https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8620

Simiyu v Kenya Sugar Board & 2 others (Constitutional Petition E004 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 8620 (KLR) (15 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8620 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Vihiga Constitutional Petition E004 of 2026 RN Nyakundi, J June 15, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: ARTICLES 1, 10, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 40, 47 118, 50, 73, 159, 232, 258, AND 259 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010. AND IN THE MATTER OF: ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS OF SUGARCANE FARMERS IN BUMULA SUB-COUNTY. AND IN THE MATTER OF: DELINEATION OF SUGAR CATCHMENT AREAS IN THE FIRST SCHEDULE OF THE SUGAR ACT, 2024. Between Silverious Simon Simiyu Petitioner and The Kenya Sugar Board 1st Respondent The Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development 2nd Respondent The Hon Attorney General 3rd Respondent Ruling 1.This matter came for a status conference with regard to the notice of motion dated 29th of May 2026 following structural interdict with regard to that motion which had been filed under Certificate of Urgency. It so happened that the original notice of motion brought in other interested parties like Mr. Harrison Tanga Webbo who filed a Replying Affidavit dated 11th June 2026. That was not the end of it. On the 15th of June 2026 yet another motion was filed by Interested Parties being represented by Learned Counsel Mr. Olendo, on behalf of the 1st – 5th Interested Parties sequencing their interests to the petition filed on the 29th May 2026. 2.This litigation did not stop there, on the 15th June 2026 the 1st and 2nd proposed Interested Parties also moved the Court by way of a Notice of Motion dated the same day with a horizon on the justiciable issues pleaded in the petition with regard to the interlocking issues in the entire spectrum and the main actors being the Kenya Sugar Board, the Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development and the Hon. Attorney General. This Court for purposes of legal extractives as stated the various motions with corresponding affidavits so as to lay the foundation of the litigation roadmap for purposes of expediency and proportionate merger of what one will call the predominant dispute both at the interlocutory level and which may shed some light to the main petition. Thus, the following applications constitute the legal contestation as between the Petitioner, Respondents and Interested Parties. 3.First before this Court is a notice of motion dated 29th May 2026, expressed to be brought under Articles 22, 23, 47 of the Constitution and all enabling provisions of the law. The petitioner seeks the following orders:a.That pending the hearing and determination of this Application, this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a conservatory order restraining 1st Respondent from conducting elections of Sugarcane farmers’ representatives to the Kenya Sugar Board under the zoning framework established under the First Schedule of the Sugar Act, 2024.b.That pending the hearing and determination of the Petition, this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a conservatory order restraining the 1st Respondent from conducting elections of Sugarcane farmers’ representatives to the Kenya Sugar Board under the zoning framework established under the First Schedule of the Sugar Act, 2024.c.That costs of this Application be provided for. 4.The application is based on the following grounds;a.That sugarcane farming is the economic backbone and primary source of livelihood for the majority of residents in Bumula Sub-County. It sustains over 9,000 farmers and their families in the sub-County and forms the mainstay of the local economy.b.The Petitioner/Applicant is a sugarcane farmer in Bumula Sub-County, with running contract with Mumias Sugar Company Limited.c.That Bumula Sub-County has more than 9,000 sugarcane farmers who are affiliated to Mumias Sugar Company by virtue to sugarcane supply contracts with the company.d.That for decades, the petitioner, like other sugarcane farmers within Bumula Sub County, developed economic dependence and contractual relationship with Mumias Sugar Company Limited which, over time, made deliberate efforts to expand its sugarcane catchment area through cane development, infrastructural development and economic and social empowerment programmes in the area.e.That in 2024, the Respondents, without consulting farmers within Bumula Sub County, conducting any public participation, arbitrarily and unilaterally delineated new sugarcane catchment areas as contained in the First Schedule of the Sugar Act, in so doing, moving Bumula Sub-County from Lower Western Sugarcane Catchment Area where Mumias Sugar Company is located to Upper Western Sugarcane Catchment area.f.In delineating the new sugarcane catchment areas, the Respondents did not carry out any public participation to allow farmers to give their views on the proposed rezoning, prevent economic harm to over 9,000 farmers and ensure decisions reflect the historical, contractual, and economic realities on the ground.g.That the rezoning of these farmers from the Lower Western Sugarcane Catchment area to the Upper Western Sugarcane Catchment area has serious ramification to the Petitioner and more than 9,000 sugarcane farmers in Bumula Sub-County described herein below;a.Most of the farmers in Bumula Sub-County have long-standing relationship with Mumias Sugar Company Limited.b.These farmers do not have any sugarcane supply contracts with millers in the Upper Western Sugarcane Catchment area.c.These farmers are barred from entering into new sugarcane supply contracts with other millers because they will be in breach of their contractual obligations with Mumias Sugar Company Limited.d.The rezoning severely affected the Bumula Sub-County sugarcane farmers’ ability to earn income from sugarcane farming, their only economic activity. e. The Kenya Sugar Board has organized elections of sugarcane farmers’ representatives to the Kenya Sugar Board based on the newly delineated sugarcane catchment areas.e.To be eligible to participate in the elections, either as candidates or voters, the Procedure for elections of Growers Representatives to the Kenya Sugar Board 2025 requires sugarcane farmers to show that they have running sugarcane supply contracts with millers in their respective sugarcane catchment areas and have, in twenty-four (24) months preceding the date of the elections, supplied sugarcane to the respective millers.f.Farmers in Bumula Sub-County will not be eligible to participate in the elections in both the Lower Western sugarcane catchment area and the Upper Western Sugarcane Catchment area because, firstly, the First Schedule of the Sugar Act places them in the Upper Western sugarcane catchment area where they do not have sugarcane supply contracts and have not supplied any sugarcane to any millers in the area in the 24 months preceding the date of the elections; and secondly, they will not be eligible to vote in the Lower Western Sugarcane Catchment area since Bumula Sub-County is now not considered part of the Lower Western Sugarcane Catchment area.h.On 12.5.2026, through official website, the 1st Respondents issued a Notice of Election calling for elections of sugarcane farmers representatives scheduled for 25.6.2026.i.That the elections of the sugarcane farmers’ representatives to the Kenya Sugar Board as currently constituted will marginalize the petitioner and more than 9,000 sugarcane farmers within Bumula Sub-County by denying them an opportunity to participate in the elections either as voters or as candidates. Further, these farmers will be denied a voice in the management of the affairs of the sugar industry to which they are key stakeholders for 3 years.j.That the Kenya Sugar Board is a critical organ in the ecosystem of the sugar industry in line with the provisions of section 4 of the Sugar Act. Its statutory functions include the licensing of millers, delineation of sugarcane catchment areas, registration of growers, and the organisation of elections for farmer representatives to the Board.k.That since sugarcane farmers in Bumula Sub-County do not have subsisting sugarcane supply contracts with sugar millers found in the Upper Western catchment area as per the impugned schedule, they will effectively be locked out of the upcoming elections, if the elections were to proceed on the basis of the impugned schedule.l.That prudence dictates that the concerns raised in the petition be addressed before the elections are conducted.m.That unless the honourable Court intervenes by granting the orders sought herein, the farmers within Bumula Sub-County will be denied the right to participate in the elections and a voice in the management of the affairs of the sugar industry in the country. Further, the petition will be rendered nugatory.n.That the Respondents will not suffer any prejudice if the orders sought herein are granted. Conversely, the Petitioner/Applicant and indeed most of most sugarcane farmers within Bumula Sub-County will suffer irreparable loss if the looming elections were to proceed in the manner planned. 5.In support of the application is the annexed affidavit of Silverious Simon Simiyu who deponed as follows:a.That I am a male adult of sound mind and competent to swear this affidavit.b.I am a sugarcane farmer from Bumula sub county with running contract with Mumias Sugar Company limited.c.That Bumula Sub-County has more than 9,000 sugarcane farmers who are affiliated to Mumias Sugar Company by virtue to sugarcane supply contracts with the company.d.That for decades, like other sugarcane farmers within Bumula Sub-County, I have developed economic dependence, infrastructure, and contractual relationships tied to Mumias Sugar Company Limited.e.That in 2024, the Respondents, without consulting farmers within Bumula Sub-County or conducting any public participation, unilaterally delineated new sugarcane catchment areas as contained in the First Schedule of the Sugar Act.f.That for decades, like other sugarcane farmers within Bumula Sub-County, I have developed economic dependence and contractual relationship with Mumias Sugar Company Limited which, over time, made deliberate efforts to expand its sugarcane catchment area through cane development, infrastructural development and economic and social empowerment programmes in the area.g.That in 2024, the Respondents, without consulting farmers within Bumula Sub-County, conducting any public participation, arbitrarily and unilaterally delineated new sugarcane catchment areas as contained in the First Schedule of the Sugar Act, in so doing, moving Bumula Sub-County from Lower Western Sugarcane Catchment Area where Mumias Sugar Company is located to Upper Western Sugarcane Catchment area.h.In delineating the new sugarcane catchment areas, the Respondents did not carry out any public participation to allow farmers to give their views on the proposed rezoning, prevent economic harm to over 9,000 farmers and ensure decisions reflect the historical, contractual, and economic realities on the ground.i.That the rezoning of these farmers from the Lower Western Sugarcane Catchment area to the Upper Western Sugarcane Catchment area has serious ramification to the Petitioner and more than 9,000 sugarcane farmers in Bumula Sub-County described herein below;1.Most of the farmers in Bumula Sub-County have long-standing relationship with Mumias Sugar Company Limited.2.These farmers do not have any sugarcane supply contracts with millers in the Upper Western Sugarcane Catchment area.3.These farmers are barred from entering into new sugarcane supply contracts with other millers because they will be in breach of their contractual obligations with Mumias Sugar Company Limited.4.The rezoning severely affected the Bumula Sub-County sugarcane farmers' ability to earn income from sugarcane farming, their only economic activity.5.The Kenya Sugar Board has organized elections of sugarcane farmers ‘representatives to the Kenya Sugar Board based on the newly delineated sugarcane catchment areas.6.To be eligible to participate in the elections, either as candidates or voters, the Procedure for elections of Growers Representatives to the Kenya Sugar Board 2025 requires sugarcane farmers to show that they have running sugarcane supply contracts with millers in their respective sugarcane catchment areas and have, in twenty-four (24) months preceding the date of the elections, supplied sugarcane to the respective millers.7.Farmers in Bumula Sub-County will not be eligible to participate in the elections in both the Lower Western sugarcane catchment area and the Upper Western Sugarcane Catchment area because, firstly, the First Schedule of the Sugar Act places them in the Upper Western sugarcane catchment area where they do not have sugarcane supply contracts and have not supplied any sugarcane to any millers in the area in the 24 months preceding the date of the elections; and secondly, they will not be eligible to vote in the Lower Western Sugarcane Catchment area since Bumula Sub-County is now not considered part of the Lower Western Sugarcane Catchment area.j.On 12.5.2026, through official website, the 1st Respondents issued a Notice of Election calling for elections of sugarcane farmers representatives scheduled for 25.6.2026.k.That the elections of the sugarcane farmers' representatives to the Kenya Sugar Board as currently constituted will marginalize the petitioner and more than 9,000 sugarcane farmers within Bumula Sub-County by denying them an opportunity to participate in the elections either as voters or as candidates. Further, these farmers will be denied a voice in the management of the affairs of the sugar industry to which they are key stakeholders.l.That the Kenya Sugar Board is a critical organ in the ecosystem of the sugar industry in line with the provisions of section 4 of the Sugar Act. Its statutory functions include the licensing of millers, delineation of sugarcane catchment areas, registration of growers, and the organization of elections for farmer representatives to the Board.m.I have been advised by my advocate on record, which advice I believe to be true that by unilaterally delineating and transferring the Bumula Sub-County from the Lower Western Sugarcane Catchment Area to the Upper Western Sugarcane Catchment Area under the First Schedule of the Sugar Act, 2024, without public participation or consultation, the respondents violated article 1of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. The Respondents failed to involve sugarcane farmers in Bumula Sub-County and myself in the decision-making process, denying us sovereign right to participate directly in matters that affect their lives and economic well-being, contrary to Article 1(1) and 1(2) of the Constitution.n.Further, I have been advised by my advocate on record, which advice I believe to be true that by their actions and omissions, the Respondents failed to uphold the national values and principles of governance, particularly democracy and participation of the people, inclusiveness, transparency, accountability, protection of the marginalized, and rule of law as enshrined in Article 10(2) of the Constitution. The decision to delineate sugarcane catchment areas is a major policy and administrative decision directly and substantially affects the livelihoods of over 9,000 sugarcane farmers in Bumula Sub-County. The complete absence of public participation, stakeholder engagement, or consultation with the affected farmers renders the decision unconstitutional. The Respondents failed to facilitate meaningful public participation in a matter of great public concern affecting thousands of citizens, contrary to article 118(b) (in so far as it applies to public policy) and article 232(1)(d) which requires involvement of the people in policy making.o.Further, I have been advised by my advocate on record, which advice I believe to be true that the impugned delineation unfairly discriminates against the sugarcane farmers in the Bumula Sub-County by ignoring their existing contractual relationships with Mumias Sugar Company Limited and their long-standing economic dependence on Mumias Sugar Company Limited, their preferred miller. The decision is discriminatory as it treats the Petitioner and other farmers in Bumula Sub-County differently from other farmers without any objective and reasonable justification, contrary to Article 27 of the Constitution.p.I have also been advised by my advocate on record, which advice I believe to be true that the unilateral transfer of more than 9,000 farmers from Bumula Sub-County from Lower Western Sugarcane catchment area interferes with their contractual rights and economic interests in their subsisting sugarcane supply contracts with Mumias Sugar Company Limited. Indeed, the decision effectively frustrates all subsisting contracts between sugarcane farmers in Bumula Sub-County and Mumias Sugar Company Limited to the detriment of the Petitioner and more than 9,000 sugarcane farmers in Bumula Sub-County. This action threatens the Petitioner's and the farmers' right to property guaranteed under article 40 of the Constitution.q.I have also been advised by my advocate on record, which advice I believe to be true that the Respondents did not accord sugarcane farmers in Bumula Sub-County and myself an opportunity to be heard before their long-established catchment areas were altered, in flagrant violation of Article 47(1) and (2) of the Constitution. The Respondents' actions are unreasonable, irrational, procedurally unfair, and disproportionate in the circumstances.r.That the Respondents are culpable of the following constitutional violations;1.The Respondents formulated and gazetted the First Schedule of the Sugar Act, 2024 without any form of stakeholder engagement, consultation or public participation with sugarcane farmers in Bumula Sub-County;2.No public notice was issued inviting views from affected farmers;3.The decision has severe prejudicial effects on contracts of sugarcane farmers within Bumula Sub-County and their ability to participate in the governance of the sugar industry;4.The Respondents proceeded to organize elections of sugarcane farmers' representatives to the Kenya Sugar Board based on the new unconstitutional zones, thereby disenfranchising the Petitioners;5.The actions of the Respondents are arbitrary and lack any rational connection to a legitimate governmental purpose.o.My claim against the Respondents jointly and severally is for;a.A Declaration that First Schedule of the Sugar Act, 2024, is unconstitutional, null, and void for delineating Bumula Sub-County from the Lower Western Sugarcane Catchment area to the Upper Western Sugarcane Catchment area without public participationb.A Declaration that the elections of sugarcane farmers ‘representatives to the Kenya Sugar Board on the basis of the First Schedule of the Sugarcane Act, 2024, are unconstitutional, unlawful, and invalid.c.A Conservatory ORDER restraining the Respondents, whether by themselves, their agents, or servants, from conducting or proceeding with the elections of sugarcane farmers' representatives to the Kenya Sugar Board on the basis of the First Schedule of the Sugar Act, 2024.d.An Order directing the Respondents to undertake meaningful public participation involving all affected farmers before delineating sugarcane catchment areas within a period set by the honourable Court.e.AN ORDER compelling the Respondents to review, amend, and/or realign the zoning framework in the First Schedule of the Sugar Act2024 to reflect historical, contractual, and economic realities of the farmers within a period set by the honourable Court.f.Costs of this Petition.g.Any Other RELIEF that this Honourable Court may deem just and appropriate.p.This Honourable Court has jurisdiction under Articles 22 and 23 of the Constitution of Kenya to hear and determine applications for redress of denial, violation, or infringement of rights and fundamental freedoms.q.The cause of action arose within the Bumula sub county affecting farmers within the jurisdiction of this honorable Court sitting at Court 6.In support of the application is the affidavit of Silverious Simon Simiyu who deponed as follows:a.That I am a male adult of sound mind hence competent to swear this affidavit.b.That sugarcane farming is the economic backbone and primary source of livelihood for the majority of residents in Bumula Sub-County. It sustains over 9,000 farmers and their families in the sub-County and forms the mainstay of the local economy.c.That I am a sugarcane farmer in Bumula Sub-County, with running contract with Mumias Sugar Company Limited.2.d.That Bumula Sub-County has more than 9,000 sugarcane farmers who are affiliated to Mumias Sugar Company by virtue to sugarcane supply contracts with the company. See Minutes of Kenya Sugarcane Growers Association-Mumias Branch of 13.12.2010 and a bundle of farmers ‘contracts, sugarcane delivery slips of farmers within Bumula Sub-County annexed and marked SSS-2(a) and (b) respectively.e.That for decades, the petitioner, like other sugarcane farmers within Bumula Sub-County, developed economic dependence and contractual relationship with Mumias Sugar Company Limited which, over time, made deliberate efforts to expand its sugarcane catchment area through cane development, infrastructural development and economic and social empowerment programmes in the area.f.That in 2024, the Respondents, without consulting farmers within Bumula Sub-County, conducting any public participation, arbitrarily and unilaterally delineated new sugarcane catchment areas as contained in the First Schedule of the Sugar Act, in so doing, moving Bumula Sub-County from Lower Western Sugarcane Catchment Area where Mumias Sugar Company is located to Upper Western Sugarcane Catchment area.g.In delineating the new sugarcane catchment areas, the Respondents did not carry out any public participation to allow farmers to give their views on the proposed rezoning, prevent economic harm to over 9,000 farmers and ensure decisions reflect the historical, contractual, and economic realities on the ground.h.That the rezoning of these farmers from the Lower Western Sugarcane Catchment area to the Upper Western Sugarcane Catchment area has serious ramification to the Petitioner and more than 9,000 sugarcane farmers in Bumula Sub-County described herein below;1.Most of the farmers in Bumula Sub-County have long-standing relationship with Mumias Sugar Company Limited.SUBPARA 2. These farmers do not have any sugarcane supply contracts with millers in the Upper Western Sugarcane Catchment area.3.These farmers are barred from entering into new sugarcane supply contracts with other millers because they will be in breach of their contractual obligations with Mumias Sugar Company Limited.4.The rezoning severely affected the Bumula Sub-County sugarcane farmers’ ability to earn income from sugarcane farming, their only economic activity.5.The Kenya Sugar Board has organized elections of sugarcane farmers’ representatives to the Kenya Sugar Board based on the newly delineated sugarcane catchment areas.6.To be eligible to participate in the elections, either as candidates or voters, the Procedure for elections of Growers Representatives to the Kenya Sugar Board 2025 requires sugarcane farmers to show that they have running sugarcane supply contracts with millers in their respective sugarcane catchment areas and have, in twenty-four (24) months preceding the date of the elections, supplied sugarcane to the respective millers.7.Farmers in Bumula Sub-County will not be eligible to participate in the elections in both the Lower Western sugarcane catchment area and the Upper Western Sugarcane Catchment area because, firstly, the First Schedule of the Sugar Act places them in the Upper Western sugarcane catchment area where they do not have sugarcane supply contracts and have not supplied any sugarcane to any millers in the area in the 24months preceding the date of the elections; and secondly, they will not be part eligible to vote in the Lower Western Sugarcane Catchment area since/Bumula Sub-County is now not considered part of the Lower Western Sugarcane Catchment area.i.On 12.5.2026, through official website, the 1st Respondents issued a Notice of Election calling for elections of sugarcane farmers representatives scheduled for 25.6.2026.j.That the elections of the sugarcane farmers' representatives to the Kenya Sugar Board as currently constituted will marginalize the petitioner and more than 9,000 sugarcane farmers within Bumula Sub-County by denying them an opportunity to participate in the elections either as voters or as candidates. Further, these farmers will be denied a voice in the management of the affairs of the sugar industry to which they are key stakeholders for 3 years.k.That the Kenya Sugar Board is a critical organ in the ecosystem of the sugar industry in line with the provisions of section 4 of the Sugar Act. Its statutory functions include the licensing of millers, delineation of sugarcane catchment areas, registration of growers, and the organisation of elections for farmer representatives to the Board.l.That since sugarcane farmers in Bumula Sub-County do not have subsisting sugarcane supply contracts with sugar millers found in the Upper Western catchment area as per the impugned schedule, they will effectively be locked out of the upcoming elections, if the elections were to proceed on the basis of the impugned schedule.m.That prudence dictates that the concerns raised in the petition be addressed before the elections are conducted.n.That unless the honourable Court intervenes by granting the orders sought herein, the farmers within Bumula Sub-County will be denied the right to participate in the elections and a voice in the management of the affairs of the sugar industry in the country. Further, the petition will be rendered nugatory.o.That the Respondents will not suffer any prejudice if the orders sought herein are granted. Conversely, the Petitioner/Applicant and indeed most of most sugarcane farmers within Bumula Sub-County will suffer irreparable loss if the looming elections were to proceed in the manner planned.p.That the balance of convenience favours conservatory orders being granted.q.That it is in the interest of justice that the orders sought in the application are granted. 7.In response to the application is the replying affidavit of one Harrison Tanga Webbo who avers as follows:a.That am the interested party herein and am hence competent to make this oathb.That I have read the application dated 29/5/2026 together with the petition of the same date and having understood wish to respondent thereto as followsc.That am one of the farmers with cane supply contract with west Kenya Sugar Co. Ltd.d.That am aware that the respondent is established by dint of section 3 of the sugar Act as follows; Establishment and incorporation of the Board1.There is established a board to be known as the Kenya Sugar Board.2.The Board shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal and shall, in its corporate name, be capable of-a.suing and being sued;b.taking, purchasing or otherwise acquiring, holding, charging or disposing of movable and immovable property;c.borrowing or lending money; andd.doing or performing all such other acts necessary for the proper performance of its functions under this Act which may lawfully be done or performed by a body corporate."e.That the petitioner is seeking to declare the schedule to the Act to be unconstitutionalf.That the respondent being a creature of parliament does not make lawsg.That I have looked at the petition and he has not enjoined the National Assembly and the Senate.h.That the petition is thus incompetent as the Court cannot issue an order affecting on parties.i.That the respondent is a creature of parliament and cannot be held responsible for the functions of parliament.j.That am aware that the board is 99% constituted as only directors not present are grower directorsk.That in interest of the public the injunction should not to be granted. 8.Second, before this Court is the 2nd application dated 15th June 2026, expressed to be brought under Rules 5 and 7 of the Constitution of Kenya, Protection of Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules 2013 and Articles 20, 22 and 258 of the Constitution and all other enabling provisions of the law. The application seeks the following orders:a.That the service of this application be dispensed with, in the first instance owing to the urgency disclosed on the affidavit in support of this application together with the Certificate of Urgency annexed hereto.b.That leave be granted to the Applicants to join this suit as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Interested Parties and the Replying Affidavit sworn on 15th June 2026 by the 1st Interested Party together with the Grounds of Opposition be properly on record upon payment of the requisite Court fees.c.That cost of this application be in the course. 9.This application is based on the following grounds:-a.That the intended interested parties are farmers and voters in the forthcoming Kenya Sugar Board farmers representative from Bumula Sub County in Bungoma County and they fall within the Upper Western Catchment area as per the First Schedule of the Sugar Act and have existing sugarcane growing and supply contract with millers in the Upper Western Catchment area and specifically West Kenya Sugar Co. Ltd and Nzoia Sugar Company (2025) Ltd.b.That the interested parties are among the over 200,000 sugarcane farmers within Upper and Lower Western Sugar Cane Catchment area which covers 7 Counties namely: a) Bungoma County b) Busia County c) Kakamega County d) Trans Nzoia County e) Siaya County f) Uasin Gishu County g) Northern Part of Nandi Countyc.That the Sugar Act 2024 which contains the First Schedule on the demarcation of the sugarcane catchment area was passed in the year 2024 after an extensive public participation that involved different stakeholders that included farmers, millers, County Governments and County Assemblies in the sugarcane growing areas, Parliament and Senate, and different stakeholders where various competing interest were balanced with the final document being assented into law on 1st November 2024 and it has been in operation for the last 18 months regulating the sugar industry and therefore its dishonest of the Petitioner to wake up after 18 months and alleged that there was no public participation in passing the provision of the First Schedule of the Sugar Act.d.That this ingenious Petition is a proxy war brought by the Petitioner on behalf of his pay master, the Mumias Sugar Company (2021) Ltd which has been placed under lower Western Catchment area to illegally amend the First Schedule of the Sugar Act through the back door by trying to carve out parts of the Upper Western Sugarcane Catchment area and specifically Bumula Sub County in Bungoma County back to Lower Western Catchment Area.e.That the First Schedule to the Sugar Act, 2024 has specifically placed Bungoma County as the First County which forms part of the Upper Western Sugarcane catchment area and therefore the Petition as filed seeks to remove Bumula Sub County from Bungoma County and transfer it to Busia County, a move that does not only affects the forthcoming farmer representative to Kenya Sugar Board but will affect the Kenya General elections of 2027 as it seeks to review and rewrite the Boundaries of not only Bungoma and Busia Counties but also the Boundaries of Bumula Constituency, an exercise that this Court has no Jurisdiction to undertake as it's the mandate of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission.f.That nomination of candidates for election of farmer representatives has already closed and there is no candidate from Bumula Sub County who presented his and or her nomination documents to be cleared as a candidate.g.That there being no candidate from Bumula Sub County to contest the forthcoming farmers representative elections, means that Bumula Sub County like all the other sub counties will have to be represented by a candidate from another sub County as both the Upper and Lower Western Sugarcane catchment area has an opportunity to elect only 2 representatives to the Kenya Sugar Board whereas the entire Western Sugarcane Catchment area is made up 7 Counties that include Bungoma, Kakamega, Busia, Siaya, Trans Nzoia, Northern Nandi and Uasin Gishu.h.That the Petitioner not being a candidate himself in the forthcoming election there is no prejudice that he will suffer if the elections are allowed to proceed, just like the interested Parties and all the farmers in the Western Catchment area he will be represented by the elected representative who does not only represent a sub county he comes from but all the farmers in Kenya. Further the said leader represents all Kenyans as the policy they make at Kenya Sugar Board affects all Kenyans like changes in prices. It’s not fair to localize the elections of national farmers representatives to village politics concerning Bumula Sub County.i.That the Petitioner has misrepresented facts as Mumias Sugar Company Ltd is not a registered and licensed sugar miller in operation having been put under receivership in the year 2018 before it closed shop the same year therefore there is no valid contract existing between Mumias Sugar Company Ltd and any farmer in Bumula Sub County for the supply of any sugarcane crop.j.That the alleged supply agreement is between the Petitioner and Mumias Sugar Company (2021) Ltd, a company registered in the year 2021 and it started operations in the year 2022 after being granted a lease by the receiver manager appointed by KCB bank and therefore the allegation that farmers in Bumula Sub County have had a decade long contractual relationship with Mumias Sugar Company (2021) Ltd is a misrepresentation of facts meant to mislead the Court.k.There is an election committee established by the Cabinet Secretary of Agriculture meant to hear and determine all pre-election disputes and therefore this Court has no original jurisdiction to hear and determine this election dispute as to which catchment area the voters in the Bumula Sub County should be allowed to cast their vote.l.That the Interested Parties like all the farmers in the Western catchment area have a legitimate expectation to participate in the forthcoming elections and elect their representatives via elections conducted through universal suffrage and not have representatives imposed on them through boardroom negotiations and decisions to achieve their desired outcome and alter the will of the people.m.That elections is not an event but a process that affects the entire ecosystem not only costing money to the organizers who are working on approved budget by the government but also the candidates, their supporters, farmers and different stakeholders who have invested financially, emotionally and physically and the same should not be altered at the whim of only one individual who has had sufficient notice of these elections for the last 18 months but has only sought to challenge them less than a month to the elections.n.That the Application and the Petition as filed by the Petitioner does not represent the interest and aspirations of the people of Bumula Sub County, Bungoma County and that is why the Petitioner has sought to file this Petition in Vihiga High Court which is geographically far away from the people whose interest it's going to adversely affect.o.That the orders sought by the Petitioner will adversely affect the interest and constitutional rights of the interested parties, innocent candidates and farmers, hence they need to be heard before any orders are made.p.That it would be in the interest of justice that the intended interested parties be joined for reasons that the orders prayed for in this suit shall interfere with their rights as farmers and participation in the forthcoming elections.q.The parties hereto shall not be prejudiced with the intended interested parties being so joined and, in such event, they can be remedied by way of costs. 10.Third, before this Court is the 3rd application expressed to be brought under Articles 1(1), 2(1), 3(1), 10(1) (2), 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27(1)(2), 28, 40, 43, 159, 165(3), 227, 259, 260 of the constitution of Kenya, Rules 1, 2, 2, 7 and 25 of the constitution of Kenya (Protection Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules 2013, the application Sugar Act, 2024 and all enabling provisions of the law. The application seeks the following orders.a.This application be certified as urgent and be fixed for inter partes hearing at the earliest opportunity as the Honourable Court may deem fit and in view of the date fixed for further directions and/or hearing of the applications by the Honourable Court of 15th June, 2026.b.The Honourable Court do grant leave to the Proposed 1st and 2nd Interested Parties/Applicants to be joined as such 1st and 2nd Interested Parties to this Petition.c.Upon being joined, the Honourable Court do deem the responses to the Petition and the Notice of Motion by the Proposed 1st and 2nd Interested Parties/Applicants annexed hereto as properly on record;d.The Honourable Court be pleased discharge, set aside the interim ex parte orders given on 2nd June, 2026;e.Such further directions be made upon the joinder of the Proposed 1st and 2nd Interested Parties as will enable them to participate in the proceedings accordingly and appropriately.f.Such further or other orders be made as will meet the justice of the proceedings in this Petition. 11.The application is based on the following grounds:i.The Proposed 1st and 2nd Interested Parties are Kenyan citizens and farmers within the Nzoia Sugar Company Limited Out-growers Zone in Bumula Constituency, Mwomo Area, Bumula Sub-County within Bungoma County in the Republic of Kenya.ii.The Proposed 1st and 2nd Interested Parties/Applicants have, hitherto this Petition being filed in this Honourable Court, supplied sugar cane to Nzoia Sugar Company Limited and contracted as such by Nzoia Sugar Company Limited.iii.By virtue of the existing sugarcane farming contracts with Nzoia Sugar Company Limited, the Proposed 1st Interested Party/Applicant is a registered voter in the Upper Western Region Sugar Catchment Area for elections of the representatives to the Kenya Sugar Board, the 1st Respondent herein.iv.The Proposed 1st and 2nd Interested Parties/Applicants have personal stake, real and identifiable direct interest in this petition as sugarcane farmers in Bumula Sub-County, Upper Western Sugar Catchment Area who are registered voters in the anticipated elections of the Representatives to the Kenya Sugar Board whose delineation is the subject of challenge by the Petitioner in the instant petition on account of the alleged lack of public participation.v.The Proposed 1st and 2nd Interested Parties/Applicants do not have pre-existing contract with Mumias Sugar Company Limited as alleged by the Petitioner and the instant petition is not representing the interests of the farmers in Bumula Sub-County as alleged save for the Petitioner's self interests.vi.The Proposed 1st and 2nd Interested Parties/Applicants' livelihoods of sugarcane farming that are intertwined with Nzoia Sugar Company Limited as the proximate economic Miller (distance to factory is a cost factor to delivery of cane) is of utmost importance as to their realization of the fundamental right to life and as the Supreme Court of India stated in Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation 1986 AIR 180 that "an equally important facet of the right to life is the right to livelihood because no person can live without the means of livelihood" and in the circumstances of this Petition delineating Bumula Sub-County to Lower Western Sugar Catchment Area will fundamentally raise the cost of transport of sugarcane to Mumias Sugar Company Limited to the disadvantage of the Proposed 1st and 2nd Interested Parties/Applicants herein and further the Proposed 1st and 2nd Interested Parties/Applicants do not have any contract with Mumias Sugar Company Limited.vii.The Sugar Act, 2024 defines stakeholder as a person with significant interest in the sugar industry and includes growers, out-growers, millers, transporters and other value chain actors in the industry.viii.The Proposed 1st and 2nd Interested Parties/Applicants are thus proper persons with concrete and identifiable stakes in the matters in contention, touching on and delineation of Bumula Sub-County in the Upper Western Sugar Catchment Area and the core of this Petition.ix.The subject matter of the petition is the constitutionality of the provisions of the Sugar Act, 2024 relating to zoning (delineation) which directly implicates the interests of the sugarcane farmers including the Proposed 1st and 2nd Interested Parties/Applicants not only in Bumula Sub-County but also across the country and the Proposed 1st and 2nd Interested Parties/Applicants have demonstrably shown the proximate and identifiable stake in the petition for them to be joined.x.The Proposed 1st and 2nd Interested Parties/Applicants gave their views in the public participation held within the Nzoia Sugar Company Limited out-growers reach in late 2022 and early 2023 to the National Assembly's Departmental Committee on Agriculture on the Sugar Bill that was eventually enacted into the Sugar Act, 2024 and the lack of participation by the Petitioner in the public participation does not by itself mean that there was no public participation.xi.Equally in February 2025, the Proposed 1st and 2nd Interested Parties/Applicants engaged in public participation on the then proposed the Sugar (General) Regulations, 2025 and the Sugar (Imports and Exports) Regulations, 2025 within the Upper Western Sugar Catchment Area and in particular at Nzoia Sugar Company Limited.xii.The evidence of public participation was found in the Committee reports of the Parliament as a matter of fact by the High Court at Kakamega in High Court Constitutional Petition No E013 of 2025, Masinde v Attorney General & another; Kenya Sugar Board (Interested Party) (Constitutional Petition E013 of 2025) KEHC 17616 (KLR) (26 November 2025) (Ruling).xiii.The Proposed 1st and 2nd Interested Parties/Applicants will be greatly prejudiced if not joined into this petition which goes to the heart of their livelihood in sugarcane farming and if the petition and the application heard and determined without their participation their constitutional right to be heard will be seriously imperiled and who intend to make the following critical submission in this petition and its offshoot Notice of Motion which will assist the Honourable Court to arrive at a just decision: a. This Honourable Court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the instant petition and its offshoot notice of Motion as the issues raised therein are res judicata High Court Constitutional Petition No E013 of 2025 at Kakamega, Masinde v Attorney General & another; Kenya Sugar Board (Interested Party); b. The Honourable Court in assuming jurisdiction over the instant petition and the notice of motion will be sitting on an appeal against the decision by a Court of concurrent jurisdiction - the High Court at Kakamega; c. There was public participation as documented in the committee reports of the parliament conducted prior to the enactment of the Sugar Act, 2024 and its schedules as was found as a matter of fact by the High Court sitting at Kakamega in the High Court Constitutional Petition No E013 of 2025 at Kakamega; d. There are material non-disclosure by the Petitioner that goes to the root and heart of the application; and e. The Petitioner is forum shopping and abusing the process of this Court given that the alleged farms the subject of the petition are in Bumula Sub-County, Bungoma Court which has a High Court and his preferred miller, Mumias Sugar Company Limited is in Mumias East within Kakamega county with a High Court at Kakamega, why was the petition filed in this Court?xiv.The purported contracts being relied upon by the Petitioner were for 2010 before the enactment of the Crops Act, 2013 which repealed zoning. If the Petitioner has any existing contract with Mumias Sugar Company Limited, it was entered into post enactment of the Crops Act, 2013 during the time when there was no zoning and hence the farmer was at will to enter into contract with any miller and as such, it is not true that the First Schedule to the Sugar Act, 2024 was enacted without due regard to the existing delineations.xv.The Petitioners Petition herein is constructed on quicksand and absurdity for it belabours lack of public participation in the enactment of the First Schedule to the Sugar Act, 2024 when in fact the National Assembly through its Departmental Committee on Agriculture carried out a nationwide public participation in late 2022 and early 2023 prior to the enactment of the Sugar Act, 2024.xvi.The Courts of Kenya recognize and apply the Latin doctrine of "IGNORANTIA JURIS NON-EXCUSAT", ignorance of the law excuses not.xvii.The mere fact that the Petitioner for one reason or another willfully, negligently and/or accidentally failed to give his views in the public participation does not render the public participation carried out otiose and inconsequential and to be the premise for declaring the First Schedule to the Sugar Act, 2024 unconstitutional.xviii.The Petitioner's contention that delineation of Bumula Sub-County into the Upper Western Sugar Catchment Area will lock him out from voting for representatives to the Kenya Sugar Board is made in ignorance of section 20 of the Sugar Act, 2024 that expressly authorizes him, due to pre-existing contract with Mumias Sugar Company Limited, to continue delivering the sugarcane outside a sugar catchment area provided (in this case outside Upper Western Sugar Catchment Area) and to be registered as a voter and vote in that other sugar catchment area to which he supplies the sugarcane.xix.The Proposed 1st and 2nd Interested Parties/Applicants state that if indeed the Petitioner has a long standing contract with Mumias Sugar Company Limited, he is eligible to register and vote in the Lower Western Region for representative to the Kenya Sugar Board and for the purpose of his farm and the alleged existing contract with Mumias Sugar Company Limited, the Petitioner will be in the Lower Western Sugar Catchment Area pursuant to section 20 of the Sugar Act, 2024 and there is no justification for declaring the First Schedule to the Sugar Act, 2024 unconstitutional or even halting the imminent elections of the Representatives to the Kenya Sugar Board pursuant to the Sugar Act, 2024.xx.The Petition herein is an endeavour by the Petitioner to have another bite at the cherry on the same question of public participation on delineation of sugar catchment areas having been litigated in High Court Constitutional Petition No E013 of 2025 at Kakamega, Masinde v Attorney General & another; Kenya Sugar Board (Interested Party) and the High Court at Kakamega held that there was public participation.xxi.There is issue estoppel as the question of whether delineation of sugar catchment areas in the First Schedule to the Sugar Act, 2024 was undertaken in contravention of the Constitution has been decided by the High Court at Kakamega and this Court ought not to re-litigate the same issue over and over each time a party files a petition on the same subject matter.xxii.The Petitioner by acts of omissions withholding materials facts (including the evidence of public participation undertaken and documented in the committee reports of the Parliament before the Parliament enacted the Sugar Act, 2024) failed to make full disclosure of all material facts and which disentitles the Petitioner to any conservatory orders and if any have been granted to be discharged "suo moto" for as Justice F. Gikonyo held in Re Estate of Julius Ntumbi Javan (Deceased) eKLR that "accordingly non-disclosure of material facts undermines justice and introduces festering waters into the pure streams of justice such must, immediately be subjected to serious REVERSE OSMOSIS to purify the streams of justice if society is to be accordingly regulated by law".xxiii.The High Court at Kakamega in High Court Constitutional Petition No E013 of 2025 at Kakamega, when it was brought to its attention with material evidence that had been suppressed by the Petitioner of there being public participation before enactment of the Sugar Act, 2024 and the Schedules thereto, it set aside the interim order it has issued on account of non-disclosure.xxiv.The interim orders granted while they were meant to protect only the Petitioner and his alleged farmers in Bumula Sub- County, the conservatory orders have had real effect of disadvantaging all sugarcane farmers by delaying the elections of the Kenya Sugar Board which creates irreparable economic prejudice that threatens the stability of the entire sugar sector.xxv.Petitioners cannot ad infinitum purvey the same generic mantra, panel beaten here and there "violation of the Constitution" to leapfrog and circumvent and stultify the Sugar Act, 2024 enacted in compliance with Articles 10 and 118 of the same Constitution he purport has been violated.xxvi.The Petitioner's Petition is in the premises an enterprise to sabotage, suffocate the same Constitutional imperative he cries louder than the bereaved of public participation and it is dead on arrival for being the grossest abuse of the Constitutional Court process.xxvii.There is no basis of halting the elections of the representatives to the Kenya Sugar Board to be carried out pursuant to the provisions of the Sugar Act, 2024 and the attendant material laws unless and until the Sugar Act, 2024 or any provision thereof touching on elections of the representatives to the Kenya Sugar Board is declared unconstitutional.xxviii.In Gatirau Peter Munya v Dixon Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others eKLR the Supreme Court of Kenya stated that: (86) "Conservatory orders" bear a more decided public-law connotation: for these are orders to facilitate ordered functioning within public agencies, as well as to uphold the adjudicatory authority of the Court, in the public interest. Conservatory orders, therefore, are not, unlike interlocutory injunctions, linked to such private-party issues as "the prospects of irreparable harm" occurring during the pendency of a case; or "high probability of success" in the supplicant's case for orders of stay. Conservatory orders, consequently, should be granted on the inherent merit of a case, bearing in mind the public interest, the constitutional values, and the proportionate magnitudes, and priority levels attributable to the relevant causes.xxix.In the light of the above demonstrated non-disclosures whether by deliberate acts of omission or Commission or want of due diligence, the inherent merit of this case where the Petitioner purports violation of the Constitution for lack of public participation and which public participation in fact was long undertaken before Parliament prior to the enactment of the Sugar Act, 2024 now being contested in this Court, there is absolutely no basis for grant of any Conservatory orders and orders so issued ought to be set aside by the Honourable Court.xxx.The inherent merit of this case even at its ex parte level with all facts bearing in mind the public interest, the constitutional values and the proportionate magnitudes and priority levels impel the Court to decline to grant any Conservatory order(s) and discharging any granted, the Petitioner having constructed its Petition on distortions suppression of material facts that will have led this Court to discern a deliberate enterprise by the Petitioner to abuse the Constitutional Court process to derail, stonewall, obstruct a constitutional lawful procurement process underway.xxxi.Without jurisdiction over the instant petition and the Notice of Motion which are res judicata High Court Constitutional Petition No E013 of 2025 at Kakamega and section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, 2010, the Honourable Court does not have jurisdiction to grant conservatory orders and the interim conservatory orders granted on 2nd June, 2026 are for setting aside for having been granted without jurisdiction;xxxii.The Constitution at values of human rights social justice, the rule of law, equal protection and equal benefit of the law impel that the Proposed 1st and 2nd Interested Parties/Applicants voices be heard as they are being marginalized on the key issue that affects their livelihood under the generic impleading by the Petitioner.xxxiii.It is fit and just that in the totality of all the material circumstances that the Proposed 1st and 2nd Interested Parties/Applicants be enjoined in this Petition as 1st and 2nd Interested Parties.xxxiv.The Parties already enjoined in the Petition will suffer no prejudice if the orders sought herein are granted. 12.Fourth, before this court is the 4th notice of motion dated 11th June of 2026, expressed to be brought under Rule 7 of the constitution of Kenya (protection of rights and fundamental freedoms) practice and procedure Rules. The application seeks the following orders:a.That the present application be certified urgent and be heard on priority basisb.That the applicant be and is hereby admitted to these proceedings as an interested partyc.That costs hereof be in the cause; 13.The application is based on the following grounds:a.That the applicant is a resident of Malava sub countyb.That he is a sugarcane farmer with a contract to supply cane to West Kenya Sugar Co. Ltdc.That the catchment area is in the upper Western Regiond.That the petitioner is equally in the upper western region.e.That the application for conservatory order is fixed for mention for submission on 12/6/2026f.That the outcome of these proceedings have a direct impact to the applicantg.That the respondent is 90% reconstituted and only grower directors are missingh.That the area delineated by the respondent mainly deal with administration for the board and growers but do not affect the cane farming activitiesi.That the delay in election shall prejudice the majority of the farmers in the regionj.That the petition has filed is in competent as the respondent is equally a creation of the Act.k.That the Act was enacted by parliament; National Assembly and the Senate but the same have not been made parties to the petitionl.That the orders sought are not in public interestm.That it is in the interest of justice that the orders sought be granted. 14.In support of the application is the annexed affidavit of Harrison Tanga Webbo who deponed as follows:a.That am the applicant herein and am hence competent to make this oathb.That am a resident of Malava Sub-County, Kakamega County and have a sugar contract with West Kenya Sugar Companyc.That am versed with sugarcane farming issues as am a trained agriculturalist and I have served both West Kenya Out Growers Co. Ltd and West Kenya CO. Ltd in various capacities.d.That am well versed with the provisions of the new sugar Act 2024e.That am aware that section 6 of the Act provides;The Board shall comprise—(a)a non-executive chairperson appointed by the President;(b)five representatives elected by growers from each sugar catchment area as per the First Schedule;(c)two representatives each elected by private and public owned sugar mills who are knowledgeable in sugar technology and value addition;(d)the Principal Secretary in the Ministry for the time being responsible for matters relating to agriculture or a representative nominated by the Principal Secretary in writing;(e)one person nominated by the Council of County Governors who is knowledgeable in extension services and management of farmer institutions;(f)the Principal Secretary for the time being responsible for National Treasury or a representative nominated by the Principal Secretary in writing; and(g)the Chief Executive of the Board appointed under section 14 who shall be an ex-officio member and the secretary to the Board.f.That am aware that all other bodies have already elected or appointed their representatives to the board and the growers have fixed their election for 25/6/2026g.That the petitioner’s application seeks to stop the elections pending the hearing of the petitionh.That I will be affected by decision from these proceedings and therefore I have sufficient interest in the proceedings.i.That I therefore pray that I be enjoined to the proceedings as am one of the farmers with supply contract with West Kenya. Annexed ad marked HT1 is a copy of the agreementj.That my replying affidavit to the application and submissions be considered in the ruling in respect of the notice of motion dated 29/5/2026. 15.I have reviewed all these interlocutory applications within the canons of ripe and unripe for the Court to exercise its jurisdiction on the merits. It emerges that the primary question for now is whether the respective interested parties have met the threshold to be admitted alongside with the Respondents who have been sued by the Petitioner in the matter of Articles in The Matter Of: Articles 1, 10, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 40, 47 118, 50, 73, 159, 232, 258, and 259 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and In the Matter of: Alleged Violation of The Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Sugarcane Farmers in Bumula Sub-County and In the Matter of Delineation of Sugar Catchment Areas In The First Schedule Of The Sugar Act, 2024. Decision 16.In our legal system the joinder of an Interested Party in any High Court suit, claim or petition is governed by Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Article 22 of the Constitution. The condition precedent of admitting a party to the ongoing or pending proceedings or filed suit or petition including inter alia, (a) a direct, identifiable and proximate legal stake in the proceedings (b) the likelihood of suffering prejudice or injustice if denied joinder (c) the relevance of the interest or stake in terms of the definitional dimension of rights and fundamental freedoms assessed at the individual and group level or community category (d) the interested party must demonstrate that is not riding on the legal protocol of the Respondents just to merely replicate the pleadings averred or pleaded by the Respondents (e) The Interested Parties may also file an application for joinder in support of the Petitioner or Claimant to the suit. 17.The law on this branch of law is kind of settled as demonstrated by the following authorities:First in Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v. Mumo Matemu & 5 Others (Supreme Court Petition 12 of 2013): This is the foundational precedent. The Supreme Court defined an interested party as one who has a stake in the proceedings and will be affected by the court's decision, whether the outcome is in their favor or not.Second in Francis Karioki Muruatetu v. Republic (Petition 15 & 16 of 2013): The Supreme Court cemented the strict three-pronged test for joinder: (1) prove a personal interest, (2) demonstrate prejudice in case of non-joinder, and (3) set out the exact submissions to be made without replicating arguments.Third in Meme v. Republic (2004) 1 EA 124: The High Court established that joinder is permitted if it results in the complete settlement of all questions, protects the rights of an affected party, and prevents proliferated (multiplied) litigation.Lastly, in JMK v. MWM & Another (2015) eKLR: The Court of Appeal emphasized that the court has the discretion to join any person, either upon application or suo motu (on its own motion), at any stage of the proceedings provided the suit is still active and alive. 18.It must be appreciated by this Court that there is a strict distinction between a necessary party (that is a person in whose absence no effective decree can be passed) and a proper party (being a person whose presence allows the Court to completely adjudicate the controversy). It is also true in our Civil Procedure Rules that misjoinder or non-joinder of parties or causes of action should know the result in the outright dismissal of a suit or petition. What this essentially means is that a suit or a petition or a claim will not be defeated solely by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties as the Court even has the discretion to strike out unnecessary parties or order the joinder of proper parties at any stage of the proceedings. 19.From the above, it is now clear that there are very clear criterion that must be satisfied in determining the question who is a necessary party and who is an Interested Party. The materials on record also indicate there is one petition filed by the Petitioner against the Respondents pertaining to the same controversy seeking cancellation of the schedule directions to the Kenya Sugar Board. The Interested Parties have also preferred the notice of motions having regard to the peculiar facts of the present litigation. The Interested parties have sworn affidavits indicative of facts that they have the substantial interest in the matter and in such a situation if not admitted they will suffer substantial loss for it would be necessary in the interest of justice that an order be passed to have them join the proceedings in order to give each one of them an opportunity to protect their interest in the petition. 20.It is limpid in the aforesaid applications and observations made by this Court that if a party is found to either being unnecessary or a proper party, the Court has the discretion and the jurisdiction to implead him or her even against the wishes of the claimant, plaintiff or petitioner who is the primary mover of the Court in the main dispute to be adjudicated under Article 50(1) of the Constitution. 21.From the aforesaid discussion, I do hereby exercise discretion in respect of the controversy involved to admit the respective Interested Parties to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the petition. As a consequence of which enlargement of time be and is hereby granted to the Interested Parties to file an answer to the original motion dated 29th May 2026 filed by the Petitioner within one (1) day from today’s ruling accompanied with brief legal perspectives on the predominant issues touching on the orders being sought by the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Petitioner be and is hereby granted further leave to file rejoinder to matters arising as raised by the Interested Parties in their respective motions and corresponding affidavits as they impact the orders being sought in his notice of motion. That given the urgency and strict timelines, the Petitioner will have one (1) day to file the necessary perspectives on those interlocking issues. With this in mind, the final pre-ruling conference shall be held on the 19th June 2026 at 9.00 a.m. at the virtual platform. The costs of this interlocutory orders to abide the outcome of the substantive motion. DATED AND DELIVERED VIA CTS, EMAIL AND WHATSAPP PLATFORMS ON 15TH JUNE 2026.……………………….…………..R. NYAKUNDIJUDGE