Al-Riaz International Limited v Ganjoni Properties Limited & 12 others [2022] KEHC 17048 (KLR)

Al-Riaz International Limited v Ganjoni Properties Limited & 12 others (Civil Case 158 of 2014) [2022] KEHC 17048 (KLR) (15 July 2022) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 17048 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Mombasa

Civil Case 158 of 2014

MN Mwangi, J

July 15, 2022

Between

Al-Riaz International Limited

Plaintiff

and

Ganjoni Properties Limited

Defendant

and

Lalitchandra Durgasganker Pandya

1st Respondent

Rameshchandra Durgashanker Pandya (T/A Ganjoni Properties Limited)

2nd Respondent

Joel Titus Musya

3rd Respondent

Jonathan Musya Titus

4th Respondent

Julius Maithya Titus

5th Respondent

Kambua Maithya

6th Respondent

Kyalo Titus

7th Respondent

Michael Kitili Titus

8th Respondent

Diana Titus

9th Respondent

Ruth Muleh (T/A Makuri Auctioneers Limited)

10th Respondent

F Kamundi

11th Respondent

Muyaa DT (T/A Kinyua Muyaa & Co Advocates)

12th Respondent

Ruling

1. On February 22, 2018, the plaintiff/applicant filed a Notice of Motion application premised on the provisions of Articles 159 and 162 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010, Sections 4(1)(a) and 6(c) of the Contempt of Court Act No 26 of 2016, Laws of Kenya, Rule 81 of the applications and proceedings of Contempt of Court of England, Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21 Laws of Kenya, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and all other enabling provisions of the law. The applicant seeks the following orders –i.Spent;ii.Spent;iii.That this Honourable Court do find, hold and declare that the respondents are jointly and severally in contempt of the orders of the Court issued herein on:a.December 14, 2017 by the Honurable Justice PJO Otieno;b.January 16, 2018 by the Honurable Lady Justice Njoki Mwangi;c.January 22, 2018 by the Honourable Lady Justice Njoki Mwangi;d.January 29, 2018 by the Honourable Justice PJO Otieno;e.February 1, 2018 by Hon Justice PJO Otieno.iv.That the Honourtable Court be pleased to order that the respondents be committed to civil jail for the maximum term of six (6) months each and/or to impose a penalty of a fine for contempt of Court, for deliberate disobedience of the orders of the Court issued herein on:a.December 14, 2017 by the Honourable Justice PJ Otieno;b.January 16, 2018 by the Honourable Lady Justice Njoki Mwangi;c.January 22, 2018 by the Honourable Lady Justice Njoki Mwangi;d.January 29, 2018 by the Honourable Justice PJO Otieno;e.February 1, 2018 by the Honourable Justice PJO Otieno;v.That the Honourable Court be pleased to issue any other or further orders as may be just and expedient in the circumstances towards protecting the dignity and Honour of this Court; andvi.That costs of this application be awarded to the applicant.

2. The Notice of Motion is anchored on the affidavit of Rehana Riaz Malik, a director of the applicant, sworn on February 22, 2018.

3. On March 8, 2018, the 11th and 12th respondents filed a replying affidavit sworn by Mr F Kinyua Kamundi. On the same day, the 3rd respondent filed a replying affidavit on his own behalf and on behalf of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th respondents. The 1st and 2nd respondents filed a replying affidavit on March 5, 2018 sworn by Mohamed Abdulrahman Salami, the defendant’s Manager.

4. The applicant filed a further affidavit sworn on September 17, 2018 by Riaz Malik. In addition to the replying affidavits opposing the application dated February 22, 2018, on March 7, 2018, the 11th and 12th respondents through the law firm of Muli & Ole Kina Advocates filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated March 5, 2018 raising the following grounds –i.That this Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine any aspect of this suit as such jurisdiction is exercisable only by the Environment and Land Court under the provisions of Article 162(2)(b) of theConstitution of Kenya;ii.That this Honourable Court is expressly prohibited by Article 165(5)(b) of theConstitution of Kenya from having any jurisdiction on matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court Act;iii.Under the provisions of the Environment and Land Court Act this Court is not a Court of law in so far as matters relating to the use and occupation of land are concerned;iv.The 11th and 12th respondents cannot submit to the jurisdiction of this Court in relation to this suit without violating Article 3 of theConstitution which requires every person including Honourable Judges of this Court to respect, uphold and defend theConstitution. To submit to the jurisdiction of this Court on matters relating to the use and occupation of land would be to disrespect and violate theconstitution. The respondents are Officers of this Court, they respect the Court and Constitution and they cannot violate theConstitution;v.The 11th and 12th respondents are the subject of prior orders to show cause in this suit relating to the said documents described as Court orders and alleged to have been violated. Those Show Cause orders have not been vacated and the respondents cannot be subjected to two processes in regard to the alleged violation of the same set of documents described as Court orders.vi.The Notice of Motion application dated February 22, 2018 is incompetent as it does not contain any affidavit of service. No contempt of Court application can be heard or considered in the absence of evidence of service;vii.Appendices 1 to 12 to the purported affidavit of Rehan Riaz Malik have not been sealed with the seal of the Commissioner for Oaths as is required under Section 5 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act Cap 15 Laws of Kenya as read together with Rule 9 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Rules and the appendices and paragraphs that refer to them should be struck out;viii.The application dated February 22, 2018 and the affidavit in support do not show the manner in which any order was allegedly violated;ix.There were no orders in force capable of violation; andx.There were no valid or lawful orders in force. Any order given by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity for all intents and purposes.

5. The 3rd to 10th respondents similarly filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated March 8, 2018 based on the following grounds –i.That this Court has no jurisdiction on a dispute relating to the use and occupation of land. Its jurisdiction is expressly ousted by Article 165(5)(b) of theConstitution;ii.There were no orders restraining the defendant or the 3rd respondent from levying distress for rent and for mesne profits in accordance with the consent orders given on December 14, 2016 and February 15, 2017;iii.There is no affidavit of service included in that Motion. The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th respondents are not Auctioneers and have nothing to do with Makuri Auctioneers. The 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th respondent’s do not trade as Makuri Auctioneers Limited. A limited liability company cannot hold an Auctioneer’s licence. As can be seen from the proclamation and the advertisement the entity that carried out distress for rent was Makuri Auctioneers and not Makuri Auctioneers Limited;iv.The issue between the plaintiff and the defendant is pending in the Environment and Land Court in ELC suit No 458 of 2017 and 20 of 2018. That is the only competent Court; andv.The Court must first decide whether any orders issued by this Court were valid or competent or not. There can be no contempt of Court concerning invalid orders that are null and void under theConstitution.

6. The applicants pray for the Notice of Motion dated February 22, 2018 to be struck out with costs.

7. Submissions for the 11th and 12th respondents were filed on March 29, 2018 in support of the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated March 5, 2018, by the law firm of Muli & Ole Kina Advocates. The applicant’s written submissions were filed on April 9, 2018 by the law firm of Ngonze & Ngonze Advocates.

8. Mr Kinyua Kamundi highlighted submissions on behalf of the law firm of Muli & Ole Kina Advocates and on their own behalf.

9. At this point, the Court will only consider the Notices of Preliminary Objection in accordance with the directions given by this Court. In its written submissions which were highlighted, the issue for the jurisdiction of this Court to hear and determine the dispute between the plaintiff and defendant took the centre stage. Mr Kinyua submitted that the case in issue revolves around the issue of tenancy and this Court must determine the correct forum for the parties herein to litigate the dispute.

10. In regard to what constitutes a Preliminary Objection, Mr Kinyua cited the case of Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co Limited v West End Distributors Limited (1969) EA 696. He relied on the definition of jurisdiction in Black’s Law Dictionary as being the Court’s power to decide matters presented to it and to enforce its decisions. He also cited the decision of Nyarangi JA in the case of the Owners of the Motor Vessel 'Lillian S' vs Caltex Oil (Kenya) Limited (1989) 1 KLR, where the Judge stated that the limits of authority are imposed by statute, charter, or commission under which the Court is constituted, and may be extended or instituted in like means. Mr Kinyua also relied on the case of Samuel Kamau Macharia & another v Kenya Commercial Bank & 2 others [2012]) eKLR.

11. He submitted that a Judge of the High Court can exercise jurisdiction conferred upon him by theConstitution, the Judicature Act and any other enabling provisions of the law. He further stated that as set out in theConstitution, a Judge of the High Court cannot exercise the jurisdiction of Environment and Land Court or that of the Employment and Labour Relations Court. He stated that under Article 162(2) of theConstitution of Kenya, the Environment and Land Court Act No 19 of 2011 was enacted and that the said Court is the one with jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute between the applicant and the defendants. He relied on the case of Karisa Chengo & others v Republic [2015] eKLR to support this submission. He also relied on the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Petition No 5 of 2015 Republic v Karisa Chengo & 2 others [2017] eKLR, which concurred with decision of the Court of Appeal in Karisa Chengo & others v Republic (supra).

12. Mr. Kinyua further submitted that Article 165(5) of theConstitution prohibits the High Court from exercising jurisdiction in respect to matters reserved for the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or falling within the jurisdiction of the Courts contemplated in Article 162(2) of theConstitution. He submitted that the claim before this Court is for the occupation and use of previously demised premises and the issue is therefore one between a landlord and tenant over the use of the premises. He stated that the continuation of this action amounts to a gross violation of Article 2(2) of theConstitution of Kenya, Articles 161, 162, 165 and 166 of theConstitution and Sections 43, 44, 45 of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act, Cap 2.

13. Mr Kinyua cited the case ofCooperative Bank of Kenya Ltd v Patrick Kangethe Njuguna & others [2017] eKLR to demonstrate that the High Court can only deal with a land matter where the issue under litigation is on the tabulation of the sums owing and where statutory notices have not been issued prior to attempted statutory sale. He submitted that Article 162 of the Constitution, Sections 13 of the ELC Act and 150 of the Land Act do not concern the determination of accounting questions, which is a preserve of the High Court under Article 165(5) of the Constitution which provides for unlimited original jurisdiction in criminal and civil matters to the said Court.

14. Mr Kinyua sought to distinguish the above decision from the circumstances of this case and stated that the dispute herein extends to tenancy, the right to remain in the premises and the rent payable. He contended that the latter issue is not one of accounts but one for assessment of the rent payable.

15. He urged that if this Court finds that the proceedings ought to have been commenced before the ELC, then it should come to the conclusion that the orders issued by the High Court were void and that they were issued pursuant to proceedings commenced contra-statute. In submitting that since the High Court had no cognizance over the claim, then the orders of the Court are void ab initio, he relied on the decision in Re Pritchard (deceased) [1963] 1 ALL ER 873 andMcFoy vs United Africa Co. Ltd [1961] 3 ALL ER 1169.

16. He submitted that since the proceedings are a nullity ab initio, no order ensuing therefrom is enforceable against an alleged contempt for the simple reasoning that one cannot base something on nothing, and the only option for this Court is to down its tools by striking out the void proceedings as the continuation of the proceedings herein would be an abuse of the Court process.

17. Mr Kinyua submitted that the affidavit in support of the Contempt application was defective and that the exhibits annexed thereto were not sealed with the seal of a commissioner for oaths in violation of Rule 9 of the Oaths and Statutory Declaration Rules.

18. He submitted that the provisions of Section 5 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act, Rules 6 and 9 of theOaths and Statutory Declaration Rules are mandatory in nature, yet all the annexures attached to the supporting affidavit are not sealed and are therefore not exhibits in accordance with the law. In that regard, he cited the case of Solomon Software (EA) Ltd & another v Microsoft Corporation t/a Great Plains Business Solutions [2002] eKLR to bolster his submissions.

19. Mr Kinyua prayed for the affidavit to be struck out or for the exhibits to be expunged from the record. He stated that if that was to be done, there would be nothing to support the Notice of Motion and the same would be dismissed.

20. He submitted that the proceedings before this Court are very serious in nature as they are quasi-criminal and the punishment to be meted against the respondents would be the loss of their liberty or the attachment of their property. He stated that in order to be entitled to such orders, the applicant must present admissible credible evidence that would be free of the defects complained of in this case. Mr Kinyua cited the decision in Woburn Estate Limited v Margaret Nashforth [2016] eKLR, where the Court held that since contempt proceedings are quasi–criminal in nature and a person may lose his right to liberty, each stage and step of the procedure must be scrupulously followed and observed.

21. He contended that the omission made by the applicant by not having the exhibits accompanying the affidavit sealed was not an irregularity that was excusable under Oder 19 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules. He relied on the decision in Jimmy Mkala Kazungu vs IEBC & 2 others [2017] eKLR and Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v IEBC & 6 others [2013] eKLR to demonstrate that the provisions of Article 159(2)(d) of theConstitution cannot be invoked in this instance to cure the defect.

22. He prayed for the Preliminary Objection to be upheld and for the suit to be struck out with costs. In the alternative, he prayed for the Notice of Motion dated February 22, 2018 as well as the affidavit in support, including appendices A, B, C 1 to 12 to the purported affidavit of Rehan Riaz to be struck out with costs to the 11th and 12th respondents.

23. The 3rd to 10th respondents filed their written submissions on May 8, 2018 in support of their Notice of Preliminary Objection dated March 8, 2018 and the one filed on behalf of the 11th and 12th respondents. They fully adopted the submission filed by Muli & Ole Kina Advocates on behalf of the 11th and 12th respondents on March 29, 2018.

24. Their Advocates, Kinyua Muyaa & Co. Advocates relied on Mr. Kinyua’s replying affidavit sworn on March 8, 2018 as well as the replying affidavit sworn by the 3rd respondent Joel Titus Musya sworn on March 8, 2018.

25. Mr Kinyua Advocate submitted that his clients, the 3rd to 10th respondents cannot submit to the jurisdiction of the High Court without violating theConstitution and that the Court cannot deal with any aspect of the suit without violating theConstitution as it is expressly prohibited from dealing with landlord and tenant disputes under Article 165(5)(b) of theConstitution. He submitted that the applicant knew at all times that the High Court had no jurisdiction to handle any aspect of the suit. Mr Kinyua stated that it was instructive that the application to punish for contempt of Court was brought under Article 162 of theConstitution of Kenya, the Article that establishes the Environment & Land Court.

26. It was contended that there was no affidavit of service annexed to the affidavit of Rehan Riaz Malik in support of the application for contempt and that there can be no contempt of any Court order without proof that the order was extracted and served.

27. He further contended that an order issued by Court with no jurisdiction to do so is not a Court order even assuming that there were 'orders' restraining the levying of distress or the alleged eviction.

28. The Counsel for the 3rd to 10th respondents stated that there are two suits between the plaintiff and the defendants pending in the Environment and Land Court being, ELC No 458 of 2017 and 20 of 2018, and that the Environment and Land Court had recently ordered the plaintiff out of the suit premises in ELC No 20 of 2018 and that the plaintiff had left the suit premises. Mr Kinyua submitted that as such, a competent Court had already dealt with the issue intended to be addressed in the contempt application. He contended that this Court cannot continue to handle the matter without setting itself up for conflict with the Environment & Land Court.

29. He indicated that there were Court orders to the effect that unless the plaintiff paid the arrears of rent and mesne profits, the defendants would be at liberty to levy distress. He stated that by levying distress for the said arrears, the defendants were enforcing consent orders and that on the issue of whether or not the Court had jurisdiction, the applicant had agreed that with the defendants that if he failed to pay arrears of rent, the defendants would be at liberty to levy distress. Mr Kinyua stated that those orders had not been vacated.

30. He stated that it was most distressing that the applicant having failed to pay rent for 3 years upon one Court order after another, which it did not comply with, now seeks to punish the landlord, the landlord’s Advocates and the Auctioneers without uttering a single word on why it did not pay a cent by way of rent for 3 years. Mr Kinyua urged this Court to dismiss the Notice of Motion dated February 22, 2018 with costs or in the alternative to strike it out with costs.

31. Mr Ngonze filed written submissions in respect to the two Notices of Preliminary Objection on April 9, 2018. He submitted that Court orders are not made in vain but are meant to be complied with and it for any reason a party has difficulty in complying with Court orders, he should go back to Court and explain the difficulties faced in complying with the orders. He further submitted that once a Court order is made in a suit, the same is valid unless set aside in review. He relied on the case of Econet Wireless Kenya Ltd v Minster for Information & Communication of Kenya & another [2005] eKLR. He stated that the holding by Ibrahim J (as he then was), was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Refrigerator & Kitchen Utensils Ltd v Gulabchand Poputlal Shah & Others Civil Application No Nairobi 39 of 1990 and Wildlife Lodges Ltd v County Council of Narok & another [2005] 2 EA 344.

32. Mr Ngonze submitted that the 11th and 12th respondents filed their written submissions out of time and without leave of the Court, yet they were seeking to have the applicant’s affidavit struck out for want of form. He relied on Order 19 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 which states that a Court may receive any affidavit sworn for the purpose of being used in any suit notwithstanding any defect by misdescription of the parties or otherwise in the title or other irregularity in form thereof or on any technicality. He also relied on the provisions of Order 51 Rule 10 of the said Rules, Articles 259, 159, 50(1), 192 and 1 of theConstitution of Kenya, 2010, in urging this Court not to strike out the affidavit in support of the application for contempt.

33. The applicant’s Counsel submitted that the 11th and 12th respondents’ Preliminary Objection has improperly pleaded issues of fact, and particularly, in paragraphs 6 and 8 thereof. He relied on the case of Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd (supra) to show that a Preliminary Objection should raise pure points of law. He submitted that the 11th and 12th respondents had not made out a sufficient case on merits to warrant the upholding of the Preliminary Objection, he prayed for dismissal of the same with costs.

ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION The issue for determination is if the Preliminary Objections should be upheld. 34. Mr Ngonze stated that he was never served with the Notice of Preliminary Objection for the 1st to 10th respondents. This Court however notes that a Notice of Preliminary Objection is available in the Court file in respect to the said respondents. Their written submissions which this Court had requested for, from their Advocates as Mr Kinyua had submitted on the same were found misfiled in the Court file on the part where proceedings are filed, instead of being filed on the part where documents are supposed to be filed by the Registry. This Court has therefore gone through the written submissions filed on 8th May, 2018 and not the ones filed on 13th May, 2022, which are entitled 'revised submissions of the 3rd to 10th respondents.'

35. The starting point in determining if the Preliminary Objections should be upheld is to consider what constitutes a Preliminary Objection. In the oft cited case of Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd (1969) EA 696, Law JA and Newbold P (both with whom Duffus VP agreed), respectively, at pp 700 and 701 held as follows –Law JA:'So far as I am aware, a Preliminary Objection consists of a pure point of law which has been pleaded, or which arises by clear implication out of pleadings, and which if argued as a preliminary point may dispose of the suit. Examples are an objection on jurisdiction of the court, or a plea of limitation or a submission that the parties are bound by the contact giving rise to the suit to refer the dispute to arbitration.'

36. The respondents in this matter are challenging the jurisdiction of this Court to hear the application for contempt of Court dated February 22, 2018 because the subject matter in issue should have been heard by the ELC and not by the High Court.

37. In order to determine whether the Preliminary Objections raised herein have been property taken and if they raise pure points of law, the Court needs to consider the grounds raised. The 1st ground by the 11th and 12th respondents is that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine any aspect of this suit as such jurisdiction is exercisable only by the ELC under Article 162(2)(b) of theConstitution of Kenya. The first ground is closely linked to the second, third and fourth grounds raised in the Preliminary Objection in that the High Court is expressly prohibited by Article 165(5)(b) of theConstitution of Kenya from having any jurisdiction on matters falling within the jurisdiction of the ELC Act.

38. In my understanding, the 11th and 12th respondents are stating that this Court is estopped from considering whether the orders issued in this matter by this Court and Judge PJ Otieno were disobeyed because the orders were given in a matter in which the two Judges had no jurisdiction. By so stating, the said respondents seem to be alluding to the fact that they were aware of Court orders having been made, but they deliberately ignored or declined to comply with the same because the Judges who granted them had no jurisdiction to issue the said orders.

39. Further, looking at grounds 5, 6, 8 and 9, of the Preliminary Objection, by the 11th and 12th respondents they raise factual issues which would call for the plaintiff to respond by way of affidavit. The said grounds can therefore not be considered to be pure points of law that can be addressed by way of a Preliminary Objection.

40. The 3rd to 10th respondents in their Preliminary Objection raised an issue of law in their first ground. The second, third, fourth and fifth grounds of their Preliminary Objection raise factual issues.

41. It is therefore apparent that the Preliminary Objections raised by the respondents fall short of the test in the Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing case (supra) as they of mixed fact and law.

42. The Supreme Court of Kenya in the case of Independent Electoral & Boundaries commissions v Jane Cheperenger & 2 others [2015] eKLR, expressed itself as follows on the issue of Preliminary Objections –'(21)The occasion to hear this matter accords us an opportunity to make certain observations regarding the recourse by litigants to preliminary objections the true Preliminary Objection serves two purposes of merit; Firstly, it serves as a shield for the originator of the objection- against profligate deployment of time and other resources. And secondly, it serves the public cause, of sparing scarce Judicial time, so it may be committed only to deserving cases of dispute settlement. It is distinctly improper to resort to the Preliminary Objection as a sword, for winning a case otherwise destined to be resolved judicially, and on merits.'

43. The above observation is what had been made years before by Newpold P in Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd (supra) when he stated as follows-'A Preliminary Objection is in the nature of what used to be demurrer. It raises a pure point of law which is argued on the assumption that all the facts pleaded by the other side are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion. The improper raising of points by way of Preliminary Objection does nothing but unnecessarily increases costs and on occasion, confuse the issues. This improper practice should stop.'

44. In the case ofOraro v Mbaya [2005] 1 KLR 141, the Court held as follows on the issue of Preliminary Objections–'Anything that purports to be a preliminary objection must deal with disputed facts and it must not derive its foundation from factual information which stands to be tested by rules of evidence.'

45. In this case, an application for contempt of Court exists. Noting that the Notices of Preliminary Objection filed by the respondents herein did not limit the issues for consideration to points of law only but issues of facts were brought in the mix, it would be improper to cherry pick only the issues of law and address them to finality and put the issues of facts in the back burner. Having opted not to limit the said notices to legal issues only, the applicants herein have caged themselves to the position that they find themselves in.

46. In the case of Econet Wireless Kenya Ltd vs Minster for Information and Communications of Kenya & another (supra), Ibrahim J (as he then was) stated as follows on the issue of disobedience of Court orders-'It is essential for the maintenance of the rule of law and order that the authority and the dignity of the Courts are upheld at all times. The Court will not condone deliberate disobedience of its orders and will not shy away from its responsibility to deal firmly with proved contemnors. It is the plain and unqualified obligation of every person against, or in respect of whom, an order is made by a Court of competent jurisdiction, to obey it unless and until that order is discharged.The uncompromising nature of this obligation is shown by the fact that it extends even to cases where the person affected by an order believes it to be irregular or void.'

47. This Court is alive to the decision in the Owners of the Motor Vessel Lilian S v Caltex Kenya Ltd (supra) but it is also aware of the need for the dignity and respect of Court orders to be upheld unless orders have been reviewed, set aside or discharged.

48. As such, the Notices of Preliminary Objection filed herein are dismissed with costs to the plaintiff/applicant. The application dated February 28, 2018 will be heard and determined together with the jurisdictional challenge.

DELIVERED, DATED, AND SIGNED AT MOMBASA THIS 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2022. RULING DELIVERED THROUGH TEAMS ONLINE PLATFORM.NJOKI MWANGIJUDGEIn the presence of-Mr. Mwanzia for the plaintiffMr. Kinyua Kamundi for the 3rd to 10th respondents and the defendantsMr. Ole Kina for the 11th and 12th respondentsMr. Oliver Musundi – Court Assistant.