the alleged eviction and demolition. Alternatively, they seek to have the officers cited for contempt of court and the Defendants ordered to pay costs. 44. The Applicants maintain that a stay order issued on 23 rd January 2024 remained in force and had never been lifted. They allege that, despite their advocates warning the Deputy County Commissioner against facilitating an RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 12 of 35

page 12 of 35

eviction, a security meeting was held in September 2025 at which a decision was allegedly made to evict them and their children. 45. They further contend that no lawful eviction notice was served, and that the eviction was carried out in breach of the Court's orders and without due process. They therefore want the identified officers to explain their roles and to produce the court bailiff and/or auctioneer allegedly involved. 46. The Supporting Affidavit of Ruth Muthoni Iganjo reiterates these allegations and attaches the purported stay order, correspondence between the parties and advocates, and documents relating to the alleged eviction and subsequent attempt to secure reinstatement. 47. In essence: the Application challenges the legality of the alleged eviction and demolition, asserting that they occurred in violation of a subsisting stay order and without lawful process, and seeks accountability from the public officers allegedly involved. Grounds of Opposition by the 1st, 2nd and 7th Defendants 48. The 1st , 2nd and 7th Defendants opposed the Application on the grounds that it was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the Court process. They contended that the Applicants had already filed a Notice of Motion dated 4 th November 2025 seeking, inter alia, reinstatement and contempt orders, and that the reliefs sought in the present Application ought to have been pursued therein. The present Application was therefore said to constitute an unnecessary duplication and fragmentation of the proceedings. Since the earlier application was filed first, the Defendants urged that it be heard and determined before the present Application. RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 13 of 35

page 13 of 35

49. The Defendants further contended that the Application was premature, as it assumed the commission of contempt before that issue had been determined. They argued that the alleged eviction was principally attributable to the 7 th Defendant and that summoning police officers and public administrators before the 7th Defendant had been heard would offend the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair hearing. They maintained that the officers had merely acted in the course of their lawful public duties and on information supplied by the 7th Defendant. 50. The Defendants also disputed the Applicants’ compliance with the conditions attached to the stay granted in January 2024, particularly the requirement for a joint interest-earning account and comprehensive statements of account. They maintained that the police and public administrators could not properly be called upon to account to the Court unless and until there had been a determination that a valid and subsisting order existed and had been breached. 51. Accordingly, the Defendants submitted that the Applicants had an adequate remedy in the pending Notice of Motion dated 4 th November 2025, and that the present Application merely multiplied the proceedings and costs. They urged the Court, in the interests of judicial economy, to dismiss or stay the Application pending determination of the earlier Motion. Plaintiffs’ Submissions 52. The Plaintiffs filed written submissions dated 12 th March 2026 in support of the Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025. 53. On the Notice of Motion dated 4th November 2025, the Plaintiffs submitted that they sought access to and uninterrupted occupation of L.R. Nos. 398/7 RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 14 of 35

page 14 of 35

and 398/8, injunctive orders restraining interference with their occupation and businesses, and orders citing the Defendants and their advocates for contempt. 54. The Plaintiffs reiterated that the 1st Plaintiff is an administrator and beneficiary of the estate of the late Francis Iganjo Mutahi, whom they contend was a shareholder of the 7th Defendant, and that the family had occupied the suit properties since 1992 and operated Natures Camp thereon. 55. The Plaintiffs acknowledged the judgment of 21st September 2023 and stated that they lodged an appeal. They maintained that the conditional stay granted on 18th January 2024 remained operative because they had taken steps to comply by forwarding bank account-opening forms to the 7th Defendant’s advocates on 18th and 29th January 2024, but that the 7th Defendant failed or refused to cooperate. 56. The Plaintiffs submitted that the 7th Defendant subsequently asserted that the stay had lapsed and, through its advocates’ letter dated 8 th September 2025, sought police assistance to evict them. 57. They contended that the order of the Taxing Master dated 10 th July 2025 staying taxation demonstrated that the stay remained operative. They relied on Centre for Peace and Democracy v Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) Coordination Board [2019] eKLR, citing Francis Muriuki Muraguri t/a Lusoi Stores & 2 Others v Milling Corporation of Kenya Limited [2018] eKLR, in support of the proposition that taxation forms part of execution proceedings. 58. The Plaintiffs alleged that on 28 th October 2025 the 7th Defendant, accompanied by police officers and private security guards, unlawfully entered the suit premises, vandalised property and forcibly evicted the RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 15 of 35

page 15 of 35

Applicants. They relied on the affidavits of Anthony Waititu Waiganjo and Esther Wanjiru Iganjo and photographs annexed to the Supporting Affidavit. 59. They further contended that the alleged destruction and loss of accounting records frustrated their ability to furnish comprehensive statements of account. 60. The Plaintiffs challenged the competence of the Replying Affidavit sworn by Gitonga Mwangi Muriithi on behalf of the 7 th Defendant, arguing that he had not demonstrated valid authority to act as a director or to swear the affidavit on behalf of the company. They similarly challenged the authority of Guandaru Thuita & Co. Advocates to act for the 7th Defendant. Reliance was placed on Njuguna Builders Plumbing and Drainage Contractors Limited & Another v Gitau & Another [2026] KEHC 2611 (KLR). 61. On contempt, the Plaintiffs relied on Wekesa & 2 Others v Munialo [2025] KECA 679 (KLR) and submitted that the Court should consider whether the order was clear and unambiguous, whether the alleged contemnor had knowledge of it, whether there was non-compliance and whether the breach was deliberate. 62. They submitted that the Defendants’ advocates were present when the stay order was made and therefore had knowledge of its terms. They further maintained that the 7th Defendant deliberately frustrated compliance by declining to facilitate opening of the joint account and subsequently relied on the resulting non-compliance to assert that the stay had lapsed. 63. The Plaintiffs relied on Muthama & Another v Athusi Bar and Restaurant Company Limited & 3 Others [2023] KEHC 18238 (KLR) on the need to consider whether a party had made reasonable attempts to comply with a Court order and whether the material necessary for compliance remained available. RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 16 of 35

page 16 of 35

64. They further submitted that the execution undertaken on 28 th October 2025 was procedurally irregular because the decree was dated 17 th October 2023 and more than one year had elapsed. Reliance was placed on Order 22 Rule 18(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, Radheshyam Transport Ltd v Corporate Business Centre Ltd [2019] KEHC 1803 (KLR) and Ruto (Suing as the Legal Personal Representative of the Estate of Kibiwott Arap Mwolomet – Deceased) v Maina & Another [2025] KEELC 7168 (KLR). 65. The Plaintiffs maintained that the 7th Defendant acted in bad faith and proceeded with the eviction despite knowledge of the stay. They relied on Martin Nyaga Wambora & 4 Others v Speaker of the Senate & 6 Others [2014] KEHC 5604 (KLR) for the proposition that acts undertaken in wilful disobedience of Court orders are illegal and cannot confer valid rights. 66. In respect of the Notice of Motion dated 27 th November 2025, the Plaintiffs submitted that the police officers sought to be summoned had been notified of the subsisting stay by the letter dated 5th September 2025 but nevertheless participated in the events leading to the eviction. 67. They again relied on Wekesa & 2 Others v Munialo [2025] KECA 679 (KLR) for the proposition that knowledge of a Court order may suffice for purposes of contempt and that personal service is not invariably necessary. 68. The Plaintiffs further invoked Article 10 of the Constitution and the rule of law and relied on section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act, section 63(c) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as considered in Lapana Limited v County Government of Trans-Nzoia [2024] KEELC 45 (KLR), in support of their RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 17 of 35

page 17 of 35

contention that appropriate sanctions could issue for disobedience of Court orders. 69. They accordingly urged the Court to find that the stay granted on 18th January 2024 remained in force, that the Defendants and police officers had knowledge of it, and that the eviction and interference with their occupation on 28th October 2025 amounted to deliberate disobedience. They further urged that the execution was procedurally defective for want of a Notice to Show Cause. Defendants’ Submissions on the Notices of Motion 70. The Defendants filed written submissions dated 22nd May 2026 opposing the Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025. They identified two principal issues: whether the Court was functus officio in respect of the reliefs sought in prayers (b)–(g) of the Application dated 4 th November 2025, and whether the contempt reliefs sought under prayers (h) and (i) were merited. 71. On functus officio, the Defendants submitted that the suit had been conclusively determined by the judgment delivered on 21st September 2023. They maintained that the subsequent conditional stay did not reopen the merits of the dispute. They relied on Telkom Kenya Limited v John Ochanda [2014] eKLR and Mombasa Bricks & Tiles Ltd & 5 Others v Arvind Shah & 7 Others [2018] eKLR in support of the doctrine of functus officio and the principle that litigation must attain finality. 72. They consequently submitted that the injunctive and reinstatement orders sought amounted to an invitation to the Court to revisit or reverse the RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 18 of 35

page 18 of 35

judgment already delivered. They urged the Court to allow the successful litigants to enjoy the fruits of their judgment. 73. On contempt, the Defendants submitted that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal and may result in penal consequences. They therefore contended that the alleged contemnors and the acts constituting contempt must be specifically and precisely identified. 74. They further submitted that the Applicants had prematurely invoked the contempt jurisdiction without first seeking issuance of a Notice to Show Cause. They relied on Johari School Limited v Rosemary Wamburu t/a Johari School [2021] eKLR and Samuel M. N. Mweru & Others v National Land Commission & 2 Others [2020] eKLR. 75. The Defendants submitted that the essential requirements for contempt included the existence of a valid and unambiguous order binding upon the respondent, knowledge or proper notice of the order, proof of breach and proof that the breach was deliberate or willful. They maintained that the order of 18th January 2024 was conditional and that the Applicants had failed to demonstrate compliance, particularly with the requirement to provide comprehensive statements of account. 76. Reliance was placed on Timon Otieno Mboga v Kenya Forest Service [2016] eKLR regarding the effect of non-compliance with conditions attached to a conditional order of stay. 77. The Defendants consequently submitted that, after the Applicants’ failure to comply with the conditions, there was no subsisting order capable of being disobeyed and that the contempt prayers should therefore fail. Analysis And Determination RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 19 of 35

page 19 of 35

78. The Court has considered the Judgment delivered on 21st September 2023, the Ruling and order delivered on 18th January 2024, the Notice of Motion dated 4th November 2025, the Notice of Motion dated 27 th November 2025, the respective Replying and Further Affidavits, the Grounds of Opposition, the written submissions by the parties and the authorities relied upon. I have also considered the nature of the reliefs sought and the fact that all the present applications arise after the final determination of the suit. 79. The starting point is the Judgment of this Court delivered on 21 st September 2023. The Plaintiffs' suit was dismissed and judgment entered for the 7th Defendant on its Counterclaim. The Court issued a permanent injunction restraining the Plaintiffs, their agents or employees from trespassing upon, interfering with, claiming or dealing in any way with the 7 th Defendant's properties, namely L.R. Nos. 398/7 and 398/8, Naivasha. The Plaintiffs were further directed to vacate the suit properties within one hundred and twenty (120) days from the date of the Judgment, failing which the 7 th Defendant was at liberty to use lawful means to evict them. The OCS Naivasha Police Station was directed to ensure compliance with the Court orders. 80. Importantly, the Judgment did not merely determine the question of possession. It also directed the Plaintiffs to furnish a comprehensive account of the income derived from L.R. Nos. 398/7 and 398/8 during their occupation and to hand over the said income to the 7 th Defendant. General damages for trespass in the sum of Kshs.1,000,000/= were awarded, together with costs of the suit and interest. 81. The Plaintiffs subsequently moved the Court for stay of execution pending appeal. By the Ruling delivered on 18th January 2024, the Court granted a conditional stay of execution of the Judgment of 21st September 2023 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. The order was RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 20 of 35

page 20 of 35

expressly made subject to two conditions. First, the proceeds from L.R. Nos. 398/7 and 398/8 were to be deposited in a joint interest-earning account between the Plaintiffs and the 7th Defendant with effect from 1st February 2024. Secondly, the Plaintiffs were required to facilitate the process by availing comprehensive statements of accounts. The Court expressly ordered that in default of compliance with clauses (b) and (c), the stay would lapse. 82. The condition requiring the Plaintiffs to furnish comprehensive statements of accounts must be understood alongside the substantive Judgment. It was not a newly invented obligation divorced from the Judgment. The Judgment had already required the Plaintiffs to furnish a comprehensive account of income derived from the suit properties and to hand over the income to the 7 th Defendant. The subsequent stay order therefore imposed a mechanism intended to secure the proceeds and preserve the parties' respective interests pending appeal. 83. The present dispute must consequently be determined within that procedural history. The Court is not sitting on appeal from its Judgment of 21 st September 2023, nor is it being called upon to determine afresh the parties' proprietary or possessory rights. Those matters were determined by the Judgment. The question before the Court is whether, in the circumstances presented, the post-Judgment applications have met the legal threshold for the orders sought. Issues for determination 84. Having regard to the applications, the affidavits and the submissions, I consider that the broad question for determination falls under the following heads: RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 21 of 35

page 21 of 35

1. Whether the conditional stay granted on 18 th January 2024 remained subsisting as at 28th October 2025; 2. Whether the alleged eviction and interference with the Plaintiffs' occupation amounted to disobedience of a subsisting order and whether the threshold for contempt has been established; 3. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled, in the circumstances of this post-Judgment matter, to the orders of reinstatement, injunction, police intervention and summons sought in the two applications; and 4. What effect the order of the Taxing Master dated 10th July 2025 has on the foregoing, and whether the Chamber Summons dated 24th July 2025 is merited. Whether the conditional stay remained subsisting 85. The central controversy in these proceedings concerns the legal effect of the order made on 18th January 2024. There is no dispute that the Court granted a stay. The dispute is whether that stay continued indefinitely pending the appeal or whether it lapsed upon failure to satisfy the conditions imposed by the Court. 86. The wording of the order is unequivocal. The Court did not grant an unconditional stay. It granted a stay subject to clauses (b) and (c) and RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 22 of 35

page 22 of 35

expressly stipulated that in default of compliance with clauses (b) and (c), the order of stay shall lapse. 87. A conditional order must be obeyed according to its terms. A party who seeks the protection afforded by such an order cannot selectively comply with the conditions while treating the substantive benefit of the order as unconditional. 88. The Plaintiffs contend that they took steps to comply by forwarding bank account-opening forms to the advocates for the 7th Defendant on 18th and 29th January 2024. They maintain that the 7th Defendant failed or refused to execute the forms and thereby frustrated compliance. They further allege that their accounting records were subsequently destroyed or removed during the alleged eviction, thereby making compliance with the requirement to furnish comprehensive accounts impossible. 89. I have considered those assertions. The difficulty confronting the Plaintiffs is that the order imposed upon them the obligation to facilitate the process by availing comprehensive statements of accounts. The Judgment itself had similarly required the Plaintiffs to furnish a comprehensive account of income derived from the suit properties during their occupation and to hand over the income to the 7th Defendant. 90. The evidence of forwarding account-opening forms does not, in itself, establish compliance with the separate and express requirement to avail comprehensive statements of accounts. Neither does the pendency of the appeal suspend the condition. The appeal merely explains why the stay was sought; it does not transform a conditional stay into an unconditional one. 91. The Plaintiffs' argument that the 7th Defendant frustrated the opening of the joint account must also be considered against the fact that the order imposed two conditions and expressly made the consequence of default applicable to RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 23 of 35

page 23 of 35

both. The failure to establish compliance with the conditions cannot be cured merely by demonstrating that some preliminary steps were taken. 92. The Court is also not persuaded that the order of 10 th July 2025 made by the Taxing Master revived the conditional stay. The order of 18th January 2024 emanated from a Judge. The Taxing Master was dealing with taxation of the 7th Defendant's Bill of Costs. His jurisdiction was principally concerned with taxation under the Advocates Remuneration Order. He did not possess jurisdiction to vary, extend, revive or discharge a stay of execution granted by a Judge. 93. Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order provides the prescribed procedure by which a party aggrieved by a decision of a taxing officer may object to the decision and, thereafter, move a Judge by Chamber Summons. The Chamber Summons dated 24th July 2025 was therefore properly directed to the order of the Taxing Master. 94. The distinction between taxation and execution is material. Taxation is the process through which costs awarded by the Court are quantified. Execution is the process by which the decree is enforced. The taxing officer could determine matters properly arising within taxation, but could not enlarge his jurisdiction to determine the subsistence of a conditional stay of execution granted by a Judge. 95. The Plaintiffs' reliance on the order of 10 th July 2025 to establish that the stay remained in force is therefore misplaced. A stay of taxation, even where properly made within the taxation proceedings, does not automatically revive a separate stay of execution which had already lapsed by operation of an express order of the Court. 96. I therefore find that the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated compliance with the conditions imposed on 18th January 2024. In particular, there is no RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 24 of 35

page 24 of 35

satisfactory evidence establishing that the comprehensive statements of accounts required by the order were furnished. The consequence expressly stipulated by the Court was that the stay would lapse. 97. The Court accordingly finds that the conditional stay of execution granted on 18th January 2024 had lapsed before the events complained of on 28 th October 2025. The pendency of the appeal did not, without a subsisting stay, prevent the successful litigant from pursuing lawful execution of the Judgment. Whether the alleged eviction amounted to contempt of Court 98. The Plaintiffs' principal complaint is that the Defendants, their advocates and police officers disobeyed the stay order by entering the premises, removing the Plaintiffs and their belongings, and interfering with their businesses and occupation. 99. Contempt jurisdiction is exercised to uphold the authority and dignity of the Court. It is therefore not enough for an applicant merely to demonstrate that an order existed at some point in time. The applicant must establish the existence of a clear and binding order, knowledge or notice of the order, breach of its terms, and deliberate or wilful disobedience where culpability is alleged. 100. The Plaintiffs relied on Wekesa & 2 Others v Munialo [2025] KECA 679 (KLR), Johari School Limited v Rosemary Wamburu t/a Johari School [2021] eKLR, and Samuel M. N. Mweru & Others v National Land Commission & 2 Others [2020] eKLR in support of the principles governing contempt. The Defendants likewise relied on the same general RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 25 of 35

page 25 of 35

principles, emphasising the quasi-criminal character of contempt proceedings and the need for proof of a specific breach. 101. Those principles are not in dispute. Their application to the present matter, however, is decisive. The order alleged to have been disobeyed was the conditional stay of 18th January 2024. By the time of the alleged eviction on 28th October 2025, that stay had lapsed by reason of the Plaintiffs' failure to establish compliance with the conditions expressly attached to it. There was therefore no subsisting stay order capable of being disobeyed in the manner alleged. A party cannot be held in contempt for disobeying an order which had ceased to operate by its own terms. 102. The Plaintiffs' case effectively asks the Court to treat the stay as subsisting notwithstanding the express default clause. That would amount to rewriting the order of 18th January 2024. The Court cannot do so under the guise of contempt proceedings. 103. The Plaintiffs also sought to cite the advocates on record for contempt. The allegations against the advocates are, in any event, insufficiently particularised. Contempt proceedings carry penal consequences and cannot properly rest upon a general allegation against “the Defendants and their Advocates” without identifying the particular advocate, the precise act constituting the contempt, the date of the act and the specific term of the order breached. 104. The submission that an advocate is an officer of the Court does not mean that an advocate is immune from contempt. Equally, professional representation of a client and the advancement of a legal position honestly believed to be correct cannot, without more, constitute contempt. The Court must be satisfied of the advocate's personal participation in conduct RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 26 of 35

page 26 of 35

amounting to deliberate disobedience of a subsisting order. That threshold has not been met. 105. The same reasoning applies to the police and public officers referred to in the Notice of Motion dated 27th November 2025. The Plaintiffs allege that the officers participated in or facilitated the eviction notwithstanding notification of the stay. However, knowledge of an order cannot substitute for the existence of a subsisting order. Once the stay had lapsed, the officers could not be said to have disobeyed that stay merely by acting pursuant to information or directions concerning enforcement of the decree. 106. The Plaintiffs' reliance on Article 10 of the Constitution and the rule of law does not alter that conclusion. Public officers are bound by the law, but the Court must first establish what order was legally operative at the material time. 107. I therefore find that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish contempt against the Defendants, their advocates or the public officers identified in the Notice of Motion dated 27th November 2025. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to reinstatement and injunctions 108. The prayers for absolute access, uninterrupted occupation, temporary and prohibitory injunctions, reinstatement and police assistance must be considered in the context in which they have been made. This is not an interlocutory application brought before determination of the substantive dispute. It is a post-Judgment application. 109. The substantive dispute was determined on 21st September 2023. The Court found against the Plaintiffs and entered judgment on the 7 th Defendant's Counterclaim. The Plaintiffs were ordered to vacate the suit properties RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 27 of 35

page 27 of 35

within 120 days, failing which the 7 th Defendant was authorised to use lawful means to evict them. 110. The principle in Telkom Kenya Limited v John Ochanda [2014] eKLR, relied upon by the Defendants, and in Mombasa Bricks & Tiles Ltd & 5 Others v Arvind Shah & 7 Others [2018] eKLR, is that the doctrine of functus officio prevents a court from reopening and re-determining matters which it has finally adjudicated, subject to the limited jurisdiction available in respect of matters such as implementation, review or correction where the law permits. 111. The Plaintiffs' present prayers for uninterrupted occupation cannot properly be understood as mere implementation of the Judgment. They seek, in substance, to reverse the effect of the Judgment by restoring a possession which the Judgment expressly ordered them to surrender. 112. The permanent injunction issued in favour of the 7th Defendant expressly restrained the Plaintiffs from trespassing upon, interfering with, claiming or dealing with the suit properties. The Court cannot, in a subsequent application, issue an injunction whose practical effect would negate that order. 113. The pending appeal does not alter this position. A pending appeal does not itself stay execution. The stay granted by this Court was conditional and, as already found, lapsed upon non-compliance. The Plaintiffs therefore cannot derive an indefinite right of occupation merely from the existence of the appeal. 114. The Court is equally unable to grant the prayer for reinstatement as framed. Reinstatement would amount to restoring possession contrary to the final Judgment unless and until the Judgment is overturned or its execution is otherwise lawfully stayed by a competent court. RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 28 of 35

page 28 of 35

115. The Plaintiffs relied on Martin Nyaga Wambora & 4 Others v Speaker of the Senate & 6 Others [2014] KEHC 5604 (KLR) and Beijing Industrial Designing & Researching Institute v Lagoon Development Limited [2015] KECA 365 (KLR) on the principle that a party should not benefit from its own wrongdoing or deliberate breach of a Court order. Those principles are sound. They do not, however, assist the Plaintiffs where the Court has found no subsisting order that was breached and where the Plaintiffs themselves did not establish compliance with the conditions upon which the stay depended. 116. Likewise, the equitable nature of injunctive relief cannot be invoked to defeat a final Judgment. The Plaintiffs' entitlement to occupation had already been determined adversely to them. The present applications cannot be used to create a new substantive right inconsistent with that Judgment. Whether the alleged execution was procedurally lawful 117. There remains the Plaintiffs' contention that, even if the stay had lapsed, the alleged eviction on 28th October 2025 was unlawful because the decree was more than one year old and no Notice to Show Cause had been issued. Order 22 Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that where an application for execution is made more than one year after the date of the decree, the Court executing the decree shall issue a notice to the person against whom execution is sought requiring that person to show cause why the decree should not be executed. 118. In the courts view, the purpose of that requirement is to afford the judgmentdebtor an opportunity to be heard before execution proceeds in the circumstances specified by the Rule. The fact that the Judgment authorised RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 29 of 35

page 29 of 35

the 7th Defendant to use lawful means of eviction did not dispense with the procedural requirements governing execution. 119. The Court therefore accepts the general proposition advanced by the Plaintiffs that the right to execute a decree must be exercised within the statutory and procedural framework governing execution. The words “lawful means” in the Judgment cannot be interpreted as authorising self-help outside that framework. 120. However, the question before this Court in the present applications is whether the alleged failure to comply with Order 22 Rule 18 establishes contempt of the stay order or entitles the Plaintiffs to the broad postJudgment reliefs sought. In the Court’s view, it does not. The absence of a Notice to Show Cause, if established in the execution process, would raise a question concerning the procedural validity of that particular mode of execution. It would not revive the lapsed stay, nor would it confer upon the Plaintiffs a substantive right to remain on the property contrary to the final Judgment. 121. The appropriate distinction is therefore between the validity of the stay and the regularity of the execution process. The first issue is answered against the Plaintiffs. The second, even if raised, cannot transform a lapsed stay into a subsisting order capable of grounding contempt. 122. Further, the Plaintiffs' allegation that the Defendants personally undertook an unlawful eviction, demolished structures or removed property is a factual allegation requiring proof against identified persons and within the proper procedural framework. The contempt jurisdiction cannot be converted into a general inquiry into every disputed factual aspect of the execution process, particularly where the foundational order relied upon for contempt had already lapsed. RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 30 of 35

page 30 of 35

The Notice of Motion dated 27th November 2025 123. The Notice of Motion dated 27th November 2025 principally seeks summons against the Deputy County Commander, Naivasha Sub-County, the Director of Criminal Investigations Officer, the Officer Commanding Police Division, Naivasha and the Officer Commanding Station, Naivasha, to explain their alleged involvement in the eviction, or alternatively that they be cited for contempt. 124. The application is substantially dependent upon the same premise as the Notice of Motion dated 4th November 2025: that the stay of execution remained subsisting and that the eviction amounted to disobedience thereof. 125. That premise has not been established. The application consequently suffers from the same fundamental difficulty. The Court cannot summon public officers for purposes of explaining an alleged contempt founded upon an order which, by the time of the alleged acts, had lapsed. 126. The Court also takes into account the Defendants' objection that the issues raised in the second application substantially overlap with those in the earlier application. The concern regarding multiplicity is justified. The Plaintiffs had already placed before the Court the alleged eviction, the alleged participation of security officers and the alleged contempt. The second application sought substantially similar consequential relief through a separate process. 127. Judicial proceedings must be conducted in an orderly and proportionate manner. A party cannot fragment one dispute into successive applications and thereby invite the Court to determine substantially identical issues repeatedly. This is particularly so in a post-Judgment matter where the RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 31 of 35

page 31 of 35

Court's jurisdiction is directed towards implementation of the decree and determination of legally permissible post-Judgment applications. 128. The Notice of Motion dated 27th November 2025 therefore fails for both substantive and procedural reasons. It is not necessary to summon the named officers where the foundational issue upon which their alleged liability rests has already been determined against the Applicants. The Plaintiffs' challenge to the 7th Defendant's Replying Affidavit 129. The Plaintiffs also challenged the authority of Gitonga Mwangi Muriithi to swear the Replying Affidavit on behalf of the 7 th Defendant and questioned the authority of Guandaru Thuita & Co. Advocates to act for the company. 130. The court has considered the objection. The Plaintiffs sought, in substance, to have the Replying Affidavit struck out on account of alleged absence of a board resolution and alleged incapacity of the deponent. Reliance was placed on Njuguna Builders Plumbing and Drainage Contractors Limited & Another v Gitau & Another [2026] KEHC 2611 (KLR). 131. The Court does not consider it necessary to determine the objection in a manner that would dispose of the substantive applications. The essential facts relevant to the determination of the stay are established by the Court's own Judgment and order and by the procedural history of the matter. The Court has independently examined the terms of the order of 18th January 2024 and the evidence concerning compliance. The court finds that the objection does not alter the outcome of the applications Allegations of fraud, forgery and other proceedings RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 32 of 35

page 32 of 35

132. The court finds that the allegations made by the applicants do not fall for determination in the present post-Judgment applications unless they have a direct and legally established bearing upon the specific relief sought. The Judgment of 21st September 2023 remains the Judgment of this Court unless set aside, reviewed or overturned on appeal. The Plaintiffs cannot, through contempt and interlocutory post-Judgment applications, reopen the factual and legal findings upon which that Judgment was based. Final determination 133. Having considered the Judgment of 21st September 2023, the conditional stay granted on 18th January 2024, the terms of the decree, the evidence presented by all parties and the applicable law, the court finds that the Plaintiffs have not established that the conditional stay remained in force as at 28th October 2025. 134. The order of 18th January 2024 expressly made the continuation of the stay dependent upon compliance with clauses (b) and (c), namely the deposit of proceeds into the joint interest-earning account and the Plaintiffs' facilitation of the process by availing comprehensive statements of accounts. It further expressly provided that the stay would lapse in default. 135. The Plaintiffs have not demonstrated compliance with those conditions. The forwarding of account-opening forms, without proof of fulfilment of the requirement concerning comprehensive statements of accounts, was insufficient. Nor could the order of the Taxing Master dated 10 th July 2025 revive or extend the lapsed stay. The Court finds that the conditional stay of execution granted on 18th January 2024 lapsed upon non-compliance with the conditions imposed therein. RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 33 of 35

page 33 of 35

136. It follows that the foundation upon which the Plaintiffs' contempt applications rest fails. There was no subsisting stay of execution capable of being disobeyed on 28th October 2025. The Court therefore finds no basis upon which the Defendants, their advocates or the identified police officers can be cited for contempt on the allegations advanced. 137. The prayers seeking restoration of possession, uninterrupted occupation and injunctive protection are equally unavailable. They would effectively contradict the final Judgment of 21st September 2023, which directed the Plaintiffs to vacate the suit properties and permanently restrained them from trespassing upon or interfering with the 7th Defendant's properties. 138. The Court is functus officio in relation to the merits of the substantive dispute, subject only to the jurisdiction conferred by law in relation to implementation, execution, review and other permissible post-Judgment matters. The present applications do not disclose a lawful basis for reopening the substantive determination. 139. The Court further finds that the Notice of Motion dated 27 th November 2025 substantially duplicates the issues raised in the Notice of Motion dated 4 th November 2025 and, in any event, rests upon the same unsuccessful contention that a subsisting stay was breached. The prayers for summons against the police and public officers are therefore not merited. 140. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not established contempt of Court against the 1st , 2nd , 3rd , 4th , 5th or 7th Defendants, their advocates on record, or the public officers referred to in the Notice of Motion dated 27th November 2025. 141. The prayers for reinstatement, access, occupation, injunctions, police assistance, summons and committal for contempt sought in the Notices of Motion dated 4th November 2025 and 27th November 2025 are declined. RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 34 of 35

page 34 of 35

Final Orders 142. Accordingly, the Court makes the following orders: a. The Notice of Motion dated 4th November 2025 is hereby dismissed. b. The Notice of Motion dated 27th November 2025 is hereby dismissed. c. The Plaintiffs shall bear the costs of the two applications. Delivered, dated and signed via Microsoft Teams this 24th day of September 2026. HON. L. G. KIMANI JUDGE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT The Ruling read in the presence ofMuthoni for Plaintiffs/Applicants Thuita for 1st, 2nd, & 7th Defendants Namukuru Holding brief for Khaemba for 3rd and 5th Defendant Bande holding brief for Akedi for 4th Defendant Wawire for 6th Defendant RULING ON Notices of Motion dated 4th and 27th November 2025 ELC 901 OF 2014 35 of 35

page 35 of 35