Adera v Okode & 5 others (Environment and Land Case 296 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 18646 (KLR) (29 December 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 18646 (KLR)
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MIGORI
ENVIRONMENT AND LAND CASE 296 OF 2017
FO NYAGAKA, J
DECEMBER 29, 2025
BETWEEN
JOHNSON OTIENO ADERA ................................................................... PLAINTIFF
AND
PAUL ODERA OKODE ......................................................................... DEFENDANT
AND
BILLY OOKO .................................................................................. 1ST RESPONDENT JEREMIAH OKODE ..................................................................... 2ND RESPONDENT JOSEPH OCHIENG OKODE ....................................................... 3RD RESPONDENT OLUOCH ODERA ........................................................................ 4TH RESPONDENT ELISA ODERA ............................................................................... 5TH RESPONDENT
RULING
(On whether the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents are in contempt of court for failure to obey the decree of the court) The application 1.
The plainti/applicant led a Notice of Motion application dated 1st October 2025 under a certicate of urgency. He seeks ORDERS THAT: a.
Billy Ooko, Jeremiah Okode, Joseph Ochieng Okode, Oluoch Odera and Elisa Odera, being sons, nephews and relatives and /or agents of Paul Odera Okode, the defendant herein, be found to be in contempt of the decree and orders of this court and for resisting and obstructing the plainti from the use and possession and ploughing of the suit land, L.R Kamagambo/
Kanyimach/787 pursuant to the decree issued on 29th July 2022 and order herein of 13th June 2023 and detained in prison for a period of ve years or such other period as this court may deem just, proper and appropriate and to be ned a sum of Kshs. 5,000,000/- or such sum as this court may deem just, proper and appropriate. b.
Cost of the application be borne by the contemnors. 2.
The application is premised on grounds set out on the application as well as the Supporting Adavit sworn by the Plainti. 3.
The Applicant deponed that, on 29th July 2022, this court delivered a judgment and decree that among others, comprised of the relief of a mandatory injunction requiring the defendant, his agents, servants or licensees to vacate the suit land within 60 days. Further, the aforesaid decree applied to the Defendant’s family members, including his sons Oluoch Odera and Elisha Odera (the 4th and 5th Respondents) whom he maintained, have deed the court order. 4.
The plainti added that, on 23rd September 2025, the 4th and the 5th Respondents violently prevented his tractor driver and handyman from ploughing the suit land. He also stated that he, together with his agents, would have been lynched and his tractor set ablaze on the material day had the police not responded swiftly. 5.
He also stated that the defendant’s adult sons had openly deed the court order of this court by continuing to stay on the suit property and had prevented his agents from ploughing the suit property. 6.
The acts that constitute contempt of court as particularized by the applicant include, among others, threatening to burn the his tractor, preventing his agent, being he tractor driver from moving the said tractor, stating that the decree and order of the court was but a mere piece of paper, threatening to prevent any activity on the suit property until the defendant is released from prison, and threatening to harm and kill the plainti as well as his friends. 7.
The Applicant maintained that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents in the company of the 4th and 5th Respondents attacked him together with his agents while armed with pangas and batons. He stated that he reported the matter to Okumba Police Station and the same was booked under Occurrence Book Number 03/29/09/2025. 8.
Further to the above, the Applicant maintained that the Respondents were working in cahoots with their father, the defendant, to defeat the implementation of the court orders relating to the suit property. He pointed out that he has never utilized the suit property 15 years since he purchased it, a situation he blames on the defendant, his agents as well as the police, who he says have been slow in eecting the eviction of the defendant from the suit property. 9.
Lastly, the plainti/applicant emphasized that the court has powers to punish for contempt of court.
He maintained that court orders must be respected. 10.
The Applicant swore a lengthy adavit whose contents need not be replicated here as it largely reiterates the contents of the application. Suce to note is the deposition by the plainti/applicant that this court has been extremely lenient with the defendant and yet goes further to state that the defendant has been detained in prison on account of contempt of court following the orders of this court issued on 18th September 2025. The Applicant further blames the court for what he terms as behaving as though it does not have the powers to punish for contempt, despite the money and eort the plainti/applicant has put into pursuing this matter.
11.
In addition, he stated that the Respondent’s relatives are aware of the orders of this court which they have deed. He annexed photographs of the alleged obstruction to the suit property as well as a copy of an Occurrence Book record detailing the alleged contemptuous acts of the respondents. 12.
He deposed further that he was never awarded damages on account of the defendant’s occupation of his property and that he is being prejudiced without any route to adequate compensation from this court. Further, that it is time this Court acted to show that it had powers to punish for contempt of court.
Response 13.
The Respondents led a Replying Adavit sworn on their behalf on 14th October 2025 by Stephen Oluoch Odera, the 4th Respondent herein. 14.
They denied the averments made by the Applicant. They instead maintained that this court delivered a judgment on 27th September 2022, in the absence of his father, the defendant herein, as well as his advocate. They also reiterated that this Court found the defendant guilty of contempt and compelled him to pay Ksh. 1,000,000/- or be imprisoned for a term of one year. Further, that it ordered that the defendant moves out of the suit property within a period of one week after paying the ne or after serving the sentence of, or being detained for the one-year period. They annexed a copy of the said order and marked it SOO-1. 15.
It was the Respondents’ further deposition that the defendant was still serving the aforesaid one-year jail term at the time of the application as he was yet to be released from prison. They insisted that the allegations fronted by the Applicant were false and malicious. To illustrate this, the respondents deponed that the 5th respondent was at work on the day the Applicant alleges to have been attacked by all of them. They annexed and marked as SOO-2 a copy of the 5th Respondent’s letter of employment conrmation as well as employees’ daily attendance list from the 5th respondent’s employer in annexure.
Further, the Respondents deponed that the 2nd Respondent’s land borders the suit land and that there are no clear demarcations between the two parcels of land. 16.
The Respondents denied attacking the Applicant and preventing him from ploughing the suit property on 23rd September 2025. Instead they stated that two police ocers who were riding a motor cycle visited their home seeking to arrest their father who was already in custody. They stated that the presence of the police ocers attracted neighbors who were keen to understand why the police were seeking arrest their father who was already incarcerated. They added that the police left together with the Applicant’s tractor driver. 17.
In addition, the Respondents deponed that they have lived on the suit property since the year 2007 and that relocating requires both money and sucient time. 18.
Notably, they invoked the Luo customs and stated that they cannot move out of the suit property since the said customs demand that their father moves out rst, after which they follow in his footsteps. 19.
In response the Applicant led a Supplementary Adavit sworn on 15th December 2025. The said Adavit, equally lengthy, deposed to numerous facts which this court notes its contents as here below. 20.
To begin with, the Applicant deponed that the 4th and 5th Respondents admitted to being aware of the judgment, decree and orders of the court mandating them to vacate the suit property. He added that despite this knowledge, the said respondents have refused to comply with the directives of the court.
21.
The Applicant emphasized that the Respondents have shown that they had no intention of complying with said orders and are instead hiding behind some unknown repugnant Luo customs to argue that they can only vacate the suit property only if their father vacates rst. 22.
The plainti pointed to the Respondents’ dishonesty by stating that the defendant owns a separate parcel of land, a fact which has never been denied by the defendant. In addition, the Applicant took issue with the work attendance sheet produced by the 4th Respondent and insisted that he was being dishonest, the same bearing a dierent signature from the one axed on the authority to plead and presented to be that of the said Respondent. The Applicant maintained that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents were present when his driver was prevented from ploughing the suit property by the Respondents. 23.
Lastly, the Applicant reiterated that the Respondents were violent people, that they had openly deed this court’s order repeatedly and they ought to be punished for the said contempt.
Parties’ submissions 24.
The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The Applicant led his dated 16th December 2025. He submitted that the defendant and the respondents have settled on his property for over 13 years and the respondents herein, despite having admitted to defying the orders of the court mandating them t vacate the suit property have not intention of obeying the said orders. He argued that the respondents are adults who acknowledged being aware of the said order but are hiding behind an unknown repugnant Luo custom to justify their deance of this court’s orders. 25.
He relied on the Court of Appeal decisions in Shimmers Plaza Limited v National Bank of Kenya Limited as well as Mutikika V Baharini Farm Limited to emphasize the need to obey court orders by all parties. 26.
Furthermore, he submitted that no sucient reason was rendered to account for the respondent’s presence on the suit property. 27.
He added that the Respondents’ resolve to continue defying this courts order was illustrated by the fact that the respondents told the court that they can only leave the suit land after their father, who is in prison leaves the said land. The plainti relied on Article 2 (4) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 as well as section 3(4) of the Judicature Act to argue that culture (and customs) should not be repugnant to justice. 28.
Concerning the explanation as to why the Respondents had not obeyed the court order, the Applicant argued that this court had rightly found that the defendant had sought four (4) months to vacate the suit property and the same issue should not be brought up in the instant application, the court having rendered itself in that aspect. 29.
Equally important, the Applicant argued that the judgment of the court rendered on 29th July 2022 applied not only to the defendant, but also to his agents, servants, tenants and licensees alike. In the circumstances he submitted that the respondents are bound by the decree of the court emanating from the aforesaid judgment as well as the orders therefrom. 30.
He also submitted that the order of the court giving rise to the instant application was unambiguous and pointed out that in deed, this court arrived at a similar nding in its ruling dated 18th September 2025.
31.
In conclusion, the Applicant submitted that court orders must be obeyed by all, and argued that the respondents, having engaged in repeated and continuous acts of contempt, should receive a heavier punishment than the one received by the defendant. He called upon the court to be guided by section 29 of the Environment and Land Court act in this aspect. 32.
The Respondents led their submissions dated 26th December 2025. The submissions were a regurgitation of the contents of their Replying Adavit sworn on 14th October 2025. In a nutshell, their arguments put for the narrative of their denial of having been prevented the plainti/applicant from ploughing the suit land. They also denied having been violent towards the Applicant. They argued that they cannot vacate the suit property unless and until their father, who is currently serving a prison sentence rst vacates the said property. This argument is, according to them, backed by the Luo tradition that the Respondents maintain, does not allow them the leave the compound before their father does.
Issues, Analysis and Determination 33.
The court has carefully analyzed the application, the response thereto as well as the law. The issues that arise for determination herein are whether the application is merited hence the Respondents are in contempt of court, and ultimately, who should bear the costs of the application. 34.
The law on contempt of court is provided in statute and elaborated in various precedents. To begin with it is worth noting that this court is empowered, under the statute that establishes it, the Environment and Land Court Act, to punish for contempt of court. Section 29 thereof provides that:
Any person who refuses, fails or neglects to obey an order or direction of the Court given under this Act, commits an oence, and shall, on conviction, be liable to a ne not exceeding twenty million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both. 35.
Section 38 of the Civil Procedure Act which speaks to the actions of alleged disobedience equally empowers court to enforce the execution of decrees and orders. It is enacted as follows: “Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the Court may, on application of decree holder, order execution of the decree– (f) in such other manner as the nature of relief granted may require." 36.
Having so established, this court now turns to the issues for determination. First, as to whether the 1st respondent should be held in contempt of court, it is necessary to set out the test that should guide this court in answering this question. 37.
In Samuel M. N. Mweru & others v The National Land Commission & 2 others, Nairobi (HC) Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 443 of 2017, the High Court determined as follows: ‘‘40.
It is an established principle of law that in order to succeed in civil contempt proceedings, the applicant has to prove (i) the terms of the order, (ii) Knowledge of these terms by the Respondent, (iii).
Failure by the Respondent to comply with the terms of the order.
Upon proof of these requirements the presence of willfulness and bad faith on the part of the Respondent would normally
be inferred, but the Respondent could rebut this inference by contrary proof on a balance of probabilities. 46.
Perhaps the most comprehensive of the elements of civil contempt was stated by the learned authors of the book Contempt in Modern New Zealand 47. who succinctly stated: "There are essentially four elements that must be proved to make the case for civil contempt. The applicant must prove to the required standard (in civil contempt cases which is higher than civil cases) that: (a) the terms of the order (or injunction or undertaking) were clear and unambiguous and were binding on the defendant; (b) the defendant had knowledge of or proper notice of the terms of the order; (c) the defendant has acted in breach of the terms of the order; and (d) the defendant's conduct was deliberate’’. 38.
The applicant must prove all the above requirements to the requisite standard, that is a standard higher than the balance of probabilities threshold applied in civil proceedings but below the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard adopted in criminal cases. This position has been armed by the supreme Court in Republic v Ahmad Abolfathi Mohammed & another SC Criminal Application No. 2 of 2018 [2018] eKLR as well as in Stephen Maina Githiga & 5 others v Kiru Tea Factory Company Limited, Supreme Court Petition no. 12 of 2019. 39.
As to the terms of the Order of the court or decree were clear, unambiguous and binding upon the respondents herein, this court answers the question in the armative. This is because as rightly submitted by the plainti/applicant, this court on delivered a judgment and issued a decree dated 29th July 2022. The nal orders of the court were couched in the following terms: a.
An order of mandatory injunction be and is hereby issued, compelling the defendant by himself, his agents, servants, tenants and/or licensees to forthwith vacate the plainti’s parcel of land and hand over vacant possession thereof to the plainti within 60 days from the date of this judgment’’ 40.
The terms of the order of the court are very clear and unambiguous. The Respondents did not allege that the same were ambiguous and unclear. Indeed, they were not. This court therefore nds that the decree of the court was clear and unambiguous. 41.
Further to the above, the court must analyze whether the aforestated order applied to the respondents.
The respondents have acknowledged in their Replying Adavit that they are relatives of the defendant, who already is found to be in contempt of court. The order directed the defendant by himself, his agents, servants, tenants, and /or licensees to vacate the suit property in terms provided by the order.
The Respondents, being relatives of the defendant and the 4th and 5th being sons who were on the property by virtue of their relation to the Defendant, were not exempted from obedience of the decree/ order in so far as they claimed their presence on the suit land through him. They cannot be heard to argue that the order applied to their father or relative to their exclusion, whether they are sons or daughters. 42.
This court need not belabor the imsy excuse proered that there exists a tradition that does not allow the Respondents to vacate the suit premises before their father. This act of obedience required of them
is a court order in which the Court has pronounced itself with nality. Luo traditions or indeed any other customary law cannot override the law and actions that the Court has pronounced itself on. For the avoidance of doubt, Article 2 (4) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 is renders any customary law and or practice that goes contrary to the tenets of justice, null and void. Equally, no litigant has the luxury of choosing whether or not to obey court orders; the same must be obeyed irrespective of the prevailing circumstances. If any party experiences hardships, they are at liberty to seek the guidance of the court but they must obey its orders rst. 43.
In Shimmers Plaza Limited v National Bank of Kenya Limited, Civil Appeal 33 of 2012) [2015] KECA 945 (KLR) (Civ), the court of appeal emphasized that “[T]he duty to obey the law by all individuals and institutions is paramount in the maintenance of the rule of law, good order and the due administration of justice." This the Respondents cannot wriggle themselves out of. 44.
Further, the court in the Shimmers Plaza Limited case (supra) proceed to state as follows: “We reiterate here that court orders must be obeyed. Parties against whom such orders are made cannot be allowed to trash them with impunity. Obedience of Court orders is not optional, rather, it is mandatory and a person does not choose whether to obey a court order or not...The courts should not fold their hands in helplessness and watch as their orders are disobeyed with impunity left, right and centre. This would amount to abdication of our sacrosanct duty bestowed on us by the Constitution. The dignity, and authority of the Court must be protected, and that is why those who fragrantly disobey them must be punished, lest they lead us all to a state of anarchy. We think we have said enough to send this important message across." 45.
Given the foregoing, this court nds that the court order issued by this court on 29th July 2022 was binding upon the Respondents, they being agents of the defendant or claiming through him to whom the order was directed. 46.
As to whether the respondents were aware of the order of the court that has necessitated the instant application, this court notes that the said respondents have not denied knowledge of the said order. In any event, they have only stated that the court rendered a judgment in the absence of their father, the defendant herein, as well as his advocate. They are also aware that their father is serving a jail term on account of the order which they are being accused of defying. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents were ignorant of the order of the court which they are alleged to have deed. 47.
As to whether the actions of the Respondents were in breach of the order, this court now looks at the alleged actions of each of the Respondents. First, this nds that the sons of the judgment debtor have admitted, through the Replying Adavit of the 4th Respondent which he is purportedly authorized to swear by the 5th too, that they are still occupying the suit property. Further, they have demonstrated their deance by stating that they will not vacate the suit property unless and until their father, who is incarnated at the moment vacates the said property. The Court would have found both of them jointly in breach of the decree and punished them accordingly were it not for the explanation below as to why only the 4th is liable. 48.
The actions complained of were those that allegedly took place on 23rd September 2025 when the applicant went to plough the suit land and was, as claimed by him, repulsed and endangered. He then reported the same to the Okumba Police Station. He alleged that on the said date, both sons of the Defendant and the three other respondents jointly with others not before the court in the said application chased the tractor driver and his agents from the suit land.
49.
The application was drawn as to raise a complaint on actions of a specic date. Thus, the court can only focus on allegations of contempt on that date and nd out if the Respondents’ actions were, indeed, contemptuous of the court’s decree. 50.
Regarding the 5th Respondent, the applicant alleged that he was present on the material date while the 4th Respondent swore that he was not. The 4th Respondent annexed copies of the attendance record of the employer of the 5ht Respondent to demonstrate that the 5th Respondent was art work on the date and not at home hence e would not have been in breach of the orders of the court hence not in contempt. He also annexed a letter of employment of the 5th Respondent to show that the attendance sheet was complementary to it. Granted that the 5th Respondent was not at the site of the alleged actions of contempt, he would not be in contempt of court. But his continued occupation of the suit land through his father and or by the claim that he would be on the land by virtue of the father having not vacated is in itself contempt of the orders of the court as given in the decree. 51.
Whether the actions of breach on the part of the Respondents is deliberate, this court nds that the two respondents, by their claim that they cannot move out of the suit land unless and until their father moves out of it shows that they know what they are supposed to do but they are unwilling to so act.
They have thus, and if they continue to so act, deliberately disobeyed the order of the court dated 29th July 2022 and would be liable for punishment if an appropriate application and prayer is brought. For now, it is clear that they have boldly told the court that they will not vacate the suit property until certain conditions that they have set by themselves are met. Clearly, this conduct in not only deliberate but calculated to deny the Applicant the fruits of his judgment, and demean the court in its dignity and authority. This court need not go into the excuses proered by the respondents to justify their disobedience of this court’s order to vacate the suit property. They have only escaped punishment this time, in the instant application, for the reason that the application was not directed at the disobedience generally but actions of the 23rd September 2025 date. Furthermore, the fact that the Respondents except one have escaped liability for contempt of court this time does not give them the leeway to act as they please on and in regard to the suit land and therefore interfere with the Applicant’s quiet possession and use of the land as ordered by the court. They can only blame themselves into the future if they do and an application for punishment for contempt of court is brought and they are found guilty. This Court will revisit the record and conrm a few facts thereto. 52.
One curious issue this court points out is that the authority to plead was not signed by the Respondents. 53.
All the Respondents except the 4th Respondent purported to give written authority to the 4th Respondent to plead on their behalf. They signed the said Authority by purportedly axing the initials of their names to the document as their signatures. It was submitted and even deposed by the applicant that the document may have been not genuine. 54.
This court took the liberty under Section 50 of the Evidence Act to analyze the purported signatures. It noted that the initials appended on the Written Authority to Plead given to the 4th Respondent were written by the same handwriting hence must have been written by one person and not each of the Respondents. It was signed by way of initials and they were written by one hand using the same ink.
This was Authority written by one person and intentionally intended to mislead the court that the parties signed the Authority. I must caution the parties and anyone who deliberately intends to mislead the court. It is an act the Court takes great exception to. 55.
For example, letter “O” which appears to each of the initials is similar in every respect. Moreover, the 5th Respondent to have been on duty on various dated and the material date. He annexed to the Replying
Adavit an attendance sheet which bore signatures alleged to have been made by him when he was on duty. The signatures dier materially with the signature he purportedly appended to the Authority.
How come he signs dierently on two dierent instances? This court reminds the parties that they would be punished for misleading it if it ever is found to be so. 56.
This court must also address the issue of conicting evidence produced by the parties concerning whether or not the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents were actually present when the Applicant was denied access to the suit property and his life and property allegedly threatened. The Applicant stated that the Respondents’ acts as complained of and which he reported and were captured under the Occurrence Book (OB) number in the Police Station were contemptuous. The said Respondents alleged otherwise. 57.
It is worth noting that the exact contents of the OB Number were not given. Its result was not given either. Also, there is no explanation as to the dierence in the dates of the incident and when it was captured as per the said OB number which was about ve days later. Moreover, an Occurrence Report on an incident is not proof of occurrence of the alleged incident but a call for the police to investigate the said alleged incident and nd it indeed it is true or not. This court would be acting on unsubstantiated and unconrmed facts to convict the three Respondents (1st, 2nd, and 3rd). There ought to have been a police report of the ndings that indeed the parties where present, whether charged or not as at the time. Only on that account have the three respondents not been found guilty of the alleged contempt. If they ever think ‘the future is bright’ and repeat the actions complained of and it is proven, they will have themselves to blame at that time. 58.
Thus, granted that the burden of proof in contempt of court allegations is higher than the balance of probabilities standard in civil matters, this court nds that 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th Respondents may not have not been on the suit priority on the material date. In the circumstances, the court nds that the 4th Respondent is the one who was in contempt of the alleged actions of the 23rd September 2025. 59.
All of the respondents have not denied living in the suit property, but to the extent that they would interfere with the actions of the applicant on the parcel of land would also constitute acts of contempt of court. 60.
As parting shots, rst, the applicant seemed to lodge a complaint that for reason of not having been awarded general damages for him not using the suit land but the judgment debtor, the court should act rmly as it gave a relief that indirectly was in favour of the said party. This Court hereby states that on that issue of damages for the defendant’s occupation the suit property, it is functus ocio. It cannot reopen the relief as a basis for sti punishment. If the applicant was aggrieved by the judgment of the court over the issue he should have appealed on it. 61.
Again, second, the court notes that the applicant has in one way or other been insinuating that the Court been treating the judgment debtor leniently or leaning towards his case. He stated so in this and the previous application wherein the court found the defendant in contempt of court and jailed him.
Nothing can be far from the truth. This court being one of justice weighs the law and facts of each case independently and impartially and makes decisions based on those two as pleadings present themselves and the evidence itself. The party should desist from inferring farfetched positions which the court has not held: otherwise how could this court have found the judgment debtor guilty of contempt in the previous application? 62.
Also, third, the court noted that the Applicant seeks costs relating to the costs of facilitating police.
This does not constitute costs of the suit as prayed in his application, unless they are proven to be costs lawfully incidental to the execution of the decree herein. Needless to say that the issue of police
costs was introduced at the submission stage and not by way of pleadings. Parties are bound by their pleadings always and should live by that. 63.
This court nds that the only the structure which the Judgment debtor is to remove from the suit land once he leaves prison as was ordered in the previous ruling is the only thing that would remain on the land until then. The 4th and 5th Respondents and the rest of those who claim through the judgment debtor have no business interfering with the applicant’s use and occupation of the suit land to their complete exclusion. 64.
The applicant is free to go back to the suit land immediately and use it, without the interference of any of the Respondents or persons claiming through the judgment debtor. All he needs to do as a rst step, and only once, is to inform the area chief or assistant chief that he is accessing his land, for the knowledge and information that he is now taking possession. Any one of the Respondents or the claimants through the judgment debtor who will hinder the process should not blame the court for the punishment it will mete upon conviction of contempt of court. The judgment debtor and any of the Respondents should not hinder the applicant from using his parcel of land all round the structure that is to remain on the land until its removal. 65.
Lastly, the application succeeds as against the 4th Respondent. Costs to the applicant. This court nds the 4th Respondent guilty of contempt of court and convicts him accordingly. This matter shall be mentioned on 14th January 2026 when the 4th Respondent shall attend Court in person for sentencing. 66.
Orders accordingly.
RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY VIA THE TEAMS PLATFORM
THIS 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025.
HON. DR. IUR NYAGAKA
JUDGE
In the presence, Mr. Kenyatta Advocate for the Applicant Ms. Agade holding brief for Ms. Ooro for the 1st to 5th Respondents.