Rhoda S Kiilu (Suing through her duly appointed Attorneys George Muinde Kiilu and Francis Mutua Kiilu) v Jiangxi Water and Hydropower Construction Kenya Limited

Case No. 34 of 2018, except pursuant to further orders of this Court. iii. That, within seven days or such other period as the Court may direct, the Deputy Registrar of the Environment and Land Court at Meru do prepare, file and serve upon the parties a certified statement of account setting out: a. The date and amount of every deposit made as security in this matter; b. the identity of the person or entity by whom each deposit was made; c. the relevant receipt, deposit reference, bank account or court deposit account relating to each deposit; d. every withdrawal, release, transfer, payment or other dealing made from the deposited security; e. the date, amount, beneficiary and stated authority for every such withdrawal, release, transfer or payment; f. the amount of interest, if any, earned or credited to the deposited funds; g. the present balance held by the Judiciary to the credit of this suit; h. whether the KES 50,000,000 ordered to be restored under the ruling delivered on 5 February 2026 has been restored, wholly or partly; i. the amount, date and source of any restitution made pursuant to the said ruling; and j. any amount presently outstanding under the restitution order. iv. That, for purposes of the account sought under prayer 3, the Deputy Registrar be directed to place before the Court certified copies of: a. the court deposit ledger relating to the matter; a the Judiciary deposit account statements relating to the security; Page 2 of 18

page 2 of 18

b deposit receipts and payment confirmations; c payment vouchers; d withdrawal instructions; e release orders; f bank transfer confirmations; g correspondence relating to the deposit and release of the funds; and all other records material to establishing the movement and present status of the security. v. That the application be fixed for an expedited inter partes hearing on a priority basis. B. Substantive orders for release of the security vi.That the Court be pleased to find that, upon dismissal of the Judgment Debtor’s appeal by the Court of Appeal on 10 July 2026, the stay of execution pending that appeal became spent and the condition for continued retention of the security deposited in this Court ceased to exist. vii. That the Court be pleased to find and declare that the security deposited in this Court was given for the due performance of the decree ultimately binding upon the Judgment Debtor and is now available for appropriation towards satisfaction of the decree issued in favour of the Plaintiff/Decree Holder. viii. That the Court be pleased to order the immediate release to the Plaintiff/Decree Holder, through her attorneys on record or into such account as the Court may approve, of the entire amount presently standing to the credit of this suit as security, together with all interest earned or accrued thereon. That the Deputy Registrar shall effect the release within seven (7) days from the date of this Order. ix. x. That, without prejudice to the generality of prayer 8, the Deputy Registrar be ordered to release forthwith the undisputed balance presently held by the Judiciary, notwithstanding any outstanding question concerning recovery or restitution of the KES 50,000,000 fraudulently withdrawn. Page 3 of 18

page 3 of 18

xi. That the funds released pursuant to prayers 8 and 9 be appropriated and credited towards partial satisfaction of the decree issued on 9 March 2022. C. Orders concerning the fraudulent withdrawal xii.That the Court be pleased to find and declare that the fraudulent release and withdrawal of KES 50,000,000 pursuant to the orders of 12 April 2023 did not constitute payment to the Plaintiff/Decree Holder and did not satisfy, discharge or extinguish any part of the Judgment Debtor’s liability under the decree. xiii. That the Plaintiff/Decree Holder’s entitlement to satisfaction of the decree shall not be reduced, defeated or prejudiced by reason of the fraudulent release or withdrawal of KES 50,000,000 from funds held in the custody of the Judiciary. xiv. That, upon restoration or restitution of the KES 50,000,000, or any part thereof, pursuant to the ruling and orders delivered on 5 February 2026, the Deputy Registrar shall release the amount so restored to the Plaintiff/Decree Holder without the necessity of a further substantive application, subject only to verification and further administrative directions of the Court. xv. That the Deputy Registrar be directed to notify the Court and the parties in writing within three days of receiving any amount restored or recovered pursuant to the ruling of 5 February 2026. xvi. That the release of the amount presently held shall be without prejudice to: a. continued enforcement of the restitution orders made on 5 February 2026; b. recovery of the fraudulently withdrawn KES 50,000,000; c. recovery of interest attributable to the period during which the funds remained unlawfully withdrawn; and d. any civil, criminal, disciplinary or administrative proceedings arising from the fraudulent withdrawal. xvii. That if the amount presently held is less than the amount certified as security, the Deputy Registrar shall certify the deficit and the Plaintiff shall be at liberty to execute immediately for the shortfall. Page 4 of 18

page 4 of 18

D. Computation and satisfaction of the decree xviii.That the Deputy Registrar be directed to ascertain and certify, after taking an account and hearing the parties where necessary: the principal decretal amount; a. interest accrued on each monetary component of the decree in accordance with the judgment and decree; c. costs of the proceedings in this Court, upon taxation or agreement; b. d. amounts paid or lawfully appropriated towards satisfaction of the decree; e. the security and accrued interest released to the Plaintiff/Decree Holder; and f. the balance remaining due and payable under the decree. xix.That the release of the security shall constitute satisfaction of the decree only to the extent of the amount actually received by or lawfully paid to the Plaintiff/Decree Holder. xx. That the Judgment Debtor shall remain liable for the balance of the decretal amount, interest and costs remaining unpaid after appropriation of the security released by the Court. xxi. That the Plaintiff/Decree Holder be at liberty to proceed with execution against the Judgment Debtor for the balance of the decree, accrued interest and costs remaining unpaid after release and appropriation of the security. xxii. That the Plaintiff/Decree Holder be at liberty to tax and recover: a. the costs awarded in the judgment of this Court; b. the costs awarded by the Court of Appeal upon dismissal of the appeal; and c. the costs of this application. E. Consequential and case-management orders xxiii.That the Judgment Debtor be directed, within seven days of service of the order arising from this application, to disclose whether it has obtained any order staying execution of the decree or staying release of the security, and, where such an order exists, to file and serve a certified copy thereof. Page 5 of 18

page 5 of 18

xxiv. That, in the absence of a subsisting stay order, the commencement or intended commencement of any further appellate or certification proceedings shall not, of itself, suspend implementation of the orders for release of the security. xxv. That the Deputy Registrar be authorised to execute all payment instructions, bank documents and administrative instruments necessary to give effect to the release orders, notwithstanding the absence, refusal or failure of the Judgment Debtor or its advocates to sign or approve any such instrument. xxvi. That the Court be pleased to give such further or consequential directions as may be necessary to: a. protect the integrity of the court-held funds; b. give effect to the judgment and decree; c. implement the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of the appeal; d. enforce the restitution orders made on 5 February 2026; and e. secure the just, expeditious and proportionate determination of the matter. xxvii. That the costs of this Defendant/Judgment Debtor. application be borne by the 3. The Application is premised on various grounds. The grounds are: The applicants are the duly constituted and appointed Attorneys’ of the Plaintiff; the plaintiff duly appointed the applicants vide a power of Attorney; thereafter, the plaintiff mandated the attorneys to represent her in the matter; the subject application has been filed in pursuance of the mandate and the authority donated on the basis of the power of the Attorney. 4. Additionally, the applicants have posited thus: The plaintiff filed the instant suit as against the defendant; the suit was heard and determined; the court rendered a judgment in favour of the plaintiff; the judgment sum amounted to a total of Kshs. 144, 615,000/= only; thereafter, the defendant mounted an appeal before the court of appeal; the defendant also filed an application for Page 6 of 18

page 6 of 18

stay of execution pending appeal; the application was heard and determined; the court allowed the application albeit on terms; the terms included deposits of Kshs. 70,000,000/= only in court on account of security for the due performance of the decree that may arise. 5. Moreover, it has been asserted thus: That the appeal before the court of appeal has since been heard and determined; the appeal was determined vide judgment delivered on the 10.07.2026; the appeal by the defendant /judgment debtor was dismissed; the dismissal of the appeal has extinguished the orders of stay of execution; the orders of stay of execution have lapsed; the deposit that was made pending the hearing and determination of the appeal has now outlived its purpose; the deposit in question forms part of the decretal sum due and payable to the decree holder; and the continued retention of the deposit constitutes infringements of the plaintiff’s right; that the plaintiff is entitled to the release of the security and such other monies [if any] deposited by the judgment debtor. 6. Furthermore, the applicants have contended that: The plaintiff’s previous advocate, namely; Ms. John Muthomi and Company Advocates filed an application for release of Kshs. 50,000,000/= only; the Kshs. 50,000,000/= was intended to facilitate further medical treatment of the plaintiff; the sum of Kshs. 50,000,000/= was indeed released by the court; the monies in question were however, appropriated by the previous counsel; the monies were never remitted to the plaintiff; and in any event, the plaintiff did not authorize the impugned release. 7. It has also been asserted that: Subsequently, the applicants made an application to court; the application was heard and disposed of vide ruling dated the 05.02.2026; the court found and held that the sum of Kshs. Page 7 of 18

page 7 of 18

50,000,000/= only, was released to the previous advocate on the basis of deceit, misrepresentation, and fraud. In addition, it has been asserted that the court directed restoration of the money within 45 days. 8. Be that as it may, the applicants have averred thus: The monies that were directed to be restored/restituted, have not been restored. Besides, it has been stated that the monies are still held by Ms. John Muthomi and Company Advocates, who procured same vide deceit. 9. When the application was filed under certificate of urgency and bearing in mind the terms of the ruling delivered on the 05.02.2026, the court directed that the application be served on the defendant, as well as on Ms. John Muthomi and Company Advocates. The purpose of directing that the application be served on the firm of the advocates was because the reliefs sought and the orders that may arise, would no doubt affect or impact upon the advocate in question. 10.The application came up for hearing on the 23.09.2026, whereupon the applicants intimated to the court that same had duly complied with the directions of the court. In particular, the applicants posited that the application had been duly served on the defendant /judgment debtor; and Ms. John Muthomi and Company Advocates. Moreover, the applicant posited that same had filed the affidavit of service. 11.The applicants also intimated to the court that same were ready to proceed with the hearing of the application. Besides, the applicants indicated that same shall be adopting the grounds contained at the foot of the application and relying upon the contents of the supporting affidavit. Thereafter, the Page 8 of 18

page 8 of 18

applicants invited the court to consider the application; take into account the judgment of the court of appeal; and to grant the reliefs sought. 12. In particular, the court was implored to direct the Deputy Registrar to process and release the balance of Kshs. 20,000,000/= only, which remained after the fraudulent release/withdrawal of Kshs. 50,000,000/= only by Ms. John Muthomi and Company Advocates; and any other monies, deposited by the Judgment Debtor. 13.Further, and in addition, the applicants also sought orders to facilitate the release of any other deposit on account of the decretal sum, which may have been deposited by the defendant judgment debtor. Moreover, the applicant also sought liberty to levy execution as against the judgment debtor on account of the balance of the decretal sum, together accrued interests. 14. Liberty was also sought to execute against the firm of Ms. John Muthomi and Company Advocates, as pertains the monies that were fraudulently withdrawn and thereafter, misappropriated. 15.Mr. John Muthomi, Advocate appeared before the court and intimated to the court that same had been duly served with the application. Counsel however, informed the court that the same had not filed any response to the application. Furthermore, learned counsel posited that same was not desirous to file any response. To this end, learned counsel intimated to the court that the court can proceed to deliver a ruling on the basis of the material before the court. 16.The Defendant/Judgment Debtor did not attend court. In addition, the defendant did not file any response to the application. In this regard, the Court is obligated to review the application and consider same on the basis of the material obtaining on record. Page 9 of 18

page 9 of 18

17.Having reviewed the notice of motion application; the supporting affidavit thereto; the judgment of the court of appeal delivered on the 10.07.2026; and upon considering the submissions/representations by the parties, three key issue emerge for determination. The issues are: Whether the order of stay of execution pending appeal has since lapsed; whether the applicants are entitled to the release of the security, which was deposited in court or otherwise; and what appropriate reliefs/orders [if any] ought to be granted. 18.Regarding the first issue, namely; whether the orders of stay of execution pending appeal have lapsed or otherwise. It is common ground that the defendant herein filed an application seeking stay of execution of the judgment and decree that had been issued by this court [differently constituted]. The application for stay of execution was heard and disposed of vide ruling delivered on the 13.07.2022. 19.The court proceeded to and allowed the application for stay, albeit on terms. The terms included: deposit of Kshs. 70,000,000/= only with deputy registrar of the court and which monies were to be held as security for the due performance of the decree that may ultimately arise. The security in question was to subsist pending the hearing and determination of appeal before the court of appeal. Simply put, the order of stay was dependant upon the determination or disposal of the appeal. 20.Put differently, the order of stay was conditional to the determination of the appeal and that upon the determination of the appeal, the order of stay was to lapse. In this regard, there is evidence that the appeal before the court of appeal, has since been heard and determined. For good measure, the appeal was disposed of vide judgment delivered on the 10.07.2026. Page 10 of 18

page 10 of 18

21.To the extent that the appeal before the court of appeal has since been heard and determined, there is no gainsaying that the order of stay of execution, stands extinguished. The event which underpinned the issuance of the orders of stay has since occurred. 22.In a nutshell, it is my finding and holding that the orders of stay of execution, which were issued by this court [differently constituted] have since lapsed. One can no longer talk about stay of execution pending the hearing of an appeal, which is non-existent, on account of its dismissal. 23.I now wish to move to the second issue. The second issue relates to the whether the applicants herein are entitled to the release of the security or any portion thereof, which was deposited pending the hearing of the appeal. I have already pointed out that the order of stay of execution was conditional to the hearing of the appeal. I have equally underlined that the appeal has since been disposed of. 24.Additionally, it is important to highlight that upon the determination of the appeal, the monies which were deposited on account of security or such other monies, would no doubt, constitute part of the decretal sum. Such monies become payable to the decree holder. In this case, the decree holder is the plaintiff, who is represented by the applicants [the duly appointed attorneys]. 25.In my humble view, the security that was deposited and the consequential payments into court ought and should be released to the applicants, towards the liquidation of the decree, or part thereof, whichever is applicable. In this Page 11 of 18

page 11 of 18

regard, I encounter no difficulty in finding and holding that the applicants are entitled to the release of the monies that were deposited in court. 26. For good measure, the aggregate sum that was deposited/paid into court amounts to Kshs. 144,615,000/= only. 27.The deposits under reference were made as follows: a. Kshs. 70,000,000/= only deposited on the 28.07.2022. b. Kshs. 74,615,000/= only deposited on the 23.05.2023. 28.However, I am alive to the fact that the sum of Kshs. 50,000,000/= was disbursed to Ms. John Muthomi and Company Advocates, albeit on the basis of deceit and fraud. 29.The foregoing then means that even though the sum of Kshs. 144,615,000/= only was deposited/paid into court, the only amount that remains under the custody of the court, is Kshs. 94,615,000/= only. This is the only amount that can be processed and released to the applicants by the deputy registrar. 30.Regarding the sum of Kshs. 50,000,000/= only, it is worthy to recall that this court rendered a ruling dated the 05.02.2026; and wherein the court ordered Ms. John Muthomi Advocate to refund and restore the monies to the judiciary. In addition, this court circumscribed the timeline for restitution. The court decreed restitution within 45 days. 31.Nevertheless, the material available shows that the said monies have never been restored or restituted. Moreover, the applicants posited that the monies in question were never paid out to and in favour of the plaintiff. This position was not controverted by Mr. John Muthomi Advocates. In addition, Page 12 of 18

page 12 of 18

it suffices to reiterate that Mr. John Muthomi attended court but indicated that same was not averse to the application. 32.Insofar as the sum of Kshs. 50,000,000/= only was withdrawn from the court by the said advocate and without due authorization by the plaintiff; and coupled with the fact that monies were never paid out, it then means that the monies must be recovered from the said advocate. To this end, it is my finding that the advocate [Mr. John Muthomi] becomes liable to execution, to facilitate recovery of the said monies. 33.Furthermore, I am alive to the fact that Mr. John Muthomi was not a party in respect of the instant matter. However, by dint of Sections 55 and 56 of the Advocates Act, Chapter 16 Laws of Kenya, same is an officer of this court; and same is therefore, bound by the orders of the court. Besides, the said John Muthomi was also an agent of the plaintiff and who breached the fiduciary obligations, in favor of the principal. 34.Lastly, it is also important to take cognizance of the ruling of the court rendered on the 05.02.2026. The court ordered restitution. The court set a timeline. Mr. John Muthomi failed to comply with and or abide by the terms of the order. The said advocate must now be allowed to face the music and dance. 35.I remind myself that court orders are not ornamental or cosmetic. Court orders serve a purpose. Court orders must be obeyed. Moreover, no one, not even an advocate of the High Court of Kenya,[s] can escape the snare of the law. Page 13 of 18

page 13 of 18

36.In the case of Shimmers Plaza Limited v National Bank of Kenya Limited [2015] KECA 945 (KLR), The Court of Appeal highlighted the importance of compliance with an order of the court. The court stated thus: “We reiterate here that court orders must be obeyed. Parties against whom such orders are made cannot be allowed to trash them with impunity. Obedience of court orders is not optional, rather, it is mandatory and a person does not choose whether to obey a court order or not. For as Theodore Roosevelt, The 26 th President of the United States of America once said:“No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man’s permission to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not as a favour’’. 37.I do not wish to belabor the point. It suffices to reiterate that this court issued an order directing Mr. Muthomi Advocate to restore /restitute the sum of Kshs. 50,000,000/= to the Judiciary. The monies have not been restituted. Consequently, a basis does exist to warrant recovery of the said monies vide execution. Section 91 of the Civil Procedure Act, regulates the process of restitution and no fresh suit, is authorized. 91. Application for restitution (1)Where and in so far as a decree is varied or reversed, the court of first instance shall, on the application of the party entitled to any benefit by way of restitution or otherwise, cause such restitution to be made as will, so far as may be, place the parties in the position they would have occupied but for such decree or such part thereof as has been varied or reversed; and for this purpose the court may make any orders, including orders for the refund of costs and for the payment of interest, damages, compensation and mesne profits, which consequential on such variation or reversal. Page 14 of 18 are properly

page 14 of 18

(2) No suit shall be instituted for the purpose of obtaining any restitution or other relief which could be obtained by application under subsection (1). 38.Moving on to the last issue, I wish to state that the applicants have sought a plethora of reliefs. However, some of the relief that have been sought for are irrelevant and thus not grantable. Moreover, the limbs of the application seeking provisions of the documents pertaining to the release of the sum of Kshs. 50,000,000/= to Mr. John Muthomi, can be obtained from the Deputy registrar without necessity of a court order. 39.In addition, the applicants herein have also sought liberty to pursue execution against the defendant/judgment debtor, on account of the balance of the decretal sum as well as interest. There is no gainsaying that for as long as the decretal sum has not been fully paid and or liquidated, the applicants are at liberty to undertake execution proceedings, subject to the provisions of Order 22 Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where necessary. Be that as it may, the record of the court reveals that the defendant/judgment debtor deposited a total of Kshs. 144,615,000/= only. 40.From the foregoing, it means that the entire decretal sum was deposited into court. In this regard, the only issue that remains outstanding is the interest that was decreed at court rates; and the costs, which are yet to be taxed. 41.With regard to the question of interest, I wish to state that the applicant shall be entitled topursue interest in the manner that was stipulated in the judgment of the court. Such interest shall be computed by the deputy registrar, subject to the requisite application for execution. The interest shall be reckoned from the date of the judgment. [See clause [g] of the judgment delivered on the 09.03.2022]. Page 15 of 18

page 15 of 18

Conclusion: 42.The Applicants herein had sought to persuade the court that the order of stay of execution, which was granted, has since lapsed. I have confirmed that the said orders were to subsist pending the hearing and determination of the appeal before the court of the appeal. The appeal has since been heard and determined vide the judgment of the court of delivered on the 10.07.2026. 43.The determination of the said appeal has effectively extinguished the order of stay. Henceforth, the decree holder becomes entitled to whatever security and the consequential monies [if any] that was deposited in court. In any event, I have established that the defendant/judgment debtor paid to court the aggregate sum of Kshs. 144,615,000/= only. The said sum becomes due and payable to the decree holder, save for the sum of Kshs. 50,000,000/= only which was disbursed to Mr. John Muthomi, albeit on the basis of deceit and misrepresentation. 44.In a nutshell, the application is meritorious. It deserves to be allowed, albeit on terms. The details of the terms shall be provided in the segment of final orders. Final orders: 45.Flowing from the analysis, the final orders which commend themselves to the court are: a. The Application dated the 23.07.2026 be and is hereby allowed on the following terms: Page 16 of 18

page 16 of 18

i. The order of stay of execution granted on the 13.07.2022 and modified on the 12.04.2023, be and is hereby discharged/varied. ii. The stay of execution is declared to have been extinguished. iii. The Deputy Registrar be and is hereby ordered to release to the applicants on behalf of the Plaintiff the sum of Kshs. 94,615,000/= only being the balance of the security plus the subsequent monies deposited by the defendant; and which monies remained under the custody of the court. iv. The release of the monies in terms of clause [iii] shall be undertaken without undue delay, albeit subject to the established processing and approvals in accordance with accounting procedures. v. The applicants [on behalf of the decree holder] shall be at liberty to commence execution proceedings against the judgment debtor to recover the computed interests; and the taxed costs, where appropriate. vi. Furthermore, the applicants herein shall also be at liberty to take out execution proceedings, either by attachment of the properties of Mr. John Muthomi or by warrants of arrest, whichever is appropriate, to recover the sum of Kshs. 50,000,000/= only, which the said advocate failed to restitute to the court. vii. The Applicants shall be at liberty to file and tax the costs of the suit, in the usual manner. viii. No orders as to costs of the application. Page 17 of 18

page 17 of 18

46.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU ON THIS 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026 OGUTTU MBOYA; FCIArb; CPM [MTI-EA]. JUDGE. In the presence of Court Assistant: Zakayo George Kiilu – 1st Attorney holders of the Power of Attorney Francis Mutua Kiilu – 2nd Attorney N/a for Mr. John Muthomi …Previous Advocate for the plaintiff – Decree Holder N/a for the defendant – Judgment debtor Page 18 of 18

page 18 of 18