https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3046

Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited v Biego & 19 others (Environment and Land Case 96 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 3046 (KLR) (19 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3046 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet Environment and Land Case 96 of 2021 GMA Ongondo, J May 19, 2026 Between Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited Plaintiff and Kibii Arap Biego 1st Defendant Emily Cheptoo 2nd Defendant John Kibiwot 3rd Defendant Priscilah C Simotwo 4th Defendant Mark Kemboi Lelei 5th Defendant Asha Nafula 6th Defendant Chegulu Stanlay Magray 7th Defendant Eliud Kiprkorir 8th Defendant Rosemary Chelagat Koskei 9th Defendant Kiprono Arap Chesarur & Alex Mwarabu Agui 10th Defendant Joshua Kimeli Yego & Leah Jebitok Saina (Administrator Of The Estate Of Kibiego Arap Tuwei) 11th Defendant Kibiwot Arap Chemuiywa 12th Defendant Kipketer Sugut (The Administrator Of The Estate Of The Late Kipsugut Arap Chepsiror-Deceased) 13th Defendant Jackson Kibet Sirem 14th Defendant Cheruto Tablelei Biren 15th Defendant Joyceline Jerop Bett 16th Defendant Gilbert Sawe 17th Defendant William Kipkosgei Mosbei 18th Defendant Grace Jepketer 19th Defendant Robbert Kipchumba Kalgeley (As Administrator Of The Estate Of Kiprono Arap Chesarur (Dcd) 20th Defendant Judgment A. Introduction 1.At the heart of the instant dispute are sixteen (16) land parcels known as LR Nos. Nandi/Songoliet/218, Nandi/Olessos/1025 & Nandi/Olessos/1026, Nandi/Olessos/1027, Nandi/Olessos/1005, Nandi/Olessos/1006, Nandi/Olessos/1007, Nandi/Olessos/1107, Nandi/Olessos/1105, Nandi/Olessos/1106, Nandi/Olessos/24, Nandi/Olessos/44, Nandi/Olessos/45, Nandi/Olessos/46, Nandi/Olessos/49, Nandi/Olessos/78 (The 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th 15th and 16th suit parcels of land respectively or the 1st to 16th suit parcels of land herein) all located within Nandi County. 2.The plaintiff, a state corporation duly incorporated under the Companies Act chapter 486 Laws of Kenya pursuant to Sessional Paper No. 4 of 2004 on energy, is represented by Gazemba Wekesa and Company Advocates. 3.The 1st, 9th, 12th and 15th defendants are unrepresented and did not file any defence as even discerned in the proceedings of 13th June 2023, 6th July 2023 and 18th May 2025. herein. 4.The 4th, 10th, 11th, 13th, 14th, 16th to 19th defendants are represented by Betty Koech and Company Advocates. 5.The 2nd , 3rd , 5th, 6th and 8th defendants are unrepresented pursuant to an application by way of Chamber Summons dated 16th May 2025 to cease acting for them brought by Betty Koech and Company Advocates which was allowed partially on 23rd July 2025 against the 5th and 6th defendants and on 30th September 2025 against the 2nd, 3rd and 8th defendants 6.The 20th defendant is represented by Rotich, Langat and Partners Advocates. 7.It is important to note, inter alia, that the applications dated 10th March 2021, 8th March 2022 and 26th may 2022 for joinder of some of the defendants were allowed by the court for administration of substantive justice to all the parties in this matter in line with a long thread of authorities including in JM K vs M W M & Another (2015) eKLR. Also, the initial 10th, 11th and 13th defendants were substituted on 5th October 2021. 8.Further, it is noteworthy that on 1st July 2024, the court referred this dispute to CAM-Court Annexed Mediation pursuant to the Civil Procedure (Court Annexed) Mediation Rules Legal Notice No, 145 of 2022 and Article 159 (2) (c ) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. 9.On 23rd July 2025, by consent of Mr Mbugua learned counsel for the plaintiff, Ms Koech learned counsel for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th to 9th defendants and 11th, 13th, 14th and 16th to 19th defendants as well as Mr Rotich for the 20th defendant, the partial settlement agreement dated on 8th November 2024, in particular, paragraphs 1 to 4 on pages 1 and 2 and paragraphs 1 to 4 on pages 2 and 3 therein with the schedule serial numbers 1 to 10 annexed thereto, was adopted as orders of this court. B. The Plaintiff’s Case 10.By way of a plaint dated 18th January 2021, the plaintiff sued the defendants for;a.An assessment of just compensation payable to the Defendants.b.Permanent injunction against the Defendants either by themselves, their agents, employees from interfering with the works of the Plaintiff.c.An order that the Registrar of Lands Nandi County does register an Easement measuring 40 meters wide in favour of the plaintiff (KETRACO) against the 1st to 16th suit parcels of land without the requirement for production of the Original Title Deed.d.In the Alternative, and without prejudice to the above, an order against the Defendants for assessment of losses incurred by the Plaintiff due to their disruption of the Plaintiff’s construction works on the suit lands.e.Costs of this suit. 11.Briefly, the plaintiff is charged with improving the quality and reliability of electricity supply throughout the country, transmission of electricity to areas that are currently not connected to the National Grid, evacuation of power from planned generation plants, providing a link with neighbouring counties in order to facilitate power exchange and develop electricity trade in the region. That by virtue of that mandate, the Plaintiff is currently undertaking the construction of the Olkaria – Lessos – Kisumu Transmission line (TL) project which project aims to evacuate cheaper Geothermal power from Olkaria to the Western region of Kenya in an effort to reduce the cost of energy, connect the Western Region to the national grid to meet the Kenya Vision 2030 on universal access to electricity in Kenyan households. To achieve its mandate, prompt and just compensation is offered to all persons affected by the transmission lines constructed by the Plaintiff as provided by its resettlement policy. The defendants who are the registered owners of the sixteen suit parcels of land were affected by the transmission, 12.It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendants did not object to the transmission project traversing the sixteen suit parcels of land. The plaintiff liaised with the National Land Commission (The NLC) and valuers, among others in the valuation of the suit parcels of land as well as sensitized the members and negotiated with them on compensation. However, the defendants presented compensation demands without substance thus, precipitating this suit. 13.The plaintiff replied to the defendants’ statements of defence and contends that their allegations of trespass are not founded as there was proper sensitization of the project to the affected persons and compensation was provided upon conducting valuation. That thus, the defendants’ statements of defence be struck out and judgment be entered in favour of the plaintiff in terms of the orders sought in the plaint. 14.The only testimony presented herein is that of Johnson Kitemange Muthoka ID No. 10094186 (PW1) who stated that he was Senior Manager Wayleaves Acquisitions at the plaintiff involved in designing, building and maintaining all new transmissions infrastructure which transverses about 3,000 parcels of land in Nandi County and neighbouring countries. That in such cases, settlement budget studies, environment and social impact assessment studies, application for National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) licences, survey, identification of the affected owners of the parcels of land, valuation, gazettement, distribution, offer letters, public sensitization, are carried out. 15.Further, PW1 stated that the National Land Commission (NLC) issued public notice on 27th May 2015 and final notice in the Kenya Gazette on 27th February 2019. PW1 referred to Capital Valuers valuation report dated 20th September 2017, NLC second report and that a Letter of offer was declined by the defendants who urged the plaintiff to compensate at 30% of value of affected areas per person. That the defendants had their own valuation report dated 10th January 2021 for comparison purposes and that the plaintiff paid for all the structures on the wayleave corridor. This witness relied on List of Documents dated 18th January 2021 (PExhibits 1 to 15) and Supplementary list of documents (PExhibits 16 to 33 ) and payment status prepared on 13th June 2023 (PExhibit 34) as part of his testimony. 16.By the submissions dated 18th August 2025, the plaintiff stated that its mandate including transmission of electricity to areas that were currently not supplied from the National Grid. That at the time of filing this suit, it was undertaking the construction of the Olkaria-Lessos-Kisumu Transmission Line (TL) project aimed at evacuating cheaper Geothermal power from Olkaria to Western Region of Kenya to meet the Kenya Vision 2030. That the issue for determination was whether the registration of easement and release of title should take priority before compensation of the defendants. That reasonable compensation was offered to the defendants who rejected the same and denied the plaintiff and its contractor from accessing their parcels of land. 17.Also, the plaintiff submitted, inter alia, that during the pendency of the suit, it has been established that most of the parcels of land have been either subdivided or sold to other persons hence, registration of the easement to precede compensation to avoid any double compensation herein. That the 18th and 19th defendants, amongst others, don’t possess anything to prove ownership thus necessary to register the easement before any compensation as referenced by an application dated 26th May 2022 and the case of Elfezouaty & another vs Kenya Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd {2024} KEELC 5600 (KLR), Kenya Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd (KETRACO) vs Valeria Helen Wangechi Kigano & 3 others (2019) eKLR on registration of easement and compensation of amount from the date of registration of easement. That the plaintiff is ready to compensate the defendants who should submit titles for the purposes of registration of easement then compensation to follow thereafter. That no prejudice would be suffered by the defendants if the registration of easement is given priority as the plaintiff is willing to compensate the defendants as agreed in the partial agreement herein. C. The Defendants’ Case 18.As already noted in paragraph 3 above, some defendants did not file their statements of defence. The 16th to 19th defendants denied the plaintiff’s claim in their statements of defence dated 17th April 2022 and 17th January 2023. They are seeking dismissal of this suit with costs. 19.The 20th defendant sued as the administrator of the estate of Kiprono Arap Chesasur (Deceased), denied the plaintiff’s claim by his statement of defence dated 6th November 2023 and sought that the claim be dismissed with costs with general damages for pain, suffering and loss since the suit land is 100% affected and he cannot use it for any other purpose. He stated in part that he was not involved in any form of public participation or sensitization about the intended compulsory acquisition of his late father’s estate. That his father died on 22nd July 2005. That the plaintiff did not make any compensation offer and denied that fair valuation was done thus, claims Kshs. 800,000/- compensation as per the private surveyor’s report. 20.Notably, the defendants did not testify in this suit. 21.The 4th 10th 11th 13th 14th 16th and/to 19th defendants’ counsel filed submissions dated 13th March 2026 to the effect that the plaintiff pleaded having conducted due diligence and confirmed ownership of the suit parcels of land by filing of copies of titles, official search and gazette notice as regards the respective suit parcels of land. Counsel submitted that the plaintiff completed work close to five years ago and conduct is frustrating hence, be ordered to compensate the defendants promptly as agreed in the mediation agreement. That to forestall any delay and for the interest of justice, if the court is inclined to order the registration of easement before release of the monies to defendants, the plaintiff deposits the agreed sum into the court account pending that registration if at all the same is a prerequisite. That costs of the suit be borne by the plaintiff as litigation was lengthy and unnecessarily occasioned by the plaintiff’s acts of omission and commission. 22.Also, counsel submitted that the plaintiff has since paid for structures and crops for some of the defendants including the 19th defendant at Kshs. 900,000/= and the 11th defendant before registration of easement during the pendency of this suit, That registration of easement would be tantamount to amendment of the plaintiff’s pleadings by submissions. That the plaintiff’s minutes allege that public participation was conducted per the meeting of 3rd November 2020 but only four defendants attended the meeting. That there was no Public sensitization by the Project Resettlement Team (PRT) as shown in pages 6 and 7 of the Plaintiff’s Resettlement Policy Framework (PExhibit 15). That paragraph 24 (iv) of the plaint shows that the plaintiff has the funds and can pay compensation. That the 2nd 3rd 5th 6th 7th and 8th defendants were paid compensation based on the defendants’ valuation report and not registration of easement. Counsel relied on Kenya Power and Lighting Company Ltd vs Josphat P. Kingara {2013} KEHC 4045 (KLR) making reference to section 148 (1)-(5) of the Land Act 2016 (2012) on right to compensation regarding communal right of way in respect to a wayleave but does not provide the registration of easement as a precondition for the payment of compensation. 23.In the 20th defendant’s submissions dated 14th November 2025, reference is made to the plaintiff’s claim by way of the plaint inclusive of the orders sought therein, the 20th defendant’s defence. It was submitted that the plaintiff invaded the suit land with an understanding to conduct valuation of the affected land parcels and compensate the owners of the parcels without involving Kiprono Arap Chesasur (Deceased) who had died on 22nd July 2005 or involvement of any family member of the deceased. That failure to involve the 20th defendant infringed his right to property under Article 40 (3) (b) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and section 149 of the Land Act 2016 (2012). 24.Moreover, counsel submitted that valuation of the suit land was not done hence, need to avail a recent valuation report before the plaintiff pays compensation to the 20th defendant. Reliance was made on the case of KETRACO vs James Kinoti M’Twerandu Meru ELCC No. 20 of 2016 that an easement be registered to enable the plaintiff carry out its mandate in accordance with the law and the case of Wandoghu vs KETRACO Ltd {2022} KEELC 3923 KLR on no prior authorisation or consent before entering the land. That the plaintiff without involving the 20th defendant, entered the suit land and constructed an electricity transmission line which affected his use of the land. Counsel implored the court to order of general damages for pain and suffering to enable the 20th defendant to allow the registration of the easement on the register of the suit land. 25.The other defendants did not file submissions herein. D. Issues For Determination 26.Order 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 provides for framing of issues and materials from which issues may be framed in a suit. It is established law that the issues for determination in a suit generally flow directly from either the pleadings or as framed by the parties for the court’s determination; see Galaxy Paints Company Ltd-vs-Falcon Guards Ltd (2000) 2 EA 385. 27.In light of the parties’ respective pleadings, evidence of PW1 and the rival submissions inclusive of the issues framed and analysed thereof alongside case law cited therein, the issues for determination in the instant suit are condensed to;a.Whether the partial settlement agreement dated 8th November 2024 duly adopted as orders of the court, partially settled the present dispute.b.subject to issue (a) above, has the plaintiff’s claim for the orders sought at the foot of the plaint been proved against the defendants to the requisite standards?c.what orders can the court render for the ends of justice? E. Discussion And Disposal 28.On the first issue, the duly signed and adopted partial settlement agreement dated 8th November 2025 states, inter alia;a.‘That, the land parcel Title No. Nandi/Olessos/46, registered in the name of the late Kipsugut Arap Chepsiror is part of the deceased estate which is currently under succession proceedings.b.That, Kipketer Cleophas Sugut (13th Defendant) is the son of the deceased whereas William Mosbei (19th Defendant) is a purchaser of part of the estate.c.That, the two defendants mentioned at Paragraph 2 above have agreed that the compensation issued by the Plaintiff, in the sum of Ksh. 2,686,500/= to be held in trust as an asset of the estate of Kipsugut Arap Chepsiror by their Advocates Ms. Betty Koech & Company Advocates in their Advocate-Client Account, and that the said amount will be shared by the two after the conclusion of the Succession proceedings pending before the Eldoret High Court.The account details are as follows;Bank Name: Ecobank (k) LimitedBranch: Eldoret BranchAccount No: 007002503xxxxxd.That, the two defendants in (c) above agree the sum of Ksh. 2,686,500/= will be shared amongst them as follows:William Mosbei - Ksh. 1,767,434/=Kipketer Cleophas Sugut - Ksh. 919,066/= 29.Further, the agreement states;a.‘That the land parcel Title No. Nandi/Olessos/44 registered in the name of the late Kipyego Arap Tuwei is part of the deceased estate, and that the beneficiaries of the estate are in the process of commencing succession proceedings.b.That Leah Jebitok Saina & Joshua Kimeli Yego (the 11th Defendant) are the legal representatives of the deceased.c.That, the two defendants mentioned above have agreed that the compensation issued by the Plaintiff, in the sum of Ksh. 1,093,500/= to be held in trust as an asset of the estate of Kibiego Arap Tuwei by their Advocates Ms. Betty Koech & Company Advocates in their Advocate-Client Account, and that the said amount will be shared by the beneficiaries of the estate at the end of the Succession proceedings. The account details are as follows;Bank Name: Ecobank (k) LimitedBranch: Eldoret BranchAccount No: 007002503xxxxxd.That this settlement is binding upon the Plaintiff, its successors and representatives.’ 30.The schedule annexed to the said partial settlement agreement sets out that; S/N. DEFENDANTS NAME ID. NO. LAND PARCEL NO. AMOUNT – KSH. (LAND) AMOUNT KSH. (TREES) TOTAL AMOUNT BANK NAME BANKK ACCOUNT 1. Joyceline Jerop Bett 2027xxxxx Nandi/Olessos/1286 (Subdivision of 1005) 1,066,666.67 - 1,066,666.67 Co-operative 011093254xxxxx 2. Gilbert Sawe 960xxxxx Nandi/Olessos/1286 (Subdivision of 1005) 533,333.33 - 533,333.33 Co-operative 0111695837xxxxx 3. Leah Jebitok Saina 686xxxxx Nandi/Olessos/441,093,500/=To be held in trust by Ms. Betty Koech & Company Advocates 56,100 56,100 Access Bank 019023000xxxxx 4. Joshua Kimeli Yego 21559xxxxx 81,150 81,150 Access Bank 019023000xxxxx 5. Alex Mwarabu Agui 0771xxxxx Nandi/Olessos/24 1,562,500 91,300 1,653,800 Co-operative 0110129664xxxxx 6. Robert Kipchumba Kalgaley 2525xxxxx 800,000 - 800,000 KCB 119917xxxxx 7. William Mosbei 910xxxxx Nandi/Olessos/46 40,590 40,590 8. Kipketer Cleophas Sugut 328xxxxx 124,150 124,150 KCB 11678xxxxx 9. Jackson Kibet Serem 3290321 Nandi/Olessos/49Ksh. 2,686,500/=To be trusted by M/s. Betty Koech & Company Advocates 32,950 1,450,450 Access Bank 019023000xxxxx 10. Grace Jepketer Kogoi 329xxxxx - - - -S/Nos. 1 to 10 and signatures below itMaureen C. Kirwa Betty Koech Moses K. RotichMediator Defendant’s Advocate Advocate for 20th DefendantSigned Signed Signed 31.The partial settlement agreement involved only the plaintiff, the 10th, 11th, 13th, 14th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th defendants. The same amounts to a consent, a specific class that binds only the parties involved as held in Vulcan Gases Ltd vs Okunola (1993) 2 NWLR (PT.274) 139. It constitutes a final settlement between those specific parties as noted in Ann .O. Menakaya vs Menakaya (1996) 9 NWLR (PT. 472) 256. 32.In the case of Geoffrey M. Asanyo & 3 others vs Attorney General {2020} KESC 62 (KLR), the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kenya noted the sanctity of the consent orders and held;‘.....Thus, a consent by parties becomes an order of the court only once it has been formally adopted by the court............’ 33.Plainly, the specific parties involved voluntarily entered into the partial settlement agreement in a relaxed forum. Thus, they cannot run away from the consent because they fully participated in and duly signed it. 34.Indeed, the agreement was adopted as an order of the court on 23rd July 2025 as observed in paragraph 9 hereinabove. The agreement is a binding consent order or judgment of this court. Therefore, the court cannot vary or set aside the order without any sufficient reason; see also Nyoike Njenga Hinga vs John Mututho (2016) and Wirell vs Chepkosgey {2026} KEELC 669 and (KLR). 35.Furthermore, in the case of Brooke Bond Liebig vs Mallya 91975) EA 266, Hon Mustafa Ag.VP stated thus;‘The compromise agreement was made an order of the court and was thus a consent judgment..........In this case the parties and their advocates consented to the compromise in very clear terms; they were certainly aware of all the material facts and there could not have been any mistake or misunderstanding .........’ 36.Under Order 1 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, the court is mandated to deliver judgment for or against one or more of joint parties as they may be entitled to. This is applicable even if not all parties are involved in the agreement or settlement in issue. 37.Section 3 A Civil Procedure Act chapter 21 Laws of Kenya stipulates that the court has inherent powers to manage proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of court. The powers do not exclude flexible judgment delivery inclusive of partial consent judgment for the ends of justice. 38.In the present suit, the existence of a partial agreement or judgment has not been set aside. It was duly adopted by the court herein thus, remains a valid and enforceable partial judgment pending determination of the main suit; see also STK vs ENK {2025} KEHC 15390 (KLR). 39.More fundamentally, the partial settlement agreement was adopted as a court order in the spirit of Article 159 (2) (b) ( c) and (d) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 that justice shall not be delayed, promotion of mediation as a form of dispute resolution and administration of justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities respectively. 40.As regards the second issue, the plaintiff’s witness (PW1) referred to valuation report dated 8th January 2021 and signed on 10th January 2021. He relied on PExhibits 1 to 34 herein. In examination in chief, he stated;‘......On P exhibit 34 at No. 4, Emily Cheptoo Meli, (pef 2) the easement not registered hence no payment has been made. Priscila Simotwo (nef 4) non-payment because it’s a new subdivision after cut off defended. The ones not paid is that it is because of the easement. We have paid defendant 2, defendant 3, defendant 5, defendant 6, 8th defendant after accosting the offers...............’ 41.Under cross examination, PW1 stated, inter alia;‘The defendants were not called for any of the meetings, and not on the 5th November 2020. We matched the valuation and the changed the goal posts.’ 42.In Clerk and Lindsell on Torts 18th Edition paragraph 18-01, the term ‘Trespass’ means, ;An unjustifiable entry by one person upon the land in possession of another 43.Proof of trespass and assessment of compensation in such cases was considered in Park Towers Ltd vs John Mithamo Njika & 7 others (2014) eKLR, by J. M Mutungi J as follows;‘......where trespass is proved, a party need not prove that he suffered any specific damage or loss to be awarded damages. The court in such circumstances is under a duty to assess the damages awardable depending on the unique facts and circumstances of each case.......’ 44.Article 40 (3) (b) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 provides that the state shall not deprive any person of property of any description or interest in or right over the property unless the deprivation is for public interest or in the public interest and carried out in accordance with the Constitution and any Act of Parliament. 45.Section 28 of the Land Registration Act, 2016 (2012) provides for overriding interests including a public right of way over registered land. To that extent, section 149 of the Land Act 2016 (2012) stipulates;‘In determining any question or dispute concerning the existence or effect of a public right of way, a court may make an order on any condition, which it thinks fit on all or any of the following matters-a...b....The extent of the use of the easement...........’ 46.Halsbury’s Laws of England 4th Edition Volume 45 paragraph 26, 1503 states that computation of damages in action for trespass includes recovery of nominal damages even if there is no actual loss. That general damages may be increased in aggravating circumstances. 47.Pursuant to the request for judgment dated 26th June 2023 against the 1st, 9th, 12th, and 15th defendants under Order 10 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, the said four defendants were compensated by the plaintiff as disclosed in the evidence of PW1 as stated in paragraph 40 hereinabove. 48.It is trite law that the onus is always on the plaintiff to prove his or her case on a balance of probabilities; see Kirugi & another vs Kabiya & 3 others (1987) KLR 347. 49.In the instant suit, the plaintiff’s claim has been established on a balance of probabilities as set out in the partial settlement agreement and evidence of PW1 taking into account, inter alia, STK, Brooke Bond, Park Towers, Wandoghu and Kirugi cases (supra). 50.Ultimately, judgment is hereby entered in terms of the partial settlement agreement dated 8th November 2024 thus;a.An assessment of just compensation payable to the Defendants as stated in paragraphs 28, 29 and 30 hereinabove.b.Permanent injunction against the Defendants either by themselves, their agents, employees from interfering with the works of the Plaintiff.c.An order that the Registrar of Lands Nandi County does register an Easement measuring 40 meters wide in favour of the plaintiff (KETRACO) against the 1st to 16th suit parcels of land within fourteen (14) days upon production of the original title deeds by the respective defendants and thereafter, compensation as per order (a) hereinabove be made forthwith.d.By the character of the suit, the obtaining circumstances and being guided by the proviso to section 27 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act Chapter 21 Laws of Kenya and the Supreme Court of Kenya in the case of Jasbir Singh Rai & others vs Tarlochan Rai & others (2014) eKLR, parties to bear their own costs of this suit. 51.It is so ordered. DATED AND DELIVERED AT KAPSABET THIS 19TH DAY OF MAY 2026.HON. G. M. A. ONGONDOJUDGEPRESENT;Mr. Joshua Mbugua learned counsel for the plaintiffMs. Betty koech learned counsel for the 4th, 10th, 11th, 13th, 14th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th defendantsMr. Moses Rotich learned counsel for the 20th DefendantWalter, court assistant