https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11327

Ndombi v Kibe t/a Transwide Pharmaceuticals Ltd & 3 others (Constitutional Petition E005 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 11327 (KLR) (8 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 11327 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Eldoret Constitutional Petition E005 of 2026 RN Nyakundi, J July 8, 2026 Ruling IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES: 2, 3, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 39, 47, 48, 49 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010 AND IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF ARTICLES 25, 28, 29, 47 AND 50 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010 AND IN THE MATTER OF BREACH OF SECTIONS 2 AND 4 OF FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ACT AND IN THE MATTER OF BREACH OF THE AFRICAN CHARTER ON HUMAN & PEOPLE'S RIGHTS Between Enock Juma Ndombi Petitioner and Kenneth Ndichu Kibe t/a Transwide Pharmaceuticals Ltd 1st Respondent Ronald Obare 2nd Respondent Everlyne Akumu Owona (OCS)-Naiberi Police Station 3rd Respondent The Hon Attorney General 4th Respondent Ruling 1.Before this Court is notice of motion brought pursuant to Articles 2, 3, 10, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 28, 47, 50 and 159 (2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya, the provisions of Section 1A, B, 3A, 5, 63(e) and of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 40 Rule 1, 2 & 3 and Order 50 Rule I & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, of the Laws of Kenya and any other enabling provision of the law. The petitioner seeks the following orders:a.Spent.b.Spent.c.Pending inter parties hearing and pending hearing and determination of this application, this Honorable Court be pleased to issue conservatory or interim orders of staying the arrest, harassment and incarceration of the Petitioner and that the warrants of arrest dated10/05/2023 and 13/03/2025 be stayed.d.Any other order/ relief the Court shall deem fit to grant 2.Which application is based on the grounds that:a.The 1st and 2nd Respondents have through their advocates obtained warrants of arrest against the Petitioner through uncouth means and without any resultant decree from the Court, the same emanating from Eldoret CMCC E541 OF 2022 between TRans-wide Pharmaceuticals Ltd Versus Enock Jamia Ndumbi T/asparkles Pharmaceuticals.b.That despite the warrants of arrest being issued against the Petitioner, the Petitioner has never had a chance to defend himself nor show cause why warrants of arrest in execution should be issued against him.3) That the Petitioner's constitutional right to a fair hearing has been violated right from the onset and that never has he been given an opportunity to defend his cause in Court, leading to summary procedure of execution which is not known to the law.c.That unless the orders herein are granted, there is risk that the Petitioner's freedom of movement will be curtailed and that the Petitioner will be unable to fend for his family as well as offer health services to the general members of the public who rely on him for urgent medical care.d.That it is in the interest of justice that conservatory order or interim orders of stay are granted in the circumstances 3.In support of the application is the annexed affidavit of Enock Juma Ndombi who deponed as follows:a.That I am the Petitioner hereinb.That the 1st Respondent sued me in ELDORET CIVIL SUIT NO. E541 OF 2022before Eldoret Senior Principal Magistrate-Hon. Peter Areri, Esquire wherein I never got an opportunity to seek the services of an advocate and/or seek effective legal representation.c.That the 1st and 2nd Respondents realizing this position took advantage and proceeded to have the matter concluded summarily and proceeded with taking out Notice to show Cause against myself, subsequently leading to the issuance of warrants of arrest against me on numerous dates to wit 10/05/2023 and 13/03/2025 over an alleged civil debt.d.That ever since the matter begun, no subsequent entries had ever been made and that the matter had never been mentioned for pre-trial directions and/or case conference.e.That I was first apprehended by the 2nd Respondent on 12/05/2023 alongside the 3rd Respondent while acting under the instructions of the 1" Respondent and that they found me where I was working at my pharmacy located in Kakamega town at about 12:00 p.m. and bundled into a private car and immediately taken to Eldoret and was taken to the 2nd Respondent's offices before being taken to Eldoret Law Courts premises where the Respondents demanded the sum of Kshs. 300,000/= from me.f.That I was detained at Naiberi Policc Station until 15/05/2023 where yet again while under duress and force, the 2nd Respondent forced me into signing a consent and obtained the sum of Kshs. 100,000/=from me. It was then that I was released.g.That subsequently, the 2nd Respondent alongside the 3rd Respondent while acting under the instructions of the 1st Respondent yet again visited my business premises and on 27/03/2023 came to arrest me and whisked me away in a private car to Eldoret where I was held in custody from 2:00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. after which the 2od and 3rd Respondents obtained Kshs.150,000/=from me within the Court premises after which I was subsequently released. All this while, I was never produced before a Court of law as is required.h.That all along the said duration, I have always been forced to make partial payments of the alleged decretal sum which figure is not the same and keeps on varying. That the said sum differs from the purported consent judgement, warrants of arrest dated10/05/2023 and 13/03/2025 without giving a true reflection of the entire sums paid by myself to the 1st and 2nd Respondent.i.That further to paragraph 8 above, the 1st and 2nd Respondents have at all times forced me to recording consents which are illegal and or unconscionable.j.That I was arrested further on 12/11/2025 by the 2nd and 3r Respondents at about 11:00 a.m. when I was at my usual business when the 2nd Respondent together with police officers clad in civilian clothing showed up and bundled me inside a private motor vehicle and drove with me to Naiberi Police station in Eldoret where I was arraigned in Court the subsequent day i.e. on 13/11/2025 after which I was forced to record a consent.k.That I was therefore released and to date, the 1st and 2nd Respondents failed to issue me with the said consent despite asking them severally for the same whose terms I was not fullyl.That throughout the entire process, I had never gotten an opportunity to get legal representation and efforts to have an advocate come on record for me were strategically denied by both counsel for the plaintiff and the Court, with the Court ensuring that an application filed by my advocate seeking to come on record is scheduled to be heard more than two months later, so that they get an opportunity to yet again arrest and detain mem.That the 1st, 3rd Respondents on 13/11/2025 led to my arrest and detention without giving me an opportunity to ventilate my case on its merits, thus limiting my constitutional right to a fair hearing and administration of justicen.That I have never been served with any decree, notice to show cause or any other pleading in respect to the matter herein post judgement and thus have always stood condemned unheard against the cardinal principles of natural justice and that my freedom of movement already curtailed 4.In response to the application is the replying affidavit of Kenneth Ndichu Kibe who avers as follows:a.That I am a male adult of sound mindb.That I am a director of Transwide Pharmaceutical Company Ltd and I therefore deponed this affidavit on my own behalf and that of the said company.c.That I have read and understood the petitioner's notice of motion application dated 29th January 2026 which has also been explained to me by my learned Advocates on record and I respond thereto as follows:d.That the application herein is incompetent, frivolous and an abuse of the process of this honourable Court.e.That Transwide Pharmaceutical Company Ltd is a legal personality registered under the Company's Actf.That it is trite law that a company is a different personality from its directors and even in situations where the directors act on its behalf they require its resolution to so act.g.That I was not a party to suit Eldoret CMCC 541 of 2022 which is the genesis of this Petitionh.That further to paragraph 7 above Transwide Pharmaceuticals Limited being a registered company there is no way I can be said to be trading as such and therefore I have been wrongly dragged into this proceedings.i.That I have not been personally involved in suit Eldoret CMCC 541 OF 2022 beyond passing resolution for filing that suit no evidence has been adduced connecting me personally to that suit.j.That regarding the suit Eldoret CMCC No.541 of 2022 Transwide Pharmaceuticals v Enock Ndombi t/a Sparkles Pharmaceuticals, the applicant completely deceived, lied to the Court and gave false information for purposes of obtaining stay orders.k.That warrants dated 10th May 2023 and 13th March 2025 are not in force they have been executed and the result of which the applicant made partial payments and consents on how to pay the differencel.That what the applicant failed to inform this Court is that by consent dated 18th November 2025, he undertook to pay Kshs.100,000/- on 31st January 2026 to the plaintiff in CMCC E541 of 2025 and that this is what this application is all about, to stifle the consequences of non-compliance of that consent orderm.That what the applicant did not also tell this Court is that he had also filed a similar application to the instant one, seeking similar orders dated 13th November 2025 which is coming up for hearing on the 17th February 2026, the instant application is therefore a duplicity and must be struck out with costs.n.That what the applicant also failed to inform the Court is that when he was served with the summons in Civil Suit Eldoret CMCC E541 OF 2022, he filed a memorandum of appearance dated 21st June 2022o.That the applicant in CMCC E541 of 2022 having entered appearance, he elected to enter into a consent with the plaintiff dated the 21st June 2022 inline of filing a defencep.That the applicant failed to honour the consent dated 21st June 2022 which consent had been adopted as an order of the Court.q.That thereafter through letter dated 5th December 2022, the plaintiff requested for decree which decree was duly issued by the Court.r.That by letter dated 17th December 2024, the plaintiff requested for notice to show cause which notice to show cause was issued dated 7th February 2025s.That the applicant was served with the notice to show cause he did not attend Court to show cause and a warrant of arrest dated 13th March 2025 was issuedt.That there is no step in law which the plaintiff in CMCC E541 of 2022 did not undertake in pursuance of warrants of arrest in this matter and a complaint by the applicant that no due process of law was followed is a lie perpetuated for purposes of obtaining stay orders herein.u.That the matter could not be fixed for mention for pre-trial directions and/or case conference when the parties had reached a settlement in form of a consent.v.That the applicant was arrested following a due process of law and if there is an issue of settling accounts, that cannot be a constitutional issue, that is an issue that can be resolved by the trial Court in CMCC (Eldoret) NO. E541 OF 2022.w.That the applicant has vilified the trial Court in CMCC NO. E541 of 2022, that Court has not been made a party in this proceeding this being not an appeal, it cannot be able to respond to those allegations nor can the advocates for the plaintiffs in that case who the applicant has also taken a swipe on.x.That this application clearly lacks merit and given the falsehood peddled itis prudent that the same be dismissed with costs. 5.In support of the application is the supplementary affidavit of the applicant who deponed as follows:a.That I am the Petitioner hereinb.That I have read and understood the tenor and purport of the contents of the Further Replying Affidavit sworn on the 04/02/2026 by Kenneth Ndichu Kibe and in response thereto I state as follows: -c.That in response to Paragraph 5 of the said Affidavit and as advised by my advocates on record which information I believe to be verily true, the 1st Respondent avers that Transwide Pharmaceuticals Ltd is a legal personality registered under the Company’s Act. However, no such resolutions were instituted in the primary suit and that the same remains to be a non-starter and judgement obtained prematurely and/or irregularly.d.That in response to paragraph 7 of the Replying Affidavit, it is not true that the 1st Respondent was not a party to the suit since vide the acknowledgement of debt dated 24/10/2020 was signed by the 1st Respondent in person.e.That as advised by my advocates on record and in response to paragraph 9 of the Replying Affidavit dated 04/02/2026, the 1st Respondent goes ahead to contradict his averments at paragraph 7 of the said affidavit and confirms that indeed he was a party to the suit.f.That further to paragraph 5 above and as informed by my advocates on record which information I verily believe to be true and correct, the 1st Respondent has never filed company resolutions in order to institute the suit and I thus do insist the same to be a nullity right from the word go, hence making any resultant actions thereto which include but not limited to taking out notice to show cause and subsequent warrants of arrest a mere sham.g.That in response to paragraph 11 of the said affidavit, the 1st Respondent is out rightly lying under oath since a look at the face of the purported consent dated 21/06/2022 and 18/11/2025, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the punitive consents indicate that execution was to follow immediately and upon any default of any one single installment by the Petitioner.h.That in response to paragraph 12 of the said replying affidavit, the 1st Respondent has intentionally failed to inform the Court that the sum of Kshs. 150,000/= was paid directly to the 2nd Respondent who was at all times acting under the instructions of the 1st Respondent and as advise by my advocates on record, the actions of the principal always bind the agent and that at all times, the 2nd Respondent was extorting huge sums of money from me with the knowledge and consent of the 1st Respondent.i.That in response to paragraph 13 of the said affidavit, I did seek the services of an advocate and that the 1st and 2nd Respondents while acting in collusion with the judicial officer stifled my right to enjoy legal representation. That leave to be represented by counsel post judgement was denied and that having intentionally mishandled me in Court, I at the opportune moment shall be lodging the relevant complaints before the professional bodies that are responsible for regulating the conduct of both advocates and judicial officers who act unethically.j.That in response to paragraph 14 and 15 of the said Replying Affidavit and as advised by my advocates on record, case conference and pre-trial directions are a cardinal practice within the current judicial framework and that there is no excuse whatsoever to avoid re-trial directions by a judicial officer as well as advocates while acting as officers of the Court.k.That in response to paragraph 17 of the said Replying Affidavit, and as advised by my advocate on record; the 1st Respondent purports to have requested for a decree from the Court officially and that the purported decree is conspicuously missing, thus making the said affidavit mere wishful thinking that lacks any probative value.l.That in response to paragraph 18 of the Replying Affidavit, the 1st Respondent never served the purported notice to show cause upon the Petitioner and that there is no affidavit of service to confirm that indeed the Petitioner was duly and properly served as provided for in the law.m.That further to paragraph 12 above, the judicial officer yet again acting unethically failed to set the notice to show cause down for hearing but immediately rushed to issue warrants of arrest, while acting with malice and bad faith in cahoots with counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondent.n.That in response to paragraph 23 of the said affidavit and as advised by my advocates on record; I do contend as follows:a.That I am not in the habit of engaging in unnecessary litigation against judicial officers and officers of the high Court since statutes clearly establishes constitutional bodies and/or professional bodies that are well versed in handling misbehavior and/or unethical conduct by advocates and judicial officers.b.That both counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents conducted themselves unethically and I believe the Judicial Service Commission and Advocates Complaints Commission are the proper channels to instigate my grievances.c.That I have been incarcerated on numerous times and that I found myself at the mercy of both counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents as well as the judicial officer in conduct of the matter and that I was condemned unheard and that their actions were punctuated by grave malice and with utmost intent to stifle my right to also be heard and present my case. 6.In response to the application is the Replying Affidavit of 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents who avers as follows:a.That I am the Officer Commanding Station, Naiberi Police Station and therefore competent and authorized to swear this affidavit on behalf of the 3rd Respondent.b.That I have read and understood the Petitioner’s Notice of Motion application dated 29th January 2026 together with the supporting affidavit and I respond thereto as hereunder.c.That the 3rd Respondent is a police officer established under the National Police Service Act whose constitutional mandate under Article 244 of the Constitution is inter alia to: maintain law and order; enforce Court orders; and prevent and detect crime.d.That the 2nd and 3rd Respondent are not parties to the civil dispute between the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent and have no personal, proprietary or commercial interest whatsoever in the matters complained of by the Petitioner.e.That at all material times the 2nd and 3rd Respondents acted strictly in obedience to lawful Court process presented for execution.f.That warrants of arrest issued by a Court of competent jurisdiction in Eldoret CMCC E541 OF 2022 were presented to the police for execution.g.That upon verification that the warrants were duly issued, sealed and signed by the Court, the police were under a statutory duty to execute them and could not question, vary, suspend or ignore the same.h.That the police have no legal authority to sit on appeal over a Court order and failure to execute a lawful warrant would amount to disobedience of a Court order and dereliction of duty.i.That the Petitioner was therefore arrested purely pursuant to Court warrants and not at the instigation, direction, malice or independent decision of the 3rd Respondent.j.That at all times the Petitioner was treated humanely and within the confines of the Constitution, the Criminal Procedure Code and the National Police Service Act.k.That the 2nd and 3rd Respondent did not solicit, demand, receive or participate in the alleged demand for money from the Petitioner as alleged or at all.l.That the police did not participate in negotiation of any civil settlement, consent, debt recovery, or enforcement of a commercial claim between the Petitioner and the 1st and 2nd Respondents.m.That any payments allegedly made by the Petitioner were not made to the police and were not made in the presence, direction or authority of the 2nd and 3rd Respondent.n.That once the Petitioner was arrested pursuant to the warrants, he was processed in accordance with the law and presented before Court as required.o.That if the Petitioner was aggrieved by the issuance of warrants of arrest, the proper recourse lay in: a) the trial Court that issued the warrants; or b) an appellate/revision Court, and not against the police officers executing a lawful order.p.That the allegations of harassment, illegal detention, violation of rights and unlawful arrest against the 2nd and 3rd Respondent are therefore misconceived, bad in law and an abuse of Court process.q.That the police cannot be held liable for executing valid Court orders unless the orders are first set aside by the issuing Court.r.That the present Petition improperly seeks to shift a purely civil dispute into a constitutional claim against law enforcement officers who merely performed statutory duties.s.That the application does not disclose any constitutional violation attributable to the 3rd Respondent.t.That the orders sought against the 2nd and 3rd Respondents are incapable of being granted and they have been wrongly enjoined in these proceedings.u.That this Honourable Court should decline the conservatory orders sought as against the 2nd and 3rd Respondent and dismiss the application with costs Decision 7.I have reviewed the application, affidavit in support by the Petitioner, replying affidavit by the 1st Respondent and its annextures together with the replying affidavits of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents on the subject matter in which the Petitioner is seeking conservatory orders and the warrants of arrest dated 10th May 2023 and 13th March 2025. The historical facts of this litigation is traceable to the Civil Case File in the Chief Magistrate’s Court namely CMCC No. E541 of 2022. That suit was subsequently compromised by recording a consent dated 21st June 2022 with the following covenants:1.By Consent of both parties judgement be entered in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant as follows:I.Principal sum Kshs 1,171,772.00/=II.Court Fees Kshs 62,294.00/=III.Advocate’s Fee Kshs 120,000.00/=IV.Service fee Kshs 10,000.00/=Total Kshs 1,364,066.00/= 2.The Defendant herein be allowed to pay the Kshs 1,364,066/= by way of monthly installments of Kshs 50,000/= with effect from 30th July 2022 until payment in full. 3.In default of any single installment execution to issue by way of warrant of arrest against the Defendant for entire balance.Dated at Eldoret this 21st day of June 2022. 8.This consent having been adopted by the Court is a binding contract between the parties. This Court will not set it aside unless and until it can be explicitly proved it was obtained by fraud, collusion, mutual mistake, misrepresentation or due to a fundamental lack of authority by the Advocate involved. It is trite law on this principle of law as illuminated by the following cases: Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd v. Specialised Engineering Co. Ltd [1982]: A foundational precedent holding that a consent order entered by counsel is strictly binding and cannot be varied unless obtained by fraud, collusion, or an agreement contrary to court policy. Board of Trustees National Social Security Fund v. Micheal Mwalo [2015]: The court reaffirmed that an order consented to by parties creates a binding compromise. It can only be rescinded on the exact same legal grounds that allow a party to invalidate a standard contract Mwalambe & Another v. Freedom Limited [2025] KECA 252: The Court of Appeal ruled that a consent judgment signed by an advocate cannot be voided simply because the client later claims they did not give "express instructions". The client must prove their advocate acted fraudulently or lacked authority altogether. 9.The key valid reasons a consent may be sent aside by the Court upon establishing compelling evidence include inter alia the following: Fraud or Collusion: One party intentionally misled the other or hid material facts to secure the agreement. Material Mistake: The parties recorded the consent under a fundamental misapprehension of crucial facts. Lack of Consensus: There was no true meeting of the minds (e.g., coerced or forced agreements). 10.The Court in Board of Trustees National Social Security Fund versus Michael Mwalo [2015] eKLR (a decision cited by both parties before the learned Judge) as follows:“The judgment arose from a consent of the parties to the suit. The law pertaining to setting aside of consent judgments or consent orders has been clearly stated. A Court of law will not interfere with a consent judgment except in circumstances such as would provide a good ground for varying or rescinding a contract between parties. To impeach a consent order or a consent judgment, it must be shown that it was obtained by fraud, or collusion or by an agreement contrary to the policy of Court.” 11.It appears from the affidavit of the Petitioner that he has not honoured the terms of the consent judgment which was duly recorded by the Chief Magistrate’s Court in CMCC E541 of 2022. Whether there was sufficient basis for the Learned Magistrate to have properly exercised his discretion in granting the issuance of warrant of arrest contained in the order of the Court against the Petitioner is a matter which could have found its way to the same forum under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules on review jurisdiction. 12.Whether this Court has the jurisdiction to clearly entertain the petition and proceed to grant interlocutory injunction or conservatory orders for that matter I am guided by the principles in the case of American Cynamid Co. v Ethicon Ltd [1975] 1 All ER 504 and National Commercial Bank v Olint Corp Limited [2009] 1 WLR 1405 in which the House of Lords observed as follows:“ 16.... It is often said that the purpose of an interlocutory injunction is to preserve the status quo, but it is of course impossible to stop the world pending trial. The court may order a defendant to do something or not to do something else, but such restrictions on the defendant’s freedom of action will have consequences, for him and for others, which a court has to take into account. The purpose of such an injunction is to improve the chances of the court being able to do justice after a determination of the merits at the trial. At the interlocutory stage, the court must therefore assess whether granting or withholding an injunction is more likely to produce a just result. As the House of Lords pointed out in American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396, that means that if damages will be an adequate remedy for the plaintiff, there are no grounds for interference with the defendant’s freedom of action by the grant of an injunction. Likewise, if there is a serious issue to be tried and the plaintiff could be prejudiced by the acts or omissions of the defendant pending trial and the cross-undertaking in damages would provide the defendant with an adequate remedy if it turns out that his freedom of action should not have been restrained, then an injunction should ordinarily be granted. 17.In practice, however, it is often hard to tell whether either damages or the cross-undertaking will be an adequate remedy and the court has to engage in trying to predict whether granting or withholding an injunction is more or less likely to cause irremediable prejudice (and to what extent) if it turns out that the injunction should not have been granted or withheld, as the case may be. The basic principle is that the court should take whichever course seems likely to cause the least irremediable prejudice to one party or the other. This is an assessment in which, as Lord Diplock said in the American Cyanamid case [1975] AC 396, 408:‘It would be unwise to attempt even to list all the various matters which may need to be taken into consideration in deciding where the balance lies, let alone to suggest the relative weight to be attached to them’. 18.Among the matters which the court may take into account are the prejudice which the plaintiff may suffer if no injunction is granted or the defendant may suffer if it is; the likelihood of such prejudice actually occurring; the extent to which it may be compensated by an award of damages or enforcement of the cross-undertaking; the likelihood of either party being able to satisfy such an award; and the likelihood that the injunction will turn out to have been wrongly granted or withheld, that is to say, the court’s opinion of the relative strength of the parties’ cases.” 13.In appreciating the perspective of this constitutional petition generally speaking for a petition to qualify as a valid constitutional petition a lawsuit must meet strict legal standard threshold established by Superior Courts to prevent civil or commercial disputes from being camouflaged as constitutional issues. Constitutional Courts in Kenya function as forums of last resort for structural for fundamental rights and freedoms issues in the prism of the Constitution. If a legal dispute can be fully resolved through ordinary laws such as the law of contract, torts, civil and other statutory mechanisms, the Court will not determine it on a constitutional basis. There is also the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies. In the present petition, this Court takes judicial notice that the civil proceedings are currently being litigated in CMCC E541 of 2022 which support execution and enforcement the consent judgment dated 21st June 2022 adopted by the Court below. The aggrieved party who is the Petitioner has taken issue in his petition on the issues of warrants of arrest issued by the Chief Magistrate’s Court as a form of not to show cause why he has defaulted on the installment payments of Ksh 50,000/= with effect from 30th July 2022. That question cannot be answered by this constitutional petition and therefore this is not a forum of conveniens. See the principles in Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic [1979] KLR, Kalaiya & another v Nairobi Metropolitan Services [2025], Rono v Kiptoo & 6 Others [2026] KEHC, Chege v Shollei [2026] KEHC. When it comes to constitutional petitions the law envisages that a constitutional petition must go beyond mere general allegations and facts. 14.For those reasons, when these principles are applied to the instant case, it is clear that the orders being sought in the notice of motion dated 29th January 2026 are withheld because they are likely to produce an unjust result and that means that damages will not be an adequate remedy for the Respondents. The other second question analyzed is that of enjoining Police Officers who were never parties to the original suits before the Chief Magistrate’s Court and have nothing to do legally with the entire proceedings save that they were acting in consonant with the court orders issued by the Learned Trial Magistrate for execution. Their presence in this petition is a misjoinder which occasions prejudice and if left to stand it will cause irreparable injury to the Officers in the National Police Service. It will be better if they are left out of this civil cum constitutional proceedings necessarily being pursued by the Petitioner. In light of that, the names of the 2nd & 3rd Respondents are struck out of the petition with no orders as to costs. Am also of the view at this stage based on the nature of the claim the proper forum to be invoked is the Chief Magistrate’s Court which triggered the whole process of execution and enforcement of the consent judgment. Orders accordingly. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AND PUBLISHED VIA CTS THIS 8TH DAY OF JULY 2026.…………………………………….R. NYAKUNDIJUDGE