Erk & 3 others v Cwk & 4 others

RULING 1. Before this Court for determination is the Petitioners’ Notice of Motion, dated 19th November, 2025, and expressed under Article 13 of the Judicial Code of Conduct and Ethics and all other enabling provisions of the Laws. The Applicants seek the following Orders;1. Spent. 2. That the Honourable Justice Patricia Gichohi of Nakuru High Court should recuse herself from further hearing of this matter. 3. That Justice Patricia Gichohi should cease henceforth from processing this matter pending investigations and determination of a complaint made to the Judicial Service Commission, and also an application made to the Court of Appeal concerning her ruling of 30/04/2025. 2. The Application is based on the grounds on the face of the Notice of Motion and supported by the Affidavit sworn by the 2nd Applicant/ Petitioner on even date. 3. The deponent contends that the primary objective of their application is to protect a vulnerable subject who is currently being isolated, manipulated, and robbed, while simultaneously addressing the marginalisation of the family members. 4. He states that although interim orders were issued by Justice Teresia Matheka in December 2022 to allow for unrestricted family access and a psychiatric evaluation of the subject, the implementation of these orders has been systematically blocked by the respondents. 5. The affiant further alleges that the subject was abducted and is being hidden by the respondents, which has prevented the medical examinations necessary for the court to reach a justifiable judgment. 6. The deponent asserts that the presiding judge has demonstrated significant bias by arbitrarily abandoning a contempt application filed in February 2023 without providing any alternative remedy for the petitioners. He claims that the judge has perennially muzzled the petitioners in court while shielding the respondents from the consequences of their misconduct and their failure to comply with previous court directives. 7. In addition, he states that while the petitioners complied with court orders to bring their families to court, the judge took no action when the respondents absconded with impunity. 8. The Deponent maintains that the judge has intentionally ignored reports from family elders and the Alternative Justice Systems (AJS) panel, which were meant to mediate the family dispute. They state that the respondents snubbed these mediation meetings and treated the elders as strangers, yet the court overlooked these actions. 9. He further contends that the judge has frustrated the petitioners by allowing the respondents' counsel to swap email addresses and sneak documents into the court file without proper notification. 10. He states that the judge used secretive and unchallenged documents to deliver a ruling on 30th April, 2025, without granting them a fair chance to be heard. They observe that because they have filed a formal complaint with the Judicial Service Commission and an appeal in the Court of Appeal, the judge's continued involvement in the case is unprofessional and a furtherance of injustice. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5238/eng@2026-04-20 2

page 2 of 11

11. In conclusion, the deponent states that the petitioners have suffered untold mental and emotional distress during this two-year period and believes the judge must recuse herself to ensure the vulnerable subject and the family receive a fair hearing. 12. The Respondent opposed the application through the Replying Affidavit sworn by the 1st Respondent on 1st December, 2025. She terms the application as misconceived, unmerited, an abuse of the court process, and a ridicule of the justice system. 13. She states that the application is fatally flawed and invalid because the purported Supporting Affidavit lacks a deponent. 14. She asserts that the learned judge has been impartial and very accommodating toward the Applicants despite their erratic conduct. 15. It is her contention that the Applicants themselves have frustrated the final determination of the main petition, which was filed in November 2022. She adds that the Applicants have filed an insurmountable number of applications, which has caused delays. 16. It is her case, that the Applicants originally sought to settle the matter via an Alternative Justice Systems (AJS) forum but later made a turnaround, causing that process to fail. She observes that every time the court attempts to set the main petition for a hearing, the Applicants introduce new issues to delay the matter. 17. The Affiant notes that there was a temporary period of decorum and progress toward an agreement when the Applicants were represented by an advocate. This cause the Court to refer the parties to AJS precisely because it appeared they were close to reaching a compromise at that time. 18. She highlights that the 2nd Applicant previously congratulated the court on its conduct, contradicting their current claims of bias. Further, she points out that this is not the first recusal application filed by the Applicants, as they sought the same from the previous judge on similar grounds. 19. She argues that these applications are strategically made whenever the Applicants feel matters are not going their way or the court refuses their erratic antics. 20. It is her view that the Applicants have failed to prove any actual bias or meet the legal threshold required for a recusal order. Conversely, that the Applicants are actively frustrating the court's mandate to dispense the matter with expedience. 21. She expresses the Respondents' full confidence in the court and appreciates the efforts made to bring the family together. She reiterates that the current application is an abuse of court process and a waste of judicial time. 22. On that basis, she requests the court to dismiss the application and set the main matter for a hearing on its merits. 23. In a rejoinder vide a reply to the Replying Affidavit, sworn by the 2nd Petitioner on 9th January, 2026,the Affiant refutes the allegation that the application is scandalous or misconceived, stating that the request for recusal is a legitimate legal response to the presiding judge’s conduct during the proceedings. 24. He addresses the technical objection regarding the supporting affidavit, clarifying that he is the clear deponent of the document and that any claim of it being fatally flawed for lacking a deponent is factually incorrect. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5238/eng@2026-04-20 3

page 3 of 11

25. The deponent challenges the claim of judicial impartiality, stating that the judge has systematically muzzled the petitioners in court while simultaneously ignoring their substantive interlocutory applications. 26. He denies the accusation that the petitioners have frustrated the main petition, instead, he explains that their numerous applications were a necessary legal reaction to the respondents' refusal to comply with existing court orders. 27. He asserts that the volume of filings was a direct result of the erratic antics of the Respondents, who have allegedly worked to block all family access to the subject and ignore previous judicial directions. 28. He refutes the claim that he caused the Alternative Justice System (AJS) process to fail, counter-alleging that the respondents were the ones who snubbed the elders and physically blocked them from accessing the subject in Ruaka. 29. The deponent claims that despite their requests for hearing dates for the main petition, the court consistently pushed these aside or allowed the Respondents to bypass the established legal calendar. 30. Regarding the issue of decorum mentioned by the Respondent, he explains that this period only existed when the Petitioners felt their legal counsel was being muzzled by the court, preventing their true grievances from being heard. 31. He argues that the court’s decision to refer the matter to the AJS was a tactical move to avoid addressing the respondents' blatant contempt of the orders issued by the previous judge. 32. He defends the Petitioners' right to seek intervention from the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the Court of Appeal, stating these are the proper legal avenues to address an anomaly of law and judicial bias. 33. He reiterates that because a formal appeal is pending against the judge’s ruling of 30th April, 2025, her continued involvement will only lead to further injustice for both the subject and the Petitioners. 34. He contends that the Respondents' failure to provide a specific paragraph-by-paragraph rebuttal to the allegations of sneaking documents and blocking access is an admission of their culpability. Petitioners’ Submissions 35. The Petitioners assert their continued confidence in the judicial system as anchored under Article 159 of the Constitution, emphasising that the present Petition and all subsequent applications demonstrate their commitment to lawful dispute resolution. 36. Submitting that the core of the dispute concerns one Peter Njoroge Kang’arua, a person alleged to be suffering from mental illness, and that the proceedings are instituted under the Mental Health Act (Cap 248), the Petitioners contend that the matter engages statutory provisions, particularly sections 3, 3E, 26, 27, 28 and 29, as well as constitutional protections relating to fundamental rights. They further rely on a ruling delivered on 20th December 2022, in which the Court outlined its duties and issued orders intended to facilitate the resolution of the matter. 37. The Petitioners argue that, despite the said ruling, the Respondents have failed to implement the Court’s orders. They submit that attempts to enforce compliance, particularly through a contempt application dated 28th February 2023, were frustrated when the Court allegedly declined to pursue the matter, thereby abandoning its earlier directives. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5238/eng@2026-04-20 4

page 4 of 11

38. It is further submitted that the matter had been substantively heard on 15th December 2022, with parties presenting extensive evidence regarding their relationship with the subject. The subsequent ruling of 20th December 2022, particularly paragraphs 35, 36, and 37, is said to have provided a framework for final disposal of the case in accordance with the Mental Health Act. The Petitioners maintain that these facts were well within the knowledge of the current presiding judge upon taking over the matter. 39. The Petitioners contend that the said orders were never challenged on appeal or review, but their implementation was obstructed by the Respondents through disobedience, misrepresentation of the subject’s residence, and violations of both the subject’s and the Petitioners’ rights. They assert that these acts of disobedience have not been addressed by the Court. 40. They further allege that the Respondents have effectively conceded to the accusations of disobedience and misconduct by failing to respond substantively to key issues raised, instead engaging in conduct that undermines the administration of justice. 41. The Petitioners accuse the sitting judge of bias arguing that the judge has disregarded the prior ruling and failed to consider applications aimed at gathering evidence, while at the same time proceeding with the hearing in the absence of crucial facts. This, they submit, undermines the purpose and spirit of the governing law and constitutional principles. 42. It is also their case that, throughout the judge’s tenure, no meaningful steps have been taken to obtain reports or information regarding the subject, contrary to the requirements of section 26(6) of the Mental Health Act and the intent of the earlier court orders. 43. The Petitioners further submit that the judge has allowed disorder to prevail within the family dispute by abandoning contempt proceedings and suppressing applications intended to trace the subject’s whereabouts and condition. They contend that the Respondents have responded with hostility rather than addressing substantive issues. 44. They highlight what they describe as an explicit assertion by the Respondents that the matter will proceed only on their terms, which the Petitioners interpret as a rejection of the rule of law and a contributing factor to the stalemate in the proceedings. 45. The Petitioners allege that the Court has failed in its duty to protect the subject from exploitation, alienation, and mismanagement of property, contrary to the safeguards provided under section 3 of the Mental Health Act. 46. On that basis, the Petitioners state that they have lost confidence in the ability of the sitting judge to fairly adjudicate the matter, expressing apprehension that justice will not be achieved under the current circumstances. 47. While contextualising the dispute as a family conflict exacerbated by the subject’s illness, they allege that certain family members have taken advantage of the situation to the detriment of the subject’s welfare and estate, thereby deepening the discord. 48. In conclusion, the Petitioners urge this Court to recuse itself, contending that such a step is necessary in the interests of justice, fairness, and the restoration of confidence in the proceedings. Respondents Submissions 49. The Respondents submit that the sole issue for determination is whether the Applicants have laid a satisfactory basis to warrant the recusal of the Judge in the petition proceedings. They contend that the https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5238/eng@2026-04-20 5

page 5 of 11

Court, when faced with such an application, is guided by settled legal principles requiring an objective assessment of alleged bias. 50. In that regard, the Respondents rely on the decision in Philip K. Tunoi & another v Judicial Service Commission & another [2016] eKLR, which adopted the Porter v Magill test, wherein it was held: “ The question is whether the fair minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased.” 51. While emphasising the duty of the Court to evaluate all relevant circumstances before determining bias, they further cite Taylor v Lawrence [2003] QB 528, where it was stated: “ The Court must first ascertain all the circumstances which have a bearing on the suggestion that the Judge was biased. It must then ask whether those circumstances would lead a fairminded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility, or a real danger, the two being the same, that the tribunal was biased.” 52. The Respondents also rely on the case of Kaplana Rawal v JSC & 2 others [2016] eKLR, where citing with approval, the East African Court of Justice in Attorney General of Kenya v Anyang’ Nyong’o, which articulated the test as follows: “ …do the circumstances give rise to a reasonable apprehension, in the mind of the reasonable, fair-minded and informed member of the public that the Judge did not (will not) apply his mind to the case impartially… The court, however, has to envisage what would be the perception of the public who is not only reasonable but also fair minded and informed about all the circumstances of the case.” 53. Additionally, the Respondents cite the Supreme Court decision in Gladys Boss Shollei v Judicial Service Commission & another [2018] eKLR, which underscores the balance between recusal and the duty of a Judge to sit, stating: “ A judge who has to decide an issue of self-recusal has to do a balancing exercise… On the one hand, the judge must consider that self-recusal aims at maintaining the appearance of impartiality and instilling public confidence in the administration of justice. On the other hand, a judge has a duty to sit in the cases assigned to him or her and may only refuse to hear a case for an extremely good reason.” 54. Based on above principles, the Respondents submit that the Court must interrogate whether a reasonable, fair-minded, and informed observer, having considered all the circumstances, would conclude that there exists a real possibility of bias. They emphasise that the test is objective and not based on the subjective dissatisfaction of a litigant. 55. Regarding the contempt application, the Respondent submit that the record demonstrates that the application was properly handled before different Judges, directions were issued, and proceedings adjourned where necessary to allow counsel to properly address the Court. They contend that these events do not disclose bias but rather reflect procedural management of the case. 56. The Respondents further outline the procedural history, noting changes in representation, instances where the Applicants elected to act in person, and occasions when the Court issued directions to streamline the matter, including requiring family members to appear and encouraging expeditious disposal of the petition. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5238/eng@2026-04-20 6

page 6 of 11

57. They submit that on 12th February 2024, after hearing the parties, the Court directed that the most appropriate course was to proceed with the hearing of the main petition and required the filing of witness statements, thereby demonstrating a proper exercise of judicial discretion. 58. The Respondents submit that the Applicants themselves proposed the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution, which the Court accommodated, but that the process was ultimately frustrated, particularly by the 2nd Applicant, leading to its collapse. 59. In the circumstances, the Respondents therefore argue that it is inconsistent for the Applicants to now challenge the Court’s conduct, yet they did not previously object to the directions issued nor appeal against them, and only raise such complaints in the present application. 60. Submitting that recusal is not a remedy for dissatisfaction with judicial decisions, the Respondents further rely on Matipe v Murunya & 6 others [2025] KEELC 8664 (KLR) where the Court held:“ If according to the party, the decision of the judge was wrong, the recourse is not to ask the judge to recuse himself, but to appeal against that decision.” 61. On the rest of the allegations, the Respondents submit that there is no evidence to support claims of bias, terming them as unfounded and exaggerated. They maintain that the Court has consistently sought to set the matter down for hearing, but that each such attempt has been met with fresh applications by the Applicants, including the present one. 62. The Respondents contend that the Applicants’ assertion that they have not been heard is contradicted by their own conduct, as they have persistently delayed the proceedings through interlocutory applications whenever the matter is fixed for hearing. 63. They further emphasise that the subject matter concerns the mental health and welfare of the patient, and that the substantive orders sought can only be determined at the hearing of the main petition, a process the Applicants continue to frustrate. 64. In conclusion, the Respondents submit that the Applicants have failed to establish any reasonable apprehension of bias and have not met the threshold required for recusal. They urge the Court to dismiss the application with costs and proceed to hear and determine the main petition on its merits. Analysis and Determination 65. Upon consideration of the Notice of Motion dated 19th November2025, the Supporting Affidavit, the Replying Affidavit, the rejoinder Affidavit, and the rival submissions by the parties, the sole issue falling for determination is whether the Petitioners have established a case of bias on the part of this Court so as to warrant its recusal from further conduct of these proceedings. 66. Rule 21 of the Judicial Service(Code of Conduct and Ethics) Regulations 2020 provides the grounds upon which a judge ought to recuse himself/herself from a matter as follows:“ (1) A judge may recuse himself or herself in any proceedings in which his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned where the judge;a. is a party to the proceedings; b. was, or is a material witness in the matter in controversy; c. has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings; https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5238/eng@2026-04-20 7

page 7 of 11

67. d. has actual bias or prejudice concerning a party; e. has a personal interest or is in a relationship with a person who has a personal interest in the outcome of the matter; f. had previously acted as a counsel for a party in the same matter; g. is precluded from hearing the matter on account of any other sufficient reason; or h. or a member of the judge’s family has economic or other interest in the outcome of the matter in question.” The objective of recusal was articulated by the Supreme Court in Rai & 3 others v Rai & 4 others (Petition 4 of 2012) [2013] KESC 20 (KLR) in three-fold: that it ensures that justice between the parties is uncompromised; that due process is realised, and seen to be done; and that the integrity of the rule of law remains intact. The Apex Court held thus:“ The test for establishing a Judge’s impartiality is the perception of a reasonable person, this being a 'well-informed, thoughtful observer who understands all the facts”, and who has “examined the record and the law”; and thus, “unsubstantiated suspicion of personal bias or prejudice” will not suffice. Such a broad test is adopted too in South African Defence Force and Others v. Monnig and Others (1992) (3) SA 482 (A), p.491: “The resusal right is derived from one of a number of rules of natural justice designed to ensure that a person accused before a court of law should have a fair trial.” 68. The principles to be applied in such cases were restated by the supreme Court in Kibisu v Republic (Petition 3 of 2014) [2018] KESC 34 (KLR), citing the decision of Chitembwe J in Nathan Obwana v. Robert Bisakaya Wanyera & 2 others [2013] eKLR, who relied on the Court of Appeal in the case of Republic v. Mwalulu & 8 Others: [2005] 1 KLR, that set out the principles on which a judge would disqualify himself from a matter as follows:“ (1). When the courts are faced with such proceedings for the disqualification of a judge, it is necessary to consider whether there is a reasonable ground for assuming the possibility of a bias and whether it is likely to produce in the minds of the public at large a reasonable doubt about the fairness of the administration of justice. The test is objective and the facts constituting bias must be specifically alleged and established. (2). In such cases the Court must carefully scrutinize the affidavits on either side, remembering that when some litigants lose their case they are unable or unwilling to see the correctness of the verdict and are apt to attribute that verdict to a bias in the mind of the Judge, Magistrate or Tribunal. (3). The Court dealing with the issue of disqualification is not, indeed it cannot, go into the question of whether the officer is or will be actually biased. All the Court can do is to carefully examine the facts which are alleged to show bias and from those facts draw an interference, as any reasonable and fair-minded person would do, that the judge is biased or is likely to be biased. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5238/eng@2026-04-20 8

page 8 of 11

(4). The single fact that a judge has sat on many cases involving one party cannot be sufficient reason for that judge to disqualify himself...” 69. It is therefore evident that the threshold for judicial recusal is high. It is therefore clear that this Court has to determine whether a reasonable, objective, and informed observer would have a reasonable apprehension that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the questions involved. 70. The onus is on the party seeking recusal to establish the usually high standard because the request for recusal impugns the integrity of the judge who has taken an oath to do justice without fear or favour. 71. In this case, the Petitioners move this court primarily on allegations of bias, muzzling of their testimony, and the alleged abandonment of their interlocutory applications. They contend that the learned judge arbitrarily abandoned their contempt application dated 8th February, 2023, without providing a remedy for their lack of access to the Subject. 72. In regard to alleged abandonment of an interlocutory Application, it is a matter of record that an application for contempt of court was pending before this Court. The record reflects that the said application was partially heard by Justice H.M. Nyaga, with a ruling originally slated for delivery on 19th April, 2023. However, following the transfer of the learned judge, the matter was re-allocated to this Court’s predecessor, Justice T.A. Odera. On 25th September, 2023, the Court directed that the application be heard de novo. 73. Before the said hearing could proceed, a further administrative transition occurred, and the file was placed before this Court for the first time on 20th November, 2023. During that mention, the Court was apprised of the pending contempt application, as well as an application dated 14th March, 2023, seeking the recusal of Justice Nyaga. Regarding the latter, the parties conceded that the recusal application had been overtaken by events due to the judge's transfer. 74. The Petitioners’ contention at the time remained the enforcement of the orders issued by Justice Matheka issued on 20th December, 2022, and for the subject to be returned to his residence in Nakuru. In light of the complexity of the matter and this Court’s recent seizure of the file, the proceedings were adjourned to allow the Court to acquaint itself with the substantive factual issues and the status of all pending applications. 75. On 12th February, 2024, Mr. Chege, learned counsel for the Respondent, urged the Court to proceed to a full hearing of the Petition, submitting that the interlocutory disputes were intrinsically linked to the merits of the main suit. Mr. Joseph Njoroge (2nd Petitioner), appearing in person, concurred with the proposal to hear the Petition but reiterated his grievance regarding the continued non-compliance with the orders of Justice Matheka. 76. In response, Mr. Chege clarified that the non-compliance was not wilful, but rather a result of logistical impossibility. He informed the Court that Philip Waweru Njoroge, the subject's eldest brother, had declined to host the subject at his residence. It was further submitted that although all parties had convened at the said residence on 22nd December, 2022, the subject had to be returned to the 6th Respondent’s care due to the lack of accommodation. 77. Conversely, Euticus Macharia (3rd Petitioner) moved the Court to direct that the subject be taken to his ancestral home in Nakuru, notwithstanding allegations regarding the dilapidated state of the said premises. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5238/eng@2026-04-20 9

page 9 of 11

78. Having considered the divergent positions of the parties, this Court exercised its discretion to prioritise the hearing of the Main Petition as the most effective way of reaching a final resolution. 79. In view of the foregoing, this court finds that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the status of the application was influenced by any personal bias or partiality by the Court. 80. On the allegation of muzzling with the matter and Online Technical Issues, the Petitioners allege the judge switched off their online proceedings to block them from prosecuting their case. While it is unfortunate that technical interruptions in virtual courts may occur in the course of proceedings, the Petitioners have not provided cogent evidence that these were deliberate acts of the Court intended to impede justice, rather than common connectivity issues. 81. On the alleged adverse Rulings as evidence of bias, the Petitioners cite, as a ground of recusal, the ruling of 30th April, 2025, which they have appealed. It is a well-settled principle that a judge’s prior rulings against a party, even if those rulings are legally erroneous, do not constitute grounds for recusal. The remedy for a perceived wrong in a ruling is an appeal, not the disqualification of the judge. 82. As regards the Pending Complaint at JSC, the Petitioners argue that because they have filed a complaint with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), the judge must recuse herself. Allowing recusal solely based on the filing of a complaint would invite forum shopping. 83. In light of the foregoing and upon evaluation of the totality of the evidence placed on record, this Court finds that the Petitioners have failed to discharge the significant evidentiary burden required to displace the well-settled legal presumption of judicial integrity. 84. The allegations levelled against this Court, specifically regarding the adoption of partisan positions and the existence of secretive documents, are not supported by the certified record of proceedings. In the absence of cogent and verifiable evidence, such claims cannot form a basis for the disqualification of this Court as sought. 85. The Petitioners’ grievances are primarily rooted in their dissatisfaction with the substantive outcomes of the proceedings and the perceived delays in securing access to the subject. These concerns, while noted, relate to the merits of the case rather than to any objective evidence of personal bias or conflict of interest. 86. The grounds cited for recusal, specifically the Petitioners' discontent with the Ruling delivered on 30th April, 2025, constitute matters of judicial discretion. Where a party is aggrieved by a discretionary decision or a finding of law, the proper recourse lies in the appellate process, not in an application for recusal. 87. To grant an order for disqualification on these facts would not only undermine the judicial duty to sit but would also set a precarious precedent, encouraging litigants to disrupt the orderly administration of justice whenever a ruling fails to align with their expectations. Consequently, the Court finds that the Petitioners have not established the requisite threshold for recusal. 88. On the second prayer, the Petitioners have moved this Court for an order staying the proceedings herein pending the determination of a complaint lodged with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and an application before the Court of Appeal regarding the Ruling of 30th April, 2025. The power to stay proceedings is a discretionary one, to be exercised judiciously to ensure that the ends of justice are met and that the court process is not rendered a charade. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5238/eng@2026-04-20 10

page 10 of 11

89. This Court takes cognisance of the fact that the Petitioners have actively moved the Court of Appeal to challenge the substantive findings of this Court delivered on 30th April, 2025. A mere move to the Court of Appeal does not automatically operate as a stay. 90. As regards the effect of the allegations said to have been formally made before the Judicial Service Commission, and the allegation raised by the Petitioners in this application, coupled with their expressed lack of confidence in the current Court, this Court finds that such allegations have created a hostile procedural environment in this matter. 91. Flowing from the above findings, this Court makes the following orders:1. The Petitioners have failed to prove grounds for recusal, but to preserve and protect the integrity of this Court, this Court now recuses itself from the conduct of this matter. 2. Having recused itself, this Court declines to make any other move, including making orders as regards stay. 3. This file be placed before the Presiding Judge, High Court 1 on 12/5/2026 for directions as to the hearing and disposal of this matter before any other Court. 4. Considering the nature of this dispute, there shall be no order as to costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026. PATRICIA GICHOHI JUDGE Mr. Mwangangi h/b for Mr. Chege for the Respondents. 1st and 2nd Petitioners present. N/A by other parties. Erickson, Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5238/eng@2026-04-20 11

page 11 of 11