https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7301

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI** **CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION** **CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION E061 OF 2025** **IN THE MATTER OF ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF INDIVIDUALS UNDERS ARTICLES 40 AND 47 OF THE CONSTITUTION** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF RIGHTS TO PROPERTY AND DAMAGES FOR NON-USER BETWEEN** **LUCY WARIGIA KIMANI and IRENE NJOKI IRUMBI** **(Suing as Representatives and Administrators of the estate of PETER IRUMBI NJIRI(Deceased)………...………………………………………………………………..…PETITIONERS** **VERSUS** **CHINA JIANGXI INTERNATIONAL KENYA LIMITED…………........……1ST RESPONDENT** **ZHANG JIANI………………………………………………………….……….……....2ND RESPONDENT** **DIRECTORATE OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION** **DCI KILIMANI DIVISION……………………………….………………….…..…..3RD RESPONDENT** **DIRECTORATE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION** **NAIROBI COUNTY………………………………………….…………………………4TH RESPONDENT** **THE HONORABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL………………..........……...…..5TH RESPONDENT** **JUDGMENT** **INTRODUCTION** 1. Before this Court is a constitutional Petition dated 11th February 2025 arising from the impoundment and prolonged detention of motor vehicle registration number KBU 651H, a Nissan Navara Double Cabin Pick-up, which the Petitioners contend formed part of the estate of the late Peter Irumbi Njiri. The Petitioners, suing in their capacity as the duly appointed legal administrators of the deceased’s estate, invite this Court to interrogate the constitutionality, legality, and propriety of the actions undertaken by the Respondents in relation to the seizure, retention, and eventual release of the said motor vehicle. At the heart of the dispute lies the tension between the State’s investigative mandate in matters touching on alleged criminality and the constitutional guarantees protecting private property, fair administrative action, and the rule of law. 2. The Petitioners aver that the deceased lawfully acquired the suit motor vehicle through a public auction conducted in July 2018, after fully complying with the auction conditions and settling the requisite purchase price. According to the Petitioners, the vehicle was thereafter duly registered in the deceased’s name and remained in his open, peaceful, and uninterrupted possession for approximately three years, during which period it was utilized for both commercial and personal purposes without contestation or interference from any person or authority. 3. The controversy giving rise to the present proceedings emerged in or about February 2022, when officers acting under the authority of the Directorate of Criminal Investigations impounded the vehicle on allegations that it had been stolen. The Petitioners contend that the impoundment was effected arbitrarily, without due process, and absent procedural safeguards contemplated under the Constitution and the law. They assert that no proper contemporaneous records were made to disclose the legal basis for the seizure, the officers involved, or the destination of the vehicle, thereby rendering the detention opaque, irregular, and constitutionally infirm. It is further their case that the allegations of theft, allegedly instigated by the 1st and 2nd Respondents, were ultimately found to lack evidentiary foundation, with investigations allegedly exonerating the vehicle from any criminal taint. 4. The Petitioners further complain that notwithstanding the alleged clearance of the vehicle from criminal culpability, its continued detention persisted for a prolonged period exceeding two years, marked by administrative inertia, institutional indecision, and shifting justifications advanced by the investigative agencies. They contend that varying explanations were successively introduced, including allegations relating to unpaid customs duties and extraneous monetary demands allegedly conveyed through advocates associated with the 1st and 2nd Respondents, all of which, according to the Petitioners, served only to frustrate and delay the release process without lawful justification. 5. It is the Petitioners’ position that the prolonged deprivation of the vehicle occasioned substantial economic prejudice to the estate, including loss of user, depreciation, and deterioration of the motor vehicle during detention. They therefore contend that the Respondents’ conduct jointly and severally violated the constitutional guarantees enshrined under Articles 27, 40, and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, as well as the national values and principles of governance under Article 10. In support of their claim, the Petitioners place reliance on various authorities concerning the precision required in constitutional pleadings, the protection of property rights, the unlawfulness of arbitrary administrative action, and the award of damages for unconstitutional detention of property. 6. The 1st and 2nd Respondents deny any constitutional violation and maintain that the dispute is fundamentally a private law contest concerning ownership of the subject motor vehicle, unsuitable for constitutional adjudication. They challenge the Petitioners’ title to the vehicle, assert lawful proprietary interest on the part of the 1st Respondent, and invoke Article 40(6) of the Constitution to contend that unlawfully acquired property is undeserving of constitutional protection. They further deny any role in the impoundment process, maintaining that the seizure and detention of the vehicle fell exclusively within the statutory mandate of the investigative agencies. 7. Similarly, the 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents oppose the Petition on the basis that it fails to meet the established threshold for constitutional litigation, is premature for want of exhaustion of alternative remedies, and improperly seeks to constitutionalize what they characterize as an ordinary civil dispute. They maintain that all actions undertaken in relation to the impoundment and detention of the motor vehicle were lawful, procedurally regular, and undertaken pursuant to their constitutional and statutory investigative mandate. **THE PETITIONERS’ CASE** 1. The Petitioners, suing in their representative capacity as the duly appointed legal administrators of the estate of the late Peter Irumbi Njiri, contend that the deceased lawfully acquired motor vehicle registration number KBU 651H, a Nissan Navara Double Cabin Pick-up, through a public auction conducted in July 2018. They aver that the deceased duly complied with all conditions governing the auction process, fully settled the purchase consideration, and thereafter procured registration of the motor vehicle in his name. It is their case that following the acquisition, the deceased enjoyed open, peaceful, continuous, and uninterrupted possession of the vehicle for approximately three years, during which period the same was utilized for both commercial and personal purposes without challenge or interference from any individual or public authority. 2. It is averred that in or about February 2022, officers acting under the authority of the 3rd Respondent, the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI), impounded the subject motor vehicle on allegations that it had been stolen. According to the Petitioners, the impoundment was undertaken arbitrarily, unlawfully, and in total disregard of the dictates of procedural fairness and due process. They contend that no contemporaneous Occurrence Book entries were made disclosing the legal basis for the seizure, the officers authorizing the impoundment, or the destination to which the vehicle was taken, thereby rendering the detention opaque, irregular, and constitutionally suspect. It is their position that the impoundment was precipitated by complaints allegedly lodged by the 1st and 2nd Respondents, which accusations of theft were subsequently found to be baseless, malicious, and unsupported by credible investigative findings, with preliminary investigations ultimately exonerating the motor vehicle from any criminal taint. 3. The Petitioners further contend that notwithstanding the alleged exculpation of the vehicle from criminal culpability, the matter became embroiled in prolonged administrative delay, institutional indecision, and inter-agency confusion involving, inter alia, the Kilimani DCI offices and the Nairobi Regional DCI offices. They aver that throughout the period of detention, shifting and inconsistent explanations were advanced by the Respondents, including allegations relating to unpaid import duties and purported monetary demands allegedly conveyed through advocates associated with the 1st and 2nd Respondents, including an alleged demand for Kshs. 700,000. According to the Petitioners, these actions were calculated to frustrate and delay the release of the motor vehicle without lawful basis. 4. It is further the Petitioners’ case that despite numerous and persistent efforts to secure the release of the vehicle, the Respondents failed to render any prompt, transparent, or reasoned administrative action, thereby occasioning continued deprivation of the estate’s proprietary interests for a period exceeding two years. The Petitioners assert that as a consequence of the prolonged detention, the estate was deprived of the use, income, and economic utility of the motor vehicle, resulting in loss of user estimated at Kshs. 3,000 per day, together with substantial depreciation and deterioration occasioned by the prolonged impoundment. 5. According to the Petitioners, the motor vehicle was only released in or about September 2024 following intervention by relevant authorities and issuance of release directives, albeit without any satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay. They therefore contend that the cumulative conduct of the Respondents jointly and severally violated their constitutional rights and freedoms, particularly the right to property guaranteed under Article 40, the right to fair administrative action under Article 47, and the right to equality and freedom from discrimination under Article 27 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. They further allege contravention of the national values and principles of governance enshrined under Article 10 of the Constitution, including transparency, accountability, and adherence to the rule of law. 6. The Petitioners place reliance on ***Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic [1979] KLR 154*** for the proposition that constitutional petitions must be pleaded with precision, which threshold they contend has been satisfied through explicit identification of the impugned conduct, the constitutional provisions allegedly violated, and the manner of violation. Further reliance is placed on ***Patrick Kamotho King’ori v Inspector General of Police & 4 others Alice Chesang (Interested Party) Constitutional Petition Case No.12 of 2018 [2019] eKLR,*** wherein the Court held that arbitrary impoundment of a motor vehicle without proper investigation constitutes a violation of Articles 40 and 47 of the Constitution. The Petitioners invoke the said authority as demonstrative of analogous unconstitutional conduct in the present matter. 7. The Petitioners also place reliance on ***Fredricks & Other vs. MEC for Education and Training, Eastern Cape & Others (2002) 23 ILJ 81 (CC)*** in support of the proposition that the issues raised herein constitute constitutional questions properly falling within the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 165(3)(b) of the Constitution. 8. On the question of exhaustion and alternative remedies, the Petitioners submit that the existence of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court where the substratum of the dispute concerns alleged violations of fundamental rights and freedoms. In this regard, reliance is placed on ***Disaranio Limited v Kenya National Highway Authority & the Attorney General (2017) eKLR,*** where prolonged detention of property was held to be unconstitutional. The Petitioners contend that the continued detention of the subject motor vehicle was similarly arbitrary, disproportionate, and devoid of lawful justification. 9. With regard to ownership, the Petitioners rely ***on Nancy Ayiemba Ngaira v Abdi Ali C.A No. 107/2008 [2010] eKLR*** for the proposition that registration alone is not conclusive proof of ownership and that beneficial and possessory interests are cognizable in law. The authority is invoked in support of the Petitioners’ assertion of lawful proprietary interest in the suit motor vehicle. 10. On the issue of damages, reliance is placed on ***Great Lakes Transport Co. (U) Ltd v Kenya Revenue Authority (2009) eKLR*** and ***Paris Mutwiri John v Base Commander Maua Traffic Base & another [2021] KEHC 7008 (KLR),*** wherein courts awarded damages for unlawful detention of motor vehicles. 11. The Petitioner’s seek the following reliefs from this court: ***a) Special damages Ksh. 314,530.*** ***b) A declaration that the Petitioners right to own property under Article 40 and fair administrative action under article 47 have been infringed and pray for an award of damages for infringement of their rights by the Respondents.*** ***c) A permanent injunction restraining the Respondents, their servants, agents or any other persons acting on their behest, behalf or directions from unlawfully, illegally or arbitrarily taking, keeping and holding the Petitioners’ motor vehicle registration number KBU 651H Nissan Navara double Cabin pickup black in colour on theft or unpaid import duties herein, unless otherwise with good cause.*** ***d) Damages for unlawful detention of the Petitioners’ motor vehicle KBU 651H and general damages for non-user.*** ***e) The Respondents do pay the costs of this petition.*** ***f) Any other orders and reliefs this honourable court may deem fit and just to grant.*** **The 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS’ CASE** 1. The 1st and 2nd Respondents oppose the Petition through the Replying Affidavit sworn by Liu Yichao, wherein they deny, in toto, any violation of the Petitioners’ constitutional rights and contend that the Petition discloses no reasonable constitutional cause of action against them. They argue that the Petition fails to satisfy the threshold for constitutional litigation as ***enunciated in Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic [1979] KLR 154*** and subsequently reaffirmed in ***Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 Others [2013] eKLR*** and ***Bernard Ouma Omondi & another v Attorney General & another [2021] eKLR.*** In particular, they contend that the Petitioners have failed to plead with the requisite precision the specific constitutional violations alleged or the acts attributable to the 1st and 2nd Respondents. 2. The Respondents further maintain that no genuine constitutional question arises for determination, asserting that the dispute is, in substance, a private law contest concerning ownership, possession, and use of motor vehicle registration number KBU 651H, which dispute, they contend, is amenable to ordinary civil proceedings rather than constitutional adjudication. Reliance is placed on ***Fredricks & Others v MEC for Education and Training, Eastern Cape & Others (2002) 23 ILJ 81 (CC)*** for the proposition that not every grievance warrants invocation of constitutional jurisdiction. 3. It is the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ case that the 1st Respondent is the lawful owner of the subject motor vehicle, having imported the same and subsequently complied with directives issued by the Kenya Revenue Authority through payment of assessed customs duty in the sum of Kshs. 680,159, as evidenced by annexures “LY-02” and “LY-03.” They challenge the legality of the purported sale through which the deceased allegedly acquired the vehicle, contending that neither Opportunity Kenya Limited nor Jack Odhiambo Obiero possessed lawful title capable of being transferred. In this regard, they invoke Article 40(6) of the Constitution and the decision in ***Dina Management Ltd v County Government of Mombasa & 5 Others (Petition No. E010 of 2021) [2023] KESC 30*** to submit that property unlawfully acquired does not enjoy constitutional protection under Article 40. 4. The 1st and 2nd Respondents further maintain that they merely lodged a police complaint upon discovering that several imported vehicles, including the suit motor vehicle, were unaccounted for, and that all investigative, seizure, and impoundment processes were exclusively undertaken by the 3rd and 4th Respondents pursuant to their constitutional and statutory mandate under Articles 243 - 247 of the Constitution and the National Police Service Act, 2011. They deny any involvement in or influence over the impoundment or detention process. 5. The Respondents additionally challenge the Petitioners’ claim for loss of user and special damages, contending that the same is speculative, unproven, and unsupported by strict evidentiary proof. Reliance is placed on ***Jackline Njeri Kariuki v Moses Njung’e Njau [2021] eKLR*** and ***Ndugu Transport Company Limited & another v Daniel Mwangi Waithaka Leteipa [2018] eKLR*** for the settled principle that special damages must not only be specifically pleaded but must also be strictly proved. 6. The 1st and 2nd Respondents further argue that the Petitioners only acquired locus standi upon issuance of Letters of Administration in May 2024 and that any acts undertaken prior thereto would amount to intermeddling contrary to Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act. They therefore contend that the Petition is a misuse of the constitutional jurisdiction of the Court and pray that it be dismissed with costs. **THE 3RD, 4TH AND 5TH RESPONDENTS’ CASE** 1. The 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents equally oppose the Petition dated 11th February 2025, contending that it is misconceived, premature, and constitutes an abuse of the process of the Court. It is their position that the Petitioners have improperly invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Court in a dispute that is essentially civil in nature and more appropriately suited for determination through ordinary civil proceedings for recovery of damages. 2. The said Respondents further contend that the Petition fails to satisfy the threshold for constitutional litigation as articulated in ***Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic [1979] KLR 154*** and ***Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 Others [2013] eKLR,*** arguing that the allegations advanced are broad, generalized, and devoid of the precision necessary to sustain a constitutional claim. 3. They further assert that the Petitioners failed to exhaust available statutory and administrative dispute resolution mechanisms prior to invoking the jurisdiction of this Court and that the Petition is therefore premature and improperly before the Court. 4. The 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents maintain that all actions undertaken in relation to the impoundment and detention of the motor vehicle were lawful, procedurally regular, and undertaken within the confines of their constitutional and statutory mandate. They aver that due process was observed throughout the investigative process and that the Petitioners were accorded an opportunity to present their position. 5. Finally, the said Respondents contend that the Petitioners have failed to adduce any cogent or probative evidence demonstrating that the impugned actions were unlawful, arbitrary, or unconstitutional. They therefore urge the Court to dismiss the Petition with costs for want of legal and evidential merit. **ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION** 1. From the pleadings, affidavits and submissions on record, the court is of the considered view that the following issues arise for determination 2. ***Whether the Petition discloses constitutional violations warranting the intervention of this Court.*** 3. ***Whether the impoundment and prolonged detention of the subject motor vehicle were lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair.*** 4. ***Whether the Petitioners have established infringement of the rights guaranteed under Articles 27, 40, and 47 of the Constitution and, if so, whether they are entitled to the declaratory, compensatory, and ancillary reliefs sought in the Petition.*** 5. At the outset, this Court reiterates the settled principle that while every litigant is entitled to invoke the Constitution where a genuine constitutional question arises, constitutional litigation is not intended to supplant ordinary civil, commercial, or administrative processes where such mechanisms are adequate to resolve the dispute in controversy. Courts have consistently cautioned against the indiscriminate constitutionalization of disputes whose gravamen lies within the established domains of private law, statutory adjudication, or ordinary administrative review. 6. The jurisprudential threshold governing constitutional pleadings was firmly established in ***Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic [1979] KLR 154***, where the Court held that a litigant invoking constitutional jurisdiction must plead with reasonable precision the constitutional provisions alleged to have been infringed, the manner of infringement, and the nexus between the impugned conduct and the alleged violation. That principle was emphatically reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in ***Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 Others [2013] eKLR***, where the Court underscored that constitutional pleadings must transcend generalized grievances and disclose a genuine constitutional controversy warranting constitutional adjudication. 7. In the present matter, although the Petitioners have invoked Articles 27, 40, and 47 of the Constitution, a close and sober examination of the pleadings reveals that the substratum of the dispute concerns ownership, detention, use, and alleged economic loss arising from the impoundment of a motor vehicle. The alleged injuries relate principally to depreciation, non-user, commercial loss, and delayed release of the vehicle. In substance, therefore, the dispute is compensatory and proprietary in character, notwithstanding the constitutional language in which it has been framed. 8. Article 27 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection and benefit of the law, while prohibiting discrimination either directly or indirectly on any of the enumerated or analogous grounds. Article 40 safeguards the right to acquire and own property of any description and in any part of Kenya, and protects persons from arbitrary deprivation of property save in accordance with the Constitution and the law. Article 47, on the other hand, guarantees every person the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair, and where a right or fundamental freedom is likely to be adversely affected by administrative action, the affected person is entitled to written reasons for such action. 9. The Petitioners repeatedly allege arbitrary detention, institutional delay, and unfair administrative action. However, beyond broad and conclusory assertions, the Petition does not sufficiently demonstrate how the impugned conduct attained the threshold of constitutional transgression as opposed to actionable grievances remediable under ordinary civil and administrative law. There can be no doubt that investigative and enforcement actions undertaken by State agencies remain subject to constitutional discipline, including the requirements of legality, rationality, and procedural fairness under Article 47. However, not every investigatory action, including temporary seizure or detention of property undertaken pursuant to statutory mandate, automatically matures into a constitutional violation absent proof of arbitrariness, bad faith, manifest disproportionality, or procedural impropriety. 10. The material placed before the Court demonstrates that the impoundment of the subject motor vehicle arose within the context of competing claims touching on ownership, importation, customs documentation, and allegations of theft. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th Respondents maintained throughout that the detention of the vehicle occurred pursuant to their investigative mandate under Articles 243 to 247 of the Constitution and the provisions of the National Police Service Act. Once allegations concerning possible theft, irregular importation, or disputed ownership emerged, the investigative agencies were not merely entitled, but duty-bound, to inquire into the matter. 11. This Court reiterates that constitutional adjudication is not designed to second-guess every operational decision undertaken in the course of criminal investigations unless there is clear evidence of bad faith, capricious abuse of power, manifest procedural impropriety, or conduct so egregious as to amount to constitutional delinquency. No such threshold has been demonstrated in the present Petition. 12. Equally significant is the Petitioners’ failure to exhaust alternative statutory and common-law remedies before invoking this Court’s constitutional jurisdiction. The doctrine of exhaustion has now become a central pillar of Kenyan constitutional and administrative law. In ***Speaker of the National Assembly v Karume [1992] KLR 21,*** the Court held that where a statute establishes a specific procedure for redress, that procedure ought to be strictly followed. The Court of Appeal in ***Geoffrey Muthinja Kabiru & 2 Others v Samuel Munga Henry & 1756 Others [2015] eKLR*** further emphasized that the doctrine serves the important purpose of ensuring that disputes are first ventilated through the specialized mechanisms established by Parliament. 13. The Petitioners herein had available to them ordinary civil remedies sounding in detinue, conversion, negligence, damages for loss of user, and compensation under the law of tort. Equally available were judicial review and administrative law remedies capable of interrogating the legality, reasonableness, and procedural propriety of the impoundment process. Instead, the Petitioners elected to bypass those established mechanisms and prematurely constitutionalize the dispute. 14. Constitutional jurisdiction, though broad and fundamental, ought not to be invoked in a manner that bypasses specialized statutory and ordinary legal mechanisms where those mechanisms are capable of adequately resolving the dispute and where no exceptional constitutional question has been demonstrated. 15. Even assuming, arguendo, that the Petition had satisfied the precision threshold, substantial difficulty would still arise in granting the reliefs sought under Articles 40 and 47 of the Constitution. Article 40 undoubtedly protects the right to property, but that protection does not immunize property from lawful investigative processes undertaken pursuant to statutory authority. Nor does Article 47 convert every administrative delay or inconvenience into a constitutional tort deserving constitutional damages. 16. The Petitioners’ principal claim relates to alleged loss of user quantified at Kshs. 3,000 per day together with depreciation and deterioration of the motor vehicle. Such a claim is plainly compensatory in nature and constitutes special damages requiring strict proof. The law in this regard is settled. In ***Hahn v Singh [1985] eKLR (KLR 716)*** the Court held that special damages must not only be specifically pleaded but must also be strictly proved. The same principle was reiterated in ***Capital Fish Kenya Limited v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited [2016] eKLR***. 17. Beyond generalized assertions, the Petitioners failed to place before the Court audited accounts, business records, transport contracts, tax returns, revenue statements, or any cogent financial documentation capable of establishing actual pecuniary loss attributable to the impoundment. The claim remained speculative and evidentially unsubstantiated. Courts do not award damages *in vacuo.* 18. The allegation founded upon Article 27 of the Constitution is equally unsustainable. The Petitioners did not demonstrate differential treatment, discriminatory classification, selective enforcement, or unequal application of the law as contemplated within Article 27 jurisprudence. Mere dissatisfaction with investigative action cannot, without more, amount to unconstitutional discrimination. 19. Furthermore, the dispute regarding ownership of the motor vehicle remained heavily contested. The 1st and 2nd Respondents asserted competing proprietary interests and produced documentation relating to customs payment and importation records. In such circumstances, investigative caution on the part of law enforcement agencies cannot, without clear evidence of malice or arbitrariness, be equated with unconstitutional conduct. Indeed, Article 40(6) of the Constitution expressly excludes constitutional protection from unlawfully acquired property. While this Court makes no definitive finding regarding the legality or illegality of the Petitioners’ title, the existence of serious competing claims concerning ownership and importation substantially weakens the assertion that the Petitioners’ proprietary rights were so clear, absolute, and uncontested as to warrant constitutional intervention in the manner sought. 20. The Petitioners have, in effect, invited this Court to elevate a contested proprietary and commercial dispute into a constitutional cause célèbre. This Court declines that invitation. Constitutional jurisdiction must remain reserved for genuine and substantial constitutional controversies lest the Constitution itself be trivialized through indiscriminate invocation. 21. Ultimately, and upon the totality of the material placed before it, this Court finds that the Petitioners have failed to establish, to the requisite constitutional threshold, any violation of Articles 27, 40, or 47 of the Constitution. The impugned actions occurred within the context of ongoing investigations touching on ownership, importation, and alleged theft of the motor vehicle. The grievances advanced and the remedies sought are predominantly compensatory in nature and were more appropriately pursuable through ordinary civil proceedings and other established legal mechanisms. 22. Accordingly, the Petition dated 11th February 2025 is devoid of constitutional merit and is hereby dismissed. 23. Given the nature of the dispute and the competing proprietary claims between the parties, the Court directs that each party shall bear its own costs. Orders accordingly. File closed accordingly. **DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 20TH DAY OF MAY 2026.** **………………………………….** **BAHATI MWAMUYE MBS** **JUDGE** In the presence of:- Counsel for the Petitioners- Mr. Wasolo Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents – Mr. Keiro Counsel for the 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents – Ms. Were Court Assistant- Mr. Martin Mwenda and Mr. Austin