https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1876

Kisanji & 5 others v Chief Officer of Health & 5 others (Cause E020 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 1876 (KLR) (25 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1876 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kakamega Cause E020 of 2026 DN Nderitu, J June 25, 2026 Between Reinhard Bonke Kisanji 1st Claimant Nancy Lucy Asila 2nd Claimant Edith Endege Kinyanzwa 3rd Claimant Edward Makutsa Indako 4th Claimant Arthur Mudavadi Eboso 5th Claimant Winnie Juliet Aseyo Ludeki 6th Claimant and The Chief Officer Of Health 1st Respondent The Chief Officer of Public Service & Administration 2nd Respondent The Chief Officer Of Finance 3rd Respondent County Director Human Resource Management & Development 4th Respondent Ceo, County Public Service Board 5th Respondent County Government Of Vihiga 6th Respondent Ruling I. Introduction 1.The claimants through Mutua Eboso & Company Advocates commenced this cause by way of a memorandum of claim dated 17th April 2026 seeking for the following reliefs –i.A declaration that the defendants are jointly and severally in contempt of the decision of the Public Service Commissionii.A declaration that the claimants are entitled to compensation for unlawful dismissaliii.An order directing the defendants to immediately reinstate the claimants to the payroll of the County Government of Vihigaiv.An order directing the 1st and 2nd defendants to pay the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th claimants Kshs 1,000,000 each as compensation for violation of their constitutional rights, including the right to dignity, and right to fair labour practices and for breach of the duty to comply with the decision of the public service commission.v.An order directing the 1st and 2nd defendants to pay back all of the remuneration wrongfully withheld or deducted by the defendants immediately as follows:Reinhard Bonke Kisanji – February 2025 - 58,776, March 2025 - 25,323 = Total ksh84,099.Nancy Lucy Asila –Arthur Mudavadi Eboso – Feb 2025 - 35,637 March 2025 – 35,637 April 2025 – 35,637= Total Kshs 106,911Edith Endege Kinyanzwa - Feb 2025 - 59,195 March 2025- 59,195= Total ksh118,390Edward Makutsa Indako – Feb 2025 - 24,572, March 2025 - 24,572=Total ksh49,144Winnie Aseyo Ludeki – Feb 2025 - 48,553 March 2025 - 48,553= Total Kshs 97106Subtotal – KSH 455,650vi.An order for the payment of all entitlements for the months of April, May and June 2025 when the disciplinary process was concluded for all the claimants as follows:Reinhard Bonke Kisanji – (April, May and June = 113,093 * 3 = 339,279) employer pension 9163.5*3=27,490.5 Total of Kshs 366,769.5Nancy Lucy Asila – salary of April, May and June =34,130*3=102,390) employer pension=3559.50*3=10,678.50 Total Kshs 113,068.5Arthur Mudavadi Eboso –salary May 82,180, June 82,180=164,362) employer pension =11367*2=22734 Total ksh 187,096Edith Endege kinyanzwa - salary April May, June =109.060*3= Kshs 327,180Edward Makutsa Indako – salary April May June=46,300*3= Kshs 138,900) employer pension =4717.50*3=14,152.50 total Kshs 153,052Winnie Aseyo Ludeki – salary April May June =85230*3=255,690) employer pension =5524.50*3=16573.50 Total ksh272,263Subtotal – Kshs 1,419,428vii.An order of payment of withheld remuneration from the date of unlawful dismissal, being 19th June 2025 to date as follows: Reinhard Bonke Kisanji – (Salary from July 2025 to April 2026 = (113,093*10= 1,130,930) employer pension =9163.5*10= 91,635 Total Kshs 1,222,565 Nancy Lucy Asila – salary from July 2025 to April 2026= 34,130*10=341,300.) employer contribution= 3559.50*10=35,595 total Kshs 376,895 Arthur Mudavadi Eboso –salary from July 2025 to April 2026 =82180*10= 821,800) employer pension 11367*10= 113,670 total Kshs 935,470 Edith Endege kinyanzwa - July2025 to April 2026=109,060*10= 1,090,600) pension non-contributory Total Kshs 1,090,600 Edward Makutsa Indako – July2025 to April 2026 =46300*10= 463,000) employer pension=4717.50*10=47170.50 total Kshs 510,170 Winnie Aseyo Ludeki – July 2025 to April 2026 =85,230*10= 852,.300) employer pension 5524.50*10=55240.50 Kshs 907,540 Subtotal = Kshs 5,043,240viii.An order for payment of the total amount in prayer iv, v, vi and vii above, totaling Kshs12,918,318 as a full and final settlement of the employment claimix.An order for costs of the appeal and of this suit 2.Contemporaneously, the Claimants/Applicants filed a Notice of Motion (the application) of even date seeking for the following orders –a.Spent.b.That pending the hearing and determination of the main claim, this Honourable court be pleased to issue a conservatory order restraining the 1st to 6th Respondents from proceeding with or implementing any decisions pursuant to any fresh disciplinary process relating to the issues that were already heard and determined by the Public Service Commission in PSC appeal 200 of 2025.c.That pending the hearing and determination of his application and claim, this Honourable Court be pleased to issue conservatory orders suspending any decision made by the 6th respondent in exercise of its disciplinary control over the applicants herein over the same issues already heard and determined in Public Service Commission appeal 200 of 2025.d.That pending the hearing and determination of the main claim, this Honourable court be pleased to issue a mandatory injunction against the 1st to 5th Respondents compelling them to immediately reinstate the applicants, all currently working, herein to the payroll of the 6th Respondent’s in strict compliance with the decision of the Public Service Commission in PSC Appeal 200 of 2025.e.That the cost of this application be provided for. 3.The application is expressed to be founded on Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution, Section 4,12(1), 2 & 3 of the Employment and labour Relations Court Act, Rule 10 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, and Rules 23 & 24 of the constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013. It is based on the grounds on the face of it and the supporting affidavit sworn by the 1st applicant on 3rd May 2026. 4.Through the County Attorney, the Respondents entered appearance and filed a Preliminary Objection (PO) dated 4th May 2026 premised on the following grounds – 1.The application and the claim violate section 89 of the Public Service Commission Act by seeking remedies through this cause outside the scope of the decision of the Commission specifically the reliefs itemized under paragraph 27 of the Memorandum of Claim. The said section states: -“89. Enforcement of appeal decision1.Any person who is affected by the decision of the Commission made under this Part may file the decision for enforcement by the Employment and Labour Relations Court provided for under Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution. 2.Any person who refuses, fails or neglects to implement the Commission’s decisions is liable to disciplinary action in accordance with the applicable laws including removal from office.”1.By reason of the limitations imposed by section 89 of the Public Service Commission Act on the nature of the applications expected to be entertained by this Honourable Court and the consequences of refusal, failure or neglect to implement the Commission’s decisions, the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court to entertain this claim as presented is expressly or impliedly excluded or ousted.2.The claim and the application therein amount to gross abuse of the process of the Honourable Court to the extent that the Claimants are challenging the new disciplinary proceedings yet these are being undertaken in compliance with express directive of the Commission. On this ground, the Respondents shall entirely rely on paragraph 50 of the subject decision of the Commission in which the Commission directed as follows:-“Disposition50.This being a matter involving public finances, the respondent may: -i.Conduct investigations to establish who occasioned the overpayments of salaries and take action against the said officer(s) whether past or present.ii.Commence the process of recovery of any overpaid salaries and allowances after following due process. The affected officers shall be issued with notices to show cause and allowed a chance to make representations.”1.The application dated 17th April 2026 is incurably and fatally defective for non-compliance with a mandatory requirement of the law namely section 35 of the Advocates Act for both the notice of motion and the supporting affidavit of Reinhard Bonke sworn on the same date which renders the aforesaid documents invalid for all purposes save for the sentence prescribed in the said section against the offender on being identified.“35.Instruments to be endorsed with name and address of drawer1.Every person who draws or prepares, or causes to be drawn or prepared, any document or instrument referred to in section 34(1) shall at the same time endorse or cause to be endorsed thereon his name and address, or the name and address of the firm of which he is a partner and any person omitting to do so shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding five thousand shillings in the case of an unqualified person or a fine not exceeding five hundred shillings in the case of an advocate:Provided that, in the case of any document or instrument drawn, prepared or engrossed by a person employed by, and whilst acting within the scope of his employment, by an advocate or firm of advocates, the name and address to be endorsed thereon shall be the name and address of such advocate or firm.” 5.In opposition to the PO, the Claimants/Applicants filed a response dated 15th May 2026. 6.By consent, the court directed that the application be canvassed by way of written submissions and that the PO be treated as opposition to the application. Ms Japaan for the Claimants filed two sets of written submissions, both dated 15th May 2026, on the PO and on the application. Ms Shijenje, for the Respondents, filed written submissions dated 12th May 2026. II. Evidence 7.The Applicants are employees of the 6th Respondent, County Government of Vihiga and filed the application seeking conservatory and mandatory orders to enforce a decision of the Public Service Commission (the commission). They are seeking for orders restraining the Respondents from undertaking or commencing fresh disciplinary proceedings arising from issues already determined in PSC Appeal No. 200 of 2025 as set out in the introductory part of this ruling. 8.In the supporting affidavit, the Applicants state that they were unlawfully dismissed from employment in April 2025 on allegations of receiving salary overpayments and that, prior to the dismissal the Respondents had unlawfully deducted portions of their salaries in an attempt to recover the alleged overpayments. Aggrieved by the deductions and dismissal, the Claimants appealed to the Commission. In a decision dated 19th November 2025, the Commission both the salary deductions and dismissals unlawful and directed that they be reinstated to their respective positions. The Applicants aver that the decision was communicated and served upon the Respondents, who neither appealed nor sought review of the same. 9.The Applicants contend that although they were subsequently redeployed and resumed work, the Respondents have failed to reinstate them into the payroll and have continued withholding their salaries. They further assert that the Respondents have instead initiated fresh disciplinary proceedings based on the very issues that were conclusively determined by the Commission. According to the Applicants, the fresh show-cause letters and the intended disciplinary hearings amount to double jeopardy, undermine the authority of the Commission, and are intended to circumvent compliance with the binding decision of the Commission. 10.The Applicants state that the continued withholding of their salaries has occasioned them severe financial hardship, including loan defaults, accumulation of interest, adverse credit listings, and violation of their dignity and livelihood as workers. They therefore urge the Court to enforce the decision of the Commission, protect the rule of law, and compel their reinstatement into the payroll pending the hearing and determination of the cause. 11.In response to the PO, the Applicants posit that the same misconceived and does not raise pure points of law capable of disposing the suit. They argue that the PO fails to demonstrate how the claim violates Section 89 of the Public Service Commission Act or how that provision limits the Court’s jurisdiction. They further contend that the PO improperly introduces disputed factual matters, including the existence, content, implementation and effect of the decision of the Commission that can only be resolved through abduction of evidence in the trial. 12.The Applicants also oppose the PO founded on Section 35 of the Advocates Act, arguing that the provision regulates the conduct of Advocates and cannot be invoked to defeat an otherwise competent claim. They maintain that pleadings and affidavits are not among the documents contemplated under Sections 34 & 35 of the Advocates Act and that any defect attributable to an advocate should not be visited upon an innocent litigant. Further, they argue that since the application was filed under the Mutunga Rules, the affidavits are not mandatory and any procedural defects are curable under Order 19 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules. They therefore urge the Court to dismiss the PO and allow the matter to proceed on merits. III. Submissions 20.Counsel for the Applicants attacked the PO on four issues – Whether the requirements of Section 35 and 34(1) of the Advocates Act are applicable in the striking out a claim in the manner of a PO; Whether mere technicality or irregularity in a pleading or affidavit can be dispositive of the claim at a preliminary stage without other considerations; Whether Section 89 of the Public Service Commission Act ousts the jurisdiction of this court to entertain the claim and application; and, Whether the preliminary objection is merited. 21.It is submitted that the PO is incompetent as it does not raise pure points of law per Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696, as reaffirmed in Aviation & Allied Workers Union Kenya v Kenya Airways Ltd & 3 Others [2015] eKLR, Oraro v Mbaja [2005] KEHC 3182 (KLR) and, John Musakali v Speaker County Assembly of Bungoma & 4 Others [2015] eKLR. Counsel argued that the PO raises disputed factual issues, including the existence, content, and implementation of the PSC decision, which may only be resolved through evidence. 22.On the application of Sections 34 and 35 of the Advocates Act, counsel submitted that the objection is misconceived because the provisions regulate advocates and not litigants, and do not automatically invalidate pleadings or affidavits. Citing National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Anaj Warehousing Ltd [2015] KESC 4 (KLR), counsel argued that courts should prioritize substantive justice over technical defects and that mistakes of advocates should not be visited upon innocent litigants. Counsel further cited National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Puntland Agencies Ltd & 2 Others [2007] eKLR, wherein the court held that failure to endorse an affidavit is a curable irregularity and that affidavits are not among the documents contemplated under Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act. Counsel further contended that under Order 19 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, any defect in an affidavit is subject to the court’s discretion and cannot form the basis of a PO. 23.Regarding Section 89 of the Public Service Commission Act, Counsel submitted that the provision does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court nor prescribe a mandatory procedure for enforcement of the decision of the Commission. It is contended that the present claim seeks not only enforcement of the decision of the Commission but also other employment-related remedies and that consolidating all issues in one suit saves previous judicial time. 24.On the application for interim orders, Counsel submitted that the Applicants have satisfied the principles for the grant of conservatory and mandatory injunctive reliefs established in Giella v Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd (1973) EA 358 and further enunciated in numerous other decisions including Kenya Breweries Ltd v Washington Okeyo [2002] eKLR and Gatirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & Others. Counsel argued that the Applicants have established a prima facie case since the Commission ordered reinstatement and declared the dismissal of the Applicants unlawful, yet, the Respondents have unfairly and unlawfully failed to restore them to the payroll despite their continued service. 25.Counsel further contended that the Applicants continue to work without pay, exposing them to financial hardship, loan defaults, and violation of their right to fair labour practices under Article 41 of the Constitution. Counsel argued further that the balance of convenience favours the grant of orders because any salaries paid may be recovered if the claim ultimately fails, whereas continued non-payment causes untold suffering and prejudice to the Applicants. 26.Counsel further submitted that the Respondents have unfairly and unlawfully initiated fresh disciplinary proceedings based on the same facts upon which the Commission rendered its determination, thereby subjecting the Applicants to double jeopardy and undermining the finality and authority of the decision of the Commission. 27.Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the PO and grant orders suspending the fresh disciplinary process while compelling the Respondents to reinstate the Applicants to the payroll pending the hearing and determination of the cause. 28.On the other hand, counsel for the Respondents submitted globally in support of the PO that the claim is improperly framed as an enforcement action under Section 89 of the Public Service Commission Act. Counsel argued that the above law only permits a party to file and seek enforcement of a decision of the Commission and does not allow the Court to expand, interpret, vary, or grant additional relief beyond those contained in the Commission’s decision. Citing Macharia & Another v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & 2 Others [2012] eKLR, counsel submitted that a court cannot expand its jurisdiction beyond what is provided for by law. 29.It was submitted that the Applicants have gone beyond enforcement by seeking additional remedies, including salary arrears, refunds of deductions, declarations, and orders challenging ongoing disciplinary proceedings, none of which formed part of the decision by the Commission. Counsel argued that such claims ought to be pursued through separate proceedings and not disguised as enforcement of the Commission’s decision. 30.Counsel further submitted that the fresh disciplinary proceedings complained of by the Applicants were expressly authorized by the PSC decision of the Commission itself. Counsel contends that the Commission directed the Respondents to investigate the alleged salary overpayments, commence recovery proceedings through due process, and issue notices to show-cause to the concerned officers. Accordingly, counsel submits that the ongoing disciplinary process is therefore a lawful implementation of the PSC decision and cannot be challenged through the present enforcement proceedings. 31.It was also submitted that the Notice of Motion and supporting affidavit are fatally defective for failure to comply with Section 35 of the Advocates Act, which requires that documents drawn by advocates shall bear the name and address of the drawer. Counsel relied on Omar Naaman Omar v John Muasya Ngumu [2007] KEHC 886 (KLR) and In Re Estate of Gregory Kyengo Maluila [2004] KEHC 354 (KLR), wherein the two courts held that non-compliance with Section 35 of the Advocates Act rendered affidavits defective and amenable to strucking out. 32.Counsel therefore urged the Court to uphold the PO and strike out both the application and the entire claim with costs. IV. Analysis & Determination 33.The court has carefully read and considered the application, supporting affidavit, the PO, the response to the PO, and the written submissions by the counsel for both sides, alongside all the cited authorities. The following issues are for determination –a.Whether the PO as raised is merited.b.Whether the court should issue the orders sought.c.Who bears the costs of the application? V. The Preliminary Objection 33.In the evergreen decision of Mukhisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs West End Distributors Ltd (1969) E.A. 696 the Court defined a PO as follows – “...is in the nature of what used to be a demurrer. It raises a pure point of law which is argued on the assumption that all the facts pleaded by the other side are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion”. 34.The Supreme Court in Aviation & Allied Workers Union vs Kenya Airways Ltd & 3 Others, Application No. 50 of 2014 [2015] eKLR reiterated the above position and held as follows –“Thus, a preliminary objection may only be raised on a pure question of law. To discern such a point of law, the court has to be satisfied that there is no proper contest to the facts. The facts are deemed agreed, as they are prima facie presented in the pleadings on record.” 33.The first ground in the PO is that the application and claim violate Section 89 of the Public Service Commission Act by seeking additional reliefs beyond those contained in the decision of the Commission. The Respondents contend that the Applicants, instead of seeking the enforcement of the decision by the Commission have sought for new reliefs in the claim. The issues raised in the claim are set out in the introductory part of this ruling, and they include unfair dismissal, withheld remuneration, violation of constitutional rights; and reinstatement to the payroll. 34.The question of whether the Applicant’s claim before this court seeks reliefs beyond those contained in the decision of the Commission of 19th November 2025 falls squarely within the mandate of this court. This shall require the court to hear the respective positions taken by the parties and take the evidence. That is not a pure point of law. It would be a miscarriage of justice for the court to dismiss the claim before hearing the parties on merit. 35.The second ground of the PO is that this court’s jurisdiction to entertain a contempt application is ousted by Section 89(2) of the Public Service Commission Act before there is an order for enforcement. The Respondents contend that once the Applicants filed this cause in court, the court cannot handle the contempt proceedings before hearing and determining the application for enforcement. Applicants are seeking a myriad of reliefs, among them is a prayer that the Respondents be found in contempt, among other prayers. The application for contempt requires the adduction of evidence before the court can make a finding. An application for contempt requires an ascertainment of facts by way of evidence and hence falls outside the definition of what constitutes a proper PO. As to whether the contempt application is premature, that falls for determination by the court as tested by rules of evidence and may call for the exercise of this court’s discretion in determining the same. This court finds that ground 2 of the Preliminary objection is not merited. 36.The third ground is that the application is an abuse of the court process as the claimants are challenging the new disciplinary proceedings, which are following PSC’s directive. 37.The question as to whether the Respondents complied with the decision of the Commission is a contested fact, which may only be settled by way of evidence as the Applicants contest the alleged compliance. 38.The fourth ground is that the supporting affidavit sworn by the 1st Applicant offends Section 35 of the Advocates Act for failing to indicate the name and address of the drawer. 39.In National Bank of Kenya Ltd V Puntland Agencies Limited & 2 others [supra] Warsame J (as he was then) held that – In my view there is nothing in Section 35 of Advocates Act which empowers the court to strike out an affidavit simply because it was not endorsed by the Advocate who drew and filed it. The failure to endorse an affidavit is not fatal to require the court to strike it out, I will however deem that to be a minor transgression, which does not go to the root of the mischief to be cured under Section 35 of the Advocates Act. More so no prejudice is caused to the applicant by the said default. It is my position that the failure to endorse the name of the drawer Advocate on the verifying affidavit is not fatal and does not render the affidavit void. That is a mere irregularity which can be readily excused by the court. The omission of the plaintiff’s Advocate to endorse their names on the affidavit is not a violation of Section 35(1) of the Advocates Act. In any case Section 35(1) says that every person who draws or prepares any document or instrument referred to Section 34(1) shall at the same time endorse or cause to be endorsed thereon his name and address: It means Section 35(1) is subject to the provisions contained under Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act. Perhaps it is essential to note that Section 34(1) does not specifically mention an affidavit as a document or instrument which requires an endorsement of the drawer. 40.This Court agrees with the above finding and holds that Article 159 (2) (d) of the Constitution now enjoins this court in ensuring that substantive justice is rendered without undue regard to procedural technicalities. The court finds and holds that while the affidavit is lacking the name of the drawer, the same complies with the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act, the primary law that deals with that issue. VI. Merits Of The Application 33.On whether the court should issue a conservatory order stopping the Respondents from undertaking fresh disciplinary proceedings and reinstatement of the Applicants to the payroll, the court is guided by the principles upon which conservatory orders may be issued as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Peter Gatirau Munya V Dickson Mwenda Kithinji [2014] eKLR. In distinguishing conservatory orders from orders of injunctions, stay, and other interlocutory orders, the apex court stated as follows –Conservatory orders bear a more decided public law connotation for these are orders to facilitate ordered functioning within public agencies as well as to uphold the adjudicatory authority of the court, in public interest. Conservatory orders, therefore, are not, unlike interlocutory injunctions, linked to such private party issues such as the prospects of irreparable harm occurring during the pendency of the case or high probability of success in the applicant’s case for orders of stay. Conservatory orders, consequently, should be granted on the inherent merit of a case, bearing in mind the public interest, the constitutional values, and the proportionate magnitudes, and priority levels attributable to the relevant causes. 33.The import of the above popular decision is that conservatory orders are more appropriate and applicable in public interest litigation as opposed to litigation in personal relationships, such as employment, which mandate parties to seek the reliefs, rights, and remedies provided for in the statutes such as Employment Act, Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, Labour Relations Act, and the rules and regulations made under those statutes. 34.For a conservatory order to issue in an ordinary cause, such as an employment and labour relations dispute, it must be demonstrated that there is a threat, violation, or breach of the constitutional rights and freedoms of an individual or a group of individuals. The Applicants were issued with show-cause letters dated 27th January 2026. They responded to the said show-cause letters and were invited to the disciplinary hearing. The Applicants further contend that they were unfairly and unlawfully removed from the payroll and they wish to be reinstated and paid their monthly salaries and arrears thereof. On 20th April 2026 this Court issued interim orders stopping any disciplinary proceedings based on the same or similar issues that were before the Commission and which were deliberated on and decided. 35.It is not a contested fact that the Applicants report to work each day and they remain lawful employees of the 6th Respondent. One of the primary legal obligations of an employer is to pay salaries as and when they fall due. This is the basis upon which the court ordered that the Applicants be reinstated into the payroll and that be paid all their salaries including arrears. It has been submitted that the Respondents did not comply with this order and there is an application for contempt pending in court. 36.It is obvious that no persons should suffer double jeopardy. The Respondents cannot summon the Applicants and conduct disciplinary hearing based on the same issues that were the subject matter before this Commission. 37.The two issues of payment of salaries and the arrears thereof and disciplinary hearing over the same issues as those handled by the Commission are the subject matter of the application. 38.The court has gone through the decision of the Commission dated 19th March 2025. In paragraphs 46 to 49 the Commission found that the Applicants had no role in the alleged overpayments of salaries and that the Respondents had failed to establish that any such excess payments had been made to the Applicants. It would therefore be an abdication of duty for this court to allow the Respondents to continue with the disciplinary issues that were canvassed and determined by the Commission. In fact, in that ruling by the Commission, the Respondents were politely advised to deal with the persons who manage the payroll if any excess payments were indeed made. VII. Orders 33.The court makes the following orders –a.The PO by the Respondents dated 4th May 2026 lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.b.The application by the Applicants dated 17th April 2026 is allowed in terms of prayers 2, 3, and 4 as reproduced in the introductory part of this ruling.c.Costs of the PO and the application to the Applicants in any event. DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, DATED, AND SIGNED AT KAKAMEGA THIS 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2026..........................................................DAVID NDERITUJUDGEELRC KAKAMEGA