Sahare Kisupi Mwichambe & 549 Others v Nexus Holdings Limited & 2 Others

of SectionS1A, 1B, 3, 3A and 63 (c) and (e) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21, Order 40 Rule 3, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 through the Law firm of Messrs. Sagana Biriq & Muganda Advocates on behalf of the 1st Defendant. 2. The second application was dated 20 th May, 2026 filed by the Plaintiff, SAHARE KISUPI MWICHAMBE & 549 OTHERS through the Law firm of Messrs. Mbwiza & Co Advocates. It was brought under the provisions of Sections 1A,1B 3A and 63 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21, Order 40 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. 3. Upon service, while the application by the 1 st Defendant was opposed through by a Replying Affidavit dated 14 th May, 2026 sworn by the 1st Plaintiff Sahare Kisupi Mwichambe, the one by the Plaintiff filed their Replies dated 29th August, 2026. 4. For good order, the court will deal with them simultaneously but separately and distinctively on their own merit respectively.

page 2 of 30

II. The Notice of Motion application dated 7 th May, 2026 by the 1st Defendants. 5. The 1st Defendant sought for the following orders:a) Spent. b) That the 1st Plaintiff, Sahare Kisupi Mwichambe, Mwangongo Muhamed, Hamisi Abdalla and any other persons acting through them, under their instructions, authority or encouragement, including their agents, servants, proxies and/or assigns, be and are hereby cited and declared to be in contempt of the orders of this Honourable Court issued on 28 th November, 2025 and re - affirmed on 24th February, 2026. c) That upon such finding of contempt, the 1 st Plaintiff together with the other Plaintiffs and/or persons acting under their instructions, authority or encouragement, be committed to civil jail for a term not exceeding six (6) months, and/or be condemned to pay such fine as this Honourable Court may deem fit for willful disobedience of the orders of this Honourable Court. d) That in the alternative and without prejudice to Prayer 3 above, this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a coercive and mandatory order compelling the contemnors and any other persons acting through them, on their behalf, as their agents, employees or in

page 3 of 30

any way related to or mentioned in the current Suit, to immediately cease and desist from any further construction, cultivation, occupation, subdivision, sale, alienation, fencing, demarcation, sinking of boreholes, installation of utilities, or any other dealings whatsoever. e) That this Honourable Court be pleased to prohibit and restrain the Plaintiffs, whether by themselves, their agents, servants, proxies, persons acting under their instructions and/or any other persons claiming through them, from permitting, facilitating and/or undertaking any further ingress, entry, settlement or occupation onto the suit property beyond the status obtaining as at 28th November, 2025. f) That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a mandatory order directing the contemnors to restore the suit property to the condition obtaining as at 28 th November, 2025, including removal and/or demolition of all structures, developments, fences, utilities and/or improvements erected undertaken in breach of the Court's orders, at their own cost. g) That in any case and at the very least, without prejudice to any of the other Prayers herein, The Inspector General of Police, through the Regional Commander (Coast), the County Commander Police

page 4 of 30

(Kwale), the Commanding the Police Division (Lunga Lunga) and the Officer Commanding Station (OCS) (Shimoni) having jurisdiction over the suit property be and are hereby directed to provide requisite security and ensure firm compliance and enforcement of the orders of this Honourable Court issued on 28th November, 2025 and re - affirmed on 24 th February, 2026. h) That the costs of this Application be borne by the contemnors. i) That Honourable Court be pleased to grant such further or other orders as it may deem just and expedient in the circumstances. 6. The application was premised on the grounds, testimonial facts and the averments made out under the Supporting Affidavit sworn by ERICK KIVUVA a director of the 1 st Defendant/Applicant who stated as follows that:a) The 1st Defendant was the lawful, registered and indefeasible proprietor of all that parcel of land known as Land Reference No. 1082 (formerly Shimoni No. 13 of “A” 1910) measuring approximately 320.11 acres (Hereinafter referred to as "The Suit Property"), having been issued with a Certificate of Title on 13th June, 1997.

page 5 of 30

b) The Plaintiffs instituted the present suit against the Defendants vide an Originating Summons dated 25 th November, 2025 contemporaneously with a Notice of Motion Application of even date seeking, inter alia, orders restraining the Defendants from removing, evicting and/or requiring the Plaintiffs to vacate the Suit Property pending hearing and determination of the suit. c) Upon considering the said Application ex - parte on 28 th November, 2025, this Honourable Court issued interim orders directing that the status quo obtaining on the Suit Property be maintained pending inter partes hearing of the Application. d) The said orders were issued in the presence of Counsel for the Plaintiffs and/or were subsequently brought to the Plaintiffs' attention through their Advocates on record, and the Plaintiffs therefore had full knowledge of the existence, terms and effect of the said orders. e) Following service of the pleadings and upon becoming aware of the Plaintiffs' claims, the 1 st Defendant filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 17 th February, 2026

page 6 of 30

challenging both the competence of the Originating Summons and the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain it. f) The 1st Defendant further filed a Replying Affidavit sworn the deponent on 10th April, 2026 opposing the Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion application and setting out, inter alia, the 1st Defendant’s proprietary interests over the Suit Property and the unlawful conduct being undertaken thereon by the Plaintiffs and/or persons acting under their instructions. g) It was averred that when the matter came up before this Honourable Court on 24th February, 2026, the Counsel for the 1st Defendant brought to the attention of the Court that despite the subsistence of the status quo orders issued on 28th November, 2025, the Plaintiffs and/or persons acting under their instructions had embarked on extensive and ongoing construction works and fresh acts of occupation on the Suit Property. h) Arising from the foregoing, the Counsel for the 1 st Defendant sought clarification from the Court on the nature and scope of the status quo orders previously issued.

page 7 of 30

i) Upon hearing the parties, this Honourable Court expressly clarified and re - affirmed that the status quo orders issued on 28th November, 2025 were to be strictly observed and that there was to be no development whatsoever on the Suit construction, subdivision, Property, sale and/or including any no dealings pending hearing and determination of the suit. j) Notwithstanding the clarity, force and effect of the said orders, the Plaintiffs, jointly and severally, and/or through persons acting under their authority, encouragement or instructions, had continued to engage in blatant and deliberate acts of disobedience on the Suit Property. The said acts of disobedience include, but were not limited to: i. Erection of new permanent and semi-permanent structures; ii. Expansion of existing structures under the guise of "renovation"; iii. Clearing of vegetation and bush cover; iv. Expansion of cultivation activities into previously uncultivated areas;

page 8 of 30

v. Fencing and demarcation of portions of the Suit Property; vi. Sinking of boreholes and/or installation of utilities and infrastructure; vii. Mass entry and settlement of additional persons onto the Suit Property; and viii. Other activities calculated to alter the character, condition and use of the Suit Property. k) The foregoing acts had persisted continuously from November, 2025 to date notwithstanding repeated protests by the 1st Defendant and the subsistence of clear court orders prohibiting it. l) On diverse occasions, the 1st Defendant had personally observed ongoing construction works, cultivation and fresh occupation being undertaken by the Plaintiffs and/or persons acting under their authority and encouragement. m) The 1st Defendant had documented some of the ongoing unlawful activities on the Suit Property through photographs, videos and audio recordings on some of the ongoing construction works, cultivation and developments on the Suit Property in violation of the Court's orders

page 9 of 30

following the continued acts undertaken on the Suit Property. n) These acts of omission and commission were undertaken contrary to the subsisting orders of this Honourable Court, the 1st Defendant caused formal reports and correspondence to be made to the relevant security and administrative authorities under OB No. 12 of 15/04/2026 for purposes of notification, maintenance of law and order, and preservation of the Suit Property as Ordered by this Court. o) Further, the orders issued by this Honourable Court on 28 th November, 2025 together with the subsequent clarification and re - affirmation issued on 24 th February, 2026 were brought to the attention of the relevant authorities. p) The activities currently being undertaken on the Suit Property were not preservation of November, 2025 mere the but maintenance position obtaining constitute fresh activities or at 28 th entry, fresh as occupation, construction and deliberate expansion of

page 10 of 30

activities on the land in direct violation of the Court's orders. q) The Plaintiffs undertaking were the deliberately aforesaid acts and systematically for purposes of manufacturing and/or creating evidence of occupation and possession over the Suit Property during the pendency of the suit so as to bolster their claim for adverse possession and defeat the 1st Defendant’s proprietary interests. r) Unless restrained by coercive orders of this Honourable Court, the Plaintiffs shall continue altering. The character and condition of the Suit Property to the grave prejudice of the 1st Defendant. s) The continued acts of construction, occupation and cultivation fundamentally undermine the substratum of the suit and defeat the very purpose for which the status quo orders were issued. t) The Plaintiffs' conduct was deliberate, wilful and contumacious and constitutes a blatant affront to the authority, dignity and integrity of this Honourable Court. that knowledge of a court order by a party and/or its Advocate was sufficient for purposes of contempt

page 11 of 30

proceedings and that personal service was not a prerequisite where knowledge was established. u) That unless this Honourable Court intervenes and grants the orders sought herein, the Plaintiffs' continued acts of disobedience shall render the pending proceedings nugatory and substantial prejudice and irreparable loss to the 1st Defendant. v) It was in the interests of justice, preservation of the rule of law and protection of the dignity and authority of this Honourable Court that the Plaintiffs be cited and punished for contempt and compelled to strictly comply with the Court's orders. III. The responses by the Plaintiffs 7. As indicated above, the application dated 7 th May, 2026 was opposed through filing of a Replying Affidavit sworn by the 1st Plaintiff SAHARE KISUPI MWICHAMBE on 14th May, 2026 who averred as follows that:a) The application was grossly misconceived, frivolous scandalous, misleading and an abuse of the court process. b) The Defendants had deliberately avoided addressing the real issues before the court touching on the Plaintiffs long

page 12 of 30

occupation and possession of the suit property and had resorted to filing the application. c) The Defendants had annexed undated and unauthenticated photographs on the application and whose origin could not be verified and further that no Certificate of Production of electronic evidence as required by law had been annexed. d) The allegations that they had disobeyed court orders were not truthful. e) The acts referred to by the Defendants had not been demonstrated as having taken place and the same are generalised, vague and incapable of sustaining contempt proceedings. f) The Defendants were using the court processes as tools of oppression rather than for pursuit of justice. g) The Plaintiffs on the property and residing peacefully and uninterrupted. h) The court was urged to dismiss the application by the Defendants. IV. The Notice of Motion application dated 20 th May, 2026 by the Plaintiffs.

page 13 of 30

8. The Plaintiffs/Applicants sought for the following orders:a) Spent. b) That the Defendants/Respondents be cited and punished for contempt of the status quo orders issued on 28th November, 2025 c) That the Inspector Ouma of DCI Shimoni, Inspector Nzauka based at Mazingira House together with the Defendants/ Respondents be summoned before this Honourable Court to show cause why contempt proceedings should not issue against them. d) That the court be pleased to find that the Defendants, their agents, persons servants, acting under surveyors their employees instructions and have deliberately breached the courts status quo orders e) That the court be pleased to order immediate removal of all beacons, boundary marks and survey indicators erected after issuance of the court orders. f) That the Defendants, their agents and all persons acting under entering the their authority be restrained suit property, conducting from surveys, erecting beacons, intimidating occupants or interfering with the Plaintiffs possession pending determination of this suit. g) That an order do issue prohibiting further arrests, intimidation, harassment, coercive, interrogation, and

page 14 of 30

abuse of police powers concerning the subject matter of this suit save with prior leave of this honourable court h) That the Officer Commanding Station Shimoni Police Station do ensure compliance with the orders of this court i) That costs of this application be awarded to the Plaintiff/Applicants. 9. The application was based on the grounds, the testimonial facts and the averments made out under the Supporting Affidavit sworn by the 1st Plaintiff SAHARE KISUPI MWICHAMBE. The deponent stated as follows that:a) On 28th November, 2025 this court issued status quo orders requiring that the prevailing circumstances on the land be maintained. b) It was averred that the Defendants were fully aware of the said orders. c) However, they recruited surveyors and caused them to enter the suit property. d) The said surveyors erected beacons and boundary markers thereby altering the condition and status of the land.

page 15 of 30

e) The said actions were undertaken without the leave of the court and without notice to the Plaintiffs. f) Subsequent to the issuance of the court orders, officers attached to Shimoni Police Station had commenced and sustained an intimidation campaign against the Plaintiffs herein. g) The officers routinely photographed residents, homes and developments on the suit property and the visits were accompanied by threats intimidation and provocative conduct. h) Several Plaintiffs were arrested and taken to Shimoni Police Station. i) Following the said arrest, the Plaintiffs were issued with summons requiring them to attend the land fraud investigation units in Diani, Mombasa and Nairobi. j) The conduct by the police officers at Shimoni Police Station had been reported to IPOA. k) Unless restrained the police and the Defendants would continue violating courts authority and interfering with the Plaintiffs constitutional rights. l) The Plaintiffs urged the court to grant the orders sought.

page 16 of 30

V. Submissions. 10. On 29th June, 2026 while all the parties were present in Court, they were directed to have the Notice of Motion applications dated 7th May, 2026 and 20th May, 2026 respectively disposed of by way of written submissions. However, despite of that, by the time of penning this Ruling, the Honourable Court, had been able to access any of the submissions through checking from the Judiciary CTS Portal and the ELC Registry. 11. Pursuant to that it has proceeded to deliver its Ruling on merit on the 22nd September, 2026 as scheduled accordingly. VI. Analysis and Determination 12. I have carefully read and considered all the pleadings herein and with much emphasis on all the documentary evidence adduced as per the affidavits sworn by both parties herein, the relevant provisions of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and the law. 13. In this regard, for the Honourable Court to reach an informed, fair and Equitable decision it has framed three (3) key issues for its determination. These are:-

page 17 of 30

a) Whether either of the parties herein through the two (2) filed applications have proved a case of contempt against the other regarding the status quo orders made by this court on 28th November, 2025. b) Whether the parties were entitled to the orders sought. c) Who bears the costs of both applications? ISSUE No a). Whether either of the parties herein through the two ( 2 ) filed applications has proved a case of contempt against the other regarding the status quo orders made by this court on 28 th November 2025 14. Under this sub – heading, the Honourable Court shall deliberate on the main substratum of these two ( 2 ) applications which is whether it should cite any of the parties for contempt in breach of the Court’s orders. The Black’s Law Dictionary 11th Edition, defines contempt as: “The act or state of despising; the quality, state or condition of being despised. Conduct that defies the authority or dignity of a court or legislature. Because such conduct interferes with the administration of justice, it punishable by fine or imprisonment”.

page 18 of 30

15. The issue of contempt of Court orders has been expansively deliberated by Court. Hence, there will be no need to re -invent the wheel. Principally, the courts have held that court orders are to be obeyed at all costs. They are never issued in vain. They are neither cosmetic, proposals nor a formality. Should any pay feel aggrieved by any order the only alternative is to revert back to court for the said order to beset aside or reviewed or varied or appealed. Disobedience of Court orders would have serious consequences bordering on criminality which may lead on the personal liberty being deprived through confinement to Civil jail for a term to be determined by Court on case to case basis. 16. Therefore, legally speaking, the standards for Contempt of Court are extremely stringent. The court in the case of “Samuel M. N. Mweru & Others – Versus - National Land Commission & 2 Others [2020] eKLR” set down the test for contempt as follows: “It is an established principle of law that in order to succeed in civil contempt proceedings, the Applicant has to prove;

page 19 of 30

i. The terms of the order, ii. Knowledge of these terms by the Respondent, iii. Failure by the Respondent to comply with the terms of the order. Upon proof of these requirements the presence of wilfulness and bad faith on the part of the Respondent would normally be inferred, but the Respondent could rebut this inference by contrary proof on a balance of probabilities. Perhaps the most comprehensive of the elements of civil contempt was stated by the learned authors of the book Contempt in Modern New Zealand [47] who succinctly stated: -“There are essentially four elements that must be proved to make the case for civil contempt. The applicant must prove to the required standard (in civil contempt cases which is higher than civil cases) that: a. The terms of the order (or injunction or undertaking) were clear and unambiguous and were binding on the Defendant; b. The Defendant had knowledge of or proper notice of the terms of the order; c. The Defendant has acted in breach of the terms of the order; and

page 20 of 30

d. The Defendant's conduct was deliberate.” 17. As restated in the above case law, the law then applicable in contempt of court proceedings is Section 5 (1) of the Judicature Act, Cap. 8 which mandates that the court relies on the applicable law in England at the time the alleged contempt is committed. In the case of “Samuel M. N. Mweru (Supra) the Court dealing with an application for contempt of court based on disobeyed of a court order stated: “An application under Rule 81.4 “(breach of Judgement, order or undertaking) now referred to as “application notice” (as opposed to a notice of motion) is the relevant one for making the application now under consideration. The application notice must set out fully the grounds on which the committal application is made and must identify separately and numerically, each alleged act of contempt and be supported by affidavit(s) containing all the evidence relied upon”. 18. The Constitutional Court of South Africa in the case of:- “Kristen Carla Burchell – Versus - Barry Grant

page 21 of 30

Burchell, Eastern Cape Division Case No. 364 of an issue of 2005” stated as follows: “Compliance with court orders is fundamental concern for a society that seeks to base itself on the rule of law. The Constitution states that the rule of law and supremacy of the Constitution are foundational values of our society. It vests the judicial authority of the state in the courts and requires other organs of state to assist and protect the courts. It gives everyone the right to have legal disputes resolved in the courts or other independent and impartial tribunals. Failure to enforce court orders effectively has the potential to undermine confidence in recourse to law as an instrument to resolve civil disputes and may thus impact negatively on the rule of law.” 19. It is trite that for contempt of court to be sustained, the order must be clear, unambiguous, subsisting, and within the knowledge of the alleged contemnor, who must have deliberately failed to comply with it. See the case of:“Housing Finance Bank Ltd & Anor - Versus - Musisi, Edward, Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2004; [2011] UGSC 26 [Supreme Court of Uganda].

page 22 of 30

20. Also the East African Court of Justice in the case of:- “Hon. Sitenda Sebalu – Versus - Secretary General of the East African Community, Ref No. 8 of 2012” held that it is civil contempt for a party who is aware of a court order to refuse or neglect to comply with it, even where that party believes the order to be irregular or void. The Court emphasized that once an order is issued by a court of competent jurisdiction; it must be obeyed in full unless and until it is set aside. It was reiterated that a party who considers an order irregular must seek its discharge through lawful means such as review, revision, or appeal, and cannot unilaterally choose to ignore it. See also “ Dr Frank Mwesigye – Versus - Hon Dr. Christine Ondoa [MA No. 306 of 2012] [2013] UGHCCD 69 [22nd May, 2013]” ISSUE No. b). Whether the parties were entitled to the reliefs sought 21. Under this sub – heading, the Honourable Court will now proceed to apply the above spelt out legal principles to the instant case. In the present case, I have considered the status quo orders referred to by both parties herein and which are alleged to have been violated by each party as against the other. For context, I will refer to the

page 23 of 30

directions of this court issued on 28 th November, 2025 and which give rise to the issues in this ruling. The court directed that there be status quo orders maintained onto the suit land. That the situation as was before filing of the suit was to remain the same. 22. On 24th February, 2026 the status quo orders were further reviewed by this court and where it was ordered that the status quo orders issued on 28 th November, 2025 were to be strictly observed meaning that there should be no development, construction or subdivision and/or sale of the suit land until the matter is heard and determined. 23. I have carefully perused the affidavits in support of the two contempt applications herein by the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant. The allegations made by both parties have in my opinion not been substantiated by concrete evidence to show that indeed there has been subdivision and sale of the suit property to third parties as alleged by the 1st Defendant. ` 24. Despite the allegations of numerous developments like the sinking of boreholes, I have not come across any evidence of it and neither is there any list of the alleged

page 24 of 30

new entrants on the suit property and conclusive evidence of this new occupation and settlement. 25. On the other hand, the allegations by the Plaintiffs on beacons, boundary marks and survey indicators erected by the 1st Defendant after issuance of the court orders have also not been cemented by valuable or concrete evidence to demonstrate this alleged invasion. 26. This honourable court is not convinced that either of the parties herein have proved their respective cases for contempt of the court orders issued on 28 th November, 2025 as per the applications dated 7 th May, 2026 and 20th May 2026. In arriving at this conclusion, the Court is guided by the ratio decidendi found in the now famous case of the Court of Appeal in the case of:- “Shimmers Plaza Limited – Versus - National Bank of Kenya Limited [2015] eKLR” where it was emphasized that: “It is important however, that the Court satisfies itself beyond any shadow of a doubt that the person alleged to be in contempt committed the act complained of with full knowledge or notice of the existence of the order of the Court forbidding it. The threshold is quite

page 25 of 30

high as it involves possible deprivation of a person’s liberty.” 27. As stated above, I emphasise that contempt proceedings are of a criminal nature and involve, if proved, loss of liberty. The parties herein must have therefore endeavoured to prove all facts relied on by way of evidence beyond reasonable doubt. 28. In the end, it is the finding of this Honourable Court that the two ( 2 ) applications dated 7 th May, 2026 and 20th May, 2026 have not proved the required standard for either of the parties herein to be cited for being in brazen disobedience of the Court orders issued by this Honourable Court on 28th November, 2026. For these reasons, the applications must fail. ISSUE No b.] Who bears the costs of both applications? 29. It is now well established that the issue of costs is at the discretion of the Court. Costs mean the award that a party is granted at the conclusion of a legal action or proceedings in any ligation. The proviso of Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 provides as follows: 27 (1) Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, and to the provisions of any law for

page 26 of 30

the time being in force, the costs of and incidental to all suits shall be in the discretion of the court or judge, and the court or judge shall have full power to determine by whom and out of what property and to what extent such costs are to be paid, and give all the necessary directions for the purposes aforesaid; and the fact that the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit shall be no bar to the exercise of those powers; Provided that the costs of any action, cause or other matter or issue shall follow the event unless the court or judge shall for good reason otherwise direct. 30. By the event, it means the result or outcome of the legal action. In the case of: “Republic – Versus - Rosemary Wairimu Munene, Ex-Parte Applicant – Versus - Ihururu Dairy Farmers Co-operative Society Ltd” the court held as follows: “The issue of costs is the discretion of the court as provided under the above section. The basic rule on attribution of costs is that costs follow the event....... It is well recognized that the principle costs follow the event is not to be used to penalize the losing party; rather it is for compensating the successful party for the trouble taken in prosecuting or defending the case”.

page 27 of 30

31. Bearing in mind the protracted and highly contested dispute over the suit property herein between the parties, in the interest of justice and maintaining peace and tranquillity between the parties, it is proper that each party bears its own costs. VII. Conclusion & Disposition 32. In long analysis, and in view of the foregoing detailed and expansive analysis to the issues framed from the twin applications herein, this court arrives at the following decision and makes the orders specifically stated herein below: a) THAT the Notice of Motion application dated 7 th May, 2026 by the 1st Defendant be and is hereby found to lack merit and hence dismissed in its entirety. b) THAT the Notice of Motion application dated 20th May, 2026 by the Plaintiffs be and is hereby found to lack merit and hence dismissed in its entirety. c) THAT for expediency sake there should be a mention on 4th November, 2026 for purposes of conducting a Pre – Trial Conference pursuant to the

page 28 of 30

provision of Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. There shall be a hearing of the matter on 18 th January, 2027. d) THAT in the intervening period, the scheduled Site visit (“Locus in Quo”) pursuant to the provision of Order 18 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 shall be held on 16th October, 2026. Parties are to make security arrangements through the County Commander of the County of Kwale and the Officer – In - charge (OCS) of Shimoni Police Station. e) THAT in order to preserve the suit property, the orders of Status Quo to be maintained issued on 28th November, 2025 and re – affirmed on 24 th February, 2026 shall be sustained. This means that the situation remains as it was before the filing of the suit and construction, transfers, whereby there development, Charging, Sub shall alienation, – division be no waste, or any interference with the suit property until the matter is heard and determined.

page 29 of 30

f) THAT each parties to bear their own costs in both applications. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. RULING DELIVERED THROUGH THE MICRO – SOFT TEAMS VIRTUAL MEANS, SIGNED AND DATED AT KWALE THIS…… 22ND ……… DAY OF ………. SEPTEMBER……..2026 ……………………………… HON. MR. JUSTICE L.L NAIKUNI, ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT AT KWALE. Ruling delivered in the presence of: a) Mr. Daniel Disii, the Court Assistant. b) Mr. Mwanjama Advocate for the Plaintiffs. c) M/s. Kinyua & Mr. Muganda Advocates for the 1st Defendant. d) M/s. Mwanaszumba Advocate for the 3rd Defendant. e) M/s. Munira Ali for the Interested Party. f) No appearance for the 2nd Defendant.

page 30 of 30