https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3333

Chebii & 3 others v SBI International Holdings (AG) & another (Environment and Land Case 19 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 3333 (KLR) (28 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3333 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Nyahururu Environment and Land Case 19 of 2019 LN Mbugua, J May 28, 2026 Between Esther Cheptanui Chebii 1st Plaintiff Stephen Kiprop Chebii 2nd Plaintiff Henry Koskei Chebii (Suing on his behalf as ex-friend BC - Minor) 3rd Plaintiff Julius Kibet Chebii 4th Plaintiff and SBI International Holdings (AG) 1st Defendant National Environment Management Authority 2nd Defendant Ruling 1.Judgement was delivered in this matter on 11.4.2024. The 1st defendant has filed an application dated 30.10.2025 seeking orders that the frim of Albert Mumma Advocates be allowed to come on record for the 1st defendant, an injunction be issued restraining the plaintiffs from harassing the 1st defendant, blocking their offices and disrupting the road works, that the OCS Karandi Police Station to ensure compliance and that the court to declare that there are no outstanding balance owed to the plaintiffs. 2.The application is premised on the grounds on the face of the application and the supporting affidavit of Seline Apiyo, the Chief Accountant of the applicant. She avers that Ruol Auctioneers obtained irregular, unprocedural and unlawful warrants of attachment dated 11.4.2024 which have been used to harass their staff. That on 30.9.2024 and on 28.10.2025 (where there was a demand of Sh. 300,000 as costs), the said auctioneers stormed the premises of the applicant in a bid to execute the judgment using the unlawful warrants of attachment and they also obtained warrants for the sale of the applicant’s property. All this was done on the instructions given by the plaintiffs. 3.That the applicant being fearful of the disruption of its road activities settled the decretal sum of Sh. 1,203,000 and the auctioneers fee of Sh 200,000 as final settlement, but was surprised to later get a demand of Sh. 477,605 as costs. The applicant was to learn that the costs have not been taxed, hence the aforementioned amount indicated in the warrants was wrong. That the auctioneers through the instructions of the plaintiff have been harassing the applicant who is now unable to continue with its road works. The plaintiffs have been extorting money from the applicant using the auctioneers by obtaining multiple warrants, of which the auctioneers hover around the premises of the applicant issuing threats. 4.On 13.4.2026, the respondents were granted upto 20.4.2026 to put a response, but there was no compliance with the said directions. 5.I have considered the arguments raised herein, whereby the applicant contends that they made the final payments, but they continue to be harassed by auctioneers who file multiple warrants of attachment ostensibly to execute on costs. No plausible explanation has been proffered by the plaintiffs as to why they are harassing the applicants using auctioneers. It is quite clear that taxation has not been undertaken, thus the execution on costs is unlawful. 6.Courts of law exist to administer justice, see Equity Bank Limited -vs- West Link MBO Limited - Civil Application No. 78 of 2011, and in the case at hand, the justice of the day demands that the application dated 30.10.2025 be allowed. Thus the same is allowed with costs to the applicant. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NYAHURURU THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY 2026, THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.LUCY N. MBUGUAJUDGEIn the presence of:Kimathi h/b for Kamande for 1st defendant/Applicant.Ojare for the plaintiff.Bedan/ Vanessa C/As.