https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3551

Thimangu v Land Registrar (Tigania) & 22 others (Land Case E035 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3551 (KLR) (11 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3551 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Meru Land Case E035 of 2025 JO Mboya, J June 11, 2026 Between Newton Mwiti Thimangu Plaintiff and Land Registrar (Tigania) 1st Defendant Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer Tigania District 2nd Defendant Attorney General 3rd Defendant Doreen Muthoni Thimangu (Being Sued As The Legal Representative Of The Estate Of Gladys Kinanu) 4th Defendant Isaya Ntoiti M’Limbitu 5th Defendant Julius Miriti Thimangu 6th Defendant Gitonga Godfrey Twira 7th Defendant Peter Nangithia Thimangu 8th Defendant Mwirigi Gregory Lintari 9th Defendant Janet Gatwiri Micheni 10th Defendant Rose Wangeci Mworia 11th Defendant John Gitibi Rukiyah 12th Defendant Anastasia Karega 13th Defendant Peter Muchui Thuranira 14th Defendant Timothy Njue Mamu 15th Defendant Moses Muriuki M’Arujaru 16th Defendant Sammy Munyambu Njeru 17th Defendant Stephen Kabira M’Rukaria 18th Defendant Faith Ntinyari 19th Defendant Jimmy Karani 20th Defendant Zakayo Kamencu Kagendo 21st Defendant Perpetual Kagendo 22nd Defendant Patrick Kilonzo Kaburu 23rd Defendant Ruling 1.Before me is the Notice of Motion Application dated the 07.05.2026; brought pursuant to the provisions of Sections 1 A, 1B , 3A and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, Chapter 21 Laws of Kenya; Section 9 of the Fair Administrative Actions Act, 2016; Order 2 Rule 15; and Order 3 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; and Article 47 of the Constitution, 2010 and wherein the 4th – 23rd defendants/applicants [hereinafter referred to as the applicants] have sought the following reliefs:i.The suit herein be struck out with costs.ii.Costs of this application and the suit be awarded to the defendants/applicants. 2.The subject application is premised on various grounds. The grounds are: the suit property, namely; L/R Tigani West/Uringu II /1023 [now subdivided] was registered in the name of Gladys Kinanu [now deceased]; the estate of Gladys Kinanu was the subject of succession proceedings namely: Tigani PMCC Succession Cause Number 65 of 2017; the suit property was duly distributed by the succession court; the succession cause at Tigania has neither been challenged; the grant issued vide the succession cause has never been revoked; the subject suit is a disguised attempt by the Plaintiff/ Respondent to re-visit the succession causes including Meru HCC Succession Cause No. 194 of 2005 and Tigania PMCC Succession Number 65 of 2017. 3.Additionally, the applicants have posited thus: the plaintiff/Respondent herein had filed a previous suit namely; Tigania CMELC No. 204 of 2018; the suit sought to impugn and invalidate the certificate of titles in respect of the suit property; the suit at Tigania was struck out for want of jurisdiction and for being an abuse of the due process of the court; the plaintiff herein did not file any appeal against the decision of the lower court; the plaintiff cannot now file a separate and distinct suit; the suit beforehand constitutes an abuse of the due process of the court; and the orders [if any] granted by this court will contradict the decision of the High Court issued vide the succession cause. 4.The application is supported by the affidavit of Jimmy Karani sworn on the 07.05.2026. The deponent of the supporting affidavit has reiterated and reaffirmed the grounds contained in the body of the application. Furthermore, the deponent has annexed various documents inter alia; copy of the objection proceedings in respect of the objection number 118; copy of the certificate of confirmation in respect of Tigania PMCC Succession Caused No. 65 of 2017 copy of the Judgment issued vide Meru HCC Succession cause No. 194 of 2005; copy of the amended plaint vide Tigania CMELC No. 204 of 2018; and copy of the ruling arising from Tigania CMELC No. 204 of 2018. 5.Flowing from the foregoing, the applicants have posited that the subject suit is a disguised attempt to overturn the decision of the high court vide Meru HCC Succession Cause No. 194 of 2005 relating to the estate of Naftaly Thimangu; overturn the succession cause vide Tigani PM Succession number 65 of 2017; and review/set aside the ruling issued vide Tigania CMELC No. 204 of 2018. Simply put, the applicants have posited the subject suit constitutes and amounts to an abuse of the due process of the court. 6.The plaintiff/respondent has filed an elaborate replying affidavit and wherein the plaintiff/respondent had canvassed several issues. The issues are: the suit property was the subject of objection proceedings; the objection was Number 118; the objection touched on the suit plot; the objection was heard and determined; the land adjudication officer returned a decision in favour of the plaintiff; the decision of the land adjudication officer was not challenged; the Decision of the Land Adjudication remains in situ; the 4th respondent knew of the position of the objection; the transfer and registration of the suit property in the name of the 4th defendant was fraudulent; the plaintiff discovered the fraud in the year 2018; the plaintiff filed a suit vide Tigania CMELC NO. 204 of 2018; the suit at Tigania was struck out; nevertheless, the plaintiff posits that the suit property belongs to him ; and the court is seized of the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the subject suit. 7.Premised on the foregoing, the plaintiff has averred that the subject suit raises serious and pertinent issues, which can only be interrogated and investigated by the court during a plenary hearing. In particular, it has been posited that the issues beforehand cannot be dealt with in a summary manner and by way of striking out. 8.The subject application came up for hearing on the 13.05.2026, whereupon the advocates for the parties sought directions as pertains to the hearing and disposal of the application. Further and in addition, the advocates agreed to canvass the application by way of written submissions. 9.Flowing from the agreement by the parties, the court proceeded to and issued directions. The directions were: the Applicants shall file and serve written submissions within 7 days from the date of the directions; the respondents shall file and serve written submission within 7 days from the date of service; and the applicants shall be at liberty to file and serve rejoinder submissions [if any] within 7 days of service. 10.The Applicants filed written submissions dated the 08.06.2026 and wherein the applicantve has raised and canvassed four [4] key issues. The issues are: the suit property was the subject of two succession cause[s]; the subject suit is a disguised attempt to overturn the decisions issued vide the succession cause[s]; the court is devoid of jurisdiction to entertain the subject suit; and the suit constitutes an abuse of the due process of the court. 11.Premised on the foregoing, learned counsel for the applicants has invited the court to find and hold that the subject suit merits being struck out for being an abuse of the due process of the court. To this end, the applicants have implored the court to strike out the suit and to award costs to the applicants. 12.The plaintiff/respondent filed written submissions dated the 09.06.2026. The plaintiff/respondent has raised and canvassed four key issues. The issues are: the suit property was excluded/omitted from the succession cause of Naftely Thimangu [ deceased]; the suit property was irregularly captured and included cause for Gladys Kinanu [deceased]; the inclusion of the suit property in the estate of Gladys Kinanu [deceased] was undertaken secretly and without due transparency; and the issues raised in the suit can only be investigated vide a plenary hearing. 13.Thereafter learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent has cited and referenced various decisions speaking to the principles underpinning the striking out of suits. The decisions cited are: D. T Dobbie and Company Kenya Limited versus Muchina [1982] eKLR; Crescent Construction Company Limited versus Delphis Bank Limited Civil Appeal Number 146 of 2001; and Dinesh Kumar Zaverchand Jetha versus Guranty Trust Bank Kenya Limited [2026] eKLR; respectively. 14.Flowing from the foregoing, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent has invited the court to find and hold that the issues raised at the foot of the subject matter cannot be addressed and attended to by way of striking out. Moreover, counsel has posited that the jurisdiction of this court to strike out suit[s] ought to be exercised sparingly and with necessary caution. 15.Having reviewed the Notice of Motion Application [hereinafter referred to as the Application] dated the 07.05.2026; the supporting affidavit thereto; the replying affidavit in opposition thereto; and upon taking into account the written submissions filed by/on behalf of the respective parties, two key issues crystalize for consideration and determination. The issues are: Whether this court is seized of the requisite jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the subject suit; and whether the suit constitutes and abuse of the due process of the court or otherwise. 16.Regarding the first issue, it is imperative to outline that whenever parties approach the jurisdiction of a court, for purposes of determination of a dispute, it is incumbent upon the parties to ascertain that the issues being propagated/canvassed fall within the mandate/authority of the court in question. It is also important to underscore that the parties are also obliged to ascertain whether the reliefs sought can be granted the court approached or otherwise. 17.Suffice it to state, that jurisdiction, which denotes the authority of the court to engage with a dispute in question, is foundational and integral. To this end, it is trite and established that where a court is divested of jurisdiction, then the court in question must cease further engagement with the matter. 18.The significance of jurisdiction in entertaining/adjudicating upon disputes, has been the subject of a plethora of decisions. In the case of; In the Matter of the Interim Independent Electoral Commission (Applicant) [2011] KESC 1 (KLR), the Supreme Court [The Apex Court] addressed the question of jurisdiction and stated thus:29.Assumption of jurisdiction by Courts in Kenya is a subject regulated by the Constitution, by statute law, and by principles laid out in judicial precedent. The classic decision in this regard is the Court of Appeal decision in Owners of Motor Vessel ‘Lillian S’ v. Caltex Oil (Kenya) Limited [1989] KLR 1, which bears the following passage (Nyarangi, JA at p.14):“I think that it is reasonably plain that a question of jurisdiction ought to be raised at the earliest opportunity and the Court seized of the matter is then obliged to decide the issue right away on the material before it. Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a Court has no power to make one more step.”30.The Lillian ‘S’ case establishes that jurisdiction flows from the law, and the recipient-Court is to apply the same, with any limitations embodied therein. Such a Court may not arrogate to itself jurisdiction through the craft of interpretation, or by way of endeavours to discern or interpret the intentions of Parliament, where the wording of legislation is clear and there is no ambiguity. In the case of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and High Court, their respective jurisdictions are donated by the Constitution. 19.With the foregoing in mind, it is now apposite to return to the subject dispute and to discern whether this court is seized of the requisite jurisdiction. To start with, it is common ground that the suit property namely; Tigania/Uringu II/1023 was part of the succession cause vide Meru HCC Succession Number 194 of 2005. Instructively the suit property was dealt with at Clause [iv] on page 11 of the judgment delivered on the 17.12.2018. The judgment under reference was delivered by Hon. Justice F Gikonyo, Judge. 20.To the extent that the suit property was the subject of the said succession cause; and coupled with the fact that it was distributed vide succession cause, the distribution in question, which birthed ownership rights in favour of the designated beneficiaries, cannot be the subject of a separate and independent suit. Moreover, a party who knows of the existence of a succession cause, wherein the distribution was undertaken, cannot approach a separate and distinct court, in an endeavor to undo what was done in the succession cause. 21.Notwithstanding, the foregoing, the plaintiff/respondent herein knows that the suit property was duly dealt with and distributed vide Meru HCC Succession number 194 of 2005, but same has disingenuously approached this court and same is now contending [sic] that the distribution [transfer] of the suit property in favour of the 4th defendant was fraudulent. Technically, the plaintiff herein is seeking to invite this court to go behind the judgment of the High Court rendered vide the succession cause and to superintend the work of the Judge of the High Court. 22.To my mind, such an invitation is dangerous and if not averted, can culminate in to an absurdity. Suffice it to underscore that this court, which is a court of equal status with the High Court, cannot arrogate unto itself, or better still, be invited by a cunning party, like the Plaintiff herein, to arrogate unto itself jurisdiction to supervise; or superintend the work/decision of a Judge of the high court. 23.In the case of Kenya Hotel Properties Limited v Attorney General & 5 others [2022] eKLR, the Supreme Court [the Apex Court] highlighted the position in the following manner:As was thus rightly noted by the High Court and the Court of Appeal, the rule of thumb is that superior courts cannot grant orders to reopen or review decisions of their peers of equal and competent jurisdiction much less those court higher than themselves. Again, we take cognizance of our finding in the Samuel Kamau Macharia Case where we held that: “A Court jurisdiction flows from either the Constitution or legislation or both. Thus, a Court of law can only exercise jurisdiction as conferred by the constitution or other written law. It cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction exceeding that which is conferred upon it by law. We agree with counsel for the first and second respondents in his submission that the issue as to whether a Court of law has jurisdiction to entertain a matter before it, is not one mere procedural technicality; it goes to the very heart of the matter, for without jurisdiction, the Court cannot entertain any proceedings. This Court dealt with the question of jurisdiction extensively in, In the Matter of the Interim Independent Electoral Commission (Applicant), Constitutional Application Number 2 of 2011. Where the Constitution exhaustively provides for the jurisdiction of a Petition No.16 of 2020 -31- Court of law, the Court must operate within the constitutional limits. It cannot expand its jurisdiction through judicial craft or innovation.” (emphasis supplied) 24.Be that as it may, the plaintiff is before this honorable court and is seeking to upset; set aside; and vary the decision of the High Court, albeit through the backdoor. I wish to state that if the plaintiff herein was not happy with the distribution scheme that was deployed vide the succession cause, then it behooved the plaintiff to either file summons for revocation of the grant in terms of Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act, Chapter 160 Laws of Kenya; or better still, to mount an appeal to the court of appeal. Quite clearly, the plaintiff cannot seek to invalidate the distribution scheme through the current suit. 25.The other aspects that merits consideration touches on the succession cause that was filed at Tigania Law Courts. The succession cause was Tigania C M Succession Number 65 of 2017. The succession cause related to the estate of Gladys Kinanu [deceased]. It is important to point out that the suit property was equally the subject of the said succession cause. Moreover, the plaintiff herein is privy to and knowledgeable of the certificate of confirmation of grant which was issued by the said court; and the fact that the subject Suit Property, was actually distributed vide the Grant under reference. 26.Despite being aware of the said certificate of confirmation of grant and the distribution touching on and concerning the suit property; the plaintiff has neither challenged the said grant or at all. The plaintiff is content with the obtaining status quo. Furthermore, the plaintiff is happy to propagate the position that the said succession cause was undertaken secretly; hurriedly and illegally. 27.Nevertheless, there is no gainsaying that the certificate of confirmation of grant which was issued vide Tigania Succession Cause number 65 of 2017, cannot be upset/varied by approaching this court. Similarly, the said certificate of confirmation of grant can not also be upset by mere utterances; assertions; and wild surmises. 28.Simply put, the subject suit is equally geared; and disguised to inviting this court to set aside, vary or better still, revoke the certificate of confirmation of grant which was issued by the magistrate’s court. I am alive to the fact that such a grant can only be appealed against to the high court by dint of Section 50 of the Law of Succession Act, Chapter 160 laws of Kenya. For the avoidance of doubt, such a grant can not be invalidated by filing a civil suit and impleading fraud and illegality. 29.The final aspect that merit consideration touches on the ruling that was delivered by the lower court in respect of Tigani CMELC NO. 204 of 2018. It is important to point out that the plaintiff herein had previously filed a suit before the lower court and wherein same raised and canvassed the same issues that underpin the subject matter. 30.Upon filing the said suit, namely; Tigania CMCELC No. 204 of 2018, an application for striking out of the suit was mounted on behalf of inter alia; the 4th defendant herein. In addition, it is common ground that the said application was heard and determined vide ruling rendered on the 15.07.2025. For the avoidance of doubt, the learned trial magistrate found and held that the plaintiff herein was merely seeking to circumvent the certificate of confirmation; and the judgment of the high court rendered vide Meru HCC Number 194 of 2005. 31.Furthermore, it is apparent that the learned trial magistrate also appreciated that the suit property had been the subject of the succession cause, namely; Tigania CM Succession Number 65 of 2017. Informed by the fact that the suit property was the subject of two previous succession causes, the learned trial magistrate returned a finding that same was divested of jurisdiction to entertain the suit before him. 32.Moreover, the learned trial magistrate also held that the suit which had been filed the plaintiff and which suit replicates/resembles the subject suit, constituted an invitation to the lower court to upset the decision of the superior court. The learned trial magistrate posited that same did not have jurisdiction. 33.Be that as it may, the plaintiff herein is alive to and aware of the ruling of the learned trial magistrate. Nevertheless, and without having filed an appeal, the plaintiff has hatched a plot to re-agitate the same matter [ cause of action ] before this court. 34.Quite clearly, the plaintiff is seeking to set aside the ruling of the learned trial magistrate through the back door, knowing very well that no appeal was filed against the said ruling. 35.In my humble view, the intention of the plaintiff in filing the subject suit is to invite the court to set aside the distribution scheme vide Meru HCC Succession number 194 of 2005; the distribution scheme in Tigania CM Succession number 65 of 2017; and to vary the ruling of the learned trial magistrate rendered on the 15.07.2025 vide Tigania CMC ELC NO. 204 of 2018. 36.The disguised invitation, if acceded to, will culminate into an absurdity. In any event, there is no gainsaying that this court has not been given any mandate/authority to superintend the work of the high court or better still to set aside a ruling of a court of competent jurisdiction, in the absence of an appeal. 37.Flowing from the foregoing, and taking into account the apt and succinct holding in the case of S K Macharia Versus Kenya Commercial Bank Limited [2012] eKLR, I find and hold that this court is divested of the requisite jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute beforehand. 38.It bears repeating that without jurisdiction, a court of law ought to down its tools. Moreover, it is settled that where a court entertains proceedings and renders a judgment, in a matter where the court was divested of jurisdiction, the proceedings and the consequential judgment, [if any] become nullities. 39.The foregoing position was succinctly elucidated in the case of Phoenix of E.A. Assurance Company Limited v S. M. Thiga t/a Newspaper Service [2019] KECA 767 (KLR). The Court of Appeal stated as hereunder:2.In common English parlance, ‘Jurisdiction’ denotes the authority or power to hear and determine judicial disputes, or to even take cognizance of the same. This definition clearly shows that before a court can be seized of a matter, it must satisfy itself that it has authority to hear it and make a determination. If a court therefore proceeds to hear a dispute without jurisdiction, then the result will be a nullity ab initio and any determination made by such court will be amenable to being set aside ex debito justitiae. It is for this reason that this Court has to deal with this appeal first as the result directly impacts Civil Appeal No.6 of 2018 which is related to this one. We shall advert to this issue later. In the meantime, it is important to put this appeal in context. 40.I now wish to turn to the second issue. The issue touches on and concerns whether the subject suit constitute[s] an abuse of the due process of the court or otherwise. 41.I have pointed out elsewhere herein before that the plaintiff is privy to the information that the suit property was indeed captured and highlighted in the judgment of the High Court. The authenticity of the said judgment has not been impugned. Nevertheless, the plaintiff wants to hide his head under the sand, like the proverbial Ostrich; and to pretend that the suit property was never the subject of the succession cause. I wish to point out that the averments of the plaintiff to that effect and the submissions by his counsel, are tantamount to committing perjury. 42.I am not prepared to countenance a scenario where a party and his counsel, are keen to distort facts; misrepresent issues; and canvass half-truths before a court of law. Quite clearly, such a situation must be frowned upon by all and sundry. In any event, such kind of conduct is antithetical to the obligation placed upon the shoulders of the litigants and their counsel by the provisions of Section 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, Chapter 21 Laws of Kenya. 43.Additionally, the plaintiff and her counsel are also aware that the same issues herein were raised and canvassed before the chief magistrate’s court at Tigania. The dispute before the Tigania court [which is on all fours with the subject matter] was struck out on account of want of jurisdiction. The ruling under reference, which was delivered on the 15.07.2025 was never appealed against. 44.However, the plaintiff and counsel are back before this court raising and canvassing the same cause of action. Surely, the plaintiff needs to be told and I hereby do, that same can only have one bite on the cherry. The plaintiff cannot keep shuttling between various courts, on the hope that same may one day find a favourable decision. 45.I hasten to state that where a party is not invoking the jurisdiction of the court in an endeavor to canvass a genuine cause, such a party is guilty of abusing the due process of the court. It is time that the plaintiff be told that the court process can only be invoked in pursuit of genuine grievances and not for purposes of propagating ulterior motives. 46.Where the court process is being abused, like in the instant case, the court needs to put its foot down and to protect its jurisdiction. In the event that the court does not do so, parties like the plaintiff herein, will no doubt return merely to misuse the machinery of the court. Such parties must be stopped on their track. Notably, the judiciary time is the only asset that the Judiciary posses and hence same must be utilized appropriately; expediently; and proportionately. 47.Before concluding on this issue, it is apposite to take cognizance of the holding in the case of Satya Bhama Gandhi v Director of Public Prosecutions & 3 others [2018] KEHC 6100 (KLR)where the court [per Mativo J- as he then was] stated thus:28.Multiplicity of actions on the same matter between the same parties even where there exist a right to bring the action is regarded as an abuse.[18] The abuse lies in the multiplicity and manner of the exercise of the right rather than exercise of right per se. The abuse consists in the intention, purpose and aim of person exercising the right, to harass, irritate, and annoy the adversary and interface with the administration of justice.[19]I find no difficulty in concluding that this Judicial Review Application is based on similar grounds as the Petition referred to above.29.This obstacle to the efficient administration of justice is not immovable. Courts need not and should not wait for lawyers and litigants to initiate proceedings where there is substantial reason to believe that the processes of the court have been abused. Tampering with the administration of justice in the manner indisputably shown here involves far more than an injury to a single litigant. It is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public, institutions in which such abuse cannot complacently be tolerated consistently with the good order of society. Surely it cannot be that preservation of the integrity of the judicial process must always wait upon the diligence of litigants. The public welfare demands that the agencies of public justice be not so impotent that they must always be mute and helpless victims of deception, fraud and blatant abuse of judicial processes.30.All courts have an inherent or implied jurisdiction to prevent their processes from being used as an instrument of oppression. Courts are able to modify their procedures to avoid such prejudice and take any steps that are necessary to prevent an abuse of process.[20]The concept of abuse of process extends to the use of the court’s processes in a way that is inconsistent with two fundamental requirements arising in Court proceedings. These are, first, that the Court protect its ability to function as a Court of law by ensuring that its processes are used fairly by State and citizen alike. The second is that unless the Court protects its ability to function in that way, its failure will lead to an erosion of public confidence. The court’s processes will be seen as lending themselves to oppression and injustice.[21]31.The concept of abuse of process overlaps with the obligation of a Court to provide a fair trial. The content of these obligations cannot, however, be stated exhaustively or analytically. These obligations rely on intuitive judgments formed by experience.[22]The obligation on a court is to provide a fair trial in accordance with law. The due administration of justice is a continuous process. Courts must be vigilant to ensure that public confidence in the administration of justice is maintained.[23] 48.The conduct of the plaintiff in respect of the subject matter fits within the four corners of the parameters highlighted in the decision [supra]. Such conduct amounts to and constitute[s] abuse of the court process. Moreover, such conduct contributes to unnecessary backlog that bedevils the judiciary; and militates against the realization of the aspiration vide Article 159 [2] [b] of the Constitution, 2010. Conclusion 49.The Applicants herein have sought to strike out the plaintiff’s suit. The applicants have raised and canvasses a plethora of issues. Pertinently, one of the issues raised touches on and concerns the jurisdiction of the court. It is trite that where a jurisdictional question is raised, then the court is beholden to interrogate same in Limine. 50.I am also aware that the jurisdiction of this court to strike out pleadings must be exercised sparingly and with necessary circumspection. However, where the facts are clear and the law is settled, then a court of law ought not to postpone the day of reckoning. Such postponement, if at all, shall be contrary to public policy and the overriding objectives of the court. 51.In respect of the instant matter, the plaintiff’s suit is clearly hopeless and irredeemably bad in law. The same cannot be cured by any amendment. Simply put, the plaintiff’s suit, was dead before arrival. Final orders: 52.Flowing from the foregoing analysis, it must have become apparent that the subject application is well grounded and meritorious. In the premises, the final orders that commend themselves to the court are:i.The Application dated 07.05.2026 be and is hereby allowed.ii.The suit vide plaint dated the 25.11.2025 be and is hereby struck out.iii.Costs of the application be and are hereby awarded to the applicants.iv.Costs of the suit be and are hereby awarded to the defendants.v.Costs in terms of clause [iii] and [iv] shall be agreed upon and in default be taxed in the conventional manner. 53.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 11TH DAY OF JUNE,2026OGUTTU MBOYA, FCIArb;CPM [MTI-EA]JUDGEIn the presence of-:Court Assistant: ZakayoMs. Gikundi for the Plaintiff/Respondent.Mr. Mwarania for the 4th – 23rd Defendants/Applicants.Ms. Miranda Senior Litigation Counsel for the 1st , 2nd and 3rd Defendants.