Maua Land Limited v Meali Ali Muta & 5 others; Mwachidudu Mwaphengo (Proposed Intended Interested Party)

RULING I. Introduction 1. This Honourable Court was called upon to determine the Notice of Motion application dated 10th March, 2026 by MWACHIDUDU MWAPHENGO, the Proposed Interested Party/Applicant herein. The Application was brought under the provisions of Articles 22, 40, 50 & 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 and all other enabling provisions of the law. 2. Upon service of the Application, the Respondents filed their responses in opposition. II. 3. The Proposed Interested Party’s case The Applicant sought the following orders: a) MWACHIDUDU MWAPHENGO be enjoined in this suit as an Interested Party. b) That upon joinder he be granted leave to file appropriate pleadings and responses within such time as the Court shall direct. c) Costs be in the cause. 4. The application by the Proposed Interested Party herein was premised on the grounds, testimonial facts, and averments contained in RULING: ELC CASE NO. E020 OF 2023 the 9 Paragraphed Page 2 of 24 Supporting Affidavit HON. JUSTICE LL NAIKUINI (ELC JUDGE) of

page 2 of 24

MWACHIDUDU MWAPHENGO, the Proposed Interested Party sworn and dated contemporaneously with the Notice of Motion application. The Applicant averred, inter alia, that: a. The land which was the subject of this suit (Hereinafter referred to as "the suit property") originally belonged to his late grandfather, the said MWAMAFUNGI MAFUNGI. b. His grandfather had occupied, possessed, utilized, and exercised proprietary rights over the suit property for a long period until the same was unlawfully taken and/or irregularly transferred. c. He verily believed the suit property had been fraudulently and/or illegally alienated and transferred first to MAUA LAND LIMITED and subsequently to MEALI ALI MUTA, MOHAMED ALI MUTA, and HAMISI BEMBUZI K. JELE without the knowledge, participation, or consent of his family. d. As a direct descendant and beneficiary of the estate of the late MWAMAFUNGI MAFUNGI, he had a beneficial, legal, and/or overriding interest in the suit property. RULING: ELC CASE NO. E020 OF 2023 Page 3 of 24 HON. JUSTICE LL NAIKUINI (ELC JUDGE)

page 3 of 24

e. He stood to suffer grave and irreparable loss and prejudice should the matter have proceeded to hearing and determination in his absence. f. His joinder in those proceedings as an Interested Party was necessary to enable the Honourable Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions regarding the ownership, occupation, and legality of the acquisition of the suit property. g. In demonstration of the seriousness of his claim and the existence of triable issues, he had prepared and annexed a Draft Defence and Counter - claim raising substantial matters touching on the legality of the title and asserting the estate’s claim over the suit property, which Defence and Counterclaim he intended to rely upon should the Honourable Court have allowed his joinder as an Interested Party. Annexed therewith and marked as “MM–1” was a true copy of the drafted Defence and Counterclaim. III. Submissions RULING: ELC CASE NO. E020 OF 2023 Page 4 of 24 HON. JUSTICE LL NAIKUINI (ELC JUDGE)

page 4 of 24

5. While all the parties were present in Court, the Court directed that the Notice of Motion application dated 10 th March, 2026 be canvassed by way of written submission. 6. Pursuant to that all the parties obliged and a ruling date was reserved on 7th July, 2026 by Court accordingly. IV. 7. Analysis and Determination I have carefully considered the Notice of Motion application dated 10th March, 2026, and the written submissions filed by both parties. Having reviewed the pleadings, affidavits, and authorities cited, the Court is of the view that the following issues arise for determination: a) Whether the Applicant has demonstrated a direct and identifiable legal interest in the suit property; b) Whether his joinder is necessary for complete adjudication of the dispute. c) Whether joinder would occasion prejudice or delay to the existing parties. d) Who should bear the costs of the present application. ISSUE No. a). Whether the Applicant has demonstrated a direct and identifiable legal interest in the suit property. 8. Under this sub-title, the Honourable Court shall examine whether the Applicant has demonstrated a direct and identifiable legal interest in the suit property, pursuant to Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil RULING: ELC CASE NO. E020 OF 2023 Page 5 of 24 HON. JUSTICE LL NAIKUINI (ELC JUDGE)

page 5 of 24

Procedure Rules. On the issue of joinder, The Black’s Law Dictionary defines “interested party” as;“A party who has a recognizable stake (and therefore standing) in a matter.” 9. The stating point on the joinder is Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, which states as follows:“The court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order …that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, be added.”[Emphasis mine] 10. This provision empowers the Court, at any stage of the proceedings, to order that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary to enable the Court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, be added. The discretion is wide but must be exercised judiciously. 11. This statutory discretion is reinforced by the provision of Article 159(2) (b) and (d) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, which obliges courts to ensure justice is not delayed and to administer justice without undue RULING: ELC CASE NO. E020 OF 2023 Page 6 of 24 HON. JUSTICE LL NAIKUINI (ELC JUDGE)

page 6 of 24

regard to procedural technicalities. The Constitution thus elevates substantive justice above rigid adherence to form, ensuring that courts are not constrained by technical omissions when the real issues in controversy demand full participation of all necessary parties. 12. In the case of “Kingori – Versus - Chege & 3 Others [2002] 2 KLR 243” the court provided the following guiding principles for joinder of a party to a suit: a. He must be a necessary party. b. He must be a proper party. c. In the case of the Defendant there must be a relief flowing from that defendant to the Plaintiff. d. The ultimate order or decree cannot be enforced without his presence in the matter. e. His presence is necessary to enable the Court effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. 13. Similarly, in the case of “Meme – Versus - Republic, [2004] 1 EA 124” , the High Court observed that a party could be enjoined in a matter for the reasons that: i. Joinder of a person because his presence will result in the complete settlement of all the question involved in the proceedings; ii. Joinder to provide protection for the rights of a party who would otherwise be adversely affected in law; iii. Joinder to prevent a likely course of proliferated litigation. RULING: ELC CASE NO. E020 OF 2023 Page 7 of 24 HON. JUSTICE LL NAIKUINI (ELC JUDGE)

page 7 of 24

14. In the case of:- “Departed Asians Property Custodian Board – Versus - Jaffer Brothers Limited [1999] 1 EA 55”, the Court held that: “A clear distinction is called for between joining a party who ought to have been joined as a defendant and one whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. A party may be joined in a suit, not because there is a cause of action against it, but because that party’s presence is necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the cause or matter…For a person to be joined on the ground that his presence in the suit is necessary for effectual and complete settlement of all questions in the suit one of two things has to be shown. Either it has to be shown that the orders, which the plaintiff seeks in the suit, would legally affect the interests of that person, and that it is desirable, for the avoidance of multiplicity of suits, to have such a person joined so that he is bound by the decision of the Court in that suit. Alternatively, a person qualifies, (on an application of a Defendant) to be joined as a co-defendant, where it is shown that the defendant cannot effectually set a defence in the case of:desires to set up unless that person is joined in it, or unless the order to be made is to bind that person.” RULING: ELC CASE NO. E020 OF 2023 Page 8 of 24 HON. JUSTICE LL NAIKUINI (ELC JUDGE)

page 8 of 24

15. In the case of:- “Civicon Limited – Versus - Kivuwatt Limited and 2 Others [2015] eKLR” the court observed as follows: “Again the power given under the Rules is discretionary which discretion must be exercised judicially. The objective of these Rules is to bring on record all the persons who are parties to the dispute relating to the subject matter, so that the dispute may be determined in their presence at the time without any protraction, or inconvenience and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Thus, any party reasonably affected by the pending litigation is a necessary and proper party, and should be enjoined…from the foregoing, it may be concluded that being a discretionary order, the court may allow the joinder of a party as a Defendant in a suit based on the general principles set out in Order I rule 10 (2) bearing in mind the unique circumstances of each case with regard to the necessity of the party in the determination of the subject matter of the suit, any direct prejudice likely to be suffered by the party and the practicability of the execution of the order sought in the suit, in the event that the plaintiff should succeed. We may add that all that a party needs to do is to demonstrate sufficient interest in the suit, and the interest need not be the kind that must succeed at the end of the trial.” 16. The principle was echoed in the case of:- “Mukira & 2 Others – Versus - County Government of Nyeri [2026] KEELC 2997 (KLR)” , where the Environment and Land Court reiterated that joinder is justified where the party’s participation is essential to resolve the real issues in controversy and to avoid multiplicity of suits. RULING: ELC CASE NO. E020 OF 2023 Page 9 of 24 HON. JUSTICE LL NAIKUINI (ELC JUDGE)

page 9 of 24

Similarly, in the case of:- “Lalji Shivji Kerai – Versus - Municipal Council of Eldoret [2014] KEELC 488 (KLR)” , the Court held that joinder should be allowed if it enables the Court to resolve the dispute comprehensively and avoid piecemeal litigation. 17. In the case of:- “Zephir Holdings Ltd – Versus - Mimosa Plantations Ltd, Jeremiah Maztagaro and Ezekiel Misango Mutisya (2014) eKLR” , the Court stated that: “A proper party is one who is impleaded in the suit and qualifies the threshold of a Plaintiff or Defendant under Order 1 rule 1 and 2 respectively, or as a third party or as an Interested Party and whose presence is necessary or relevant for the determination of the real matter in dispute or to enable the court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit.” 18. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of:- “Communications Commission of Kenya & 4 Others – Versus - Royal Media Services Ltd. & 7 others (2014) eKLR” stated: “An Interested Party is one who has a stake in the proceedings, though he or she was not a party to the cause ab initio. He or she is the one who will be affected by the decision of the Court when it is made either way. Such a person feels that his or her interests will not be well articulated unless he himself or she herself appears in the proceedings, and champions his or her cause. A party could be enjoined in a matter for the reason that; RULING: ELC CASE NO. E020 OF 2023 Page 10 of 24 HON. JUSTICE LL NAIKUINI (ELC JUDGE)

page 10 of 24

i. Joinder of a person because his presence will result in the complete settlement of all the questions involved in the proceedings; ii. Joinder to provide protection of the rights of a party who would otherwise the adversely affected in law; iii. Joinder to prevent a likely course of proliferated litigation. 19. On the threshold to be reached by a party seeking joinder, the holding by Muriithi J. in the case of:- “Benjamin K Kipkulei – Versus County Government of Mombasa & Another [2015] eKLR” is useful:“….The test for joinder of a party as an interested party is not that the applicant must show a stake or interest that must prevail in the suit, as that is not possible before the full hearing of the matter; the applicant should demonstrate a legal interest that calls for hearing before a decision on the dispute before the court is adjudicated. In common judicial parlance, I would say that the applicant ought to show on ‘an arguable case’ basis that he has an interest recognized in the law and capable of protection….” 20. Whereas a joinder can be done at any stage. In the present matter, the Applicant, Mwachidudu Mwaphengo, has approached this Court seeking joinder as an Interested Party. He avers that the suit property originally belonged to his grandfather, the late Mwamafungi Mafungi, and that it was unlawfully or fraudulently transferred to the Plaintiff and subsequently to the Defendants. He further depones that, as a direct descendant and beneficiary of the RULING: ELC CASE NO. E020 OF 2023 Page 11 of 24 HON. JUSTICE LL NAIKUINI (ELC JUDGE)

page 11 of 24

estate of the late proprietor, he has a beneficial and overriding interest in the property. To underscore the seriousness of his claim, he annexed a Draft Defence and Counter - Claim asserting the estate’s claim over the land. 21. The Court is further guided by the reasoning in the case of:“Ngatiri – Versus - Sunshine Construction Company Limited & Another [2026] KEELC 3006 (KLR)”, where joinder was allowed to ensure that all parties with a direct interest in the land adjudication process were present before the Court, thereby avoiding fragmented litigation and ensuring that the decree issued was binding and enforceable against all relevant parties. 22. The Applicant has sworn that: “The land which is the subject of this suit originally belonged to my late grandfather, the said Mwamafungi Mafungi… I verily believe that the suit property was fraudulently and/or illegally alienated and transferred first to Maua Land Limited and subsequently to Meali Ali Muta, Mohamed Ali Muta, and Hamisi Bembuzi K. Jele without the knowledge, participation, or consent of our family.” 23. This deposition establishes a direct and identifiable legal interest in the suit property. As a grandson and beneficiary of the estate, his claim is not remote or speculative but grounded in succession and proprietary rights. The Draft Defence and Counterclaim annexed RULING: ELC CASE NO. E020 OF 2023 Page 12 of 24 HON. JUSTICE LL NAIKUINI (ELC JUDGE)

page 12 of 24

raises triable issues touching on the legality of title and beneficial ownership. His exclusion from the proceedings would occasion grave injustice, contrary to the provision of Articles 25 ( c ), 47 and 50 (1) & ( 2 ) on fair hearing and Article 159(2)(d) which obliges courts to prioritize substantive justice. 24. The Court notes that the Applicant’s interest is distinguishable from a mere curiosity or general concern; it is rooted in inheritance rights and the alleged unlawful deprivation of family land. His joinder is therefore necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions relating to ownership, occupation, and legality of acquisition of the suit property. 25. The Honourable Court therefore finds that the Applicant has sufficiently demonstrated a direct and identifiable legal interest in the suit property. His joinder is not only rightful, proper but also indispensable for the fair and just determination of the dispute. RULING: ELC CASE NO. E020 OF 2023 Page 13 of 24 HON. JUSTICE LL NAIKUINI (ELC JUDGE)

page 13 of 24

ISSUE No. b). Whether his joinder is necessary for complete adjudication of the dispute. 26. Under this sub-title, the Honourable Court shall examine whether the Applicant’s joinder is necessary for complete adjudication of the dispute. 27. The Applicant seeks to be enjoined as an Interested Party on the basis that the suit property originally belonged to his grandfather, the late Mwamafungi Mafungi, and that its subsequent alienation and transfer to the Plaintiff and Defendants was fraudulent and irregular. He contends that, as a direct descendant and beneficiary of the estate, he has a beneficial and overriding interest in the property. He has annexed a Draft Defence and Counterclaim raising substantial issues of ownership and legality of title. The question before this Court is whether his participation is indispensable to the just, complete, and effectual determination of the dispute. 28. The provision of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 provides that:“The court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any person RULING: ELC CASE NO. E020 OF 2023 Page 14 of 24 HON. JUSTICE LL NAIKUINI (ELC JUDGE)

page 14 of 24

who ought to have been joined, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, be added.” 29. Further, the provision of Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 preserves the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to make orders necessary for the ends of justice, ensuring that substantive justice prevails over technicalities. While the provision of Article 159 (2)(d) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 obliges courts to administer justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities, thereby ensuring that all relevant parties are heard and that disputes are resolved comprehensively. 30. The Applicant averred that the suit property was fraudulently and/or illegally alienated and transferred first to Maua Land Limited and subsequently to Meali Ali Muta, Mohamed Ali Muta, and Hamisi Bembuzi K. Jele without the knowledge, participation, or consent of our family. 31. This deposition demonstrates that the Applicant’s claim is not peripheral but central to the dispute. His Draft Defence and Counter - Claim raises triable issues touching on the legality of title and beneficial ownership. Without his participation, the Court risks RULING: ELC CASE NO. E020 OF 2023 Page 15 of 24 HON. JUSTICE LL NAIKUINI (ELC JUDGE)

page 15 of 24

rendering a determination that excludes a party with a direct stake, thereby occasioning injustice and potentially leading to parallel litigation in succession or land courts. 32. The Court further notes that the Applicant’s joinder will assist in effectually and completely adjudicating upon and settling all questions relating to ownership of the suit property, consistent with the principles in Order 1 Rule 10 (2) and the jurisprudence cited. His presence will ensure that the Court has before it all persons whose rights may be directly affected by the outcome, thereby safeguarding against conflicting judgments and ensuring judicial economy. 33. The Honourable Court finds that the Applicant’s joinder is necessary for complete adjudication of the dispute. His presence will ensure that all questions of ownership, occupation, and legality of acquisition are comprehensively addressed, thereby safeguarding substantive justice and minimizing the risk of conflicting judgments. Accordingly, the application for joinder is allowed. ISSUE No. c). Whether joinder would occasion prejudice or delay to the existing parties. RULING: ELC CASE NO. E020 OF 2023 Page 16 of 24 HON. JUSTICE LL NAIKUINI (ELC JUDGE)

page 16 of 24

34. Under this sub-title, the Honourable Court shall examine whether the proposed joinder would occasion prejudice or undue delay to the existing parties. The Plaintiff and Defendants have already advanced their pleadings, and the matter has proceeded to substantive hearing stages. The Applicant now seeks joinder as an Interested Party, raising questions of ownership and legality of title. The Court must therefore balance the necessity of joinder against the risk of prejudice or delay to the parties who have already invested time and resources in prosecuting the matter. 35. The provision of Article 159(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 requires justice to be administered without delay whereas the provision of Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 and Section 3 of the Environment & Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2011 impose a duty on the Court to facilitate the just, expeditious, proportionate, and affordable resolution of disputes. 36. In the case of:- “Maina – Versus - Nairobi City County Government; Muthaiga North Residents’ Association (Proposed Interested Party) [2023] KEELC 17895 (KLR)”, the Court reiterated that joinder must be assessed against the prejudice it may cause to parties who have already advanced their case. RULING: ELC CASE NO. E020 OF 2023 Page 17 of 24 HON. JUSTICE LL NAIKUINI (ELC JUDGE)

page 17 of 24

37. The Plaintiff has already prepared its case, and reopening proceedings would inevitably cause delay. Witnesses may need to be recalled, pleadings amended, and timelines extended. This could prejudice parties who have been in litigation since 2023, undermining the constitutional imperative of expeditious justice. However, the Applicant’s claim is not peripheral. He has annexed a Draft Defence and Counterclaim raising substantial issues of ownership and legality of title. Excluding him risks incomplete adjudication and potentially conflicting judgments in related litigation. The Court must therefore weigh the prejudice of delay against the risk of injustice from excluding a party with a direct stake. 38. The Honourable Court finds that while joinder may occasion some delay, the Applicant’s presence is necessary to ensure that all questions in controversy are fully adjudicated. The prejudice to the Plaintiff and management Defendants can be directions, including mitigated strict through timelines for pleadings and limiting the scope of additional evidence. RULING: ELC CASE NO. E020 OF 2023 Page 18 of 24 HON. JUSTICE LL NAIKUINI (ELC JUDGE) case filing

page 18 of 24

39. Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion to allow joinder, with safeguards to prevent undue delay and prejudice to the existing parties. ISSUE No. d). Who should bear the costs of the present application. 40. Under this sub–title, the main issue herein is who should bear the costs of the present application. The issue of costs is at the discretion of the Court. Costs mean the award that a party is granted at the conclusion of a legal action and proceedings in any litigation. The provision of Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 establishes the general principle that costs follow the event unless the Court, for good reason, orders otherwise. By the event it means the result or outcome of a legal action. The provision of Section 27 (2) further provides:“The court or judge may give interest on costs at any rate not exceeding fourteen per cent per annum, and such interest shall be added to the costs and shall be recoverable as such.” 41. This provision empowers the Court not only to award costs but also to grant interest on those costs, subject to a ceiling of 14% per annum. It is a recognition that costs are not merely compensatory but also restorative, ensuring that a successful litigant is not RULING: ELC CASE NO. E020 OF 2023 Page 19 of 24 HON. JUSTICE LL NAIKUINI (ELC JUDGE)

page 19 of 24

disadvantaged by the time taken to recover expenses incurred in litigation. 42. In the case of:- “Jasbir Singh Rai & 3 others – Versus - Tarlochan Singh Rai & 4 others [Supra]” , where the Supreme Court emphasized that costs are a natural consequence of litigation and should ordinarily be borne by the party whose conduct necessitated judicial intervention. 43. The Applicant has demonstrated a direct and identifiable legal interest in the suit property and has shown that his joinder is necessary for complete adjudication of the dispute. His application is therefore meritorious. However, the Court notes that the joinder application is not adversarial in nature; it is intended to ensure that all necessary parties are before the Court for comprehensive determination of ownership and legality of title. 44. The Plaintiff and Defendants may experience some delay due to the joinder, but this is outweighed by the need for substantive justice. Since the application was not frivolous and was necessary to safeguard the Applicant’s rights, it would be unjust to burden either side with costs at this stage. RULING: ELC CASE NO. E020 OF 2023 Page 20 of 24 HON. JUSTICE LL NAIKUINI (ELC JUDGE)

page 20 of 24

45. The Honourable Court finds that the appropriate order on costs is that costs of the present application shall be in the cause. This ensures that the issue of costs will abide the final outcome of the suit, thereby balancing fairness to all parties. V. Conclusion and Disposition 46. In long analysis, this Honourable Court has carefully considered and weighed the interests of the parties, the affidavits and annexures filed, the submissions of Counsel, the applicable statutory framework, and the judicial authorities cited. In a nutshell, I proceed to order the following: – a) THAT the Court finds merit in the Notice of Motion application dated 10th March, 2026 by Applicant. Thus, leave be and is hereby granted to enjoin Mwachidudu Mwaphengo as an Interested Party in these proceedings. b) THAT upon leave being granted, the Plaintiff shall amend its plaint within 14 days to reflect the joinder of the Applicant and serve the amended pleadings on all parties. RULING: ELC CASE NO. E020 OF 2023 Page 21 of 24 HON. JUSTICE LL NAIKUINI (ELC JUDGE)

page 21 of 24

c) THAT the Court further finds that the reopening of proceedings to allow the Applicant’s participation is legally tenable and necessary for the just, complete, and effectual determination of the dispute concerning ownership of suit property. d) THAT the Applicant shall file his Defence and Counter Claim WITHIN TWENTY – ONE (21) DAYS of service of the Amended Plaint, and his participation shall be limited to issues directly connected to his beneficial interest and the legality of the acquisition of the suit property. e) THAT the Court finds that the proposed joinder and re opening will not occasion undue prejudice to the Plaintiff or other Defendants, as they retain full liberty to respond cross-examine to the the amended pleadings and Applicant’s evidence. Any inconvenience occasioned can be adequately mitigated by strict timelines and compensated by costs. f) THAT there shall be a mention on 27th October, 2026 for purposes of ascertaining full compliance of these RULING: ELC CASE NO. E020 OF 2023 Page 22 of 24 HON. JUSTICE LL NAIKUINI (ELC JUDGE)

page 22 of 24

orders/directions also conducting the final Pre – Trial Conference pursuant to the provision of Order 11 of the Civil procedure Rules, 2010. There shall be a hearing of the matter on 22 nd February, 2027 before the ELC No. 1 of Kwale preferably through Physical means. g) THAT costs of the present application shall be in the cause. IT IS SO ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. RULING DELIEVERED THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAM VIRTUAL MEANS, SIGNED AND DATED AT KWALE THIS………23 RD ……… DAY OF …………SEPTEMBER..……..……..2026. ……………………………………. HON. MR. JUSTICE L. L. NAIKUNI ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KWALE Ruling delivered in the presence of: a. Mr. Daniel Disii, Court Assistant. b. Mr. Lusamba Advocate Holding brief for Mr. Mbwiza Advocate for the Plaintiff. c. M/s. Kiti Advocate for the 4th & 5th Defendant. RULING: ELC CASE NO. E020 OF 2023 Page 23 of 24 HON. JUSTICE LL NAIKUINI (ELC JUDGE)

page 23 of 24

d. No appearance for the 6th & 7th Respondents. RULING: ELC CASE NO. E020 OF 2023 Page 24 of 24 HON. JUSTICE LL NAIKUINI (ELC JUDGE)

page 24 of 24