https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3739

Watindi & 3 others v Chepkorir & 7 others (Environment and Land Petition E011 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3739 (KLR) (2 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3739 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Eldoret Environment and Land Petition E011 of 2024 EM Washe, J June 2, 2026 Between Respar Ayuma Watindi 1st Petitioner Aggrey Watindi 2nd Petitioner Board of Management Princedom Education Centre 3rd Petitioner the Trustees, Logos Revival Ministries 4th Petitioner and Joan Chepkorir 1st Respondent Desire Recovery Auctioneers 2nd Respondent and The Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu County Interested Party and The OCS Langas Police Station 1st Respondent Silas Kiptui Kipchillat 2nd Respondent and Bank of Baroda (K) Limited Interested Party and The Directorate ofCriminal Investigation 1st Respondent Chabbadiya Enterprises Limited 2nd Respondent Ruling 1.Before the Court are two Preliminary Objections dated 08.04.2025 by the 4th Respondent and another one dated 30.40.2025 by the 1st Respondent. 2.The Preliminary Objection dated 08.04.2025 by the 4th Respondent sought to strike out the Petition herein on the following grounds: -i.The Petition herein is Res Judicata and therefore contravenes the provisions of Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21.ii.The Petition herein contravenes the provisions of Section 4(1) (a) of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22 having been brought after Six (6) years from the time that the cause of action arose.iii.There is no privity of Contract between the 1st, 3rd 4th Petitioners and the 2nd Respondent herein to create any lawful relationship and/or rights between the said parties.iv.The present Petition is an effort to circumvent the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22 which specifically provides for time frames within which civil proceedings should be instituted.v.The 4th Respondent did further challenge the locus standi of the 1st Petitioner to institute the present Petition as she was never a party to the Agreement For Sale in relation to the suit property before Court and had no authorization by the Court to act on behalf of her deceased husband.vi.By extension thereof, the 4th Respondent was of the view that any rights dealing with Children should be addressed before a Childrens’ Court and not the present Court.vii.The 4th Respondent did point out to the Court that the issues raised in the present Petition did touch on the execution of Orders issued in the proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court Case No.176 of 2017 and therefore this Court was deprived of any jurisdiction to deal with the same.viii.In conclusion thereof, the 4th Respondent was of the view that if the Petitioners were aggrieved by the Orders issued in the proceedings known as ELdoret Environment & Land Case No. 176 of 2016, then the appropriate venue to challenge the same is the Court of Appeal and not through a Constitutional Petition as done in the present suit.ix.The 4th Respondent did in essence ask this Court to struck out the present Petition forthwith. 3.The 1st Respondent did also file a separate and second Preliminary Objection dated 30.04.2025 seeking for the present Petition to be struck out on the following grounds; -i.The present Petition was Res Judicata the proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court Case No.176 of 2017 hence contravenes the provisions of Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21.ii.The Petition is incurably defective as it does not raise any Constitutional issues under Rule 10(2) of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules and does not meet the threshold set out in the locus classicus case of Annarita Karimi Njeru vs Republic [1979] eKLR, as later adopted by the court in the decision of Mumo Matemu vs Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance and 5 Others CACA No. 290 of 2012 [2012] eKLR. 4.The Court did direct that the two Preliminary Objections dated 08.04.2025 and 30.04.2025 be heard concurrently and by way of written submissions. 5.The Applicant in the Preliminary Objection dated 08.04.2025 did file his written submissions dated 05.02.2026 in support of the same while the Applicant in the Preliminary Objection dated 30.04.2025 did file her submissions dated 20.01.2026 in support of the same. 6.The Respondents to both Preliminary Objections did file joint submission dated 30.01.2026 in opposition of the same. 7.The Court has carefully perused the two Preliminary Objections filed by the 4th and 1st Respondents in the present Petition as well as the Submissions thereof and identifies the issues for determination as follows; -issue no.1- whether or not the present petition is res judicata the prroceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court Case No. 176 of 2017?issue no. 2- whether the facts contained in the present petition sufficiently disclose any infringement and/or breach of the petitioners’ rights capable of adjudication by this court?issue no.3-whether the pending petition amounts to constitutional avoidance?issue no.4- whether the preliminary objections dated 08.04.2025 and 30.04.2025 are merited or not?issue no.5- who bears the costs of the two preliminary objections dated 08.04.2025 and 30.04.2025? 8.The Court having duly identified the above-mentioned issues for determination, the same will now be discussed as provided herein below. Issue no.1- whether or not the present petition is res judicata the proceeding known AS Eldoret Environment & Land Court Case No. 176 of 2017? 9.The first issue for determination is whether or not the present Petition is Res Judicata the proceedings known As Eldoret Environment And Land Court Case No.176 of 2017. 10.This issue has been raised by both the 4th Respondent in the Preliminary Objection dated 08.04.2025 and the 1st Respondent in the Preliminary Objection dated 30.04.2025. 11.According to the 4th and 1st Respondent, the pending Petition is one which raises similar issues over the same subject matter between the same parties which issues have already been determined by a Competent Court of law on merit. 12.As such, the pending Petition before this Court does contravene the provisions of Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21 and therefore this Court does not have the appropriate Jurisdiction to entertain and/or determine the issues raised by the Petitioners in the pending Petition. 13.In response to the 4th Respondent’s and the 1st Respondent’s submissions on the issue of Res Judicata, the Petitioners herein did dispute the allegation that the pending Petition did raise similar issues over the same subject matter between the same parties, and which issues had already been determined by a Competent Court of Law of merit. 14.The Petitioners did begin by distinguishing the properties in the proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court Elc NO. 176 of 2017 and the pending Petition herein. 15.According to the Petitioners, the suit property which is before the Court in the pending Petition was property known as LR.No. Eldoret Municipality Block 12/337 while in the proceeding known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court ELC NO. 176 of 2017 the suit property was Eldoret Municipality Block 12/288. 16.In essence therefore, the suit property in the pending Petition is different and distinct from the suit property in the proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court ELC NO. 176 of 2017. 17.Secondly, the Petitioners did state that the 1st Petitioner in the pending Petition was never a party in the previous proceeding known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court ELC NO.176 of 2017. 18.In other words, the parties in the pending Petition before the Court were different with those in the proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court ELC NO.176 of 2017. 19.Based on the two main grounds, the allegations that the pending Petition was Res Judicata the proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court ELC NO.176 of 2017 were not merited and should be dismissed. 20.To begin with, the doctrine of Res Judicata is anchored in our Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21 through the provisions of Section 7. 21.Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21 provides as follows; -“No court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any other them claim, litigating under the same title, in a court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decide by such Court.” 22.Based on the above proviso, there are a number of tests that a Court should consider before making a determination that a pending suit is Res Judicata or not. 23.These tests can be summarized as follows; -a.There is a former judgment or order which was final;b.The judgment or order was on merit;c.That the judgment or order was made by a court of competent jurisdiction;d.There must be between the first and the second action identical parties;e.The subject matter and cause of action must be the same;f.Finally, the issues in the previous suit must be the same as those arising in the subsequent suit; 24.The Court will now proceed to evaluate the above tests and thereafter make a determination as to whether the pending Petition is Res Judicata the proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court ELC NO.173 OF 2017 or not. a. There is a former judgment or order which was final; 25.The first test is whether or not there exists a former judgement and/or order which was final presented before the Court. 26.According to the 4th Respondent and the 1st Respondent, the Judgement which had formerly been pronounced is contained in the proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court ELC NO.176 of 2017 on the 29.05.2019. 27.The Petitioners did admit the existence of the Judgement pronounced on the 29.05.2019 in the proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court ELC NO. 176 of 2017 in their submissions. 28.In essence therefore, this Court is satisfied that indeed there exists a former judgement pronounced on the 29.05.2019 in the proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court ELC NO.176 of 2017 which is the basis of the claim of Res Judicata contained in the Preliminary Objections dated 08.04.2025 and 30.04.2025. b. The judgment or order was on merit; 29.The second test applicable is whether or not the former judgement and/or order was on merit or not. 30.Under Section 21 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, a Judgement on merit is provided for as follows; -“Judgements in defended suits shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision.” 31.The 4th and 1st Respondents did submit that the Judgement pronounced on the 29.05.2019 which is the foundation their claim of Res Judicata, was made on merit upon hearing all the parties. 32.The Petitioners in the pending Petition did not concisely address this issue of whether the former Judgement pronounced on 29.05.2019 in the proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court ELC NO.176 of 2017 was on merit of not. 33.However, in the Petitioners submissions, it was admitted that the 2nd to 4th Petitioners herein were parties in the Judgement pronounced on the 29.05.2019 in the proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court ELC NO.176 of 2017. 34.The Judgement pronounced on the 29.05.2019 in the proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court ELC NO.176 of 2017 was attached in the 2nd Respondent’s Replying Affidavit in this pending Petition dated 30.01.2025. 35.The Court has carefully perused the Judgement pronounced on the 29.05.2019 in the proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court ELC NO. 176 of 2017 which did include the following aspects; -i.The concise statement of the Plaintiffs and Defendants cases were clearly outlined.ii.The points for determination were clearly identified by the Court.iii.The decision on the points for determination were arrived at.iv.The reasons for the decisions were clearly given by the Court. 36.As such, this Court is satisfied that the Judgement pronounced on the 29.05.2019 in the proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court ELC NO. 176 of 2017 was a Judgement on merit. c. That the judgment or order was made by a court of competent jurisdiction; 37.The third test is whether the former judgement or order was made by a Court of competent jurisdiction. 38.The 4th Respondent and the 1st Respondent did submit that the former Judgement pronounced on the 29.05.2019 in the proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court ELC NO. 176 of 2017 was made by a Court of competent jurisdiction. 39.The Petitioners herein did not dispute the jurisdiction of the Court which did pronounce the former Judgement made on 29.05.2019 in the proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court ELC NO. 176 of 2017. 40.As such, this Court hereby makes a finding that the former Judgement pronounced on the 29.05.2017 in the proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court ELC NO. 176 of 2017 was made by a Court of competent jurisdiction. d. There must be between the first and the second action identical parties; 41.The fourth issue is whether the parties in the former proceedings and the subsequent proceeding are identical or not. 42.In the pending Petition, the Petitioners are Respar Ayuma Watindi, Aggrey Watindi, Board of Management, Princedom Education Centre and the trustees, Logos Revival Ministries. 43.On the other hand, the Respondents in the pending Petition are Joan Chepkorie, Desire Recovery Auctioneers, the OCS Langas Police Station, Silas Kitui Kipchillat and the Directorate of Criminal Investigation. 44.It is important to point out that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents herein are parties that are empowered by law to ensure compliance of lawful orders within the Republic of Kenya and cannot be said to be the legitimate parties to the dispute at hand. 45.The Interested Parties are Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu County And Bank Of Baroda (k) Limited. 46.In the former proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court ELC NO. 176 of 2017, the Plaintiff was Rodah Cheptonui Langat while the Defendants were REV.Aggrey Watindi, Logos Revival Ministries And Princedom Education Centre who are now the 2nd to 4th Petitioners in the pending Petition. 47.According to Paragraph 7 of the pending Petition, the 1st Petitioner herein is a spouse of the 2nd Petitioner. 48.It is clear therefore that all the Petitioners in the pending Petition were parties in the previous proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court Case No. 176 of 2017 save for the 1st Petitioner. 49.It is not in contention that the 1st Petitioner’s rights are premised on the ownership rights of the 2nd Petitioner who is her husband and therefore the 1st Petitioner and the 2nd Petitioner are as the word of the LORD says, one and the same. 50.As regards the Respondents in the pending Petition, the Petitioners did not clearly identify the basis upon which they were sued. 51.The Petitioners simply did identify them on the basis of their offices and/or institutions without specifically indicating the role each of them did to infringe the Petitioners rights over the suit property known as LR.No. Eldoret Municipality Block 12/337. 52.Nevertheless, the pending Petition clearly paints a picture that the Respondents herein were the persons and/or institutions that were enforcing demolishing the 2nd to 4th Petitioner’s developments on the suit property known as LR.No. Eldoret Municipality Block 12/337. 53.Be that as it may, it is clear that the Respondents herein were implementing the Judgement and Decree issued in the former proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court Case No. 176 of 2019. 54.As such, the parties who appear as Petitioners and the Respondents in the pending Petition are one and the same as those in the former proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court Case No. 176 of 2017. e. The subject matter and cause of action must be the same; 55.In this test, the Court is required to counter check whether there is any co-relationship between the suit property in the former proceedings and the proceedings pending before the Court. 56.Thereafter, the Court is further required to confirm whether the causes of action in the previous proceedings are similar to the causes of action in the pending suit. 57.Beginning with the pending Petition, the subject matter before the Court is the property known as LR.No. Eldoret Municipality Block 12/337. 58.The cause of action pleaded by the Petitioner is the unlawful demolition of the structures on the property known as LR.No. Eldoret Municipality Block 12/337 based on an alleged Court Order by the 1st to 3rd Respondents. 59.In the prayers sought in the pending Petition, the Petitioners is seeking for a declaration that the demolition on the property known as LR.No. Eldoret Municipality Block 12/337 is unlawful and a Permanent Injunction prohibiting the 1st to 3rd Respondents from interfering with the quite occupation and use of the said property. 60.Lastly, the Petitioners seeks for a declaration that they have a legitimate interest over the property known as LR.No. Eldoret Municipality Block 12/337. 61.In the previous proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court Case No.176 of 2017, the Plaintiff therein Rodah Cheptonui Langat did identify the subject matter of the proceedings as LR.No. Eldoret Municipality Block 12/288. 62.The cause of action by the Plaintiff Rodah Cheptonui Langat was that the 2nd Petitioner as well as the 3rd and 4th Petitioners were trespassers on the property known as LR.No. Eldoret Municipality Block 12/288. 63.The reliefs sought by the Plaintiff Rodah Cheptonui Langat was that the 2nd Petitioner as well as the 3rd and 4th Petitioners were to yield possession back to the Plaintiff or in the alternative be evicted from the said property known as LR.No. Eldoret Municipality Block 12/288. 64.The 2nd to 4th Respondents did file a Counter-Claim identifying their subject matter to be the property known as LR.No. Eldoret Municipality Block 12/337. 65.The cause of action in the 2nd to 4th Petitioners was a claim of adverse possession against the Plaintiff Rodah Cheptonui Langat. 66.The 2nd to 4th Petitioners did seek a Permanent Injunction prohibiting the Plaintiff Rodah Cheptonui Langat from any interference of the said property known as LR.No. Eldoret Municipality Block 12/337. 67.Based on the above facts, it is clear that the ownership of the property known as LR.No. Eldoret Municipality Block 12/337 being claimed by the Petitioners herein had been discussed in the previous proceeding known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court Case No. 176 of 2017. 68.The parties that had raised the issue of the property known as LR.No. Eldoret Municipality Block 12/337 was in fact the 1st Petitioner’s husband who is the 2nd Petitioner as well as the 3rd and 4th Petitioners. 69.In essence, this Court is of the considered view and finding that the subject matter in this pending Petition which is LR.No. Eldoret Municipality Block 12/337 and who should be in occupation thereof, were the same issues that were raised and determined in the former proceedings known as Eldoret Environment &land Court Case No. 176 of 2017. f. Finally, the issues in the previous suit must be the same as those arising in the subsequent suit; 70.The last test is whether the issues raised in the previous suit are similar to those raised this pending Petition. 71.The answer to this test is rather straight forward, keeping in mind the findings in the other previous tests. 72.The issue in the pending Petition is whether the Petitioners have any rights to occupy and/or use the property known as LR.No. Eldoret Municipality Block 12/337. 73.This is the same issue that the 2nd to 4th Petitioners did plead and pursue in the proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court Case No. 176 of 2017. 74.Consequently, this Court is of the finding that the issues in the pending Petition as similar to those raised in the Counter-Claim in the proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court Case No.176 of 2017. 75.In conclusion thereof, based on the findings in the above-mentioned tests, this Court is satisfied that the pending suit herein is Res Judicata the proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court Case No. 176 of 2017. Issue No. 2- Whether the facts contained in the present petition sufficiently disclose any infringement and/or breach of the petitioners’ rights capable of adjudication by this court? 76.The second issue for determination is whether the pending Petition herein clearly discloses any infringement and/or breach of the Petitioner’s constitutional rights as envisaged in law. 77.The 4th Respondent and the 1st Respondent are of the submission and view that the pending Petition does not disclose any infringement and/or breach of any rights of the Petitioner herein over the suit property known as L.R.NO. ELDORET MUNICIPALITY BLOCK 12/337. 78.As such, the pending Petition is an abuse of the Court process geared towards avoiding the compliance of a legal judgement and/or order emanating from the previous proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court Case No. 176 of 2017. 79.The Petitioners did not address the issue of which rights have been breached by the Respondents as regards the property known as LR.No. Eldoret Municipality Block 12/337. 80.Instead, the Petitioner did attack the Preliminary Objections on the ground that they did not meet the threshold of being points of law and therefore the matter should proceed for full hearing. 81.To answer this issue, the point of departure in this discussion should be the substantive Petition itself. 82.As earlier pointed out, the 1st Petitioner herein is a spouse to the 2nd Petitioner. 83.According to the pending Petition, the 1st Petitioner is challenging any interference of the property known as LR.No. Eldoret Municipality Block 12/337 on the strength of the 2nd to 4th Petitioner’s ownership of the said property. 84.In other words, the 1st Petitioner herein does not have any direct ownership and/or constitutional rights over the suit property known as LR.No. Eldoret Municipality Block 12/337 in her own individual capacity. 85.In the pending Petition, the 1st Petitioner alleges that her rights under Article 43 (f), 53 (1) & (2), 64, 22 (1) are being threatened by the Respondents herein. 86.However, it is clear in the mind of this Court that the legality, ownership and occupation of the property known as LR.No. Eldoret Municipality Block 12/337 was heard and determined in the proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court Case No.176 of 2017. 87.Based on the Judgement pronounced on the 29.05.2019 in the proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court Case No.176 of 2017, it was decided that the 2nd to 4th Petitioners were in the property known as LR.No. Eldoret Municipality Block 12/288 and not LR.No. Eldoret Municipality Block 12/337 as alleged by the 2nd to 4th Petitioners in their Counter-Claim. 88.In other words, the 2nd to 4th Petitioners herein did not have any rights of ownership and occupation over the property known as LR.No. Eldoret Municipality Block 12/288. 89.In essence, this Court is of the view and finding that there can be no constitutional rights infringed and/or breached by the 1st to 6th Respondents herein in enforcing the Judgement pronounced on the 29.05.2019 in the proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court Case No. 176 of 2017 as alleged by the Petitioners herein. 90.In the absence of any identifiable infringement of the Petitioners’ rights under the Constitution, 2010 then the pending Petition is baseless and cannot be entertained. Issue No.3 -WHether the pending petition amounts to constitutional avoidance? 91.The third issue for determination is whether the pending Petition is geared towards constitutional avoidance or not. 92.According to the 4th and 1st Respondents, the issues raised in the pending Petition are issues that could be addressed through other legal ways under the law of statute. 93.The 4th and 1st Respondents did submit that the issue being raised by the Petitioner was about whether or not the property known as LR.No. Eldoret Municipality Block 12/337 was in existence and whether they had acquired any legal rights over the same from the previous owner. 94.The Petitioners did submit on the other hand that when it comes to issues of eviction, the fundamental rights of the persons or people being affected by the said evictions are usually protected by the Constitution. 95.The Petitioner did point out in particular that the 3rd and 4th Petitioners had vulnerable persons who are school going children and therefore the implementation of the eviction orders would violate their rights are Article 43 and 53 of the Constitution,2010. 96.In the case of GOdfrey Paul Okutoyi & Others -versus- Habil Olaka & Another (2018) eKLR, the Court did observe the following; -“It is time it became clear to both litigants and counsel that rights conferred by statute are not fundamental rights under the Bill of Rights and, therefore, a breach of such rights being a breach of an ordinary statute are redressed through a court of law in the manner allowed by that particular statute or in an ordinary suit as provided by procedure.It is not every failure to act in accordance with a statutory provision or where action is taken in breach of a statutory provision that should give rise to a Constitutional Petition.A party should only file a constitutional Petition for redress of a breach of the Constitution or denial, violation or infringement of, or threat to a right or fundamental freedom. Any other claim should be filed in the appropriate forum in the manner allowed by the applicable law and procedure.” 97.Looking at the totality of the facts pleaded in the pending Petition, it is clear that the Petitioners herein are aggrieved by the Judgement pronounced on the 29.05.2019 in the proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court Case No. 176 of 2017. 98.The 1st Petitioner did admit that her spouse who is the 2nd Petitioner in the pending Petition had actually been the 1st Defendant in the proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court Case No. 176 of 2017 together with the 3rd and 4th Petitioners who were the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. 99.If any of the Defendants in the previous proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court CASE N0.176 of 2017 were dissatisfied by the Judgement pronounced on the 29.05.2019 and in particular the Order of Eviction therein, the proper recourse was to file an Appeal before the Court of Appeal for the same to be set-aside. 100.As fate would have it, the 1st to 3rd Defendants in the proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court Case No. 176 of 2017 who are the 2nd to 4th Petitioners herein never challenged the Judgement pronounced on the 29.05.2019 and the same is binding to date. 101.The Petitioners’ attempt to therefore challenge the Judgement pronounced on the 29.05.2019 in the proceedings known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court Case No.176 of 2017 and in particular the Order of Eviction therein is a classic example of how a litigant can abuse the provisions of the law for his or her own personal gain seeking to evade justice. 102.Unfortunately for the Petitioners, this Court’s eyes are wide open and the Petitioners cannot succeed to avoid justice through an act of constitutional avoidance. 103.As such, this pending Petition is found to be act of constitutional avoidance and should not be entertained. Issue no.4- whether the preliminary objections dated 08.04.2025 and 30.04.2025 are merited or not? 104.In view of the Court’s finding in Issues No.1, 2 and 3 hereinabove, the Court is of the view that the two Preliminary Objections dated 08.04.2025 and 20.04.2025 are merited. Issue no.5-who bears the costs of the two preliminary objections dated 08.04.2025 and 30.04.2025? 105.Costs are usually awarded to a winning party. 106.Keeping in mind that the two Preliminary Objections are successful, the Petitioners herein are Ordered to pay the costs of the same to the Respondents herein. Conclusion 107.In conclusion, this Court hereby makes the following Orders in determination of the Preliminary Objections dated 08.04.2025 and 30.04.2025; -A.Notice of preliminary objection dated 08.04.2025 is allowed.B.Notice of preliminary objection dated 30.04.2025 is allowedC.The petitioners’ claim vide the amended petition dated 20.03.2025 be and is hereby struck out.D.Costs of the two preliminary objections and suit to be borne by the petitioners. DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED in ELDORET this 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026.EMMANUEL.M. WASHEJUDGEIN THE PRESENCE OF:Court Assistant: BrianCounsel for the Petitioners: Mr. OyaroCounsel for the 1st Respondent: Mr. Yego (N/A)Counsel for the 2nd Respondent: Mr. Langat (N/A)Counsel for the 3rd & 5th Respondent: Mr. Ramo KwameCounsel for the 4th Respondent: Mr Mogambi (N/A)Counsel for the 6th Respondent: Mr. Mayabi (N/A)