https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4541

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAIROBI ELC L MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E320 OF 2025 FIONA SELEINA LETEIPAN MWANGALE ……..… 1ST APPLICANT SALOME NALIAKA MWANGALE …………………... 2ND APPLICANT CHIEF LAND REGISTRAR ………………………………. VERSUS RESPONDENT JANET ELOISE MWANGALE ………………….. 1ST INTENDED INTERESTED PARTY THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER (LIQUIDATOR OF CHETAMBE ESTATE LIMITED ………….. 2ND INTENDED INTERESTED PARTY RULING ELC L MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E320 OF 2025 Ruling Page 1 of 30 1. What is before the Court for determination are two separate Notice of Motion applications for joinder, filed by the 1st and 2nd Intended Interested parties and the Applicant’s Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 25th February 2026. Notice of Motion dated 26th November 2025 2. It is filed by the 1st Intended Interested Party who seeks the following Orders: a) Spent. b) That this Honourable Court be pleased to join the Intended Interested Party herein in this matter. c) Spent. d) That the Honourable Court be pleased to review and/or vary and/or set aside its Ruling and Orders issued on 11th November 2025, obtaining from this Honourable Court’s consideration of the Application dated 21st October 2025. e) Spent. ELC L MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E320 OF 2025 Ruling Page 2 of 30 f) That upon granting prayers (2), (3), (4) and (5) above, this Honourable Court be pleased to preclude the Applicants from conducting a private resurvey of the property known as L.R. No. 3801/8 with the view to establishing physical occupancy of the property. g) That the cost of this Application be granted to the 1st and 2nd Respondents. 3. The application is premised on grounds on its face and on the 1st Intended Interested Party’s supporting affidavit. She avers that she is the only surviving Director shareholder in Chetambe Estates Limited, herein referred to as ‘the suit company’, which has a legal interest in the matter. Further, that the Applicants have advanced a claim that the suit property, LR No.3801 /8 entirely forms part of the estate of the late Elijah Wasike Mwangale thus misled the Court to issue Orders of 11th November 2025 inhibiting any dealings with the said property pending hearing and determination of succession proceedings in Milimani HCF P& A No.371 of ELC L MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E320 OF 2025 Ruling Page 3 of 30 2007, and allowing them to conduct a private resurvey of the suit property to establish physical occupancy. She contends that the correct position is that the suit property is owned by the suit company, which is in liquidation and whose affairs are currently managed by the 2nd Intended Interested Party. 4. She contends that this Court’s Orders of 11th November 2025 were secured based on concealment of material facts and if not set aside, the Applicants’ will proceed on the premise that the entire suit property belongs to the estate of Elijah Wasike Mwangale, thus prejudicing her interests. She also points out that in Bungoma Winding Up Case No.1 of 2005, the Court issued Orders restraining the 1st Applicant from interfering with the 2nd Intended Interested Party’s work in managing the suit company. Notice of Motion dated 5th February 2026 5. It is filed by the 2nd Intended Interested Party which seeks the following Orders: ELC L MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E320 OF 2025 Ruling Page 4 of 30 a) Spent. b) Spent. c) That the official receiver, the Intended Interested party herein be joined in this suit as an Interested Party. d) Spent. e) That this Honourable court be pleased to set aside, review and /or lift the ruling and orders dated 11th November 2025. f) That costs of this application be provided for. 6. The application is premised on grounds on its face and on the supporting affidavit of Judy Mugo, Advocate and Senior Assistant Official Receiver. She avers that the Official Receiver has a stake in the matter by virtue of being the liquidator of the suit company, which was held by: Abdul Aziz Kanji, Elijah Wasike Mwangale(deceased) and Janet Elosie Mwangale, with each holding one share. Further, that among the assets owned by the suit company was the suit property, ELC L MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E320 OF 2025 Ruling Page 5 of 30 situated in Kitale, measuring nine hundred and fifty (950) acres. She highlights the history of the company to the Court, including the fact that it was struck off from the register of companies in August 1983 for being inactive and restored in February 2005 pursuant to orders issued in Eldoret Civil Suit No.13 of 2005. 7. She contends that it is alleged that Elijah Wasike Mwangale(deceased), without the consent of the other two shareholders of the suit companies, unlawfully sold four hundred and fifty (450) acres of the suit property to HilBrooke Dairies Limited on 25th February 1998. Subsequently, one of the directors, Mr. Abdul Aziz Kanji filed Bungoma Winding Up Cause No. 1 of 2005 and sought to have the suit company wound up. Further, that the 1st Applicant herein actively participated in the said proceedings where upon hearing the Petition, the 2nd Intended Interested Party was appointed the provisional liquidator of the suit company on 23rd May 2008, and mandated to take charge of ELC L MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E320 OF 2025 Ruling Page 6 of 30 its assets, oversee their distribution and wind up its affairs in accordance with the law. 8. She points out that in the aforementioned winding up Petition, a consent dated 24th September 2009 was adopted as an order of the court on 30th September 2009 on terms that two hundred and thirty (230) acres out of the suit property, would be carved out and transferred to Abdul Azziz Kanji and upon transfer, he would cease being a member of the suit company and execute share transfer forms and other necessary documents in favour of the Estate of Elijah Wasike Mwangale. 9. She confirms that pursuant to the suit company’s extra – ordinary general meeting held on 7th December 2003, the late Elijah Wasike Mwangale and the 1st Intended Interested Party transferred their shares in the suit company to Kevin Mwangale at such a time that he attains the age of twenty one (21) years. ELC L MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E320 OF 2025 Ruling Page 7 of 30 10. She avers that despite being aware of the circumstances surrounding the suit property, the 1st Applicant filed the Notice of Motion dated 21st October 2025, misled the Court and failed to serve the 2nd Intended Interested Party, thereby obtaining the impugned Orders by concealment of material facts, and by misleading the Court that the suit property formed part of the estate of the late Elijah Wasike Mwangale and failed to disclose that the legitimate shareholder of the suit company is Kevin Mwangale. Response 11. In opposition, to the 1st Interested Party’s application, the Applicants filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection. They contend that the application offends Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which contemplate joinder to ongoing proceedings, not to a matter that is already concluded as the Court is functus officio. Further, that the only party in a concluded suit can properly apply to set to set aside a ruling/judgement made, a position they claim was ELC L MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E320 OF 2025 Ruling Page 8 of 30 cemented by the Supreme Court in Everton Coal Enterprises Limited v Karanja & 5 others [2023] KESC 98 (KLR). 12. They also contend that this Court lacks jurisdiction to determine questions of company ownership and that the issue of the 1st Intended Interested Party’s directorship and shareholding is res judicata, having been dealt with in Bungoma Winding Up Cause No.1 of 2005, where the Court ruled that the 1st Interested party is not a director of the suit company. Further, that the application is overtaken by events as a re-survey of the subject property has been done and that the 1st Intended Interested party is precluded by estoppel in pais by reason of having made fraudulent changes to the suit company as late as 8th April, 2025, while she now claims the company is in liquidation. 13. The Applicants also claim that the issue of the Interested Party’s shareholding and interest in Chetambe Estates is sub ELC L MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E320 OF 2025 Ruling Page 9 of 30 judice as it is subject of Milimani High Court Commercial Miscellaneous Application E432 OF 2025-Janet Eloise Mwangale v Salome Naliaka & Catherine Adhiambo Olweny (sued as Administrator of the Estate of Elijah Mwangale and Milimani High Court P&A NO.371 OF 2005-Estate of the late Elijah Wasike Mwangale. 14. The 1st Applicant also filed a replying affidavit in Opposition to both applications. She avers that while the 1st Intended Interested Party claims that she is the sole surviving director of the suit company, she has filed changes with the Registrar of Companies, appointing one Kevin Waliuba Mwangale as Director and shareholder and that both have filed Milimani High Court P&A 371 of 2005. 15. Further, that the 2nd Intended Interested party has never made any attempt at liquidation of the suit company but has been in collusion with the 1st Intended Interested Party, to waste away the suit property at the expense of the estate of ELC L MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E320 OF 2025 Ruling Page 10 of 30 the late Elijah Wasike Mwangale. She also claims that the suit property has been subdivided and sold to several persons during the pendency of liquidation hence the need for this Court to protect it, by an Order of inhibition. 16. She reiterates that pursuant to a private survey report of the suit property conducted pursuant to the Orders of 11th November 2025, various occupants of the suit property purchased the same from among others, the 1st Intended Interested Party, in collusion with the 2nd Intended Interested Party. 17. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. Submissions 18. The 1st Intended Interested Party submits that the Applicants’ Preliminary Objection does not meet the threshold set in Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696, for what ELC L MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E320 OF 2025 Ruling Page 11 of 30 constitutes a proper preliminary objection, as the grounds advanced are a constellation of disputed facts. 19. She also submits that the doctrine of functus officio is not applicable as where the Court has issued an ex parte order, it is never functus officio in respect of that Order; it retains both the power and the duty to set it aside upon proof of material non-disclosure. Further, that Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules is not offended as proceedings herein as still live. 20. On joinder, she submits that she has met the threshold for joinder, as set out in Communications Commission of Kenya & 4 Others v Royal Media Services Limited & 7 Others, Petition No. 7 of 2014 [2014] eKLR and Sikov Estate Limited & 5 Others v Agricultural Development Corporation & Another [2015] eKLR. She also contends that the Applicants’ reliance on the case of Everton Coal Enterprises Limited v Karanja & 5 others [2023] KESC ELC L MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E320 OF 2025 Ruling Page 12 of 30 98 (KLR) and Kimwele v Kubora & another; Mwasya & 5 others [2025] KEELC 5636 (KLR) is distinguishable as circumstances in the said matter are not similar as in the instant suit. 21. On setting aside the impugned Orders issued herein, she insists that that said Orders that were procured by material non-disclosure are liable to be set aside as a matter of judicial duty, not discretion. To this end, she relied on the case of Kenya Revenue Authority v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & another [2022] KEHC 39 (KLR). As for the question of Company Shareholding raised by the Applicants, she submits that it is not an issue and insists that the suit is not res judicata. Further, that sub judice does not apply as the Bungoma Winding up Cause concerned the winding up of the suit company, while the existence of Milimani High Court Commercial Miscellaneous Application E432 of 2025 and Milimani High Court P&A No. 371 of 2005 fortifies her case, as it confirms that the issues the ELC L MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E320 OF 2025 Ruling Page 13 of 30 Applicants persuaded this Court to determine ex parte are simultaneously being agitated in other Courts. 22. The 2nd Interested Party submits that it has demonstrated a stake in the matter, being the need to protect the suit property, which is vested with it, pursuant to Winding up Petition Cause No.1 of 2005, to hold it in trust for the benefit of the suit company’s creditors and contributories in accordance with the law. Further, that any inconsistent Orders issued by this Court would be in direct conflict with the liquidation Order and defeat its mandate. It also submits that its participation in the suit will be distinct and of value to the Court, as it will address the insolvency aspects of the matter that none of the other parties are equipped to address. 23. On setting aside Orders of 11th November 2025, it submits that under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, this Court has discretion to set aside its own Orders and urges it to do ELC L MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E320 OF 2025 Ruling Page 14 of 30 so, on the basis that the Applicants concealed material facts. It also urges the Court to dismiss the Applicants’ Preliminary Objection on the basis that it is not merited. 24. To buttress its averments, it relied on the following decisions: NST v AN & MNM (Interested Party) [2019] eKLR; Okiya Omtatah v Kenya Airways PLC [2021] KEHC 5464(KLR); Attorney General v David Ndii & 73 others [2021] KESC 17 (KLR); Flora N. Wasike Destimo Wamboko [1988] eKLR, and James Kanyiita Nderitu & another v Marios Philotas Ghikas & another [2016] KECA 470 (KLR). 25. The applicants did not file submissions. Analysis and Determination 26. I have considered the two instant Notice of Motion applications including the respective affidavits, Notice of Preliminary Objection and submissions and the following are the issues for determination: ELC L MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E320 OF 2025 Ruling Page 15 of 30 a) Whether the 1st and 2nd Intended Interested Parties have established the threshold for joinder as Interested Parties. b) Whether the Orders issued on 11th November 2025 should be set aside. c) Whether the Applicants' Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 25th February 2026 is merited. 27. It is not disputed that on 11th November 2025, this Court allowed the Applicants’ Notice of Motion dated 21st October 2025 as prayed on the basis that it was not opposed. Vide its Orders, the Court inhibited any dealings with LR No 3801/8 pending hearing and determination of succession proceedings in Milimani HCF P& A No. 371 of 2007, and allowed the Applicants to conduct a private resurvey of the suit property to establish physical occupancy. 28. Subsequently, the 1st and 2nd Intended Interested Parties filed separate applications for joinder and for setting aside the said Orders on the basis that they have a stake in the matter ELC L MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E320 OF 2025 Ruling Page 16 of 30 and that the Orders were obtained through concealment of material facts. The 1st Interested Party states that she is the surviving director/shareholder of the suit company which owns the suit property and that the Court issued Orders affecting the suit company’s property without hearing her. 29. On its part, the 2nd Intended Interested Party contends that it was appointed the Official Receiver and liquidator for the suit company, in Bungoma Winding Up Cause No.1 of 2005 and that the company remains under liquidation with the suit property being its primary asset. 30. On their part, the Applicants dispute the 1st Intended Interested Party’s directorship to the suit company and allege she has acted fraudulently in collusion with the 2nd Intended Interested Party who is wasting the suit property instead of protecting it. They also filed a Preliminary Objection, contending that the Court is functus officio having determined the matter and concluded it. Further, that the ELC L MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E320 OF 2025 Ruling Page 17 of 30 applications are barred by the doctrine of sub judice and res judicata. 31.The proposed Interested Parties have sought for joinder in these proceedings as Interested parties. They contend that they are necessary parties in this matter as one is a director of the company in receiverships while the second one is the Receiver. The Applicant has opposed joinder through the reasons highlighted above. 32. Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, defines an ‘Interested Party’ as “A party who has a recognizable stake (and therefore standing) in a matter”. 33. On joinder, Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules stipulates as follows: '. (2) The court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the ELC L MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E320 OF 2025 Ruling Page 18 of 30 name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, be added.' 34. Further, in the case of Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance V Mumo Matemu & 5 Others (2015) eKLR the Court defined an Interested party as follows: ‘(An) interested party is one who has a stake in the proceedings, though he or she was not party to the cause ab initio. He or she is one who will be affected by the decision of the Court when it is made, either way. Such a person feels that his or her interest will not be well articulated unless he himself or she herself appears in the proceedings, and champions his or her cause.’ 35. In Everton Coal Enterprises Limited v Karanja & 5 others (Application E026 of 2023) ELC L MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E320 OF 2025 Ruling Page 19 of 30 [2023] KESC 98 (KLR) (10 November 2023) (Ruling), the Supreme Court while dealing with an application for leave to Appeal against a decision from the Court of Appeal observed that: ‘Acknowledging that the applicant was not a party to the proceedings before the two superior courts below and especially in the Court of Appeal in which the above adverse order was made affecting its title to the suit property; that because of those orders, the applicant filed an omnibus application in the Court of Appeal after judgment seeking four reliefs: to be joined in the proceedings as an interested party; an order reviewing the aforesaid judgment; or in the alternative, that it be granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court; and that an order be issued to stay the execution of the impugned judgment. Noting from the record that the prayer to join the applicant as an interested party was allowed in a separate ruling by the Court of Appeal (MK Koome (as she then was), Asike- Makhandia & J Mohammed, JJA) in which the court appreciated that the application was made post- judgment but ELC L MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E320 OF 2025 Ruling Page 20 of 30 justified the course taken of joining the applicant after the judgment on the ground that it was necessary to enable the applicant to apply for the review of the judgment and in the alternative to seek certification to appeal to the Supreme Court’. Emphasis Added 36. Based on the facts before me, while relying on the legal provisions I have quoted as well as associating myself with the decisions cited above which have set out the principles for joinder of an Interested Party, I find that the Proposed Interested Parties indeed meet the criteria for joinder as their involvement in these proceedings is necessary and they are affected by the impugned Order issued on the 11th November, 2025. From the aforementioned case of Everton Coal Enterprises Limited v Karanja & 5 others (supra), which the Applicant sought to rely on, it is evident the Court of Appeal allowed joinder of an Interested Party post judgement and this Order was not set aside by the Supreme Court. ELC L MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E320 OF 2025 Ruling Page 21 of 30 37.To my mind, a director of the suit company cannot be ignored in proceedings affecting the said company. I further opine that the joinder of a Receiver is necessary as the suit company, which owns the suit property, is under receivership. It is trite that once a company goes under liquidation, its assets fall under the control of the liquidator for purposes of administration, which is a statutory obligation to protect the company's assets. 38. In the foregoing, I will allow the proposed Interested Parties to be joined in these proceedings as 1st Interested and 2nd Interested Parties, post the Order issued on the 11th November, 2025, to enable them apply for review of the said Orders. 39. As to whether the Ruling and resultant Order issued on 11th November 2025 should be reviewed, varied and or set aside. The 1st and 2nd Interested Parties have sought for review, variation or setting aside of the Ruling and Order issued on ELC L MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E320 OF 2025 Ruling Page 22 of 30 11th November 2025, claiming that the Applicant obtained the said Orders through material non-disclosure of facts. 40. Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act provides parameters that can guide the Court in setting aside its Orders. 41. Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act stipulates that: “Any person who considers himself aggrieved— (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Act, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Act, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order, and the court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.” 42. While Order 45, rule 1 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that: ‘Any person considering himself aggrieved— (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, ELC L MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E320 OF 2025 Ruling Page 23 of 30 but from which no appeal has been preferred; or (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is hereby allowed, and who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree or order, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order without unreasonable delay.’ 43. In CMC Holdings Limited -vs- Nzioki [2004] 1 KLR 173, it was held that: “In law, the discretion that a Court of law has, in deciding whether or not to set aside ex-parte order was meant to ensure that a litigant does not suffer injustice or hardship as a result of among other things an excusable mistake or error. It would not be proper use of such a discretion if the Court turns its back to a litigant who clearly ELC L MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E320 OF 2025 Ruling Page 24 of 30 demonstrates such an excusable mistake, inadvertence, accident or error.’ 44. Further, in the case of Wachira Karani v Bildad Wachira [2016] eKLR Mativo J (as he then was) held that: “Sufficient cause is thus the cause for which the defendant could not be blamed for his absence. Sufficient cause is a question of fact and the court has to exercise its discretion in the varied and special circumstances in the case at hand. There cannot be a straight-jacket formula of universal application. Thus, the defendant must demonstrate that he was prevented from attending court by a sufficient cause...” 45. Further, in Halima Haji Sarah v Multiple Haurliers (E.A) Limited & another [2022] KEELC 912 (KLR) the Court favourably cited the case of Bahadurali Ebrahim Shamji v Al Noor Jamal & 2 Others Civil Appeal No. 210 of 1997, where the Court of Appeal had held that: “It is perfectly well-settled that a person who makes an ex parte application to the court – that ELC L MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E320 OF 2025 Ruling Page 25 of 30 is to say, in the absence of the person who will be affected by that which the court is asked to do – is under an obligation to the court to make the fullest possible disclosure of all material facts within his knowledge, and if he does not make the fullest possible disclosure then he cannot obtain any advantage from the proceedings, and he will be deprived of any advantage he may have already obtained. It has been for many years the rule of court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the Court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement, he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts – facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it – the court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts, and the penalty by which the court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the court will set aside any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement…” Emphasis Added. ELC L MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E320 OF 2025 Ruling Page 26 of 30 46. It is trite that varying or setting aside an Order of the Court is discretionary but the Court has to consider sufficient cause proffered by the Applicant, before proceeding to do so. From the Court records, I note the Applicants did not inform Court that the suit company that owned the suit property had been placed under liquidation and there was a Receiver manager running the affairs of the said Company. Further, they did not divulge that indeed the suit company had an existing director and that there was a case being Bungoma Winding Up Cause No. 1 of 2005 in which a Liquidator had been appointed on the 23rd May, 2008. They only sought for an inhibition Order to protect the suit property during the pendency of the aforementioned succession cause as well as resurvey of the suit property. 47. It is further trite that he who comes to equity must come with clean hands. At this juncture, I find that the Applicants obtained ex parte Orders from this Court through material nondisclosure and they should not be allowed to enjoy the ELC L MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E320 OF 2025 Ruling Page 27 of 30 benefits of the said Orders at the expense of the Interested Parties. It is my considered view that the Interested Parties have indeed proferred sufficient reasons to warrant the setting aside of Orders issued on the 11th November, 2025. In the foregoing, while associating myself with the decisions cited, I will proceed to set aside the Orders issued on 11th November, 2025 in its entirety including any consequential actions emanating therefrom. 48. The Applicants have raised a Notice of Preliminary Objection insisting that this Court is functus officio and that the Interested Parties could not be joined to these proceedings post the impugned Order. Opposing the said Preliminary Objection, the 1st and 2nd Interested Parties contend that it does not raise pure points of law as it is intertwined with disputed facts. From my findings above, I find the said Notice of Preliminary Objection unmerited. In the interest of justice the Court will proceed to ELC L MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E320 OF 2025 Ruling Page 28 of 30 restore the status quo ante, before the Orders issued on the 11th November, 2025. 49. In the circumstances, I find the Interested Parties Notice of Motion applications dated 26th November, 2025 and 5th February, 2026 respectively, merited and will allow them. I however find the Applicants’ Notice of Preliminary Objection unmerited and will disallow it. 50.I proceed to make the following Orders: a) That Janet Eloise Mwangale and the Official Reciever (Liquidator of Chetambe Estate Limited) are hereby joined in this suit as 1st and 2nd Interested Parties respectively. b) That the Orders of this Honourable Court issued on the 11th November, 2025 and any other consequential Orders thereafter in respect to private resurvey of the property known as L.R. No. 3801/8, with the view to establishing physical occupancy of the property, arising from ELC L MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E320 OF 2025 Ruling Page 29 of 30 the Application dated the 21st October, 2025, are hereby set aside. c) Each party to bear their own costs. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 CHRISTINE OCHIENG JUDGE In the presence of: P. Mwangale for Applicants Ms Atieno holding brief for Alphonse Barak for Interested Party Ms Mugo for Interested Party Court Assistant: Vena ELC L MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E320 OF 2025 Ruling Page 30 of 30