REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAIROBI

ELC SUIT NO. 1581  OF 2016

KINGORANI INVETSMENTS LIMITED.................................PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

SIGMA LIMITED...............................................................1^ST DEFENDANT

JAMES GICHUKI WAMBUGU........................................2^ND DEFENDANT

SAMUEL MWANGI............................................................3^RD DEFENDANT

GARANCO FIVE LIMITED.............................................4^TH DEFENDANT

SAADIA OMAR SHURIE.................................................5^TH DEFENDANT

NURU SAID AHMED........................................................6^TH DEFENDANT

ABBAS IBRAHIM KHALIF..............................................7^TH DEFENDANT

NAIROBI COUNTY GOVERNMENT.............................8^TH DEFENDANT

CHIEF LAND REGISRAR.................................................9^TH DEFENDANT

WHITE LOTUS PROJECTS............................................10^TH DEFENDANT

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR COMMITTAL FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT

BY

KINGORANI INVETSMENTS LIMITED..........PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

VERSUS

WHITE LOTUS PROJECTS............................................1^ST RESPONDENT

ABBAS IBRAHIM KHALIF.............................................2^ND RESPONDENT

POOSAPATI SITA RAMACHANDRA RAJU...............3^RD RESPONDENT

MOHAMUD MAHAT NOOR..........................................4^TH RESPONDENT

IOTA EXCAVATIONS AND RENTALS LTD................5^TH RESPONDENT

    CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION                                                                         

CORPORATION................................................................6^TH RESPONDENT

SKETCH STUDIO LIMITED.........................................7^TH RESPONDENT

MATRIX INTEGRATED CONSULATANCY...............8^TH RESPONDENT

TERRA CONSULT KENYA LTD...................................9^TH RESPONDENT

BECS CONSULTANCY..................................................10^TH RESPONDENT

RULING

The plaintiff brought this suit against the defendants through a plaint dated 14^th December, 2016 in which the plaintiff sought among other reliefs, a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering upon, or trespassing, constructing or continuing with the construction of structures, offering for sale, selling, disposing of, charging, sub-dividing, dealing, alienating, occupying, managing, letting or otherwise using, residing and remaining or in any other way interfering with the plaintiff’s proprietary rights including the right to quiet possession and enjoyment of all that piece of land known as to L.R. No. 209/11142(I.R No. 48067), Nairobi (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”).

The plaintiff averred that it was at all material times the registered owner of the suit property and that on 10^th December, 1998 the suit property was fraudulently transferred from its name to that of the 1^st defendant and subsequently by the 1^st defendant to the 4^th defendant. The plaintiff averred that the 10^th defendant who was developing the adjacent parcel of land had in collusion with the 8^th defendant been permitted to store building materials on the suit property thereby interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and use of the suit property.

Together with the plaint, the plaintiff filed an application by way of Notice of Motion dated 14^th December, 2016 seeking a temporary injunction restraining the defendants by themselves and/or through their principals, agents, employees, servants and any other persons acting under their authority from  trespassing, remaining in occupation, entering, occupying, dealing and or in any   manner howsoever interfering with its ownership, occupation, possession and use of the suit property pending the hearing if the suit.

On 9^th January, 2017, the court granted the injunctive orders that were sought by the plaintiff on a temporary basis pending the hearing of the application inter partes. On 16^th October, 2017, the court confirmed and extended the said orders until the hearing and determination of the suit. What is now before the court is the plaintiff’s application dated 20^th November, 2017 seeking the following orders:

1) Pending the hearing and determination of this suit, the respondents and or their contractors, agents, directors, associates, partners or employees be ordered to vacate and be restrained from entering, occupying and or using the suit property and the said parties to vacate the suit property within 24 hours of being served with the order failing which eviction to issue forthwith with the assistance of the Officer Commanding Station, Upper Hill Police Post/Station.

2) The respondents herein or so many of them as may be found to have been directly responsible for the excavations and works on the suit property be ordered to refill the same and restore the suit property to the position it was before such excavations and works within such time as may be ordered and in default, the applicant be at liberty to secure due compliance at the personal costs of such respondents.

3) The court be pleased to find that the 1^st to 10^th respondents are jointly and severally in contempt of court for disobeying and or disregarding the orders given on 11^th January, 2017 and 18^th October, 2017.

4) Leave be granted for the committal to jail for a period of 6 months of Poosapati Sita Ramchandra Raju, Mohamud Mahat Noor and Abbas Ibrahim Noor and  additionally, each of the said persons  be required to pay such amount as may be ordered by the court for the said contempt.

5) Sequestration and/ or attachment do issue for the properties of the 1^st to 10 respondents or each and all of them and the same be attached for the amount to be determined pending the purging of their contempt.

6)  The court be pleased to issue other or further reliefs as it may seem just and expedient.

7)  The costs of and occasioned by the contempt of court proceedings herein be taxed and met by each of the respondents herein jointly and/or severally and in default thereof, execution to issue forthwith.

The grounds upon which the application was premised are set out in detail on the body of the application and in the affidavit of James Abiam Mugoya Isabirye sworn on 20^th November, 2017. The plaintiff’s complaint against the respondents can be summarised as follows. On 11^th January, 2017, the court issued a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing, remaining in occupation, entering, occupying, dealing and/ or in any other manner howsoever interfering with the plaintiff’s ownership, occupation, possession and use of the suit property. The said orders were confirmed by the court on 16^th October, 2017 in the presence of the advocates for the 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th and 8^th defendants. The said orders were duly served upon the parties to the suit and were also publicly displayed on the wall erected around the suit property.  In blatant disobedience of the said orders, the respondents forcibly moved into the suit property and cut all the grass and trees thereon in readiness for excavation. The plaintiff contended that the 5^th to 10^th respondents were contractors of the 1^st to 4^th respondents and were employed to undertake the construction of a high rise building on L.R 31/219. The plaintiff contended that while in the course of undertaking the said duties, the 5^th to 10^th respondents encroached on the suit property. The plaintiff averred that the 3^rd and 4^th respondents were the directors of the 1^st respondent.

The application was opposed by the respondents. The 4^th defendant’s director, Pitchi Surendra Naithi Reddy swore a replying affidavit on 21^st February, 2018 in opposition to the application. He averred that he swore the said affidavit on behalf of the 1^st, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th, 7^th, 8^th, 9^th and 10^th respondents. He averred that the 4^th defendant was the owner of the suit property. He averred that the 4^th defendant purchased the suit property for value and had it registered in its name on 8^th July, 2016. He averred further that from the time the 4^th defendant purchased the suit property, the 4^th defendant had exercised rights accruing to it in respect thereof including but not limited to possession of the property.

He averred that on 5^th December, 2016, the 4^th defendant entered into a tenancy agreement in respect of the suit property with the 1^st respondent/10^th defendant for the purposes of temporary parking and storage. He averred further that the court had directed the parties to maintain the prevailing status quo which at the time was that the 4^th defendant was the owner and in possession of the suit property which was being used as set out in the tenancy agreement. He denied that the 4^th defendant was in breach of the said court orders. He denied that the 4^th defendant was clearing and excavating the suit property in readiness for construction. He averred that the debris on the suit property was soil that was excavated from the adjacent site which the 1^st respondent/10^th defendant was clearing to various approved dumpsites.

The 4^th defendant’s said director averred that a perimeter wall had been erected around the suit property prior to the issuance of the orders said to have been disobeyed and that unknown persons invaded the premises at night and brought down part of the said wall and that it was incumbent upon the 4^th defendant to restore the wall so that the property could be in the same state it was when the court issued the said injunctive orders. He contended that the 4^th defendant’s act of restoring the wall that was demolished by unknown persons could not be deemed to be contemptuous.   

The 4^th defendant’s said director averred further that the 4^th defendant had not made any alterations to the title or condition of the suit property. He contended that the plaintiff had not told the court as to when the alleged invasion of the suit property occurred and, the state of the property prior to and during the subsistence of the court order. He averred further that the plaintiff had not demonstrated how the court orders issued herein had been disobeyed, when they were disobeyed and by whom. He contended that the 1^st and the 4^th to 9^th respondents were service providers contracted to provide various services in the adjacent land which was not the subject of this suit. He contended further, that the said respondents had never been on the suit property and were never served with the court orders in question.

He averred that the said respondents were innocent third parties who had no role in these proceedings and could not be punished for acts they were not aware of. He contended that contempt of court proceedings are suits in personam which can only be brought against a specific individual. He contended that a generalised condemnation like the one levelled against all respondents herein could not be entertained. He contended that the plaintiff’s application was based on speculation, assumption and conjecture and did not meet the required standard of proof.

The 5^th defendant filed grounds of opposition dated 15^th December, 2017 in which she denied being in contempt of the court orders in question. The 5^th defendant contended that the application did not disclose any cause of action against her as a former director of the 4^th defendant. The 5^th respondent filed a replying affidavit sworn on 21^st January, 2018 by its director, Cecilia Mweru. Cecilia Mweru denied that the 5^th respondent was in contempt of court. She deposed that the 5^th respondent learnt of the court orders in question through an advert that was placed in the newspaper on 11^th December, 2017. She contended that the 5^th respondent had been engaged by the 10^th respondent to carry out excavation works on L.R No. 31/219. She denied that the 5^th respondent carried out any works or trespassed on the suit property contending that it would have been illogical for it to carry out work which was outside its contract.

Cecilia Mweru averred that at the time of filing the instant application, the 5^th  respondent had completed excavation works on L.R No. 31/219 and vacated the premises and as such could not have trespassed on the suit property as alleged. She contended further that if there were any excavation works on the suit property as alleged, the same would have been resisted by the applicant, the Nairobi City County and the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) which was not the case herein.

The 5^th respondent’s director contended further that the 5^th respondent was not a party to the main suit and the application dated 14^th December, 2017 which gave rise to the subject orders. She stated that the 5^th respondent was not served with any pleadings or any orders prior to the newspaper advert aforesaid. She contended that it was unfair to accuse the 5^th respondent for being in contempt of orders which were not directed at it and which the plaintiff made no attempt to notify it about. Lastly, she contended that the plaintiff had not demonstrated the specific ways in which the 5^th respondent breached the court orders in question.  She stated that general statements made by the plaintiff which did not relate to it could not suffice to prove a charge of contempt against it.

The 10^th respondent filed a replying affidavit sworn by its director, Ahmad Alkizim on 26^th January, 2016. The 10^th respondent contended that prior to the instant application, it had no knowledge of the dispute relating to the suit property and the injunctive orders issued by the court in relation thereto. The 10^th respondent averred that it was contracted by the 1^st respondent to provide quantity surveying services on L.R No. 209/11617 which was different from the suit property. The 10^th respondent averred that it was not a party to the suit herein and as such was erroneously joined as a party to the present application.  The 10^th respondent averred that the orders in question were not served upon it  and for that reason, it could not have breached the same. The 10^th respondent denied invading, trespassing on or clearing the suit property for excavation. The 10^th respondent contended that it had never been on the suit property physically and that it had no proprietary interest in the property.

The application was argued orally. Mr. Ochieng Oduol advocate for the plaintiff submitted that the court issued injunctive orders against the defendants on 9^th January, 2017 which were confirmed on 16^th October, 2017. He submitted that the respondents disobeyed the said orders by continuing with excavation on the suit property. He submitted that the replying affidavit sworn by the 4^th defendant’s director, Pitchi Surendra Naithi Reddy on behalf of the 1^st, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th, 7^th, 8^th , 9^th and 10^th respondents was defective in that there was no authority given to the deponent to swear the affidavit on behalf of the said respondents. Counsel submitted further that in the said affidavit it was admitted that there was dumping taking place on the suit property and construction of a wall which amounted to trespass and a breach of the court orders aforesaid. Counsel contended that the alleged tenancy agreement dated 5^th December, 2016 between the 4^th defendant and the 1^st respondent was inadmissible for want of stamping and was a deliberate attempt to hoodwink the court. Mr. Ochieng argued that if there was a tenancy agreement between the two, they should have sought a variation of the said court orders if they were in conflict with the said agreement.

Counsel submitted that the terms of the court orders in question were clear and that the plaintiff had discharged its burden of proof. Mr. Ochieng submitted that the respondents could not feign ignorance of the court orders in question which were advertised in the newspapers and further, that Mr. Muganda advocate who appeared for most of the respondents was present in court when the orders were granted.

In response to the respondents’ replying affidavits, grounds of opposition and submissions, counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the terms of the orders issued on 16^th October, 2017 were clear and that there was no order for maintenance of status quo. Counsel submitted that the said orders had not been varied or set aside. He submitted that the respondents were represented by advocates who were present when the orders in question were made and as such the issue of service could not arise. He submitted further that knowledge of the order by an advocate representing a party is sufficient service upon such party. Counsel argued that the orders which were issued by the court covered the principals and their agents and that the contractors who were the agents of the 4^th and 10^th defendant were therefore bound by the said orders. Finally, Mr. Ochieng submitted that in paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 14 of the affidavit sworn by the 4^th defendant’s director, Pitchi Surendra Naithi Reddy, he admitted the contempt complained of as the acts mentioned therein had been prohibited by the order.

In his reply to the submissions by the plaintiff’s advocate, Mr. Muganda for the 4^th defendant and the 1^st, 3^rd, 4^th and 6^th to 10^th respondents submitted that the plaintiff had not specified when the trespass occurred and who committed the same. He submitted that the photographs exhibited in the affidavit of Pitchi Surendra Naithi Reddy show that no excavation had been carried out on the suit property. He argued that whereas the orders in question were directed to parties to the main suit, the application before the court was directed to non-parties who were not served with the said orders.  He contended that personal service is a condition precedent to an application for contempt. He argued that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that there was a breach of the said orders or specific limbs thereof after substituted service was effected. He submitted further, that the plaintiff had failed to show how each of the respondents had disobeyed the said court orders.

Counsel submitted that the respondents’ only fault was that of being developers of the adjacent property whose development was lawful and authorised. He submitted that the 4^th defendant was in possession of the suit property as at August, 2016, before this suit was filed on 16^th December, 2016 and the orders in question issued. He contended that the court orders aforesaid were intended to preserve the suit property and not to evict any party. He submitted that no eviction orders had been issued by the court. Counsel submitted that the plaintiff had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the court orders in question had been willfully disobeyed. He submitted that some of the orders sought by the plaintiff in the application were mandatory in nature and that the court could not issue eviction orders in a contempt application.

In his submissions in reply, Mr. Wathuta for the 5^th respondent associated himself with the submissions by Mr. Muganda. He submitted that the contents of the 5^th respondent’s replying affidavit had not been controverted. He made reference to part 7 of the Evidence Act, Chapter 80 Laws of Kenya  on the production of electronic evidence and submitted that the photographs attached to the affidavit in support of the plaintiff’s application were inadmissible as it had not been stated when the photographs were taken and by whom. Counsel submitted that the particulars of the 5^th respondent’s alleged acts of contempt had not been set out in the application which merely stated that the respondents were getting ready to carry out excavation.  

Mr. Wathuta submitted further that there was no basis for alleging that the 5^th respondent had carried out excavation on the suit property. He submitted that there was no evidence that the court orders in question had been brought to the 5^th respondent’s attention and that it had willfully disobeyed the same. Counsel submitted that the standard of proof for contempt was beyond reasonable doubt and that sufficient material had not been placed before the court to warrant the grant of the prayers sought.

Determination:

I have considered the plaintiff’s application together with the affidavit filed in support thereof.  I have also considered the affidavits and grounds of opposition filed by the respondents in opposition to the application. Finally, I have considered the submissions by the advocates for the parties. The main issues for determination in the application before me is whether the plaintiff has established that the respondents breached the orders issued herein on 9^th January, 2017 and confirmed on 16^th October 2017 and whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought in the application.

 In the case of Hardkinson v Hardkinson [1952] ALL ER 567, it was held that:

“It was the plain and unqualified obligation of every person against or in respect of whom an order was made by a court of competent jurisdiction to obey it unless and until it was discharged and disobedience of such order would as a general rule result in the person disobeying being in contempt and punishable by committal or attachment and in an application to the court by him not being entertained until he had purged his contempt.”

In the case of Mutitika v Baharini Farm Ltd [1985] KLR 227 it was held that:

(i) A person who knowing of an injunction, or an order of stay, willfully does something, or causes others to do something, to break the injunction, or interfere with the stay, is liable to be committed for contempt of court as such a person has by his conduct obstructed justice.

(ii) The standard of proof in contempt proceedings must be higher than proof on a balance of probabilities and almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt.

(iii) The principle must be borne in mind that the jurisdiction to commit for contempt should be carefully exercised with great reluctance and anxiety on the part of the court to see whether there is no other mode which can be brought to bear on the contemnor.

In the recent Court of Appeal case of  Micheal Sistu Mwaura Kamau v Director of Public Prosecutions & 4 others (2018) eKLR the court set out the law on contempt as follows:

“It is trite that to commit a person for contempt of court, the court must be satisfied that he has willfully and deliberately disobeyed a court order that he was aware of. That is made absolutely clear by section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act and the ruling of the Supreme Court in Republic v. Ahmad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another (supra). Secondly, as this Court emphasized in Jihan Freighters Ltd v. Hardware & General Stores Ltd and in A.B. & Another v. R. B. [2016] eKLR, to sustain committal for contempt of court, the order of the court that is alleged to have been deliberately disobeyed must be clear and precise so as to leave no doubt as to what a party was supposed to do or to refrain from doing. Lastly, the standard of proof in committal proceedings is higher than proof on a balance of probabilities, though not as high as proof beyond reasonable doubt. (See Mutitika v. Baharini Farm (supra) and Republic v. Ahmad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another (supra).”

It is on the foregoing principles that the plaintiff’s application falls for consideration. The plaintiff alleged that the respondents committed the following acts which constitute contempt of the court orders aforesaid namely; that having moved out of the suit property, the respondents forcibly invaded the property and cut all the grass and trees on the suit property in readiness to carry out excavation. The respondents are also said to have encroached on the suit property while undertaking construction on the adjacent property.  In response to these allegations, the 4^th defendant’s director who claimed to have been authorised by the 1^st, 5^th, 6^th, 7^th, 8^th, 9^th and 10^th respondents to swear a replying affidavit on their behalf averred that the 4^th defendant was the registered owner of the suit property and was in possession of the property before and after the filing of this suit and issuance of the said court orders. The said director of the 4^th defendant claimed that it had entered into a tenancy agreement with the 1^st respondent in respect of the suit property for purposes of temporary parking and storage.  The 4^th defendant contended that the orders of 9^th January, 2017 and 16^th October, 2017 meant that the status quo which was that the 4^th defendant was in possession and that the property was being used as per the tenancy agreement aforesaid was to be maintained. The 4^th defendant’s said director denied that the 4^th defendant had cleared and excavated the suit property in readiness for construction.  He admitted however that there was debris on the suit property from the adjacent construction site which the 1^st respondent was in the process of clearing to approved dumping sites. He also admitted further that part of a wall that was existing around the suit property was brought down by unknown persons and that the 4^th defendant undertook the reconstruction of the same so as to preserve the property in the same state it was when the orders of the court in question were issued.  

The orders made on 9^th January, 2017 which were confirmed on 16^th December, 2017 provided in part as follows:

“…That until then a temporary injunction is hereby issued restraining the defendants by themselves and or by their undisclosed principals, agents, employees, servants and any other person acting under their authority from trespassing, remaining in occupation, entering, occupying, dealing and or in any manner howsoever interfering with the plaintiff’s ownership, occupation, possession and use of all that parcel of land known as L.R No. 209/11142 CR 48067 situated at Nairobi Upper Hill area”  

I am in agreement with the plaintiff that the terms of the orders issued on 9^th January, 2017 and confirmed on 16^th December, 2017 were clear. The said orders did not call for the maintenance of status quo as claimed by the 4^th defendant. The orders in question prohibited the defendants by themselves or through their agents or principals from “trespassing, remaining in occupation, entering, occupying, dealing and or in any manner howsoever interfering with the plaintiff’s ownership, occupation, possession and use of” the suit property.

The photographs annexed to the affidavit that was filed in support of the plaintiff’s application for injunction dated 14^th December, 2016 show that the suit property had some vegetation, felled trees and tree stumps. The photographs annexed to the affidavit filed in support of the present application show that the suit property has been cleared off vegetation and some form of excavation of the top soil has been undertaken. These photographs demonstrate that the suit property had been interfered with during the pendency of the court orders in question which restrained the defendants from entering, remaining in occupation or in any manner interfering with the suit property.

The 4^th defendant which claims ownership of the suit property contended that the 1^st respondent/10^th defendant was in occupation of the suit property pursuant to a tenancy agreement dated 5^th December, 2016 entered between the 4^th and 10^th defendants and that the court had allowed that arrangement to continue.  As I have stated earlier in this ruling, the orders of the court were clear. All the defendants were restrained from entering or remaining on the suit property under whatever circumstance. The 4^th and 10^th defendants were prohibited from entering, remaining or doing anything else on the suit property. Neither the 4^th defendant nor the 10^th defendant had a right to enter or to remain on the suit property during the existence of the said court orders. According to paragraph 6 of the affidavit of Pitchi Surendra Naithi Reddy in reply to the present application, the status of the suit property as at the time of swearing the affidavit on 21^st February, 2018 was that “…the 4^th defendant was the owner and in possession of the suit (property)” and “it was being used for the function set out in the tenancy agreement attached hereto above which is still the position to date”.

There is no doubt from this statement that the 4^th and 10^th defendants continued to be in possession and to use the suit property after the orders of 9^th January, 2017 and 16^th October, 2017 were issued and in contravention thereof. It has not been contested that the 4^th and 10^th defendants were represented by an advocate when the said orders were made and that the orders were subsequently advertised in the daily newspapers. I am in agreement with the submission by the plaintiff that the respondents particularly those whose advocates were present in court when the said orders were made were aware of the orders. The  courts have since moved from the position that the order alleged to have been breached must be personally served on a person sought to be punished together  with the penal notice before contempt can be proved. Knowledge of a court order has been held to be  sufficient thereby dispensing with personal service for the purposes of contempt proceedings. See, Shimmers Plaza Limited vs. National Bank of Kenya Limited[2015]eKLR.

 For reasons which are not clear, neither the 4^th defendant nor its directors have been made respondents in the contempt application. It is my finding that the 1^st respondent and the 3^rd and 4^th respondents who are its directors are in contempt of the orders which were made herein on 9^th January, 2017 and 16^th October, 2017. They have continued to enter and use the suit property despite express court orders prohibiting them from doing so. There is no evidence however that the 1^st, 3^rd and 4^th respondents carried out excavation on the suit property.

The plaintiff did not place any materials before the court showing how the other respondents breached the court orders in question. The plaintiff had sought a number of reliefs in its application. I do not think that the plaintiff is entitled to a mandatory injunction sought in payer 2 of the application. The plaintiff is already having injunctive orders prohibiting the defendants from entering or remaining in possession of the suit property. That order is sufficient to preserve the suit property pending the hearing of the suit. I have found herein above that the plaintiff did not establish that any of the respondents excavated the suit property. For that reason prayer 4 of the application cannot be granted. Prayers 5 and 6 have been established in relation to the 1^st, 3^rd and 4^th respondents only.  

In the final analysis, the plaintiff’s application dated 20^th November, 2017 succeeds in part. The application is allowed on the following terms:

1. I find the 1^st, 3^rd and 4^th respondents, White Lotus Projects Limited, Poosapati Sita Ramachandra Raju and Mohamud Mahat Noor, the 1^st, 3^rd and 4^th respondents in the application jointly and severally in contempt of court.

2. The Deputy Registrar of this court shall issue summons for service upon Poosapati Sita Ramachandra Raju and Mohamud Mahat Noor who are the directors of White Lotus Projects Limited to appear before this court on a date to be fixed to address the court in mitigation before a sentence is passed against them and White Lotus Projects Limited.  

3. The plaintiff shall have the costs of the application to be paid by the 4^th and 10^th defendants jointly and severally.

Delivered and Dated at Nairobi this 20^th day of December 2018

S. OKONG’O

JUDGE

Ruling read in open court in the presence of:

Ms. Bor h/b for Mr. Ochieng for the Plaintiff/Applicant

Mr. Muganda for the 1^st, 3^rd , 4^th, 6^th , 7^th , 8^th , 9^th and 10^th Respondents

N/A for the 2^nd Respondent

Mr. Muganda h/b for Mr. Wathuta for the 5^th Respondent

Mr. Kamau for the 9^th defendant

Catherine-Court Assistant