Diamond Fazal Velji & Rita Fazal Velji v Kenya National Highways Authority, National Land Commission & The Hon. Attorney General

i) Spent. ii)Spent. iii)THAT pending the hearing and determination of the Petition, this Hono urable Court be pleased to issue an order of temporary injunction restrai ning the 1st Respondent, whether by itself, its servants, agents, employe es, contractors or otherwise howsoever, from demolishing, removing, int erfering with, or in any other manner howsoever encroaching upon the Petitioners’ perimeter wall and the South Nyanza Industry Offices erecte d on all that property comprised in Land Reference No. 1432/143, Grant No. I.R.N 1870, Homa Bay, Homa Bay County, or any part thereof. iv)THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to issue any other or further or der, write or direction as it may deem just and expedient to grant in the i nterest of justice and for the preservation of the suit property pending th e hearing and final determination of the Petition. v) THAT the costs of this application be in the cause. 4. It was supported by the affidavit of one DIAMOND FAZAL VELJI, the 1st Ap plicant, dated 14th July, 2026. BACKGROUND 5. A brief overview is that the Petitioners are the registered joint owners of the su it property comprised in Land Reference No. 1432/143, Grant No. I.R.N 1870, S urvey Plan No. 82228, holding a good and unbroken root of title traceable to 19 63, and have at all material times occupied and developed the suit property, up on which they operate a fish processing factory. 6. On 17th June 2026, the 1st Respondent issued and served upon the Petitioners t he impugned Notice of Intended Demolition/Removal of Encroachment, Refer ence No. R.E./KeNHA/4647/LAND/VOL.1, demanding the demolition of the 2 | Page HOMA BAY CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2026, - RULING.

page 2 of 18

Petitioners’ perimeter wall and the South Nyanza Industry Offices within thirt y (30) days, failing which the 1st Respondent threatens to carry out the demolit ion itself. 7. THAT the thirty (30) day period prescribed in the impugned Notice is due to la pse on or about 17th July 2026, after which the 1st Respondent is at liberty to ex ecute the threatened demolition at any time, without further notice to the Petiti oners. 8. No survey report, deed plan, gazette notice, or other primary evidence has bee n disclosed or annexed to the impugned Notice establishing that the suit prope rty falls within any lawfully and completely established road reserve. 9. At no time has the 1st Respondent, the 2nd Respondent, or any other State org an initiated or completed any lawful compulsory acquisition process in respect of the suit property, nor has any compensation ever been paid, offered, or depo sited to or for the benefit of the Petitioners or their predecessors in title. 10.The impending threat of demolition which may occasion shutdown led the Peti tioners to file the current constitutional Petition. 11.The Petitioners have sought the following reliefs: i. A DECLARATION that the impugned Notice of Intended Demolition/R emoval of Encroachment captioned "Notice of Intended Demolition/Rem oval of Encroachment Along Got Rabuor – Homa Bay Pier – Corner Kod oyo (B2) Road – Phase II Road Project", dated 17 th June 2026, Reference N o. R.E./KeNHA/4647/LAND/VOL.1, is unconstitutional, unlawful, null and void, and of no legal effect. ii. A DECLARATION that the suit property comprised in Land Reference No. 1432/143, Grant No. I.R.N 1870 and delineated in Survey Plan No. 82 228 dated 27th May 1964, does not encroach upon any lawfully establishe d road reserve, and that the Petitioners hold good and indefeasible title t | Page HOMA BAY CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2026, - RULING.

page 3 of 18

hereto. iii. A DECLARATION that the 1st Respondent’s threatened demolition of th e Petitioners’ perimeter wall and the South Nyanza Industry Offices with out lawful compulsory acquisition and compensation, violates the Petitio ners’ rights under Articles 40, 47 and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya, 201 0. iv. An order of CERTIORARI to remove into this Honourable Court for pur poses of quashing the impugned Notice. v. A permanent INJUNCTION restraining the 1st Respondent, whether by t hemselves, their servants, agents, employees, contractors or otherwise ho wsoever, from demolishing, removing, interfering with, or in any other manner howsoever encroaching upon the Petitioners’ perimeter wall and the South Nyanza Industry Offices erected on Land Reference No. 1432/ 143, Grant No. I.R.N 1870 Homa Bay, Homa Bay County, or any part of t he property therefore. vi. In the alternative, and without prejudice to all other prayers herein, in th e event that this Honourable Court finds that a road reserve was created over or through the suit property without the completion of a lawful com pulsory acquisition process and without the payment of just compensatio n to the Petitioners or their predecessors in title, and that the action is irre versible, an order directing the 2nd Respondent to forthwith initiate and complete a lawful compulsory acquisition of the suit property or the affe cted portion thereof in strict accordance with Article 40(3) of the Constitu tion, Part VIII of the Land Act, 2012, and the National Land Commission Act, 2012, and further directing that no demolition, removal, or interferen ce with the Petitioners' structures shall be undertaken unless and until su ch acquisition has been lawfully completed and prompt, full, and just co | Page HOMA BAY CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2026, - RULING.

page 4 of 18

mpensation has been paid to or deposited for the benefit of the Petitioner s in accordance with the law. vii. General damages for violation of the Petitioners’ constitutional rights. viii. Costs of this Petition. REPLY AND REPRESENTATION. 12.No response to the application has been filed despite giving latitude to file a re ply, hence the said right was forfeited. 13.The applicants/Petitioners are represented by Ochieng’ Ochola & Co., while th e 1st Respondent herein, the Kenya National Highways Authority (KeNHA), h as appointed the firm of Maalim and Associates Advocates, and the Attorney General’s Chambers has entered an appearance on behalf of the 1st and 3rd Resp ondents. 14.The court gave directions as to the disposal of the Application, and parties wer e given timelines to comply. 15.I have checked through the CTS and neither have I seen the response nor the s ubmissions by all the parties. 16.Nonetheless, this does not dissuade the court from making a determination of all the issues placed before it. COURT’S CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION: GENERAL PRINCI PLES 17.The enforcement of fundamental human rights as enshrined in Articles 22 and 23 of the Constitution of Kenya is a recourse available to any person whose fun damental right is breached, being breached, or about to be breached, who may | Page HOMA BAY CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2026, - RULING.

page 5 of 18

therefore apply to the High Court for redress. 18.A right is a liberty protected and enforced by law, which compels a specific per son or persons to do or abstain from doing something (see Chief Adeogun v. H onourable Fushogbon (2003) 17 N.W.L.R (Pt. 719)). 19.The court relied on several landmark judicial authorities to shape its decision o n injunctions, property rights, and procedural fairness: 20.Chief Adeogun v. Honourable Fushogbon (2003) 17 N.W.L.R (Pt. 719): Used t o distinguish ordinary civil rights from fundamental human rights and define t he protective nature of legal rights. 21.Educational Company of Ireland Ltd v. Fitzpatrick (No. 2) [1961] I.R. 345 & A ttorney General v. Open-Door Counseling Ltd [1988] I.R. 593: Highlighted th at rights and duties are inextricably linked, meaning constitutional rights carry a correlative duty for others (and the state) to respect them. 22.The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (Lüth Case, 7 BVerfGE 198 (19 58)): Referenced to establish that fundamental rights incorporate an objective s cale of values applicable across the entire legal system. 23.American Cyanamid v. Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396: Widely cited by the court r egarding the principles of interlocutory injunctions, establishing that the court must look for a serious question to be tried, evaluate where the greater risk of i njustice lies, and remember that "Our business is justice and not convenience". 24.Naftali Ruthi Kinyua v. Patrick Thuita Gachure & Another (2015) eKLR: Utili zed to reinforce the threshold required for establishing a prima facie case. 25.H.G. Gandesha & Another v. G.J. Lutaya (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 14 of 1989): Cited as a landmark decision establishing that where factual as sertions in a supporting affidavit are left uncontroverted because the opposing party failed to file a reply, those facts are legally presumed to be admitted and | Page HOMA BAY CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2026, - RULING.

page 6 of 18

accepted as true. 26.In other words, an ordinary right is any advantage or benefit conferred on a pe rson by a rule of law. A right in that regard or sense is limited to the specific int erest recognized and protected by law. Rights in this sense are considered as th e reasonable claim of the individual which are accepted by society and approv ed by statute. 27.On the other hand, human rights, as a form of rights, unlike ordinary rights, tr anscend the general notion of rights as liberties protected and enforced by law. Human rights are broader in perspective because they embrace all conceivable rights to which a human being can lay a just or valid claim, not necessarily on t he basis of law, but on the fact that the claimant is a human being. Human righ ts are therefore inherent and universal, and they transcend sex, race, region, an d religion. 28.Generally, these are rights that a human being needs to survive with respect, di gnity, and freedom, i.e., basic to a real life as contradistinguished from those th at are basic to a normal life. Fundamental human rights are those core rights di rectly derived from "human dignity". As superior rights, they are above ordina ry civil rights. They are of three categories: absolute rights; rights that can be re stricted; and rights which are principally left to the legislature to confirm. 29.Though inherent and universal, and also constitutional rights in Kenya becaus e they are incorporated in the Constitution, not all human rights in their entiret y are incorporated as guaranteed human rights in the Constitution of the Repu blic of Kenya, 2010. 30.For the jurisdiction of the court to be invoked under Articles 22 and 23 of the C onstitution of the Republic of Kenya, the pleadings must show that what is clai med is a right which is fundamental to the applicant as a human being, basic to | Page HOMA BAY CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2026, - RULING.

page 7 of 18

a real living of a nature that applies to all people equally, that is enjoyed no ma tter where one lives, what they do, and how they behave, or any other status, a nd facts have developed sufficiently such that an infringement of that right has occurred or is likely to occur, rather than being contingent or remote. 31.The jurisdiction may not be exercised when the determination of whether the a pplicant has suffered a concrete infringement depends on contingent or hypoth etical facts, or upon events that have not yet come to pass, uncertain or conting ent future events that may not occur as anticipated or may not occur at all. For a threat of infringement to justify action under this provision, it must be direct and immediate rather than conjectural, hypothetical, or remote. 32.It is common ground that Article 40 of the Constitution of the Republic of Keny a, 2010 protects the right to property. It is only existing property and not the ri ght to acquire property in the future that is protected. It follows that an expecta tion to inherit property in the future, for example, will not be protected under t his article. 33.This article entails three distinct principles: (i) the principle of peaceful possession and enjoyment of property; (ii) deprivation of property only subject to specified conditions; and (iii) that the State is entitled, amongst other things, to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest, by enforcing such laws as it deems necessary for the purpose. 34.In order to be justified, any interference with the right to property must serve a legitimate objective in the public, or general, interest, but it is not sufficient that the interference serves a legitimate objective. It must also be proportionate. SCOPE OF PROPERTY RIGHTS 35.Property, once acquired, should be used and enjoyed. The rights of acquisition, | Page HOMA BAY CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2026, - RULING.

page 8 of 18

enjoyment, and disposal are thus legally protected. This right includes the auth ority to exclude others, the right against trespass, the right of quiet enjoyment, and the right of active use to the point where such use does not violate the righ ts of others to quiet enjoyment. Common law limits the right of free use only w hen a use encroaches on the property rights of others. The burden is on those who object to a given use to show how it violates a right of theirs. If they fail in that, the use could continue. 36.On the other hand, actions that impair the right to peaceful enjoyment and pos session of property may be the subject of an action for enforcement. As with all fundamental human rights, human beings are the rights holders of the right to property. Although many of the entrenched rights are, by their very nature, ex clusively "vertical" in their operation, the right to property imposes duties on t he State, as well as on all those whose actions and/or omissions have an impac t on this right and on the environment in which the right is to be fulfilled. 37.Therefore, Article 40 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kenya, 2010 is not r estricted to interferences with property which involve the transfer of some ben efit to the State. It is capable of applying to measures introduced by the State (o r other public authority) which affect an individual's property rights by transfe rring them to, or otherwise benefiting, another individual or individuals, or wh ich otherwise regulate the property of an individual, as well as the conduct of private persons and bodies since private power as much as public power has t he capacity to oppress. 38.This is mainly because rights and duties are inextricably linked; the idea of a h uman right only makes sense if the duty of all people to respect it is acknowled ged. Obedience to the law is required of every citizen, and it follows that if one citizen has a right under the Constitution, there exists a correlative duty on the part of other citizens to respect that right and not to interfere with it (see Educa | Page HOMA BAY CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2026, - RULING.

page 9 of 18

tional Company of Ireland Ltd v. Fitzpatrick (No. 2) [1961] I.R. 345 and Attorne y General (Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child (Ireland) Ltd) v. Ope n-Door Counseling Ltd, [1988] I.R. 593). 39.Whereas fundamental rights are primarily to protect the citizen against the Stat e, they also incorporate an objective scale of values which applies, as a matter o f constitutional law, throughout the entire legal system (see The Federal Consti tutional Court of Germany’s (Bundesverfassungsgericht) (BVerfG) Lüth Case, 7 BVerfGE 198 (1958) decision of 15th January, 1958). 40.The rigid position that fundamental rights and freedoms only apply vertically has been overtaken by the emerging trend in the development of human rights law and litigation. It is now widely accepted that an individual needs protectio n from both the State and private actors. Many, if not all, of the entrenched fun damental rights are therefore enforceable not only against the State or its organ s, but also against individuals, natural or juristic, who may be disposed to thre aten them or interfere with their enjoyment. EXAMINATION OF ALLEGED VIOLATION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS 41.It follows from the above that the relevant questions to be asked when consider ing whether there has been a violation of the right to property guaranteed by A rticle 40 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kenya are: i. Whether the application relates to an existing property right or possessio n. ii. Whether there has been unlawful interference with that right or possessi on. iii. If so, under which of the three rules does the interference fall to be consi dered. First Issue: Whether the Application Relates to an Existing Property Right or Po | Page HOMA BAY CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2026, - RULING.

page 10 of 18

ssession 42.An action for enforcement of the right to property ought to be premised on an i nterference within one of the three principles, such as: unlawful compulsory ac quisition, expropriation, or deprivation of property; unlawful restriction or con trol of the use of the property; or interference with its possession or enjoyment that cannot be justified. 43.The essence of the application now before court is that although legally the app licant's ownership of title to the land remains intact, in practice the possibility o f the applicant exercising their right to that property has been significantly red uced by the actions of the respondents. The application is thus premised on the principle of peaceful possession and enjoyment of property. This principle app lies where a measure or conduct has the effect of interfering with the use or enj oyment of property, but falls short of being a taking, and is not intended to con trol the use of property. Second Issue: Whether There Has Been Unlawful Interference With That Ri ght or Possession 44.When considering whether there has been a violation of Article 40 of the Const itution, the first step is to consider whether the applicant has any existing prop erty right or possession. The first issue to be resolved here therefore is whether the petition and the substantive application for injunction herein from which it arises disclose triable issues and as such have a likelihood of success. 45.In order to determine the above, the Court has to look at the face of the petition and the application and is not required at this stage to inquire any further than that. I am aware that this is an application for an interim order, but it also arise | Page HOMA BAY CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2026, - RULING.

page 11 of 18

s from the petition herein. It is not possible for this Court to determine this app lication without referring to the petition from which it arises. The substantive a pplication herein can only stand if the main petition itself is sustainable. 46.It is now trite law that a party seeking an interim order of injunction as this has to satisfy the court that the main application and the petition are not frivolous or vexatious and that prima facie, they have a likelihood of success, that the pa rty stands to suffer irreparable loss should the application not be granted, and i n case of doubt, the matter can be resolved on a balance of convenience. 47.In American Cyanamid v. Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396, Lord Diplock observed: "Our Lordships should, in my view, take this opportunity of declaring that the re is no such rule. The use of such expressions as 'a probability', 'a prima facie case', or 'a strong prima facie case' in the context of the exercise of a discretion ary power to grant an interlocutory injunction leads to a confusion as to the o bject sought to be achieved by this form of temporary relief. The court no doub t must be satisfied that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious; in other words, that there is a serious question to be tried. (However) it is no part of the court’ s function at this stage to try to resolve conflicts of evidence on affidavit as to facts on which claims of either party may ultimately depend nor to decide diffi cult questions of law which call for detailed argument and mature considerati ons." 48.The Court of Appeal in Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2014, Naftali Ruthi Kinyu a vs. Patrick Thuita Gachure & Another (2015) eKLR, while dealing with what a pr ima facie case is, made reference to Lord Diplock in American Cyanamid vs. Ethi con Limited [1975] AC 396 where the Judge stated thus: "If there is no prima facie case on the point essential to entitle the plaintiff to complain of the defendant’s proposed activities, that is the end of any claim to interlocutory relief." 12 | P a g e HOMA BAY CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2026, - RULING.

page 12 of 18

49.The conditions for the grant of a temporary injunction would appear to be mos t persuasively summed up in Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol. 11 (2009), 5th Edit ion, para. 385, quoting as follows: "On an application for an interlocutory injunction the court must be satisfied that there is a serious question to be tried. The material available to court at t he hearing of the application must disclose that the claimant has real prospect s for succeeding in his claim for a permanent injunction at the trial. The former requirement that the claimant should establish a strong prima facie case for a permanent injunction before the court would grant an interim injunction has b een removed." 50.In sum, in determining whether a prima-facie case is demonstrated, a court mu st look at the case as a whole. It must weigh, albeit preliminarily, the pleadings, the factual basis, the respective parties’ positions, the remedies sought, and the law. 51.I find that the applicant has made out a prima facie case of being a co-owner. H e has presented a copy of the title deed that shows that they are joint registered owners of the title upon which stand permanent structures including a perimet er wall, factory buildings, and an office building, and that they are currently op erating a fish processing factory which constitutes their principal place of busi ness and livelihood. 52.The Applicants aver that the title is good and has an unbroken root traceable to 1st January 1963 when a Grant (Grant No. I.R.N 1870) was first issued in respec t of Makongi Limited and was surveyed under Survey Plan No. 82228 dated 27 th May 1964. According to the applicants, the suit property was created and de marcated prior to the existence of any road reserve, and the survey plan has at all material times remained unaltered and has never been amended, revoked, o r subdivided. | Page HOMA BAY CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2026, - RULING.

page 13 of 18

53.According to Section 26 of the Land Registration Act, a certificate of title issued under the Act should be received in all courts as evidence of the particulars set forth in the certificate and of the entry of the certificate in the Register Book, an d is conclusive evidence that the person named in the certificate as the propriet or of or having any estate or interest in or power to appoint or dispose of the la nd described in the certificate is seized or possessed of that estate or interest or has that power. 54.At this stage, I find that no one has disputed the title of the Applicants over the suit property, and I find that there is a prima facie issue to be tried regarding w hether there has been unlawful interference with that right or possession. 55.Regarding the argument that the applicants stand to suffer irreparable loss sho uld their businesses be closed before the petition is heard, this is, in my view, a meritorious argument seeing that the actions of the respondent, if not checked, may cause these business people to lose so much, yet the respondent will suffe r no damage if the businesses remain open. It is trite that when handling such a pplications, the business interests of the applicant should be given due conside ration, bearing in mind where the greater risk of suffering injustice lies if the re medy sought were to be withheld by the court. 56.In the case of American Cyanamid v. Ethicon [1975] AC 396, the House of Lords s aid this about interim injunctions: "Our business is justice and not convenience. We can and must disregard fanci ful claims by either party. Subject to that, we must contemplate the possibility that either party may succeed and must do our best to ensure that nothing occ urs pending the trial which will prejudice his rights..." 57.At Paragraph 17 of the supporting affidavit, the Applicants have deponed that their property at the immediate risk of demolition is valued at over Kenya Shill ings Thirty-Five Million (Kshs. 35,000,000) being a substantial permanent inves | Page HOMA BAY CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2026, - RULING.

page 14 of 18

tment, and the threatened demolition will occasion irreparable loss and damag e; that the fish factory will be shut down leading to loss of business and loss of jobs. The shutdown of a manufacturing factory in Kenya has severe, interconne cted ripple effects that negatively impact both national and micro-economic sta bility. The sector is a core pillar of economic diversification. Frequent shutdow ns erode the industrial base and shrink manufacturing's contribution to the nat ional Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and this may end up reducing investor c onfidence, leading to capital flight. 58.Incidentally, despite proof of service of all the pleadings on the respondent, the respondent did not file a reply. They only entered an appearance and that was it. The rules of natural justice require that a person be given a fair opportunity t o respond to any allegations leveled against them. It is trite law that substantiv e matters should not be canvassed by ambush. In the same vein, the provisions of 59.Order 51 Rule 14(1) provide as follows: “ Any respondent who wishes to oppose any application may file any one o r a combination of the following documents — (a) a notice of preliminary obje ction; and/or (b) a replying affidavit; and/or (c) a statement of grounds of oppo sition; (2) The said documents in subrule (1) and a list of authorities, if any, sh all be filed and served on the applicant not less than three clear days before the date of hearing. (3) Any applicant upon whom a replying affidavit or statemen t of grounds of opposition has been served under subrule (1) may, with the leav e of the court, file a supplementary affidavit. (4) If a respondent fails to compl y with subrule (1) and (2), the application may be heard ex parte." 60.The law in regard to affidavits that are not opposed is well established. It is sett led law that where certain facts are sworn to in an affidavit, the burden to deny | Page HOMA BAY CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2026, - RULING.

page 15 of 18

them is on the other party. Failure to do that, they are presumed to have been a ccepted. This court holds no different view in this case. 61.H.G. Gandesha & Another v. G.J. Lutaya (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 14 of 1989) is a landmark decision that establishes fundamental principles regarding civil procedure, contempt of court, and the evidentiary value of uncontroverte d affidavit evidence. The primary legal takeaway from this case is that if a part y makes factual assertions in a supporting affidavit and the opposing party fail s to file a reply or deny those allegations, the facts stand unchallenged and are l egally presumed to be admitted and accepted as true, provided they are credib le. Third Issue: If So, Under Which of the Three Rules Does the Interference Fal l to Be Considered 62.Any interference with property, whichever rule it falls under, must satisfy the r equirement of serving a legitimate public (or general) interest objective and mu st strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the publi c and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights. There must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised. 63.In my view the manner in which the 1st Respondent has dealt with the Petition er’s property and which is likely to result in damages tilts the balance of conve nience in favour of the Petitioner. If the demolition goes on the Petitioners oper ations are likely to be jeopardised, and the damages will be enormous. The gre ater risk lies in denying the Petitioners the order sought and once things get ou | Page HOMA BAY CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2026, - RULING.

page 16 of 18

t of hand the substratum of this petition is likely to change. The court finds that in maintaining the status quo neither party will suffer loss and none has been s tated before this court. Findings 64.Protection of Property Rights: Under Article 40 of the Constitution, property o wnership and peaceful possession must be protected against arbitrary interfere nce, and any restriction or deprivation must serve a legitimate public interest t hrough due process and proportionality. 65.Unchallenged Evidence: Following established principles regarding uncontro verted affidavits, the failure of the respondent to rebut the applicant's claims le aves the court with credible, admitted evidence supporting the existence of a v alid title and lack of formal compulsory acquisition. 66.Balance of Injustice: The court emphasized that the greater risk of injustice lies in allowing the demolition of a valuable business asset before a trial can test th e merits of the petition, whereas maintaining the status quo prejudices neither party unfairly. ORDERS IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: A) PENDING the hearing and final determination of the Petition, an order of temporary injunction is hereby issued restraining the 1st Respondent, wh ether by itself, its servants, agents, employees, contractors or otherwise ho wsoever, from demolishing, removing, interfering with, or in any other m anner howsoever encroaching upon the Petitioners’ perimeter wall and th e South Nyanza Industry Offices erected on all that property comprised i n Land Reference No. 1432/143, Grant No. I.R.N 1870, Homa Bay, Homa B | Page HOMA BAY CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2026, - RULING.

page 17 of 18

ay County, or any part thereof. B) THE COSTS of this application shall be in the cause. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT HOMA BAY VIA TEAMS ONLINE PL ATFORM ON THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026. HON. JUSTICE J.W. WANYONYI IN THE PRESENCE OF: 1.OCHIENG FOR THE PETITIONERS 2. ATALO FOR THE 1STRESPONDENT 3. COURT ASSISTANT, MS. AWINO. | Page HOMA BAY CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2026, - RULING.

page 18 of 18