https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4783

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MERU** **ELC PETITION E004 OF 2026** **MUTETHIA FARMERS** **COOPERATIVES SOCIETY……………..…………….…….PETITIONER** **VERSUS** **CABINET SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LANDS ……1ST RESPONDENT** **STATE DEPARTMENT FOR** **HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT ……….…….2ND RESPONDENT** **AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD………….….…….3RD RESPONDENT** **ATTORNEY GENERAL ………………………………..4TH RESPONDENT** **THE GOVERNOR, MERU** **COUNTY GOVERNMENT …………………………..5TH RESPONDENT** **COUNTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE** **MEMBER FOR LANDS. MERU COUNTY……...……6TH RESPONDENT** **HON. MPURU ABURI……………………………..…….7TH RESPONDENT** **JUDGMENT** 1. The Petitioner herein, which is a Cooperative Society registered under the **Cooperative Societies Act**, has approached the court *vide* petition dated the 18.03.2026. The Petitioner, who is the registered proprietor of LR No. Tigania West/Kiguchwa/3370 [*hereinafter referred to as the suit property*] has contended that the Respondents herein have illegally, unlawfully, and without any colour of right, entered upon and taken possession of the suit property. 2. The Petitioner has sought the following reliefs: 3. ***A*** ***declaration that the Respondents’ invasion, fencing off, interference with access and use, and/or intended takeover, of LR No. Tiganiia West/Kiguchwa/3370 measuring approximately 2.80 ha, is Unconstitutional, violate Articles 40,47,50 and offend the National Values in Articles 10 of the Constitution, 2010.*** 1. ***A declaration that any acquisition or utilization of the petitioner’s land for public projects, including affordable housing, must strictly comply with the constitution and law, including due process, public participation and prompt payment in full of just compensation prior to possession.*** 2. ***An order permanent injunction restraining the Respondents, their agents and assigns from entering upon, fencing, construction on, occupying, surveying, allocating, advertising, or otherwise dealing with LR. No. Tigania West/Kiguchwa/3370 measuring approximately 2.80 Ha, without full compliance with the constitution and applicable statutes and without the Petitioner’s consent.*** 3. ***An order of mandamus compelling the 1st – 3rd Respondents to restore access, remove any unlawful fencing and ceased interference with the petitioner’s possession forthwith.*** 4. ***General damages and/or constitutional damages for violation of rights; special damages for destruction of trees, fencing and improvements [particulars to be proved] and/or mense profits for period of dispossession.*** 5. ***Costs of the Petition and interest.*** 6. The Petition is premised on various grounds. The grounds include: The Petitioner is the registered proprietor of the suit property; the suit property measures approximately 2.8 Ha; the Petitioner has been in occupation of the suit property since 1954; the Respondents invaded the suit property in November, 2025; the invasion of the suit property was not consented to; the respondent commenced to construct affordable housing on the suit property; the offensive actions constitute violation of the petitioner’s rights to the suit property; and the petitioners have been subjected to loss and damages. 7. Additionally, the Petitioner has posited thus: The entry by the respondents onto the suit property was not consented to; the petitioners are entitled to protection under the law; the actions by the Respondents constitutes infringement of the **Articles 10, 40, 47, 50 and 65 of the Constitution, 2010;** and the Petitioner has established a basis to warrant the grant of the reliefs sought. 8. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents duly entered appearance through the Honourable Attorney General and thereafter swore a replying affidavit sworn on the 28.05.2026. The replying affidavit has been sworn by one, Mr. Charles M. Hinga – The Principal Secretary, State Department for Housing and Urban Development. 9. The deponent of the replying affidavit has posited thus: The suit property indeed belongs to the petitioner; the suit property was identified by the Hon. Member of parliament for Tigania East constituency; the Hon. Member of parliament engaged the official[s] of the Petitioner to have the suit property surrendered to the government for affordable housing; thereafter the respondents approached the officials of the petitioners; the officials of the Petitioner agreed to surrender the suit property for the construction of the affordable housing; the Respondents undertook public participation; and the project [affordable housing ] was well received. 10. In addition, the deponent of the replying affidavit has posited/averred that the suit property was deemed to have been surrendered to the government for purposes of affordable housing. Furthermore, it has been asserted that the Respondents acquired the suit property on the basis of lawful approval by the board of directors and members of the petitioner. 11. The 5th respondent entered appearance and filed a replying affidavit sworn by the county executive committee member for lands, physical planning, housing and urban development. The replying affidavit is sworn on the 28.05.2026. The deponent has averred that the 4th respondent [the county government of Meru] was /is not involved in the construction of the affordable housing. In addition, it has been averred that the county government has neither entered upon nor taken possession of the suit property. 12. Moreover, the deponent of the replying affidavit has asserted that even though the county government has been joined in the petition, no particulars /allegations, have been made against the 5th respondent. Besides, it has been posited that affordable housing projects [programs] are undertaken pursuant to and in line with the **Affordable Housing act, 2024.** In particular, it has been posited that the programs are executed by the affordable housing board [the 3rd respondent], together with the National Government and not otherwise. 13. In view of the foregoing, 5th and 6th Respondents have contended that same have been improperly joined /sued in the petition. In addition, it has been ascertained that the petition does not disclose any reasonable cause of action as against the 5th and 6th Respondents. 14. The 7th respondent, though served, has not filed any response to the petition. In addition, the 7th respondent has not been participating in the proceedings, *save* for an appearance by counsel, today [the 21.07.2026] 15. The Petition came up for directions on the 06.07.2026, whereupon the advocates for the petitioner, sought directions as pertains to the hearing and disposal of the petition. In addition, learned counsel intimated to the court that same was intent to canvass and dispose of the petition by way of affidavit evidence. Furthermore, learned counsel indicated that same shall be filing written submissions within 7 days, subject to the directions of the Court. 16. With the concurrence of learned counsel for the Respondents, the court proceed to and issued directions. The directions were: The petition shall be disposed of on the basis of affidavit evidence; the Petitioner shall file and serve written submissions within 7 days; and the Respondents shall file and serve written submissions within 7 days from the date of service. 17. The Petitioner filed and written submissions dated the 17.07.2026. The Petitioner has highlighted five [5] key issues. The issues are: Whether the Petitioner has established violation of its right to property under **Article 40 of the Constitution, 2010;** Whether the Respondents violated **Articles 47 and 50 of the Constitution, 2010**; and Whether the impugned actions amounted to unconstitutional and unlawful compulsory acquisition; Whether the Respondents acted contrary to **Article 10 of the Constitution, 2010**; and Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought or otherwise. 18. The Honourable Attorney general filed written submissions dated the 15.07.2026. The Hon. Attorney General has highlighted four [4] key issues. The issues are: Whether the suit property was duly surrendered to the Respondents for the construction of the affordable houses in Tigania East Constituency; Whether there was adequate public participation prior to the commencement of the project; Whether there was infringement of the petitioner’s fundamental rights and freedoms by the Respondents; and Whether the Petitioner is entitled to damages for the alleged violations of its constitutional rights and freedom. 19. The 5th and 6th Respondents filed written submissions dated the 20.07.2026 and wherein same have highlighted four [4] key issues. The issues are: Whether the petition pleads, any violation of the constitution by the 5th and 6th Respondents with the precision required in constitutional litigation; Whether the Petitioner has proved any violation of its rights by the 5th and 6th Respondents ; Whether the 5th and 6th Respondents are necessary parties to the petition; and Whether any of the reliefs sought can issue as against the 5th and 6th Respondents or otherwise. 20. Having reviewed the petition, the supporting affidavit thereto; the replying affidavit[s] in opposition thereto; and upon consideration of the written submissions filed by /on behalf of the respective parties, four [4] key issues emerge for determination. The issues are: Whether the petition discloses any reasonable course of action as against the 5th and 6th Respondents [the governor – County Government of Meru] and the county executive committee member for lands, housing and urban development Meru County]; Whether the suit land was [sic] surrendered or otherwise; Whether the offensive actions constitute infringement of the petitioner’s property rights or otherwise; and What reliefs [if any] ought to issue. 21. Regarding the first issue, it is imperative to recall and reiterate that the offensive actions and entry onto the suit property, is indicated to have been predicated upon the construction of affordable houses within Tigania East Constituency. In addition, it is common ground that affordable housing programs [projects], like the one beforehand, are undertaken and supervised by the affordable housing board. 22. Furthermore, there is no gainsaying that the affordable housing board is a statutory body, established vide the **Affordable Housing Act, [2024].** The said board, is a statutory vehicle, being deployed by the National Government to promote the construction of the affordable housing. For the avoidance of doubt, affordable housing board, is not a vehicle/instrumentality answerable to the county governments. In particular, the affordable housing board is not answerable to the County Government of Meru. 23. With the foregoing background in mind, the question that does arise, is whether the offensive activities, which admittedly, are being done by the 3rd respondent, can be attributed to the county government of meru. I have pointed out that the 3rd respondent is a vehicle for the National Government and not otherwise. To this end, the county government of meru and its county executive members; or departments, are not vicariously liable for the actions or omissions of the 3rd respondent; and by extension, the national government. 24. Additionally, I also wish to underscore that it was incumbent upon the Petitioner to demonstrate a reasonable cause of action as against the county government of meru and its county executive committee members [ if at all]. The demonstration of the cause of action can only be done by impleading the actions or omissions, if any, that are attributable to the county government. In addition, it behooved the Petitioner to supply the particulars, the omissions [if any] and isolate the persons, chargeable with the violations. 25. The foregoing requirements have been christened as the rule of precision in constitutional matters. The rule under reference was re-affirmed by the Court of Appeal in the case of **Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 others [2013] KECA 445 (KLR).** The Five Judge bench of the Court of Appeal stated as hereunder: ***“In our view, it is a misconception to claim as it has been in recent times with increased frequency that compliance with rules of procedure is antithetical to Article 159 of the Constitution and the overriding objective principle under section 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21) and section 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act (Cap 9). Procedure is also a handmaiden of just determination of cases. Cases cannot be dealt with justly unless the parties and the court know the issues in controversy. Pleadings assist in that regard and are a tenet of substantive justice, as they give fair notice to the other party. The principle in Anarita Karimi Njeru (supra) that established the rule that requires reasonable precision in framing of issues in constitutional petitions is an extension of this principle. What Jessel, M.R said in 1876 in the case of Thorp v Holdsworth (1876) 3 Ch. D. 637 at 639 holds true today:The whole object of pleadings is to bring the parties to an issue, and the meaning of the rules…was to prevent the issue being enlarged, which would prevent either party from knowing when the cause came on for trial, what the real point to be discussed and decided was. In fact, the whole meaning of the system is to narrow the parties to define issues, and thereby diminish expense and delay, especially as regards the amount of testimony required on either side at the hearing.”*** 1. Has the Petitioner complied with the rule of precision? I have reviewed the petition dated the 18.03.2026 and I am afraid, that no particulars have been supplied as against the 5th and 6th Respondents. In addition, nowhere has the Petitioner stated that the 5th and 6th Respondents, are connected with affordable housing projects. 2. I beg to state that it was incumbent upon the Petitioner to plead and particularize the factual matrix, to link the county government of meru to the offensive activities. Sadly, the petition is silent on the key issues. Simply put, the petition is deficient and does not disclose a cause of action against the 5th and 6th Respondents. Absent a cause of action, the Petition as against the 5th and the 6th Respondents, is stillborn. Same is certainly, misconceived. 3. Before concluding on this issue, it suffices to reference the decision in **Langat v Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd [2017] KECA 152 (KLR).** The Court of Appeal illuminated the meaning and tenor of what constitutes a cause of action. 4. The Court stated thus: “***A cause of action is a factual situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the court a remedy against another person. See Letang vs Cooper[1964] 2 All ER 929 at 934, per Lord Diplock. Lord Esher, M. R. in the case of Read vs Brown (1888), 22 QBD 128, defined a cause of action as:-“Every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court”.*** 1. *In a nutshell*, my answer to issue number one is twofold. Firstly, the actions complained of and which underpin the petition, are not attributable to the county government of meru. Simply put, the county government of meru owed no duty to the Petitioner as far as the complaints are concerned. 2. Secondly, and taking into account the rule of precision, as pertains to constitutional litigation; and bearing in mind the ratio in the evergreen decision in **Annarita Karimi Njeru [AKN] versus The Attorney General [1979] eKLR,** I find and hold that the impugned petition does not disclose a reasonable cause of action against the 5th and 6th Respondents . 3. I now wish to turn to the second issue, namely; whether the suit property was surrendered to the government. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents have posited that the suit property was identified by the 7th respondent. In addition, it has been contended that thereafter, the 1st, 2nd 3rd and 4th respondents engaged with the board of directors and members of the petitioner, to pursue the issue of surrender. 4. Furthermore, it has been contended that arising from the engagement with the board of directors and the members of the petitioner, the suit property was surrendered. Thereafter, it has been asserted that the Respondents duly entered onto the suit property and commenced the construction of affordable housing. 5. Despite the foregoing assertions, it is imperative to underscore that the deponent of the replying affidavit, namely; Mr. Charles M. Hinga – the Principal Secretary, State Department of Housing and Urban Development, has not annexed or exhibited any minutes [read, resolutions] of the petitioner, sanctioning the surrender. It is not lost on me that the petitioner, by virtue of being a body corporate, can only act through resolutions. [See the decision of the court of appeal in **Arthi Highway Developers Limited versus West End Butchery Limited and 6 others [2015] eKLR**. 6. Furthermore, it is also worthy to state that the deponent of the replying affidavit [Mr. Charles M Hinga] has also not procured any affidavit evidence, from the directors of the petitioner, to denote that the suit property was [sic] surrendered. To my mind, the assertions contained in the body of the replying affidavit by Mr. Charles M Hinga, are devoid of any evidentiary value. 7. Most importantly, I wish to underscore that no surrender instrument has ever been placed before the court, to anchor the assertion, that the suit property, was [sic] surrendered. The burden of proving surrender, if at all, lay on the shoulders of the 1st, 2nd , 3rd and 4th Respondents . The said Respondents failed to discharge the burden. 8. In the case of **Fanikiwa Limited & 3 others v Sirikwa Squatters Group & 17 others [2023] KESC 105 (KLR),** the Supreme Court discussed the legal implication[s] attendant to surrender. The apex also illuminated the manner in which surrender is to be undertaken. The court stated thus: ***More recently, in***[***Chief Land Registrar & 4 others v Nathan Tirop Koech & 4 others***](https://kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2018/27)***, Civil Appeal 51 & 58 of 2016 (Consolidated); [2018] eKLR the Court of Appeal (Githinji, Mohammed & Otieno-Odek, JJA) held at paragraph 96 that:“A surrender of Grant or instrument of title is not compulsory acquisition. The legal framework and procedure for surrender of title to land is different from the legal regime for compulsory acquisition. Section 44 of the***[***RTA***](http://kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/Acts/RegistrationofTitlesCap281.pdf)***is the legal framework for surrender and the Land Acquisition Act is the regime for compulsory acquisition. Surrender cannot be construed and equated to compulsory acquisition.”*** ***109.It is notable that section 2 of the***[***RTA***](http://kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/Acts/RegistrationofTitlesCap281.pdf)***did not define the term “surrender”. However, the concept of surrender is one of long lineage and wide usage in land law. The***[***Black’s Law Dictionary***](https://www.abebooks.com/9780314228642/Blacks-Law-Dictionary-7th-Edition-0314228640/plp#:~:text=Completely%20revised%20in%201999%2C%20the,new%20to%20the%20Seventh%20Edition.)***(7th edition) at page 1458 defines “surrender” as follows:“…3. The return of an estate to the person who has a reversion or remainder, so as to merge the estate into a larger estate… 5. A tenant’s relinquishment of possession before the lease has expired, allowing the landlord to take possession and treat the lease as terminated.”*** ***110.Lord Millett at the House of Lords in***[***Barrett v Morgan***](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a938b4060d03e5f6b82bcb7)***, [2000] 2 AC 264, aptly noted thus on the nature of ‘surrender of leases’:“A surrender is simply an assurance by which a lesser estate is yielded up to the greater, and the term is usually applied to the giving up of a lease or tenancy before its expiration. If a tenant surrenders his tenancy to an immediate landlord, who accepts the surrender, the tenancy is absorbed by the landlord’s conversion and is extinguished by operation of law. A surrender is ineffective unless the landlord consents to accept it, and is therefore consensual in the fullest sense of the term.” [Emphasis added]*** ***111.The “consensual” nature of a surrender is emphasized in Robert Megarry & William Wade,***[***The Law of Real Property***](https://www.amazon.com/Megarry-Wade-Law-Real-Property/dp/0414023293)***(Sweet & Maxwell; 2012, 8th ed.) page 851 as follows: “surrender is a consensual transaction between the landlord and the tenant, and therefore dependent for its effectiveness on the consent of both parties” [Emphasis added]. Similarly, Martin Dixon,***[***Principles of Land Law***](https://file.hukum.uns.ac.id/data/PDIH%20File/e-book/Martin%20Dixon%2C%20Principles%20of%20Land%20Law.pdf)***, (Cavendish Publishing; 2002, 4th ed.) at page 237 notes that: “a surrender, being a consensual act between landlord and tenant.” [Emphasis added]*** ***112.We are persuaded by the foregoing propositions that the “consensual” nature of a surrender is the cardinal ingredient of a surrender of lease. Indeed, this is the essence of the proviso in section 44 of***[***RTA***](http://kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/Acts/RegistrationofTitlesCap281.pdf)***that: “and the endorsement shall be signed by the lessee and the lessor as evidence of the acceptance thereof”*** 1. Bearing in mind, the holding of the apex court, I am not persuaded that there was surrender of the suit property. In any event, the petitioner herein could not have filed the suit, if there ever existed a mutual agreement on surrender. Surrender is consensual, and the Petitioner, would certainly, have given out its consent. 2. Turning to the third issue, I wish to underscore that every property owner, the Petitioner not excepted, is entitled to absolute, exclusive and indefeasible right[s] to the property. The scope of such rights are underpinned by the provisions of **Article 40 [3] of the Constitution, 2010**. It is also instructive to take cognizance of **Sections 24 and 25 of the Land Registration Act, 2012 [2016].** 3. The registered owner of the land, in this case the petitioner, cannot be deprived of its rights to the land, without regard to the due process of the law. This position was illuminated by the Court of Appeal in the case of **Chief Land Registrar & 5 others v Koech & 3 others [2018] KECA 27 (KLR).** The court stated thus: ***“Land ownership and land rights is both a historical and emotive subject in Kenya. A right to hold property is a constitutional right as well as a human right and no person can be deprived of his property except in accordance with the provisions of***[***the Constitution***](https://kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2010/constitution)***or Statute. The condition precedent to taking away anyone's property is that the authority must ensure compliance with***[***the Constitution***](https://kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2010/constitution)***and Statutory provisions”*** 1. Despite the obtaining position of the law, the 1st ,2nd , 3rd and 4th Respondents, resorted to impunity and took possession of the suit property. Surely, the named Respondents were enjoined to adhere to and comply with the provisions of the constitution. There is no room for deploying the law of the Jungle; and swinging the weight of the National Government, in a bid to oppress the Petitioner. 2. Before concluding on this issue, it suffices to reiterate the words of Justice Lenaola – Judge [as he then was], in the case of **Arnacherry Limited v Attorney General [2014] KEHC 8304 (KLR).** The learned judge remarked thus: ***“This is indeed a sad and distressing Petition. It is not expected that the State, in this age and time and with a robust Constitution such as ours, can actively participate in acts of impunity such as the forceful take-over of personal property without due compensation.”*** 1. I wish to state no more. The only thing that remains, is to remind the named Respondents that the due process of the law, binds all and sundry. There is no person, whether a state agency /instrumentality, which is bigger than the law. We must all bow to the constitution. That is the dictate of **Article 1 of the Constitution, 2010.** 2. Regarding the last issue, I wish to observe that the conduct complained of the by the petitioner, borders abuse on office by the 1st, 2nd , 3rd and 4th Respondents . Similarly, the conduct complained of was arbitrary; and oppressive. Such conduct cannot be countenanced, in a Society to abide[s] by the Rule of Law. 1. Furthermore, I wish to state that the impugned conduct is one that certainly, attracts vindicatory compensation for breach or infringement of the constitution. I am minded to and do hereby award to the Petitioner the sum of Kshs. 5,000,000/= only, on account of general damages for breach/violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms. 2. To this end, I am guided by the holding of the Supreme Court in the case of **Imanyara & 2 others v Attorney General [2022] KESC 78 (KLR).** The apex court stated as hereunder: ***‘‘……That the questions and issues that a Court has to consider in order to make an award of damages with regards to a constitutional violation is manifestly different to what the Court would consider in say, tortious or civil liability claim. In the latter, the issues are clear cut and quantification of the appropriate award is in most instances, straightforward. The same, however, is not true of constitutional violation matters, such as the instant one. Quantification of damages in such matters does not present an explicit consideration of the issues; other issues such as public policy considerations also come into play. A Court obligated and mandated in evaluating the appropriate awards for compensation in constitutional violations does not have an easy task; there is no adequate damage standard that has been developed in our jurisprudence that recognizes that an award for damages in constitutional violations is quite separate and distinct from other injuries.’’*** 1. In addition to the damages, the Petitioner is also entitled to a declaration that the impugned actions, were unconstitutional and thus illegal. Besides the Petitioner is also entitled to an order of mandamus to compel the 1st, 2nd , 3rd and 4th Respondents, to vacate the suit property and restore occupancy to the petitioner. **Conclusion:** 1. The Petitioner raised several complaints against the 1st, 2nd , 3rd and 4th Respondents. The complaints touched on and concerned the manner in which the named Respondents entered upon and took possession of the suit property. 2. While dealing with issue number three [3], I have found and held that the actions complained of were illegal and unconstitutional. In this regard, there is no gainsaying that the petitioner, has indeed proved its case against the named Respondents. 3. With regard to the 5th and 6th Respondents, I have found and held that the petition does not disclose any reasonable cause of action. Absent a reasonable cause of action, the Petitioner is *non-suited* as against the 5th and 6th Respondents. To this end, the petition is legally untenable. **Final orders:** 1. Flowing from the foregoing, the final orders that commend themselves to the court are: 2. ***There be and is hereby issued a*** ***declaration that the Respondents’ invasion, fencing off, interference with access and use, and/or intended takeover, of LR No. Tiganiia West/Kiguchwa/3370 measuring approximately 2.80 ha, is unconstitutional; violates Articles 40,47,50 of the Constitution, 201; and also offends the National Values in Articles 10 of the Constitution, 2010.*** 1. ***There be and is hereby issued an order of mandamus compelling the 1st – 3rd Respondents to vacate the suit property; restore access; and remove any unlawful fencing and cease interference with the petitioner’s possession forthwith.*** 1. ***There be and is hereby issued an order permanent injunction restraining the Respondents, their agents and assigns from entering upon, remaining on, fencing, constructing on, occupying, surveying, allocating, advertising, or otherwise dealing with LR. No. Tigania West/Kiguchwa/3370 measuring approximately 2.80 Ha, without full compliance with the constitution and applicable statutes and without the Petitioner’s consent.*** 2. ***General damages be and is hereby awarded in the sum of Kshs. 5,000,000/= only as against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Respondents*** 3. ***The Petition as against the 5th and 6th Respondents be and is hereby struck out.*** 4. ***Costs of the Petition be and are hereby awarded to the Petitioner.*** 5. ***The Costs in terms of clause [vi] shall be borne by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents.*** 6. ***As between the Petitioner and the 5th and 6th Respondents, there shall be no orders as to costs.*** 7. It is so ordered. **DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 21st DAY OF JULY, 2026** **OGUTTU MBOYA, FCIArb; CPM [MTI].** **JUDGE.** In the presence of**:** Court Assistant: Zakayo Mr. Ashaba for the Petitioner Mr. Erick Obura Principal State Counsel for the 1st, 2nd , 3rd and 4th Respondents . Mr. Mwereru for the 5th and 6th Respondents Ms. Kerubo holding brief for Mr. Mwenda A K for the 7th Respondent.