https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3089

Kimeto (Suing on behalf of Philip Kimeto) v Chebet & 7 others (Environment and Land Case E001 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3089 (KLR) (22 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3089 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Kabarnet Environment and Land Case E001 of 2026 BN Olao, J May 22, 2026 Between Matilda Jebet Kimeto (Suing On Behalf Of Philip Kimeto) Plaintiff and Huron Chebet 1st Defendant John Kipkemboi Chepsergon 2nd Defendant Josphat Kipngok Lagat 3rd Defendant James Kipruto Kiptoo 4th Defendant Wesley Tuitoek Kipngok 5th Defendant Erick Kibet Kiptanui 6th Defendant Zipporah Chelangat Chumba 7th Defendant Philemon Chebet 8th Defendant Ruling 1.Matilda Jebet Kimeto (the Plaintiff) filed this suit against Huron Chebet, John Kipkemboi Chepsrgon, Josphat Kipngok Lagat, James Kipruto Kiptoo, Wesley Tuitoek Kipngok, Zipporah Chelangat Chumba and Philemon Chebet (the 1st to 8th Defendants respectively) having obtained a specific power of Attorney to do so on behalf of her father Philip Kimetto (hereinafter Koech as per the title deed) and who is the registered proprietor of the land parcel No. Lembus/Kilombe/348 measuring 24 Hectares (the suit land). 2.The Plaintiff’s case is that her father has not sold even an inch of the suit land to any person but he permitted his children to use it but not to sell it. However, the Defendants have illegally occupied the suit land. The Plaintiff therefore seeks, inter alia, an order declaring that he is the sole proprietor of the suit land and orders of their eviction and permanent injunction against them. 3.Simultaneously with the plaint, the Plaintiff sought, vide a Notice of Motion dated 16th January 2026, an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their agents, servants, hooligans, hoodlums hireling, and or proxies whatsoever from interfering by evicting, dispossessing, constructing/building any structures, ploughing/cultivating, disposing through sale, transferring alienating, entering, destroying any fixtures or attachments or fencing in any manner whatsoever the suit land. The basis of the motion at this stage, is not relevant now for the purpose of this ruling. I shall revert to it later. What is relevant is that when the motion was placed before me ex-parte on 22nd January 2026, I granted the ex-parte order of temporary injunction as sought. I then directed that the motion be canvassed by way of written submissions upon service. 4.The Defendants have, vide their Notice of Motion dated 25th February 2026 and filed on 26th February 2026, sought the following orders:1.That the Honourable court do discharge and/or set aside the exparte injunction orders issued on 22nd January 2026.2.That pending the hearing and determination of that Motion and the Plaintiff’s, Motion dated 16th January 2026, this court do issue an order or temporary injunction restraining the Plaintiff whether by herself, her agents, employees or any person acting through her instructions from entering, trespassing, occupying, taking possession of, transferring, assigning, leasing, constructing on, demolishing structures or in any manner interfering with the Defendant use and possession of the land parcels measuring ¼ acre for the 3rd Defendant, one plot (50x 100) for the 4th Defendant, I acre for the 5th Defendant, ¼ acre for the 6th Defendant, 5 acres and 0.4 hectares for the 7th Defendant and ½ acre for the 8th Defendant. 5.That motion is premised on Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It is anchored on the grounds set out therein as supported by the affidavit of Philemon Chebet the 8th Defendant and sworn on behalf of the other Defendants. 6.The gravamen of that Motion is that on 22nd January 2026, this court issued an order of temporary injunction restraining the Defendants by themselves, their agents, servants, hooligans, hoodlums, hirelings and proxies from interfering with the suit land by way of eviction, dispossession, construction of any structures, ploughing, cultivation, sale, transfer, alienation, entry, destruction of fixtures, fencing or in any manner pending the interparte hearing of the Motion dated 16th January. That in procuring the said orders, the Plaintiff failed to disclose material facts relevant to this case. Contrary to the allegation, that the Defendants are trespassers on the suit land, they are in fact in lawful occupation and possession having purchased the same from Koech whom the Plaintiff purports to represent through a Power or Attorney. 7.That on various dates during the period 2009 and 2026, the Defendants who were seeking land to purchase met Koech the registered owner of the suit land and his sons David Tindiret Kimetto, Joseph Kimetto, Musa Cherubet Kimetto and Simon Kipchumba Kimetto (vendors) who informed them that they (vendors) had portions of land available for sale from the suit land. That Koech had allocated eight (8) of his sons namely Musa Cherubeti, Samson Kimetto, Nelson Kimetto, Joseph Kimetto, Simon Kimetto, David Tindiret Kimetto, Michael Kimetto and Cyrus Kimetto with five (5) acres each out of this suit land. 8.The sons as vendors pointed out to the Defendants their specific portions which they intended to sell and save for the 7th Defendant, the rest of the Defendants purchased their respective portions from Koech’S sons namely David Tindiret Kimetto, Joseph Kimetto, Musa Cherobeti Kimetto and Simon Kipchumba Kimetto. The Defendants involved Koech, as the registered owner of the suit land, and his wife Tapsalat Kimetto in the sale transaction, who acknowledged having allocated their sons their relevant portions. Consequently and pursuant to various sale agreements the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants purchased their distinct portions forming part of the suit land, fully paid the purchase price, took possession and proceeded to construct their homes where they have peacefully resided for several years without interruption. 9.It is therefore misleading for the Plaintiff to allege that it was only on or about 10th and 12th December 2025 when the Defendants forcefully entered the suit land. That this is not the first attempt to evict the Defendants from the suit land. She previously instituted proceedings in Eldama Ravine Court MC ELC/E006 of 2023 Kimetto Koech v. Priscah Tuitoek & Rodah Chebet which was dismissed vide a ruling delivered on 21st January 2026. Then in Kabarnet Court ELC/E010 of 2025 Rodah Chebet & Priscah Tuitoek v. Philip Kimetto Koech & David Tindiret Kimetto concerning the same subject matter, Waithaka J. issued orders on 28th July 2025 maintaining the status quo and which orders still remain in force to-date. 10.Given those circumstances, any injunctive orders would create a distinct conflict with the subsisting status quo orders and further convolute this dispute. It would be contrary to the interest of Justice for this court to sustain the injunctive orders issued on 22nd January 2026 when the defendants are in occupation. Those orders should be set aside. 11.Annexed to the Notice is the authorities granted to the 8th Defendants by the other Defendants to swear on their behalf, copy of the order issued on 22nd January 2026, affidavit of Tapslat Kimetto, affidavits of Simon Kipchumba Kimetto and Musa Cherubeti Kimetto, Everline Kobilo Cheptallam and copies of several sale agreements effected between the Defendant and come of the children of Koech on the other hand with respect to various portions of the suit land. Only the sale agreement with the 7th Defendant and dated 3rd January 2010 was executed by Koech. 12.The Court did direct that the two motions be canvassed by way of written submissions once the pleadings are exchanged. 13.I shall now revert to the Plaintiff’s motion. It is anchored on the provision of Articles 40, 47, 48 and 159 of the Constitution, Sections 1A, B, 3A and 63 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules. 14.The same is also supported by the affidavit of Matilda Jebet Kimettoand based on the grounds set out therein. 15.The gravamen of the motion is that her father Philip KimettoKoech (herein MR. Koech) is the proprietor of the suit land and has never sold any portion thereof to the Defendants or any other person. He was therefore shocked to learn that the Defendants are claiming to have purchased some portions thereof through sale agreements allegedly entered into between them and one David Tinderet Kimeto.That between 10th and 12th December 2025, the Defendants forcefully and without any colour of right and impunity have descended onto the suit land, destroyed the “Land Not For Sale” sign post, offloaded building materials and proceeded to construct buildings while chasing away and threatening the Plaintiff’s family with dire consequences. 16.The Plaintiff decided not to take the law into their hands and instead reported the matter to ESAGERI POLICE STATION as captured in the OB No. 18/07/91/2026. It is the case of the Plaintiff that he permitted his children to temporarily continue residing on the suit land and tilling portion of the same but has never allowed any of them to sell even an inch. And although the Plaintiff has tried to resolve this matter out of court through arbitration, those efforts have not been successful hence this suit and the motion. 17.Annexed to the plaint are the following documents; -1.Copy of the title deed to the land parcel No. Lembus/Kilombe/348 in the name of KIMETO Koech.2.Copy of the certificate of official search for the land parcel No. Lembus/Kilombe/348 with a restriction by one Michael Kipruto Tunderetclaiming a beneficial interest.3.Copy of an application for official search for the Land Parcel No. Lembus/Kilombe/348. 18.In response to that motion, the 8 defendants have filed separate replying affidavits all dated 26th February 2026. 19.The 1st Defendant’s reply is that he was only a witness when his brother the 8th Defendant purchased a portion measuring ½ acre out of the suit land from one Simon Kipchumba Kimetto which had been allocated to him by his parents in 2009. A copy of the sale agreement is annexed plus photographs. 20.The 2nd Defendant has averred, inter alia that he was also only a witness when RODAH CHEBET and PRISCAH TUITOEK purchased from Simon Kipchumba Kimetto a portion of the suit land measuring 2 ½ acres which had been allocated to him by his father Koech. That he has no interest in the suit land. He too has annexed to his replying affidavit, copy of the sale agreement and photographs of houses. 21.The 3rd Defendant has averred in his replying affidavit that he purchased ¼ acre portion of land from David Tindiret Kimetto at a consideration of Kshs. 175,000 on 7th December 2021 and has been in occupation and possession thereof until the Plaintiff started threatening to evict him. He added that during the negotiations for the purchase of the ¼ acre, Tapslat Kimeto the mother of David Tindiret Kimetto was present. He has annexed to his replying affidavit a copy of his sale agreement, photographs and acknowledgement of payment and the affidavit of Tapslat Kimeto one of the wives of Koech. 22.The 4th Defendant has also averred that he purchased from David Tindiret Kimetto a portion of land measuring 50 x 100 feet at a consideration of Kshs. 180,000 vide a sale agreement dated 11th November 2022 and has been in possession of the same. It would not be in the interest of justice to issue the injunctive orders sought as the negotiations were witnessed by Koech and his wife Tapslat Kimeto. He annexed to the replying affidavit a copy of the sale agreement, photographs and affidavit of Tapslat Kimeto. 23.The 5th Defendant also averred in his replying affidavit that he purchased a portion of the suit land measuring 1 acre from Joseph Kimeto which he then sold to Samson Kimeto Chirchir on 18th February 2019. That he and the said Samson Kimeto Chirchir have remained in peaceful occupation of the said 1 acre. That Koech and his wife Tapslat Kimeto were present during the negotiation. He too has annexed to his affidavit a copy of the sale agreement between him and Samson Kimeto Chirchir, a copy of the affidavit of Tapslat Kimeto and photographs of houses. 24.The 6th Defendant also averred that vide a sale agreement dated 29th January 2018, he purchased from David Tindiret Kimeto a portion measuring ¼ acre of the suit land at a consideration of Kshs. 200,000. That the negotiations for the transaction were done in the presence of Koech the father to the vendor and his mother Tapslat Kimeto. He has annexed thereto, the copies of the sale agreement, affidavit of Tapslat Kieto, acknowledgement letter and photographs. He added that he has remained in peaceful occupation of the said portion where he has constructed a home for his family. 25.The 7th Defendant has averred in her replying affidavit that by an informal agreement dated 3rd January 2010 and which was later executed on 28th July 2015, she purchased 5 acres out of the suit land from Koech. She later paid the full purchase price which was acknowledged. 26.Later on 3rd February 2026 she again purchased a portion measuring 0.4 hectares from Everline Kobilo Cheptallam the wife to Nelson Kimetto (deceased). That she has been in peaceful and uninterrupted occupation of the said land until recently when the Plaintiff began threatening her, and other purchasers, with eviction. She has also annexed to her replying affidavit the copies of sale agreements between her, Koech and Everline Kobilo Cheptallam, acknowledgement slips, a photograph and affidavit of Everline Kobilo Cheptallam. 27.Finally, the 8th Defendant has averred in his affidavit that vide a sale agreement dated 2nd August 2022, he purchased a portion measuring ½ acre from Simon Kipchumba Kimetto which portion has been allocated to him by his father Koech. That the said Koech was aware about the transaction and the full purchase price was paid. He has been in peaceful and un-interrupted occupation of the said portion until recently when the Plaintiff began threatening him and other purchasers of eviction from their portions. He has also annexed to his replying affidavit copies of the affidavit of Simon Kipchumba Kimetto, sale agreement, copies of statements and photographs. 28.The Plaintiff filed a replying affidavit dated 10th March, 2026 in response to the Defendant’s Motion dated 25th February 2026. She has averred, inter alia, that the Defendants are trespassers on the suit land as it has never been sold nor sub-divided nor the consent of the Land Control Board sought. That the sub-division of the suit land by Koech to his sons was at most an internal family arrangement for tilling and farming to feed their respective families and did not confer any legal capacity on them. 29.That Koech further denies even being present during the alleged sale agreements or negotiations by the Defendants. That in fact, Koech’S Identity Card was issued on 8th April 2010 yet the sale agreement between him and Zipporah Chelangat Chumba the 7th Defendant was executed on 3rd January 2010. She denied that the Defendants have built on the suit land and are living thereon. That the sale agreements are all nullities and un-enforceable since there are no letters of consent from the Land Board and the Defendants should have known that purchasing land from persons who are not registered is a high risk venture. The Defendant’s entry on the suit land is therefore criminal. That the ELCLC E010/2025 case mentioned by the Defendants in which orders of Status quo were issued was involving different parties while MC ELC E006 of 2023 was dismissed on technicalities. 30.That the affidavit by Tapsalat Kimeto the 1st wife of Koech was obtained through fraud coercion and material non-disclosure and she has since disowned it. That if the orders issued on 22nd January 2026 are discharged as prayed, the Defendants will proceed to alter the character of the suit land permanently and settle thereon hundreds of other third parties thereby rendering any final decree nugatory. The prejudice which the Plaintiff claim is “self – inflicted” as they built on land which they don’t own and therefore, the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the Plaintiff. 31.The Plaintiff annexed copies of the sale agreement between Koech and the 7th Defendant dated 3rd January 2010, identity card of Koech showing it was issued on 8th April 2010 and a joint affidavit deposed on 15th March 2026 by Michael Tinderet, Cyrus Kimetto, David Kimetto, Eunice Kiprono, Daisy Kimetto, Joy Tinderet, Esther Kimetto and Nelly Kimetto in which they deny the averments in the affidavit of one of their mother Tapsalat Kimetto. I must at this point observe that the said joint affidavit is not commissioned and is therefore of no probative value. 32.The 8th Defendant, with the authority of the other Defendants, filed a further affidavit dated 11th March 2026 in support to their Motion dated 25th February 2026 in which he has deposed, inter alia, that the Defendants are indeed bona fide purchasers for value in respect of the various portions of the suit land and which they are in uninterrupted, actual and open possession having extensively developed them. It is not true that the structures on the suit land were erected overnight and there is no conceivable manner in which that could be done within a short period. Those assertions are deliberately made to mislead this court. Save for the 7th Defendant who directly purchased her portion from Koech, all the other transactions were undertaken with his active involvement and approval as corroborated by his wife Tapsalat Kimeto. That the said Koech appended his signature to several sale agreement and personally received part of the purchase. That with respect to the affidavit of Tapsalat Kimetto, the same was properly executed after being explained to her and therefore, the Plaintiff’s purported affidavit allegedly sworn by children of Koech do not in any way controvert or invalidate the affidavit of Tapsalat. 33.Further, that the issues relating to the enforceability of the sale agreements or compliance with the requirements of the Land Control Board are substantive matters, reserved for hearing at the main suit and at this interlocutory stage, it is enough for the Defendants to demonstrate a prima facie right or interest in the suit land. 34.The Defendants are in actual possession of the suit land which constitutes their home and it only fair, just and equitable that this court sets aside the injunctive orders issued in favour of the Plaintiff and instead, grant injunctive reliefs in terms of the portions they occupy. 35.Annexed to the said affidavit are photographs showing houses and crops, a certificate as well as Mpesa statements. 36.As directed by the court, the two applications have been canvassed by way of written submissions. 37.Those submissions have been filed by Mr. Boiwoinstructed by the firm of Boiwo & Company Advocatesfor the Plaintiff and by Mr. Kipropinstructed by the firm of Chesikaw & Kiprop Advocatesfor the Defendants. 38.I have considered the Plaintiff’s Motion dated 16th January 2026, the Defendants motion dated 25th February 2026, the rival affidavits and annexures thereto as well as the submissions by counsel. 39.As is now clear, both parties seek to injunct the other from the suit land pending the trial of the suit. In addition, the Defendants seek a further order that this court sets aside the exparte injunctive orders issued on 22nd January 2026, injuncting them from in any manner interfering with the suit land as set out in the respective motions. I shall consider the two Motions simultaneously with respect to the injunctive orders reliefs. Thereafter, I shall consider whether or not to set aside the ex-parte orders issued in favour of the Plaintiff on 22nd January 2026. 40.The law and legal principles governing the grant of injunctive reliefs pending trial are well known and have been referred to by both parties in their pleadings and submissions. I shall therefore just rehash a few of them and thereafter apply them to the facts in this case. 41.The celebrated case of Giella v Cassman Brown1973 E.A 358 set out the principles to guide a court while exercising its discretion in granting a temporary injunction pending the hearing and determination of a suit. These are that the Applicant must show a prima facie case with a probability of success, demonstrate that he will suffer irreparable injury which cannot adequately be compensated by an award of damages if the court does not intervene and when in doubt, the court will determine the application on the balance of convenience. And as was added in the English Case of Films Rover International Ltdv. Cannon FilmSale Ltd1986 3 ALL ER 772, and which has been followed in this Country, where Justice Hoffmanstated that:“A fundamental principle is that the court should take whichever court course appears to carry the lower risk of injustice if it should turn out to have been ‘wrong’ ”. 42.A prima facie case, as was held in the case of Mrao Ltd v. First American Bank Of Kenya Ltd & Others2003 KLR 125:“………… is a case which on the material presented to the court, a tribunal property directing itself will conclude that there exists a right which has apparently been infringed by the opposite party as to call for an explanation or rebuttal from the letter”. 43.Finally, I must cite the case of Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others C. A Civil Appeal No.77 OF 2012 [2014 KECA 606 KLR] where the court, having adopted the above definition of prima facie case, went on to add that:“We reiterate that in considering whether or not a prima facie case has been established, the court does not hold a mini trial and must not examine the merits of the case closely. All that the court is to see is that on the face of it the person applying for an injunction has a right which has been or is threatened with violation. Positions of the parties are not to be proved in such a manner as to give a final decision in discharging a prima facie case. The applicant need not establish title it is enough if he can show that he has a fair and bona fide question to raise as to the existence of the right which he alleges. The standard of proof of that prima facie case is on a balance or, as otherwise put on a preponderance of probabilities. This means no more than that the court takes the view that on the face of it the applicant’s case is more likely than not to ultimately succeed”. 44.It is not in dispute that the suit land is the property of Koech. He holds a title issued to him on 10th September, 1997. He is yet to formerly partition the same and sub-divide it among his children although there is evidence to show that he has shown his sons their various portions. One of them Michael Kipruto Tinderet lodged a restriction on the title claiming a beneficiary interest on 7th April 2016. However, in the eyes of the law, only Koech or in his absence, his legal Administrator or one to whom he has donated a Power of Attorney can dispose of the suit land or deal with it in any manner. The law protects the registered proprietor of land. Section 24(a) and (b) of the Land Registration Act as well as Section 26(i) makes that very clear. Therefore, Koech has the absolute right to eject trespassers who are on any portion of the suit land without his consent. From the evidence, the only person with whom he has so far executed a sale agreement is the 7th Defendant although even if it is yet to be perfected. 45.On the other hand, the other Defendants appear to have only purchased their portions from the sons of Koech. Those Defendants claim that Koech and his wife Tapsalat Kimeto approved the transactions and even signed some of the sale agreements in approval. They are in occupation and possession of some of the portions having paid the purchase price. Whether or not those transactions meet the requirements of the law will be a matter for trial. There is also evidence that there are houses and other structures on portions of the suit land put up by the Defendants. They do not appear to me to have been put up overnight as suggested by by the Plaintiff. If an order of injunction is granted against them and they eventually succeed at the trial, they might lose those structures. On the other hand, if the Plaintiff is injuncted and finally prevails at the trial, the Defendants may have added more structures and perhaps even sold portions of the land which they occupy to un-suspecting third parties thus further destroying the suit land as I observed on 22nd January 2026 in my orders issued ex-parte. As was observed in the case of Nguruman Ltd v Jan Bonde Nielsen (supra), a party seeking such an order “needs not establish title”. It is sufficient to only demonstrate that there is “a fair and bona fide question” which this court should determine at the end of the trial. 46.Taking all that into account, it is obvious to me that the best interests of Justice will be served by directing that the current status quo obtaining on the suit land be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the suit. I shall shortly be setting out the conditions to be maintained in the said status quo orders. 47.The Defendants have urged the court to discharge and/or set aside the exparte injunctive orders issued on 22nd January 2026. Those orders were quite expansive as set out in the Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion dated 16th January 2026. For the avoidance of any doubt, I will refer to them in extenso as pleaded in paragraph 2 of the Motion;2: “That pending the hearing and the determination of this application, this Honourable court be and is hereby pleased to restrain by way of temporary injunctions the Defendants by themselves, their agents, servants, hooligans, hoodlums, hirelings and/or proxies whatsoever from interfering by evicting, dispossession, construction, building any structure, ploughing, cultivating, disposing through sale, transferring, alienating, entering, destroying any fixtures or attachments or fencing in whatsoever manner the suit land parcel NO. Lembus/Kilombe/348 measuring 24.0 Ha situate in Orine Koibatek Sub-County Baringo County”. 48.The basis upon which the above orders were granted, as is clear from the supporting affidavit by Matilda Jebet Kimeto who is suing on behalf of Koech the registered proprietor of the suit land, was that the Plaintiff had never disposed off even an inch of the suit land nor allowed his sons to do so. That the Defendants had between 10th and 12th December 2025 wrongfully, without any colour of right and with impunity descended upon the suit land, chased away the Plaintiff’s family and started erecting structures thereon. 49.From the preceding paragraphs of this ruling, it is now obvious that in fact Koech received consideration for a portion of the suit land from the 7th Defendant and was privy to some of the negotiations that preceded the disposal of some portions of the suit land by his sons to the Defendants. As I stated earlier in this ruling, whether or not those transactions were done within the law by persons who had the locus standi to do so will be a matter for trial to be determined by evidence. However, in view of the fact that some of those Defendants already have structures on the suit land, that temporary order of injunction issued on 22nd January 2026 could have the effect of evicting those Defendants from the portions of the suit land which they occupy even before their rights, if any, are determined. That would be a drastic consequence which a court of equity should be slow to adopt. In my view, it is in the interest of Justice that the exparte orders of temporary injunction issued against the Defendants on 22nd January 2026 be discharged which I hereby do. 50.Ultimately, therefore and having considered the two Notices of Motion dated 16th January 2026 and 25th February 2026, I issue the following dispositive orders.1.This Court’s orders issued on 22nd January 2026 are hereby set aside and vacated.2.An order of status quo is hereby issued with respect to the land parcel No. Lembus/Kilombe/348 as follows:a.The Defendants shall continue to remain in occupation and possession of their respective portions of the land parcel NO. Lembus/Kilombe/348 which they have purchased from Koech and his sons until this case is heard and finally determined. They shall however not carry out any further constructions nor in any way dispose of the said portions to third parties or to any other persons. They will however be at liberty to cultivate those portions.b.The Plaintiff shall have access to the portions of the land parcel NO. Lembus/Kilombe/348 not occupied by the Defendants and will not interfere with the Defendants occupation or cultivation thereon nor dispose of the same.3.Costs shall be in the cause.4.My view of the matter is that this dispute can be amicably settled between the parties so as not to antagonise the family of Koech any further. I therefore encourage the parties, with the assistance of counsel, to consider that option as Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is now in vogue.5.Meanwhile, and even as the parties consider that option, let them file and exchange their respective pleadings and prepare for trial.6.Mention on 20th July 2026 for confirmation of compliance and for further directions. BOAZ N. OLAOJUDGE22ND MAY 2026RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIvERED ON THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2026 BY WAY OF ELECTRONIC MAIL.BOAZ N. OLAOJUDGE22ND MAY 2026