Mahaga & 3 others v Inter-Public Universities Councils Consultative Forum of the Federation Of Kenya Employers & 2 others (Petition E230 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 1721 (KLR) (19 June 2026) (Judgment)

Mahaga & 3 others v Inter-Public Universities Councils Consultative Forum of the Federation Of Kenya Employers & 2 others (Petition E230 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 1721 (KLR) (19 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1721 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi Petition E230 of 2025 JW Keli, J June 19, 2026 Between Annmarie Mahaga 1st Petitioner Omwandho Rosemary Achieng 2nd Petitioner Vera Mutheu 3rd Petitioner Sylvia S. Obulinji 4th Petitioner and Inter-Public Universities Councils Consultative Forum Of The Federation Of Kenya Employers 1st Respondent Kenya Universities Staff Union 2nd Respondent University Of Nairobi 3rd Respondent Judgment 1.The petitioners were members of the 2nd respondent union and being aggrieved with the different retirement age for various categories of staff of the 3rd Respondent under the 2021-2025 CBA filed a petition brought under Articles 27, 41, 47, 165(3)(d)(ii) and 258 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; Sections 5, 12 and 13 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act No. 20 of 2011; Section 5 of the Employment Act No. 11 of 2007; and all other enabling provisions of the law seeking for the following orders-a.A declaration that Clause 4 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) 2021-2025 between the Inter-Public Universities Councils Consultative Forum (IPUCCF) of the Federation of Kenya Employers and Kenya Universities Staff Union, which provides for differential retirement ages (65 years for technologists and librarians versus 60 years for all other KUSU members), is discriminatory, unconstitutional, null and void.b.A declaration that Clause 4 of the СВА 2021-2025 violates: - Article 27 of the Constitution (equality and non-discrimination); - Article 41 of the Constitution (fair labour practices); - Article 47 of the Constitution (fair administrative action); -Section 5 of the Employment Act (prohibition of discrimination); -Article 1 of the KUSU Constitution (equality of members).c.A declaration that the principles of collective bargaining require that enhancements and benefits negotiated by a trade union must apply collectively to all members of the bargaining unit equally, and that selective application of benefits to only certain categories of members violates the constitutional right to fair labour practices.d.A declaration that where justice is to be done through enhancements in a collective bargaining agreement, it must be done to all members equally, and equity demands uniform application of benefits.e.A declaration that all KUSU members, regardless of job category, department, or cadre, contribute to the core mandate of public universities and are entitled to equal treatment in terms of retirement age and other conditions of service.f.A declaration that the purported justification that technologists and librarians are "researchers" or "scientists" warranting preferential treatment is false, contrived, and does not constitute a legitimate basis for differential treatment.g.An order nullifying, setting aside, and declaring void Clause 4 of the CBA 2021-2025 insofar as it provides for discriminatory retirement ages for different categories of KUSU members. viii) An order compelling the 1st and 2nd Respondents to harmonize the retirement age for all KUSU members to sixty-five (65) years without discrimination based on job category, cadre, department, or any other ground.h.A permanent injunction prohibiting the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents, whether by themselves, their officers, servants, agents, or employees, from implementing, enforcing, or giving effect to the discriminatory retirement age provisions contained in Clause 4 of the СВА 2021-2025.i.An order directing that any retirement of KUSU members shall be governed by a uniform retirement age of 65 years for all members in accordance with the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.j.An order directing the 1st and 2nd Respondents to renegotiate and amend Clause 4 of the CBA 2021-2025 to provide for a uniform retirement age of 65 years for all KUSU members without discrimination.k.An order of general damages for violation of the Petitioners' constitutional rights and fundamental freedoms, the quantum of which shall be determined by this Honourable Court.l.An order for costs of this petition to be borne by the Respondents jointly and severally.m.Such further or other relief as this Honourable Court may deem just and expedient to grant in the circumstances. 2.The petitioners supporting the petition relied on the affidavit of Annemarie Mahaga, the first petitioner, who stated she represents the co-petitioners. To support the application, the deponent annexed copies of the petitioners’ payslips showing their employment by the University of Nairobi and monthly KUSU union deductions, a copy of the KUSU constitution, a copy of the 2021-2025 Union Constitution, and a letter dated 16th October 2025 from the Acting Vice-Chancellor of the University of Nairobi communicating the new retirement clause under the CBA to all staff. Response. 3.The 2nd respondent opposed the petition vide replying affidavit of Charles Mukhwaya dated 20th January 2026 who deponed as follows- 4.That the 4th petitioner is no longer a member of the 2nd Respondent, having voluntarily withdrawn her membership through a formal written request addressed to the 2nd Respondent. By voluntarily terminating her membership, the 4th Petitioner effectively relinquished all rights, privileges, and benefits accorded to bona fide members of the 2nd Respondent. Consequently, she no longer has any legal standing. authority, or capacity to act, speak, or make representations on behalf of the said union, nor to derive any benefit or protection therefrom. 5.That the Petitioners have filed this application as an afterthought and in bad faith, their actions being motivated solely by personal gain and self-interest rather than any genuine or collective grievance. It is evident that this application has been precipitated by their impending retirement and is therefore aimed at serving their individual interests. 6.That the self-serving nature of this application severely undermines its credibility and bona fides. It is evident that the petitioners' actions were reactive to their impending retirement, rather than reflective of any genuine concern affecting the broader membership. Such opportunistic timing indicates that the petition was strategically delayed to serve individual objectives, instead of being grounded in lawful, transparent, or collective union processes. 7.That moreover, this conduct has the effect of undermining the good work of the 2nd Respondent, which was negotiated in good faith and for the benefit of the entire membership. By attempting to advance personal interests under the guise of collective advocacy of discrimination, the petitioners misrepresent their self-interest as union-wide concerns, thereby weakening the credibility of the application. 8.That as defined by the Commission for Higher Education, academic staff comprises both teaching and technical staff, thereby encompassing all personnel who contribute directly to the instructional, research, and technical functions of the institution. Teaching staff are responsible for delivering lectures, tutorials and academic guidance, while technical staff provide essential support in laboratories, workshops and other specialized environments critical to the institution's academic and research programs. (Attached herein is a copy of the letter from the commission for higher education defining an academic staff Marked GN-1)8. THAT while technologists employed in teaching laboratories, studios, clinics, workshops, and demonstration farms provide the practical and hands-on instruction that is essential to students' holistic academic and research development, their role extends far beyond merely supporting classroom theory. They translate abstract concepts into real-world applications, guide students through the safe and effective use of specialized equipment, and cultivate the technical competencies that underpin innovation and problem-solving in their fields. 9.That through their expertise, students gain experiential learning opportunities that deepen understanding, foster creativity, and build confidence in professional practice. In this way, technologists serve as indispensable partners in the teaching- learning process and play a central role in shaping graduates who are not only knowledgeable, but also skilled, adaptable, and industry-ready. 10.That this inclusive definition ensures that both categories of staff are formally recognized as integral to the academic mission and are entitled to the rights. privileges, and benefits accorded to academic staff under institutional policies and relevant statutory provisions. 11.That the 3rd Respondent's internal memo dated 3rd September 2002 resolved that technologists, as members of the academic staff, are to be formally recognized within the academic structure, with all rights, privileges, and responsibilities that attach to academic staff membership. (Attached herein is a copy of the internal memo dated 3rd September, 2002 Marked GN-2). 12.That by the letter dated 27th September 2004, the Executive Office of the President directed that the mandatory retirement age of academic staff in public universities, research scientists, and judicial officers shall be determined and guided in accordance with the relevant legislation and applicable guideline. (Attached herein is a copy of the letter dated 27th September, 2024 Marked GN-3) 13.That, although the 1st to 3rd petitioners are members of the union they do not fall within the legally recognized category of academic staff. Membership in the union alone does not confer upon individuals the right to claim benefits, protections, or entitlements that are specifically reserved for a distinct class of employees under the law or pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Accordingly, the Petitioners cannot validly assert any claim or derive any benefit that is expressly designated for members of the academic staff, and any attempt to do so would be contrary to the provisions of the CBA and the legal framework governing employee classifications. 14.That consequently, the Petitioners lack the requisite standing and authority to make claims or representations concerning matters that pertain exclusively to academic staff. This includes, but is not limited to, negotiations, benefits, conditions of service, or retirement provisions under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). 15.That any attempt by the Petitioners to assert rights or entitlements reserved for academic staff constitutes an overreach and is inconsistent with the legal framework governing employee classifications and the scope of authority recognized under the CBA. Such actions may also amount to misrepresentation or an unauthorized exercise of powers that are exclusively vested in members of the academic staff. 16.That it is the Petitioners' claim of discrimination based on retirement age is legally untenable and procedurally improper, as they do not belong to the category of academic staff to whom such provisions under the CBA apply and therefore have no basis to assert such rights or protections. 17.That by attempting to challenge provisions outside their recognized category, the petitioners misrepresent their professional status and the scope of their entitlements under the law, notwithstanding their membership in the union. Such claims constitute an overreach and undermine the carefully established legal and structural framework of collective bargaining and employee representation18. THAT since the petitioners are not members of the legally defined academic staff, any allegations of discrimination with respect to retirement age are fundamentally misconceived, unsupported by either fact or law, and entirely without merit. 18.That allowing such claims to proceed would distort the purpose and proper application of the CBA, compromise the integrity of the agreement and prejudice the legitimate interests of bona fide academic staff who are entitled to the protections and benefits negotiated on their behalf. 19.That in effect, the petitioners' attempt to assert discrimination claims regarding retirement age represents a self-serving and opportunistic effort to gain advantages or benefits to which they are not legally or contractually entitled. Such claims cannot form the basis of a credible legal or equitable grievance and should therefore be dismissed. 20.That clause 4 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) 2021-2025, signed on 23rd November 2024, has been alleged by the petitioners to be discriminatory on the basis of age of retirement, this claim is incorrect. 21.That the provisions of the CBA are the product of thorough, transparent and legitimate negotiations and the between the 2nd Respondent and the 1 Respondent. These negotiations were conducted in good faith, with the aim of balancing the diverse interests and needs of all union members, while ensuring compliance with applicable laws and statutory requirements.23. THAT clause 4 of the CBA is specifically designed to account for differences in roles. responsibilities, and statutory entitlements among members. The employees in different positions may have distinct retirement ages based on the nature and demands of their work. Such distinctions are rational, objective, and legally justified, and are made to ensure that the CBA is equitable, sustainable, and functional across the workforce. 22.That accordingly, Clause 4 is not discriminatory in any respect; rather, it embodies a legitimate, reasoned, and carefully considered differentiation that is grounded in the distinct duties, responsibilities, and statutory entitlements of each category of employee. The clause is intended to recognize and accommodate the varying roles, obligations, and professional demands across the workforce, ensuring that each group is treated in accordance with their specific position, function, and contribution to the institution's objectives. 23.That these distinctions are objective, rational, and necessary to maintain operational efficiency, fairness, equity, and long-term sustainability within the organization. Furthermore, Clause 4 is aligned with applicable laws, statutory regulations, and the principles of good industrial and employment practice, guaranteeing that all employees receive the entitlements legitimately due to them without any arbitrary, unjust, or discriminatory treatment. By doing so, the CBA fosters a harmonious, predictable, and legally compliant working environment while safeguarding the legitimate interests of both employees and the employer. 24.That officials of the 2nd Respondent are elected by members every five (5) years through competitive elections. The union membership is fully aware of the qualifications, experience, and professional backgrounds of those elected to office. It is therefore manifestly unfair, misleading and incorrect for the petitioners to suggest that the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) was negotiated in favor of the officials solely because of their professional backgrounds. 25.That the negotiation of the CBA was conducted in good faith, openly, and in strict accordance with established union procedures, with the primary objective of safeguarding and advancing the collective interests of all members. The process involved careful deliberation, consultation and negotiation to ensure that the resulting agreement was balanced, equitable, and reflective of the diverse needs of the membership. 26.That any implication that the professional qualifications or experience of the elected officials conferred undue advantage in the negotiation of the CВА misrepresents the integrity of the process, undermines the credibility of the union's elected leadership and disregards the fact that these officials are accountable to the entire membership through a transparent electoral process. 27.That accordingly, the assertion that the CBA was unfairly negotiated due to the professional backgrounds of 2nd Respondent's officials lacks any factual or legal basis and is wholly without merit as the agreement represents a legitimate outcome of collective bargaining carried out on behalf of all members. 28.That the petition is barred by the doctrine of laches, as the petitioners have unreasonably delayed in asserting their rights, resulting in significant prejudice to the respondents. The petitioners had full knowledge of their rights under Clause 4 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) but refrained from challenging it for a prolonged period of one year without providing any justification for such delay. 29.That during this period, the Respondents acted in reliance on the continued validity of Clause 4, making operational, administrative, and contractual decisions that were predicated upon its enforceability. Allowing the petitioners to now challenge Clause 4 retrospectively would disrupt these arrangements, cause substantial inconvenience. and potentially lead to financial and operational detriment for the respondents. 30.That equity does not assist those who sleep on their rights, the petitioner had full knowledge of their entitlement, allowing the petitioner to now assert their claim would disrupt established arrangements and result in inequitable consequences. which the doctrine of laches seeks to prevent. 31.That the interim order sought by the petitioners should not be granted. The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) 2021-2025 has been in force for almost a year, and there is no urgency or immediate necessity that warrants the grant of an interim order. The application is premature, lacking bona fides, and motivated by personal interest rather than any genuine collective concern. 32.That granting the interim order would unjustly disrupt the legitimate and lawful operations of the 2nd Respondent, including the enforcement of a CBA that was negotiated in good faith for the benefit of the entire membership. It would also reward self-serving conduct and set a dangerous precedent, encouraging individuals to seek interim relief based on personal motivations rather than genuine or collective interests. 33.That moreover, the petitioners' claims including allegations of discrimination and improper negotiation of the CBA lack merit and are wholly unfounded, as the negotiation process was transparent, lawful, and reflective of the interests of all members. There is therefore no legal or equitable basis to justify granting the interim order, and doing so would prejudice the rights and expectations of the majority of bona fide union members, who rely on the stability, integrity and enforceability of the CBA. 34.The 1st petitioner filed affidavit dated 9th February 2026 where among other she attached judgment of the court dated 12th December 2025 where it was ordered the 2nd respondent to regularize the membership of the 1st petitioner. DETERMINATION 35.The petition was canvassed by way of written submissions. The parties complied. 36.The court discerned the issues for determination to be whether the petition had merit and available remedies. Whether the petition had merit 37.The cause of action arose from clause 4 of the 2021-2025 CBA, which the petitioners alleged to be discriminatory as it provides for different ages of retirement of the university's non-academic staff. The impugned clause in the CBA is as follows: ' 4. RETIREMENT AGEThe retirement age of KUSU members shall be as follows:i.Sixty-five (65) years for members of KUSU working in teaching laboratories, teaching workshops and librarians;Sixty-five (65) years for people living with disability; ii.Sixty (60) years for all other members of KUSU andiv.The effective implementation date for the new retirement age shall commence from the date of signing this Agreement.’’ 38.The petitioners fall under the group referred to as all other members of KUSU to retire at 60 years. They allege the clause is discriminatory. 39.The parties are free to negotiate their CBA, and indeed the KUSU and the University of Nairobi did so and registered the 2021 -2025 CBA. 40.The petitioners contend there is no justification for the different ages for retirement under the CBA as they are equal members of the union. The court from the 2009 government policy on retirement of public servants(vide letter dated 20th March 2009) noted there are two categories of university employees, academic and non-academic. The letter is reproduced as below-‘REVIEW OF THE MANDATORY RETIREMENT AGE FOR PUBLIC SERVANTSThe current policy on retirement of Public Servants provides for a mandatory retirement age of 55 years. This is with the exception of Judges, Academic staff in Public Universities, Research Scientists and Public Servants with disabilities whose retirement age ranges from 60 years to 74 years.Due to the current mandatory retirement at 55 years, the Public Service has continued to lose employees with critical skills while they are still productive. This is particularly so with regard to employees in the professional and technical areas in whom the Government has invested considerable resources in training and capacity building, and, who have several years of hands-on-experience in their respective professions. Their retirement has in most cases left succession gaps in key areas, necessitating requests for retention beyond retirement age or re-engagement on contract.The current policy has also had the effect of rendering employees who would otherwise be productive, largely unproductive and reliant on the tax payer for funding of their pension when they should be contributing to the economy. Further, the East African Community (EAC) of which Kenya is a member and a signatory to the EAC Treaty, has adopted an official retirement age of 60 years.In order to address the above challenges and in the spirit of harmonizing the retirement. age applicable to the East African Community Countries, the Government has decided to raise the mandatory retirement age for all Public Servants from 55 years to 60 years with effect from 1st April, 2009. The provisions in the Pensions Act Cap 189, various Pension Schemes and other Policy Guidelines governing the Civil Service, Disciplined Services, Teachers, State Corporations, Public Universities and the Armed Forces regarding compulsory and voluntary retirement will remain.Employees serving on contract as at 5th March, 2009 after attainment of the age of 55 years will however continue to serve for the duration of these contracts. Contracts expiring before the attainment of the age of 60 years will be renewed in accordance with the provisions of the contracts.Employees who had already received retirement notices or had their pension claims already prepared, but had not attained the age of 55 years as at 5th March, 2009, will continue to serve until they attain the age of 60 years if they so wish.All Authorized Officers, Chief Executive Officers of State Corporations, Vice-Chancellors of Public Universities and Clerks to Local Authorities are required to note and implement this Policy accordingly.Amb. Francis K. Muthaura, E.G.H.PERMANENT SECRETARY, SECRETARY TO THE CABINET AND HEAD OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE’’ 41.The 2nd respondent, the Kenya Universities Staff Union represents the non-academic staff. The academic retirement age before the increment of retirement age of all other public officers from 55 to 60 years was stated to be exception as follows- ‘The current policy on retirement of Public Servants provides for a mandatory retirement age of 55 years. This is with the exception of Judges, Academic staff in Public Universities, Research Scientists and Public Servants with disabilities whose retirement age ranges from 60 years to 74 years.’(emphasis given). There is no evidence before the court that the retirement age of any non-academic staff, save for persons with disabilities, was increased from 60 to 65 years. The negotiation of the 2021-2025 CBA to increase the age of members of KUSU working in teaching laboratories, teaching workshops and librarians form 60 years to 65 years was thus outside government policy and illegal. The act is alleged to be discriminatory. Section 5 of the Employment Act reads- ' 5. Discrimination in employment(1)It shall be the duty of the Cabinet Secretary, labour officers and the Employment and Labour Relations Court—(a)to promote equality of opportunity in employment in order to eliminate discrimination in employment; an(2)An employer shall promote equal opportunity in employment and strive to eliminate discrimination in any employment policy or practice.(3)No employer shall discriminate directly or indirectly, against an employee or prospective employee or harass an employee or prospective employee—(a)on grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, nationality, ethnic or social origin, disability, pregnancy, marital status or HIV status;(b)in respect of recruitment, training, promotion, terms and conditions of employment, termination of employment or other matters arising out of the employment.’ Section 5 is consistent with the provisions of Article 27 of the Constitution. 42.In the instant cause, the employer and the union negotiated to increase retirement age of some of the members of the 2nd respondent from 60 years to 65 years outside government policy. The differentiation of treatment of members of the union was justified by the 2nd respondent’s replying affidavit of Charles Mukhwaya dated 20th January 2026 to be based on the reason that the staff who are to retire at 65 were academic staff. 43.The issue of the retirement age of KUSU members has been determined by this court with finality. The court finds that the public policy on retirement age of KUSU members is as stated in the government policy of 2009 cited in the decision in Kenya Universities Staff Union & 3 others v Masinde Muliro University of Science & Technology [2021] eKLR where, while rejecting application for contempt of court against the Respondent for retiring KUSU members at the 60th year, the court cited the Human Resource Policies and Procedures Manual for the Public Service of May, 2016 clause D.21 which provides:- ‘All officers shall retire from the Service on attaining the mandatory retirement age of 60 years, 65 years for persons with disabilities and/or as may be prescribed by the government from time to time’’. The court held the retirement age of KUSU members to at 60 years. 44.Having found no further government policy post the 2009 one posted above, I find the increase of retirement age to 65 by the parties to the CBA was illegal. The university had no authority to increase retirement age of public servants. Section 80 of the Public Service Commission Act provides:-‘(1)where a public officer has attained mandatory retirement age as may be prescribed in regulations.a.The Public officer shall retire from the service with effect from the date of attaining the mandatory retirement age andb.The Commissioner or other appointing Authority shall not extend the service of such a retired public officer beyond the mandatory retirement age.’ A CBA is a contract between the employer and the union. The court upheld the decision cited by the respondent of the Court of Appeal in Kenya Airways Limited v Nyamor & Another [2023] KECA 521 (KLR) where it was held that “the CBA spelt out each and every important term of engagement between the parties, and its intent and objects are clearly stated therein. Each provision of the CBA must therefore be interpreted in a manner that gives effect to its true content and objective. The CBA cannot be interpreted in a manner that amounts to re-writing the terms and conditions of service.’’ The 2nd respondent further submitted that in Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited v Banking Insurance and Finance Union [2025] KECA 253 (KLR), the Court affirmed that the interpretation of a CBA must respect its plain language, purpose, and legitimate scope, while avoiding any construction that would confer benefits beyond what was lawfully agreed. These authorities confirm that the terms of Clause 4 must be enforced as written, ensuring predictability and contractual integrity. The court holds that the parties, one of them being in public service, the University, were restricted to negotiate within the law and government policy. This was not the case here. The act of increasing retirement age illegally for a category of members of the union representing non-academic staff amounted to discrimination as KUSU represents all non- academic staff and the qualifications of membership are the same. The differentiated retirement age is illegal thus also discriminatory. 45.The 1st petitioner, being an employee and classified as non-academic staff, a category of staff represented by KUSU had locus to file the constitutional petition as she alleged discrimination contrary to Article 27 of the Constitution. Whether the petitioners were entitled to reliefs sought 46.I found clause 4 of the 2021 -2025 CBA to be illegal and consequently discriminatory. The court considered the many orders sought in the petition. The court, having held the increment of the retirement age by the parties under the CBA was illegal and discriminatory, found the following orders were merited-a.A declaration that Clause 4 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) 2021-2025 between the Inter-Public Universities Councils Consultative Forum (IPUCCF) of the Federation of Kenya Employers and Kenya Universities Staff Union, which provides for differential retirement ages (65 years for technologists and librarians versus 60 years for all other KUSU members), is discriminatory, unconstitutional, null and void. The court further declares the parties had no mandate to increase the retirement age.b.A declaration that Clause 4 of the СВА 2021-2025 violates - Article 27 of the Constitution (equality and non-discrimination); - Article 41 of the Constitution (fair labour practices); - Article 47 of the Constitution (fair administrative action); -Section 5 of the Employment Act (prohibition of discrimination); -Article 1 of the KUSU Constitution (equality of members).c.The court issues an order nullifying, setting aside, and declaring void Clause 4 of the CBA 2021-2025 insofar as it provides for discriminatory retirement ages for different categories of KUSU members.d.The court issues an order compelling the 1st and 2nd Respondents to harmonize the retirement age for all KUSU members to sixty(60) years without discrimination based on job category, cadre, department, or any other ground pursuant to the 2009 Government Policy on retirement age and consistent with section 80 of the Public Service Commission Act.e.The court issues a permanent injunction prohibiting the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents, whether by themselves, their officers, servants, agents, or employees, from implementing, enforcing, or giving effect to the discriminatory retirement age provisions contained in Clause 4 of the СВА 2021-2025.f.The Court issues order directing the 1st and 2nd Respondents to renegotiate and amend Clause 4 of the CBA 2021-2025 to provide for a uniform retirement age of 60 years for all KUSU members without discrimination. 47.The court finds that the above orders vindicate the rights of the petitioners and taking into account the interest of all members of KUSU, declines to issue further order on compensation for the violation of the right to discrimination. 48.The petitioners are awarded costs of the petition against the 2nd respondent . 49.It is so Ordered. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.JEMIMAH KELI,JUDGE.In The Presence Of:Court Assistant: OtienoPetitioners- Ms Kamau h/b Onenga2nd respondent -Bogongo3rd Respondent- Omondi.