[2021] KEELC 2914 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT BUNGOMA

ELC CASE NO. E001 OF 2021.

TITUS ABIDHA GONDI.....................................................................PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

TINA NASIPWONDI ROMANO..............................................1ST DEFENDANT

MOSES NYUKURI ROMANO.................................................2ND DEFENDANT

SILAS JUMA...............................................................................3RD DEFENDANT

COUNTY LAND REGISTRAR BUNGOMA COUNTY.........4TH DEFENDANT

COUNTY LAND SURVEYOR BUNGOMA COUNTY...........5TH DEFENDANT

R U L I N G

What calls for my determination is the plaintiff’s Notice of Motion dated 27th January 2021 seeking the following orders: -

1. Spent

2. Spent

3. That an injunction do issue restraining the defendants, their agents, servants or any other person claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment, possession, management and occupation of the premises situated on L.R NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/3766 pending the hearing and determination of this suit.

4. That the Honourable Court be pleased to issue an inhibition order conserving all the title numbers being the sub – division out of land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/3766 pending the hearing and determination of this suit.

5. That the Honourable Court be pleased to grant conservation orders preserving the index card creating land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/3765 and 3766 pen ding the hearing and determination of this suit.

6. That the costs of this application be provided for.

The application is founded on the grounds set out therein and is supported by the plaintiff’s affidavit to which are annexed several annextures.

The gist of the application is that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/3766 measuring 2. 0 Hectares or thereabout (the suit land) which he acquired by way of exchange with land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/2243 belonging to SENATOR MOSES WETANGULA. That the suit land is a sub – division of the land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/2582 but due to the negligence and carelessness of the Lands Office, they forgot to close the register to the said parcel of land and the 1st defendant, knowing that the said land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/2582had already been sub – divided to create the suit land and also land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH NALONDO/3765 measuring 4. 8 Hectares, purported to sub – divide it and created land parcels NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/47, 4707, 4708 and 4709 which ought to have been sub – divided from the land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU /SOUTH KANDUYI/3765 and not the land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/2582. That the suit land is duly marked and demarcated on the ground yet the defendants are interfering with his use and enjoyment of the same. That he has lived peacefully on the suit land since 2013 when he took possession of the suit land without any interference by his neighbours. However, on 2nd August 2020, he was approached by the 3rd defendant who told him that he was representing the interests of the grandchildren of the 1st defendant who had sold part of their land to a certain “MKIKUYU” whose measurements were overlapping into the suit land. On 3rd August 2020, the 1st defendant informed him that it was true that she had sold part of her land to one KENNETH MUNENE CHUAGA alias M’BIG and had instructed the 3rd defendant to handle the transaction. It was then that the 3rd defendant informed him that the suit land was illegally obtained by HON MOSES WETANGULA and was going to be reclaimed. After several meetings, the matter was referred to the Directorate of Criminal Investigations who are still handling the matter.

The plaintiff however decided to carry out his own independent investigations and discovered that the register to the land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/2582was never closed following it’s sub – division to create the suit land and land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/3765 on 16th April 1987. And due to that carelessness and negligence on the part of the Lands Office, the 1st defendant sub – divided the same parcel of land into four other portions in 1989. That the defendants are using that fraudulent sub – division to grab the suit land hence this application.

The application is opposed and SILAS JUMA the 3rd defendant has sworn a replying affidavit dated 11th February 2021 with the authority of the 1st and 2nd defendants. MATHEW NANDI the BUNGOMA COUNTY LAND SURVEYOR has on his part swore a replying affidavit dated 26th February 2021 on behalf of the 3rd and 4th defendants.

In his replying affidavit, the 3rd defendant describes the application as fatally defective, devoid of merit, vexatious and an abuse of the process of this Court. That it does not meet the threshold set out in the case of GIELLA .V. CASSMAN BROWN 1973 E.A 358 and the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands.

The 3rd defendant avers further that the defendants have been using the land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/2582 prior to it’s sub – division by the plaintiff having obtained it from the late ROMANO MUSE FWARI and nobody else, including HON MOSES WETANGULA has utilized it. That at no time did the 1st defendant transfer the said land to HON MOSES WETANGULA. Further, that the 1st defendant sub – divided the land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU /SOUTH KANDUYI 2582 into parcels NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/4706, 4707, 4708 and 47098 and she is a stranger to the sub – division of the said land to create parcels NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/3765 and 3766 as alleged by the plaintiff. That parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/4706 was subsequently sub – divided to give rise to parcels NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/23038 as per the mutation forms attached which she owns and the plaintiff is only a trespasser thereon and has not produced any evidence to support his ownership of the land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/ SOUTH KANDUYI/3766 or how the land parcels NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/3765 and 3766 were created. That following investigations carried out by the 5th defendant, it was established that the land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU /SOUTH KANDUYI/3766 which the plaintiff claims to be his does not appear on the official maps. In the report dated 11th January 2021 and prepared by the 5th defendant, it was further established that the 1st defendant is the proprietor of the land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/2582 which she sub – divided to create several parcels of land including parcels NO EAST BUKUSU /SOUTH KANDUYI/23038 – 23040. That further forensic analysis carried out by the Director of Criminal Investigations (DCI) with regard to the documents held by the plaintiff in respect to the land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/3766 showed that the said documents were not authored by the 1st defendant and therefore this claim is founded on non – existing land and must fail. That it is the plaintiff who is infact interfering with the 1st defendant’s land in particular the land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/23038. That the plaintiff’s allegation that the land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/4706, 4707, 4708 and 4709 ought to have been created from land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/3765 is devoid of any merit and is not supported by the documents held by the 4th defendant and confirmed by the 5th defendant. That following the Surveyor’s finding that the land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/3766 was never under the SOUTH KANDUYI REGISTRATION SECTION, it will be an injustice to stop the 1st to 3rd defendants from utilizing their land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/ SOUTH KANDUYI/23038 on which the plaintiff is a trespasser. That in any event, the plaintiff has not demonstrated that he stands to suffer any irreparable loss that cannot be compensated by an award of damages and the balance of convenience is in favour of the application being dismissed. Annexed to the replying affidavit are several annextures.

On behalf of the 4th and 5th defendants, MATHEW NANDI the BUNGOMA COUNTY LAND SURVEYOR filed a replying affidavit dated 26th February 2021 in which he averred, inter alia, that on 8th December 2020 he made a visit together with the plaintiff and 1st defendant to the land parcels NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/3766 and 23038 and asked both parties to point out their boundaries. Both the plaintiff and 1st defendant showed him the same parcel of land as belonging to them. Upon counter – checking with their records, he found that the land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/3766 purportedly arose as a result of the sub – division of the land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/2582 but there is no record of mutation in support of the same. That the land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI /3766 does not appear on the official map and therefore that parcel of land was never under the SOUTH KANDUYI SECTION. On the other hand, the records show that the 1st defendant as the proprietor of the land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/ SOUTH KANDUYI/2582 sub – divided it to give rise to land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/23038 as per the annexed mutation form. That the issues between the plaintiff and 1st defendant can only be determined at the hearing of the main suit and the orders of maintenance of the Index Card for the land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/3765 and 3766 as sought by the plaintiff in the application are untenable since the said cards are blank and the said land does not exist on the ground or in their records. Annexed to the replying affidavit are mutation forms and sketch plans.

When the application was placed before me on 28th January 2021, I directed that it be canvassed by way of written submission to be filed on or before 18th February 2021 but when the matter came up on that day, none of the parties had complied and I gave them upto 31st March to do so.

When the matter came up on 31st march 2021 before the Deputy Registrar to confirm compliance, the record shows that MR MILIMO Counsel for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants informed the Court that he and Counsel for the plaintiffs had filed their submissions. They were given a date for ruling.

I have perused the record herein and confirmed that indeed the plaintiff and the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants filed their submissions as directed. However, the 4th and 5th defendants have not done so.

I have considered the application, rival affidavits and annextures thereto as well as the submissions by the plaintiff’s Counsel MR MAKOKHAand by the 1st – 3rd defendants, Counsel MR MILIMO.

Before I delve into the application itself, I must again impress upon Counsel about the need to keep the time lines set by the Court. No Court will want to shut out a party from litigating his cause solely on the ground of delays in filing their pleadings or submissions. Article 50(1) of the Constitution is sacrosanct about the right to be heard. But Article 159(2) (b) of the same Constitutionalso provides that “justice shall not be delayed.” I am of course alive to the fact that parties and their advocates have had challenges filing their documents on – line, a requirement that has been forced on us following the COVID – 19 pandemic. Nonetheless, I implore the litigants and their legal advisers to try and over – come those challenges and abide by the orders given by the Court with regard to time.

The application seeks the following substantive orders:-

1. Temporary injunction.

2. Inhibition order

3. Order to conserve the Index Card creating the land parcels NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/3765 and 3766.

I shall consider the application in that order.

1. TEMPORARY INJUNCTION: -

The threshold for the grant of this remedy has always followed the path set out in the case of GIELLA .V. CASSMAN BROWN 1973 E.A 358. The principles set out therein were reiterated by the Court of Appeal in the case of NGURUMAN LTD .V. JAN BONDE NIELSEN & OTHERS C.A CIVIL APPEAL No 77 of 2012 (2014 eKLR) where the Court said as follows: -

“In an interlocutory injunction application, the Applicant has to satisfy the triple requirements to:

a. Establish his case only at prima facie level,

b. Demonstrate irreparable injury if a temporary injunction is not granted, and

c. Ally any doubts as to (b) by showing that the balance of convenience is in his favour.

These are the three pillars on which rests the foundation of any order of injunction, interlocutory or permanent. It is established that all the above three conditions and stages are to be applied as separate distinct and logical hurdles which the Applicant is expected to surmount sequentially.”

I must also add what was stated in FILMS ROVER INTERNATIONAL .V. CANNON FILM SALE LTD 1986 3 ALL. E.R 772 that a Court considering such an application should take the route or course that appears to carry the lower risk of injustice should it turn out to have been wrong. Finally, being an equitable remedy, a temporary injunction will not be granted to a party that has approached the Court with un – clear hands.

A prima facie case was defined in the case of MRAO .V. FIRST AMERICAN BANK OF KENYA LTD & OTHERS C.A CIVIL APPEAL No 39 of 2002 (2003 eKLR) as: -

“…….. a case which, on the material presented to the Court, a tribunal properly directing itself will conclude that there exists a right which has apparently been infringed by the opposite party as to call for an explanation or rebuttal from the latter.”

In NGURUMAN LTD .V. JAN BONDE NIELSEN (supra), the Court stated as follows with regard to the standard of proof of a prima facie case: -

“The applicant need not establish title. It is enough if he can show that he has a fair and bona fide question to raise as to the existence of the right which he alleges. The standard of proof of that prima facie case is on a balance of, or as otherwise put, on a preponderance of probabilities. This means no more than the Court takes the view that on the face of it, the applicant’s case is more likely than not to ultimately succeed.”

The Court went on to add that: -

“We reiterate that in considering whether or not a prima facie case has been established, the Court does not hold a mini trial and must not examine the merits of the case closely. All that the Court is to see is that on the face of it, the person applying for an injunction has a right which has been or is threatened with violation.”

It is the plaintiff’s case that he is the registered proprietor of the suit land as per the annexed copy of the register (annexture TAG 1) and took possession thereof in 2013 from HON MOSES WETANGULA following an exchange whereby he relinguished his title NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH NALONDO/2243. That it was not until 2nd August 2020 when the 3rd defendant informed him that the 1st plaintiff’s land was over – lapping into the suit land. The 3rd defendant later informed the plaintiff that the suit land had been illegally obtained by HON MOSES WETANGULA and would be reclaimed. The plaintiff’s claim of possession and occupation of the suit land is not denied. Indeed, it is confirmed by the 3rd defendant who has averred in paragraph 11 of his replying affidavit as follows: -

“That as such, the 1st respondent is the registered owner of the land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/23038 a parcel of land which she owns with all the rights and privileges to the exclusion of the applicant who is only but a trespasser. I annex a copy of the search for the same marked SJ – 4. ” Emphasis added.

By alleging that the plaintiff is a “trespasser”, the 3rd defendant is confirming that whereas the plaintiff is currently in possession and occupation of the suit land, that land is infact parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/23038 which is the property of the 1st defendant. Indeed, in paragraph 14 and 15 of his replying affidavit, the 3rd defendant has averred that there is no evidence of how the suit land was created and that infact the only parcels of land that were hived from the land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI 2582 were the land parcels NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/23038 – 23040. Those issues however, will be matters to be determined at the full trial through evidence. As was held in NGURUMAN LTD .V. JAN BONDE NIELSEN (supra), at this stage, I need “not examine the merits of the case closely.” What is important for purposes of this ruling is that the plaintiff is in possession and occupation of the suit land or, as alleged by the defendants, he is in possession and occupation of the land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/23038. As to which particular parcel the plaintiff occupies will, as I have stated above, be determined at the trial. However, as was held in MWANGI & ANOTHER .V. MWANGI 1986 KLR 328, the rights of a person in possession and occupation of land are equitable rights which are binding on the land. The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the property in dispute until the suit is heard and determined. I take the view that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case to warrant the orders sought.

The plaintiff was also required to demonstrate that unless the temporary injunction is granted, he will suffer irreparable injury that cannot be otherwise compensated by an award of damages. In NGURUMAN LTD .V. JAN BONDE NIELSEN & OTHERS(supra), the Court said the following about irreparable injury: -

“The equitable remedy of temporary injunction is issued solely to prevent grave and irreparable injury; that is injury that is actual, substantial and demonstrable; injury that cannot ‘adequately’ be compensated by an award of damages. An injury is irreparable where there is no standard by which their amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy or the injury or harm is of such a nature that monetary compensation of whatever amount will never be adequate remedy.”

The plaintiff has averred in paragraphs 4 and 5 of his supporting affidavit that after taking possession of the suit land in 2013, he commenced farming activities and also constructed houses thereon. Photographs of the said houses are among the annextures to his supporting affidavit – annexture TAG – 2. If the suit land is alienated by the defendants before this dispute is determined, no doubt the plaintiff will suffer injury that is substantial and demonstrable. And taking into account that loss of the suit land will also mean that the plaintiff shall also have lost his original land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/NORTH NALONDO/2243 which he gave HON MOSES WETANGULA in exchange for the suit land that may render him destitute. That, in my view, would amount to a grave and irreparable injury that cannot adequately be compensated by an award of damages. The plaintiff has therefore surmounted the second limb as set out in the case of GIELLA .V. CASSMAN BROWN & CO LTD (supra).

Even if the court was to determine the application on a balance of convenience, it would tilt in favour of the plaintiff. As already stated above, the plaintiff is in possession and occupation of the suit land although there is a dispute as to whether that land is the same land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/23038which the 1st defendant is claiming. In such a situation, this Court must be guided by what the Court of Appeal observed in the case of VIRGINIA EDITH WAMBUI .V. JOASH OTIENO OUGO C.A CIVIL APPEAL No 3 of 1987 (19876 eKLR): -

“The general principle which has been applied by this Court is that where there are serious conflicts of fact, the trial Court should maintain the status quo until the dispute has been decided in a trial.” Emphasis added.

The status quo now obtaining is that the plaintiff is in occupation of the suit land although the defendants claim that the said land is land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/23038belonging to the 1st defendant. That serious conflict, as I have already stated above, will await the full trial. For now, the status quo is that the plaintiff must remain in possession and occupation of the suit land until this case is heard and finally determined. It must also be remembered that it is always in the interest of justice to grant a temporary injunction where, in a case such as this where the plaintiff is in possession of the land in dispute, failure to do so may result in the eviction of the plaintiff. And guided by the principle in the case of FILMS ROVER INTERNATIONAL .V. CANNON FILM SALE LTD 1986 3 ALL E.R 772, the course that appears to carry the lower risk of injustice should the Court turn out to have “wrong”, militates against denying the application for a temporary injunction.

In the circumstances, the prayer for a temporary injunction is well merited. I allow it.

2. INHIBITION ORDER: -

The plaintiff also seeks an inhibition order conserving all the title being the sub – divisions of the land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/2582 pending the hearing and determination of this suit. Such an order is provided for under Section 68(1) of the Land Registration Act in the following terms: -

“The Court may make an order (hereinafter referred to as an inhibition), inhibiting for a particular time, or until the occurrence of a particular event, or generally until a further order, the registration of any dealing with any land, lease or charge.”

Such an order is similar to prohibitory injunction as it bars the registration of any dealings on the land in dispute until the issue of ownership is heard and determined. It is clear from the pleadings herein that both the suit land and the land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/23038 are resultant sub – divisions of the original land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI /2582. Parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/2582, according to the documents produce3d by the defendants, was subsequently sub – divided to give rise to land parcels NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYHI/4706 – 4709. However, only the Green Card to the land parcels NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/4706and 4707 were availed. The Green Card to the land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/4707shows that it was registered in the names of the 1st defendant and subsequently the names of one SULEIMAN MURUNGA. However, that the title was closed on 14th July 2016 following it’s sub – division to create parcels NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/20616 and 20617. It is not known in whose names those new sub – divisions are registered and it would be improper to place inhibition orders on such parcels of land without hearing the proprietors thereof. Further, the title to land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/4706which was registered in the names of 1st defendant was also closed on 7th December 1995 upon sub – division to create parcels NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/7358 – 7361. However, only the Certificate of Search in respect to the land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/ SOUTH KANDUYI/7361 was availed by the defendants and it shows that the said parcel of land is registered in the names of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff had already placed a caution on the land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/ SOUTH KANDUYI/23038 on 10th November 2020 claiming a beneficiary interest. As at the time of this ruling, nothing was placed before this Court to show that either the 2nd and 3rd defendants were registered as proprietors of any sub – divisions from the land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/2582. The purpose of an order of inhibition is to preserve the land in dispute pending the determination of the suit in which the ownership of the said land is in issue. In making such an order, the Court will consider several factors including, but not limited to, the likelihood of alienation of the land before the trial is concluded, previous antecedents by either of the parties with respect to the land in dispute, who of the parties is in occupation and possession and also whether any of the parties will be prejudiced by such an order. In the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff is in occupation of the suit land and the documents filed demonstrate that the 1st defendant has already sub – divided and transferred to third parties the original land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/2582 thus putting those parcels beyond the reach of this Court. It is therefore imperative that the remaining portions be preserved to avoid the Judgment herein being rendered an academic exercise. I therefore direct that orders of inhibition be placed upon the land parcels NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/23038, 7361, 21241 as well as any other parcels of land hived from the land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/2582 and registered in the names of the defendants.

3. CONSERVATORY ORDERS PRESERVING INDEX CARDS TO PARCELS NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI 3765 and 3766.

Section 9(1)of the Land Registration Act provides as follows: -

“The Land Registrar shall maintain the register and any document required to be kept under this Act in a secure, accessible and reliable format including - ”

The provision then goes on in paragraphs (a) to (e) to enumerate some of those documents. No doubt Index Cards are among the said documents that the Land Registrar is required to keep and preserve in a “secure, accessible and reliable format.” It is therefore instructive to note that the LAND REGISTRAR BUNGOMAwho is a party in this suit, and who has the obligation to preserve such records did not file any response to the application. Instead, it is the LAND SURVEYOR BUNGOMA, one, MR MATHEW NANDI who filed a replying affidavit dated 26th February 2021. In paragraph 9 of that replying affidavit, he has deposed as follows: -

9 “That the orders of maintenance of the Index Card for the land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/3766 and 3765 as prayed by the plaintiff in this application are untenable as the said cards are blank and the suit parcel is not in our records and also on the ground.”

Even if that is the position, it is not within the jurisdiction of the LAND SURVERYOR BUNGOMA to keep such records. The law bestows that responsibility upon the LAND REGISTRAR and goes further under Section 10 of the LAND REGISTRATION ACT to impose a duty upon that Officer to make that information “accessible to the public.” Essentially, therefore, the LAND SURVEYOR, by purporting to respond to that prayer, was intermeddling in a docket preserved for another office and his replying affidavit cannot be considered as a sufficient response to that prayer. Basically therefore, the 5th limb of the application is not controverted and must be allowed which I hereby do.

The up – shot of all the above is that the plaintiff’s Notice of Motion dated 26th January 2021 is hereby allowed in the following terms: -

a. An order of temporary injunction is hereby issued restraining the defendants herein whether by themselves, their agents, servants and/or any other persons claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment, possession, management and occupation of the premises situated on L.R NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/3766 pending the hearing and determination of this suit.

b. An order of inhibition is hereby issued inhibiting the registration of any dealings on the land parcels NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/23038, 7361, 21241 as well as on any other parcels of land hived from the land parcel NO EAST BUKUSU/SOLUTH KANDUYI/2582 and registered in the names of the defendants.

c. A Conservatory Order issued directed at the BUNGOMA LAND REGISTRAR ordering him to preserve the Index Cards creating the land parcels NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/3765 and 3766 and make them available to the plaintiff.

d. The plaintiff shall ensure that this suit is heard and determined within the next 12 months otherwise the order of temporary injunction shall lapse.

e. Costs shall be in the cause.

Boaz N. Olao.

J U D G E

14th June 2021.

Ruling dated, signed and delivered at BUNGOMA this 14th day of June 2021 by way of electronic mail in keeping with the COVID – 19 guidelines.

Boaz N. Olao.

J U D G E

14th June 2021.