REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITUI
CIVIL APPEAL NOE011 OF 2025
COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF KITUI…………..………1ST APPELLANT
HON.CHARITY NGILU………………………..………….2ND APPELLANT
VERSUS
DAVID KARIUKI WAWERU……..………………………RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This is the ruling in the notice of motion dated 19.02.2025 where the applicants were seeking orders that pending the hearing and determination of the appeal herein. The court grant them an order of stay of execution of the Judgement and Decree in the Chief Magistrates’ Court Kitui Civil Case number 363/2018.
2. It is based on the grounds on the case of the application which are as follows:
(1) By a Judgement dated 23rd January 2025, Hon. David Mburu (CM) awarded the respondent Kshs. 12,400,331.15/= in general damages, Kshs. 7,544,000/= in special damages along with costs of the cause in Magistrates Court Civil Case No. 363 of 2018 totaling to Kshs. 25,602,331.15.
(2) Upon the lapse of the 30 days’ stay of execution granted by the magistrate’s court on 23rd January 2025, the respondent shall move to seek implementation/execution of the extracted decree issued on 28th January 2025, whose monetary value stands at Kshs. 25,602,331.15 exclusive of costs;
(3) The appellants are highly aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and to that effect have lodged an appeal with triable issues, those successful prosecution would entirely reverse the Judgment sum and other reliefs presently at the respondent’s disposal;
(4) The appellants are apprehensive that the intended appeal will be rendered academic/nugatory and of no consequence with the respondent having pleaded loss of business before the trial court and therefore incapable of refunding the colossal sum of Kshs. 25,602,331.15 were its appeal to succeed.
(5) The 1st appellant is the custodian of public funds whose prudent stewardship it seeks to protect amid a dicey fiscal environment where county governments have not been receiving funds in time or at all for critical operational needs;
(6) The appellants thus stands to sufferer utter prejudice if it were to settle the Judgment sum in the pendency of its appeal with no hope of reimbursement;
(7) Reasons whereof this application is urgent and ought to be heard on a priority basis.
3. The application is supported by the affidavit of Agnes Mulewa.
The respondent opposed the application and prayed that it be dismissed with costs. The appeal was conversed by way of written submissions.
Appellants submissions.
4. The appellant submits Judgement in the suit before the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Kitui was entered in favour of the respondent for a cumulative sum of Kshs 25,602,331.15. The appellant was aggrieved by the said Judgment and filed this appeal. That pending before this court the Notice of Motion dated 19/02/2025 supported by the affidavit of Agnes Mulewa on even date.
5. The appellant submits that the main prayer in the application is stay of execution of the said decree dated 28/01/2025 arising from the said Judgement. The applicant submits that if stay of execution is not ordered, the appeal will be rendered migratory. That the appellant is a man of straw having pleaded loss of business before the trial court and therefore incapable of refunding the judgment sum in the event that the appeal succeeds. The appellant further submits that they were not liable to provide security and relies on Order 42 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
6. The appellant submits that the issue which arises for determination is whether and on what conclusion stay of execution pending appeal should be ordered. The appellant submits that it is trite law that an appellant seeking stay of execution pending appeal must satisfy the conditions under Order 42 rule 6 Civil Procedure Rules which are:
(a) Substantial loss
(b) The application should be filed timeously.
(c) The applicant has provided security.
The applicant submits that the application was filed timeously a month after the judgement in the lower court was delivered.
7. On the issue of security, he relies on Century Oil Trading Company Limited vs Kenya Shell Limited Nairobi which was quoted in Matata & Another -vs- Rono of Another – (No citation given) where the court held that
“Where execution of money decree in sought to be stayed in considering whether the applicant will suffer substantial loss. The financial position of the applicant and that of respondent becomes an issue. The court cannot shut its eyes where it appears the possibility is doubtful of the respondent refunding the decretal sum in the event that the applicant is successful in the appeal.”
8. The applicant submits that the issue of substantial loss is tied to the respondent’s capability to refund the decretal sum. He submits that the appellant would not be in a position to refund Ksh 25,602,33.15. That the respondent has not been demonstrate that he will be able to refund the decretal sum.
9. On the issue of security, the appellant relies on Order 42 rule 8 Civil Procedure Rules which exempts the government from the requirement to provide security in an application for stay of execution pending appeal. That the appellant is the County Government of Kitui while the 2nd appellant was sued as the Governor of Kitui County and as such no security can be required from her. He relies on Mombasa County Government -vs- Pauline Wanjiku Kageli (2017) eKLR where the judge stated that she could not order the applicant to deposit security as that would amount to issuance of unlawful order. The appellant submits that would amount to issuance of unlawful order. The appellant submits that they have met the threshold for the grant of stay of execution pending appeal.
10. In their further submissions the appellant urged the court to consider that they have an appeal on record. Whether the appellants have demonstrated substantial loss and whether they should furnish security. The appellant submits that they filed a Memorandum of Appeal in this court as required under Order 42 rule 6 Civil Procedure Rules. That the appeal has triable issues. The appellant emphasis that the respondent is not able to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeds and has therefore demonstrated that they may suffer substantial loss.
Respondents submissions
11. The respondent concurs with the appellant on the issues for determination. On the issue of existence of appeal, it in submitted that it is not clear whether there is an appeal or an intended appeal. That if there is no appeal it is to the application. As to whether substantial loss is demonstrated it is submitted that the applicant had the burden to demonstrate that substantial loss may result. He relies on Kenya Shell Limited -vs- Kibiru & Another (1986) KLR 410 Where plaintiff J.A stated that it is the applicant who is supposed to meet the requirements under Order XL1 rule 4 (order 41 rule 4). If there is no evidence of substantial loss, then stay should not be granted. The respondent submits that he is a business man and has since recovered from the loss and owns including motor vehicles.
12. The respondent relies on Machira t/a Machira & Co. Advocates -vs- East African Standard No. 2 (2002) 2 KLR 63 Where it was stated that it is not merely enough to state that substantial loss will result on that the appeal if successful, will be rendered nugatory. He further relies on Butt -vs- Rent Restriction Tribunal (1982) KLR where the court of Appeal held that:
“The power of the court to grant or refuse a stay is discretionary one... the discretion must exercise in such a manner as to prevent an appeal…. The general principle is that a successful litigant should not be denied the fruits of their judgement.”
13. On Order 42 rules Civil Procedure Rules, it is submitted that the court retains discretion to order security be deposited. On whether the appeal was filed timeously, it is submitted that this applicant has demonstrated as appeal was filed within 30 days. The respondent submits that Order 41 rule 6 which requires the appellants to provide security to guarantee due performance of the decree. The respondent submits that the court must assess the circumstances of each case.
Analysis and determination:
14. The issues that arise for determination are:
(1) Whether the applicant has demonstrated that he is likely to suffer substantial loss.
(2) Secondly whether the court has discretion to order the appellant to provide security.
15. I have considered all the submissions. Stay of execution is provided under Order 42 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules which provides as follows:
“No appeal or second appeal shall operate as a stay of execution or proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except in so far as the court appealed from may order but, the court appealed from may for sufficient cause order stay of execution of such decree or order, and whether the application for such stay shall have been granted or refused by the court appealed from, the court to which such appeal is preferred shall be at liberty, on application being made, to consider such application and to make such order thereon as may to it seem just, and any person aggrieved by an order of stay made by the court from whose decision the appeal is preferred may apply to the appellate court to have such order set aside.”
16. An applicant seeking orders for stay of execution must demonstrate that he is likely to suffer substantial loss of stay is not ordered and the appeal succeeds the applicant should also be ready to provide such security as the court may order. Finally, that the appeal has been filed without unreasonable day. The appellant filed a Memorandum of Appeal dated 19/2/2025. The appellant avers that they filed an appeal and avers that it has triable issues. The appellant has proved that they have filed an appeal.
17. High court has power to order a stay of execution of any order or decree appealed from the subordinate court under Order 42 rule 4 of 5 Civil Procedure Rules upon such terms as it deems fit. The applicant has to demonstrate that he is likely to suffer substantial loss. I proceed to consider this issue.
Substantial loss
18. The court exercises discretion to grant or refuse an order of stay execution. In the exercise of the discretion the court in supposed to consider the circumstances of each case. It has been held that as a general rule the court to exercise its discretion in a way so as not to prevent the appeal, it successful from being rendered nugatory. In Wilson-V- Church (No. 2) 12 Ch. D. (1879) 454 @ page 459 quoted in Buff -vs- Rent Restriction Tribunal (1979) KECA 22 (KLR) Cotton LJ stated:
“I will state my opinion that when a party in appealing, exercising his undoubted right of appeal, this court ought to see that the appeal is not rendered nugatory.”
19. In this case the one particular circumstance is that the decretal sum is for a substantial amount of money and the applicant has undoubtful right of appeal. The applicant is likely to suffer substantial loss if stay of execution is not ordered and the appeal succeeds. Stay of execution is ordered to prevent the appeal if successful from being rendered nugatory. Substantial loss is what an order of execution seeks to prevent.
20. The argument by the applicant does not have the means to refund the decretal sum if stay is not ordered and the appeal succeeds. The Court of Appeal in the case of Kenya Hotel Properties Limited -vs- Willesden Properties Limited Nairobi Civil Appeal NO. 322/2006 UR Held that:
“The decree is a money decree and normally the courts have felt that the success of the appeal would not be rendered nugatory if the decree is a money decree so long as the court ascertains that the respondent is not a man of straw but is a person who on success of the appeal would be able to pay the decretal amount plus any interest to the applicant. However, with time it became necessary to put certain riders to that legal position as it became obvious that in certain cases, undue hardship would be caused to the applicants if stay is refused purely on the ground that the decree is a money decree.”
21. In this case the applicant has stated that respondent would not be able pay the decretal sum if the appeal succeeds. The respondent has submitted that he is able to repay as he is a businessman. There is no doubt that the decretal sum is quite substantial. The applicants submit that the respondent lost everything according to what he stated in his pleadings. The respondent has not demonstrated that he has recovered from the loss within the short period to be in a position to pay. It is my view that the respondent has not rebuffed the contention by the applicant that he will not be able to pay. The applicant has demonstrated that he is likely to suffer substantial loss. It is my view that I should exercise discretion in favour of the applicant to ensure that the appeal is not rendered nugatory.
Security
22. Under Order 42 rule (6) 2(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules, one of the conditions precedent in granting stay of execution in that the applicant provides security for the performance of the decree as maybe ordered by the court. However, under Order 42 rule 8, the Government is exempted from depositing security. Order 42 rule 8 Civil Procedure Rules provides:
“No such security as is mentioned in rules 6 and 7 shall be required from the Government or where the Government has undertaken the defence of the suit or from any public officer sued in respect of an act alleged to be done by him in his official capacity.”
23. In County Government of Muranga -vs- Nyambura (Civil Appeal No. E026 of 2025) (2026) K.E.H.C 3357 (KLR) 12-3-2026 Ruling. The court held inter alia that a County Government fits the definition of government as envisioned under Order 42 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules and is exempted from the requirement of furnishing security under Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant in the County Government of Kitui which like the National Government is a creation of the Constitution through which like National Government is a creation of the Constitution through which like National Government sovereign power of the people is exercised. Article 176 (1) of the Constitution establishes the County Government. Under Article 1 of the Constitution the sovereign power of the people of Kenya delegated to sovereign state organs which includes Parliament and the Legislative Assemblies in the County Governments.
24. The Constitution establishes two levels of government under Article 1(4). A County Government fits in the exemption under Order 42 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules and is therefore exempted from depositing security which is required under Order 42 rule 6(2) Civil Procedure Rules as stated in the case of County Government of Muranga -vs- Nyambura, (supra). this was held in the case of County Government of Mombasa -vs- Pauline Wanjiku Kagemi (supra).
25. I find that the applicant is exempted from the requirement of providing security as a condition for stay of execution. No order can be issued to deposit security against the applicant. For this reason, I find that the application has merits and is allowed. There shall be stay of execution pending hearing and determination of the Appeal. The costs shall abide the outcome of the Appeal.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kitui this 31st day of March 2026
HON. LADY JUSTICE L. GITARI
JUDGE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITUI
CIVIL APPEAL NOE011 OF 2025
COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF KITUI…………..………1ST APPELLANT
HON.CHARITY NGILU………………………..………….2ND APPELLANT
VERSUS
DAVID KARIUKI WAWERU……..………………………RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This is the ruling in the notice of motion dated 19.02.2025 where the applicants were seeking orders that pending the hearing and determination of the appeal herein. The court grant them an order of stay of execution of the Judgement and Decree in the Chief Magistrates’ Court Kitui Civil Case number 363/2018.
2. It is based on the grounds on the case of the application which are as follows:
(1) By a Judgement dated 23rd January 2025, Hon. David Mburu (CM) awarded the respondent Kshs. 12,400,331.15/= in general damages, Kshs. 7,544,000/= in special damages along with costs of the cause in Magistrates Court Civil Case No. 363 of 2018 totaling to Kshs. 25,602,331.15.
(2) Upon the lapse of the 30 days’ stay of execution granted by the magistrate’s court on 23rd January 2025, the respondent shall move to seek implementation/execution of the extracted decree issued on 28th January 2025, whose monetary value stands at Kshs. 25,602,331.15 exclusive of costs;
(3) The appellants are highly aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and to that effect have lodged an appeal with triable issues, those successful prosecution would entirely reverse the Judgment sum and other reliefs presently at the respondent’s disposal;
(4) The appellants are apprehensive that the intended appeal will be rendered academic/nugatory and of no consequence with the respondent having pleaded loss of business before the trial court and therefore incapable of refunding the colossal sum of Kshs. 25,602,331.15 were its appeal to succeed.
(5) The 1st appellant is the custodian of public funds whose prudent stewardship it seeks to protect amid a dicey fiscal environment where county governments have not been receiving funds in time or at all for critical operational needs;
(6) The appellants thus stands to sufferer utter prejudice if it were to settle the Judgment sum in the pendency of its appeal with no hope of reimbursement;
(7) Reasons whereof this application is urgent and ought to be heard on a priority basis.
3. The application is supported by the affidavit of Agnes Mulewa.
The respondent opposed the application and prayed that it be dismissed with costs. The appeal was conversed by way of written submissions.
Appellants submissions.
4. The appellant submits Judgement in the suit before the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Kitui was entered in favour of the respondent for a cumulative sum of Kshs 25,602,331.15. The appellant was aggrieved by the said Judgment and filed this appeal. That pending before this court the Notice of Motion dated 19/02/2025 supported by the affidavit of Agnes Mulewa on even date.
5. The appellant submits that the main prayer in the application is stay of execution of the said decree dated 28/01/2025 arising from the said Judgement. The applicant submits that if stay of execution is not ordered, the appeal will be rendered migratory. That the appellant is a man of straw having pleaded loss of business before the trial court and therefore incapable of refunding the judgment sum in the event that the appeal succeeds. The appellant further submits that they were not liable to provide security and relies on Order 42 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
6. The appellant submits that the issue which arises for determination is whether and on what conclusion stay of execution pending appeal should be ordered. The appellant submits that it is trite law that an appellant seeking stay of execution pending appeal must satisfy the conditions under Order 42 rule 6 Civil Procedure Rules which are:
(a) Substantial loss
(b) The application should be filed timeously.
(c) The applicant has provided security.
The applicant submits that the application was filed timeously a month after the judgement in the lower court was delivered.
7. On the issue of security, he relies on Century Oil Trading Company Limited vs Kenya Shell Limited Nairobi which was quoted in Matata & Another -vs- Rono of Another – (No citation given) where the court held that
“Where execution of money decree in sought to be stayed in considering whether the applicant will suffer substantial loss. The financial position of the applicant and that of respondent becomes an issue. The court cannot shut its eyes where it appears the possibility is doubtful of the respondent refunding the decretal sum in the event that the applicant is successful in the appeal.”
8. The applicant submits that the issue of substantial loss is tied to the respondent’s capability to refund the decretal sum. He submits that the appellant would not be in a position to refund Ksh 25,602,33.15. That the respondent has not been demonstrate that he will be able to refund the decretal sum.
9. On the issue of security, the appellant relies on Order 42 rule 8 Civil Procedure Rules which exempts the government from the requirement to provide security in an application for stay of execution pending appeal. That the appellant is the County Government of Kitui while the 2nd appellant was sued as the Governor of Kitui County and as such no security can be required from her. He relies on Mombasa County Government -vs- Pauline Wanjiku Kageli (2017) eKLR where the judge stated that she could not order the applicant to deposit security as that would amount to issuance of unlawful order. The appellant submits that would amount to issuance of unlawful order. The appellant submits that they have met the threshold for the grant of stay of execution pending appeal.
10. In their further submissions the appellant urged the court to consider that they have an appeal on record. Whether the appellants have demonstrated substantial loss and whether they should furnish security. The appellant submits that they filed a Memorandum of Appeal in this court as required under Order 42 rule 6 Civil Procedure Rules. That the appeal has triable issues. The appellant emphasis that the respondent is not able to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeds and has therefore demonstrated that they may suffer substantial loss.
Respondents submissions
11. The respondent concurs with the appellant on the issues for determination. On the issue of existence of appeal, it in submitted that it is not clear whether there is an appeal or an intended appeal. That if there is no appeal it is to the application. As to whether substantial loss is demonstrated it is submitted that the applicant had the burden to demonstrate that substantial loss may result. He relies on Kenya Shell Limited -vs- Kibiru & Another (1986) KLR 410 Where plaintiff J.A stated that it is the applicant who is supposed to meet the requirements under Order XL1 rule 4 (order 41 rule 4). If there is no evidence of substantial loss, then stay should not be granted. The respondent submits that he is a business man and has since recovered from the loss and owns including motor vehicles.
12. The respondent relies on Machira t/a Machira & Co. Advocates -vs- East African Standard No. 2 (2002) 2 KLR 63 Where it was stated that it is not merely enough to state that substantial loss will result on that the appeal if successful, will be rendered nugatory. He further relies on Butt -vs- Rent Restriction Tribunal (1982) KLR where the court of Appeal held that:
“The power of the court to grant or refuse a stay is discretionary one... the discretion must exercise in such a manner as to prevent an appeal…. The general principle is that a successful litigant should not be denied the fruits of their judgement.”
13. On Order 42 rules Civil Procedure Rules, it is submitted that the court retains discretion to order security be deposited. On whether the appeal was filed timeously, it is submitted that this applicant has demonstrated as appeal was filed within 30 days. The respondent submits that Order 41 rule 6 which requires the appellants to provide security to guarantee due performance of the decree. The respondent submits that the court must assess the circumstances of each case.
Analysis and determination:
14. The issues that arise for determination are:
(1) Whether the applicant has demonstrated that he is likely to suffer substantial loss.
(2) Secondly whether the court has discretion to order the appellant to provide security.
15. I have considered all the submissions. Stay of execution is provided under Order 42 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules which provides as follows:
“No appeal or second appeal shall operate as a stay of execution or proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except in so far as the court appealed from may order but, the court appealed from may for sufficient cause order stay of execution of such decree or order, and whether the application for such stay shall have been granted or refused by the court appealed from, the court to which such appeal is preferred shall be at liberty, on application being made, to consider such application and to make such order thereon as may to it seem just, and any person aggrieved by an order of stay made by the court from whose decision the appeal is preferred may apply to the appellate court to have such order set aside.”
16. An applicant seeking orders for stay of execution must demonstrate that he is likely to suffer substantial loss of stay is not ordered and the appeal succeeds the applicant should also be ready to provide such security as the court may order. Finally, that the appeal has been filed without unreasonable day. The appellant filed a Memorandum of Appeal dated 19/2/2025. The appellant avers that they filed an appeal and avers that it has triable issues. The appellant has proved that they have filed an appeal.
17. High court has power to order a stay of execution of any order or decree appealed from the subordinate court under Order 42 rule 4 of 5 Civil Procedure Rules upon such terms as it deems fit. The applicant has to demonstrate that he is likely to suffer substantial loss. I proceed to consider this issue.
Substantial loss
18. The court exercises discretion to grant or refuse an order of stay execution. In the exercise of the discretion the court in supposed to consider the circumstances of each case. It has been held that as a general rule the court to exercise its discretion in a way so as not to prevent the appeal, it successful from being rendered nugatory. In Wilson-V- Church (No. 2) 12 Ch. D. (1879) 454 @ page 459 quoted in Buff -vs- Rent Restriction Tribunal (1979) KECA 22 (KLR) Cotton LJ stated:
“I will state my opinion that when a party in appealing, exercising his undoubted right of appeal, this court ought to see that the appeal is not rendered nugatory.”
19. In this case the one particular circumstance is that the decretal sum is for a substantial amount of money and the applicant has undoubtful right of appeal. The applicant is likely to suffer substantial loss if stay of execution is not ordered and the appeal succeeds. Stay of execution is ordered to prevent the appeal if successful from being rendered nugatory. Substantial loss is what an order of execution seeks to prevent.
20. The argument by the applicant does not have the means to refund the decretal sum if stay is not ordered and the appeal succeeds. The Court of Appeal in the case of Kenya Hotel Properties Limited -vs- Willesden Properties Limited Nairobi Civil Appeal NO. 322/2006 UR Held that:
“The decree is a money decree and normally the courts have felt that the success of the appeal would not be rendered nugatory if the decree is a money decree so long as the court ascertains that the respondent is not a man of straw but is a person who on success of the appeal would be able to pay the decretal amount plus any interest to the applicant. However, with time it became necessary to put certain riders to that legal position as it became obvious that in certain cases, undue hardship would be caused to the applicants if stay is refused purely on the ground that the decree is a money decree.”
21. In this case the applicant has stated that respondent would not be able pay the decretal sum if the appeal succeeds. The respondent has submitted that he is able to repay as he is a businessman. There is no doubt that the decretal sum is quite substantial. The applicants submit that the respondent lost everything according to what he stated in his pleadings. The respondent has not demonstrated that he has recovered from the loss within the short period to be in a position to pay. It is my view that the respondent has not rebuffed the contention by the applicant that he will not be able to pay. The applicant has demonstrated that he is likely to suffer substantial loss. It is my view that I should exercise discretion in favour of the applicant to ensure that the appeal is not rendered nugatory.
Security
22. Under Order 42 rule (6) 2(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules, one of the conditions precedent in granting stay of execution in that the applicant provides security for the performance of the decree as maybe ordered by the court. However, under Order 42 rule 8, the Government is exempted from depositing security. Order 42 rule 8 Civil Procedure Rules provides:
“No such security as is mentioned in rules 6 and 7 shall be required from the Government or where the Government has undertaken the defence of the suit or from any public officer sued in respect of an act alleged to be done by him in his official capacity.”
23. In County Government of Muranga -vs- Nyambura (Civil Appeal No. E026 of 2025) (2026) K.E.H.C 3357 (KLR) 12-3-2026 Ruling. The court held inter alia that a County Government fits the definition of government as envisioned under Order 42 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules and is exempted from the requirement of furnishing security under Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant in the County Government of Kitui which like the National Government is a creation of the Constitution through which like National Government is a creation of the Constitution through which like National Government sovereign power of the people is exercised. Article 176 (1) of the Constitution establishes the County Government. Under Article 1 of the Constitution the sovereign power of the people of Kenya delegated to sovereign state organs which includes Parliament and the Legislative Assemblies in the County Governments.
24. The Constitution establishes two levels of government under Article 1(4). A County Government fits in the exemption under Order 42 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules and is therefore exempted from depositing security which is required under Order 42 rule 6(2) Civil Procedure Rules as stated in the case of County Government of Muranga -vs- Nyambura, (supra). this was held in the case of County Government of Mombasa -vs- Pauline Wanjiku Kagemi (supra).
25. I find that the applicant is exempted from the requirement of providing security as a condition for stay of execution. No order can be issued to deposit security against the applicant. For this reason, I find that the application has merits and is allowed. There shall be stay of execution pending hearing and determination of the Appeal. The costs shall abide the outcome of the Appeal.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kitui this 31st day of March 2026
HON. LADY JUSTICE L. GITARI
JUDGE