https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3844

Oketch & another (Legal representatives of the Estate of the Late Oketch Otuoma) v Odera & 9 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E027 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3844 (KLR) (23 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3844 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Siaya Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E027 of 2025 AE Dena, J June 23, 2026 Between Christopher Otieno Oketch 1st Plaintiff Fredrick Omondi Oketch 2nd Plaintiff Legal representatives of the Estate of the Late Oketch Otuoma and Japheth Otieno Odera 1st Defendant William Ochieng Oyoko 2nd Defendant Juma Nyateko 3rd Defendant Siaya Land Registrar 4th Defendant The Hon. Attorney General 5th Defendant Vitalis Onyango Aginga 6th Defendant Leonard Orwa Orinda 7th Defendant Jacktone Odhiambo Aginga 8th Defendant James Atweng'A Odingi 9th Defendant Andrew Maxwel Opondo 10th Defendant Ruling 1.The subject of this Ruling is the Notice of Motion dated 13th October 2025 wherein the 1st 2nd & 3 defendants/applicants seek the following orders; 1.THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to strike out the Plaintiffs'suit for being frivolous, vexatious and otherwise an abuse of the court process; 2.Costs of this Application be provided for; and 3.Any other remedy and/or orders that the court deems fit and just in the circumstances. 2The application is premised on the following grounds;a.The matters pleaded herein were directly and/or substantially in issue in a previous determined suit.b.The Civil Procedure Rules and Courts require that parties to litigation do bring forward their whole case and will not permit the same parties to open the same subject to litigation in respect of a matter which might have been brought forward, only because they have, from negligence, inadvertence, or even accident, omitted part of their case.c.The points raised herein are points which properly belong to the subject of the previous litigation and which the parties exercising reasonable diligence, brought forward at the time.d.The parties herein were the same or litigating under the same title as in the previous suit.e.The previous matter was heard by a competent court of similar jurisdiction;f.The previous matter was heard on merits.g.A final judgment and decree were issued in the matter.h.Entertaining the current suit would be contrary to the doctrine of res judicata. Entertaining the current suit will clog the court besides occasioning unnecessary costs to the parties.i.As a matter of public policy, litigation has to come to an end.j.In the premises, institution of the current suit is improper, intended to irritate and annoy the Defendant/Applicants.k.The suit is res judicata and otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.l.In the premises, this Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a suit that is res judicata.m.The claim herein is unarguable and cannot succeed and it is in the circumstances a clear case for striking out.n.This Honourable Court has a duty to maintain integrity of administration of justice and ensure justice is not only done but seen to be done.o.This Honourable Court is further enjoined by the Constitution and the overring objective in ensuring efficient use of available judicial and administrative resources and hence strike out this suit in limina. 3.In addition to the above grounds the application is supported by the affidavit of Juma Nyateko sworn on 13/10/2025. It is deponed that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondent/Applicants herein on or about 30th December 2020 filed a Judicial Review Application in ELC No. 6 of 2021 seeking judgment against the Respondents and Interested party for:a.An order of certiorari removing to the High Court for purposes of being quashed and quashing the 1st Respondents decision published at page 3774 of Kenya Gazette No. 7482 of 25/09/2020 [“the impugned decision”] unilaterally and arbitrarily purporting to cancel the Applicants’ title deeds of pieces of land known as Siaya/Nyajuok/2686, 2634 and 2481; Siaya/Nyajuok/2685 and Siaya/Nyajuok/2388.b.An order of prohibition precluding the Respondents and any of their respective officers, commissioners, servants, agents and/or employees from alienating, revoking the title to, making any recommendation for the cancellation of the title or taking any step or action with regard to the Applicants’ title deeds of pieces of land known as Siaya/Nyajuok/2686, 2634 and 2481; Siaya/Nyajuok/2685 and Siaya/Nyajuok/2388.c.An order of mandamus compelling the 1st Respondent to restore the cancelled titles of pieces of land known as Siaya/Nyajuok/2686, 2634 and 2481; Siaya/Nyajuok/2685 and Siaya/Nyajuok/2388.d.The costs of and incidental to these proceedings be borne by the 1st Respondent; ande.Any such other, further, or incidental orders or directions as the Honourable court may deem just and expedient in the circumstances. 4It is deponed that judgement was delivered in the above proceedings on merit where the court issued the following - an order of certiorari is hereby issued calling into this Court the decision of the 1st Respondent Gazetted on 25/09/2020 cancelling the ex parte Applicants title deeds numbers Siaya/Nyajuok/2686, 2634, 2481, Siaya/Nyajuok/2685 and Siaya/Nyajuok/2388 for the purposes of being quashed and the same are hereby quashed. An order of mandamus was also issued compelling the restoration of the cancelled title deeds. 5That subsequently and separately to the foregoing, the Plaintiffs on or around 8th July 2025, filed Siaya ELC Civil No. E027 of 2025 seeking judgment against the Defendants for:a.A declaration that the fraudulent subdivision and transfer of parcels originated from Siaya/Nyajuok/153 to the 1st and 2nd Defendants and subsequent transfers to third parties were illegal, null and void.b.An order directing the 4th Defendant, Registrar of Land, to cancel all resultant titles, including Siaya/Nyajuok/2686, 2634, 2481, 2685, 2440, 2438, 2389 and 2388 and restoring Siaya/Nyajuok/153 to the estate of the original registered owners/or status quo be maintained as per latest official search dated 13th March, 2025.c.An order directing the 1st and 3rd Defendants or any other parties to vacate any portion of the suit property they are illegally occupying.d.The demolition of structures/buildings erected by the Defendants on the suit property.e.A permanent injunction restraining the Defendants jointly or severally, their agents, servants, or any other person acting on their behalf from interfering with the suit property.f.The OCS Siaya Police Station be directed to ensure the enforcement of the orders granted by this Honourable Court.g.General damages for fraud and trespassh.Cost of this suit 6The deponent avers that all the above prayers were substantially litigated in the former suit and which ought to have been pleaded in the Judicial Review Application and thus the plaintiff is barred from pleading them in the present suit. 7The suit is termed as frivolous, vexatious and otherwise an abuse of the process of Court and it offends the mandatory provisions of Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act and should thus be struck out. Replying Affidavit 8The application is opposed by the replying affidavit sworn by the defendant Christopher Otieno Oketch as legal representative of the Estate of the late Oketch Otuoma, the original co-proprietor of land parcel Siaya/Nyajuok/153, from which the disputed titles allegedly originated. 9The respondent avers that the application is misconceived and founded on a gross misrepresentation of the doctrine of res judicata and a deliberate concealment of the fraudulent and clandestine manner in which the Applicants procured the judgment in Siaya ELC Judicial Review Application No. 6 of 2021 upon which they wholly rely. 10It is deponed that the Applicants have, in bad faith, presented the Judicial Review judgment as a conclusive and fairly obtained determination of rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. The facts leading to that judgment reveal a pattern of deliberate exclusion and procedural chicanery designed to secure orders in a vacuum, without the knowledge of the true interested parties. 11That the Applicants' pattern of concealing material facts from this Honourable Court is further and glaringly evidenced within their own application. A careful perusal of the Chamber Summons and other JR pleadings annexed by the Applicants as "JN-1" conspicuously do not disclose Maurice Onyango Okech as a party. However, the Judgment they annex as "JN-2" and the subsequent Order/Decree clearly list Maurice Onyango Okech as the Interested Party. 12That the above discrepancy is not a mere oversight but a deliberate attempt to mislead this Court into believing the JR was a straightforward bilateral dispute, thereby concealing the fact that a person representing the Estate's interests was nominally on record, yet was strategically kept in the dark through the clandestine filing in Siaya. Furthermore, the Judgment annexed as "JN-2" is critically incomplete, with several pages missing, which is a tactic to conceal the full context and reasoning of the court, particularly any references to the Interested Party's position in the interest of full and candid disclosure, which the Applicants have failed to provide. Annexed is a copy of the complete judgement. 13It is averred that initially, the Applicants filed a Judicial Review application in Kisumu Law Courts as Kisumu Misc ELC JR No. E004 of 2020, which came to the attention of the deponents’ brother Maurice Onyango Okech, a beneficiary of the Estate of the late Oketch Otuoma and a person with a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter. Upon becoming aware, Mr. Oketch took steps to inquire about the case and intended to enter appearance to protect the Estate's interests. Annexed are JR pleadings intended to be filed in Kisumu law Court. 14That, upon realizing that their application was no longer proceeding in secret, the Applicants abruptly and without notice abandoned the Kisumu Misc ELC JR No. E004 of 2020 and subsequently, in a clandestine maneuver, filed a fresh and identical application in Siaya ELC JR No. 6 of 2021. This act of forum-shopping was calculated to file the matter in a jurisdiction where they believed the Estate's representatives would not discover it, thereby ensuring an unopposed hearing. 15That the aforementioned strategy of the Applicants proved successful. The Judicial Review proceedings in Siaya ELC JR No. 6 of 2021 were conducted on an ex-parte basis, effectively excluding the named Interested Party, Maurice Onyango Oketch, and by extension, all representatives of the Estate of the late Oketch Otuoma, from any participation. The deponent was systematically denied notice and the opportunity to be heard. Consequently, any deponement by the Applicants that the matter was "properly prosecuted" is a technicality born of their own design, having orchestrated a procedural artifice to ensure the Court heard no contrary evidence or submissions. 16It is averred that the existence and outcome of the Siaya JR proceedings only came to the deponent’s knowledge significantly later, when the 3rd Applicant, Juma Nyateko, annexed the judgment in his submissions in the unrelated CMC ELC Case No. 142 of 2018 (Juma Nyateko vs. Fredrick Omondi Oketch). This latter case is now the subject of Siaya ELC Appeal No. E013 of 2025, and an application for its consolidation with the present suit is currently pending before this Honourable Court. It is averred that this sequence of events conclusively demonstrates a pattern of material non-disclosure and a deliberate attempt to secure adjudication in the absence of the truly interested parties. The submissions in 142 of 2018 annexing Siaya ELC JR No. 6 of 2021 are attached. 17Further that, the contents of the Replying Affidavits and Skeleton submissions purported to have been filed by the deponent’s brother Maurice Onyango Oketch in the said JR proceedings, which were presented to the court as legitimate, are vehemently disputed. Maurice Onyango Oketch has since reported this matter to the Ting'wang'i Police station through OB. No. 4/20/5/2025, specifically regarding the purported filings and responses, for investigation into the offense of giving false information to a Judicial officer (Judge) and forgery, believing them to be fabrications designed to mislead the court. A copy of the official police OB Number is annexed. 18The deponent also addresses the court on the doctrine of res judicata under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21, and the conditions to be met as propounded in the case of John Florence Maritime Services Limited & another v Cabinet Secretary Transport & Infrastructure & 3 others (Petition 17 of 2015) KESC 39 (KLR) (Civ) (6 August 2021) (Judgment): 19That regarding Identity of Parties: The parties in the two suits are fundamentally different. The JR was a dispute between the Applicants, a state officer (the Land Registrar) and the deponents brother Maurice Onyango Oketch (though he was not aware of the proceedings). The Estate of Oketch Otoman was not a party. That the deponents are now suing in their capacity as legal representatives of that Estate. That the doctrine of res judicata cannot be invoked against a person who was not a party to the previous litigation. Reference is made to the case of Uhuru Highway Development Limited v Central Bank of Kenya & 2 others KECA 182 (KLR), 20Regarding the Cause of Action and Issues in Dispute: it is asserted that the cause of action in the JR was rooted in public law, specifically a challenge to the procedural fairness and legality of an administrative action under the Fair Administrative Action Act. That the cause of action in the present suit is rooted in private law, centering on fraud, trespass, and the validity of title under the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012. The two are distinct. The JR court was only concerned with how the Registrar made the decision, not with whether the Applicants' titles were obtained fraudulently from the deponent’s ancestral land. 21It is deponed that the above distinction is illustrated by the judgment (JN-2) where at page 13-14 paragraph 23, it is explicitly stated: "The court in judicial review applications does not determine ownership of a disputed property and this court will leave the parties to ventilate the merits of the dispute in ordinary civil suits." This statement is a clear and unequivocal invitation and preservation of the very right we are now exercising. That the Applicants' attempt to use the judgment as a shield is a blatant misreading of its scope and intent. 22It is urged that the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court is donated by Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2011, which grants it the mandate to hear and determine disputes relating to "the ownership, title to, and interests in land." That the present suit falls squarely within that jurisdiction, and it would be a derogation of this Court's primary function to strike out the suit based on a preliminary and inapplicable technicality. 23It is further deponed that the suit is not an abuse of process as the Plaint herein raises serious, arguable, and complex questions of fact and law, primarily revolving around allegations of fraud in the subdivision and transfer of the original parcel Siaya/Nyajuok/153. Fraud is a notoriously difficult issue to prove and requires a full trial where witnesses can be cross-examined and documents subjected to forensic scrutiny. That the principles for striking out a pleading, as set out in Order 2 Rule 15 and reiterated in cases like D.T. Dobie & Company (Kenya) Limited v Joseph Mb aria Muchina & another KECA 3[1980] (KLR), are that a court should not strike out a suit unless it is so hopeless that it discloses no reasonable cause of action. 24That far from being an abuse of the court process, filing this suit is the only avenue available to the respondents challenge the root of the Applicants' title, an issue the JR court expressly declined to determine. The true abuse of process lies in the Applicants' conduct: using a judgment obtained through a secretive and exclusionary process to stifle a legitimate claim on the merits. 25The court is urged to in the interests of justice dismiss the application and the suit be allowed to proceed to a full hearing and or grant any other or further relief it deems just and fit. Appeal No. E013 OF 2025 26I will briefly introduce Appeal No. E013 of 2025 pitting Fredrick Omondi Oketch since it has been referred to in the replying affidavit to the application dated 13/10/2025. It has been averred that there is a pending application to consolidate the said appeal with the present suit. However, I issued directions that the same is placed in abeyance as it would be more prudent to determine the present application for the simple reason that if the application succeeds then the application for consolidation will be rendered unnecessary. Analysis And Determination Of Application Dated 13/10/2025 27Is the application dated 13/10/2025 merited? The application is brought under the provisions of Order 2 Rule 15 (1)(d) of the Civil Procedure Rules, Section 1A, 1B, 3A, 7 and 63(f) of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21 Laws of Kenya. 28The provisions of Order 2 Rule 15 (1)(d) readStriking out pleadings [Order 2, rule 15.] (1)At any stage of the proceedings the court may order to be struck out or amended any pleading on the ground that— (a)it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence in law; or(b)it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or(c)it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action; or(d)it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court, and may order the suit to be stayed or dismissed or judgment to be entered accordingly, as the case may be. 29Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act provides as follows; -No court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such court” 30The Black’s law Dictionary 10th Edition defines “res judicata” asAn issue that has been definitely settled by judicial decision…the three essentials are (1) an earlier decision on the issue, (2) a final Judgment on the merits and (3) the involvement of same parties, or parties in privity with the original parties…” 31The principle of res judicata has also been a subject of myriad judicial pronouncements and I will pick only two. 32The threshold to be met for a suit to be termed as being res judicata was enunciated by the Court of Appeal in the case of The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission v Maina Kiai & 5 others, [2017] eKLR), and which spells out the factors to be considered as follows;For the bar of res judicata to be effectively raised and upheld on account of a former suit, the following elements must be satisfied, as they are rendered not in disjunctive but conjunctive terms;a)The suit or issue was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit.b)That former suit was between the same parties or parties under whom they or any of them claim.c)Those parties were litigating under the same title.d)The issue was heard and finally determined in the former suit.e)The court that formerly heard and determined the issue was competent to try the subsequent suit or the suit in which the issue is raised. 33In the case of John Florence Maritime Services Limited & Another vs Cabinet Secretary for Transport and Infrastructure & 3 Others [2015] eKLR the essence of the doctrine of res judicata was expounded as follows:The rationale behind res-judicata is based on the public interest that there should be an end to litigation coupled with the interest to protect a party from facing repetitive litigation over the same matter. Res-judicata ensures the economic use of court’s limited resources and timely termination of cases. Courts are already clogged and overwhelmed. They can hardly spare time to repeat themselves on issues already decided upon. It promotes stability of judgments by reducing the possibility of inconsistency in judgments of concurrent courts. It promotes confidence in the courts and predictability which is one of the essential ingredients in maintaining respect for justice and the rule of law. Without res judicata, the very essence of the rule of law would be in danger of unraveling uncontrollably.” 34The former suit has been identified as Judicial Review Application No. 6 of 2021. A copy of the judgement is annexed as JN2. Applying the criteria set out in the law and judicial precedent above I will scrutinize the present suit and the former suit. 35I note that the copy of the judgement JN2 above is incomplete as correctly pointed out by the respondents but I decline to read any ill motive in the same. A copy of the judgement has also been supplied in the replying affidavit of the respondents as COO1. I have read the judgement in the former suit. I will also point out that for an applicant to succeed on the bar of res judicata all the requirements set out must be met. 36I will first handle the subject of the disputes. I think from the pleadings both in the former suit and the present suit there is no contestation about the subject matter in dispute being the same except maybe the issues which I will discuss later. The former suit revolved around the titles Siaya/Nyajuok/2686, 2634 and 2481; Siaya/Nyajuok/2685 and Siaya/Nyajuok/2388. The same titles are the subject of the present suit and are subdivisions of Siaya/ Nyanjuok/153. In this respect therefore both the former and present suit are on the same subject. 37As already noted the former suit was commenced by way of Judicial Review by Juma Nyateko, William Ochieng Oyoko and Japhet Otieno Odera as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd applicants respectively. The Respondents were named as The Land Registrar Siaya District, The Attorney General and Maurice Onyango Oketch as 1st, 2nd Respondents and Interested Party respectively. 38The present suit is commenced by way of plaint by Christopher Otieno Oketch and Fredrick Omondi Oketch suing as Legal Representatives of the Estate of the Late Oketch Ottoman. They have sued 10 defendants. I note that the 1st – 3rd defendants in the present suit are Juma Nyateko, William Ochieng Oyoko and Japhet Otieno Odera. They are the Applicants in the former suit. The Siaya Land Registrar and the Attorney General are the 4th and 5th Defendants in the present suit and were also sued in the former suit. 39The rest of the five defendants (that is 6th – 10th Defendants) do not feature in the former suit. They are described at paragraph 5 of the plaint as the purported purchasers of some of the subdivisions of Siaya/ Nyanjuok/153 as pleaded in paragraphs 11 -13 of the plaint. 40The plaintiffs in the present suit prima facie do not feature in the former suit. I must therefore further interrogate the capacity under which they bring this suit and which is as legal representatives of the estate of the late Oketch Otuoma. The said Oketch Otuoma is alleged to be a registered co-owner of Siaya/ Nyanjuok/153 the mother title that gave rise to the subdivisions. 41My perusal of the judgement in the JR shows that Maurice Onyango Oketch was sued as Interested Party and based on the applicant’s deposition in the present suit is alleged to be a beneficiary of the said late Oketch Otuoma and was meant to represent his estate. At paragraph 4 of the judgement the Interested Party is recorded as having filed a replying affidavit dated 13/01/2021 deponing that he is a beneficiary of the estate of Oketch Otuoma. The suit proceeded on affidavit evidence and it cannot therefore be said that Interested Party did not participate. He participated and he is now the 2nd applicant in the present application. I will not venture into the allegations of non-service or attempts to obtain orders exparte as these would be best considered in an application to set aside the judgement which is a matter not before this court. 42But having made the above observations what is clear is that the parties in the former suit and the present suit are not the same by dint of the introduction of the alleged purchasers of some of the subdivisions in the present suit that is the 6-10th defendants. Based on the failure of this criteria alone the bar of res judicata would not be applicable. 43But of fundamental importance is the issues and whether they were considered on merit and with finality. The gist of the former suit brought by way of JR proceedings was to bring to the court for quashing the decision of the Siaya Land Registrar which cancelled the subdivisions herein for infringing the applicants’ fundamental rights and freedoms under articles 40,47,48 and 50(1) of the Constitution and sections 24,25,26,79 and 80 of the Land Registration Act. Further for being ultra vires, breaching the rules of natural justice among other violations. Allegations of fraud were also raised in the manner the subdivisions were undertaken. 44It is important to note that in the present case the applicants seek orders declaring the same subdivisions illegal, null and void having been undertaken fraudulently, cancellation of the titles thereto and reversion of the same to the mother title Siaya/Nyajuok/153. Orders of vacant possession are also sought. 45I will first observe that in the judgement the court did not delve into a determination of the allegations of fraud in the JR leaving the same to the forum of a substantive suit. Indeed, the plaintiffs depone that they took the cue and filed the present proceedings. Effectively the allegations of fraud were never interrogated, no substantive finding was made and were thus never decided on merit. The court only considered the decision-making process in terms of how the Land Registrar arrived at the decision and whether he had the powers to make the decision cancelling the titles. Consequently, the bar of res judicata cannot apply. 46I think I have said enough as to why the present suit is not res judicata the Judicial Review suit. The application must fail on this limb. 47Having arrived at the above finding I will now consider whether the suit should be struck out. I have already set out the basis upon which a court may be invited to strike out a suit. First it goes without say that a finding of res judicata would merit the striking out of a suit. Most of the grounds raised in support of the application leaned towards the bar of res judicata and I would state the prayer to strike out the suit was dependent upon the successful prosecution of the bar of res judicata whose threshold the applicant has failed to satisfy. 48However, it has been urged that the claim herein is unarguable, cannot succeed and it is in the circumstances a clear case for striking out. Further that the court must ensure efficient use of available judicial and administrative resources and hence strike out this suit in limine. 49Should the plaint be struck out as proposed? My answer is an emphatic no. The Court of Appeal in the case of Blue Shield Insurance Company Ltd vs. Joseph Mboya Oguttu [2009] eKLR and whose findings I concur with established that striking out of pleadings is a drastic remedy that should only be resorted to where a pleading is a complete sham. Similarly, in the case of Crescent Construction Co. Ltd Vs Delphis Bank Ltd (2007) eKLR the same court stated thus: -However, one thing remains clear, and that is that the power to strike out a pleading is a discretionary one. It is to be exercised with the greatest care and caution. This comes from the realization that the rules of natural justice require that the court must not drive away any litigant however weak his case may be from the seat of justice. This is a time-honoured legal principle. 50In the case of D.T. Dobie & Company (Kenya) Limited v Joseph Mbaria Muchina & Another[1980] eKLR had this to say; -The court ought to act very cautiously and carefully and consider all facts of the case without embarking upon a trial thereof, before dismissing a case for not disclosing a reasonable cause of action or being otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. At this stage the court ought not to deal with any merits of the case for that 'is a function solely reserved for the judge at the trial as the court itself is not usually fully informed so as to deal with the merits "without discovery, without oral evidence tested by cross-examination in the ordinary way". (Sellers, L.J. (supra)).……A court of justice should aim at sustaining a suit rather than terminating it by summary dismissal. 51This court has already noted the judicial review matter was not heard on merits, no witnesses were tested, the purported buyers of some of subdivisions impleaded as defendants in the present suit also have a right to be heard on any titles they hold and the root thereof. Moreover, allegations of fraud have been led and courts have always treated allegations of fraud as serious matters. Clearly the suit raises triable issues and which must be interrogated for the court to put the matters to rest. 52The upshot of the foregoing therefore is that the Notice of Motion dated 13th October 2025 is not merited. It is accordingly dismissed with costs only to the respondents who responded to the application.Orders accordingly. DELIVERED AND DATED THIS 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2026HON. LADY JUSTICE A.E. DENAJUDGE23/6/2026RULING DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS VIDEO CONFERENCING PLATFORM IN THE PRESENCE OF:Ms. Musyoki for the Plaintiff RespondentMr. Awiti for the 1st 2nd & 3rd Defendants/ ApplicantsMs. Odhiambo H/B for Ms Essendi for the 4th & 5th defendantsNo appearance for the rest of the Defendants