Njuguna (Practising under the name and style of Samuel Gitonga & Associates) v Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning & 3 others; Law Society of Kenya & another (Interested Parties) [2022] KEHC 14113 (KLR)

Njuguna (Practising under the name and style of Samuel Gitonga & Associates) v Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning & 3 others; Law Society of Kenya & another (Interested Parties) (Judicial Review Application E094 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 14113 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (19 October 2022) (Judgment)

Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 14113 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Judicial Review

Judicial Review Application E094 of 2021

AK Ndung'u, J

October 19, 2022

Between

Samuel Gitonga Njuguna (Practising Under the Name and Style of Samuel Gitonga & Associates)

Applicant

and

Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning

1st Respondent

Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning

2nd Respondent

National Land Commission

3rd Respondent

Attorney General

4th Respondent

and

The Law Society of Kenya

Interested Party

Kenya Bankers Association

Interested Party

Judgment

1. The application before this court is the ex parte applicant’s amended notice of motion dated 23rd June, 2021. The Application seeks the following orders;i.That this Honourable Court be pleased to grant an order of Certiorari to remove and quash the decision to halt manual transactions inter alia physical lodging of documents for registration at the Nairobi registry as well as to remove and quash the Public Notices issued by the 1st Respondent on behalf of the 2nd Respondent on 7th May 2021 and 13th May 2021 respectively that were directed to the general Kenyan public.ii.That this Honourable Court be pleased to grant an order of prohibition against the implementation of the decision to halt manual transactions inter alia physical lodging of documents for registration at the Nairobi registry as well as the implementation of the Public Notices issued by the 1st Respondent on behalf of the 2nd Respondent on 7th May 2021 and 13th May 2021 respectively that were directed to the general Kenyan public.iii.That this Honourable Court be pleased to grant an order of mandamus compelling the 2nd Respondent herein to utilize a manual registration system concurrently with the electronic registration system to attain efficiency of transactions at the Nairobi Land Registry thus compelling the 2nd Respondent to accept documents lodged for registration physically at the Nairobi Land Registry.iv.That costs of and incidental to the Application be provided for.v.That this Honourable Court does issue any such further and other reliefs it may deem just and expedient to grant.

2. The application is supported by a Statutory Statement dated 20th May,2021 and verified by the verifying affidavit of Samuel Gitonga Njuguna sworn on even date.

3. The ex parte Applicant’s case is that 1st Respondent subsequent to consultations with the 4th Respondent on 14th July,2020 Gazetted the Land Registration (Electronic Transactions) Regulations 2020 vide Legal Notice No. 130 of 2020 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 110 of the Land Registration Act 2012 and in an attempt to implement the said Legal Notice No. 130 of 2020, the 2nd Respondent launched the National Land Information Management System (NLIMS), also referred to as Ardhisasa, for the management of land records and transactional services as an anchor for efficient, secure and transparent operations in the lands sector.

4. Subsequent to this, 1st Respondent announced the digitalization of all transactions at the Nairobi Registry and halted all manual transactions inter alia registration of documents, conducting searches and perfection of securities at the Nairobi registry. Further, it was also declared that all transactions within the Nairobi Registry would be conducted on the newly launched Ardhisasa electronic platform.

5. On 7th May 2021, the 1st Respondent issued a public notice on behalf of the 2nd Respondent on the Registration of Sectional Units under the Sectional Properties Act. The public notice notified members that the Ministry would no longer register long term leases supported by architectural drawings with effect from 10th May,2021. A further public notice was issued on 13th May,2021 notifying all land owners with pending land transactions within Nairobi County which have been paid for and awaiting survey details to submit survey details to the Director of Land Administration for completion within 14 days from 17th May, 2021 failure to which would result to a forfeiture of fees already paid.

6. In addition, that payment of Land Rent shall henceforth be made via the Ardhisasa digital platform and that payments on the e-Citizen platform had been discontinued with immediate effect and were ineligible for processing.

7. The Respondent is faulted for having failed to comply with section 4 of the Land Act which provides for democracy, inclusiveness and participation of the people as central to land management and administration and further for failing to follow the laid down procedures of public participation before issuing the said notices. It is contended that the notices failed to give reasons for the decision made by the 1st Respondent as stipulated by law thus violating the provisions of section 5 of the Fair Administrative Actions Act. The period within which the said challenge may have been challenged was also not stipulated.

8. It is the ex parte Applicant’s case that representatives of the 1st Interested Party held a meeting with the Respondent herein on 11th May 2021 necessitated by growing concerns after the issuance of the aforesaid Public Notice on conversion of Long-Term leases into Sectional Titles conforming with the provisions of the Sectional Titles Act but the said meeting did not yield any fruits.

9. The 1st Respondent’s decision is said to have significantly altered the mode of operations both at the Nairobi Lands Registry and Central Lands Registry, and operations at the Nairobi Lands Registry have stalled since dealings have been digitalized yet the Ardhisasa digital platform is not fully operational. The ex parte Applicant’s application to verified on the Ardhi it is contended is still pending approval to date despite the same having been made immediately the platform was launched. The platform it is argue does not allow for the registration of law firms as it requires advocates to register as individuals.

10. The ex parte applicant’s case is that the said directives have caused the government loss of revenue since land transactions have stalled and the revenue including but not limited to stamp duty otherwise payable to the government remains unpaid. It is urged that the Ardhisasa digital platform like all digital systems requires a manual back up to run concurrently in the event that the electronic system is rendered ineffective in order to attain a system that is reliable, efficient and effective.

11. The respondents and 2nd interested party filed replying affidavits to the application sworn on 19th January,2022 and 22nd November,2021 respectively.

12. The respondent’s case is that Section 9 of the Land Registration Act sets out the manner in which the Registrar shall maintain the Register and any document, while section 10 of the Act provides for ways in which the Registrar shall make the information in the Register accessible to the public. Additionally, that regulation 90 of the Land Registration General Regulations provides for electronic registration and conveyancing.

13. The Respondent also argue that the wording of regulation 90 does not envision a scenario where the manual and digital regimes exist concurrently rather it intends that where possible the register, documents. transactions and dealings be maintained and be carried out in electronic form.

14. Further that Section 6 of the Land Act mandates the Cabinet Secretary Ministry for Lands and Physical Planning to coordinate and manage the National Spatial Data Infrastructure and that in fulfillment of this role the Ministry developed the National Land Information Management System (NLlMS), a system dubbed “Ardhisasa”. The 1st Respondent is said to have consulted with key partners such as the National Land Commission, key partners in Government and the County Governments in the development of the Ardhisasa digital platform and in line with article 10, the Ministry held a series of public participation forums with various stakeholders within the land sector.

15. The Respondent contends that development of the Ardhisasa digital platform is in the spirit of the 7 principles laid down in Article 60(1) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 to ensure there is security of Land record accountability and transparency in order to eliminate fraudulent transactions and enhance efficiency and ease of doing business in Kenya thereby creating investor confidence in the land sector.

16. At the moment the digital platform is said to only have been rolled out in Nairobi and that the only property records available in the system are those registered under the Nairobi Registry. It is stated that since the inception of Ardhisasa digital platform, the 2nd Respondent has uploaded 36,200 parcels for live transactions within the Nairobi registry and so far 23,787 transactions have taken place including land rent payments, lease processing valuation for stamp duty purpose, stamp duty payments, and registration of transfers, charges, discharges and searches.

17. The digital platform is likened to the Kenya Revenue Authority's iTax digital platform and National Transport & Safety Authority Tims digital platform which it is argued are all successful and fully operational. The Respondents also deny that there has been any loss of revenue suffered by the government as the Ardhisasa digital platform is fully functional and operational.

18. The 2nd Interested Party in its replying affidavit states that as lending institutions play a major role in the economic growth and development of the country through provision of credit to enable the borrowers execute their economic activities, land related assets are the preferred collateral when seeking loans from various financial institutions.

19. It is urged that members of the 2nd Interested Party prepare charges / mortgages as security for registration at the ands registries and that from the onset all processes such as official searches, assessment of stamp duty, payment of stamp duty and registration of the charge are all processes that are important to the members of the 2nd Interested Party and hence why effective services at the land registries remain crucial to the members.

20. The 2nd Interested Party contend that there are many challenges when it comes to the effective use of the platform, as, if records have not been updated one cannot pay land rent or obtain a land rent clearance certificate which are part of the completion documents required if you are securing a loan with the banks. Further, that similarly one cannot register a charge if these records have not been updated on the platform.

21. The platform is said to allow individuals and companies to be registered but members of the 2nd Interested Party have not been able to do so. The platform has challenges such as delays in verification of titles or onboarding of other corporate entities like state corporations.

22. It is proposed that until the platform is fully operational a hybrid system should be implemented by the 1st and 2nd Respondents to ensure that no transaction is left pending for a long time because of the challenges within the platform as the Land Registration (General) Regulations, 2017 provide timelines for registration of documents at the land registries for example a charge is required to be registered within ten (10) days and the failure to comply with these timelines could result in payment of fines and unenforceability of contracts.

Determination 23. I have considered the pleadings, the affidavit evidence as well as the learned submissions by counsel on record. Two issues emerge for determination;1. Whether the applicant has established the legal threshold for the grant of the judicial review orders sought.2. Who bears the costs of this suit.

Whether the applicant has established the legal threshold for the grant of the judicial review orders sought 24. The applicable legal principles in a judicial review application are now well settled. Lord Diplock in the case of Council of Civil Service Unions versus Minister for the Civil Service (1985) A.C. 374,410; where Lord Diplock summed up the scope of judicial review as follows:“My Lords, I see no reason why simply because a decision-making power is derived from a common law and not a statutory source, it should for that reason only be immune from judicial review. Judicial review has I think developed to a stage today when without reiterating any analysis of the steps by which the development has come about, one can conveniently classify under three heads the grounds upon which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground I would call “illegality,” the second “irrationality” and the third “procedural impropriety.” That is not to say that further development on a case by case basis may not in course of time add further grounds. I have in mind particularly the possible adoption in the future of the principle of “proportionality” which is recognised in the administrative law of several of our fellow members of the European Economic Community; but to dispose of the instant case the three already well-established heads that I have mentioned will suffice.By “illegality” as a ground for judicial review I mean that the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it. Whether he has or not is par excellence a justiciable question to be decided, in the event of dispute, by those persons, the judges, by whom the judicial power of the state is exercisable.By “irrationality” I mean what can by now be succinctly referred to as “Wednesbury unreasonableness” (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 K.B. 223). It applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. Whether a decision falls within this category is a question that judges by their training and experience should be well equipped to answer, or else there would be something badly wrong with our judicial system. To justify the court's exercise of this role, resort I think is today no longer needed to Viscount Radcliffe's ingenious explanation in Edwards v. Bairstow[1956] A.C. 14 of irrationality as a ground for a court's reversal of a decision by ascribing it to an inferred though unidentifiable mistake of law by the decision-maker. “Irrationality” by now can stand upon its own feet as an accepted ground on which a decision may be attacked by judicial review.I have described the third head as “procedural impropriety” rather than failure to observe basic rules of natural justice or failure to act with procedural fairness towards the person who will be affected by the decision. This is because susceptibility to judicial review under this head covers also failure by an administrative tribunal to observe procedural rules that are expressly laid down in the legislative instrument by which its jurisdiction is conferred, even where such failure does not involve any denial of natural justice. But the instant case is not concerned with the proceedings of an administrative tribunal at all.”

25. In Municipal Council of Mombasa – v- Republic & Umoja Consultants Ltd Civil Appeal No.185 of 2001 it was held:“Judicial Review is concerned with the decision-making process, not with the merits of the decision itself: the court would concern itself with such issues as to whether the decision makers had the jurisdiction, whether the persons affected by the decision were heard before it was made and whether in making the decision, the decision maker took into account relevant matters or did take into account irrelevant matters…. The court should not act as a Court of Appeal over the decider which would involve going into the merits of the decision itself such as whether there was or there was not sufficient evidence to support the decision.”

26. The power of the court to supervise the exercise of authority and decision-making bodies is crucial to safeguard against breach of the law or administrative excesses and breaches that injure the public. Such power must, however, be exercised within the established legal limits in the absence of which the court in the guise of preventing abuse of power may be itself guilty of usurping power. Where a breach is discernable, the court will not hesitate to do the right thing by employing the appropriate remedy. As stated by Lord Denning in R. v. Greater London Council ex parte Blackburn (1976) 3 ALL ER 184 :“I regard it matter of high constitutional principle that if there is a good ground for supposing that Government Department or public authority is transgressing the law, or is about to transgress it, in a way that offends or injures thousands of her majesty’s subjects, then any one of those offended or injured can draw it to the attention of the courts of law and seek to have the law enforced, and the courts in their discretion can grant whatever remedy is appropriate.”

27. To buttress the legal position on the matter, I find useful guidance in the dicta in Republic –v – National Land Commission Ex-parte Krystalline Salt Limited (2015) eKLR where the court held:“Judicial review is available where a public body or tribunal has acted illegally, unreasonably or failed to comply with the rules of natural justice-see the already cited case of Pastoli –v- Kabale District Local Government Council and others(2008 )2 EA 300 and also the case of Civil service Union –v- Minister for Civil Service(1985)A.C. 374. ”And in the case of Republic –v- National Land Commission & Another (2016)eKLR where the court stated that:“None compliance with the Rules of Natural Justice as coded in the provisions of Article 47 (1) of the Constitution and Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act No.4 of 2015 and Section 14 of the National Land Commission Act is a fertile ground for granting judicial review orders.”

28. In our instant suit, the ex parte applicant’s grouse is with the notices issued on 7th May 2021 and 13th May 2021. In the first notice, the ministry brought to the attention of the public the implementation of the legal requirements set out in the Sectional Properties Act which had been enacted on December 11, 2020. The second notice relates to a directive issued by the 1st Respondent in consultation with the 4th Respondent in respect of implementation of the Land Registration (Electronic Transactions) Regulations 2020 vide Legal Notice No. 130 of 2020 announcing digitization of all land transactions at the Nairobi Registry. The Notice halted all manual transactions including registration of documents, conducting searches and perfection of securities.

29. The first notice is faulted on the basis of lack of reasonable notice of the implementation to the public while the 2nd notice is faulted for lack of public participation in the development and implementation of the “Ardhisasa’’ electronic system in the ministry’s operations. I will reproduce the notices here for ease of reference.In the notice dated 7th May,2021 the 1st Respondent states as follows;“The Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning hereby notifies the public that the Sectional Properties Act (No. 21 of 2020) was enacted into law on December 11, 2020. The new Act provides for the division of buildings into units to be owned by individual proprietors based on a sectional plan prepared by a surveyor.The Act requires conversion of all long-term sub-leases intended to confer ownership of apartments, flats, maisonettes, town houses, villas, go-downs or offices that do not conform to Section 54(5) of the Land Registration Act, 2012 within two (2) years of the commencement of the Act.The Sectional Properties Act, 2020 and the Land Registration Act, 2012 require that all sectional plans submitted for registration: be geo-referenced

indicate the parcel number

indicate units’ numbers

indicate approximate floor area of each unit

be signed by the proprietor

be signed and sealed by the Director of Surveys

clearly indicate the user of the unit

In this respect, the Ministry has embarked on the process of converting long-term leases registered on the basis of architectural drawings shall be converted to conform to the Sectional Properties Act, 2020 and the Land Registration Act, 2012. The process of conversion entails submission of: Sectional plan

Original title

Long term lease previously registered

Rent apportionment for the unit where applicable

Once a sectional plan is registered, the original registers shall be closed and new registers opened with respect to each of the unit described in the plan.Owners will not incur additional stamp duty upon conversion if they paid the requisite stamp duty fees when registering the long-term leases.A conversion manual to guide the process is available on the Ministry’s Website: www.lands.go.keMembers of the public are therefore notified that the Ministry shall no longer register long-term leases supported by architectural drawings with effect from 10th May 2021. Farida Karoney, EGHCabinet Secretary”In the notice dated 13th May, 2021 the 1st Respondent states as follows;“The Ministry has completed the development of the National Land Information Management System (NLIMS), ardhisasa, for the management of land records and transactional services as an anchor for efficient, secure and transparent operations in the lands sector.A number of transactions had not been completed by April 27, 2021 when the new platform was launched. For purposes of smooth transition, we have provided new timelines within which these pending transactions are to be finalised. We wish to notify all land owners with pending land transactions (within Nairobi County), which have been paid for and are awaiting survey details (Deed Plans/ RIMs), to submit the said survey details to the Director of Land Administration, Ardhi House, Nairobi, for completion within fourteen (14) days from Monday, May 17, 2021. Those who fail to meet this requirement will forfeit the fees already paid.Members of the general public are also notified that payment of Land Rent shall henceforth be made on the ardhisasa platform. To pay Land Rent: Register or log in to the ardhisasa platform (https://ardhisasa.lands.go.ke/).

Click on Land Rent under Land Administration Services.

Search for the parcel number or title number.

Invoices for the Land Rent will be displayed.Instructions on how to complete the payment will also be provided in this section.

Please, contact our customer care agents on ardhisasa in case of any challenges. Payments on e-Citizen are therefore discontinued with immediate effect and any further payments made on this platform will be ineligible for processing.Farida Karoney, EGHCabinet Secretary”

30. The complaint by the applicant is that the impugned notices were issued without adequate notice (as relates to the 1st notice) and (as relates to the 2nd notice), in gross violation of the rules of natural justice and they were made without sufficient consultations of stakeholders affected by the ripple effects of the notices. In countering this assertion, the 1st Respondent has sworn an affidavit in which she states that she correctly executed her legal mandate and further that consultations were held with stakeholders including the National Land Commission, key partners in Government and the County Governments in the development of the National Land Information Management System (NLIMS), a system dubbed ‘’ Ardhisasa’’. She adds that in line with Article 10 of the Constitution, the ministry held a series of public participation forums with various stakeholders within the land sector. She annexes evidence of the aforementioned engagements.

31. From the disclosed facts, there are no doubts that the 1st Respondent was exercising her legal mandate. She had the requisite jurisdiction. The question that seeks answers is whether she failed to give adequate notice on the implementation of the Sectional properties Act and whether she breached the rules of natural justice and without sufficient consultations with stake holders thus exposing her actions to judicial review.

32. The first notice sought to implement the Sectional properties Act which had been enacted way back on 11th December 2020. The passage of the law was in public domain. The public were deemed to know the law. The question of late notice of the implementation does not therefore arise.

33. The replying affidavit sworn on 19th January,2022 by Farida Karoney (1st Respondent) lays bare evidence of stakeholder meetings held by the Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning in regard to NLIMS on diverse dates as follows;i.22nd June,2020-Stakeholder Engagement with LSK and Kenya Bankers Association on Development and Implementation of NLIMS.ii.28th January 2021-Stakeholder Engagement on Implementation of NLIMS; Pre-launch meeting with LSK and Kenya Bankers Association.iii.29th January,2021-Meeting with Royal Media Services on Digitalization.iv.1st February,2021-Meeting with Ministry of East African Community and Regional Development on Digitalization.v.2nd February,2021-Meeting with KENYA Broadcasting Corporation.vi.8th February,2021-Meeting with Council of Governors on Implementation of NILMS.vii.16thFebruary,2021-Stakeholder Engagement on Implementation of NLIMS; Pre-launch meeting with the Environment and Land Court, Nairobi.viii.22ndFebruary,2021-Stakeholder Engagement on implementation of NLIMS; Pre-launch meeting with COG.ix.24th February,2021; Meeting with Kenya Private Sector Alliance & Kenya Property Developers Association on digitalization.x.20th May,2021-Training of Licensed Surveyors on NLIMS.

34. The evidence herein is a clear demonstration of an administrative body that went out of its way to get the views of those who would be affected by the implementation of the system. The stakeholders right to be heard envisaged in Section 4(b) of the Fair Administrative Action Act and the national value of public participation enshrined in Article 10 of the Constitution was observed. What constitutes public participation has been a subject of discussion in our courts in the advent of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. I agree with the holding of the court in Nairobi Metropolitan PSV Saccos Union Limited and 25 others vs, County of Nairobi Government and 3 Others [2013] eKLR where the court observed;“Further, it does not matter how the public participation was effected. What is needed, in my view, is that the public was accorded some reasonable level of participation and I must therefore agree with the sentiments of Sachs J in Minister of Health v New Clicks South Africa (PTY) Ltd (supra) where he expressed himself as follows;“The forms of facilitating an appropriate degree of participation in the law-making process are indeed capable of infinite variation. What matters is that at the end of the day a reasonable opportunity is offered to members of the public and all interested parties to know about the issue and to have an adequate say. What amounts to a reasonable opportunity will depend on the circumstances of each case.”

35. The issue is illuminated further in Republic vs. County Government of Kiambu Ex Parte Robert Gakuru & Another [2016] eKLR where the court held;“However, it must be appreciated that the yardstick for public participation is that a reasonable opportunity has been given to the members of the public and all interested parties to know about the issue and to have an adequate say. It cannot be expected of the legislature that a personal hearing will be given to every individual who claims to be affected by the laws or regulations that are being made. What is necessary is that the nature of concerns of different sectors of the parties should be communicated to the law maker and taken in formulating the final regulations. Accordingly, the law is that the forms of facilitating an appropriate degree of participation in the law-making process are indeed capable of infinite variation. What matters is that at the end of the day a reasonable opportunity is offered to members of the public and all interested parties to know about the issues and to have an adequate say. What amounts to a reasonable opportunity will depend on the circumstances of each case.Therefore, the mere fact that particular views have not been incorporated in the enactment does not justify the court in invalidating the enactment in question. As was appreciated by Lenaola, J in Nairobi Metropolitan PSV Saccos Union Ltd & 25 Others v County of Nairobi Government & 3 Others Petition No. 486 of 2013, public participation is not the same as saying that public views must prevail.’’

36. It is noteworthy that the ex parte applicant is a member of the Law Society of Kenya, a body which, by the evidence provided was engaged by the Ministry on two occasions. Certainly, the interests of the ex parte applicant were represented by the LSK in which he is a member and one wonders what more public participation was necessary on his part. As held in Republic vs. County Government of Kiambu Ex Parte Robert Gakuru & Another (supra), it cannot be expected of the legislature (in our case, the ministry) that a personal hearing will be given to every individual who claims to be affected by the laws or the regulations that are being made.

37. Noting that the 1st Respondent acted within her mandate and that the affected parties were accorded a hearing, it is not within the province of the court to prescribe to the ministry which system works best. The 1st Respondent correctly interpreted Regulation 90 of the general Regulations 2017 which requires maintenance of the register and documents in electronic form. A purposive interpretation of the regulation would show that the maintenance of the electronic register and documents is an advancement from the old unreliable manual register and record keeping and any interpretation that would suggest that the two systems are to operate side by side is inimical to progress and the establishment of a secure, accountable, transparent, fraud free, efficient and convenient system in land management.

38. The ex parte applicant seems to challenge the new system based on its alleged inefficiencies citing, inter alia, his failed attempts to register leases on behalf of clients, delays in registration of charges and loss of revenue on the part of the Government. If the process leading to the implementation of the system is free of illegality, unreasonableness or procedural impropriety, teething problems, in my view are not grounds upon which judicial review orders can lie.

39. The ministry is set up in law to govern and administer issues relating to land in the country. The administrators therein must retain considerable measure of discretion in crafting the system to use. The test would, of course, be the legality of the introduction of the system and should it pass legal muster, it is for the implementing unit in conjunction with the users to work together to surmount any challenges arising. Technical challenges cannot be a sound basis to quash the implementation.

40. We are in the digital age and that is the way to go. I agree with the 1st Respondent that the development of the ‘ARDHISASA’ digital platform is in the spirit of the principles laid down in Article 60(1) of the Constitution to ensure there is security of land records, accountability, transparency, elimination of fraudulent transactions, efficiency and ease of doing business in Kenya thus promoting investor confidence in the land sector.

41. In my view, and having found that the ministry followed a process that was above board, it is easy to see this application as an attempt to resist change and this mirrors this country’s past experience in the migration to digital television and the reluctance with which stakeholders took in the uptake of our very own Case Management system in the judiciary.

42. From the foregoing and for reasons stated, I find no merit in the application herein. I dismiss the same and direct that each party is to bear its own costs.

DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022. ................A.K. NDUNGUJUDGE