https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11560

 # REPUBLIC OF KENYA **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL DIVISION** **CIVIL APPEAL NO. 174 OF 2023** **KASESE SACCO LIMITED (formerly operating as KASESE TRAVELLERS LIMITED) APPELLANT** ## *VERSUS* **NAEKANA ROUTE 134 SACCO SOCIETY LIMITED RESPONDENT** (*Being an Appeal from the Ruling and Order of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Nairobi, Milimani Commercial Law Courts, in Civil Suit No. E329 of 2023 delivered by Hon. G. M. Gitonga, Principal Magistrate, on 6th March 2023*) # JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. This appeal arises from an intense and volatile operational dispute within the public transport sector in Nairobi’s Central Business District. The battle centers on the allocation, delineation, and exclusive right of usage of designated public service vehicle passenger booking and parking slots along River Road, between Ronald Ngala Street and Racecourse Road, and along Temple Lane. 2. The Appellant, Kasese Sacco Limited, and the Respondent, Naekana Route 134 Sacco Society Limited, both operate public service vehicles along the competitive Nairobi-Namanga transport corridor. 3. The appeal is directed against the whole of the ruling and order delivered on 6th March 2023 by the Hon. G. M. Gitonga, Principal Magistrate, in Milimani Chief Magistrate's Civil Suit No. E329 of 2023. In the impugned decision, the subordinate court allowed the Respondent’s application for a temporary injunction, dismissed the Appellant’s application for a stay of execution, and struck out the Appellant's contempt application on the groun ds that the subordinate court lacked the requisite statutory jurisdiction to punish for civil contempt under the legal provisions cited by the Appellant. # THE BACKGROUND OF THE DISPUTE AND LOWER COURT PROCEEDINGS. 1. The dispute arose when the Respondent filed its Plaint and a Notice of Motion application dated 25th January 2023, seeking a temporary injunction under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 Rules 1, 2, and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules. 2. The Respondent sought to restrain the Appellant from parking its public service vehicles or utilizing in any manner the parking slots allocated to the Respondent along River Road, between Ronald Ngala Street and Racecourse Road. 3. The Respondent's case was anchored on its historical operations. Having been registered as a cooperative society on 5th November 2003, the Respondent plying the Nairobi-Namanga route had established its passenger booking office and parking slots along River Road. The Respondent produced its Certificate of Registration, a Fire Prevention Department Clearance Certificate, and a Single Business Permit for which it paid an annual trade licensing fee of Kes. 160,000 to the Nairobi City County. The Respondent contended that the Appellant had recently encroached upon and blocked its allocated slots, disrupting its business and causing severe commercial loss. 4. The Appellant opposed the application and filed its own Notice of Motion dated 8th February 2023, seeking to stay and vacate the subordinate court’s ex-parte injunction of 6th February 2023. The Appellant’s primary defense was that both Saccos possessed equal, joint, and non-exclusive authority to operate along Temple Lane and at the junction of River Road and Ronald Ngala Street. To support this, the Appellant produced a letter dated 11th November 2014 from Mr. L. G. Ngaruiya, the Sub-County Administrator for Starehe (Ref: LGN/SCA/101/sa/2014). The said letter observed that since both Saccos had operated at the junction for a long period, it was fair to allow them to continue their joint operations. The Appellant also produced its Single Business Permit, which allowed booking operations on Plot No. 209/5984, Starehe Sub-County, for an annual fee of Kes. 36,000. 1. The conflict in the subordinate court escalated rapidly. On 6th February 2023, the trial court granted an ex-parte temporary injunction in favor of the Respondent. This prompted the Appellant to secure an ex-parte order of stay of execution on 13th February 2023. Asserting that the Respondent's directors and employees willfully disobeyed this stay order by continuously blocking its vehicles, the Appellant filed a contempt application on 16th February 2023. 2. To restore order, the learned magistrate issued directions on 22nd February 2023, consolidating all three applications, vacating the ex-parte orders of 6th February 2023, and ordering the maintenance of the status quo that obtained prior to the filing of the suit. Despite this order, the spatial conflict culminated in physical violence on 25th February 2023. The Appellant’s employees, Samuel Kariuki and Rahab Wanja Njoroge, were seriously assaulted at the disputed location, resulting in reports to Kamukunji Police Station under OB Nos. 69/25/02/2023 and 55/25/02/2023, and medical examinations at Mama Lucy Kibaki Hospital and Kaka Medical Centre. 3. Following an inter-partes hearing on 28th February 2023, the learned trial magistrate delivered the impugned ruling on 6th March 2023. The court allowed the Respondent’s application for a temporary injunction, dismissed the Appellant’s application for stay, and struck out the Appellant's contempt application. 4. To highlight the material differences between the licenses and county authorizations of both Saccos, the following comparative table is incorporated: The Appellant, Kasese Sacco Limited (operating as Kasese Travellers Limited and formerly plying as Kasese Travellers), holds Single Business Permit No. SBP-4D879AA7, with their annual licensing fee paid on 16th January 2023. In contrast, the Respondent, Naekana Route 134 Sacco, has been formally registered as a Cooperative Sacco since 5th November 2003 under Registration No. 05/02. The Respondent operates under Single Business Permit ID No. 1018407, with their annual licensing fee having been settled on 7th January 2022. 1. The prescribed operational scope and physical locations of the two entities reveal distinct parameters despite occupying the same primary plot. Kasese Sacco Limited is licensed as a Medium Transport Company managing between 6 and 30 vehicles alongside a booking office, physically situated on Plot No. 209/5984 in Starehe Sub-County at Stall/Door No. 12. Conversely, Naekana Route 134 Sacco is classified as a Large Transport Company authorized to run over 50 vehicles for transport services. While the Respondent shares the same broader land parcel of Plot No. 209/5984, their operations are specifically delineated to the Racecourse Road/Riverside at Stall/Door No. 1 2. County regulatory directives and peak-hour vehicle limits further separate their operational mandates. Under the Nairobi City County Government mobility directive NCCG/MOB/PSV/927/COM/ dated 3rd April 2023, the Appellant’s presence is strictly restricted to Temple Lane, with a maximum allowance of only 2 active vehicles permitted at any given time. Meanwhile, the Respondent operates under directive NCCG/MOBILITY//166/COM dated 14th February 2023, which grants them an allocation of 8 spaces. This forms part of a larger, shared peak- time allocation of 13 total spaces distributed among three operators on- site: Naekana with 8 spaces, Super Coach with 4 spaces, and Nailepu with 1 space. # The Administrative Delays and the Battle for the Record of Appeal 1. A crucial aspect of this litigation is the administrative delay that occurred in compiling the Record of Appeal, which must be detailed to understand why this simple interlocutory appeal took years to resolve. 1.  Following the subordinate court’s decision on 6th March 2023, the Appellant immediately filed its Memorandum of Appeal on 10th March 2023 and sought a stay of execution in this Court. However, the physical lower court file went missing from the registry. 2. The Appellant's advocates, Mbuthia Kinyanjui & Co., wrote a formal complaint letter to the Executive Officer of the Chief Magistrate’s Court on 4th May 2023 (Ref: MK/CIV/686/010/23), detailing their unsuccessful efforts to trace the file. Because the trial magistrate, Hon. Gitonga, had been transferred to the Family Division, the file had been directed to be placed before the Head of Station for reallocation. Between March and May 2023, counsel logged into the virtual courts of Hon. Gitonga and Hon. Wendy Micheni on numerous dates, but the file remained untraceable, leaving the Appellant unable to secure the certified proceedings necessary to complete its appeal. 3. This administrative oversight continued into 2024 and 2025, as recorded in the High Court proceedings : The matter commenced on 13th June 2024 before Hon. S. Motari (DR), where the Deputy Registrar granted the Appellant seven days to file and serve a complete Record of Appeal and submissions. However, by the next mention on 10th July 2024 before Hon. Lady Justice T. W. Ouya, progress stalled as the Appellant reported the compiled Record was incomplete because the subordinate court’s typed proceedings were still missing. 4. On 23rd September 2024, the Appellant requested an additional 30 days from Lady Justice Ouya to follow up and secure the certified typed proceedings. Recognizing the administrative bottleneck, the Court granted additional time on 31st October 2024, ordering the Appellant to file a Supplementary Record of Appeal alongside a Certificate of Delay. * 1. The situation got complicated further on 2nd December 2024 during a virtual mention before Hon. Linus P. Kassan J, where the Appellant reported that the physical lower court file itself was now missing. 2. The administrative delays persisted into the following year. On 6th February 2025, Hon. Linus P. Kassan J directed both parties to actively follow up on the missing proceedings at the subordinate court registry. 3. By 24th June 2025, Justice Kassan formally noted that a significant backlog at the lower court was the root cause delaying the typing of the proceedings. To prevent further prejudice to the parties due to these systemic delays, the Court took interventive measures on 22nd September 2025, with Justice Kassan directing that the appeal be "fast-tracked" in chambers. 1. The matter finally moved toward a resolution in mid-2026. On 14th July 2026, Hon. J. Asiago (DR) confirmed that all submissions had successfully been filed and officially scheduled the appeal before the High Court Judge. The following day, on 15th July 2026, this court conducted the hearing. 2. This administrative dysfunction directly impacted the parties' rights. By leaving the physical record untraceable for over two years, the court registry forced the maintenance of a highly volatile operational environment on the ground, illustrating how administrative inefficiency can delay the delivery of substantive justice. # THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. The Appellant’s Memorandum of Appeal is predicated on the following grounds : * 1. The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by holding that the legal principles governing the grant of temporary injunctions had been fulfilled by the Respondent, and thereby exercised judicial discretion improperly. * 1. The learned magistrate erred in law by failing to evaluate, appreciate, and give due weight to the Appellant’s deponed affidavits and the documentary evidence showing joint operational authority. 2. The learned magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to consider the merits of, and subsequently dismissing, the Appellant’s contempt application dated 16th February 2023 for want of jurisdiction. 3. The learned magistrate misapprehended the facts and the law, resulting in orders that barred a bona fide, licensed operator from accessing and utilizing spaces jointly occupied for over eight years, effectively granting the Respondent exclusive use of public space. 4. The learned magistrate erred in law and fact by assuming that the Nairobi City County was wrong in allocating parking slots to both parties jointly on the same street. 5. In all the circumstances of the case, the learned magistrate failed to render substantive justice to the Appellant. # SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES **The Appellant's Case** 1. The Appellant’s through submissions dated 10th July 2023, contend that the subordinate court completely disregarded the historical and regulatory reality of the parties' operations. 2. The Appellant submits that the 2014 letter from the Starehe Sub-County Administrator proved that both Saccos had co-existed and jointly operated at the River Road-Ronald Ngala junction for nearly a decade. They argue that the sudden grant of an injunction disrupted this status quo, halted the Appellant's business, and caused substantial, unrecoverable loss. 1. On the question of the single business permits, the Appellant argues that both permits referred to the same parcel of land, Plot No. 209/5984, meaning that both Saccos had equal claims to the entire plot, subject only to spatial coordination. 2. Regarding the dismissal of the contempt application, the Appellant asserts that the trial magistrate took an excessively restrictive and technical view of the law. The Appellant argues that subordinate courts possess the power to enforce their own orders, and striking out the application for citing the wrong legal provisions violated the principles of substantive justice enshrined in Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution. # The Respondent's Case 1. The Respondent opposes the appeal, submitting that the trial magistrate’s exercise of discretion was flawless and conformed to established legal tests. The Respondent argues that the Appellant’s claim of "joint authority" is based on a letter from a sub-county administrator, who lacks the legal mandate to issue business permits or allocate designated PSV parking spaces on behalf of the Nairobi City County’s Mobility and Works Sector. 2. The Respondent highlights that business permits are issued to specific municipal "stalls" or "doors" to delineate operating areas. The Respondent's permit clearly allocated Stall No. 1, whereas the Appellant’s permit, while referring to the same general plot number, was restricted to Stall No. 12. 3. Furthermore, the Respondent produced a letter dated 14th February 2023 (NWN1) from the Chief Officer for Mobility, confirming that the designated River Road spaces were allocated strictly to Naekana, Super Coach, and Nailepu Saccos, to the exclusion of Kasese. Another county directive dated 3rd April 2023 (NWN2) explicitly directed the Appellant to restrict its operations to Temple Lane. 4. As for the contempt application, the Respondent contends that the subordinate court was correct to dismiss it, as the Appellant sought to invoke the High Court’s inherent powers under the Judicature Act and English Common Law rules, which do not apply to subordinate courts. # ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION 1. Having analyzed the Record of Appeal, the trial proceedings, and the submissions of both counsel, this Court frames the following key issues for determination: 1. **Standard of Review on Interlocutory Discretionary Orders**: What is the threshold for an appellate court to interfere with the exercise of judicial discretion by a trial magistrate on interlocutory applications? 2. **The Propriety of the Temporary Injunction**: Whether the learned trial magistrate applied the correct legal principles under the landmark Giella v. Cassman Brown framework in granting the temporary injunction in favor of the Respondent. 3. **The Jurisdiction of the Trial Court over Civil Contempt**: Whether the trial magistrate erred in law by holding that the Chief Magistrate’s Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain and determine the Appellant's contempt application dated 16th February 2023. 4. **The Merits of the Contempt Application**: In the event that jurisdiction did exist, whether the Appellant established a case of willful contempt to the required standard of proof. # DETERMINATION ## *Standard of Review on Interlocutory Discretionary Orders* 1. The decision of a trial court to grant or refuse a temporary injunction, or to stay its own execution, represents a classic exercise of judicial discretion. It is a well-settled principle of Kenyan law, originating from the landmark decision in **Mbogo v. Shah EA 93**, that an appellate court must not interfere with the exercise of discretion by a trial judge or magistrate simply because it would have arrived at a different conclusion on the same facts. 1. The appellate court’s jurisdiction to intervene is strictly circumscribed. Intervention is only justified if it is established that the trial court misdirected itself on a matter of law, misapprehended the facts, took into account irrelevant considerations, failed to take into account relevant considerations, or arrived at a decision that is plainly wrong and results in a manifest miscarriage of justice. 2. In evaluating this appeal, this Court must therefore determine whether the trial magistrate's assessment of the consolidated applications was tainted by any of these vitiating factors. ## *The Propriety of the Temporary Injunction* 1. The statutory basis for the grant of a temporary injunction is found under Order 40 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The substantive legal principles that an applicant must satisfy to qualify for this equitable relief were permanently laid down in the locus classicus ***Giella v. Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd EA* 358**. These three conditions are applied sequentially: 2. **Prima Facie Case with a Probability of Success** 1. The applicant must demonstrate a case that, on the face of it, is not frivolous or vexatious, but raises serious triable issues that have a reasonable likelihood of success at the trial. 2. In this case, the Respondent proved that it held a valid business permit and clearance certificates for its booking and transport operations along River Road. Crucially, the Respondent demonstrated that its business permit was issued for Stall No. 1 on Plot No. 209/5984. The Appellant, on the other hand, relied heavily on Mr. L. G. Ngaruiya’s 2014 administrator letter to claim a "joint allocation." * 1. This Court finds that a sub-county administrator is an administrative officer of the county executive and does not possess the statutory authority to issue trade licenses, register PSV operators, or allocate public service vehicle spaces in the CBD. That mandate is strictly vested in the Mobility and Works Sector of the Nairobi City County, acting in coordination with the National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA). 2. The regulatory reality is clarified by the county's formal correspondence. Under the directive dated 14th February 2023 (NWN1), the Chief Officer for Mobility confirmed that the designated parking and dropping space along River Road can accommodate a maximum of thirteen vehicles. 3. To prevent congestion, the county made a formal allocation: 4. No slots were allocated to the Appellant along River Road. Instead, the county’s letter of 3rd April 2023 (NWN2) explicitly stated: ## "*That you shall continue operating along Temple Lane for the* route that you are currently licensed by NTSA... you are allowed only 2 No. Vehicles at the operating area at any given time." * 1. The trial magistrate correctly concluded that the Nairobi City County could not have intended to allocate the exact same physical space to two competing Saccos. Such an overlapping allocation would invite administrative chaos, and the court is bound to favor a construction of the licenses that maintains public order. 2. The permits themselves reveal a clear geographic separation: Naekana was allocated Stall No. 1, while Kasese was allocated Stall No. 12. The trial magistrate's finding that the Respondent established a strong prima facie case of encroachment and trespass on its legally allocated spaces was therefore fully supported by the evidence on record. 1. **Irreparable Injury** 2. The second condition is that the court will not normally grant an injunction unless the applicant demonstrates that they stand to suffer an irreparable injury that cannot be adequately compensated by an award of damages. 3. In the public transport sector, where operators compete for daily passengers on a cash-revenue basis, the disruption of booking offices and the physical blocking of parking slots directly damages business goodwill, customer loyalty, and operational stability. 4. Moreover, the factual record shows that the spatial conflict led to physical altercations and assaults on employees. Such physical violence and ongoing breaches of public peace cannot be calculated in monetary terms, nor can they be adequately remedied by a future award of damages. Maintaining order in the CBD’s transport hubs is paramount, and the trial magistrate was justified in finding that the threat of irreparable harm was imminent. 5. **Balance of Convenience** 6. Where there is any doubt on the first two conditions, the court must resolve the application on the balance of convenience, which involves weighing the potential harm to the applicant if the injunction is denied against the harm to the respondent if the injunction is granted. 7. In this case, the balance of convenience heavily favored the Respondent. The Respondent was actively utilizing the River Road slots under a high-value annual permit of KES 160,000. Denying the injunction would have allowed the Appellant to continue its encroachment, leading to further commercial disruption and physical clashes. 8. In contrast, granting the injunction merely required the Appellant to restrict its operations to its designated county location along Temple Lane and Stall No. 12, causing minimal disruption to its lawful business. 1. Consequently, this Court finds no misdirection or error in the trial magistrate’s application of the **Giella v. Cassman Brown** principles. The grant of the temporary injunction in favor of the Respondent was a proper and lawful exercise of judicial discretion. ## *The Jurisdiction of the Trial Court over Civil Contempt* 1. This Court must now address a major question of law raised by the Appellant: whether the subordinate court possesses the jurisdiction to punish for contempt of court, and whether the trial magistrate erred in striking out the Appellant’s contempt application on that ground. 2. The trial magistrate’s finding that subordinate courts lack inherent jurisdiction to punish for civil contempt was a serious error of law. The trial magistrate failed to appreciate that the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 2015, under Section 10(1), explicitly grants subordinate courts the power to punish for contempt. Section 10(6) limits this power to a fine of Kes. 100,000, five days' imprisonment or both. Furthermore, Order 40 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 provides a specific, self-contained mechanism for any court that issued an injunction to enforce it and punish breaches via civil jail or attachment. This Court in ***Wanjala & 3 others v Chief Magistrates Court at Milimani; Quadco Two Hundred & Thirty-Two Ltd* (Interested Party) (Criminal Appeal E170 of 2022) [2025] KEHC 418 (KLR) (Crim) (23 January 2025) (Ruling)** affirmed that indeed, Magistrates Courts have the power to punish any contempt of such Courts. Thus, the magistrate's conclusion that the application was incompetent simply because the Appellant's counsel cited the Judicature Act and English Common Law rules was a hyper-technical error, which is presently discouraged by the Kenyan Constitution 2010. In ***Center for Rights Education and Awareness (CREAW) & 2 Others v. Mwau & 8 Others*** (2012),KECA 249 (KLR), the Court of Appeal ruled that disregarding procedural technicalities under Article 159(2)(d) cannot cure a fundamental lack of jurisdiction. However, in this case, the law clearly grants the magistrates court the jurisdiction to hear contempt applications. Thus, under Article 159(2)(d), the magistrate was duty- bound to administer substantive justice and overlook procedural missteps. 1. To sum up, the subordinate court clearly possessed the statutory authority to hear and determine Kasese’s contempt application. The learned trial magistrate’s decision to strike out the application for want of jurisdiction was therefore a misdirection in law, and Ground 3 of the Memorandum of Appeal is allowed. ## *Merits of the Contempt Application* 1. Having established that the subordinate court possessed the jurisdiction to determine the contempt application, this Court must now consider whether the Appellant's application dated 16th February 2023 was sustainable on its merits. To prevent unnecessary delay and conserve judicial resources, this Court will evaluate the affidavit evidence on record rather than remitting the matter back to the lower court. 2. Civil contempt is a grave matter. Because its consequences can involve the deprivation of personal liberty, the standard of proof required to establish contempt is higher than a mere balance of probabilities. ***North Tetu Farmers Co. Ltd v Joseph Nderitu Wanjohi*** (2016) eKLR as quoted in ***Cyton Investment Management PLC v John Bosco Matheka* (2021) KEHC 13456 (KLR)** the court affirmed that the applicant in a civil contempt must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that: 1. The terms of the order were clear, unambiguous, and binding on the respondent; 2. The respondent had proper notice of the order; and 3. The respondent willfully and deliberately disobeyed the terms of the order. 3. The order in question was the ex-parte stay order issued on 13th February 2023, which stayed the ex-parte injunction of 6th February 2023. The effect of the stay was to allow the Appellant to continue operating under the status quo pending the inter-partes hearing. 4. The Appellant’s affidavit asserts that despite being served with the stay order, the Respondent’s directors continued to block its drivers from accessing the parking slots. The Respondent, in its replying affidavit, vehemently denied these allegations, asserting that it was the Appellant's drivers who violently attempted to force their way into slots specifically allocated to the Respondent under its active county permits, leading to physical confrontations. 5. The record reveals that on 22nd February 2023, only nine days after the stay was granted, the trial court formally vacated the ex-parte orders of 6th February 2023 to allow the consolidated applications to be heard together. 6. The physical clashes that occurred on 25th February 2023 occurred after the stay order had been overtaken by the court's consolidated status quo directions of 22nd February 2023. Those clashes, while regrettable and subject to police investigation at Kamukunji Police Station, were highly contested factual disputes involving allegations of assault and criminal conduct. The physical clashes did not constitute clear, undisputed, and unequivocal proof of a willful, deliberate disobedience of a subsisting, unambiguous civil order by the Respondent's directors. 7. Because the allegations of disobedience were based on highly contested facts that were inseparable from ongoing criminal investigations, the Appellant failed to establish the high threshold of proof required for civil contempt. Therefore, while the trial magistrate erred on the question of jurisdiction, the contempt application itself was bound to fail on its merits. The order dismissing the application is consequently upheld, but for the substantive lack of proof rather than a want of jurisdiction. # DISPOSITION 1. The ultimate resolution of this dispute must prioritize public order, regulatory compliance, and the rule of law. The local authority's mobility sector is mandated to organize public space in the CBD to prevent the very chaos and violence that transpired in this case. 2. The evidence shows that the Nairobi City County has established clear operational boundaries: Naekana Sacco is permitted to utilize Stall No. 1 and its designated slots along River Road, while Kasese Sacco is permitted to operate from Stall No. 12 and its designated space along Temple Lane. Both parties must restrict their operations to these designated boundaries and respect the licensing authority’s decisions. 3. The upshot of this Court’s findings is as follows: 1. The appeal against the grant of the temporary injunction in the lower court's ruling dated 6th March 2023 is hereby dismissed, and the injunction restraining the Appellant from utilizing or parking in slots allocated to the Respondent on Plot No. 209/5984, Stall No. 1, along River Road is affirmed. 2. The appeal against the dismissal of the Appellant's contempt application dated 16th February 2023 is allowed only to the extent of correcting the trial magistrate's jurisdictional finding, with a declaration that subordinate courts possess full statutory jurisdiction to punish for contempt of court under Section 10 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 2015. However, the substantive contempt application is dismissed on its merits for want of sufficient proof of willful disobedience. 3. Both Saccos are directed to strictly comply with the terms of their respective business permits and county mobility allocations: the Respondent shall restrict its operations to Plot No. 209/5984 Stall No. 1 (River Road spaces), and the Appellant shall restrict its operations to Plot No. 209/5984 Stall No. 12 and its designated spaces along Temple Lane. 4. To clarify and avoid any further conflict, both the Appellant and the Respondent are at liberty to seek formal clarification or fresh parking slot allocations from the Nairobi City County (Mobility and Works Sector) as ordered by the trial magistrate. 5. Because this appeal has succeeded on an important question of subordinate court jurisdiction but failed on the substantive operational dispute, this Court orders that each party shall bear its own costs of this appeal. It is so ordered. # DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 23rd DAY OF JULY 2026 In the presence of: # E.K OGOLA JUDGE M/s Kang’ethe holding brief for Dr. Kuria for the Appellant Court Assistant: Gisielle Muthoni