[2025] KEELC 3790 (KLR)

Selian Holdings Company Limited & 2 others v Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture & Technology (JKUAT) (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 720 of 2013) [2025] KEELC 3790 (KLR) (18 March 2025) (Judgment)

Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 3790 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi

Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 720 of 2013

EM Washe, J

March 18, 2025

Between

Selian Holdings Company Limited

1st Plaintiff

Francis Njenga Mburu

2nd Plaintiff

Patrick Gathitho Waithaka

3rd Plaintiff

and

Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture & Technology (JKUAT)

Defendant

Judgment

1. The Plaintiffs through the Amended Plaint dated 27th January, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “the present suit”) sought the following Orders against the Defendant herein; -a.A declaration that the defendant has wrongfully, illegally and/or unlawfully converted, alienated, fenced off and built a permanent stone barrier/ boundary wall along the tarmacked 35. 56-meter-wide public access road from its main campus gate in Juja, Thika County to Thika Super Highway Road junction and thereby unlawfully converted the same to its own private use and committed an act of obstruction and private nuisance against the plaintiffs;b.A mandatory injunction to compel the defendant by itself, its agents/servants/employees to pull down, demolish, uproot or otherwise remove at its costs the stone boundary walls or other fencing/ barrier unlawfully erected and being on the public access road from the defendant’s main campus gate in Juja to the Thika Road Junction;c.General and Exemplary damages for conversion of property, obstruction, loss of business and private nuisance;d.Mesne profits effective from September 2012 until the date of removal of the unlawfully constructed perimeter boundary wall;e.Costs and interests.

2. The facts in support of the prayers sought in the present suit are as follows; -a.The 1st Plaintiff is the registered owner of a property known as Exhibit LR.No.21096/87 and Exhibit LR.No.21096/88. b.The 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs own the property known as Exhibit LR.No.21096/59. c.Lastly, the 3rd Plaintiff is the registered owner of the properties known as Exhibit LR.No.21096/185,174,132,133,89,90 and 91. d.The Defendant on the other hand is the registered owner of a property known as LR.No.13094 measuring approximately 200 Hectares within Thika County and operates a Higher Education Institution therein.e.The Plaintiffs pleaded that there is a 35. 56-Meter-wide road between their properties and the Defendant’s property through an access road at the Defendant’s main gate.f.According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant herein without regard to the Plaintiffs rights to access the 35. 56-Meter-wide road embarked on an exercise to construct a boundary wall around their property which exercise was communicated through the Newspaper Advertisement on the Daily Newspaper on 13. 09. 2012 titled “Proposed JKUAT Boundary Wall”.g.The Plaintiffs on notification of the above-mentioned project by the Defendant objected to the same on the basis that the proposed Boundary Wall and/or the improvement works therein would result to a blockage of the access road to the Plaintiffs properties thereby denying them a direct access road into Thika Super Highway.h.Further to that, the Plaintiffs view was that the Defendant had no authority to interfere, block and/or make any improvements on the 35. 56-meter-wide road which is under Kenya Rural Roads Authority.i.The Plaintiffs position therefore was that if the Defendant proceeded with the intended improvements, their properties would generally depreciate in value and they would not be properties fronting the public road as they were initially.j.Despite all the above omissions, the Defendant proceeded to implement the project of constructing a perimeter wall advertised in the newspaper of 13. 09. 2012 without considering the various objections raised during the public participation held by the Government Agencies.k.As a result of the Defendant’s actions, the Plaintiffs suffered various consequences including the blockage of the access road into their private properties, flooding of their properties due to lack of proper drainages and depreciation of the values to their properties hence the reliefs sought in the Plaint.

3. The present suit was duly served on the Defendant who opposed the same by filing a Statement of Defence dated 28. 10. 2023.

4. In the Statement of Defence dated 28. 10. 2023, the Defendant challenged the facts of the Plaintiffs case on the following grounds; -a.The Defendant admitted that indeed there was an intention to construct a Boundary Wall around the institution which project was dubbed “Main Gate To Thika Road Beutification Project”.b.The Defendant stated that in line with its resolution, it proceeded to place a Tender Notice in one of the newspapers namely the Daily Newspaper on the 13. 09. 2012. c.The Defendant specifically pleaded that it was under no obligation under the law to give any notification and/or obtain any consent from the Plaintiffs herein before it began its project of either constructing its perimeter wall and/or beautification of the access road provided in its Tender Notice.d.Be as it may, the Defendant proceeded to engage the owners of the neighboring properties through a public participation process and based on the deliberations therein, the project to be undertaken by the Defendant was fully supported with a few alterations in its implementation.e.The Defendant in other words denied any blockage of any access road into the Plaintiffs properties, alteration of the road to create any flooding and/or causing any depreciation in value of the Plaintiffs’ assets to put the Plaintiffs to strict proof thereof.f.The Defendant’s position was that the intended Beautification project would improve the infrastructure around the Institution by creating pedestrian pathways, cyclist lanes, installing street lights and constructing proper water drainage channels.g.The Defendant concluded its Defence by pleading that the proposed project was duly approved by all the Government Agencies required and had taken into consideration the contributions and/or suggestions of all the stakeholders.h.The Defendant therefore sought this Court to dismiss the present suit with costs to the Defendants.

5. The Plaintiffs did not file any Reply to the Statement of Defence dated 28. 10. 2013 and therefore pleadings closed thereafter.

Plaintiffs Case 6. The Plaintiffs case began with the testimony of one Fredrick Kariuki Maina who was marked as PW 1.

7. PW 1 introduced himself as the Director of the 1st Plaintiff in this suit.

8. PW 1 informed the Court that he had prepared two Witness Statements dated 20. 06. 2013 and 24. 08. 2018 of which he adopted both as his evidence in chief.

9. PW 1 produced the following documents in support of his evidence in chief; -PW 1 Exhibit 1- A Copy of the Tender Advertisement in the Daily Newspaper dated 13. 09. 2012. PW 1 Exhibit 2- Copy of a Letter dated 18/09/2012 from the community to the Defendant.PW 1 Exhibit 3- Copies of the Ownership Documents of the properties known as LR.NO. 21096/87 & 88. PW 1 Exhibit 4- A copy of the ownership document of the property known as LR.NO.13094. PW 1 Exhibit 5(a)- A copy of the Minutes relating to the Meeting held on the 05. 11. 2012 between the Community and the Defendant.PW 1 Exhibit 5(b)- A copy of the Minutes relating to the Meeting held on the 08. 11. 2012. PW 1 Exhibit 5( c)- A copy of the Minutes to the Meeting held on the 15. 11. 2012. PW 1 Exhibit 5(d)- A copy of the Minutes to the Meeting held on the 27. 11. 2012. PW 1 Exhibit 5( e)- A copy of the Minutes to the Meeting held on the 29. 11. 2012. PW 1 Exhibit 5(f)- A Copy of the Minutes to the Meeting held on the 10. 01. 2013. PW 1 Exhibit 5(g)- A copy of the Report from the Sub-Committee of the Joint Stakeholders dated 11. 01. 2012. PW 1 Exhibit 6- A Copy of the Sub-Division Plan of the 1st Plaintiff’s properties on the ground.PW 1 Exhibit 7- A Copy of the letter dated 15. 05. 2013 from the Community to the Office of the President and copied to the Defendant herein.PW 1 Exhibit 8- A Copy of the Sub-Division Plan contained in FR NO. 259/8. PW 1 Exhibit 9- Copies of Photographs showing the construction on the ground.PW 1 Exhibit 10- A Copy of the Business Plan of the Development undertaken by the 1st Plaintiff dated June 2011. PW 1 Exhibit 11- Copies of the Architectural Designs of the Business Plan by the 1st plaintiff.PW 1 Exhibit 12- Copies of the Demand Letters dated 12. 04. 2013 and16. 10. 2012 to the DefendantPW 1 Exhibit 13- A Copy of the Court Order dated 04. 07. 2013PW 1 Exhibit 14- A Copy of the Survey Report dated 26. 08. 2013 together with the payment receipt in the name of Adera & Co. Advocates.PW 1 Exhibit 15- A Copy of the Court Order dated 18. 09. 2013PW 1 Exhibit 16- A Copy of the letter from NEMA dated 27. 11. 2013 to the Defendant.PW 1 Exhibit 17 (a) & (b) Copies of the Court Orders issued on 28. 01. 2015 and 20. 04. 2015. PW 1 Exhibit 18(a) to ( e)- Copies of letters dated 24. 10. 2016, 31. 10. 2016, 19. 10. 2016, 07. 11. 2017 and 06. 12. 2017. PW 1 Exhibit 19- A Copy of the Replying Affidavit filed by Architect Caleb Toroitich dated 28. 10. 2013. PW 1 Exhibit 20- A Copy of the Valuation Report by Quince Real Estate dated 21. 02. 2022

10. In concluding his evidence in chief, PW 1 sought this Court to grant him the prayers sought in the Amended Plaint dated 27. 01. 2014.

11. On cross-examination by Counsel for the Defendant, PW 1 admitted that he had not produced any documents in Court to show that he is a Director of the 1st Plaintiff or the Certificate of Incorporation of the 1st Plaintiff.

12. PW 1 further conceded that there was no Resolution by the 1st Plaintiff that was filed in Court authorizing the institution of the present suit and/or said witness testifying on its behalf.

13. On being referred to PW 1 Exhibit 3, PW 1 confirmed that the Developments by the 1st Plaintiff was on both its properties covered their entire area provided therein.

14. PW 1 stated that the two properties being private properties, the same could not possibly be used for any public purpose.

15. PW 1 informed the Court that the two titles held by the 1st Plaintiff allowed for a mixed use and that is why the development includes shops, office spaces and even residential flats.

16. PW 1 nevertheless admitted that the Terms and Conditions in the ownership documents by the 1st Plaintiff provided only for a built-up area amounting to 50 % of the area provided in the ownership documents although the 1st Plaintiff had in fact developed 100% of the area provided therein which was contrary to the Terms and Conditions.

17. PW 1 however clarified that although the two built up properties have been 100% built up, there was another extra property which had not been developed and collectively, the 1st Plaintiff had complied with the condition of only developing 50% of the three properties in line with the Terms and Conditions in the Lease

18. On being referred to PW 1 Exhibit 8, PW 1 testified that the entrance to the 1st Plaintiff’s properties was in the place marked in Red and the access road to their entrance was along the JKUAT Road.

19. However, PW 1 admitted that he did not have an approved Site Plan of the 1st Plaintiff’s Development Plan with this information.

20. On being referred to PW 1 Exhibit 11, PW 1 conceded that the approved Drawings of the 1st Plaintiff did not have any entrance facing the JKUAT Road on the place marked in Red as their entrance.

21. PW 1 informed the Court that during the Town Hall Meetings, he was out of the Country and therefore did not participate in any of the said meetings.

22. PW 1 confirmed that the Defendant put up Public Notices regarding the proposed Beautification project but did not undertake proper public participation with the community.

23. On being referred to PW 1 Exhibit 5( C), PW 1 admitted that in this meeting, there was a representative from the 1st Plaintiff who approved the proposed beautification project by the Defendant.

24. PW 1 further confirmed that there were various meetings held by the Community and the Defendant which in fact established a Sub-Committee to look at the various issues and contributions given by the Community over the proposed beautification project hence the Report produced as PW 1 Exhibit 5(G).

25. PW 1 informed the Court that during the Town Hall Meetings, the Community in general including the 1st Plaintiff was represented by one Mr. P.W. Gaitho.

26. PW 1 testified that the 1st Plaintiff had not written and/or produced any document specifically objecting to the proposed Beautification project undertaken by the Defendant.

27. On being referred to PW 1 Exhibit 9, PW 1 stated that the Boundary Wall by the Defendant was on a public road which had blocked access to the two properties that belong to the 1st Plaintiff.

28. PW 1 nevertheless stated that the distance between where the Defendant had put up the boundary wall and where the two properties belonging to the 1st Plaintiff are located is big enough for two cars to pass.

29. PW 1 confirmed to the Court that the two properties owned by the 1st Plaintiff had two access roads namely one within the sub-division that created them and the other one is through the JKUAT Access Road.

30. PW 1 averred that after the Beautification Project by the Defendant in 2013, the 1st Plaintiff can no longer access his two properties through the JKUAT Access Road.

31. However, despite this inability to access the 1st Plaintiff’s two properties through JKUAT Access Road, the development of the 1st Plaintiff’s project could still go on save that the costs would escalate.

32. On being referred to PW 1 Exhibit 20, PW 1 stated that the figure of Kenyan Shillings Three Hundred and Twenty Million (KShs.320,000,000/-) was only hypothetical and not based on real figures.

33. PW 1 confirmed that the Development was not complete and/or in occupation and/or use by the 1st Plaintiff.

34. PW 1 concluded his cross-examination by indicating that the Defendant’s Beautification Project showed it had been approved although he could not tell whether or not the County Government of Kiambu had issued the proper approvals.

35. On re-examination, PW 1 clarified that the Registration of the 1st Plaintiff was not disputed in the Defendant’s pleadings and neither was his capacity as a Director of the 1st Plaintiff challenged.

36. On being referred to PW 1 Exhibit 20, PW 1 indicated that the properties that had been developed were Exhibit LR.No.21096/87 & 88 while Exhibit LR.No.21096/89 had not been developed.

37. On being referred to PW 1 Exhibit 5, PW 1 stated that the deliberations contained therein were during the proposal stage but the challenges complained in this suit were during the execution stage of the project.

38. PW 1 concluded his testimony by stating that the development of the boundary wall by the Defendant had resulted in the flooding of the 1st Plaintiff’s property, creating a bottleneck in the access of the two properties through the JKUAT Access Road and thereby resulting to escalated building costs.

39. At the end of this Re-examination, PW 1 was discharged from the witness box.

40. The 2nd witness on behalf of the Plaintiffs was one Patrick Waithaka who was marked as PW 2 and is the 3rd Plaintiff in this suit.

41. PW 2 informed the Court that he had prepared, executed and filed a witness statement dated 18. 06. 2013 of which he adopted as his evidence in chief.

42. In support of this evidence in chief, PW 2 produced the following documents; -PW 2 Exhibit 21(a) to (e) – Copies of the Title Documents of the properties known as Exhibit LR.No.21096/185, Exhibit LR.No.21096/174, Exhibit LR.No.21096/132, Exhibit LR.No.21096/133, Exhibit LR.No.21096/91, Exhibit LR.No.21096/116 and Exhibit LR.No.21096/117. PW 2 Exhibit 22- A Copy of the Programme for the Meeting to be held on 03. 04. 2013.

43. PW 2 confirmed that the Defendant has published a Tender Notice on the 13. 09. 2012 for the construction of a Perimeter Wall as well as the beautification of the JKUAT Access Road.

44. According to PW 2, the proposed project would negatively impact on his properties because they would block a number of access roads.

45. PW 2 further testified that during the implementation of the Defendant’s project, the perimeter wall erected was outside the boundary of the Defendant’s property which is LR.No.13094.

46. Due to this omission, PW 2 was one of the persons that wrote a letter dated 18. 09. 2012 (Produced as PW 1 Exhibit 2) to the Defendant pointing out that the boundary wall erected was outside the beacons of LR.No. 13094.

47. PW 2 also confirmed that he was one of the persons that had participated in the Meetings which are contained in the Minutes produced as PW 1 Exhibit 5(a) to (e) as a participant.

48. On being referred to PW 1 Exhibit 5 (g) and in particular Minute 7. 2, PW 1 informed the Court that there was an intention of holding another Stakeholders meeting before the project would commence on the ground.

49. PW 2 position was that this meeting was to be held on the 03. 04. 2013 as shown in PW 2 Exhibit 22 but he did not attend the same.

50. PW 2 informed the Court that the project by the Defendant began on the 25. 03. 2013 although a lot of the neighbouring plot owners protested which prompted the Court to Order for a Survey Report which was subsequently filed on the 26. 08. 2013.

51. PW 2 referred to PW 1 Exhibit 14 and stated that this Survey Report confirmed that the Perimeter Wall built by the Defendant was on the Access Road and had in fact blocked the access road to the properties known as LR.No.13537/253 and Exhibit LR.No.21096/1.

52. PW 2 further referred to the PW 1 Exhibit 16 which was the Stop Order issued by the National Environmental Management Authority on the 27. 11. 2013 so that an AIE Report would be done.

53. PW 2 informed the Court that based on PW 1 Exhibit 17 (b), there was discussion about the water drainage and access roads but whatever resolutions were agreed, the same were not implemented.

54. While referring to PW 1 Exhibit 20, PW 2 confirmed that he engaged the services of a valuer on the loss of income and agreed with the contents of the report.

55. The main reason why PW 2 had produced PW 1 Exhibit 20 was to justify the loss of income that was occasioned after the tenants who were in his properties moved out due to the wall erected by the Defendant.

56. PW 2 concluded his evidence in chief by stating that he had built a hotel on the properties known as Exhibit LR.No.21096/116 and Exhibit LR.No.21096/117 but the same could not be accessed through the Public Road and there was flooding on the said properties when it rained.

57. On cross-examination by the Defence Counsel, PW 2 admitted that he did not have any evidence that the 35. 5-meter road belongs to Kenya Rural Roads Authority.

58. PW 2 further confirmed that there was no evidence presented to Court that a hotel had indeed been built on the properties known as L.R. No. 21096/116 & Exhibit LR.No.21096/117.

59. On being referred to PW 1 Exhibit 20, PW 2 admitted that the properties referred in the said Report were Exhibit LR.No.21096/90 and Exhibit LR.No.21096/91 which were vacant.

60. On being referred to PW 2 Exhibit 21 (a) (b) and (c), PW 2 admitted that the properties therein did not have a direct access on to the 35. 5 Meter Public Road which is the Access Road to the Defendant’s property.

61. PW 2 informed the Court that he was one of the duly appointed representatives of the Residents and attended most of the constitutive meetings with the Defendant.

62. PW 2 averred that during the consultative meetings, the Residents did not object to the Beautification Project but suggested various amendments which would ensure that their ownership rights on the neighboring properties would not be infringed.

63. PW 2 concluded his cross-examination by insisting that the Residents of the neighboring properties wanted various access roads into their Residential properties which proposal was to be discussed amongst the stakeholders but a Resolution was never achieved.

64. On re-examination, PW 2 reiterated that based on the developments being undertaken by the Defendant, their properties were blocked from the Access Road into JKUAT which was detrimental to their businesses.

65. At the end of this re-examination, PW 2 was discharged from the witness box.

66. The Plaintiffs third witness was one Stephen Kamau Mwangi who was marked as PW 3.

67. PW 3 introduced himself a Registered and Practicing Valuer based in Nairobi engaging in his practice through the firm of Quince Real Estate Limited to which he is a Director.

68. PW 3 informed the Court that he was instructed by the Plaintiffs to undertaken various valuation exercises of which resulted to the preparation of the Valuation Report dated 21. 02. 2022.

69. PW 3 stated that the Valuation Report dated 21. 02. 2022 contained two different Valuation Reports which are as follows; -a.The first Valuation related to the losses incurred by the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs during and/or after the Defendant erected a wall on the Access Road thereby blocking the properties known as Exhibit LR.No.21096/87 and Exhibit LR.No.21096/88. b.The second Valuation related to the loss of income and possible compensation based on fair value for the loss of income on the properties known as LR.No. 21096/90 and Exhibit LR.No.21096/91 which belong to the 3rd Plaintiff.

70. PW 3 confirmed that he visited the properties known as Exhibit LR.No.21096/87 and Exhibit LR.No.21096/88 on the 17. 02. 2022 after being given the relevant ownership documents by the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs.

71. Based on the site visit of the properties known as Exhibit LR.No.21096/87 and Exhibit LR.No.21096/88, PW 3 made the following observations and/or findings;-a.The developments on the properties known as Exhibit LR.No.21096/87 and Exhibit LR.No.21096/88 were about 60 % built up.b.The Defendant herein had built a perimeter wall on the frontage of the properties known as Exhibit LR.No.21096/87 and Exhibit LR.No.21096/88 which touched on the Access Road into the Defendant’s property.c.Consequently, PW 3 in his Valuation Report as appertains the properties known as Exhibit LR.No.21096/87 and Exhibit LR.No.21096/88 estimated that the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs had incurred lost revenues of about KShs 178,600,000/- as at the date of the site visit and which amount has escalated KShs. 300,000,000/- but the time of testifying before the Court.d.PW 3 also informed the Court that the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs would require an addition KShs.19,000,000/- for purposes of ensuring that their developments would be physically intact after the erecting of the perimeter wall by the Defendant.e.In essence, PW 3 testified before the Court that a sum of KShs. 320,000,000/- would be sufficient to compensate the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs for the loss of business and/or ensuring that their development on Exhibit LR.No.21096/87 and LR.NO.21097/88 were structurally sound.f.Lastly, PW 3 recommended the demolition of the perimeter wall that fronts the properties known as Exhibit LR.No.21096/87 and Exhibit LR.No.21096/88 which would automatically resolve the issue of the water drainage that flows into those properties.g.Nevertheless, PW 3 admitted that the figures being claimed for loss of use on Exhibit LR.No.21096/87 and Exhibit LR.No.21096/88 were based on projections as the development therein which was a hotel had not been complete and/or operation by the time the perimeter wall was erected.

72. As regards the second Valuation Report on the properties known as Exhibit LR.No.21096/90 and Exhibit LR.No.21096/91 belonging to the 3rd Plaintiff, a Site Visit was undertaken on the 17. 02. 2022.

73. PW 3 stated that based on the information from PW 2, the properties known as Exhibit LR.No.21096/90 and Exhibit LR.No.21096/91 had been occupied by a timber yard, furniture shop, church and a nursery school.

74. However, due to the erecting of the boundary wall by the Defendant on the public access road, the said tenants vacated the 3rd Plaintiff’s property known as Exhibit LR.No.21096/90 and Exhibit LR.No.21096/91 thereby resulting to a loss of income amounting to KShs.9,000,000/- at the time of hearing the present suit.

75. PW 3 further recommended that the boundary wall erected by the Defendant on the public access road should be removed as the same affects the access and/or ability of the 3rd Plaintiff’s properties being frontage properties to the said public access road.

76. On cross- examination by the Defence Counsel, PW 3 admitted that he had not produced any Practicing Licence and/or his Registration Certificate as a Valuer before the Court.

77. PW 3 informed the Court that there was a space between where the boundary wall had been erected and where the beacons of the 3rd Plaintiff’s properties known as Exhibit LR.No.21096/90 and Exhibit LR.No.21096/91 were located although he could not give the size of the said space.

78. PW 3 testified before the Court that the Timber Yard and the Furniture Shop were not within the properties known as Exhibit LR.No.21096/90 and Exhibit LR.No.21096/91 but maintained that they were still within the properties of the 3rd Plaintiff.

79. On being referred to PW 1 Exhibit 9, PW 3 informed the Court that based on the pictures therein, the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs’ development of Exhibit LR.No.21096/87 and Exhibit LR.No.21096/88 was on the ground floor in the year 2013 and now is on the 9th Floor as per the picture taken in 2022.

80. Consequently, PW 3 confirmed that the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs were still in a position to proceed with the development on Exhibit LR.No.21096/87 and Exhibit LR.No.21096/88 using the 10 meters access road provided in the Sub-division of the Exhibit LR.No.21096 despite the boundary wall erected along the public access road.

81. PW 3 informed the Court that there were no Tenancy Agreements, Rent Payment Receipts and/or Copies of Business Licenses that had been attached to the Valuation of the 3rd Plaintiff’s properties known as Exhibit LR.No.21096/90 and Exhibit LR.No.21096/91 to confirm existence of such businesses therein.

82. At the end of this cross-examination, there was no re-examination and PW 3 was discharged from the witness box.

83. The Plaintiffs’ Counsel them proceeded to close the Plaintiffs case having no other witness thereof.

Defence Case 84. The Defence case began with the testimony of Caleb Toroitich who was marked as DW 1.

85. DW 1 introduced himself as a Registered Architect whose Membership Number with the Architectural Association of Kenya was 2307 and the Registration Number was A1046.

86. DW 1 informed that Court that he had prepare, executed and filed a Witness Statement dated 28. 10. 2023 to which he adopted the same as his evidence in chief.

87. DW 1 testified that the project undertaken by the Defendant related to the beautification of the public access road from the Thika Super-Highway to the Defendant’s Main Gate leading to their property known as LR.No.13094.

88. DW 1 confirmed to the Court that he was the Architect who designed the entire beautification project, sought for the approvals and followed up the implementation of the same.

89. DW 1 testified that the beautification project was approved by the Defendant’s Council, the County Government of Kiambu and the Community around said public access road.

90. The public engagement with the Community about the beautification project was undertaken by the Defendant’s Department of Community Collaboration and the Plaintiffs herein fully participated in the said exercise.

91. DW 1 then produced the following documents in support of his evidence in chief; -DW 1 Exhibit 1- A Copy of the Newspaper Advertisement dated 02. 11. 2012. DW1 Exhibit 2- A Copy of the Minutes from the Meeting held on 05. 11. 2012 by various stakeholders of Juja Town and the Defendant.DW1 Exhibit 3- A Copy of the Minutes from the Meeting held on the 08. 11. 2012 between the stakeholders of Juja Town and the Defendant.DW1 Exhibit 4- A Copy of the Minutes from the Meeting by the Sub-Committee of Stakeholders and the Defendant held on the 27. 11. 2012. DW 1 Exhibit 5- A Copy of the Minutes from the Meeting by the Sub-Committee of Stakeholders and the Defendant held on the 29. 11. 2012. DW1 Exhibit 6- A Copy of the Minutes from the Meeting held by the Sub-Committee and the Defendant on the 10. 01. 2013. DW1 Exhibit 7- A Copy of a Report of the Sub- Committee OF Stakeholders to the Vice Chancellor of the Defendant dated 11. 01. 2013. DW1 Exhibit 8 (I-V) Copies of maps showing the sub-division and location of the public road and the plaintiffs’ properties obtained from the Survey of Kenya.DW1 Exhibit 9- A Copy of the Minutes from the Sub-Committee of Stakeholders and the Defendant dated 15. 11. 2012. DW1 Exhibit 10 (I-IV) – Copies of the Approved Plans of the project to be undertaken by the Defendant.DW1 Exhibit 11- A Copy of a Newspaper Notice dated 20/03/2013 by the Defendant.DW1 Exhibit 12- A Copt of minutes relating to stakeholders meeting held on the 03/04/2013. DW1 Exhibit 13- A Report by the Sub- Committee of the Stakeholders and the Defendant dated 12/06/2013DW1 EXHBIT 14 – A Copy of a letter dated 15. 05. 2013 by the Juja residents to the Office of the President, Governor Kiambu County and the Chancellor of the Defendant.DW1 Exhibit 15- A Copy of Letter dated 12. 04. 2013 from the Plaintiff’s Advocate to the VC of the Defendant.DW1 Exhibit 16- A Copy of an internal memo of the Director of Department of Community Collaboration to the VC of the Defendant.DW1 Exhibit 17- A Letter dated 25. 02. 2013 from KPLC to the Defendant for re-routing of power lines.DW1 Exhibit 18- A Copy of the Minutes from a meeting by the Community and the Defendant held on the 19. 02. 2013 in regards to the Report from the Sub-Committee.DW1 Exhibit 19- Copies of the draft plans and drawings of the project before the same be approved.

92. According to DW 1, there is a 35. 56-Meter-wide public access road which begins from the Thika Super Highway to the Main Gate of the Defendant institution.

93. However, the 35. 56-Meter-wide public access road does not have any pedestrian footpaths or cycling lanes to assist in the movement of human traffic.

94. Due to lack of these facilities and the increased vehicular movement, there was an increase of car accidents.

95. There was also a challenge in the water drainage system because rain water from the neighboring properties would flood the public access road.

96. It was based on all these challenges that the Defendant decided to undertake the beautification project as one of its Community Social Responsibility to the general residents of Juja.

97. On Cross-examination by the Plaintiff’s Counsel, DW 1 admitted that the 35. 56 Meter Access Road was not provided for in the Deed Plan of the Defendant’s property where the institution is established.

98. DW 1 informed the Court that he was not aware who was in charge of the Access Road stretching from the Thika Super Highway to the Defendant’s institution but insisted this particular stretch has always been maintained by the Defendant since 1978.

99. Based on the Approved Plans and Designs of the beautification project, the Defendant was only to develop the boundary walls along the Access Road, undertake drainage works, develop pedestal and cycling lanes but not touch on the road itself.

100. DW 1 clarified to the Court that the boundary walls to be erected along the sides of the 35. 56-Meter-Wide Road would be done along the Road Reserve leading to the Defendant’s institution as provided in DW 1 Exhibit 19.

101. DW 1 testified that the improvements to be undertaken by the Defendant required the approval and consent of the County Government of Thika which he confirmed had been procured.

102. DW 1 then referred to DW 1 Exhibit 19 and indicated to the Court that the width of the Access Road was about 45 Meters which also has a wayleave for the power lines although the said power lines had not been factored in the said drawing.

103. DW 1 pointed to the Court that the Approval and/or Consent to implement the Beautification Project was approved by the County Council of Thika on the 20. 03. 2013 as contained in DW 1 Exhibit 10 & 18.

104. However, DW 1 stated that he did not have Copies of the Forms for the Application for Approval of the Plans, the Payment Receipts for the said Application and/or the Minutes by the County Council of Thika approving the Beautification Project.

105. DW 1 denied any knowledge that the County Council of Thika had ceased to exist on the 20. 03. 2013 upon the promulgation of the Kenyan Constitution, 2010.

106. On being referred to DW 1 Exhibit 10, DW 1 indicated that he could not say who approved the Plans but according to the various meeting undertaken by the Defendant, one Mr. R.G.Ngigi attended the same as a representative of the County Council of Kiambu.

107. On being referred to DW 1 Exhibit 7 and in particular Clause 7. 2, DW 1 admitted that there was to be another meeting involving the Stakeholders.

108. On being referred to DW 1 Exhibit 14, DW 1 admitted that this was a letter from the Juja Residents that the Beautification Project had begun being implemented yet there were no water drainage tunnels to avert flooding in the neighboring properties and secondly, that the anticipated final meeting had not been convened.

109. DW 1 informed the Court that in his view, the Beatification Project did not require a NEMA Approval because it was not within the 2nd Schedule of the Environment Management & Co-ordination Act, Cap 387.

110. DW 1 denied knowledge on any Ground Visit by the Government Surveyor but admitted that this Court had issued an Injunction against the implementation of the Beautification Project on the basis of a Survey Report filed in Court.

111. DW 1 averred that in the Approvals provided before the Court, there was no Approval from the Roads Engineer in charge of Kiambu County specifically but all the other approvals were obtained.

112. DW 1 was referred to DW 1 Exhibit 17 but could not confirm if the payments demanded have been settled or not.

113. On being referred to PW 1 Exhibit 9, DW 1 informed the Court that the pictures showed the status of the Beautification Project as against the neighboring properties.

114. However, DW 1 clarified that there was a 10-meter road reserve between the boundary wall facing the Plaintiffs properties.

115. DW 1 complained that the Beautification Project was in fact stopped by the Court before the service lane of 10 meters in between the boundary wall facing the Plaintiffs properties would be developed.

116. DW 1 confirmed to the Court that the 3rd Plaintiff is a property owner neighboring the public access road and was a representative of the other residents around the area.

117. As regards the water drainage channels, DW 1 informed the Court that the pedestal walkways had a 1. 5 Meter water drainage channel which could accommodate the volume of the water flow hence eliminate any flooding on the neighboring properties.

118. In concluding the cross-examination, DW 1 insisted that the Beautification Project was for the benefit of the general residents of Juja and did not harm any of the neighboring properties along the public access road.

119. On re-examination, DW 1 reiterated that the 3rd Plaintiff always attended the Stakeholders Meeting although he did not sign the Minutes therein.

120. On being referred to DW 1 Exhibit 12, DW 1 informed the Court that all the Stakeholders approved that the Beautification Project should proceed for implementation and therefore, there was no need of any other letter to facilitate the project being implemented.

121. At the end of this Re-examination, DW 1 was discharged from the witness box and the Defence closed their case.

122. Based on the pleading filed by the parties, the testimonies of the witnesses, the documentary evidence produced at the hearing and the final submissions in support of each case, the Court hereby identifies the following issues for determination; -Issue No.1- is the 1st plaintiff’s case properly before the courtIssue No.2- what is the nature of the access road from the thika super highway to the defendant's main gate?Issue No. 3- do the plaintiffs have an access to the public road leading to the defendant’s property?Issue No. 4- are the plaintiffs entitled to the orders sought in the amended plaint?Issue No. 5- who bears the costs of this suit?

123. The issues identified hereinabove will now be discussed as follows; -

Issue No. 1 – Is the 1st Plaintiff’s Case Properly Before the Court 124. The first issue for determination is one that deals with the 1st Plaintiff’s claim against the defendant.

125. The Defendant in his pleadings, cross-examination and submissions raised the issue that the 1st Plaintiff’s case is not properly before the court for the reason that there is no Resolution by the company to institute the proceedings against the Defendant.

126. The 2nd Plaintiff, who was PW1, confirmed during his cross-examination that there was no resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the 1st Plaintiff for institution of the proceedings.

127. Secondly, PW1, who had introduced himself as a Director of the 1st Plaintiff admitted to not having the authority and /or resolution either to sign the pleadings filed by the 1st Plaintiff or testify on its behalf.

128. The provisions of Order 4 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 provides as follows;“where the plaintiff is a corporation, the verifying affidavit shall be sworn by an officer of the company duly authorized under the Seal of the Company to do so”

129. In the case of Spire Bank Limited=versus- Land Registrar & 2 Others (2019) eKLR, the Court of Appeal stated as follows; -“…It is essential to appreciate that the intention behind order 4 rule 1 (4) was to safeguard the corporate entity by ensuring that only an authorized officer could institute proceedings on its behalf. This was to address the mischief of unauthorized persons instituting proceedings on behalf of corporations, and obtaining fraudulent or unwarranted orders from the court. The company’s seal that is affixed under the hand of the directors ensured that they were aware of, and had authorized such proceedings together with the persons enlisted to conduct them. And where evidence was produced to demonstrate that a person was unauthorized, the burden shifted to such officer to demonstrate that they were authorized under the company seal. With this in mind, we dare say that the provision was not intended to be utilized as a procedural technicality to strike out suits, particularly where no evidence was produced to demonstrate that the officer was unauthorized.”

130. Guided by the above authority, it is clear that although there is no resolution by the Directors of the 1st Plaintiff to institute these proceedings, such an omission is not fatal to the case especially where the Defendant has not demonstrated that the person who signed the Verifying Affidavit on behalf of the Company and testified was unauthorized.

131. In a nutshell, this court makes a finding that the 1st Plaintiff’s suit is lawfully before the court and the court can proceed to adjudicate on the issues therein.

Issue No.2- What is the Nature of the Access Road from the Thika Super Highway to the Defen’ant's Main Gate? 132. The second issue for determination is the nature of the Access Road between the Thika Super Highway and the Defendant’s Main Gate.

133. The Plaintiffs in their pleadings, testimonies and documents state that the Access Road from the Thika Super Highway to the Defendant’s Main Gate is a public access road measuring approximately 35. 56 Meters wide.

134. The Defendant on the other hand admits that there is a 35. 56-Meter-wide Access Road from the Thika Super Highway to the Defendant’s Main Gate.

135. However, according to the testimony of DW 1, the Road Reserve running from the Thika Super Highway to the Defendant’s Main Gate is actually 60 Meters Wide although the Beautification Project would only touch on the 35. 56 Meters- Wide portion.

136. The Plaintiffs main borne of contention is that the boundary walls which the Defendant is erecting and/or has erected were outside their demarcated portion of land known as LR.NO.13094 and consequently, such an action would convert a public access road into a private access road without the appropriate procedure and/or authorities being granted to them.

137. The Plaintiffs in their testimony produced three maps as PW 1 Exhibit 6, 7 & 8 to confirm that indeed, the 35. 56 Meter Access Road from the Thika Super Highway to the Defendant’s Main Gate is a public access road and not a private access road.

138. The Defendant on the other hand in cross-examination by the Plaintiff admitted that indeed the Access Road from the Thika Super Highway to their Main Gate is not provided for under the Deed Plain of their property known as LR.No.13094.

139. However, the Defendant insisted that Access Road has been under their use and care since the year 1978 when the institution opened doors.

140. The question which this Court should now answer is whether the 35. 56 Access Road from the Thika Super Highway to the Defendant’s Main date is a public access road and/or is a private access road.

141. According to the Maps provided by the Plaintiffs as PW 1 Exhibit 6,7, 8 and the Surveyor’s Report produced as PW 1 Exhibit 14, there is a clear history of how this Access Road was demarcated and registered.

142. From the Surveyors Report produced as PW 1 Exhibit 14, the Access Road and in particular the size touching on the Plaintiffs property emanated from two properties known as LR.No.9461/4 (FR.160/23) and LR.No.9461/5 (FR.187/50).

143. The original properties known as LR.No.9461/4 (FR.160/43) and LR.No.9461/5 (FR.187/50) were subsequently converted into LR.No.12933 and LR.No.13537/253 respectively.

144. One of the two properties namely L.R. No. 13537/253 was further subdivided to L.R. No. 21096 – 210102.

145. Then the resultant property known as L.R. No. 21096 was once again sub-divided into Exhibit LR.No.21096/1 to Exhibit LR.No.21096/197.

146. However, what is key in the discussion is that Exhibit LR.No.21096/1 from the sub-division of Exhibit LR.No.21096 was a 15-meter-wide road that was surrendered to the Commissioner of Lands (as then was) to be an Access Road leading up to the Defendant’s Main Gate.

147. From a perusal of the Plaintiffs document PW 1 Exhibit 8 which is a Sub-Division of LR. No. 21096, the Court confirms that indeed the sub-division known as Exhibit LR.No.21096/ 1 is provided as a 15-Meter-Wide Access Road which leads to the Defendant’s Main Gate.

148. It is therefore clear that the portion measuring 15 Meters surrendered through the sub-division of LR.No.21097 and which is what touches the Plaintiffs properties known as Exhibit LR.No.21096/87 to 91 is a Public Access Road surrendered to the Commissioner of Lands (as then was) and not a private access road to the Defendant’s Main Gate.

149. The fact that the Public Access Road is alleged to be either 35. 56 Meters Wide and/or 60-Meter-Wide only means that the neighboring property next to the original Exhibit LR.No.21096 must have also surrender another portion of land as a public access road from the Thika Super Highway to the Defendant’s Main Gate.

150. In other words, this Court is of the considered view that the 60 Meter wide and/or 35. 56 Meter Wide Access Road running from the Thika Super Highway to the Defendant’s Main Gate is a public access road and outside the demarcation and/or Deed Plan of the Defendant’s property known as LR.No.13094.

Issue No. 3–Do the Plaintiffs Have an Access to the Public Road Leading to the Defendant’s Property? 151. The third issue is whether the Plaintiffs properties that front the public access road leading to the Defendant’s Main Gate have a right of direct access onto the said public access road.

152. The Plaintiffs herein pleaded that their properties known as Exhibit LR.No.21096/87 TO Exhibit LR.No.21096/91 enjoyed the frontage and/or an access through the public access road from the Thika Super Highway to the Defendant’s Main Gate.

153. However, the Beautification Project and in particular the erecting of the boundary walls along the public access road had denied them a direct access into their properties from the Thika Super Highway hence diminished the value of their properties and/or developments.

154. The Defendant on the other hand pleaded and testified that the Plaintiffs allegations were not justified because there was a 10-meter-wide access road which runs parallel with the boundary wall erected along the public access road which enabled access into the Plaintiffs properties.

155. All the Plaintiffs herein produced their ownership documents which contained the Deed Plans that demarcated their portions of land.

156. According to the Deed Plans attached to the Plaintiffs ownership documents, it is clear that the public access road Exhibit LR.No.21096/1 measuring 15 meters wide surrendered to the Commissioner of Lands (as then was) runs along the Plaintiffs properties.

157. However, it is also significant to remember that this 15-meter-wide road was amalgated with other public access roads from the neighboring properties to create either the 60-meter-wide or 35. 56-meter-wide public access road from the Thika Super Highway to the Defendant’s Main Gate.

158. This being the reality on the ground, then this Court is of the considered view that a public access road measuring either 60 meters wide and/or 35. 56 meters wide can not be accessed directly by the small individual properties that are lined up along it.

159. Going back to the Plaintiffs document PW 1 Exhibit 6,7 and 8, the Court takes note that the Plaintiffs properties were provided with another 10-meter-wide access road which exits the public access road between Exhibit LR.No.21096/87 and Exhibit LR.No.21096/81 and then branched to the left running along the Plaintiffs properties known as Exhibit LR.No.21096/87-91 and Exhibit LR.No.21096/198 to Exhibit LR.No.21096/201.

160. This Court is therefore of the considered view and finding that the Plaintiffs properties namely Exhibit LR.No.21096/87 to 91 are located along the public access from the Thika Super Highway to the Defendant’s Main Gate but their access is not directly from the said public access road but through the 10 Meter wide access road between the properties known as Exhibit LR.No.21096/87 and Exhibit LR.No.21096/81 then left into the 10 meter wide road running along Exhibit LR.No.21096/87 to Exhibit LR.No.21096/91 and Exhibit LR.No.21096/198 to Exhibit LR.No.21096/201.

Issue No. 4 –Are the Plaintiffs Entitled to the Orders Sought in the Amended Plaint? 161. The fourth issue is whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the prayers sought in the Amended Plaint before the Court.

162. The first prayer is seeking for a declaration that the boundary walls erected as part of the Beautification project by the Defendant are unlawful, illegal and in fact convert a public access road into a private access road.

163. The Plaintiffs argument is that the Defendant’s property known as LR.No.13094 does not extend on to the public access road measuring 35. 56 meters wide running from the Thika Super Highway to their Main Gate.

164. As such, the Defendant does not have the authority and/or permission to delineate the said public access road to be within the boundaries of the property known as LR.No.13094.

165. The Defendant’s witness admitted that indeed the public access road is not within the Deed Plan of the Defendant and does not appear as an easement from the Thika Super Highway to the Defendant’s Main Gate.

166. The Court similarly in Issue No. 2 hereinabove made a finding that in fact, this Access Road from the Thika Super Highway to the Defendant’s Main Gate is one that was surrendered to the Commissioner of Lands during sub-divisions of the neighboring properties next to the Defendant’s property known as LR.No.13094.

167. The Plaintiffs in their pleadings, testimonies and documentary evidence placed before the Court during trial confirms the erecting of boundary walls along the public access road running from the Thika Super Highway to the Defendant’s main gate.

168. The Defendant in its pleadings, documentary evidence and testimony confirmed that indeed it is erecting boundary walls along the public access road from the Thika Super Highway to their Main Gate as per the approved Plans and Designs therein.

169. The Court is of the considered view that the Defendant’s beautification project is one that should be embraced with an aim of improving the human traffic movement, providing a safe cycling area and ensure smooth movement of vehicles in and out of the Defendant’s property.

170. In this sense, the Court is of the view that the improvements or beautification of the public access road by constructing a walking path, cycling lane, a drainage system, planting trees, providing street lights is in fact a good project.

171. However, the erecting of a boundary walls on either side of the public access road is not the correct move.

172. The reason is that by erecting boundary walls along either side of the public access road indirectly converts the public access road to a private access road from the Thika Super Highway to the Defendant’s main gate.

173. If the Defendant wanted to convert the public access road into a private access road, then it was required to follow the procedures provided in the Physical Planning Act or any other law applicable and obtain such permission from the authority that is bestowed with the ownership of the said access road.

174. The Defendant in its pleading, testimony and/or documents produced before this Court did not table any authority and/or approval from either the County Government of Kiambu or the National Government allowing them to erect such boundary walls along a public access road.

175. As such, this Court is of the considered view that the actions by the Defendant to erect boundary walls on either side of the public access road was not lawfully sanctioned and cannot be allowed without following the due process.

176. In conclusion, this court makes a finding that the boundary walls erected by the Defendant on both sides of the public access road are illegal, unlawful and in fact converts the said public access road into a private access road as pleaded by the Plaintiffs herein.

177. The second prayer by the Plaintiffs is one that seeks for mandatory order against the Defendant directing them to remove the boundary perimeter walls that were erected along the public access road from the Thika Super Highway to the Defendant’s main gate.

178. Based on the discussions in the first prayer hereinabove, the Court has already pronounced itself to the legality or illegality of the boundary walls erected by the Defendant along the public access road.

179. In therefore goes without saying that if indeed the boundary walls on either side of the public access road have been built the same should be removed.

180. In essence, the Plaintiffs are entitled to an Order of mandatory injunction against the Defendant only in relation to the boundary walls erected on either side of the public access road from the Thika Super Highway to the Defendant’s main gate.

181. The Plaintiffs third prayer seeks for an Order of general damages against the Defendant on the basis that the boundary walls along the public access road interfered with the access into their properties known as Exhibit LR.No.21096/87 to Exhibit LR.No.21096/91.

182. According to the Plaintiffs, the blockage of the access into their properties based on the erecting of the boundary walls caused great loss in business and even escalated the building expenses to the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs.

183. However, this court has made a finding that the Plaintiffs access into their properties known as Exhibit LR.No.21096/87 to Exhibit LR.No.21096/91 is not through the public access road but through the 10-meter-wide road that exits from the public access from between LR.No.21097/87 and Exhibit LR.No.21096/81, then there was no blockage that was caused by the construction of the boundary walls by the Defendant on the public access road.

184. In the absence of such a breach, the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs’ claim for general damages is not justified.

185. On the aspect of exemplary damages, the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs produced a valuation report as PW 1 Exhibit 20, which put the loss at Kshs. 320,000,000/=.

186. The valuer who testified as PW3 gave a detailed account of the projected loss of income accrued against the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs due to the development of the boundary wall by the Defendant.

187. However, based on the testimonies of PW 1 and PW3, it is not in doubt that the hotel, which is still under construction has not started operating upon to date.

188. PW1 also during cross-examination, admitted that there was another access road to the development even after the Defendant erected a wall on the public access road.

189. What PW1 stated was that the costs of construction had escalated due to the blockage of the access from the public access road.

190. The court’s considered view is that the claim of Kshs. 320,000,000/= for loss of use is in fact based on no documentary proof.

191. The 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs first and foremost were under a duty to demonstrate that at the time of erecting the boundary wall by the Defendant, the development was already earning an income.

192. A claim for loss of income can only occur where a project is complete and there is an actual income being received by the claimant.

193. In the absence of any proof of earning such an income then there can be no loss of such an earning and/or income.

194. In essence, the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs claim for loss of income amounting to Kshs. 320,000,000/= is therefore denied.

195. As regards the 3rd Plaintiff, PW3 quantified the 3rd Defendant’s loss of income from rent from L.R. No. 21096/90 and 91 to be Kshs. 9,000,000/=.

196. Both the 3rd Plaintiff who testified as PW2 and PW3 who was the valuer stated that there were structures on L.R. No. 21096/90 and 91 whose tenants had vacated the premises after the Defendant erected the boundary wall.

197. However, neither the 3rd Plaintiff nor PW3 produced any tenancy agreement, official rent payment receipts issued to such tenants to confirm that indeed such an income existed and/or a testimony from any of the tenants as proof that such tenancies existed.

198. In the absence of such documentary or testimony evidence then the 3rd plaintiff’s claim of Kshs. 9,000,000/= is not proved and cannot be allowed.

199. The last prayer by the Plaintiffs herein is that of Mesne profit.

200. However, none of the Plaintiffs either testified and/or produced any documents in support of this claim and consequently, the same duly fails.

Issue No. 5- Who Bears the Costs of the Present Suit? 201. Costs usually follow the event.

202. However, in this suit, the Plaintiffs have been partially successful in having the boundary walls declared unlawful.

203. On the other hand, the Defendant has also been successful to prove that the Plaintiffs’ properties were not interfered with and/or blocked by the construction of the boundary/ perimeter wall.

204. In addition to the above, the Defendant also succeeded in defending the Plaintiffs’ claim in terms of the loss of use and all other types of damages.

205. In the Court’s considered view, each party should therefore bear their own costs.

Conclusion 206. In conclusion, the court hereby makes the following orders in determination of the present suit: -a.A declaration be and is hereby made that the boundary walls on either side of the 35. 56-meter-wide public access road from the thika super highway to the main gate of the defendant’s entity is unlawful, illegal and amounts to a conversion of the public access to a private access road.b.An order of mandatory injunction be and is hereby issued against the defendant directing the removal, demolition and/or clearing of the boundary walls only on either side of the 35. 56-meter public access road from thika super highway to the defendant’s main gate within 180 days from the date of this judgment.c.Each party will bear their own costs of the suit.

DATED, SIGNED & DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT ELDORET ELC ON THIS 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2025. EMMANUEL.M. WASHEJUDGEIn the Presence of:Court Assistant: BrianPlaintiff: Mr. MaweuDefendants: Ms. Seleke holding brief Mr. Lutta