Farah & 2 others v Adan & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E131 & 136 of 2021 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELC 2964 (KLR) (18 May 2026) (Judgment)

Farah & 2 others v Adan & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E131 & 136 of 2021 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELC 2964 (KLR) (18 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 2964 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi Environment and Land Case E131 & 136 of 2021 (Consolidated) CA Ochieng, J May 18, 2026 Between Hussein Ahmed Farah 1st Plaintiff Hussein Unsur Mohamed 2nd Plaintiff Mohamed Adikadir Adan 3rd Plaintiff and Yusuf Abdi Adan Defendant As consolidated with Environment and Land Case 136 of 2021 Between Yusuf Abdi Adan Plaintiff and Hussein Ahmed Farah 1st Defendant Hussein Unsur Mohamed 2nd Defendant Mohamed Abdikadir Adan 3rd Defendant Judgment 1.The Plaintiffs commenced this suit vide a Plaint dated 19th April 2021 and amended on 27th June 2022. They contended that by dint of an Indenture dated 7th July 1996, they jointly purchased LR No.36/VII/405 Eastleigh with the Defendant and erected a commercial building christened “Bangkok Shopping Mall’’ thereon, which consists of rental shops. It is their case that they own 75% of the property whilst the Defendant owns 25 %. Further, that they tasked the Defendant with managing the suit property owing to their business relations and partnership in other ventures, including Blue Bird Aviation Limited but he has refused to render accounts and solely collects rent and controls the suit property. 2.They seek the following Orders:a.An order for the Defendant to render audited accounts of the premises erected on Land Reference No.36/VII/405 since 2016.b.Special damages of the rent proceeds owed to the Plaintiffs of Kshs. 2,009, 550/= per month from January 2016 until the final determination of the suit.c.The Plaintiffs and the Defendant either by themselves or any appointed manager immediately take joint possession, control, management including collection of rent, goodwill and any such profits from property LR No.36/VII/405.d.An order that the Inspector General of Police to enforce compliance with prayer (c) above.e.In the alternative to prayer (c) above, an order that property reference No. 36/VII/405 be valued at kshs. 260,000,000/= or to be valued afresh and sold with the Plaintiffs together owning 75% proprietary interest in the suit property being given the right of first refusal.f.An order that if the property is sold, the purchase price be shared among the parties equally but the Defendant’s share shall be net of the decretal sum owing to the Plaintiffs arising from the suit herein.g.Cost of the suit and interest thereon at court rates. Response 3.The suit was opposed by the Defendant who filed a statement of defence. He denied allegations in the plaint and averred that together with one Noor Maalim Adan, they purchased LR No. 36/VII/405 vide an agreement dated 27th April 1994, wherein Bangkok Shopping Mall is developed. Further, that after acquisition of the suit property, it was registered jointly in his name and the Plaintiffs’ due to the good business relationships and the trust existing between them at the time through their main venture Company - Blue Bird Aviation Limited. Further, that he did not intend to confer any beneficial interest upon the Plaintiffs but what exists is a resulting trust. 4.He confirmed that he was in charge of the suit property including formalizing terms of rent agreements and collecting rent, which he dutifully did for over twenty (23) years and would render accounts annually. Further, that in that arrangement, the Plaintiffs in turn managed Blue Bird Aviation Limited on his behalf, as he had 25% shares in the said company but a dispute arose over mismanagement and which was the subject of litigation for a long time. 5.He insisted that this Court has no jurisdiction to determine the suit as it is a commercial dispute relating to earnings including sharing of profits from the suit property and it is not an ownership dispute.The Plaintiff’s case in the consolidated suit- ELC NO. 136 OF 2021 6.In the consolidated suit, the Plaintiff (Defendant) herein on the basis of the allegations which mirror those in his defence herein, in his plaint dated 16th April 2021 sought judgement against the Defendant for:a.A declaration be issued that the Plaintiff as co-owner of all that property known as Bangkok Mall in Eastleigh, Nairobi developed on Land Reference No.36/VII/405 is legally entitled to custody and access over all parts of the premises, and to mandatorily participate in rent collection from current and future tenants.b.A permanent injunction be issued restraining the Defendants and Interested Party whether by themselves, their servants, agents, representatives, assigns or howsoever otherwise from directly or through any other means evicting the Defendant from the whole or any part of all that property known as Bangkok Mall in Eastleigh, Nairobi developed on Land Reference No.36/VII/405.c.This Honourable Court be pleased to order that the status quo ante be restored at all that property known as Bangkok Mall in Eastleigh, Nairobi developed on Land Reference No.36/VII/405, more specifically that the custody, possession and control over the said property be reinstated to the Defendant as it was before the illegal eviction on 5th April 2021.d.The OCS Pangani Police Station be directed to enforce compliance with prayers (ii) and (iiii) above.e.General damages for the illegal eviction of the Plaintiff from the premises.f.Costs of the suit.g.Any further reliefs that the court deems fit and just to grant. 7.The suit was heard by viva voce evidence but it is only the Plaintiffs that called witnesses. The Plaintiffs’ evidence 8.The Plaintiffs called three (3) witnesses. PW1 who was the 2nd Plaintiff adopted his witness statement as his evidence in chief and produced a List and Bundle of documents at pages 32-75 of the Plaintiffs’ List and Bundle dated 27th June 2022 as P. Exhibits No. 1-11 with the exception of Exhibit 3 which was marked for identification. Documents in the Plaintiffs’ supplementary list dated 1st August 2022 were also marked as P. Exhibits No. 12-14. 9.It was his evidence that the Plaintiffs and the Defendant contributed equally towards the purchase of the suit property and construction of Bangkok Shopping Mall, thus they jointly own 75% of it. He pointed out that the Plaintiffs are pilots and had partnered with the Defendant in other ventures including to being equal shareholders in Bluebird Aviation Limited and on LR No.36/VII/399. Further, that the initial agreement for the management of LR No.36/VII/399 and the suit property, was that the Defendant would manage the two (2) properties for all the parties herein and account for all the proceeds/profits including expenses, which ought to be shared equally amongst them. 10.He explained that owing to a dispute that arose over the running and management of Blue Bird Aviation Limited, the relationship between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant irretrievably broke down. Further, that the Defendant has since 2016, singularly managed the suit property, collected goodwill, deposits, rent and other income without any accounting to his equal co-proprietors and as per his sole sanctioned valuation of the suit property done in April 2021, the said suit property was valued at kshs.260 million, while he collects monthly rent of Kshs 2,699,400/=, which he has not accounted for, since January 2016. 11.He pointed out that in 2021, the Plaintiffs filed MCELC No. E077 of 2021 in pursuit of their share of profits and later withdrew the case for want of jurisdiction but the Defendant had ignored interim orders issued in the said matter on 19th April 2021 requiring that possession, control and management over the property be reinstated to all parties herein. Further, that the Defendant also disregarded orders issued herein on 26th April 2022, directing that rent from the suit property be deposited in a joint interest earning account in the names of the advocates for the parties herein with effect from 1st June 2022. It was his testimony that due to the dreadlock herein, the viable option in the dispute is a buy – out with the Plaintiffs having the right of first refusal. 12.In cross-examination, PW1 stated that the verifying affidavit to the Plaintiffs’ plaint is undated and that the signature appearing is not his. He insisted that the Plaintiffs contributed ksh. 106 million towards construction of the commercial building on the suit property. He explained that the dispute in Bluebird Aviation Limited spilled into the business on the suit property culminating in the Defendant locking them out. He testified that while the Defendant’s valuation of the suit property gave a rent collection figure of about kshs. 2 million, the Plaintiffs believe he collects more but they will go by the Defendant’s valuation. 13.In re-examination, PW1 stated that in the consolidated suit- ELC 136 OF 2021, the Defendant herein, who is the Plaintiff in the said case calls himself a co-owner of the suit property, thus he does not dispute the Plaintiffs’ ownership. He also clarified that this case has nothing to do with the Bluebird Aviation business and that the verifying affidavit to the Plaintiffs’ plaint has a date and his initials. However, Counsel for the Defendant requested the court to confirm the verifying affidavit to the Plaintiffs’ plaint in the system and the court confirmed that it has a mark and it is undated. 14.The 2nd Plaintiff testified as PW2. He adopted his witness statement which mirrors that of PW1. He stated that the Plaintiffs seek special damages of kshs. 2,009, 550/= which is less than kshs. 2,699, 406/=, which the Defendant says he collects as per his valuation report. He insisted that the suit property be sold and shared between the parties herein and that the Defendants share be less than what he has collected as profit from the suit property. 15.In cross-examination, PW2 stated that the suit property had an old building which was brought down, after which the parties contributed for construction of ‘Bangkok Shopping Mall’ but he had no receipts /statements /cheques toward the construction, save for the Indenture. He also stated that he gave PW1 authority to sign the verifying affidavit to the Plaint. 16.In re-examination, PW2 confirmed that he received his 25% share of rent upto December 2015. Further, that in his defence in the suit, the Defendant refers to the Plaintiffs as purchasers while in the consolidated suit, he admits that they are co-owners of the suit property. Further, that in the Defendant’s valuation report, the valuer gave a disclaimer on rent and indicated that he was instructed by the Defendant. 17.The Plaintiffs’ third witness was PW3. His evidence in chief mirrors that of PW1 and PW2 that from January 2016, in breach of the Plaintiffs’ proprietary rights, the Defendant locked them out of the suit property and has completely refused to account or share any profits. 18.In cross-examination, PW3 stated that there is no proof of shareholding in the suit property, but parties dealt purely on trust. Further, that after Court orders that all parties access the suit property, meetings were called by Police Commander and the Regional Commander wrote to the Deputy Registrars but there was no solution. He confirmed that the Plaintiffs’ application for contempt against the Defendant was dismissed. 19.In re-examination, PW3 reiterated that the Defendant has not complied with this Court’s orders that rent be remitted into a joint account. Further, that prior to 2016, he was collecting and sharing rent with the Plaintiffs and in his defence he does point it out. He also stated that the Indenture demonstrates that the Defendant and the Plaintiffs in the main suit are all proprietors of the suit property as they contributed kshs.7 million while the Defendant collects monthly rent of kshs. 2.6 million. 20.The Defendant failed to call witnesses despite the Court granting him several opportunities to do so. Litigation history after close of pleadings 21.The record indicates that this suit which was largely heard by Hon. Lady Justice Omange, had reserved it for judgement on 5th June 2025. However, several applications were filed by the Defendant including one for her recusal, which she determined vide her Ruling dated 18th June 2025. Further, Lady Justice Omange recused herself and referred the matter to this Court. This Court took over the matter from where Lady Justice Omange had left but the Defendant filed two applications, which had to be determined before the judgement date could finally be set down. The Defendant once more sought for this Court to recuse herself after mentioning the matter for directions, which the Judge declined. I must say, I am writing a Judgement in a matter where I did not handle the hearing nor had the benefit of studying the demeanor of the witnesses. Submissions 22.Lady Justice Omange had directed parties to file written submissions but the Court record indicates that only the Plaintiffs filed written submissions. However, the Defendant submitted at the date the Court had set for highlighting of the said submissions on 24th March 2025. 23.The Plaintiffs submitted that the Indenture dated 7th July 1996 in respect of the suit property shows that they co-own the suit property with the Defendant, a position which is admitted in pleadings by the Defendant. Further, that under Section 24 (a) of the Land Registration Act, they are entitled to proprietorship rights as their title has not been impeached in terms of Section 26 (1) of the Land Registration Act. 24.They insisted that their working arrangement with the Defendant entailed that they manage Bluebird Aviation Limited since they are all pilots, which they did from 1992 until a dispute arose in 2015 while the Defendant was to manage shopping malls erected on the suit property and on LR No 36/VII/399 including to collect rent and share profits which he did upto December 2015 and thereafter breached the contractual arrangement, that was based on trust yet he admits to its existence and his role. 25.On their prayer for special damages, the Plaintiffs submitted that while they affirm that the rental income is substantially higher than what the Defendant has indicated in his pleadings, they nevertheless accept the amount he pleads at paragraph 3 of his plaint in ELC No. E136 OF 2021, that the entire suit property is valued at kshs.260 million while the monthly rent is ksh.2,679,400/- as per his sanctioned valuation report dated 7th April 2021 from Cephas Valuers. 26.They also submitted that from the monthly rent of kshs.2,679,400/= admitted by the Defendant, once his 25% share is deducted, the figure they are entitled to is kshs.2,009,500 / = per month, which should be calculated from January 2016 to the date of Judgement. With regard to ownership, they submit that the entitlement of the Defendant in the property is kshs.65 million, which is ¼ of its value of 260 million. Further, that the suit property should be sold and the Defendant’s share ought to be the net of the decretal sum owing to them, but they should be given the right of first refusal. 27.On his part, the Defendant submitted that this matter is not fit for the Environment and Land Court, as it is a commercial dispute over rent. Further, that since all parties are joint owners, there is no claim over ownership and if it is necessary to dissolve partnership which broke down, the parties can petition the Director, Land administration and that if the suit property is sold then it should be sold at market price. 28.He urged the Court to find that there is no verifying affidavit since PW1 disowned the signature thereon, which omission is not a procedural technicality, thus the plaint should be stuck out. 29.In rebuttal, Counsel for the Plaintiff insisted that the matter relates to ownership, use and possession of land as the Plaintiffs have been denied their proprietary rights. Further, that they could file a further verifying affidavit with leave to cure the defect alleged. Analysis and Determination 30.Upon consideration of the pleadings, testimonies of the witnesses, exhibits and submissions, the following are the issues for determination: Whether the Plaint in the main suit is defective for want of a date and signed verifying affidavit. Whether the dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court. Whether the Plaintiffs and Defendant are co-owners of LR No. 36/VII/405 in the ratio of 75% to 25% and if the Defendant should be compelled to account for rent proceeds and the suit property sold. Whether the Defendant proved existence of a resulting trust. Whether the Plaintiffs proved entitlement to special damages. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the Orders as sought in their plaint and if the Defendant is entitled to prayers sought in his plaint in the consolidated suit. 31.On the first issue, a procedural issue arose during cross examination of PW1, when it emerged that the verifying affidavit accompanying the original plaint in the main suit is undated and signed with initials but PW1 disowned them. The Defendant submitted that the said omission goes to the core of the suit therefore the plaint must be struck out. 32.On perusal of the Court records, I note there is a verifying affidavit sworn by the 1st Plaintiff on 20th January 2026, verifying the Plaintiffs’ amended plaint dated 27th June 2022. This is pursuant to the orders issued on the 2nd December 2025 where parties were allowed to file amended pleadings. It is my considered view that since there is an amended Plaint with a proper verifying affidavit attached to it, this ostensibly cures the defect. It is trite that the import of an amended Plaint and accompanying verifying affidavit, is that it entirely supersedes the original Plaint. Further, once the amended Plaint and accompanying verifying affidavit is formally accepted by the Court, it becomes the definitive document outlining the plaintiff's case and the Court is estopped from relying on the original Plaint. In the foregoing, I decline to strike out the amended Plaint as sought by the Defendant. 33.On the second issue, the Defendant contends that the suit is purely commercial and that it concerns accounting of alleged profits. He disputes the jurisdiction of this court. On their part, the Plaintiffs insists that the dispute concerns proprietary interest in land as the Defendant has curtailed their right to enjoy profits from their co-owned property. 34.In Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & others (2012) eKLR, the Supreme Court stated that a Court’s jurisdiction is derived from the Constitution, an Act of Parliament or both. This Court derives its jurisdiction from Article 162(2) (b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act. 35.Section 13(1) of the Environment and Land Court Act stipulates thus:“(2)In exercise of its jurisdiction under article 162 (2) (b) of the Constitution, the Court [the ELC] shall have power to hear and determine disputes—(a)relating to environmental planning and protection, climate issues, land use, planning, title, tenure, boundaries, rates, rents, valuations, mining, minerals and other natural resources;(b)relating to compulsory acquisition of land;(c)relating to land administration and management;(d)relating to public, private and community land and contracts, choses in action or other instruments granting any enforceable interests in land; and(e)any other dispute relating to environment and land.(3)Nothing in this Act shall preclude the Court from hearing and determining applications for redress of a denial, violation or infringement of, or threat to, rights or fundamental freedom relating to a clean and healthy environment under Articles 42, 69 and 70 of the Constitution.” 36.In Suzanne Achieng Butler & 4 Others vs Redhill Heights Investments Limited & Another (2016) eKLR, it was held that:“ 23.23. When faced with a controversy whether a particular case is a dispute about land (which should be litigated at the ELC) or not, the Courts utilize the Predominant Purpose Test: In a transaction involving both a sale of land and other services or goods, jurisdiction lies at the ELC if the transaction is predominantly for land, but the High Court has jurisdiction if the transaction is predominantly for the provision of goods, construction, or works. 24. The Court must first determine whether the predominant purpose of the transaction is the sale of land or construction. Whether the High Court or the ELC has jurisdiction hinges on the predominant purpose of the transaction, that is, whether the contract primarily concerns the sale of land or, in this case, the construction of a townhouse.” 37.In Lydia Nyambura Mbugua v Diamond Trust Bank Kenya Limited & another [2018] KEELC 1599 (KLR) the Judge opined that:“On my part, I would modify the above test, and hold the position that what is important when determining whether the court has jurisdiction, is not so much the purpose of the transaction, but the subject matter or issue before court, for I think that the purpose of the transaction, may at times be different from the issue or subject matter before court…” Emphasis MineSee also the case of Republic v Chengo & 2 others (Petition 5 of 2015) [2017] KESC 15 (KLR) (26 May 2017) (Judgment) 38.In this instance the Plaintiffs and Defendant are co-owners of the suit property where they constructed the ‘Bangkok Shopping Mall’. It emerged that the Plaintiffs had granted the Defendant the right to manage the said shopping mall but they allege the Defendant had failed to share the rental proceeds emanating therefrom. I opine that the fulcrum of the dispute herein hence revolves around sharing of the suit property including the rental proceeds emanating therefrom. Further, the Plaintiffs have also sought for the suit property to be sold so that parties can share the proceeds therefrom, but they also retain the ‘first right of refusal’. Based on the facts before Court while associating myself with decisions cited while exercising the ‘Predominant Purpose Test’, I find that the suit falls squarely within the jurisdiction of this Court as it concerns land. The issue of sharing of the rental proceeds is simply a secondary matter. 39.On the third issue, the Plaintiffs claim that they have a 75% stake in the suit property while the Defendant owns 25% of it. They insist that there is no ownership dispute as in his pleadings, the Defendant admits that the Plaintiffs co-own the suit property with him. They urge the court to order valuation and sale of the suit property. On his part, the Defendant alleges that registration of the suit property in the Plaintiffs’ names was based on trust but no beneficial interest was intended, but only a resulting trust exists. 40.Looking at the exhibits produced and on perusal of the Indenture dated the 2nd July, 1996, it is evident that both the Plaintiffs and the Defendant purchased the suit property from one Salim Abubaker Ahmed Bajaber. Further, that the purchasers paid Kshs. 7,000,000/= as purchase price for land reference number 36/VII/405. I further note in the Valuation Report by CEPHAS VALUERS commissioned by the Defendant, it confirms that the registered owners of the suit property are Hussein Ahmed Farah, Hussein Unsur Mohammed, Yussuf Abdi Adan and Mohammed Abdikadir Adan. It is not in dispute that the aforementioned shopping mall is situated on the suit property. 41.In Heartbeat Limited v Ng’ambwa Heartbeat Community Children’s Home & Rescue Center [2018] eKLR the Court of Appeal cited the case of Peter Ndungu Njenga v Sophia Watiri Ndungu [2000] eKLR where the Court stated thus:“The concept of trust is not new. In case of absolute necessity, but only in case of absolute necessity, the court may presume a trust. But such presumption is not to be arrived at easily. The courts will not imply a trust save in order to give effect to the intention of the parties. The intention of the parties to create a trust must be clearly determined before a trust is implied.” 42.Further, in Juletabi African Adventure Limited & another v Christopher Michael Lockley [2017] eKLR, the Court of Appeal stated that:“… a resulting trust will automatically arise in favour of the person who advances the purchase money. Whether or not the property is registered in his name or that of another, is immaterial.” 43.Further, the House of Lords in Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 , while dealing with an issue revolving around resulting trust observed that where a legal title is in joint names, the starting point is joint beneficial ownership, and the resulting trust presumption is displaced by the search for the parties' actual intentions. 44.Based on the facts as presented including the evidence I have analyzed above as well as associating myself with the decisions cited, I find that the Defendant failed to demonstrate that he singly paid the purchase price for the suit property, which was then registered in the joint names of the parties herein. It emerged in the pleadings and evidence that the parties herein had simply agreed for the Defendant to manage the shopping mall as the Plaintiffs managed their other business Blue Bird Aviation Limited, since they were pilots. 45.In my view, the burden of proof was upon the Defendant to demonstrate that their existed a resulting trust relationship between the parties herein but from their actions, I opine that he has failed to do so. I hence find that the Plaintiffs and Defendant are co-owners of LR No. 36/VII/405 and there was no resulting trust as claimed by the Defendant. Since they were four purchasers of the suit property being the three Plaintiffs and Defendant, I find that they own the said property in the ratio of 75% to 25% between themselves. 46.As to whether the Defendant should be compelled to account for rental proceeds and if the suit property should be sold and the parties to equally share the proceeds therefrom. I note during the pendency of this suit, on the 26th April, 2022, this Court (Lady Justice Komingoi) had directed that the tenants on the suit property to deposit rent in a joint interest earning account in the names of the parties’ advocates with effect from 1st June, 2022 but the Defendant declined to adhere to the said Order. Since the Defendant failed to present evidence that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to the rental proceeds emanating from the suit property, I hold that he should hence be compelled to render the accounts for all the rental proceeds he has received from January 2016, to date. 47.On the Plaintiffs’ claim for special damages, they sought for the rent proceeds owed to them amounting to Kshs. 2,009, 550/= per month from January 2016. In evidence, they stated that the said monthly rent is kshs. 2,679,400/- as per the Defendant’s sanctioned valuation report dated 7th April 2021 from CEPHAS VALUERS. The Plaintiffs acceded to using the rate of rent including value of the suit property as presented by the Defendant 48.The Court of Appeal in Jogoo Kimakia Bus Services Ltd v Electrocom International Ltd [1992] KLR 177 stated that:“The law on damages stipulates various types of damages. The distinction between general and special damages is mainly a matter of pleading and evidence. General damages are awarded in respect of such damages as the law presumes to result from the infringement of a legal right or duty. Damages must be proved but the claimant may not be able to quantify exactly any particular items in it. Special damages are the precise amount of pecuniary loss which the claimant can prove to have followed from the particular facts set out in the pleadings. They must be specifically pleaded.” 49.In this instance, I note the Plaintiffs already acceded to the rent that the Defendant presented through the valuation report from CEPHAS VALUERS. The Defendant did not tender any evidence to dispute the Plaintiff’s claim for special damages. In the circumstances while associating myself with the decisions cited, I find that the Plaintiffs have indeed proved the claim on special damages being their entitlement to the share from the rental proceeds emanating from the suit property from January 2016 to date. Further, that the said rental proceeds should be calculated based on the Defendant’s valuation report, which in essence means that it will be kshs. 2,679,400/= less the Defendant’s share, hence the balance of Kshs. 2,009,500/= is the monthly rent accruing to the three Plaintiffs. 50.The Plaintiffs have also sought for an order that property reference No.36/VII /405 be valued at kshs.260, 000,000/= or alternatively be valued afresh and sold with their share therein being 75%. Further, that in case of sale, they are to be given the right of first refusal. From the evidence tendered before Court, I note the relationship between the parties herein who were business partners has irretrievably broken down. Further, PW1, PW2 and PW3 all stated that they want the suit property sold which fact was not disputed by the Defendant. In the foregoing, I find that it would be better if the suit property was valued at current market value, sold and for the parties herein to share the sale proceeds less what the Defendant owes from the rent collected and will make an order to that effect. 51.In the circumstances, I find that the Plaintiffs are entitled to the Orders as sought in their plaint while the Defendant who failed to call any witness to prove his claim is not entitled to the prayers as sought in his plaint in the consolidated suit. 52.In the foregoing, I find that the Plaintiffs have proved their case on a balance of probability and will enter judgement in their favour as against the Defendant, in the following terms:i.An Order be and is hereby issued for the Defendant to render audited accounts of the premises erected on Land Reference No.36/VII/405 since January 2016.ii.An Order be and is hereby issued that the Plaintiffs are entitled to Special Damages of the rent proceeds owed by the Defendant in the sum of Kshs. 2,009, 550/= per month from January 2016 until payment in full.iii.An Order be and is hereby issued that property Reference No.36/VII /405 be valued afresh and sold with the Plaintiffs together owning 75% proprietary interest in the suit property and being granted the right of first refusal.iv.An Order be and is hereby issued that when the property is sold, the purchase price be shared among the parties equally but the Defendant’s share shall be net of the decretal sum owing to the Plaintiffs arising from the suit herein.v.Cost of the suit and interest in (ii) above at court rates be borne by the Defendant. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 18TH DAY OF MAY, 2026CHRISTINE OCHIENGJUDGESagana & Biriq for PlaintiffsMs. Saima Khauser for DefendantCourt Assistant: Catherine