Seaquarium Limited & 1 other v Kenya Wildlife Services & 4 others

D. This Honourable Court be pleased to grant an Order of Prohibition prohibiting the Respondents, their agents, employees and/or servants from intercepting, withholding, detaining or interfering in any manner whatsoever with the Petitioners' container number MSDU1977837 entry Number 23MBAEX106858289. E. General damages. F. The costs of this Petition be borne by the Respondents.” 2. The petition is supported by the affidavit of Volker Bassen sworn on 27 July 2024 and a further affidavit sworn by the same deponent on 1st October 2024. It has been sworn that the 1st Petitioner was incorporated in 2012 while the 2nd Petitioner is a director of the company. The 1st Petitioner's principal business is export-oriented and exports what has been described as “giant fossil clam shells”, a business that it begun sometime in 2014. 3. These giant fossil clam shells known by the scientific name “tridacna gigantea” are said to have become extinct during the later Pleistocene period which is around 180,000 years ago. 4. It is sworn that, currently, there exists no living specimen of these clam shells within Kenya or in the entire Indian ocean; only giant fossil clam shells remain in this region. 5. In the course of its business, the 1st Petitioner set up its own grinding and polishing workshop in Diani, in the coast region of Kenya, to add value and produce luxury washbasins clam shells from these giant fossil clam shells. The 1st Petitioner exclusively buys the said giant fossil clam shells from local quarry workers and the luxury washbasins clam shells are the 1st Petitioner’s primary product of export. 6. In strict adherence to regulations and procedure, it is sworn, the 1st Petitioner duly acquired the requisite licence to export the luxury washbasin clam shells. Over the years, the 1st Petitioner has exported these shells worldwide without any difficulty or threat of interception. 7. It has been sworn on behalf of the petitioners that both the 1st and 2nd Petitioners are of “good moral standing and highly revered in society”, and their work has garnered much respect and recognition and has even featured in prestigious publications and magazines. 8. The Petitioners are also said to have seamlessly participated in various exhibitions in Tucson in USA, Paris in France, London in UK, Hong Kong, China, Sweden, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. 9. The background to this petition is that sometime in November 2023, the Petitioners loaded 29 luxury washbasin clam shells into a container for export in the presence of officials and agents of the Respondents without incident. However, as an afterthought, on 21 November 2023, the officials of the 1st Respondent and 4th Respondent intercepted and detained the 1st Petitioner's container with the 29 luxury washbasin clam shells. 10. Further, the officials of the 1st Respondent reported the matter to the 3rd Respondent who then commenced investigations in accordance with its mandate. The 3rd respondent in conjunction with the 2nd Respondent are said to have interrogated the issue and concluded the matter, apparently, in favour of the petitioners. 11. Vide a letter dated 18th June 2024, the 2nd Respondent cleared the Petitioners of any criminal wrongdoing and advised that the regulatory framework be adhered to in respect of the detained container. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18742/eng@2025-08-15 2

page 2 of 10

12. The 2nd Respondent stated that the only issue in controversy was the production of a CITES export permit. The 1st Respondent insisted that the 1st Petitioner required such permit in order to export the luxury washbasin clamshells while the Petitioners held a contrary view. According to the petitioners, a CITES permit applies only when exporting endangered living species of flora and fauna and not extinct giant fossil clam shells. It is the petitioners' position that this was affirmed by the CITES headquarters, UK CITES Management Authority Centre for International Trade -Bristol) through an email dated 28 December 2023. 13. The 3rd Respondents wrote a letter dated 24 June 2024 addressed to the 4th Respondent directing that the container belonging to the 1st Petitioner be released. The 3rd Respondent also reiterated the sentiments of the 2nd Respondent in a letter dated 17 July 2024. 14. Oceanfreight (EA) Limited, the 1st Petitioner's carrier's agent, also wrote a letter dated 19 July 2024 addressed to the 4th Respondent, advising that the 1st Petitioner's container be withdrawn from the port stacking area. 15. In response to that letter, the 4th Respondent wrote a letter dated 19 July 2024 noting that there had been a request for release of the 1st Petitioner's container. Nonetheless, it intimated that the 1st Respondent had purported to invoke the CITES Convention and, thus, had not acceded to that request. The 1st Respondent has, since 21 November 2023, detained the Petitioner's container without any justifiable cause or legal basis, to the absolute detriment of the Petitioners. 16. The 1st Petitioner's container was scheduled to arrive in its destination, the United States of America, sometime in January 2024. The Petitioners have suffered distress, huge financial loss and loss of goodwill due to the 1st Respondent's detainment of the said container. 17. Despite issuance of demand and notice of intention to sue, the 1st Respondent has refused, neglected or declined to release the 1st Petitioner's container. According to the petitioners, the detention of the 1st Petitioner's container is unconstitutional, illegal, irregular, inequitable and erroneous. 18. In response to the petition, the 1st respondent filed a replying affidavit sworn by Margaret Nyabwari Mosse. Mosse has sworn that she is the 1st respondent’s employee and that she is in the position of the Chief Licensing Officer. 19. The 1st Respondent, it is sworn, is established under section 6 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013 (WCMA) and that one of its functions under the Act is to grant permits.According to sections 85 and 99 of the WCMA the import, export, re-export, or otherwise trade in any wildlife species without a permit issued by the 1s Respondent is prohibited. 20. It has also been sworn that Kenya is a signatory State to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and that Kenya Wildlife Service is the CITES’ Management Authority for purposes of implementation of the Convention. 21. On 13 December 2023 Container Serial No. MSDUl 977837 was intercepted at Kilindini Port, Mombasa on suspicion of containing CITES regulated marine shells. And on 14 December 2023, the 1st Petitioner applied to the 1st Respondent for a non-CITES export permit for 29 luxury wash basin clams from Kenya to the United States of America. The application reference number AEP-LEC8J was made through the 1st Respondent's wildlife permitting portal on e-Citizen. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18742/eng@2025-08-15 3

page 3 of 10

22. In the application for a permit, the Petitioners declared the specimen a luxury wash basin made from tridacna gigantea giant clam shells. On 21 December 2023, a multi-agency team was constituted for purposes of verification and analysis of the consignment. On 26 February 2024 a report from Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute concluded that samples taken were from fossilized giant clam shells. 23. According to the 1st respondent, tridacna gigantea and tridacna are “relatives” and to that extent, they are wildlife under the definition of "wildlife" in Section 2 of the WCMA and the exportation of their products requires primary prior approvals from other lead agencies and a CITES export permit from the 1st Respondent. 24. According to Article II, paragraph (a and b) of CITES Text of Convention, Kenya Wildlife Service requires traders to acquire CITES export permits for specimens of the species tridacna gigas, tridacna maxima and tridacna squamosa which are listed in CITES Appendix II, as well as tridacna gigantea which is not listed in the CITES Appendices. 25. Tridacna maxima and tridacna squamosa have been described as extant (meaning that they are living things), while tridacna gigas and tridacna gigantea are locally extinct. Even then, measures are alleged to have been taken to protect extant species, that may be concealed as extinct species. It is for this reason that all tridacna species, both extant and extinct, have been put under permit regulation. 26. Accordingly, the 1st Respondent, as the Kenya's CITES Management Authority, was entitled to require the Petitioners to seek a CITES export permit for specimens of the extinct tridacna gigantea to prevent the passing off of specimens of Tridacna maxima and tridacna squamosa, which are extant and fall under CITES regulation, as tridacna gigantea as they are all look-alikes. 27. It has also been sworn that in its application, the 1st petitioner had also declared that the 29 tridacna gigantea giant clam shells were obtained through exploration and excavation. Prior to issuing an export permit, and noting that the National Museum of Kenya is the competent authority in approving and licensing the exploration, excavation and exportation of fossilized (paleolithic materials), the 1st Respondent wrote to the National Museums of Kenya seeking their concurrence. 28. Subsequently, the National Museums of Kenya prepared a report indicating that the giant clam shells being fossils, they form part of Kenya's heritage and cannot be sold. Further, they can only be excavated and collected under permits issued by the National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation and the Ministry of Gender, Culture, The Arts and Heritage. According to the 1st respondent, movement of objects of archaeological or paleontological interest from their place of discovery without an exploration license or written permit by the responsible Cabinet Secretary upon consultation with the National Museums of Kenya is prohibited under Section 31 of the National Museums and Heritage Act, cap. 216. 29. It is on the basis of the foregoing that the 1st Respondent required the 1st Petitioner to present the exploration license or written permit contemplated under Section 31 of the National Museums and Heritage Act prior to granting an export permit for the tridacna gigantea giant clam shells. 30. The 1st Petitioner, it is alleged, has to date never submitted the licence or permit for the exploration and excavation of the giant clam shells and, therefore, its application remains pending. Accordingly, the 1st Petitioner neither has an exploration license nor written permit for the excavation of fossilized tridacna gigantea giant clam shells and an export permit for the same. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18742/eng@2025-08-15 4

page 4 of 10

31. It has been admitted by the 1st respondent that it was the 1st Respondent's intention that charges be brought against the Petitioners under the WCMA, but while charges had been approved in April 2024 and arrest of the Petitioners required, the 2nd Respondent retracted the instructions in July 2024 since the Petitioners' conduct amounted to a regulatory offence and not a criminal offence. 32. Having failed to secure the decision or approval to charge from the 2nd Respondent, the 1st Respondent wrote to the 4th Respondent stating its no objection to release of the Petitioners' container for them to regularize their position regarding the container. 33. Mosse has sworn further that fossilized tridacna gigantea giant clam shells are genetic resources and genetic materials under the Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA), cap. 387 and the EMCA (Conservation of Biological Diversity and Resources, Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing) Regulations, 2006 as well as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 34. To access genetic resources and genetic material, one has to get an access permit from the National Environment and Management Authority after executing what has been described as “Prior Informed Consent” from the relevant lead agencies and the local community(ies) providing the genetic resource, as well as a clearance certificate from the National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI). 35. Accordingly, the Petitioners' consignment was confiscated for failure to obtain the necessary approvals, licenses and permits for access, exploration, excavation and export of the fossilized tridacna gigantea giant clam shells. This is neither arbitrary nor in violation of the Petitioners' rights. 36. The 3rd respondent also opposed the petition and, to that end, filed a replying affidavit. The affidavit was sworn by Nyabuto Ishmael who has introduced himself a police officer and “the Investigating Officer in charge of investigations pertaining a container MSDU1977837 detained on 15th December 2023.” 37. Ishmael states what is rather obvious that the National Police Service is responsible to the Inspector General and that it is responsible for the prevention, and investigation of crimes. It is also not in dispute, as stated by Ishmael, that officers of the 3rd Respondent are legally mandated to investigate complaints made by any member of the public and are further required to investigate the complaints, an exercise that, ordinarily, involves, among other things, taking of witness statements and making of arrests, where necessary. 38. On 15 December 2023, officers of the 3rd Respondent, through an email from the Joint Operations Control Unit (JOCU) received a notification of container MSDU 1977837 suspected to be carrying a consignment of endangered species under the Convent on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Consequently, independent and competent investigations were set in motion. This, it is contended, was in accordance with Article 245 of the Constitution as read with Section 8, 8A and 35 of the National Police Service Act cap. 84. 39. On 21 December 2023, through a lawful procedure, the container's seal number EU26138908 was broken and opened where a multi-agency team conducted a verification exercise. Officers of the 3rd Respondent completed their investigations after which an inquiry file was forwarded to the 2nd Respondent for their consideration and decision on whether to initiate any prosecutions. 40. By a letter dated 18 June 2024, the 2nd Respondent advised the 3rd Respondent that the nature of the offence was regulatory and that the Petitioners should be granted an opportunity to regularise their activities with the relevant government agencies. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18742/eng@2025-08-15 5

page 5 of 10

41. Following the advice of the 2nd Respondent, the 3rd Respondent, through a letter dated 20 June 2024, informed the relevant authority that they had no objection to “the procedural release” of the container. 42. By a letter dated 17 July 2024, the 3rd Respondent informed the 1st Respondent that they shall not be conducting any further investigations on the Petitioners. It is the 3rd respondent’s position, therefore, that it does not have any interest in the container and does not wish to pursue any further investigations against the Petitioners. 43. The 4th respondent filed a replying affidavit sworn on its behalf by Paul Nyaga, who has introduced himself as an officer of Kenya Revenue Authority working in the Customs and Border Control Department, it is sworn that it has been admitted by the Petitioner that the 4th Respondent had no reservations in releasing the container MSDU1977837 under customs entry no. 23MBAEX106870691. 44. The background, according to Nyaga, is that the container in question was on 21 November 2023 intercepted by the 4th and the 1st Respondent. 45. On 25 November,2023, a sample was drawn from the container for lab testing and subsequent laboratory analysis results were relayed vide a memo with the reference ITC/ INORSAMP/0121/2023-24, dated 6 December 2023. The analysed sample was identified as unworked coral, containing 99.87% m/m Calcium Carbonate, categorized under HS code 0508.00.00. As a result, Customs Declaration No. 23MBAEX106870691 was voided due to its non-amendable nature and replaced with Entry No. 23MBAEX106858289. 46. An offense was recorded under offense file No. F71/0007366/2023 which was subsequently compounded. Following the conclusion of this process, the importer obtained export permit from Kenya Fisheries and the cargo was released for export on 11 December 2023. However, the consignment was stopped by the 1st and the 3rd Respondents. As at the time of filing of Nyaga’s affidavit, the consignment was still being held at Port police Yard, within Kilindini port, which is a customscontrolled area. 47. According to Nyaga, the 4th respondent’s role was limited and that it did not have any other interest nor does it have any continuing interest in seizing and detaining the consignment (container) after its concerns had been addressed by the Petitioners. 48. Thus, the 4th Respondent’s only role arises from the fact that the consignment was held at Port Police Yard, within Kilindini port which is an area under the customs control. 49. Nyaga stated further that even though the 4th Respondent has no reservation in the releasing of the container and, has no pending issue with the Petitioners, for any consignment or goods held at the ports or any customs-controlled area, they remain in control of such consignment until the same is released from that area. 50. The petitioners’ concern was referred back to the 1st Respondent to handle pending regulatory issues identified by the 2nd Respondent, which is the Authority competent to handle issues arising out of the CITES. Upon the enlistment of an expert by the Multi-agency team to test samples, it was found that the Petitioners required to have a CITES licence in order to export the consignment. 51. Taking cue from the 3rd and the 4th respondents’ position on this petition, and having considered the petition and the submissions filed by the respective parties, it is not in doubt that the dispute before court is basically between the petitioners and the 1st respondent. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18742/eng@2025-08-15 6

page 6 of 10

52. To begin with, the genesis of the dispute is the 1st respondent's interception of the petitioners' consignment and, the reason why the 1st respondent intercepted the consignment is apparent in a letter dated 25 July 2024 by the 1st Respondent asking the Kenya Revenue Authority to release the consignment to the petitioners. In that letter, the 1st respondent is categorical that: “ the consignment was intercepted at Mombasa Port on 13th day of December 2023 on suspicion to (sic) be containing CITES regulated marine shells.” 53. This is replicated in the affidavit of Dr Margaret Nyathari Mosse opposing the petition in paragraph 6 thereof where she has sworn as follows: “ 6. 54. That on 13th December 2023 Container Serial No. MSDUl 977837 was intercepted at Kilindini Port, Mombasa on suspicion of containing CITES regulated marine shells.” This was also confirmed by the Ishmael’s affidavit sworn on behalf of the National Police Service and in which it is sworn at paragraph 7 of the affidavit as follows: “ 7. That on the of 15th December 2023 officers of the 3- Respondent vide and email from the Joint Operations Control Unit (JOCU) received a notification of container MSDU 1977837 suspected to be carrying a consignment of endangered species under the Conventional and International Trade Endangered Species (CITES).” 55. It would, therefore, be logical to assume that if it was to be established that the suspect container did not contain what has been described as the endangered species under the CITES, there would be no reason for detaining it. And in order to establish this fact, it has been sworn by none other than the 1st respondent’s officer that indeed what has been described as a multi-agency team was constituted on 21 December 2023, for purposes of verification and analysis of the consignment. On 26 February 2024, Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute reported back that the consignment was made up of fossilized giant clam shells. 56. The next question that, in my humble view, ought to have resolved the stand off between the petitioners and the 1st respondent, or any other party, for that matter, is whether the fossilised clam shells were or are subject to trade restrictions under the CITES. 57. For starters, it is apparent from the 1st respondent’s own explanation that fossilized giant clam shells are not subject to CITES trade restrictions. As a matter of fact, it is unequivocally admitted in paragraph 16 of the affidavit of Mosse that “tridacna Gigantea…is not listed in the CITES appendices” as among those species that are subject to trade restrictions under the CITES. 58. For the avoidance of doubt, Mosse has gone further to explain in her affidavit that only tridacna maxima and tridacna squamosa are extant, or rather, the living species which, for that reason, would not be traded or, for our purposes, exported, without a CITES export permit or licence. 59. Notwithstanding the concession by the 1st respondent that tridacna gigantea would not require an export licence under the CITES, I understand Mosse to be saying that a blanket restriction has been imposed by the 1st respondent to restrict the export of all the species including tridacna gigantea because https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18742/eng@2025-08-15 7

page 7 of 10

this species and tridacna maxima together with tridacna squamosa, “are all look-alikes”. To quote Mosse, she has sworn in paragraphs 17 and 18 of her affidavit as follows: 60. “ 17. That whereas tridacna maxima and tridacna squamosa are extant (that is, they are living), tridacna gigas and tridacna gigantea are locally extinct, such measures protect extant species, trade in which may be concealed through and under the guise of trade of extinct species, thus putting specimens of all tridacna species, both extant and extinct, under permit regulation. 18. That the 1st Respondent as the Kenya's CITES Management Authority, was entitled to require the Petitioners to seek a CITES export permit for specimens of the extinct tridacna gigantea to prevent the passing off of specimens of tridacna maxima and tridacna squamosa, which are extant and fall under CITES regulation, as tridacna gigantea as they are all look-alikes.” These explanations are at best, irrational or unreasonable. This concept of unreasonableness or irrationality, as a legal concept, has been explained in Council of Civil Service Unions versus Minister for the Civil Service (1985) A.C. 374,410. In that case, Lord Denning defined three grounds of judicial review of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. As far as the ground of irrationality is concerned, the learned judge said as follows: “ By “irrationality” I mean what can by now be succinctly referred to as “Wednesbury unreasonableness” (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 K.B. 223). It applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. Whether a decision falls within this category is a question that judges by their training and experience should be well equipped to answer, or else there would be something badly wrong with our judicial system. 61. Although this explanation was given in the context of grounds for an application for judicial review, I am of the humble of opinion that it is applicable and can be adopted in any other case, such as the instant petition, where an impugned decision manifests the characteristics of irrationality or unreasonableness. 62. Turning back to the 1st respondent’s explanations for detention of the petitioners’ consignment, I consider them as unreasonable or irrational because, first, they are inconsistent with the reason proffered for the arrest and detention of the petitioner’s consignment. As earlier noted, the consignment was detained because it was suspected of comprising endangered species which the petitioners could not export without CITES export permit or licence. By the respondents’ own admission, the consignment was tested and, contrary to their suspicions, the consignment was established to be made up of extinct fossils that did not require a CITES export licence or permit to export. 63. To insist on a CITES export permit or licence despite the evidence that the consignment did not require such a licence for export is not only illogical but does not stand up to reason. Merely because, in the 1st respondent’s opinion, the extant species of tridacna maxima and tridacna squamosa look like the extinct species of tridacna gigantea, the 1st respondent could not purport to include in the list of species of tridacna that have otherwise been deliberately omitted from CITES appendices and which are, therefore, not subject to CITES trade restrictions and, in particular, export permits. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18742/eng@2025-08-15 8

page 8 of 10

64. That the 1st respondent was under no illusion that the petitioners’ consignment was not under the CITES restrictions, and, therefore, could be released to the petitioners, is clear from the 1st respondent’s letter, dated 25 July 2024 addressed to Kenya Revenue Authority, a copy of which has been exhibited to Mosse’s affidavit. In that letter, the 1st respondent was categorical that: “ We therefore found it prudent to advise your office to release the consignment in a shipment container S/No. 977837, Entry No.23MBAEX106858289 to the owner for purposes of regularization as per directives from the ODPP who makes the decision to charge.” 65. Having reached this conclusion, there was not only no basis to detain the petitioners’ consignment but also it was not open to the 1st respondent to argue, as it has argued, that the consignment was being withheld because the petitioners did not have authorisations from the National Museums of Kenya and the National Environmental Management Authority. 66. Needless to say, it is unreasonable for the 1st respondent to demand an exploration licence or written permit under Section 31 of the National Museums & Heritage Act prior to granting an export permit for the giant clam shells when the consignment was detained on the basis that the petitioners required a CITES export licence which, as has been noted, was found to be unnecessary. 67. In any event, the basis for asking of a permit from National Museums of Kenya is a purported expert opinion which is neither dated nor signed. According to the purported opinion, it is the National Museums of Kenya that has jurisdiction to issue licences for dispositions of fossils such as the petitioners’ consignment. 68. As a matter of fact, it is categorically indicated in the opinion: “ 1. No one other than the National Museums of Kenya is authorised to loan fossils. Kenya Wildlife Service is not.” Why the 1st respondent would then bother with the National Museums of Kenya’s mandate is a question whose answer has not been provided by the 1st respondent. 69. As far as the regulations under the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act are concerned, the National Environmental Management Authority, which is the body tasked with enforcing the Act and the regulations made thereunder has not raised any issue with the petitioners’ business. The 1st respondent cannot purport to argue the Authority’s case on its behalf. 70. There should not be any doubt that the respondents and, in particular, the 1st respondent was justified in subjecting the petitioners’ consignment to a verification process to confirm that the consignment was not with the CITES restrictions and, therefore, an export licence or permit would not be necessary. But once it was established that the consignment was free from these restrictions, none of the respondents was entitled to continue withholding the consignment for what in my view, are spurious reasons. 71. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the petitioners have made a case for the argument that their right to a fair administrative action under Article 47 (1) of the Constitution has been violated. This provision states as follows: 47. (1) Every person has the right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18742/eng@2025-08-15 9

page 9 of 10

72. The continued detention of the petitioners’ consignment after the respondents had established that it was not subject to CITES export permit or licence can be said to be lacking in procedural fairness and, as earlier stated, unreasonable. In other words, the 1st respondent’s conduct is contrary to article 47 of the Constitution. 73. Apart from breach of article 47 of the Constitution, the detention of the petitioners’ consignment without any or any valid reason is in violation of the petitioners’ right to property under article 40 of the Constitution. This provision of the Constitution guarantees the right to acquire and own property of any description; and in any part of Kenya. It also prohibits arbitrary deprivation of a person of property of any description or of any interest in, or right over, any property of any description unless, of course, the deprivation falls within the exceptions outlined in that article. There are no such exceptions that have been demonstrated to exist in the petitioners’ case. 74. In the ultimate, I hold that there is no legal basis for the 1st respondent to hold the petitioner’s consignment. Accordingly, except for the prayer for damages, I would allow the petition. I am of the humble view that the question of damages could have been properly determined if this petition had been filed as an ordinary suit, perhaps, in the Environment and Land Court. 75. Suffice it to say, I am unable to determine this particular question merely on the affidavit evidence a before court. 76. For the avoidance of doubt, the petition is allowed and judgement is hereby entered against the 1st respondent in the following terms: 77. i. It is hereby declared that the Petitioners' right against arbitrary deprivation of property under Article 40 (2) has been violated and infringed by the 1st respondent. ii. It is hereby declared that the Petitioners' right to fair administrative action under Article 47 (1) has been violated and infringed by the 1st respondent. iii. An Order of Mandamus is hereby issued compelling the 1st Respondent to release the Petitioners' container number MSDU1977837 Entry Number 23MBAEX106858289 to the petitioners, their agents, employees or servants. iv. An Order of Prohibition is hereby issued prohibiting the 1st Respondent, its agents, employees and/or servants, or any other person from intercepting, withholding, detaining or interfering in any manner whatsoever with the Petitioners' container number MSDU1977837 Entry Number 23MBAEX106858289. Parties will bear their respective costs. Orders accordingly. SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED ON 15 AUGUST 2025 NGAAH JAIRUS JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18742/eng@2025-08-15 10

page 10 of 10