Hezekiah Cherorot Ngerechi v County Government of Bomet & another; National Land Commission (Interested Party)

THE CHIEF OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING LANDS HOUSING AND URBAN PLANNING(sic) -COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF BOMET……………..……………….………….…… 2ND RESPONDENT THE NATIONAL LAND COMMISSION……..…INTERESTED PARTY JUDGEMENT. INTRODUCTION. 1. Pursuant to the leave of Court granted on 20 th March, 2023, the Ex parte Applicant filed the Amended Notice of Motion Application dated 27th October 2025. 2. The said application is expressed to be brought under Section 8 of the Law Reforms Act, Section 7(1) and (2),8,9 (1),11 of the Fair Administrative Actions Act, Order 53 Rule1(2) and 1(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules, Article 165(6) 47,50(1) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ELC JR CASE NO. E002 OF 2024 [BOMET] Page 2 of 33

page 2 of 33

3. The Ex Parte Applicant seeks the following orders; a. That the Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of Certiorari to remove into (sic) the Environment and Land Court and quash the Respondents’ decision directing the Applicant to remove his building and/or structures comprised in the property known as Plot No. 5 Tenwek Market within 14 days from 16th January 2023. b. That the Honourable Court be Pleased to Issue an Order of Prohibition directed at the Respondents and/or any other person and/or authority acting on its (sic) instructions from causing the removal of the Applicant’s building comprised in the property known as Plot No. 5 Tenwek Market. c. That the costs of the application be provided for. 4. The application is based on the grounds on its face and the supporting affidavit of Hezekiah Chororot Ngerechi sworn on 27th October, 2025. 5. In response the 1st and 2nd Respondents filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 27th May, 2024. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ELC JR CASE NO. E002 OF 2024 [BOMET] Page 3 of 33

page 3 of 33

6. The Preliminary Objection is on the following grounds; a. That this application is fatally defective and incurable since the applicants have no locus standi to bring and prosecute the instant application for lack of proprietary interest in the land in question. b. It is trite that law that grant of license is personal to the licensee, creates no interest which can be disposed of by the licensee, not assignable to the applicants and the same was extinguished upon the death of their deceased father who was a licensee as was rightfully held by the Court of Appeal decisions in Faraj Maharus V J.B Martin Glass Industries & 3 Others (2005) Eklr And Runda Coffee Estates Ltd V Ujagar Singh (1966) E.A 564 At P 568. c. This Honourable Court in EUNICE NJOKI KIRURI (Suing as the legal administrator of the estate of the late Nahashon Gichu Muchembe) v Richard Kipruto Koech (2018) Eklr, Justice M.Onyango considered the legality of a license and upheld that any license over land even if the term is still running is extinguished upon the death of the -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ELC JR CASE NO. E002 OF 2024 [BOMET] Page 4 of 33

page 4 of 33

licensee and cannot be inherited or be the subject of succession. d. This Honorable Court in KIPNGETICH KALYA KONES (Suing As The Administrator Of The Estate Of Kipkalya Kiprono Kones(Deseased) Vs WILSON KIPLANGAT KONES(2021) Eklr. Justice MC OUNDO in dismissing the suit held that “the issue of locus standi goes to the root of the suit, its absence therefore renders a suit fatally defective and cannot be termed as a mere technicality”. e. That the application herein is fatally defective, misconceived and ought to be dismissed in the first instance with Cost. FACTUAL BACKGROUND. 7. The Ex parte Applicant filed the Notice of Motion application dated 29th May, 2023 which application was amended on the 27th October 2025. 8. On the 27th November 2025 the matter was mentioned for directions when the court directed the Respondents to file their responses to the amended application within 21 days -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ELC JR CASE NO. E002 OF 2024 [BOMET] Page 5 of 33

page 5 of 33

and further granted the Applicant leave to the applicant to file a Supplementary Affidavit if need be. 9. On the 28th January 2026 the matter was mentioned for further directions when Counsel for the Applicant informed the court that he had not received a response to the amended application but had received a Notice of Preliminary Objection filed by the 1 st and 2nd Respondent. The Court then directed that the application and Preliminary Objection be heard contemporaneously and by way of written submissions. 10. The matter was mentioned severally to confirm filing of submissions from the Respondents. On 29th April, 2026 the matter was reserved for judgement. THE EX PARTE APPLICANT’S CONTENTION. 11. The Ex parte Applicant contends that he holds a proprietary interest in all that parcel of land known as Plot No. 5 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ELC JR CASE NO. E002 OF 2024 [BOMET] Page 6 of 33

page 6 of 33

Tenwek Market by virtue of an Allotment Letter issued to him by the relevant authority, pursuant to which he took possession and has remained in uninterrupted occupation to date. 12. He also contends that, in response to the Respondents' preliminary objection dated 27th May, 2024, alleging that he lacks locus standi to institute or maintain this suit, his interest in Plot No. 5 – Tenwek Market arises from an allotment issued to him personally and not from any derivative claim under the late Erick Kikwai Bargetet, as erroneously alleged. 13. It is his contention that since the said allotment, he has regularly received and promptly settled all rent and rates demands issued by the 1st Respondent. 14. It is also his contention that he has extensively developed the said property by constructing permanent and semi-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ELC JR CASE NO. E002 OF 2024 [BOMET] Page 7 of 33

page 7 of 33

permanent commercial structures including rental units and business premises where he operates various businesses. 15. It is further his contention that on 16th January 16. 2023, the 2nd Respondent issued a notice of even date directed at all the legal and/or beneficial owners of several properties, including his property, Plot No. 5 Tenwek Market, to remove buildings and/or structures alleged to have been constructed illegally on public land earmarked for roads of access, public mobility back lanes and registered road reserves. 17. He also contends that the aforesaid notice afforded him only 14 days to comply yet he is advised by his advocates on record which advice he verily believes to be true that pursuant to Section 152(C) of the Land Act No. 6 of 2012, such -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ELC JR CASE NO. E002 OF 2024 [BOMET] Page 8 of 33

page 8 of 33

notices ought to allow at least three months to the parties affected to comply. 18. He further contends that he is advised by his advocates on record that pursuant to Section 155 of the Land Act No. 6 of 2012, the exclusive mandate to issue such notices over public land is vested in the National Land Commission, the Interested Party herein, as opposed to the Respondents herein. 19. It is his contention that considering the foregoing, he is also advised by his advocates on record that it is manifestly clear that the Respondents acted ultra vires by purporting to issue a notice over removal of structures on purported public land, whereas, by law, the National Land Commission is exclusively vested with such mandate. 20. He contends that the Notice is not only unreasonable but is also unlawful, as it affords him only 14 days to comply yet -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ELC JR CASE NO. E002 OF 2024 [BOMET] Page 9 of 33

page 9 of 33

Section 152(C) of the Land Act requires that parties affected by such notices ought to be afforded at least three months to do so. 21. It is also his contention that the Respondents' administrative decision directing removal of structures and buildings erected on Plot No. 5 on the guise of their purported encroachment on public utility reserves, was made without him being afforded a chance to be heard. 22. It is further his contention that he is advised by his advocates on record that this is manifestly illegal as it was taken in blatant disregard of the dictates of Article 47 of the Constitution and Sections 4, 5 & 7 of the Fair Administration Action Act which, inter alia, require that sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard be afforded to persons likely to be affected by any administrative decision. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ELC JR CASE NO. E002 OF 2024 [BOMET] Page 10 of 33

page 10 of 33

23. He also contends that as a result of the Respondents' aforesaid actions, he stands to suffer irreparable harm as his extensive developments on the suit property wherein he undertakes various licensed businesses may be demolished, rendering him destitute. 24. He ends his deposition by contending that, in view of the foregoing, it is in the interests of justice and fairness that the Application dated 29th May, 2023, and amended on 27 th October, 2025, be allowed and the orders sought therein granted. 25. At the time of writing this judgement, the Respondents and the Interested party have not filed responses to the Amended Application and have also not filed submissions. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION. 26. The Ex parte Applicant filed his written submission 22 nd February 2026. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ELC JR CASE NO. E002 OF 2024 [BOMET] Page 11 of 33

page 11 of 33

27. The Ex parte Applicant submits that the following issues fall for determination: i) Whether the Respondents' Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 27th May, 2024 is merited. 2nd ii)Whether the statutory mandate Respondent had to the issue impugned notice under the Land Act. iii)Whether the impugned notice complies with the mandatory provisions of Section 152C of the Land Act. iv)Whether the decision by the Respondents was made in violation of Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act. v) Whether the Applicant has met the threshold for the grant of orders of certiorari and prohibition. 28. On the first issue whether the Respondents' Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 27th May, 2024 is merited. The Applicant relies on Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd for the principle that a -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ELC JR CASE NO. E002 OF 2024 [BOMET] Page 12 of 33

page 12 of 33

preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law argued on the assumption that the pleaded facts are correct. 29. He submits that the objection was directed at the 1 st Applicant who sued as personal representative of a deceased licensee's estate, and that, the 1 st Applicant having since been struck out on amendment, the present Applicant's case rests on a personal allotment made to him in his own right and not on a license derived through succession. 30. He submits that the objection is accordingly rendered moot and incompetent. 31. He also relies on Article 47(1) of the Constitution and Section 7(1) of the Fair Administrative Action Act for the submission that a person aggrieved by administrative action is entitled to seek judicial review irrespective of registered title, and submits that being an allottee in -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ELC JR CASE NO. E002 OF 2024 [BOMET] Page 13 of 33

page 13 of 33

possession who pays rent and is directly threatened with demolition, he is such a person aggrieved. He concludes by urging the Court to dismiss the Preliminary Objection with costs. 32. On the second issue whether the 2nd Respondent had statutory mandate to issue the impugned notice under the Land Act, the Applicant submits that the impugned notice was issued by the 2nd Respondent's Chief Officer rather than the National Land Commission which is contrary to Section 152C and Section 155 of the Land Act read with Article 67 of the Constitution, which he submits vest the mandate over public land exclusively in the Commission and that a power so vested cannot be assumed by another authority absent express delegation. 33. He relies on Mutisya & 173 others v Nairobi City County Government & another [2022] KEELC 3428 (KLR) for the finding that these statutory safeguards are mandatory -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ELC JR CASE NO. E002 OF 2024 [BOMET] Page 14 of 33

page 14 of 33

and not optional formalities and that the mandate lies with the National Land Commission. He concludes that the 2nd Respondent acted ultra vires the Land Act and that the notice is unlawful, void ab initio and amenable to certiorari. 34. On the third issue -whether the impugned notice complies with the mandatory provisions of Section 152C of the Land Act, the Applicant submits that Section 152C of the Land Act is couched in mandatory terms, requiring publication in the Gazette and a newspaper of national circulation and at least three months' notice before eviction, whereas the impugned notice allowed only fourteen days and was not shown to have been published as required. 35. He again relies on Mutisya & 173 others v Nairobi City County Government & another (Supra) for the finding that these safeguards are substantive constitutional protections and not technicalities capable of waiver, and submits that the notice is void for non-compliance with -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ELC JR CASE NO. E002 OF 2024 [BOMET] Page 15 of 33

page 15 of 33

Section 152C and is liable to be quashed by an order of certiorari. 36. On the forth issue- whether the decision by the Respondents was made in violation of Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act, the Ex parte Applicant submits that the notice was issued in violation of Article 47 of the Constitution and Section 4(3) of the Fair Administrative Action Act in that he was given no prior notice of the case against him, no opportunity to be heard or to make representations and no statement of reasons before the decision to demolish his developments was taken. 37. He relies on the decision in Judicial Service Commission v Mutava & another [2015] KECA 741 (KLR) for the holding that Article 47 codifies the principles of natural justice and elevates procedural fairness to a constitutional requirement. He submits that the decision to do what to evict him was accordingly procedurally unfair and -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ELC JR CASE NO. E002 OF 2024 [BOMET] Page 16 of 33

page 16 of 33

unconstitutional and would be liable to be quashed on this ground alone even if the grounds as set out in the Land Act grounds were to fail. 38. On the fifth issue-whether the Applicant has met the threshold for the grant of orders of certiorari and prohibition, the Applicant relies on Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council & others [2008] 2 EA 300 for the grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety upon which judicial review is founded and submits that he has established illegality and procedural impropriety on each of the three preceding issues, any one of which independently satisfies the threshold. 39. The Applicant also relies on Kenya National Examinations Council v Republic ex parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge & 9 others [1997] eKLR for the distinction that certiorari looks backward to quash a decision already made while prohibition looks forward to restrain its implementation and -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ELC JR CASE NO. E002 OF 2024 [BOMET] Page 17 of 33

page 17 of 33

concludes by urging the Court to grant both orders, dismiss the Preliminary Objection, and award him the costs of the Application. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION. 40. Having considered the Preliminary Objection, the Amended Notice of Motion, the supporting affidavit, the annexures thereto, and the Ex parte Applicant's submissions, it is my view that the following issues arise for determination; a) Whether the Preliminary Objection is merited. b) Whether the Respondents have met the threshold for grant of Judicial Review Orders of certiorari and Prohibition. c) Who should bear the costs of the Preliminary Objection and of the Application. A. WHETHER THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IS MERITED. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ELC JR CASE NO. E002 OF 2024 [BOMET] Page 18 of 33

page 18 of 33

41. The law on what constitutes a proper preliminary objection is settled in Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696 where the Court held that a preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law argued on the assumption that the facts pleaded by the other side are correct, and must not require the ascertainment of facts or the exercise of judicial discretion. 42. The judicial decision of Ushago Diani Investment Limited v Abdulwahab (Environment & Land Case 12 of 2023) [2023] KEELC 20213 (KLR) (27 September 2023) (Ruling) cited with approval Oraro v Mbaja [2005] eKLR 141 is important in answering the nature of preliminary objections. The Court held as follows ; “A preliminary objection is now well identified as and declared to be a point of law which must not be blurred with factual details liable to be contested and in any event, to be proved through the process of evidence. Any assertion which claims -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ELC JR CASE NO. E002 OF 2024 [BOMET] Page 19 of 33

page 19 of 33

to be a preliminary objection and yet it bears factual aspects calling for proof or seeks to adduce evidence for its authentication is not, as a matter of legal principle, a true preliminary objection which the Court should allow to proceed. Where a Court needs to investigate facts, a matter cannot be raised as a preliminary objection anything that purports to be a preliminary objection must not deal with disputed facts and it must not itself derive its foundation from factual information which stands to be tested by normal rules of evidence.” (Emphasis mine) 43. The Respondents' Objection is founded on the proposition that the grant of licence is personal to the licensee and that such license creates no interest which can be disposed of by the licensee and not assignable to the Applicants and that the same was extinguished upon the death of their deceased That father ( Erick Kikwai Bargetet). proposition, and the authorities relied upon in support of it were self-evidently directed at the claim that 1 st Applicant, Stephen Mosonik, was suing as personal representative of -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ELC JR CASE NO. E002 OF 2024 [BOMET] Page 20 of 33

page 20 of 33

the deceased licensee's estate. That Applicant has since been struck out of the proceedings with leave of the Court. 44. The Ex parte Applicant who remains in these proceedings does not claim through the deceased licensee. He asserts his rights as an allotee on account of an allotment in his own name, evidenced by an Allotment Letter and by rent and rates records issued to him over several years. 45. Whether an allotment was made to the remaining Ex parte Applicant is a question that can only be resolved upon an examination of documentary evidence and oral testimonies. It is not for assumption for the purposes of a preliminary point of law. 46. The Objection, as framed, no longer addresses the case actually pleaded by the remining Applicant and is to that extent overtaken by the amendment of the pleadings. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ELC JR CASE NO. E002 OF 2024 [BOMET] Page 21 of 33

page 21 of 33

47. It is also important to note that Section 7(1) of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015 extends the right to apply for review to "any person who is aggrieved by an administrative action or decision" and Article 47(1) of the Constitution guarantees the right to fair administrative action to "every person". It is not a preserve of persons with registered proprietary interests in land. 48. A person in possession, paying rates, and threatened with demolition of developments on account of an administrative decision has sufficient interest to invoke this Court’s Judicial Review jurisdiction notwithstanding the ultimate strength of his proprietary claim. 49. For the foregoing reasons, I find that the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 27th May, 2024 does not raise a pure point of law capable of disposing of the proceedings in limine and is, in any event, overtaken by the amendment to the Notice of Motion Application which had the effect of -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ELC JR CASE NO. E002 OF 2024 [BOMET] Page 22 of 33

page 22 of 33

striking out the name of Stephen Mosonik who was suing as the personal representative of Erick Kikwai Bargetet. B. WHETHER THE APPLICANT HAS MET THE THRESHOLD FOR THE GRANT OF THE ORDERS OF CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION SOUGHT. 50. The scope of judicial review was restated in Judicial decision of Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council & others [2008] 2 EA 300 page 303 and 304, where the Court held as follows; “Judicial review illegality, irrationality impropriety. is Illegality concerned with and procedural is when the decision making authority commits an error of law in the process of taking the decision or making the act, the subject of the complaint. Acting without jurisdiction or ultra vires, or contrary to the provisions of a law or its principles are instances of illegality. Irrationality is when there is such gross -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ELC JR CASE NO. E002 OF 2024 [BOMET] Page 23 of 33

page 23 of 33

unreasonableness in the decision taken or act done, that no reasonable authority addressing itself to the facts and the law before it, would have made such a decision. Such a decision is usually in defiance of logic and acceptable moral standards. Procedural impropriety is when there is a failure to act fairly on the part of the decision making authority in the process of taking a decision. The unfairness may be in non-observance of the rules of natural justice or to act with procedural fairness towards one to be affected by the decision. It may also involve failure to adhere and observe procedural rules expressly laid down in a statute or legislative instrument by which such authority exercises jurisdiction to make a decision.” (Emphasis mine) 51. The subject of the impugned notice is worded as follows; “Notice to structures remove illegal established on public lands.” -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ELC JR CASE NO. E002 OF 2024 [BOMET] Page 24 of 33

page 24 of 33

52. Section 152 C of the Land Act makes provision for the eviction of unlawful occupiers of public land. It is as follows The National Land Commission shall decision cause relating to an a eviction from public land to be notified to all affected persons, in writing, by notice in the Gazette and in one newspaper with nationwide circulation and by radio a local announcement, in language, where appropriate, at least three months before the eviction. 53. Article 47 of the Constitution provides as follows: (1) Every person has the administrative action expeditious, efficient, right to that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. (2) If a right or fundamental freedom of a person has been or is likely to -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ELC JR CASE NO. E002 OF 2024 [BOMET] Page 25 of 33

page 25 of 33

be adversely affected by administrative action, the person has the right to be given written reasons for the action. 54. It is evident that a notice of eviction from public land is to be issued by the National Land Commission and the notice period is three months. 55. Procedural impropriety is one of the grounds upon which a Court would be entitled to grant judicial review orders. In Pastoli vs. Kabale District Local Government Council and Others [2008] 2 EA 300 and it was held as followed; “Procedural impropriety is when there is a failure to act fairly on the part of the decision making authority in the process of taking a decision. The unfairness nonobservance Natural Justice of or may be in the Rules of to act with procedural fairness towards one to be affected by the decision. It may also -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ELC JR CASE NO. E002 OF 2024 [BOMET] Page 26 of 33

page 26 of 33

involve failure to adhere and observe procedural rules expressly laid down in a statute or legislative Instrument by which such authority exercises jurisdiction to make a decision. (Emphasis mine) 56. Upon reading the impugned notice it is further evident that it was not issued by the National Land Commission (The interested party herein) and that the notice period fell short; the Applicant was required to vacate within 14 days. There is no doubt, therefore, that the notice is unlawful and procedurally unfair 57. The Applicant has demonstrated that the impugned notice was issued without statutory mandate, in non-compliance with Section 152 C of the Land Act, and in violation of Article 47 of the Constitution. 58. The impugned notice is evidence that Respondents acted in excess of their mandate. The Ex parte Applicant also -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ELC JR CASE NO. E002 OF 2024 [BOMET] Page 27 of 33

page 27 of 33

attached copies of demand for land rate and receipts exhibiting payment of the same to the 1st Respondent. 59. It is important to note that the Respondents have not filed a response to the instant application and the averments by the Applicant must be taken on their face value. 60. The question whether the parcel of land occupied by the Exparte applicant is public land and/or whether the allotment letter held by the Ex parte applicant is valid require interrogation and this can only happen by affording the exparte applicant opportunity of explanation. There is no such evidence on record that the Respondents did so. 61. In Kenya National Examinations Council v Republic ex parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge & 9 others [1997] eKLR, the Court explained that certiorari looks backward to quash a decision already made, while prohibition looks forward to restrain the continuation or implementation of an -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ELC JR CASE NO. E002 OF 2024 [BOMET] Page 28 of 33

page 28 of 33

unlawful act. Each remedy is thus tethered to a live state of affairs, an extant decision to be removed and quashed in the one case, and a continuing or imminent unlawful act to be restrained in the other. 62. Certiorari operates to move into this Court to quash this notice that has remined in force since 16 th January 2023. Prohibition, being forward-looking, requires a demonstrated live, continuing or reasonably imminent threat of unlawful conduct. An apprehension of demolition is sufficient evidence of a live threat that the remedy of prohibition is designed to restrain. 63. Taking the foregoing into consideration, I find that the Respondents’ decision was ultra vires hence illegal. It was not within the powers of the 1st and 2nd Respondent to issue an eviction notice in respect of public land. Also, the rule as to period of notice as expressly laid down in the Land Act, 2012 have not been complied with. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ELC JR CASE NO. E002 OF 2024 [BOMET] Page 29 of 33

page 29 of 33

64. It follows that the orders of certiorari and prohibition sought by the Applicant are merited. C) WHO SHOULD BEAR COSTS? 65. The general rule is that costs shall follow the event. This is in accordance with the Provisions of Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 21). A successful party should ordinarily be awarded costs of an action unless the Court, for good reason, directs otherwise. 66. The Preliminary Objection has failed on its own terms and the Respondents shall bear the costs thereof. 67. The substantive Amended Notice of Motion has merit, the Respondents did not contest the merits of the application by way of any replying affidavit and did not also file submissions. DISPOSITION. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ELC JR CASE NO. E002 OF 2024 [BOMET] Page 30 of 33

page 30 of 33

68. Taking the foregoing into consideration, the Respondents’ Preliminary Objection dated 27th May, 2024 and the Ex parte Applicant's Amended Notice of Motion application dated 27th October, 2026 and determined as follows: a. The 1st and 2nd Respondents' Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 27/5/2024 lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. b. The Applicant's Amended Notice of Motion dated 27/10/2025 is merited and I issue orders as follows: i. The Respondents’ decision directing the Ex Parte Applicant to remove building and/or his structures comprised in the property known as Plot No. 5 Tenwek Market within 14 days from 16th January 2023 is hereby quashed. ii. The Respondents and/or any other authority person and/or acting instructions of on the the -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ELC JR CASE NO. E002 OF 2024 [BOMET] Page 31 of 33

page 31 of 33

Respondents are hereby prohibited from causing the removal of the Ex Applicant’s Parte building comprised in the property known as Plot No. 5 Tenwek Market. c. The costs of this Application and the Preliminary Objection shall be borne by the Respondents. 69. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT KERICHO THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026. L. A. OMOLLO JUDGE. In the presence of: Mr. Caleb Koech for the Exparte - Applicant -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ELC JR CASE NO. E002 OF 2024 [BOMET] Page 32 of 33

page 32 of 33

Miss Chimutai for Mr. Langat and Mr. Cosmas Koech for the Respondents. Mr. Makori & Miss. Chelangat – Court Assistants -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ELC JR CASE NO. E002 OF 2024 [BOMET] Page 33 of 33

page 33 of 33