Ayako & 2 others v Director of Public Prosecution - Siaya & 2 others (Constitutional Petition E010 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 8578 (KLR) (19 June 2026) (Judgment)

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT SIAYA** **CONSTITUTIONAL PETITON NO. E010 OF 2025** **IBRAHIM OUMA AYAKO…………………..………………1ST PETITIONER** **KENNEDY OTIENO OUMA..…………………..………….2ND PETITIONER** **PETER OCHIENG AYAKO………………………………….3RD PETITIONER** **VERSUS** **DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION - SIAYA………1ST RESPONDENT** **HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL……………………….….2ND RESPONDENT** **DIRECTORATE OF CRIMINAL** **INVESTIGATION- YALA..............................................3RD RESPONDENT** **JUDGMENT** 1. The Petitioners herein filed a petition dated 2/5/2025 seeking the following reliefs; 2. A declaration that the prosecution of the Petitioners in Siaya MCCRC E123 of 2025 is illegal ab initio, amounts to an abuse of the process of this Honorable Court, and violates the constitutional rights of the Petitioners. 3. An order suspending the arrest and prosecution of the Petitioners in MCCR No. 123 of 2025, or in any other file founded on the same subject matter. 4. An award of damages for alleged malicious prosecution, violation of their rights, and the time they claim to have spent in custody to the detriment of their daily business. 5. The Petitioners described themselves as male adult Kenyan citizens of sound mind and disposition living and residing at Siaya County, within the Republic of Kenya and their address of service for the purpose herein is care of P.O BOX 378-40600, Siaya, in the Republic of Kenya. 6. The Petitioners also made descriptions of the Respondents inter alia; that the 1st Respondent is the Office of Public Prosecution constituted under Article 157 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 charged with responsibility to exercise the state’s power to prosecute criminal proceedings against any person before any court and service of whom and shall be effected by the Petitioner's licensed process server; that the 2nd Respondent is the Attorney General Republic of Kenya by dint of Article 156 (4)(a) and (b) of the Constitution, whose address of service for purposes hereof shall be State Law Office, Sheria House, Harambee Avenue, P.O BOX 40112-00100 Nairobi, Kenya and service shall be effected by the court process server; that the 3rd Respondent is the Director of Criminal Investigations Yala and is in charge of investigations and arrest of suspects. 7. The Petitioners’ gravamen is inter alia; that the 1st Petitioner is the father to the 2nd and 3rd Petitioners all of whom had been charged vide Siaya MCCR E369 of 2023 anf MCCR E123 of 2025; that the 1st Petitioner had first reported a matter of illegal mining on his land to the area chief and police that gave rise to the first criminal case and in which the police refused to investigate and decided to charge him instead; that on questioning the reasons for the arrest, the arresting officer beat the 1st Petitioner with a gun butt on the head; that Cr Cae No. E369 of 2023 was heard and later withdrawn by the prosecution under section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that the police file was missing after several adjournments; that the police later stormed their home at 1.00 AM and arrested the Petitioners without any arrest warrant and thereafter charged them vide Siaya MCCR E123 of 2025 which is similar to the one already heard and later withdrawn; that the prosecutor never obtained from the court consent to reinstate the file upon relocation of the police file, but opted to open a new file with the old charge sheets and same witness statements; that the prosecution vide SIAYA MCCRC E123 of 2025 is illegal and abuse of the court process; that the Petitioners maintain that they have never been supplied with the charge sheets, witness statements in SIAYA MCCRC E123 of 2025 and that the matter is scheduled to proceed for hearing which violates the Petitioners rights to fair hearing; that the action by the prosecution to open another file with the old documents on the issue that the prosecution witness had testified on is abuse of the judicial process which is a violation of the Petitioners constitutional rights for fair hearing as it aims to start the case denovo and to smuggle new evidence without the order of the trial court; that arresting the Petitioners without arrest warrants at night even after they had been legally discharged by the court on 10th February 2025, caused them mental torture and contravened their rights as enshrined in the Constitution of Kenya 2010; that the Respondents are using the criminal justice system to intimidate the Petitioners to settle their personal score of the long-standing land dispute between the Petitioners and the complainant, and unless this court intervenes, the Respondent shall continue keeping the Petitioners in court for long yet litigation must come to an end; that the Petitioners pray that this court calls for the subordinate court files Siaya MCCRC E369 of 2023 and Siaya MCCRC 123 of 2025 to study the same and determine how the same case was concocted against the Petitioners at ODPP office at Siaya whereby the same subject issue is being litigated in two different court files. 8. The 2nd Respondent filed grounds of opposition dated 25/8/2025 wherein it raised several grounds inter alia; that the petition is misconceived, bad in law and an abuse of the court process; that the petition does not meet the reasonable test and threshold for granting the prayers sought; that the Respondents action in the suit were in accordance with their duties and that all their actions were lawful, regular, procedural and in furtherance of their statutory duties under the relevant Acts and subsidiary legislation; that the decision to charge is vested in the office of the 1st Respondent as provided for in article 157 of the constitution and that the 3rd Respondent only conducts investigations and subsequently forwards the file to the office of the Director of Public prosecution for action; that the orders being sought are vague and the petition ought to be dismissed with costs. 9. The Petition was canvassed by way of written submissions. 10. The Petitioners submissions are dated 2/3/2026. They submit inter alia; that the Respondents violated their rights to fair trial in the charges they are facing in SIAYA CMCRC E369/2023 and MCCRC 123/2025; that they were first charged in court on 17/7/2023 with the charges of robbery with violence, which charges were recently declared unconstitutional by a three judge bench in Milimani Law courts led by Justice Mugambi; that the Petitioners were prosecuted in Siaya Law court where the prosecution presented their witnesses who testified but later on withdrew the charges on the grounds that the police file was missing yet they were left with 2 witnesses; that the Petitioners attended court diligently for 2 years without fail; that the arrest thus violated their rights; that article 49 basically protects the interests of the arrested person and that the said article embodies rules which have always been regarded as vital and fundamental for safeguarding personal liberty in almost all legal systems where the rule of law prevails. That the same provides as follows: “49. Rights of arrested persons: (1) An arrested person has the right— **a. to be informed promptly, in language that the person understands, of** 1. **the reason for the arrest;** 2. **the right to remain silent; and** 3. **the consequences of not remaining silent;** **(b) to remain silent;** 1. **to communicate with an advocate, and other persons whose assistance is necessary;** 2. **not to be compelled to make any confession or admission that could be used in evidence against the person;** 3. **to be held separately from persons who are serving a sentence;** 4. **to be brought before a court as soon as reasonably possible, but not later than— (i) twenty-four hours after being arrested; or (ii) if the twenty-four hours ends outside ordinary court hours, or on a day that is not an ordinary court day, the end of the next court day;** 5. **at the first court appearance, to be charged or informed of the reason for the detention continuing, or to be released; and** 6. **to be released on bond or bail, on reasonable conditions, pending a charge or trial, unless there are compelling reasons not to be released.** That the rights are also protected under **Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights**. It states as follows: * 1. **Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.** 2. **Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.** 3. **Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgement.** 4. **Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.** 5. **Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.”** In light of the above, it is important to mention that the expression of the right to liberty in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reflects the inalienable nature of that right. The common conception of liberty formed the basis for the later articulation of the right to liberty in Article 9 of the ICCPR. Article 9(1) of the ICCPR prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention and the use of the term, “arbitrary” simply covers unjustifiable deprivation of liberty rather than seeking to list exhaustively all permissible causes of deprivation of liberty. That as regards arbitrary arrest, Article 49(1) of the constitution which is equivalent to Article 9(2) of ICCPR comes into play. That these provisions are often referred to following a well-known United States Supreme Court Case of **Miranda-v-Arizona.** 8. It was further submitted that the cause of action by the Petitioners relates to the violation of the rights of the accused who had been arraigned on 17th July 2023 and later rearrested and charged afresh. That during the second arrest, the Petitioners aver that they were not informed of the reason of their arrest in the middle of the night and upon questioning the reason for the arrest, the 1st Petitioner was hit with a gun butt. That until they were arraigned in court, they were never informed of the reason for the arrests. That this was a violation of their rights. 9. It was also submitted that the proceedings in Siaya MCCR E123 of 2025 are unconstitutional as the same were filed as a result of reinstatement of SIAYA MCCRC E369 of 2023 that was withdrawn on 10th February 2025. That the Petitioners were first arraigned in court of 17th July 2023, which charges were later withdrawn on 10th February 2025 on the grounds that the court file was missing. That the Petitioners attended court diligently for 2 years without fail and that they cross examined the prosecution witnesses and that towards the closure of the prosecution case they withdrew the case under Section 87 (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides as follows: **In a trial before a subordinate court a public prosecutor may, with the consent of the court or on the instructions of the Director of Public Prosecutions, at any time before judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of any person, and upon withdrawal—** * + 1. **if it is made before the accused person is called upon to make his defence, he shall be discharged, but discharge of an accused person shall not operate as a bar to subsequent proceedings against him on account of the same facts;** 2. **if it is made after the accused person is called upon to make his defence, he shall be acquitted.** 10. It was also submitted that the rights of the petitioners were violated as they were brutality arrested in the middle of the night, even when their bond terms were still active in court in MCCRC 369 0F 2023. That upon arraignment in court, they were informed that the proceedings relates to MCCRC 369/2023 but no witness statements were supplied to them in respect of MCCRC E123 of 2025. That this is a violation of their rights under Article 48 and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. That Article 50(2) (c) speaks to another fundamental right of the accused with regard to fair trial where it is required that the accused person must have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence. In this case, for a person who was unrepresented, one day could not have been sufficient yet the Petitioners are facing serious crimes and that failure to supply them with the witness statement is a breach to their rights. Reliance was placed in **John Ndung’u Kagiri v R**whereit was held; **“In criminal trials, the quest for a shorter process isn’t necessarily better. Issues or evidence which matters can be missed. Procedures designed to safeguard rights can be truncated and can lead to unfair trials, subsequent appeals and more costs and waste of valuable time as we have experienced in this matter.** **The effect is that such hurried trials are "Not so efficient after all." Accused persons may be prevented from properly exercising their rights to put their case, a position entrenched in our criminal justice system, long upheld by common law and enshrined in article 50 of our constitution. In the Kenyan criminal jurisprudence, the accused is placed in a somewhat advantageous position. The criminal justice administration system in Kenya places the right to a fair trial at a much higher pedestal. In our jurisprudence an accused is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty, the accused is entitled to fairness and true investigation and the court is expected to play a balanced role in the trial of an accused person. The court is the custodian of the law and ought to ensure that these constitutional safe guards are jealously protected and upheld at all times. The trial should be judicious, fair, transparent and expeditious but must ensure compliance with the basic rule of law. These are the fundamental canons of our criminal jurisprudence and they are quite in conformity with the constitutional mandate contained in Articles 50 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. The Right to a Fair Trial is one of the cornerstones of a just society.”** Also the case of the case of **Muchanga Investment Limited vs Safaris Unlimited (Africa) Ltd &2 others** Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2002 (2009) Eklr 229, was cited where the Court of Appeal **stated as follows;** **“The term abuse of the court process has the same meaning as abuse of judicial process. The employment of judicial process is regarded as an abuse when a party uses the judicial process to irrational and annoyance of his opponent and the efficient and effective administration of justice. It is a term generally applied to a proceeding, which is wanting in bonafides and frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive.** **Abuse of judicial process is a term generally applied to a proceeding which is wanting in bonafide and is frivolous vexatious and oppressive. It also means abuse of legal procedure or improper use of the legal process. It creates a factual scenarios where a party is pursuing the same matter by two court process. In other words, a party by two court process is involved in some gambling, a game of chance to get the best in the judicial process.** **The point to underscore is that a litigant has no right pursue pari passu more than one process that will have the same effect at the same time or at different than one process that will have the same effect at the same time or at different time with a view of obtaining victory in one of the process or both. I have in previous decision stated that litigation is not a game of chess where players outsmart themselves by dexterity of purpose and traps. Litigation is a contest by a judicial process where the parties place on the table of justice their different position clearly, plainly and without tricks.”** 11. It was also submitted that although Section 87 (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code allows further prosecution of an accused even after withdrawal, the same must be judicially carried out. The Petitioners contend that they are accused in Siaya subordinate court and are being maliciously prosecuted as a result of long standing land dispute between the 1st Petitioner and the Complainant, which land case is still active being Siaya MCELC 66 OF 2019. That the Petitioners have been kept in criminal proceedings since 2023, which cases they have diligently attended and defended. That they strongly believe that they had cornered the prosecution and their witnesses and thus the option to withdraw the case and later open a new file was a tactical strategy to smuggle evidence and correct the mistake they had made in MCCRC E369 OF 2023. That this is stealing the match from the Petitioners and would render the denovo hearing an abuse of the court process, violation of their right for fair hearing under Article 50 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. That further, the Petitioners aver that their arrest was malicious, barbaric, and failure to notify them the reason for the arrest for two days was an abuse of their Constitutional rights under Article 49 of the Constitution in that arresting the Petitioners in the middle of the night and beating them with the gun butt was not only barbaric and made them to suffer mental torture and violated their rights under Article 29 of the Constitution. 12. It was finally submitted that denying the Petitioners the witness statement is a threat to their right to fair trial and that the delay in prosecution of this matter for the last four years undermines the authority of this court under Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 in that justice shall not be delayed. That this court has jurisdiction under Article 165 of the Constitution of Kenya to determine the question whether a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has been denied, violated, infringed or threatened, and so this Petition. 13. The 1st Respondent’s submissions are dated 11/3/2026. It was submitted that the Petitioners have failed to place before this Honorable Court any cogent or credible evidence demonstrating that their constitutional rights have been violated. That a careful and even cursory perusal of the instant Petition reveals that no evidentiary material has been tendered to assist this Court in determining whether any constitutional infringement has indeed occurred. That the supporting affidavit is wholly bare and devoid of any annexures or documentary evidence capable of substantiating the averments made therein and that in effect, the Petition rests on mere allegations. That despite repeated advice from Counsel for the Respondent on the necessity of placing proper material before the Court, the Petitioners, through the 1st Petitioner, elected to proceed in that manner. 14. Learned counsel for the 1st Respondent gave a history of the matter which was inter alia; that the 1st Respondent duly instituted criminal proceedings against the Petitioners in MCCR No. E369 of 2023 pursuant to its constitutional and statutory mandate, after proper interrogation and evaluation of the evidence placed before it; that the matter thereafter proceeded before the trial court in the ordinary course; that subsequently the proceedings were withdrawn under Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, with the approval of the trial court, after the 1st Respondent placed before the Court compelling reasons warranting such withdrawal; that it is instructive that the Petitioners themselves had raised concerns before the trial court that the matter was unduly dragging and that in response, the Prosecution candidly informed the Court that it was unable to proceed at that time owing to the absence of the police file thereby necessitating the withdrawal under Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code; that the said withdrawal was therefore lawful, procedurally sanctioned by the Court, and undertaken within the confines of the law; that the Petitioners were subsequently arrested and arraigned before the trial court on the same account after the police file was retrieved; that upon reassessment of the available evidence, the 1st Respondent prepared and registered a fresh charge sheet, and the matter was accordingly allocated MCCRC No. E123 of 2025, which is presently active before the trial court.; that the Petitioners claim that the 1st Respondent failed to supply them with witness statements in MCCRC No. E123 of 2025 but then issue properly falls within the purview of the trial court, which is seized of the matter; that the case is already scheduled for hearing on 14.04.2026 before Hon. Stella Abuya (CM), where any issues relating to disclosure or compliance with pre-trial obligations can appropriately be addressed. 15. It was also submitted that the Petitioners claims that they were arrested without being informed of the reasons for their arrest, unlawfully detained, and assaulted should be rejected as no evidence has been placed before this Honorable Court to substantiate them, either in this Petition or from the proceedings before the trial court and therefore the claims remain bare assertions incapable of sustaining the reliefs sought. 16. It was also submitted that the 1st Respondent is an independent constitutional office. Under Article 157(6)(a) of the Constitution, the Director of Public Prosecutions is mandated to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against any person before any court, other than a court martial, in respect of any offence alleged to have been committed, and may also discontinue such proceedings at any stage before judgment is delivered. That the 1st Respondent withdrew MCCR No. E369 of 2023 under Section 87(a) because the matter could not proceed due to a missing file. That section 87(a) does not preclude the 1st Respondent from instituting fresh charges, which is precisely what occurred once the file was retrieved and that the Petitioners were duly arrested and arraigned. That the Petitioners’ allegations of illegality ab initio, abuse of court process, and wrongful prosecution are wholly unsubstantiated. That the Petition is bare, devoid of evidence, and amounts to a frivolous and vexatious attempt to waste scarce judicial time. That had the Petitioners truly been assaulted, it would have been incumbent upon them to produce at least medical or treatment records, or to have raised such claims before the trial court. 17. It was also submitted that the Petitioners prayer for suspending their arrest and prosecution in MCCRC No. E123 of 2025, or the opening of any new file on the same subject matter should not be granted as the 1st Respondent is intent on properly pursuing the matter and has no interest in initiating a separate suit on the same allegations. That the prayer is therefore premature and without merit, as the Petitioners are already on bond, their right to a fair hearing has been observed, and the matter is scheduled for hearing on 14.04.2026. That the Petitioners have presented neither evidence nor any cogent reason to justify halting the proceedings or claiming any potential infringement of their rights. 18. It was finally submitted that the prayers sought in the Petition should not be granted as no evidence has been tendered by the petitioners to support them and that the petition be dismissed and that the Petitioners be advised to seek their remedies through proper channels, address their grievances in the active case, and request expeditious hearing of their matter. 19. The 2nd Respondent did not file submissions and relied on their grounds of opposition. 20.. I have given due consideration to the petition and the responses as well as the submissions tendered. It is not in dispute that the Petitioners had been charged vide Siaya MCCR E369 of 2023 before the same was withdrawn and a new charge preferred vide MCCR E 123 of 2025 which is still ongoing before the Chief Magistrate. It is also not in dispute that te Petitioners have not sought for a prayer for stay of the lower court proceedings. I find the issue for determination is whether the petition has merit. 21. It is noted that the Petitioners have raised issues to the effect that their rights were violated by the Respondents in that the initial criminal case was withdrawn after it had proceeded substantially and then the Petitioners were subsequently arrested and charged afresh. The Petitioners have taken great exception to the underhand moves by the Respondents and now seek reliefs. The crux of the Petitioners case is that the 1st Respondent withdrew the initial case and later arraigned them again on the same set of facts. I find that it is necessary to capture the trial court proceedings regarding the withdrawal of the initial charges. They are follows: **10.2.2025** **Before Hon. B. Limo, PM** **State Counsel - Mr Mocha** **Court Assistant - Achieng** **Accused-1st, 2nd and 3rd accused present** **Language-English, Kiswahili, Dholuo** **Ooro Advocate-I appear for 2nd Accused. Iam ready to proceed.** **Prosecution- We are not ready to proceed. I don’t have police file.** **Accused 1- I object. We are ready to proceed.** **Ooro Advocate-I object to the adjournment. Iam ready to proceed.** **3rd Accused-I object to the adjournment.** **Court-Matter to proceed for hearing at 11.45a.m** **Hon Byson Limo, PM** **At 11.45 am** **Prosecution-I don’t have the police file. I apply to withdraw the matter as per section 87(a) of CPC.** **1st Accused-No objection** **Ooro Advocate-No objection** **Ooro Advocate-No objection** **3rdAccused-no objection** **Court-in the absence of police file and witnesses in court, I shall allow the prosecution’s application to have the matter withdrawn under section 87(a) of the CPC. Each of the accused discharged.** **File closed** **Hon Byson Limo, PM** **10.02.2025** **Court-Cash bail deposited be refunded to surety to accused** **Hon Byson Limo, PM** **Ooro Advocate-I need to be discharged.** **Court- Mr Ooro be paid fees in respect of Accused 1** **Hon Byson Limo, PM** From the foregoing proceedings, it is quite clear that the Petitioners and counsel did not object to the request for withdrawal of the matter under section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Petitioners again later took the fresh plea in the new matter (MCCR E123 of 2025) which is still ongoing. It is noted that the Petitioners did not raise any issues regarding the withdrawal of the matter as well as being arraigned afresh with the same set of facts and that they have participated in the new trial without raising an objections. It is also instructive that the Petitioners have not sought for a prayer for stay of proceedings pending in the trial court. It is thus obvious that the Petitioners are engaging in forum shopping. I find that they should just continue with their case in the trial court and raise their issues in that court. The withdrawal of the matter by the 1st Respondent was allowed under section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure which provides as follows: **In a trial before a subordinate court a public prosecutor may, with the consent of the court or on the instructions of the Director of Public Prosecutions, at any time before judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of any person, and upon withdrawal—** **(a) if it is made before the accused person is called upon to make his defence, he shall be discharged, but discharge of an accused person shall not operate as a bar to subsequent proceedings against him on account of the same facts;** **(b) if it is made after the accused person is called upon to make his defence,** **he shall be acquitted.** 22. It is also noted that learned counsel for the 1st Respondent has given a chronology of the proceedings leading to the withdrawal of the charge under section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code. I find that there is no irregularity in those proceedings as the Petitioners and their learned counsel were present and consented to the said withdrawal. The Petitioners cannot now turn around and attempt to fault the court process in which they fully participated. In any event, under Article 157(6)(a) of the Constitution, the Director of Public Prosecutions is mandated to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against any person before any court, other than a court martial, in respect of any offence alleged to have been committed, and may also discontinue such proceedings at any stage before judgment is delivered. I find that the Petitioners have not availed evidence that the actions of the 1st Respondent had been actuated by other ulterior motives. 23. I find that it is rather ironical for the Petitioners to pursue reliefs in this court and yet they are still proceeding with their criminal case in the lower court. As they have not sought for stay of proceedings in that court, then they should continue with it and not seek parallel reliefs elsewhere. 24. An analysis of the entire petition leaves no doubt that the same is misconceived, bad in law and an abuse of the court process as it does not meet the reasonable test and threshold for granting the prayers sought. I find the Respondents action in the trial court were in accordance with their duties and that all their actions were lawful, regular, procedural and in furtherance of their statutory duties under the relevant Acts and subsidiary legislation and further that the decision to charge is vested in the office of the 1st Respondent as provided for in article 157 of the constitution and that the 3rd Respondent only conducts investigations and subsequently forwards the file to the office of the Director of Public prosecution for action. Iam not convinced that the Petitioners have managed to surmount the threshold of proof so as to warrant grant of the orders sought. 25. In view of the foregoing observations, it is my finding that the Petition herein is bereft of any merit. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs. **Dated and Delivered at Siaya, this 19th day of June 2026** **D. KEMEI** **JUDGE** **In the presence of:** **Ibrahim Ouma Ayako...........................1st Petitioner** **N/A Kennedy Otieno Ouma..................................2nd Petitioner** **Peter Ochieng Ayako.................................................3rd Petitioner** **Soita..................................................................for 1st Respondent** **M/s Odhiambo for Esendi.............................for 2nd & 3rd Respondents** **M/s Maurine.......................................................Court Assistant**