[2022] KEELC 3857 (KLR)

Kenya Armed Forces Old Comrades Association Registered Trustees v City Council of Nairobi & 7 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 503 of 2012 & Civil Case 1627 of 2001 (Consolidated)) [2022] KEELC 3857 (KLR) (16 June 2022) (Judgment)

Neutral citation: [2022] KEELC 3857 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi

Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 503 of 2012 & Civil Case 1627 of 2001 (Consolidated)

OA Angote, J

June 16, 2022

Between

Kenya Armed Forces Old Comrades Association Registered Trustees

Plaintiff

and

City Council of Nairobi

1st Defendant

Registered Trustees of Agape Fellowship Centre

2nd Defendant

Kenya Freedom From Hunger Council For National Development of Nairobi

3rd Defendant

Child Welfare Society of Kenya Registered Trustees Of Kenya

4th Defendant

Evangelical Presybyterian Church

5th Defendant

Registered Trustees of Bible Society of Kenya

6th Defendant

Ward Drive Limited

7th Defendant

As consolidated with

Civil Case 1627 of 2001

Between

Kenya Armed Forces Old Comrades Association Registered Trustees

Plaintiff

and

Registered Trustees of Agape Fellowship Centre

Defendant

Judgment

1. The plaintiff filed High Court Civil Case Number 1627 of 2001 on September 26, 2001. In the plaint, the plaintiff sought for the following prayers:a.An injunction to restrain the Commissioner of Lands by himself, his servants or otherwise howsoever from cancelling the plaintiff's title deed or approving any development plans that would deprive the plaintiff of any portion of land reference No 209/11911;b.An injunction against the defendant by themselves, their servants, agents or otherwise howsoever from interfering with the plaintiffs lawful possession of and enjoyment of the whole or any part of land reference No 209/11911 in any manner whatsoever or trespassing into the said land parcel;c.General damages;d.Costs of the suit.

2. The suit was initially filed as against the Attorney General and the then Nairobi City Council. However, the suit against the Attorney General was withdrawn. On August 28, 2009, the 2nd defendant as well as the 5th, 6th and 7th defendants sought to be enjoined in the suit and further sought injunctive orders as against the plaintiff, which orders were granted. on September 28, 2009, the plaintiff was ordered to demolish its wall and grant access to the defendants.

3. The plaintiff filed an application seeking to set aside the orders aforesaid. In its’ ruling of October 12, 2010, while declining to set the orders aside, the court maintained the prevailing status quo in that the defendants were to continue benefiting from the orders granted earlier on.

4. While HCCC No 1627 of 2001 was pending, on August 13, 2012, the plaintiff filed ELC 503 of 2012 against the 2nd defendant herein seeking for the following reliefs:i.An order of permanent injunction do issue against the defendant by itself, its servants, officials, congregation or any person claiming any right through the defendant whosoever from entering into, passing through or interfering with or in any manner whatsoever trespassing into the plaintiffs land parcel LR No 209/11911. ii.Damages for loss occasioned to the plaintiffs land.iii.Costs of the suit.This suit was solely as against the 2nd defendant (The Registered Trustees of Agape Fellowship Centre). On September 4, 2012, the 2nd defendant filed an application seeking to inter alia stay the proceedings in case No 1627 of 2001 or, in the alternative, consolidation of the two suits. The court in its ruling of March 28, 2014, ordered for the consolidation of the two matters, with ELC Case No 502 of 2012 being the lead file and allowed the joinder of the 3rd defendant.

5. The plaintiff’s case is that it is the registered owner of the suit property known as LR No 209/11911 situated in Madaraka Estate, Nairobi; that on or about July 2001, the Commissioner of Lands without any justification directed the their Nairobi City Council to enter its land and re-survey it with a view to constructing a road of access through it and that on or about August 2001, the Nairobi City Council, as it then was, entered into the plaintiffs land and purported to re-survey the suit premises in disregard of the plaintiff’s rights.

6. The plaintiff averred in the plaint that the Commissioner of Lands threatened to unlawfully cancel the plaintiff’s title deed to the land and issue a new title deed after demolishing part of the plaintiff’s suit premises and that the Nairobi City County has threatened and intends, unless restrained by this court, to construct an access road through the plaintiff’s suit premises.

7. According to the plaintiff, on or about August 2, 2012, the 2nd defendant without any justification and in violation of the plaintiff’s right to property caused motor-vehicle registration number KAN 860H to be driven in and out of the plaintiff’s property; that on August 7, 2012, the defendant procured the services of a bulldozer and created a road through the plaintiff’s property and that the aforesaid acts were illegal as the orders in HCCC 1627 of 2001 did not grant the 2nd defendant permission to enter upon the plaintiff’s land and create a road.

8. The 2nd defendant filed a defence under protest on October 8, 2012 and denied the allegations as set out in the plaint. According to the 2nd defendant, the plaintiff was the registered owner of LR No 209/11911; and that the 2nd defendant owns a property which is adjacent to the plaintiff’s land being LR No 209/ 14680.

9. It was averred by the 2nd defendant that vide a survey carried out on June 20, 2001, the plaintiff’s and the 2nd defendant’s properties were found to have encroached onto an access road and that the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant were ordered to surrender their title documents for purposes of carrying out a re-survey that would ensure that the access road between the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s land was restored as earlier delineated by the part development plan number 242 dated February 22, 1977.

10. According to the 2nd defendant, the plaintiff, in defiance of the orders issued in HCCC 1627 of 2001 put up a manned gate barring the defendants from using the access road; that on August 2, 2012, the plaintiff through its agents placed huge rock boulders across the access road hindering the 2nd defendant’s access and that an employee of the 2nd defendant was physically assaulted by officers of the plaintiff who further threatened the 2nd defendant’s congregation and other members against accessing the road. According to the 2nd defendant, at all material times, the parcel of land in question was public land. The other defendants did not participate in the suit.

Hearing & Evidence 11. The matter proceeded for hearing on March 3, 2020. PW1 was a surveyor attached to the legal department of the survey office. It was his testimony that the plaintiff’s bundle of documents contained a letter from the Ministry of Lands to the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Defence referring to an access road which was to pass through the disputed property.

12. PW1 stated that the Ministry of Lands recommended that the re-establishment of the boundary of LR 209/11911 be done; that the same was done and the plot, upon re-survey was found to be 1. 000 hectares; that there is no road which passes through the disputed property and that a road can only be created on private property either through compulsory acquisition, surrender or sub-division.

13. On cross-examination, PW1 stated that the access road was created without the plaintiff’s authority; that the authority to carry out a res-survey was given by the Director of Survey pursuant to recommendations contained at page 12 of the plaintiff’s bundle; that the plot that was cancelled was LR 209/11911 and the new parcel became LR 209/15381 which was initially 0. 882 hectares but became 1. 000 hectares after re-survey and that the survey plan was authenticated on March 10, 2004.

14. On re-examination, PW1 stated that as an officer from the survey department, he was entitled to come and adduce evidence; that the access roads which had been created were cancelled and the acreage after re-survey was 1. 000 hectares.

15. PW2 was the director of the plaintiff. PW2 stated that he has the original title deed for plot No LR 209/11911 which was allocated to the plaintiff on November 1, 1989; that the deed plan for the land was issued on June 30, 1993; that the acreage shown on the deed plan is 1. 000 hectares; that as per the search carried out on October 11, 2012, no road of access passes through the suit property and that the suit was filed due to the fact that there was an attempt to create a road through a directive by the Commissioner of Lands to the City Council of Nairobi.

16. According to PW2, in 2010, the 2nd defendant obtained a court order allowing them to use the access road, which order was not served upon the plaintiff; that the 2nd defendant is still using the access road; that the use of the access road has increased insecurity in the area as it is mainly used by students from Strathmore University and further, that there are mushrooming Jua Kali artisans and garages along the road.

17. PW2 informed the court that a wall put up on the property by the defendant was demolished by the 1st defendant; that the orders of 2010 were not procedurally issued as the plaintiff’s advocates were never served; that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement with Capitol Construction for the construction of students’ hostels, central catering unit and related facilities, which project had been approved on June 14, 2006 by the Nairobi City County and that the approval was based on 1. 000 hectares that was allocated to the plaintiff and that the creation of the access road is detrimental to the plaintiff.

18. On cross-examination, PW2 stated that they sued the County Government because it was responsible for the re-survey of the plaintiff’s property; that the department of survey and physical planning is the one tasked with preparation of part development plans; that it is the County Government that authorized the demolition of the boundary wall and that he is unaware of any other prayer against the County Government.

19. On further cross-examination, PW2 conceded that there was a letter from the then Nairobi City Council informing the plaintiff that the wall it was building was on a road reserve; that the plaintiff continued constructing the wall which ended in 2005; that he is unaware whether approvals were sought before construction of the wall; that the deed plan does not show the position for the road in question and that he does not know whether the PDP was followed when the land was being surveyed.

20. It was the evidence of PW2 that there is a proposed access road on the PDP of 22nd February, 1977; that KAFOCA was represented in the meeting dealing with the access road; that the PDP comes first and guides the survey; that the office of the Director of Surveys filed two contradicting reports; that there was a cancellation of the plot belonging to KAFOCA and that he does not know how the 2nd defendant accesses its property.

21. PW3 informed the court that he is the plaintiff’s caretaker; that on August 7, 2012, while at his place of work, he witnessed a commotion and that shortly thereafter, a bulldozer came and ploughed down the plaintiff’s wall; that he does not know who sanctioned the demolition of the wall and that he cannot recall if the court ordered the creation of an access way for the 2nd defendant. According to PW3, the 2nd defendant started using the road after the wall was demolished.

22. DW1 stated that the 2nd defendant’s plot is adjacent to the plaintiff’s plot; that the 2nd defendant’s plot is LR No 209/14680 while the plaintiff’s plot number is 209/11911; that the 2nd defendant’s plot was originally LR 209/12390 which changed after the land was re-planned to take into account the access road and that the change was done after the discovery that their land was encroaching on the road.

23. It was the evidence of DW1 that the other plot which had encroached on the road was the plaintiff’s property; that the PDP attached to the documents clearly provides for an access road; that there is no way they can access their property other than using the access road; that the PDP is supposed to guide the survey plans; that in the year 2000, the plaintiff closed the access road and that they complained to the Commissioner of Lands who promised to investigate the matter.

24. According to DW1, after it was discovered that both the defendant’s property and the plaintiff’s property had encroached onto the access road, vide the minutes of November 1, 2000, the issue of the access road was discussed and the Commissioner of Lands directed that the land owned by the 2nd defendant and the plaintiff should be re-surveyed.

25. It was the evidence of DW1 that vide a letter dated June 29, 2001, the Commissioner of Lands gave authority to the Director of Surveys to re-survey LR No 209/11911 and provide for the road of access and provide a deed plan to facilitate surrender of the grant and that vide the letter of July 9, 2001, the Director of Surveys informed the Commissioner of Lands that while the survey process was complete, the plaintiff had refused to sign the beacon certificate.

26. According to DW1, the 2nd defendant co-operated and a new certificate of title was issued to it. It was the evidence of DW1 that the plaintiff proceeded to build a wall blocking the road of access which the Nairobi City Council pulled down.

27. DW1 informed the court that after the wall was pulled down, the plaintiff filed a suit and obtained injunctive orders against Nairobi City Council in Civil Suit No 1627 of 2001 but failed to prosecute the suit; that the 2nd defendant applied to be joined in the suit in 2009 and filed an injunction in 2009 which culminated in an order compelling the plaintiff to demolish the wall that had been erected on the access road.

28. It was the evidence of DW1 that the road of access was provided for in the PDP. On cross-examination, DW1 stated that he did not have the letter of allotment for the 2nd defendant’s property; that their PDP number 382 has a section marked A & D; that the part marked D was allocated to the church and that they did not have another PDP for plot D.

29. DW1 stated that the small road parallel to Langata Road is not on the deed plan; that their plot doesn’t appear on the maps; that he is unaware whether the PDP in respect of the plaintiffs land was gazetted and that the other defendants have not testified in this matter because they have not been affected by the plaintiff’s actions.

30. On re-examination, DW1 confirmed that their property was resurveyed and they were issued with a new title; that although the plaintiff’s property was re-surveyed, they refused to sign the beacon certificate and that the plaintiff was represented in the meetings.

31. DW 2 was a land surveyor. It was his testimony that he was engaged to re-survey a road of access in 2007; that he went to the ground in October, 2007 and found three beacons while two were missing; that he re-established the missing two beacons and that he used the three beacons to identify the access road.

32. It was his evidence that he found the plaintiff’s wall was blocking the access road; that as per the report of the Director of Surveys, the access road was marked by the Provincial Surveyor Nairobi; that PDP No 242 of 1977 provides for the access road and that a PDP comes first and the survey later.

33. On cross-examination, DW2 stated that he filed survey plan numbers FR 311/13 and 402/139; that he was not aware that FR 402/139 was cancelled and that even if it had been cancelled, one could use the beacons on the ground. It was the evidence of DW2 that he used PDP No 382 of 1994 and survey plan number 311/13 in preparing his report. On re-examination, DW2 affirmed that the 2nd defendant does not have another access road.

Submissions 34. The Attorney General, on behalf of the plaintiff filed submissions on the November 15, 2021. It was submitted that the plaintiff is indisputably the owner of the suit property; that the title, the deed plan and the survey plans are official documents which were issued by the government to the plaintiff and the said documents do not show an access road passing through the plaintiff’s property.

35. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that it is trite law that a PDP cannot be superior to a map from the Director of Surveys; that it is upon a party who claims otherwise to produce such evidence, including proof of illegal encroachment or to show that there was fraud or collusion in drawing the survey map and that the plaintiff relied on the Director of Surveys’ map to obtain approvals to develop its land, which developments have been hindered by the defendants’ claim of the existence of the alleged public road.

36. It was submitted that article 40 of the Constitution and section 25 and 26 of the Land Registration Act protect the rights to lawfully acquired property. Reliance was placed on the cases of Gujral Sandeep Singh Ragbir v Minister for Public Works, Road and Transport County Government of Kajiado & another [2018] eKLR.

37. It was submitted that contrary to its assertions, the 2nd defendant’s property is not landlocked and is accessible from Langata Road as demonstrated by the clear road shown on FR 311/13 and the survey plan of the plaintiff’s parcel of land and that PDPs No. 242 and 382 are of no probative value as no official from the Physical Planning Department was called to authenticate them.

38. According to the plaintiff’s counsel, PDP No 242 does not show the two plots allocated to the 2nd defendant; that PDP No 382 is for Madaraka Estate and not specific to the 2nd defendant’s land; that there was no gazette notice produced for approval of the PDPs by the Minister as provided for under section 28 of the Physical Planning Act and that the plaintiff having demonstrated its proprietorship of the suit property is entitled to a quiet enjoyment of the suit property without interference.

39. The 2nd defendant’s counsel submitted that the plaintiff is misleading the court by simply stating that it is the owner of LR 209/11911 without disclosing the fact that the said title was cancelled and a new LR No 209/15381 given after the property was resurveyed following a directive by the Commissioner for Lands.

40. It was submitted that in Nelson Kazungu Chai & 9 others v Pwani University College [2014] eKLR (upheld on appeal) and African Line Transport Co Ltd v TheHonAttorney General, Mombasa HCCC No 276 of 2013, a part development plan can only be prepared in respect to Government land that has not been alienated or surveyed and that the Plaintiff’s submissions that the survey comes first before the part development plan is an afterthought and a contradiction of the position stated by their own witness during cross examination.

41. It was submitted by the 2nd defendant’s counsel that the evidence and witnesses affirmed that the PDP plan dated February 22, 1977 was not considered when the survey of the plaintiffs’ property was undertaken; that the Office of the Director of Surveys spearheaded the process of resurvey of the plaintiff's and the 2nd defendant's plots with an aim of creating an access road pursuant to the relevant PDPs and that the report contradicting the earlier position was done for the sole purpose of aiding the plaintiff in order to defeat justice in this matter.

Analysis and Determination 42. Having carefully considered the pleadings, testimonies and submissions herein, the issues that arise for determination are;i.Whether or not an access road passes through the plaintiff’s property LR No 209/11911?ii.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the orders sought?

43. The plaintiff instituted this suit seeking inter-alia, for permanent injunctive orders against any interference with its lawful possession of and enjoyment of the whole or any part of its property known as LR No 209/11911 and damages for trespass.

44. According to the plaintiff, it is the registered owner of LR 209/11911 situate in Madaraka, Nairobi by virtue of a grant issued to it for a term of 99 years beginning from November 1, 1989 and that together with the grant, it was also issued with a deed plan No 174654 dated June 30, 1993 and a survey plan issued on April 15, 1993 which shows that the plaintiff’s land is approximately 1. 00Ha.

45. It is the plaintiff’s case that neither the grant, the deed plan nor survey map which are official documents show any access road passing through the suit property and that any purported creation of an access road through the plaintiff’s property is a violation of its rights to property.

46. The evidence by the 2nd defendant’s witnesses, including a surveyor, was that when the survey was conducted on the plaintiff’s property in 1993, the surveyor did not follow the part development plan No 242 dated February 22, 1977, and included a portion that had been left for a road of access measuring 0. 118Ha to serve other adjoining plots and that in correcting that anomaly, the Commissioner of Lands was not cancelling the plaintiff’s title but excising what was planned for a road of access in accordance with the initial part development plan for the surrounding areas.

47. The legal framework on public roads and roads of access is found in the Public Roads and Roads of Access Act. Under section 2 of the Act, “a public road” is defined as:a.Any road which the public had a right to use immediately before the commencement of the Act;b.All proclaimed or reserved roads and through fares being or existing on any land sold or leased or otherwise held under the East African Land Regulations 1897, the Crown Lands Act 1902, or the Government Lands Act (cap 280) at any time before the commencement of this act.c.All roads and thorough fares hereafter reserved for public use.”

48. Although the Actdoes not expressly define a road of access, it provides a framework on how a road of access is created. Section 9(1) provides thus:“Where an owner or occupier of land is in respect of his land so situated in relation to a public road which is passable to vehicular traffic, or to a railway station or halt, that he has not reasonable access to the same, he may make application to the board of the district in which such land is situate for leave to construct a road or roads (hereinafter called a road of access) over any lands lying between his land and such public road or railway station or halt, and every such application shall be made in duplicate in the form and contain the particulars required by the first schedule to this Act:Provided that, if the applicant is unable to make the sketch plan mentioned in the said schedule without entering upon the lands over which he proposes that the road of access is to pass, he may apply to the board for leave to enter upon the said lands for purpose of making the said sketch plan and the board may then make an order entitling the applicant to enter on the said lands.”

49. The Public Roads and Roads of Access Act makes a distinction between a road of access and a public road. This distinction was explained by the Court of Appeal in the case of Dellian Langata Limited v Symon Thuo Muhia & 4 others, Nairobi CA No 144 of 2014 [2018] eKLR, as follows:-“…having regard to the above provisions we are persuaded that there is a distinction between a public road and a road of access. A public road is set apart and designated as such and once set aside is available for use by all members of the public without limitation or restriction save as may be determined by the relevant authorities. On the other hand, road of access has connotation of private usage and is characterized by a party having made an application to have an access road constructed to connect or link such party to utilities such as a public road, railway station or a halt. As correctly observed by the respondents the provisions do not apply where there is already a public road or road of access as in the instant case.”

50. In the instance case, the contention is not that there is an access road that needs to be created which would warrant the procedure under section 9 (1) of the Public Roads and Roads of Access Act, but rather, that the access road that was already provided for in the original plans for the suit property was not taken into account during the survey.

51. The plaintiff, while not disputing that the part development plan (PDP) number 242 dated February 22, 1977 for its land and PDP No 382 dated March 1, 1994 for the 2nd defendant’s land provides for the access road, asserts that the grant, the deep plan and the survey plan for its land do not provide for an access road are in any event superior to the part development plans.

52. Section 4 of the Physical Planning Act, 1996 (repealed) created the office of the Director of Physical Planning. The functions of the said office are set out under section 5 of the Act and include advising the Commissioner of Lands and local authorities on the most appropriate use of land including land management such as change of user, extension of leases, subdivision of land and amalgamation of land.

53. Section 24 of the Physical Planning Act (repealed) empowered the Director of Physical Planning to prepare with reference to any government land, trust land or private land within the area of authority of a city, municipal, town or urban council, a local physical development plan (PDP). The local physical development plan may be a long term or a short term physical development or for a renewal or re-development of the land in issue.

54. The second schedule to the repealed Act sets out matters which may be dealt within a local physical development plan, which include adjustment and alteration of boundaries, areas, shapes and positions of any land, road, street or right of way. They also include effecting exchanges of land or cancellation of existing subdivision as may be necessary or convenient.

55. The disposition of public land before the Constitution was promulgated in 2010 was explained in the case of Ali Mohamed Dagane (Granted Power of Attorney by Abdullahi Muhumed Dagane, suing on behalf of the Estate of Mohamed Haji Dagane) v Hakar Abshir & 3 others [2021] eKLR which relied on the case of Mako Abdi Dolal v Ali Duane & 2 others [2019] eKLR as follows:“The process of the disposition of government land followed the following procedure: First, the respective municipal council in which the land to be disposed was situate had the mandate of advising the Commissioner of Lands on which portions of land could be disposed. This step would have required the responsible council to visit the area or to carry out a fact-finding mission to satisfy itself that the land was first of all government land and second that it was indeed available for disposition…The second step would be for the part development plan to be drawn up and approved by the Commissioner of Lands.”

56. In Nelson Kazungu Chai & 9 others v Pwani University [2014] eKLR, this court explained the process of allocation of unalienated government land as follows:“It is trite law that under the repealed Government Lands Act, a part development plan must be drawn and approved by the Commissioner of Lands or the Minister for lands before any unalienated Government land could be allocated. After a part development plan (PDP) has been drawn, a letter of allotment based on the approved PDP is then issued to the allotees. It is only after the issuance of the letter of allotment, and the compliance of the terms therein, that a cadastral survey can be conducted for the purpose of issuance of a certificate of lease. This procedural requirement was confirmed by the surveyor, PW3. ”

57. Part development plans (PDPs) are an integral component of land use planning, which refers to the process by which land is allocated between competing and sometimes conflicting uses in order to secure the rational and orderly development of land.

58. Land use seeks to accommodate competing interests within a technical and spatial framework. While houses and other structures must be built, they cannot be provided without access roads, amongst other facilities, that may be required by the users of land in the concerned area.

59. That being the case, and in view of the fact that allocation of land cannot commence before the said land is planned, it follows that the planning of unalienated government land always come first before any allotment can be made to an individual and a survey plan drawn. The suit land having been planned by way of a part development plan, the survey plan of the said land must have accorded in all respect with part development plan (PDP) number 242 dated February 22, 1977 and PDP No 382 dated March 1, 1994 for the plaintiff’s and the 2nd defendant’s land respectively.

60. Indeed, in view of the importance of a PDP, a survey plan that is drawn without according with the dimensions and features of an approved part development plan is subject to cancellation by the Director of Surveys.

61. That being the case, it follows that in as far as the initial survey of the plaintiff’s property was done without placing reliance on the part development plan of 1977, which appears to have been the position as evinced from the various correspondence between the Commissioner of Lands, the Director of Surveys, the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant, and the testimony of the witnesses, it is the finding of this court that the Director of Surveys lawfully cancelled the plaintiff’s initial survey plan and directed for the said land to be re-surveyed.

62. It is noted that as at the time the plaintiff filed HCCC No 1607 of 2001, no changes had been made to its initial survey plan. However, pursuant to survey plan number FR 311/13, a re-survey was done on the property to include a public road of access which had been omitted in the initial survey plan. As a result of the re-survey, the plaintiff’s property now bears the number LR 209/15381.

63. Having found that the public of road of access initially existed in the part development plan for the plaintiff’s suit property, it follows that the Commissioner of Lands was within his mandate to seek for a re-survey of the plaintiff’s land in as far as the same was to re-establish the road that existed in the two PDPs to its correct position.

64. In view of the above findings, the question of whether or not the 2nd defendant’s property is landlocked is moot. The access road in question being a public road, and the same have been planned in the PDPs of 1977 and 1994, it follows that the public, including the 2nd defendant, have the right to use and access the same.

65. That being the case, it is the finding of this court that the plaintiff did not prove its case to the required standards, including the claim for damages for the demolished wall.

66. For those reasons, HCCC No 1627 of 2001 and ELC No 503 of 2012 be and are hereby dismissed with costs.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY IN NAIROBI THIS 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022. OA AngoteJudgeIn the presence of;Mr Shengoli for Mr Kioko for plaintiff.Ms Muriuki for 2nd defendant.No appearance for 1st defendant.Court Assistant- June/Tracy.