https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8915

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT VIHIGA** **CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO E005 OF 2025** **IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 22(1), 258 AND 259 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010** **IN THE MATTER OF THE ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF RIGHTS OR FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLE 10, 19, 20, 21, 32(1)(2), 35(1)(A), 36(1) 73(1)(A)(B)** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT ACT CAP 8E LAWS OF KENYA** **BETWEEN** **REV PASTOR INEA SHEMI………………………………….……..1ST PETITIONER** **DEACON SAMUEL LIKHOMI…………………………..…………2ND PETITIONER** **BILLY GRAHAM MEMBA…………………………….……………3RD PETITIONER** **AND** **HARUN LUVANDA……………………………………..……………1ST RESPONDENT** **ANDREW INYANJE…………………………………………………2ND RESPONDENT** **ALISTER VIREMBWA MONYANI………………………….……3RD RESPONDENT** **ADAN GANIRA………………………………………………………4TH RESPONDENT** **PATRICK SHIHAJI………………………………………………….5TH RESPONDENT** **PATRICK ANDECHE………………………………………..……..6TH RESPONDENT** **THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES…………………………..……7TH RESPONDENT** **THE HOUNARABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL………………..…8TH RESPONDENT** **JUDGMENT** **INTRODUCTION** 1. In their Petition dated 29th April 2025 and filed on 1st May 2025, the Petitioners herein sought the following orders:- 2. **A declaration do issue that the conduct, omission and other acts of the 1st -6th Respondents of failure to call for elections of APEC was a gross violation of Articles 10, 19 (1), (2), (3)(b), 20 (1), (2), 32 (1), (2), 35 (1)(a), (b) and 36 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.** 3. **A declaration do issue that the conduct, omission and other acts of the 7th Respondent of failure to carry out his/her mandate was a gross violation of Articles 10,19,20,21(1),32(1),32 (2),35(1)(a), (b), 36, and 73(1)(a), (b) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010;** 4. **A declaration do issue that the Petitioners had the constitutional right to demand that elections of APEC be held;** 5. **A declaration do issue that the 1st -6th Respondents were in office unconstitutionally by virtue of gross violation of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and violation of Section 6 of APEC constitution;** 6. **An order do issue directing that the elections of all office bearers of APEC under Section 6 of APEC constitution be held within the next sixty (60) days from the date of the decision of the Honourable Court under the supervision of the Registrar of Societies;** 7. **A conservatory order do issue restraining the 1st -6th Respondents from withdrawing any monies of APEC in any of APEC's bank accounts or any other source or collecting any monies on behalf of the APEC except for the purposes of conducting the elections ordered by the Honourable Court;** 8. **A conservatory order do issue restraining the 1st -6th Respondents from performing any role and/or functions as office bearers except as ordered in prayer 6 above;** 9. **An order directing that in the event APEC shall not hold elections within the specified period for whatever reason, the Registrar of Societies shall be at liberty to extend the said period for a further thirty (30) days and if the directions to hold elections shall not be complied with after the expiry of the extended period as aforesaid, the Registrar of Societies shall be at liberty to exercise powers under Section 12 of the Societies Act Cap 108 (Laws of Kenya) without further reference to the Honourable Court.** 10. **General damages to be borne by the 7th Respondent for violating the Petitioners’ constitutional rights; and** 11. **Cost of the suit.** 12. On 24th June 2025, the 1st -6th Respondents filed Notice of Preliminary Objection and a Replying Affidavit both dated 19th June 2025. The 7th and 8th Respondents did not file any response to the Petition herein or participate in the proceedings herein. Notably, parties compromised the 2nd Petitioner’s Chamber Summons application dated 19th June 2025 and filed on 24th June 2025 in which he had sought to be struck out from the proceedings herein due to misjoinder. This court allowed the said application in its order of 10th July 2025, and struck out the 2nd Petitioner from the proceedings herein due to misjoinder. 13. In response to the said Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 19th June 2025 and filed on 24th June 2025, the 3rd Petitioner herein filed a Replying Affidavit on his own behalf and on behalf of the 1st Petitioner herein. The said Replying Affidavit was sworn on 29th July 2025 and filed on 8th August 2025. 14. The 1st and 3rd Petitioners’ Written Submissions in respect to the Preliminary Objection and in respect of the Petition were both dated and filed on 8th August 2025. The 1st -6th Respondents’ Written Submissions in respect to the Preliminary Objection were dated 27th July 2025 and filed on 1st August 2025 while their Written Submissions in respect to the Petition were dated 7th November 2025 and filed on 13th November 2025. The judgment herein is based on the said Written Submissions which the parties relied upon in their entirety. **THE PETITIONERS’ CASE** 1. The Petitioners’ case was that they were members and Pastors of the Apostolic Pentecostal Evangelism Church (hereinafter referred to as “APEC”) which was registered with the Registrar of Societies, while the 1st -6th Respondents were officials of the said Church. They averred that on or about December 2016, a ‘mlolongo’ election was conducted in contravention of Section 12 of APEC Constitution which led to 1st, 3rd to 6th Respondents assuming office. 2. They asserted that the 1st -6th Respondents were in office illegally since elections had never been held since the year 2016 which was against Section 12 of the APEC Constitution, which required elections to be held after every five (5) years by secret ballot. They said that the aforementioned officials claimed that APEC had agreed that they continue to hold office. 3. They pointed out that there were wrangles in leadership and Church members started demanding for elections. They stated that complaints were made at the Evangelical Society of Kenya and Directorate of Criminal Investigations and to the 7th Respondent on misappropriation of APEC funds, but all was in vain. They claimed that their effort to settle the dispute internally by even writing letters to responsible bodies was also all in vain. They added that the 3rd Petitioner who was the Church Trustee was suspended from the Church for agitating for elections. 4. They invoked Articles 10, 19(1) (2) (3)(b), 20, 21(1), 32(1), 35(1)(a)(b), 36, and 73 of the Constitution of Kenya as the provisions that had been denied, violated, infringed and/or threatened, Sections 12(1)(g), 18, 24, 28, 38 of the Societies Act relating to cancellation and suspension of registration, processing of disputes, offences, inspection of accounts and documents and powers of the Registrar of Societies to investigate and Sections 6 and 12 of the APEC Constitution setting out the offices of the Church and the provisions regarding elections. **THE 1ST-6TH RESPONDENTS’ CASE** 1. They contended that this court lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the Petition on account that the Petition was premature and offended the doctrine of exhaustion pursuant to Sections 9(1) (2) (3) (4) of the Fair Administrative Act. They asserted that the Petitioners had mechanisms to channel their complaints in accordance with Article 12 of the APEC Constitution and Code of Conduct and Governance Guidelines, 2023 for Churches in Kenya Part IV (N) Part IV (L) and Section 46 and 47 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) and that the court was the last port of call. 2. Their averred that the 1st Petitioner was a Returning Officer during the 2016 “mlolongo” election and was present during the 2021 acclamation and inauguration of the 1st Respondent by church conference. They stated that the 1st and 3rd Petitioners were beneficiaries of the same Church leadership that they were disputing. They pointed out that the 1st Respondent assigned the 1st Petitioners duties at Ibwali Assembly on 8th January 2023 while the 3rd Petition was appointed as one of the Trustees on 18th December 2022. 3. They were emphatic that the delay in instituting the Petition was inordinate as the same ought to have been filed in 2016 or 2021. They also contended that APEC had over ten thousand (10,000) members yet no other member or pastor filed a claim against APEC apart from the 1st and 3rd Petitioners, the latter who had an ongoing disciplinary case for misconduct. 4. They were emphatic that under Article 12 of APEC Constitution, there was a provision on dispute resolution mechanism and Evangelical Alliance of Kenya (EAK) supported Churches having internal governance and complaints handling procedure as well as NCCK Code of Conduct and Governance Guidelines 2023, which had provisions for complaint handling and Registrar of Societies. 5. They maintained that the dispute ought to have been ventilated through arbitration as per the APEC Constitution following a consideration by an internal committee and decision appealed against at the EAK before seeking external legal recourse. They were emphatic that the court could not review an administrative action or decision unless internal mechanisms for appeal and review under written law had been exhausted. They added that the 1st and 3rd Petitioners could also pursue the avenue of the Registrar of Societies, which they had not exhausted. 6. They further pointed out that the 1st and 3rd Respondents had not demonstrated that there existed any special circumstances that would create an exception to the doctrine of exhaustion. 7. They were categorical that the Petition was premature, vexatious, scandalous, ill-conceived and an abuse of court process and ought to be dismissed with costs. **LEGAL ANALYSIS** 1. Having considered the Petition, the affidavit evidence, the Preliminary Objection and the Written Submissions by the Petitioners and the 1st-6th Respondents, it appeared to this court that the issues that had been placed before it for determination were: - 1. **Whether or not the Petition herein was premature and offended the doctrine of exhaustion;** 2. **Whether or not the Petitioner’s constitutional rights had been infringed upon;** 3. **If so, what reliefs were they entitled to; and** 4. **Who was to bear the costs of this Petition?** 2. The court deemed it prudent to address itself to the 1st – 6th Respondents’ Preliminary Objection in which they objected to this court’s jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter. Indeed, if this court upheld the same, it would conclusively determine the competency of the Petition before this court. 3. **PRELIMINARY OBJECTION** 4. The 1st-6th Respondents invoked Section 9(2) of Fair Administrative Action Act and cited **Geoffrey Muthiga Kabiru & 2 others vs Samuel Munga Henry & 1756 others (2015) eKLR** among other cases where the court opined that where dispute resolution mechanism existed, they ought to have been exhausted before court jurisdiction could be invoked. They maintained that Article 12 of the APEC Constitution and EAK Code of Conduct recommended dispute resolution through negotiation, mediation or arbitration which the Petitioners bypassed. 5. They were emphatic that the function of the Church Council and EAK were not invoked before court’s jurisdiction could be invoked. They submitted that where there was a clear procedure for redress, the same had to be followed. They argued that court intervention at this stage was premature as this court lacked jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought. 6. They added that by accepting leadership roles and participating in AGM ratifications, the 1st and 3rd Petitioners were estopped from contending that their leadership was not legitimate as equity did not permit one to benefit from a position and then later disown it. They also averred that the long delay in bringing the proceedings was unjustified and prejudicial to them and to over ten thousand (10,000) congregants and Pastors appointed by the leadership. They relied on the cases of **John Mburu vs Consolidated Bank of Kenya Civil Appeal No 233 of 2020** (KLR citation not given ) and **Otieno vs Chelisa & Another [2023]KEHC 1674 (KLR)** where the common thread was that a person was precluded from asserting something contrary to what that person had implied either by conduct or statement. 7. They also asserted that the 3rd Petitioner had claimed to be a Bishop and misled the Registrar of Societies. They also averred that the 3rd Petitioner fraudulently enjoined the 2nd Petitioner as a party to the proceedings. They relied on the case of **Wepukhulu t/a Gati Cleaning Agency Limited vs Oduor KEHC 5737 KLR** and the definition of “fraudulent misrepresentation” in the Black’s Law Dictionary to the effect that a false statement was known to be false, it was made without belief in its truth and was intended to make another act on it. They were emphatic that what was before the court was a masked leadership dispute and not a constitutional question. 8. It was their submission that the Petition was mischievous and ought to be dismissed in its entirety with costs to them. 9. On their part, the 1st and 3rd Petitioners placed reliance on the case of **Aviation & Allied Workers Union Kenya vs Kenya Airways Limited & 3 Others [2015] eKLR** where it was held that a preliminary objection may only on a pure question of law and that the court had to be satisfied that there was no contest as to the facts. 10. They argued that Section 9 (1) (2) (3) and (4) of the Fair Administrative Action Act that was cited by the Respondents related to judicial review of administrative action and not constitutional petitions. They asserted that they were contesting the Respondents’ **(sic)** continued occupation of office for over ten (10) years without calling for elections and, hence it could not be construed as an administrative action. 11. They contended that Article 12 of APEC Constitution and Section 46 and 47 of the Code did not provide for channels for complaint or dispute resolution but only provided for elections. They pointed out that Section 44 of the said Code mandated Churches to have an internal committee responsible for handling complaints in regard to breach of the Code. 12. They were categorical that the Respondents failed to show the court that there was a committee that was formed within APEC to handle complaints pursuant to the Code. Furthermore, the Code talked about breach of the Code itself while their case was on violation of APEC Constitution. They argued that there were, therefore, no sufficient or available internal dispute resolution mechanisms that could have handled the dispute. 13. They were emphatic that the doctrine of exhaustion had an exception. They submitted that if at all there was an internal mechanism, they would not have got justice since the 1st-6th Respondents constituted the Church council and executive committee. They pointed out that they even approached the 7th Respondent vide a letter received on 30th October 2024 but which was not acted upon by the 7th Respondent. 14. In this regard, they relied on the case of **Krystalline Salt Limited vs Kenya Revenue Authority (2019) eKLR** and that of **Okiya Omtatah Okoiti vs National Treasury and Planning & 2 others; Oracle Technology Systems (Kenya) Limited (Interested Party) KEHC 2655 (KLR)**, where the common holding was that a party could not be ousted from the court’s jurisdiction if there was no forum for a party to seek redress such as when addressing constitutional violations. They argued that that their case was out of the ordinary since they were challenging the 1st-6th Respondents continued occupation of the office which could not be subjected to internal dispute mechanisms. 15. They added that they had tried to approach 7th Respondent Section 12 of the Societies Act but the 7th Respondent had not responded to letter dated 30th October 2024 despite acknowledging receipt of the same. They pointed out that seeking redress from the 7th Respondent was a formality and futile. They asserted that an order for judicial review could only be granted only in exceptional circumstances and that a court had to consider the context of the internal appeal mechanism and whether the appeal mechanism was suitable to determine an issue. 16. They referred this court to the case of **Karani vs Kenya Private Sector Alliance KEHC 3788 (KLR)** where the court held that any special procedure provided by law had to be strictly adhered to since there was good reason for such special procedures. They submitted that the 1st -6th Respondents’ Preliminary Objection was bereft of merit and beset by insurmountable challenges and thus, urged this court to dismiss the same. 17. Notably, for a preliminary objection to be upheld, it had to raise pure questions of law capable of disposing of a dispute in its entirety. This was discussed in the case of **Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturers Ltd vs Westend Distributors Ltd (1969) E.A 696 pg. 700** where the court observed that a preliminary objection consisted of a pure point of law which had been pleaded, or which arose by clear implication out of pleadings, and which if argued as a preliminary objection, could dispose of the suit. The said court gave examples of a pure point of law as objections to the jurisdiction of the court, or a plea of limitation, or submissions that the parties were bound by the contract giving rise to the suit, to refer the dispute to arbitration. 18. In the case of **Petition No 7 of 2013 Mary Wambui Munene vs Peter Gichuki King’ara and 6 Others [2014] eKLR**, the Supreme Court reaffirmed this position when it held that jurisdiction was a pure question of law and had to be resolved on priority basis. 19. This court also noted that the Petitioners attached two (2) letters addressed to the Registrar of Societies with one dated 7th October 2024, which had no receiving stamp from the Registrar of Societies and another one dated 30th October 2024 which showed that it was received by the Registrar of Societies on the said date. The complaint on the letters related to the failure by APEC to conduct elections since 2016 and misappropriation of APEC funds. There was no response attached from the Registrar of Societies. Notably, the Petitioners did not expound on the steps they took to follow up with the Registrar of Societies on the complaint they lodged. 20. There was no dispute that APEC was a society registered under the Societies Act Cap 108 (Laws of Kenya). Indeed, both parties attached annual returns in accordance with the Societies Act. APEC was, therefore, subject to the Societies Act and was governed by the provisions of the said Societies Act. 21. Section 18 of the Societies Act provides as follows:- * + 1. **If the Registrar is of the opinion that a dispute has occurred among the members or officers of a registered society as a result of which the Registrar is not satisfied as to the identity of the persons who have been properly constituted as officers of the society, the Registrar may, by order in writing, require the society to produce to him, within one month of the service of the order, evidence of the settlement of the dispute and of the proper appointment of the lawful officers of the society or of the institution of proceedings for the settlement of such dispute.** 2. **If an order under subsection (1) of this section is not complied with to the satisfaction of the Registrar within the period of one month or any longer period which the Registrar may allow, the Registrar may cancel the registration of the society.** 3. **A society aggrieved by the cancellation of its registration under subsection (2) may appeal to the High Court within thirty days of such cancellation.** 22. This provision provided an avenue for resolution of disputes relating to the identity of officials of societies, which would be resolved by providing proof of appointment of lawful officers, failing which the Registrar of Societies had power to cancel the registration of the society. As the parties did not appear to have pursued this route, this court found it prudent not to analyse the effect of intervention by the Registrar of Societies as the complaint was still pending. This court was cautious not to pronounce itself on that process so as not to encroach on the powers of the Registrar of Societies. 23. This court instead turned to the Code for the Church in Kenya (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) and the APEC Constitution to ascertain if it had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute herein. Indeed, the 1st – 6th Respondents furnished the court with the Code for the Church in Kenya (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) for consideration. Part III (L) of the Code set out the disciplinary and complaints handling procedure. It stipulated as follows:- **43. This section applies to disputes involving Church leaders. The provisions of part IV of this Code shall apply to this section as far as necessary.** **44. Every Church shall constitute an independent internal committee that shall be responsible for handling complaints and concerns involving Church leaders with regard to breach of this Code.** **45. Any member of the Church shall have an unqualified right to lodge a complaint against a Church leader relating to non-compliance with the provisions of this Code.** **46. The internal committee shall have the power to-** 1. **conduct investigation into any allegations of breach of this Code or the Constitution of the Church;** 2. **take the appropriate disciplinary action pursuant to their Constitution and by-laws, where applicable; and** 3. **take any other lawful and reasonable action as may be necessary for the enforcement of this Code.** **47. A person aggrieved by the decision of the internal committee may appeal to the Umbrella body and may subsequently seek redress from the Courts.** **48. The principles of natural justice shall be strictly adhered to during the disciplinary process.** 1. It was evident that the Code provided for avenues for settling disputes. It mandated every Church to have an independent internal committee responsible for handling complaints against the breach of the Code. It also stated that the committee had power to investigate allegations of breach of the Code and Church Constitution and take appropriate disciplinary action pursuant to the church constitution and by-laws. 2. The 1st and 3rd Petitioners had complained of the 1st -6th Respondents, misappropriating APEC funds. In the mind of this court, the same amounted to conduct. It was clear that if the 1st and 3rd Petitioners had any complaint about the 1st -6th Respondents breaching the Code, they could seek intervention of the independent internal committee to resolve the issues. They could not seek intervention of the court in the first instance. 3. This position was reinforced from the provisions of Section 53 of the Code that stipulated as follows:- **“Every Church shall handle any disputes arising from the activities of the Church in accordance with the teachings of the Holy Bible.”** 1. Turning to Article 12 of APEC Constitution, the same stated as follows:- **“All elections shall be by secret ballot for all office bearers from National level to church Assembly Level.** **Elections for office bearers listed under section 6(c) shall take place after every 5 years through secret ballot during general conference, it shall be presided over by serving trustees of the church and supervised by any other body the church may agree upon. Each Assembly will be represented by 15 delegates who will be members of A.P.E.C.** **An arbitrator acceptable by the church can assist in the event of a misunderstanding or a crisis** (emphasis court).” 1. The dispute in this matter related to elections as the 1st and 3rd Petitioners averred that elections had not been held since 2016 contrary to the APEC Constitution. They urged this court to consider that the doctrine of exhaustion had exceptions and emphasised that their case was out of the ordinary since they were challenging the 1st-6th Respondents’ continued occupation of the office which could not be subjected to internal dispute mechanisms. 2. It was correct as the 1st and 3rd Petitioners had submitted that the doctrine of exhaustion had exemption. In this regard, this court considered the case of **Koyabe & Others vs Minister for Home Affairs & Others (Lawyers for Human Rights as Amicus Curiae) 2010 (4) SA 327 (CC)** where it was held thatwhat constituted exceptional circumstances was dependent on the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the administrative action in issue. 3. Thus, where an internal remedy was not effective and/or where its pursuit would be futile, a court would permit a litigant to approach the court directly. This would also be the case where an internal appellate tribunal had developed a rigid policy which rendered exhaustion futile. 4. Section 9(4) of the Fair Administrative Action Act Cap 7L (Laws of Kenya) provided that:- **“Notwithstanding subsection (3), the High Court or a subordinate Court may, in exceptional circumstances and on application by the applicant, exempt such person from the obligation to exhaust any remedy if the court considers such exemption to be in the interest of justice (**emphasis court)**.”** 1. Section 9(4) of the Fair Administrative Action Act postulated that an aggrieved party would file an application to seeking exemption from the obligation to exhaust any internal remedy. The applicant was required to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances. 2. In this particular case, the 1st and 3rd Petitioners did not present any application before this court to determine the existence of exceptional circumstances to enable it benefit from exemption of the internal dispute resolution mechanisms that were envisaged in the Code and the APEC Constitution. The 1st and 3rd Petitioners had not demonstrated if they had initiated these mechanisms and failed to achieve any resolution. 3. The fact that the 1st -6th Respondents were officials and sat in the council was not sufficient reason not to seek intervention as provided in the APEC Constitution. There was no indication that the 1st- 6th Respondents were part of the internal committee for dispute resolution. They did not also demonstrate the efforts they made regarding getting an arbitrator to assist in the event of disagreements as no elections appeared to have been done since 2016. This court was, therefore, unable to discern any exceptional circumstances in this case. If there were any, then the 1st and 3rd Petitioners did not demonstrate the same. 4. It was trite law that under the doctrine of exhaustion, also known as the principle of exhaustion of remedies, a party seeking judicial intervention was required to first seek intervention in line with what was parties had agreed upon in their contracts or constitutions before coming to the courts. The jurisdiction of the court could only be invoked if the parties demonstrated that they had exhausted all the avenues available to them. 5. It was, therefore, the opinion of this court that the 1st and 3rd Petitioners’ complaint to this court was premature as they did not strictly follow the APEC Constitution providing for dispute resolution mechanism and the Societies Act, hence their case was improperly before this court. Further, Article 12 of the APEC Constitution provided for arbitration through an appointed arbitrator acceptable by the Church in the event of misunderstanding or crisis. Proof of this action was not availed to this court. 6. This court, therefore, agreed with the 1st-6th Respondents that the 1st and 3rd Petitioners ought to have first exhausted the mechanisms for dispute resolution as provided under Article 12 of the APEC Constitution. Indeed, in the case of **Owners of Motor Vessel “Lillian S’ vs Caltex Oil (Kenya) Limited (1989)**, it was held that jurisdiction was everything and without it a court had no power to take one more step. Jurisdiction was conferred by statute and was not assumed without any legal basis. Without jurisdiction, this court had to down its own its tools. 7. Having found that this court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter as the 1st and 3rd Petitioners had not complied with the doctrine of exhaustion of reliefs, there was no value in analysing the submissions the parties herein had presented in respect of the Petition herein because it lent to the court not having jurisdiction to hear and determine the same. 8. Suffice it to state that this court found that the issue that was presented before it was ideally an electoral dispute and did not reach the threshold of what could be termed as a constitutional petition as was envisaged in the case of **Anarita Karimi Njeru vs Republic [1979] eKLR** as the 1st and 3rd Petitioners did not also demonstrate how their rights under the Constitution of Kenya had been denied, violated, infringed, contravened or threatened. **DISPOSITION** 1. For the foregoing reasons, the upshot of this court’s decision was that the 1st-6th Respondents’ Preliminary Objection dated 19th June 2025 and filed on 24th June 2025 was merited and the same be and is hereby upheld. The effect of this decision was that as the Petitioners’ Petition dated 29th April 2025 and filed on 1st May 2025 was improperly before this court for want of jurisdiction to deal with the same, the same be and is hereby struck out. 2. Bearing in mind that this was a dispute involving Church members, to avoid escalating the dispute between the parties herein, this court hereby deviated from the general principle that costs follow the events and hereby directs that each party will bear its costs of the 1st- 6th Respondents’ Preliminary Objection dated 19th June 2025 and filed on 24th June 2025 and the Petitioners’ Petition dated 29th April 2025 and filed on 1st May 2025. It is so ordered. **DATED** and **DELIVERED** at **VIHIGA** this **24th** day of **June** 2026 **J. KAMAU** **JUDGE**