' 1. The applicants/objectors filed the application dated 15.7.24 seeking:
a. THAT the Honourable court be pleased to vary and/or set aside the Orders of the Honourable court given on the 8th day of July, 2024 adopting the Mediation report dated 27th June, 2024 as the Judgement of the Court.
b. THAT the Honourable court be pleased to strike out and/or vary paragraph 6 of the Mediation report.
c. THAT the Honourable court be pleased to make such suitable Orders in theinterest of justice.
d. Cost of the Application.
2. The application is Supported by the annexed affidavit of JAMES OBARE KIMONGE and the grounds that ;
i. THAT the Honourable court referred this matter to court annexed mediation.
ii.THAT the scope of mediation in the instant case was limited only to and for the purpose of selection of administrators, however parties went ahead to deal with the matters of distribution.
iii. THAT the rnode of distribution envisaged by the Applicant is the distribution given by the court on 30th'' November. 1999 with the Modification and/or variation by the court in its Ruling given on 23 0 March. 2023.
iv. THAT the mediator added and/or inserted claues 5 and 6 in the agreement which information that was not agreed. upon thus:-
v. Fresh mode of distribution was to be filled taking into account the shares of the beneficiaries on the ground and portion sold by the 1st Applicant (Joel Mauti Kimonge) as per the court''s Ruling.
vi. THAT additional and/or inserted information by the mediator is a fraud against the Applicants herein and the Court.
3. James Obare Kimonge, the 2nd applicant deponed the Honourable court referred this matter to court annexed mediation and that the scope of mediation in the instant case was limited only to and for the purpose of selection of administrators, however parties went ahead to deal with the matters of distribution. Also that the mode of distribution that they agreed to during mediation is the distribution given by the court on 30th November, 1999 with the Modification and/or variation by the court in its discretion given on 23d March, 2023.
4. He further deponed that the mediator added and/or inserted the following information that was not agreed upon thus:-
"i.e Truphena Moraa Machuka.............. . . ......NIL
Mary Kimonge Areba................ .... ......NIL
Isabella Kimonge.............. ..NIL
Rachael Kwamboka Kimonge......... .......... 1.29 Ha
Joel Mauti Kimonge.......... ...........1.91 Ha
James Obara Kimonge.................. .. ....... 1.91 Ha
Lucy Kimonge... ......1.29 Ha
Hilda Kimonge" lnstead of:
Leonard Ngara Kimonge(Substituted by court to pass to James Obare Kimonge ……………………………………………...6.00 Acres
5. Also that a Fresh mode of distribution was to be filled taking into account the shares of the beneficiaries on the ground and portion sold by the 1st Applicant (Joel Mauti Kimonge).Also that the additional and/or inserted information by the mediator is a fraudulent against the the Applicants herein. He termed the mediation report as erroneous and/or a misrepresentation and/or misleading. Further that the portion of land whereon the building of the deceased is situated falls within his portion of land.he told this court that he had an have issue regarding the actual occupation and position of the land to be occupied by his siblings on the ground. For instance, there is a portion meant for the sons and daughters in accordance with the Gusii Customary laws and rules for the betterment of Social, cultural structure of the society.He said that was in the interest of justice that the instant Application be allowed.
6. The respondent Hilda Kimonge swore a replying affidavit in opposition to applicationand said it is incurably defective, incompetent, bad in law and ought to be struck out as it offends Rule 14 of the Judiciary Mediation Manual.Also that tapplication is scandalous, frivolous and vexations and outrightly an abuse on the court process.
7. She told this court that the Mediation Settlement Agreement Report dated 27th June 2024 was voluntarily and duly executed by all legally competent parties in this instant succession proceeding. The Objectors/Applicants personally attended the Mediation session where the Mediation Settlement Agreement was prepared and agreed upon between the parties and they do not deny having freely signed the Mediation Settlement Agreement.She said that her advocate on record advised her that once an Agreement is reached by the parties and it is signed, parties thereto would be contractually bound by the terms thereof and that will be unfairand prejudicial for the Objectors/Applicants to attempt to vary a part of the mediation and remain with the part that would only favour them.
8. Also that the distribution as captured in the mediation agreement as per the proposal their mother /the late administrator as per the family consensus as indicated in her Summons for Confirmation of Grant and affidavit on the mode of distribution dated 30th March, 2023 that was filed, served and was pending confirmation however, she passed on 22 nd April, 2023. The distribution allocated beneficiaries gave the true account of the ground and on the part of Joel , it took into account his portion which he had sold . The Objectors/ Applicants agreed in paragraph 5 and 6 of the mediation agreement that the mode of distribution shall be as earlier given by their late mother.
9. She further deponed that their sister Lucy was allocated the parcel of land where their parents'' house was and she built her house just next to it and she hosted and cared for their deceased mother since 2014 to her unfortunate demise in April, 2023. Our late mother allocated that parcel to Lucy in her own discretion as a parent and as the administrator. The fact that James claims that portion of the estate is unjust as he has no right to allocate himself and has not done anything on the said portion to warrant his entitlement. If James had an issue with allocation of that parcel to Lucy he should have raised the issue before their late mother when he had the chance and before Lucy settling and investing on it instead of constantly complaining of the size he was to receive as the eldest son.
I l . THAT their late ate mother allocated beneficiaries titles in 2014 so every beneficiary knows their boundaries except for their brother James who was uncooperative. Additionally, in an attempt to protect James, 2nd Objector/Applicant''s portion from Joel 1 st Objector/ Applicant in Ogembo CMCC ELC NO. 46 OF 2019 filed by their late mother, a surveyor report was done on 18 th May, 2021 and both parcels were marked. (Annexed hereto and marked as HK-I a copy of Surveyor''s report).
12. She urged this Honourable court takes judicial notice that the Objectors/Applicants both received the biggest share of the estate by family consent and that James has caused cancellation oftitles being title No. MAJOGE/BOSOT1/3049, 3050, 3051 and 3052 that were issued by our late mother in 2014 knowing very well that this suit is still ongoing and was pending confirmation without any express court order by this honourable court directing the land registrar to cancel existing titles nor was there any express order directing the land registrar to do so .Further that 2nd Objector/Applicant claims to own 6acres belonging to Leonard in a 1999 mode of distribution that was expressly set aside in the Ruling by Hon. Ougo J in March, 2023 herein . Also that the aforestated actions o of the 2nd Objector/ Applicant shows that he is acting in bad faith. (Annexed hereto and marked as HK-2 a copy of current green card).
13. The respondents filed a supplementary affidavit of James Obare Kimonge dated 24.1.25 , in which he said that clause 5 and 6 of the mediation report were not in the agreement and that it was fraudulently added by the mediator . Also that the order referring the matter to mediation was limited to appointment of administrators and not distribution .
14. The respondents filed submissions and stressed that a mediation agreement can only be set aside on grounds of fraud , mistake or misconduct of a mediator under Rule 39(3) to the Court annexed mediation rules . Also that a consent can only be set aside on the same grounds for setting aside a contract . They cited the case of Board of Trustees National Social Security Fund vs Michael Mwalo [20151 eKLR, the court stated that:
a consent could not be set aside or varied unless it was proved that it was obtained by fraud or collusion or by an agreement contrary to the policy of the court or where the consent was given without sufficient material facts or in misapprehension or ignorance of such facts in general or for reason which would enable the court to set aside an agreement. "
15. Counsel also cited the case of Re-estate Of Oyosi Oyuayo (deceased) [20211eKLR the Court stated that;
Once the Mediation Agreement is signed it becomes final and binding as to the disputes that have been amicably resolved. Under the Court annexed Mediation, the Mediation Report is filed and is subsequently adopted as an order ofthe Court.
however, if the parties are unable to agree on the issues that had been referred to Mediation, the Mediator files a non-compliance Report and the matter is then referred back to Court for determination.
16. I have carefully considered the application herein , the reply , the supplementary affidavit and and the submissions by the respondents. The issues arising for determination areas follows :
a. . Whether the mediator exceeded his mandate .
b. Whether the orders of Hon Justice Ougo dated 24.3.23 have not been complied with .
c. Whether the mediator fraudulently added clause 5 and 6 in the mediator agreement .
d. Whether clauses 5 and 6 of the mediation agreement and the consequential orders of distribution should be set aside .
17. On whether the mediator exceeded his mandate, the applicants/objectors argued that the mandate of the mediator was on appointment of administrators only but he proceeded to determine distribution too. The respondents say that the parties agreed on distribution and administrators and hence the mediator proceeded as agreed . The order referring the matter for court annexed mediation is dated 20.2.24 . The said order referred the entire matter to mediation. In any event nothing would stop parties from agreeing on all issues which can finally dispose of the matter at any stage of proceedings . I do not find that the mediator acted ultra vires.
18. On whether the orders of Hon Justice Ougo dated 24.3.23 have not been complied with, the applicants argued that the said orders are to the effect that another summons for confirmation of grant was to be filed taking into account the ground occupation ,shares of each beneficiary and the portion sold by 1st applicant i.e Joel Mauti Kimonge. The respondents reply to this issue is that a ground occupation report of the estate herein by the Kisii County surveyor dated 18.5.25 was filed in Ogembo ELC case no. 46 of 2019 . This was not disputed . Since there is a ground occupation report by the surveyor it was not necessary to go back for resurvey as the report could have been used in the summons for confirmation of grant. A fresh summons for confirmation of grant dated 30.3.23 was filed on 4.4.23 but the petitioner passed died before it was hear and hence Hilda filed application dated 13.7.23 seeking revocation of the grant and appointment od new administrators . I find that the orders date 24.3.23 were complied with.
19. On whether the mediator fraudulently added clause 5 and 6 to the mediation agreement . This was the contention of the applicants/objectors who was that distribution was not agreed upon . The respondents said that the applicants participated in the proceedings before the mediator and the issues of distribution and administration were discussed and agreed upon and all parties signed the agreement and thus signing of is not disputed . I can carefully considered the rival positions of the parties herein and perused the mediation agreement report. There is no indication that the mediator left any space in the agreement for insertion of clauses 5 and 6 as the said clauses are on the same page with the signatures of all the parties . The mediator was also cross examined in court and he was firm that he successfully mediated on the matter and the parties agreed on administration and distribution without any influence. I find that the mediator was truthful and there was no misconduct on his part and that the agreement on distribution and administration was entered into voluntarily .
20. Whether clauses 5 and 6 of the mediation agreement and the consequential orders of distribution should be set aside .
Rule 39 (3) of he mediation rules provides that :
(3) The following shall constitute the grounds upon which an application to set aside an order or decree arising from a mediation settlement agreement—
(a) misconduct, fraud, or a fundamental mistake by the mediator as relates to the mediation proceedings that goes to the core of the matter:
Provided that the misconduct, fraud or mistake should not have been known by the applying party at the time of execution of the settlement agreement and should be one which affected the process and outcome of the mediation in such a way that it would be unfair and inequitable to enforce it in its form;
(b) fraud, collusion, or misrepresentation by any party to the mediation (other than the party applying) or any witness or person who took part in the proceedings and whose
participation materially affected the outcome;
(c) a fundamental mistake by any or all of the parties to the mediation as to the existence or state of the subject matter, person or thing; or to any set of facts that materially affected the parties’ decision to enter into the subject agreement and which has rendered such agreement unfair and inequitable;
(d) where a party was, at the time of the making of the agreement, under some legal incapacity to take part in the subject mediation proceedings or to conclude and execute a binding settlement; or
(e) where the settlement agreement is invalid under Kenyan or international law, or is or has become incapable of enforcement under Kenyan law.
21. It is thus clear that a mediation agreement is a contract and can only be set aside on grounds of misconduct fraud,or mistake by a mediator , collusion . misrepresentation, invalidity, legal incapacity of any party , illegality . A mediation agreement is essentially a contract and thus the principles of setting aside of a contract also apply to it as was held in the cited case of Board of Trustees National Social Security Fund vs Michael Mwalo [20151 eKLR. None of the said grounds has been established to warrant setting aside of the mediation agreement herein.
22. I also note that the applicants did not seek leave of this court to file the application as provided for under Rule 39 (1) of the Court annexed mediation rules .
23. In the upshot I find that the application dated 15.7.24 is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed . Each party will bear his own costs since this is a family matter.
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
23.9.25
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY VIA TEAMS PLATFORM ON THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 IN THE PRESENCE OF : MR OCHOKI FOR RESPONDENT AND MR NYAENYA FOR THE OBJECTORS /APPLICANTS
CA KIPCHIRCHIR
Ochoki : we pray that status quo be maintained .
ORDER :
The ruling for the application dated 15.7.25 is not ready ruling is adjourned to 27.11.25 .
Ochoki : We pray that status quo be maintained .
Order : Status quo be maintained.
'
a. THAT the Honourable court be pleased to vary and/or set aside the Orders of the Honourable court given on the 8th day of July, 2024 adopting the Mediation report dated 27th June, 2024 as the Judgement of the Court.
b. THAT the Honourable court be pleased to strike out and/or vary paragraph 6 of the Mediation report.
c. THAT the Honourable court be pleased to make such suitable Orders in theinterest of justice.
d. Cost of the Application.
2. The application is Supported by the annexed affidavit of JAMES OBARE KIMONGE and the grounds that ;
i. THAT the Honourable court referred this matter to court annexed mediation.
ii.THAT the scope of mediation in the instant case was limited only to and for the purpose of selection of administrators, however parties went ahead to deal with the matters of distribution.
iii. THAT the rnode of distribution envisaged by the Applicant is the distribution given by the court on 30th'' November. 1999 with the Modification and/or variation by the court in its Ruling given on 23 0 March. 2023.
iv. THAT the mediator added and/or inserted claues 5 and 6 in the agreement which information that was not agreed. upon thus:-
v. Fresh mode of distribution was to be filled taking into account the shares of the beneficiaries on the ground and portion sold by the 1st Applicant (Joel Mauti Kimonge) as per the court''s Ruling.
vi. THAT additional and/or inserted information by the mediator is a fraud against the Applicants herein and the Court.
3. James Obare Kimonge, the 2nd applicant deponed the Honourable court referred this matter to court annexed mediation and that the scope of mediation in the instant case was limited only to and for the purpose of selection of administrators, however parties went ahead to deal with the matters of distribution. Also that the mode of distribution that they agreed to during mediation is the distribution given by the court on 30th November, 1999 with the Modification and/or variation by the court in its discretion given on 23d March, 2023.
4. He further deponed that the mediator added and/or inserted the following information that was not agreed upon thus:-
"i.e Truphena Moraa Machuka.............. . . ......NIL
Mary Kimonge Areba................ .... ......NIL
Isabella Kimonge.............. ..NIL
Rachael Kwamboka Kimonge......... .......... 1.29 Ha
Joel Mauti Kimonge.......... ...........1.91 Ha
James Obara Kimonge.................. .. ....... 1.91 Ha
Lucy Kimonge... ......1.29 Ha
Hilda Kimonge" lnstead of:
Leonard Ngara Kimonge(Substituted by court to pass to James Obare Kimonge ……………………………………………...6.00 Acres
5. Also that a Fresh mode of distribution was to be filled taking into account the shares of the beneficiaries on the ground and portion sold by the 1st Applicant (Joel Mauti Kimonge).Also that the additional and/or inserted information by the mediator is a fraudulent against the the Applicants herein. He termed the mediation report as erroneous and/or a misrepresentation and/or misleading. Further that the portion of land whereon the building of the deceased is situated falls within his portion of land.he told this court that he had an have issue regarding the actual occupation and position of the land to be occupied by his siblings on the ground. For instance, there is a portion meant for the sons and daughters in accordance with the Gusii Customary laws and rules for the betterment of Social, cultural structure of the society.He said that was in the interest of justice that the instant Application be allowed.
6. The respondent Hilda Kimonge swore a replying affidavit in opposition to applicationand said it is incurably defective, incompetent, bad in law and ought to be struck out as it offends Rule 14 of the Judiciary Mediation Manual.Also that tapplication is scandalous, frivolous and vexations and outrightly an abuse on the court process.
7. She told this court that the Mediation Settlement Agreement Report dated 27th June 2024 was voluntarily and duly executed by all legally competent parties in this instant succession proceeding. The Objectors/Applicants personally attended the Mediation session where the Mediation Settlement Agreement was prepared and agreed upon between the parties and they do not deny having freely signed the Mediation Settlement Agreement.She said that her advocate on record advised her that once an Agreement is reached by the parties and it is signed, parties thereto would be contractually bound by the terms thereof and that will be unfairand prejudicial for the Objectors/Applicants to attempt to vary a part of the mediation and remain with the part that would only favour them.
8. Also that the distribution as captured in the mediation agreement as per the proposal their mother /the late administrator as per the family consensus as indicated in her Summons for Confirmation of Grant and affidavit on the mode of distribution dated 30th March, 2023 that was filed, served and was pending confirmation however, she passed on 22 nd April, 2023. The distribution allocated beneficiaries gave the true account of the ground and on the part of Joel , it took into account his portion which he had sold . The Objectors/ Applicants agreed in paragraph 5 and 6 of the mediation agreement that the mode of distribution shall be as earlier given by their late mother.
9. She further deponed that their sister Lucy was allocated the parcel of land where their parents'' house was and she built her house just next to it and she hosted and cared for their deceased mother since 2014 to her unfortunate demise in April, 2023. Our late mother allocated that parcel to Lucy in her own discretion as a parent and as the administrator. The fact that James claims that portion of the estate is unjust as he has no right to allocate himself and has not done anything on the said portion to warrant his entitlement. If James had an issue with allocation of that parcel to Lucy he should have raised the issue before their late mother when he had the chance and before Lucy settling and investing on it instead of constantly complaining of the size he was to receive as the eldest son.
I l . THAT their late ate mother allocated beneficiaries titles in 2014 so every beneficiary knows their boundaries except for their brother James who was uncooperative. Additionally, in an attempt to protect James, 2nd Objector/Applicant''s portion from Joel 1 st Objector/ Applicant in Ogembo CMCC ELC NO. 46 OF 2019 filed by their late mother, a surveyor report was done on 18 th May, 2021 and both parcels were marked. (Annexed hereto and marked as HK-I a copy of Surveyor''s report).
12. She urged this Honourable court takes judicial notice that the Objectors/Applicants both received the biggest share of the estate by family consent and that James has caused cancellation oftitles being title No. MAJOGE/BOSOT1/3049, 3050, 3051 and 3052 that were issued by our late mother in 2014 knowing very well that this suit is still ongoing and was pending confirmation without any express court order by this honourable court directing the land registrar to cancel existing titles nor was there any express order directing the land registrar to do so .Further that 2nd Objector/Applicant claims to own 6acres belonging to Leonard in a 1999 mode of distribution that was expressly set aside in the Ruling by Hon. Ougo J in March, 2023 herein . Also that the aforestated actions o of the 2nd Objector/ Applicant shows that he is acting in bad faith. (Annexed hereto and marked as HK-2 a copy of current green card).
13. The respondents filed a supplementary affidavit of James Obare Kimonge dated 24.1.25 , in which he said that clause 5 and 6 of the mediation report were not in the agreement and that it was fraudulently added by the mediator . Also that the order referring the matter to mediation was limited to appointment of administrators and not distribution .
14. The respondents filed submissions and stressed that a mediation agreement can only be set aside on grounds of fraud , mistake or misconduct of a mediator under Rule 39(3) to the Court annexed mediation rules . Also that a consent can only be set aside on the same grounds for setting aside a contract . They cited the case of Board of Trustees National Social Security Fund vs Michael Mwalo [20151 eKLR, the court stated that:
a consent could not be set aside or varied unless it was proved that it was obtained by fraud or collusion or by an agreement contrary to the policy of the court or where the consent was given without sufficient material facts or in misapprehension or ignorance of such facts in general or for reason which would enable the court to set aside an agreement. "
15. Counsel also cited the case of Re-estate Of Oyosi Oyuayo (deceased) [20211eKLR the Court stated that;
Once the Mediation Agreement is signed it becomes final and binding as to the disputes that have been amicably resolved. Under the Court annexed Mediation, the Mediation Report is filed and is subsequently adopted as an order ofthe Court.
however, if the parties are unable to agree on the issues that had been referred to Mediation, the Mediator files a non-compliance Report and the matter is then referred back to Court for determination.
16. I have carefully considered the application herein , the reply , the supplementary affidavit and and the submissions by the respondents. The issues arising for determination areas follows :
a. . Whether the mediator exceeded his mandate .
b. Whether the orders of Hon Justice Ougo dated 24.3.23 have not been complied with .
c. Whether the mediator fraudulently added clause 5 and 6 in the mediator agreement .
d. Whether clauses 5 and 6 of the mediation agreement and the consequential orders of distribution should be set aside .
17. On whether the mediator exceeded his mandate, the applicants/objectors argued that the mandate of the mediator was on appointment of administrators only but he proceeded to determine distribution too. The respondents say that the parties agreed on distribution and administrators and hence the mediator proceeded as agreed . The order referring the matter for court annexed mediation is dated 20.2.24 . The said order referred the entire matter to mediation. In any event nothing would stop parties from agreeing on all issues which can finally dispose of the matter at any stage of proceedings . I do not find that the mediator acted ultra vires.
18. On whether the orders of Hon Justice Ougo dated 24.3.23 have not been complied with, the applicants argued that the said orders are to the effect that another summons for confirmation of grant was to be filed taking into account the ground occupation ,shares of each beneficiary and the portion sold by 1st applicant i.e Joel Mauti Kimonge. The respondents reply to this issue is that a ground occupation report of the estate herein by the Kisii County surveyor dated 18.5.25 was filed in Ogembo ELC case no. 46 of 2019 . This was not disputed . Since there is a ground occupation report by the surveyor it was not necessary to go back for resurvey as the report could have been used in the summons for confirmation of grant. A fresh summons for confirmation of grant dated 30.3.23 was filed on 4.4.23 but the petitioner passed died before it was hear and hence Hilda filed application dated 13.7.23 seeking revocation of the grant and appointment od new administrators . I find that the orders date 24.3.23 were complied with.
19. On whether the mediator fraudulently added clause 5 and 6 to the mediation agreement . This was the contention of the applicants/objectors who was that distribution was not agreed upon . The respondents said that the applicants participated in the proceedings before the mediator and the issues of distribution and administration were discussed and agreed upon and all parties signed the agreement and thus signing of is not disputed . I can carefully considered the rival positions of the parties herein and perused the mediation agreement report. There is no indication that the mediator left any space in the agreement for insertion of clauses 5 and 6 as the said clauses are on the same page with the signatures of all the parties . The mediator was also cross examined in court and he was firm that he successfully mediated on the matter and the parties agreed on administration and distribution without any influence. I find that the mediator was truthful and there was no misconduct on his part and that the agreement on distribution and administration was entered into voluntarily .
20. Whether clauses 5 and 6 of the mediation agreement and the consequential orders of distribution should be set aside .
Rule 39 (3) of he mediation rules provides that :
(3) The following shall constitute the grounds upon which an application to set aside an order or decree arising from a mediation settlement agreement—
(a) misconduct, fraud, or a fundamental mistake by the mediator as relates to the mediation proceedings that goes to the core of the matter:
Provided that the misconduct, fraud or mistake should not have been known by the applying party at the time of execution of the settlement agreement and should be one which affected the process and outcome of the mediation in such a way that it would be unfair and inequitable to enforce it in its form;
(b) fraud, collusion, or misrepresentation by any party to the mediation (other than the party applying) or any witness or person who took part in the proceedings and whose
participation materially affected the outcome;
(c) a fundamental mistake by any or all of the parties to the mediation as to the existence or state of the subject matter, person or thing; or to any set of facts that materially affected the parties’ decision to enter into the subject agreement and which has rendered such agreement unfair and inequitable;
(d) where a party was, at the time of the making of the agreement, under some legal incapacity to take part in the subject mediation proceedings or to conclude and execute a binding settlement; or
(e) where the settlement agreement is invalid under Kenyan or international law, or is or has become incapable of enforcement under Kenyan law.
21. It is thus clear that a mediation agreement is a contract and can only be set aside on grounds of misconduct fraud,or mistake by a mediator , collusion . misrepresentation, invalidity, legal incapacity of any party , illegality . A mediation agreement is essentially a contract and thus the principles of setting aside of a contract also apply to it as was held in the cited case of Board of Trustees National Social Security Fund vs Michael Mwalo [20151 eKLR. None of the said grounds has been established to warrant setting aside of the mediation agreement herein.
22. I also note that the applicants did not seek leave of this court to file the application as provided for under Rule 39 (1) of the Court annexed mediation rules .
23. In the upshot I find that the application dated 15.7.24 is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed . Each party will bear his own costs since this is a family matter.
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
23.9.25
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY VIA TEAMS PLATFORM ON THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 IN THE PRESENCE OF : MR OCHOKI FOR RESPONDENT AND MR NYAENYA FOR THE OBJECTORS /APPLICANTS
CA KIPCHIRCHIR
Ochoki : we pray that status quo be maintained .
ORDER :
The ruling for the application dated 15.7.25 is not ready ruling is adjourned to 27.11.25 .
Ochoki : We pray that status quo be maintained .
Order : Status quo be maintained.
'