Standard Media Group Plc & 3 others v Kaluma (Civil Appeal E593 of 2022) [2026] KEHC 12159 (KLR) (Civ) (29 July 2026) (Judgment)

**** **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA** **AT NAIROBI** **CIVIL APPELLATE DIVISION** **CIVIL APPEAL NUMBER E593 OF 2022** **THE STANDARD MEDIA GROUP PLC -------------------1ST APPELLANT** **JOSEPH ODINDO --------------------------------------------- 2ND APPELLANT** **CHARLES OTIENO ------------------------------------------- 3RD APPELLANT** **CAROLINE KIMUTAI ---------------------------------------- 4TH APPELLANT** **VERSUS** **HON. GEORGE PETER OPONDO KALUMA ----------- RESPONDENT** **JUDGMENT** 1. On 20/ 12/ 2019 the Communications & Multimedia Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal") entered judgment against the Appellants following a complaint dated 4/10/2018 lodged by the Respondent which is set out in full as follows;- * + 1. **NAMES AND DESCRIPTION OF PARTIES** **1.1 The Complainant is Hon. George Peter Opondo Kaluma. He is a resident of Nairobi within the Republic of Kenya. He is a member the National Assembly serving the prople of Homa Bay Town Constituency as their representative in the National Asembly. He serves the Kenya general public in execution of the constitutional and staturory functions of the National Assembly as a House of Parliament. He is also an advocate of the High Court of Kenya by profession. He is a family man with a wife, children, parents and other close relations. He presents this complaint on his own behalf oand on behalf of his children as persons directly affected by the conduct of the Respondents herein. his addresss of service for purposes of this complaint is C/o Ongoya & Wambola Advocates, Corner House, 13th Floor, Kimathi Street, P.O. Box 10586 – 00200 Nairobi.** **1.2 The 1st Respondent is The Standard Media Group Plc. It is a multi media organization with interests in various media platforms including print media, television, radio broadcasting, digital and online service. The 1st Respondent is recognized one of the leading multi-media houses in Kenya a wide reach of an audience. Its various media platforms include: The Standard Newspaper, KTN, KTN News, Radio Maisha, The Nairobian weekly newspaper.** **1.3 The 2nd Respondent is Joseph Odindo. He is a male adult of sound mind and the Group Editorial Director of the 1st Respondent.** **1.4 The 3rd Respondent is Charles Otieno. He is a male adult of sound mind and the Managing Editor for the Nairobian, a newspaper publication of the 1st Respondent.** **1.5 The 4th Respondent is Caroline Kimutai. She is a female adult of sound mind and the Managing Editor, Standard Digital, the 1st Respondent’s online platform.** **2. LEGAL BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT** **The Constitution of Kenya, 2010** **2.1 Articles 10 of the Constitution of Kenya spells out Kenya national values and principles of governance which include; Human dignity.** **2.2 Article 28 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010, recognizes every person’s inherent dignity and the right to have that dignity respected and protected.** **2.3 Article 31 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, recognizes every person’s right to privacy which includes the right not to have information relating to their family or private affiars unnecessarily revealed.** **2.4 Article 33 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, while recognizing and protecting the right to freedom of expression, carried an inbuilt limitation that in exercising the right to freedom of expression, every person shall respect the rights and reputation of others.** **2.5 Article 34 of the Constitution of kenya, 2010, recognizes and protects freedom and independence of the media but does not protect any expression specified in article 33(20 of the Constitution which includes, among others, vilification of others.** **2.6 Article 35 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, guarantees every person the right to correction or deletion of untrue or midleading information that affects the person.** **The Children;s Act, 2001** **2.7 Section 76(5) of the Children’s Act, 2001 provides that in any proceedings concerning a child, whetehr instituted under the (Children’s) Act or under any written law, a child’s name, identity, home or last place of residence or school shall not, nor shall the particulars of the child’s parents or relatives, any photograph or any depiction or caricature of the child, be published or revealed, whether in any publication or report (including any law report) or otherwise.** **The Media Council Act 2013** **2.8 Pursuant to Section 4 of the Media Council Act, 2013, the Act shall apply to-** **(a) media enterprises;** **(b) journalists;** **(c) media practitioners;** **(d) foreign journalist accredited under this Act; and** **(e) consumers of media services.** **2.9 In exercise of their freedom of expression, all persons to which the Media Council Act, 2013 are duty bound by Section 3 of the Media Council Act to:** **(a) reflect the interest of all section of society;** **(b) be accurate and fair;** **(c) be accountable and transparent;** **(d) respect the personal dignity and privacy of others;** **(e) demonstrate professionalism and respect for the rights of others; and** **(f) be guided by the national values and principles of governance set out under Article 10 of the Constitution.** **2.10 The 2nd Schedule to the Media Council Act sets out the Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism with among other obligations the following;** **3*. Intergrity*** **Journalist should present news with integrity and decency, avoiding real or perceived conflicts of interest, and respect the dignity and intelligence of the audience as well as the subjects of news. They should –** **(a) identity sources whenever possible. Confidential sources should be used only when it is clearly in public interest to gather or convey important information or when a person providing information might be harmed** ***4. Accountability*** **Journalists and all media practitiones should recognize that they are accountable for their actions to the public, the profession and themselves. They should –** **(a) actively encourage adherence to these standards by all journalists and media practictioners;** **(b) respond to public concerns, investigate complaints and correct errors promptly;** **(c) recognize that they are duty-bound to conduct themselves ethically.** ***9. Obscenity, Taste and Tone in Reporting*** **(a) In general, journalists should avoid publishing obscene, vulgar or offensive material unless such material contains a news value which is necessary in the public interest.** ***13. Privacy*** **(a) The public’s right to know should be weighed against the privacy rights of people in the news.** **(b) Journalists should stick to the issues.** **(c) Intrusion and inquiries into an individual’s private life without the persons’s consent are not generally acceptable unless public interest is involved. Public interest should itself be legitimate and not merely prurient or morbid curiosity. Things concerning private affairs are covered by the concept of privacy except where these impinge upon the public.** **The Kenya Information and Communication Act** **12.11 Section 102 of the Kenya Information and Communication Act provides thus:** **(I) A person aggrieved by-** **(a) any publication by or conduct of a journalist or media enterprise;** **(b) anything done against a journalist or media enterprise that limits or interferes with the constitutional freedom of expression of such journalist or media enterprise; or** **(c) any action taken, any omission made or any decision made by any person under this Act,** **May make a written complaint to the Tribunal setting out the grounds for the complaint, nature of the injury or damage suffered and the remedy sought.** **3. FACTUAL PARTICULARS OF COMPLAIN** **3.1 All the times material to this complaint, the 1st Respondent was in the business of publishing and selling for profit/gain among other publications, the Nairobian, a weekly newspaper.** **3.2 The 1st Respondent also runs and publishes news and general information on a digital platforms, the Standard Digital on** [**www.standardmedia.co.ke**](http://www.standardmedia.co.ke) **and an entertainment site** [**www.sde.co.ke**](http://www.sde.co.ke)**. It also owns several social media platforms such as the Facebook account, KTN Kenya with over Three Million (3,000,000) likes and Two Million Nine Hundren (2,900,000) followers.** **3.3 The 2nd to 4th Respondents decide what stories are published on the said publications/platforms and the content thereof and are responsible for giving the final approval before publication.** **3.4 On 8.06.2018, the Nairobian published a headline story purportedly of and concerning the proceedings in Nairobi Childrens Case No. 37 of 2008 under a sensational cover page headline titled “MP GAVE ME KASWENDE – EE-WIFE.” Complete with a photo of the said Hon. Kaluma, an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya dressed in his advocates’ shirt and collar and carrying a robe on his hand. The said story was also carried in pages 2, 4 and 5 of the print version of the said newspaper only punctuated by advertisements. Attached hereto and marked GPOK – 1 is a true copy of the said publication.** **3.5 The said story was also published in the standard digital page: https://www.sde.co.ke/thenairobian/article/2001283345/homabay-mp-peter-kaluma -gave-me-kawende-ex-wife and a link published on its KTN Kenya Facebook account on 09.06.2018 at 7:30 a.m. Attached hereto and marked GPOK -2 is a true copy of the online publications.** **3.6 The Complainant shall seek to refer to the said publication in full at the hering of this complaint for detailed explanation of its tenor.** **3.7 The Respondents’ have previously published a similar story on a the same subject matter. Annexed hereto and marked as GPOK – 3 are true copies of these publications.** **3.8 The said publication in its content and tone violated all the media and expression standards and obligations specified in part 2 above in the manner particularized in part 4 below:** **4. VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW AND THE CODE OF CONDUCT** **4.1 In the said story the following details of and concerning the children the subject of the children’s proceedings commenced under the Children’s Act were published in direct contravention of the strict provisions of Section 76(5) of the Children’s Act (no. 8 of 2001):** **(a) The names of the children’s parents being George Peter Kaluma and Martha Ojera;** **(b) The children’s years of birth being 2005 and 2007.** **(c ) The fact that Hon. Kaluma lives with the first child while ms Ojera lives with the second child.** **4.2 The above details were more than sufficient to disclose the identity of the said children.** **4.3 The article further published details of George Peter Kaluma’s child with one Ms Monica Nankinyi Gitau as relate to a case filed at the Tononoka Law Courts for maintenance of their child.** **4.4 Details on the said minor that are disclosed include the following;** **(a) The child’s parent being George Peter Kaluma and Monica Nankinyi Gitau.** **(b) The date of birth of the child being 24.11.2004, hence a disclosure of his age;** **(c ) That the child schools in Ukunda.** **4.5 In addition to violating express provisions of the Children’s Act, 2001, the said publication also invaded the Complainant’s privacy by purporting to be a stody about the Complainant’s personal life without any, or any reasonable, overriding public interst that the same served.** **4.6 Further still, the words in the said article in their ordinary and natural meaning and by inference or innuendo, were calculated to bring the Complainant’s character and reputation into spite, odium and contempt.** **4.7 By the said words, the Respondent meant and were understood to mean:-** 1. **The Complainant had/has *kaswende*** 2. **The Complainant transmitted *kaswende* to Martha Ojera who is his former wife.** 3. **The Complainant is an irresponsible person of low and loose morals an amorous and depraved man who engages in random sexual relations with multiple women.** 4. **The Complainant is a “polygamist” like Akuku Danger.** 5. **The Complainant lacks regard for the law, lacks respect for women and the institution of marriage;** 6. **The Complainant is a violent person, a wife batterer who engages in domestic violence.** 7. **The Complainant is an impecunious, irresponsible parent.** 8. **The Complainant is an irresponsible, unethical, immoral person who is not fit to mentor and to lead as a Member of Parliament, or at all.** 9. **The Complainant has failed to uphold the ethics and responsibilities of and required by the profession of law.** 10. **The Complainant is an irresponsible, unethical, immoral person who is unfit for the high calling of being an Advocae of the High Court of Kenya.** **4.8 The said publication was, in fact untrue and inaccurate for the following reasons.** 1. **The Complainant has never suffered from kaswende as alleged in the publications or at all.** 2. **The Complainant did not/has not infected Martha Ojera with *kaswende* as alleged, or at all.** 3. **Martha Ojera was not and has never been wife as alleged, or at all.** 4. **There is no Affidavit filed by Martha Ojera at the Nairobi children’s Court on April 11, 2015 in which she states that the Complainant had infected her with *kaswende.*** 5. **The Complainant has never acceded by silence or otherwise to the claims of having infected Martha Ojera with kaswende or any sexually transmitted disease as alleged in the publication, or at all.** 6. **The Complaimant has never sworn any Affidavit stating or insisting he is financially broke as alleged in the publication, or at all.** 7. **The Complainant has never been/is not referred to by the name “Akuku Danger” in Homa Bay as alleged in the publication, or at all.** 8. **The Complainant is an Advocate and a law maker, a respecter of the law, a self respecting family man who has never engaged in domestic violence as alleged, or at all.** **4.9 The Complainant avers that the Respondents published the said words out of malevolence, spite and malice towards the Complainant for the following reasons/particulars:** 1. **Committing 3 pages of *The Nairobian* including the headline complete with photographs of the Complainant in order to subject the Complainant to maximum public ridicule and odium.** 2. **Extending the offending publication beyond the Complainant to children whose identity the Respondents’ have revealed in open violation of the best interst of the said children and in patient violation of the law.** 3. **Disregarding the duty imposed on them by law not to punish material capable of indentifying the subject children.** 4. **Diregarding the constitutional obligation to protect the dignity and privacy of the Complainant, the Complainant’s family and children.** 5. **Exposing children clearly identified and referred to in the publication to abuse by peers, mental stress and psychological trauma in open violation of the best interest of the said children.** 6. **Unjustifiably and unfairly extending their offending publication beyoing the Complainant to his wife and family.** 7. **Publishing the offending words together with the pictures so recklessly and without any or any due regard to their falsity and without taking any or any sufficient stepts or precautions to establish their truthfulness.** 8. **Publishing unconfirmed claims by a party to a suit before a court of law without taking any or any reasonable steps ro verify the same.** 9. **Publishing unconfirmed 10-year old claims by party to a suit before a court of law and presenting the same as current news just to scandalize the Complainant.** 10. **The Respondents having determined to bring the Complaiannt to maximum public scandal and ridicule decided to allege he had infected an ex-wife with *kaswende* which they translated in Kiswahili which is the national language for maximum audience and effect.** 11. **Having determined to bring reputation into public ridicule, the Respondents proceeded to public the offending words and pictures on all their platforms for maximum reach to family, friends, constituents, clients, mentees, students, professional colleagues, business partners and colleagues in political leadership thus aggravating injury to the Complainants character, credit and reputation.** 12. **Having determined to bring reputation into public ridicule and odium, the Respondents proceeded to publish the offending words and pictures on all their media platforms for maximum reach, not concerned about the irreparable damage to the Complainant and to family.** 13. **Having clearly determined to bring reputation into public ridicule and scanadal in order to put the Complainant in absolute negative light and subject him to odium, the Respondents published other false and negative stories concerning the Complainant which were/are wholly unrelated to the subkect article.** 14. **Assassinating the Complainants image, character and reputation as a bait to attract and increase the readership of *the Nairobian* and the viewership of the Respondents’ digital/online media platforms aforementioned with a view to increasing their profits from the sale of the said paper and from media advertisements.** 15. **Failure to secure that the publication is a fair and accurate report of the subject court proceedings.** 16. **Authored and publishing the offending words and pictures without taking any or any sufficient precautions or steps to establish whether they are true.** 17. **Overeaching and abusing the press freedom of expression by failing to respect the rights and reputation of the Complainant including right to privacy which includes the right not to have the information relating to his family or private affairs unnecessarily revealed as protected under the Constitution of Kenya.** 18. **The Respondents’ have previously published similar words or words to the like effect as the offending words herein disparaging the Complainant and the Complainant’s family.** 19. **Continuing the Respondents’ apparent habit and policy to publish articles putting the Complainant to public ridicule, scandal and odium.** 20. **Refusing to retract and apologise to the Complaiant on being notified of the defamation; and instead choosing to continue publishing the offending articles on their media platforms and permitting free access and sharing of the same by third parties.** **4.10 The Publications were only punctuated by paid up advertisements and had and achieved the clear purporse and intent of being used as bait to attract readers to the Respondents’ publication and getting them to note the advertisements in order to increase the Respondents’ profits at the expense of the Complainant’s reputation, the rights of his children, the rights of his wife and family.** **5. REMEDIES** **REASONS WHEREFORE the complainant prays for orders against the Respondent that:** 1. **An order directing the Respondents to publish an apology and correction in such manner as the Tribunal may specify.** 2. **A public reprimand of the Respondents be and is hereby issue.** 3. **An order that the offending editors, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents do publish the Tribunal’s decision in such manner as specified by the Tribunal:** 4. **An order imposing a fine of not more than twenty million shilling on the 1st Respondent media enterprise and a fine of not more than Five Hundred Thousand Shillings, on each of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents;** 5. **A recommendation to the Council for the suspension or removal from the register of the journalist involved, namely, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents.** 6. **Such other supplementary or anciliatty orders or directions that the Tribunal may consider necessary for carrying into effect ordrs or directions made.** 7. Through his Advocates, the Respondent had filed the complaint dated 9/10/2018 with the Tribunal over an alleged defamatory story published by the Appellants on 8/6/2018 in their publication known as "*The Nairobian"*. The publication related to judicial proceedings in Nairobi Children’s Case No. 37 of 2008, the story alleging that the Respondent’s ex-wife had infected him with ‘’kaswende’’*.* Contrary to the provisions of **Section 76 (5)** of the now repealed **Children’s Act No. 8 of 2001,** the Appellants are also said to have disclosed the names of the parents of children subject of the judicial proceedings as George Peter Kaluma (the Respondent herein) and Martha Ojera; the children’s years of birth as 2006 and 2007; and the fact that the Respondent lived with the first child while Ms. Ojera lived with the second child. The Respondent contended that these details were sufficient to disclose identities of the children in contravention of the law which protects their privacy. 3. The Appellants were further accused of publishing details of the Respondent’s child with Ms. Monica Nankinyi Gitau which included the child’s parents; the child’s date of birth being 26th November 2004 and that the child studied at Ukunda. 4. The publication was said to have been calculated to bring the Respondent’s character and reputation into spite, odium and contempt. The Respondent stated that the allegation that he had been infected by the said Martha Ojera with ‘’kaswende’’ was untrue and that the alleged victim never made such a complaint. 5. To ensure widespread publication of the story, the Appellants also purportedly published the same in the Standard digital website page and a link to their KTN Kenya Facebook account on 9/6/2018. 6. For the above reasons *inter alia,* the Respondent sought the following remedies from the Tribunal: 1. **An order directing the Appellants to publish an apology and correction in such manner as the Tribunal may specify;** 2. **A public reprimand of the Appellants be issued;** 3. **An order that the offending editors who are the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Appellants do publish the Tribunal’s decision in such a manner as specified by the Tribunal.** 4. **An order imposing a fine of not more than twenty million shillings on the 1st Appellant media enterprise and a fine of not more than five hundred thousand shillings, on each of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents;** 5. **A recommendation to the Council for the suspension or removal from the register of the journalists involved, namely the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Appellants;** 6. **Such other supplementary and ancilliary orders or directions that the Tribunal may consider necessary for carrying into effect orders or directives made.** 7. By a response dated 24th May 2019, the Appellants admitted publishing the words complained of but deny that the publication was defamatory. They averred that the publication constituted fair comment on matters of public interest. The Appellants therefore sought to rely on the defence of fair comment and justification. 8. For the stated reasons *inter alia* the Appellants asked the Tribunal to dismiss the complaint with costs. 9. The Tribunal in its Judgment dated 20th December 2019 found against the Appellants and issued orders reprimanding the Appellants and directing them to publish an apology to the Respondent in a prescribed manner. In addition, the Appellants were ordered to pay a fine of Ksh. 2,000,000 to the Government of Kenya within 30 days from the date of the Judgment. 10. The Appellants now contest the Tribunal’s Judgment upon these grounds set out in their Memorandum of Appeal dated 17/3/2022; * + - 1. **THAT the Learned Tribunal erred in law and in fact in entering Judgement in favour of the Respondent against the Appellants without having due regard to the facts and evidence presented before it.** 2. **THAT the Learned Tribunal erred in law and in entering judgement in favour of the Respondent against the Appellants and finding that by publishing the years of birth of the Respondent’s children, the Appellants had published sufficient information to disclose their respective identities in contravention of the law.** 3. **THAT the Learned Tribunal erred in law and in fact by failing to give an account on how the fine of Kenya Shillings Two Million (Kshs. 2,000,000) was arrived at and imposed on the Appellants.** 4. **THAT the Learned Tribunal erred in law and in fact in finding that the publication was done out of malice despite the Appeellant not having particularized the malice.** 5. **THAT consequently, the Tribunal’s decision occasioned a miscarriage of justice.** 11. The Appellants in the premises pray that the Tribunal’s Judgment and all consequential orders be set aside and that the costs of the Appeal be granted to them. 12. Learned Counsel for the parties were invited to file written submissions on the Appeal. The Appellants’ Advocates submit *inter alia* that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction or authority to entertain the Respondent’s complaint in exercise of its original jurisdiction under the **Media Council Act.** The court is told that the Tribunal could only exercise its appellate jurisdiction pursuant to **Section 102F of the Kenya Information and Communications Act.** According to the Appellants, a body known as the Complaints Commission is the one mandated to investigate and determine violations of the **Media Council Act** and the **Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism** as per **Section 27 of the Media Council Act.** 1. Citing Lord Denning’s observations in **Benjamin Leonard MC Foy vs. United Africa Company Limited (1961) 3 ALL ER 1169,** the Appellants submit that the Tribunal’s decision was void *ab initio* in the circumstances. 2. The Appellants impugn the fines imposed against them for the reason that there was no finding that they violated the provisions of the **Kenya Information and Communications Act.** It is argued that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to impose a fine for violation of any other law other than the **Kenya Information and Communications Act.** 3. The Appellants further point out that even if there were proven violations of the **Media Council Act** and the **Code of Conduct for Journalism,** the maximum fine that may be imposed is Kshs. 500,000/= pursuant to the provisions of **Section 38 (f) of the Media Council Act**. The fine of **Kshs. 2,000,000/=** imposed against the Appellants is therefore dismissed as illegal. 4. In reply, the Respondent retorts that the Tribunal lawfully entertained and determined his complaint. His Advocates make reference to **Section 102A(1) of the Kenya Information and Communications Act**, which allows a person aggrieved by; **“(a) any publication by or conduct of a journalist or media enterprise;** **(b) anything done against a journalist or media enterprise that limits or interferes with their constitutional freedom of expression of such journalist or media enterprise; or** **(c)** **any action taken, any omission made or any decision made by any person under this Act…”** to make a complaint to the Tribunal laying the basis thereof and remedy sought. 1. Learned Counsel for the Respondent therefore submit that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as it did. Under **Section 102E(f) of the Kenya Information and Communications Act**, the Tribunal could impose a fine of not more than Kshs. 20,000,000/= on any respondent media house and a fine of not more than Kshs. 500,000/= on any journalist adjudged to have violated the Act among other remedies, according to Counsel. 2. The Respondent contends that the fine was therefore lawfully imposed being within the permitted limits. He also complains that the Appellants have not even complied with the Tribunal orders and so they have no right of audience before this Court. 3. It is trite that the appellate court has the duty of re-assessing the evidence and reaching its own conclusions on matters of fact and law. The court will only interfere with the trial court’s findings if relevant factors were not taken into account or irrelevant factors were considered or the trial court otherwise misdirected itself. (see case law in **Selle vs Associated Boat Company [1968] EA 123** and **Ocean Freight Shipping Co. Ltd vs. Oakdale Commodities Ltd (1997) eKLR**. The Court of Appeal for East Africa in **Peters vs Sunday Post Limited [1958] EA 424** underscored the same principles delivering itself thus: ***“i. First, on first appeal, the Court is under a duty to reconsider and re-evaluate the evidence on record and draw its own conclusions;*** * + 1. ***In reconsidering and re-evaluating the evidence, the first appellate court must bear in mind and give due allowance to the fact that the trial court had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses testify before her; and*** 2. ***It is not open to the first appellate court to review the findings of a trial court simply because it would have reached different results if it were hearing the matter for the first time.”*** 1. At Paragraph 3 of their Submissions the Appellants appear to abandon all the grounds of Appeal except Ground 3 that challenges the fine imposed against them. I shall therefore determine the Appeal only as it relates to the fines imposed by the Tribunal. 2. The Appellants were found to have maliciously defamed the Respondent thereby breaching the law regulating their practice of journalism. Although the Tribunal does not specicfy the law under which the fines were imposed, **section 102A (1)(a) of the** **Kenya Information and Communications Act** criminalises such publication or conduct by a media house and /or journalist. **Section 102E(1)(f) of the Act** provides for fines of not more than Ksh.20,000,000 against an offending media house and not more Ksh. 500,000 against individual journalists. It seems the Tribunal imposed a fine of Ksh. 2,000,000 against the 1st Appellant only. The fine is within the limit prescribed by the law. 3. The upshot is that the Appeal is dismissed with costs to the Respondent. **J. M. NANG’EA - JUDGE.** **Judgment delivered virtually from Nakuru this 29th day of July, 2026.** **In the presence of:** **Appellants’ Advocate, Mr Wepoh.** **Respondent’s Advocate, Absent** **Court Assistant (Jeniffer)** **J. M. NANG’EA - JUDGE.**