JONES MATHEKA KIMANTHI VS PAUL MUNUVE KIITA AND MICHAEL MATHEKA MUTINDA AND 3 Others

1.The Applicant’s Notice of Motion application 6th December 2023 seeks the following orders:-
1.Spent
2.This Honourable Court be pleased, in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 165(6) and (7) as read together with Article 162(2)(b) to call the record of proceedings in Kitui Chief Magistrate Court Land Case No. E033 of 2020 and to make such orders and give such directions the court considers appropriate to ensure the fair administration of justice.
3.More particularly, this Honourable Court be pleased to find and hold that the entire proceedings, judgment and decree in Kitui Chief Magistrates Land Case No.E033 of 2020 do not meet the standard of what is fair, unequivocal, predictable and effective resolution of the issues presented before the trial court.
4.This Court be pleased to set aside, vary or review the judgment, orders and decree of the trial court to avoid bringing the system of justice to disrepute.
5.Spent

2.The application relates to proceedings, judgment and decree in Kitui Chief Magistrates Land Case No.E033 of 2020. The application is supported by the affidavit of the Applicant where he states that this Court has an overarching supervisory jurisdiction under Article 165(6) and (7) of the Constitution of Kenya as read together with Article 162(2)(b) and the principles set out in the case of Director of Public Prosecutions vs. Perry Mansukh Kasangara & 8 others(Criminal Revision no.4 of 2020).

3.The Applicant claims that as part of the administration of justice, courts must ensure court orders, judgments and decrees do not render themselves to abuse and must be clear and explicit.

4.The Applicant argues that the judgment in Kitui Chief Magistrates Land Case No. E033 of 2020 failed to clearly define how his land should be subdivided, leading to disputes over the size of the land and boundaries. He claims that the decree simply directed the Interested Party and Defendants to allocate land based on clan decisions, bypassing proper procedures by involving the District Surveyor.

5.On December 6, 2023, the Applicant claims he received a notification that surveyors, accompanied by police, would visit his land to implement the court\'s decree, which he disputes. He points out that the 1st Respondent, a beneficiary of the judgment, did not participate in the trial.

6.The letter of notification indicated that there are two parcels of land namely parcel No.416 and 2417 yet the Applicant still holds his original undivided title. Additionally, the Applicant maintains that he did not consent to any land mutations.

7.In July 2023, the Applicant sought a review of the judgment, but the court declined to clarify the decree and merely instructed police to assist with its implementation. He believes the court neglected its duty to ensure the decree was clear and actionable, as it declared the Interested Party the owner of unspecified land, based on clan decisions rather than formal surveys.

8.The Applicant contends that the Interested Party acted unilaterally to extract a decree and invite surveyors to his property without his involvement, exacerbating tensions, especially after an incident where the Interested Party allegedly injured his wife.
The 1st Respondent’s Case

9.Counsel for the 1st Respondent filed Grounds of Opposition to the instant application stating:
1)This Honourable Court has no jurisdiction to handle this dispute in line with Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act; supervisory jurisdiction is a reserve of the High Court as envisaged under Article 165(3) of the Constitution.
2)The application is incompetent, vexatious, and frivolous. It amounts to an abuse of the process of this Court for the reasons that the grounds relied upon can be adequately dealt with in the main suit. If the applicant was disgruntled, he should have appealed against the decision in the lower court, filed judicial review proceedings or sought review of the orders.
3)THAT the prayers sought are untenable; the application has not disclosed the injustice suffered in the lower court.

10.The 1st Respondent filed an affidavit in response to the application, stating that only the High Court holds supervisory power and not the Environment and Land Court. He argued that if this court has any supervisory role, it is limited and comes with specific conditions that the court should not interfere with the outcome of a subordinate court’s decision, as this would undermine judicial independence. The supervisory role is administrative and should only be exercised in cases of clear dereliction of duty, and only if no other legal avenues are available.

11.The 1st Respondent stated that the Applicant initially sued his children, in the original trial and did not sue him. If there were any errors in the trial court\'s judgment, the proper legal course would be an application for review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The 1st Respondent deems the current application vexatious, frivolous, and an example of forum shopping.

12. The 1st Respondent averred that the Applicant fully participated in the trial court proceedings, including producing an Agreement for the sale of land and executing mutation forms in his favour. The Applicant has now sued the 1st Respondent for the recovery of the land and seeks to refund the sale price.
2nd to 5th Respondents’ Case
13.Micheal Matheka Mutinda, the 2nd Respondent, submitted an affidavit on behalf of himself and his siblings (the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Respondents) in response to the application by their father, the Applicant deposing that the dispute centres around the allocation of land inherited from their grandmother, following a trial court ruling that did not specify exact sizes, locations, or methods for dividing the land.

14.He stated that currently, there is significant discord among the parties, with the interested party allegedly cutting large portions of land without consensus, leading to chaos and violence, including injury to their mother. The 2nd Respondent stated that while the decree suggests boundaries should be established by the clan, they have not been set, and only their father knows the details. The 2nd to 5th Respondents support the application to overturn the unclear decree and request a new hearing for a clearer decision.

The Applicants’ Written Submissions
15.The Applicant\'s counsel submitted arguments addressing the court\'s jurisdiction stating that this court, established under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and through the Environment and Land Court Act No. 19 of 2011, has jurisdiction to hear disputes concerning land use, occupation, and title. Since the original case (Kitui Chief Magistrate Court Land Case No. E033 of 2020) involved a claim of land ownership, the court has the authority to handle the matter.  The Applicant relied on a previous ruling in Republic v Attorney General & another; Kathenge & 3 others (Interested Parties); Musyoka Kamusina (Exparte) [2022] eKLR, where it was held that this court has supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts and other judicial or quasi-judicial bodies.

16.On unresolved Issues, the Applicant claimed that the judgment from the lower court failed to resolve the dispute, as it did not specify how the Applicant\'s land was to be subdivided or the sizes of the portions.

17. The Applicant had earlier sought a review or setting aside of the judgment from the trial court, but the court declined, stating it was functus officio.

18.The Applicant argued that a prima facie case had been established for this court to intervene and correct the perceived injustice in the lower court\'s proceedings.
The 1st Respondent’s Submissions.
19.On the jurisdiction of this Court, Counsel for the 1st Respondent submitted that the supervisory jurisdiction alluded to in Article 165 of the Constitution is a reserve of the High Court alone and this Court cannot clothe itself with powers it does not have as it would be ultra vires of the law.

20.They cited the holding in the case of Sabina Moraa Swanya v. Everlyn Kemunto Ontiri & another(2021)eKLR where the Court was faced with a similar application as well as the holding in the case of Patrick Musimba v. National Land Commission & 4 others(2016)eKLR that this Court’s jurisdiction over subordinate Courts and quasi-judicial bodies is only appellate.

21.It was further submitted by the 1st Respondent that the prayers sought by the Applicant are untenable and that it was his duty as a party in the case to guide the Trial Court since the Court does not prepare pleadings. Counsel also highlighted that the Applicant has not annexed the proceedings of the lower court that he wishes to set aside, noting that the Court is not in the business of collecting evidence for parties.

22.The 1st Respondent noted that there are other avenues such as judicial review and submitted that the application is devoid of merit and should be dismissed with costs.

The 2nd to 5th Respondents’ Submissions
23.Counsel for the 2nd -5th Respondents submitted that the trial court did not give directions on the location and manner of division of the land as per the judgment and decree because it did not send surveyors to the ground to determine and subdivide the land accordingly.

24.It was noted that as the matter stands, the parties cannot agree on what portion of land each is entitled to. They submit that the trial court must clarify these things, as the parties are fighting despite there being a judgment.

25.On jurisdiction, Counsel for the 2nd -5th Respondents submitted that this Court is conferred with jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act. They therefore support the Application and urge the Court to set aside the indeterminate decree and direct that the case be heard afresh.

Analysis and Determination
26.This application arises from the judgment and decree in Kitui Chief Magistrates’ Court ELC No. E033 of 2020, which the Applicant considers was indeterminate. The Judgment was delivered on 20th January 2023 in favour of the Plaintiff. The Trial Court ordered that sub-division of the suit land be done by a Government Surveyor as per the minutes of the Clan elders that were produced as Plaintiff Exhibit-10.

27.The Applicant contends that the boundaries of the portions to be subdivided were not determined and this has led to the parties fighting. The Interested Party is said to claim a bigger portion of land and carry out the subdivision exercise unilaterally. The Applicant invokes the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to call the record of proceedings before the trial court and to make such orders and give such directions the court considers appropriate to ensure the fair administration of justice. The Applicant further seeks to have the court find and hold that the entire proceedings, judgment and decree in the Trial Court do not meet the standard of what is fair, unequivocal, predictable and effective resolution of the issues presented before the trial court. He seeks to set aside, vary or review the judgment, orders and decree of the trial court to avoid bringing the system of justice to disrepute.

28.The court has considered the application herein, affidavits in support and opposition to the same and submissions by Counsel. The court will consider the prayers sought in the application under consideration summarized as hereunder;
1)Whether this court has supervisory jurisdiction under  Article 165(6) and (7) as read together with Article 162(2)(b) and if the same should be exercised to call for the record of proceedings in Kitui Chief Magistrate Court Land Case No. E033 of 2020.
2)Whether the proceedings, judgment and decree in Kitui Chief Magistrates Land Case No.E033 of 2020 meet the standard of what is fair, unequivocal, predictable and effective resolution of the issues presented before the trial court.
3)Whether the Court ought to set aside, vary or review the judgment, orders and decree of the trial court.
29.The question of whether this Court has supervisory jurisdiction over the Magistrates’ Court is answered by consideration of the establishment of the Environment and Land Court (ELC) under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya,2010, which provides that:
    “Parliament shall establish courts with the status of the High Court to hear and determine disputes relating to—
(a)the environment and the use and occupation of, and title to, land.”

30.The jurisdiction of this Court is outlined in Section 13(1) and (2) of the Environment and Land Act No. 19 of 2011 which provides that:
(1) The Court shall have original and appellate jurisdiction to hear and determine all disputes in accordance with Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and with the provisions of this Act or any other law applicable in Kenya relating to environment and land.
(2) In the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution, the Court shall have power to hear and determine disputes―
(a) relating to environmental planning and protection, climate issues, land use planning, title, tenure, boundaries, rates, rents, valuations, mining, minerals and other natural resources;
(b) relating to the compulsory acquisition of land;
(c)relating to land administration and management;
(d) relating to public, private and community land and contracts, choses in action or other instruments granting any enforceable interests in land; and
(e) any other dispute relating to environment and land.”

31.The Supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court is enshrined in Article 165(6) and (7) of the Constitution of Kenya which provides that:
(6)The High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate courts and any person, body or authority exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial function, but not over a superior court.
(7) For the purposes of clause (6), the High Court may call for the record of any proceedings before any subordinate court or person, body or authority referred to in clause (6), and may make any order or give any direction it considers appropriate to ensure the fair administration of justice.

32.The Applicant believes that the Environment and Land  Court has supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate Courts and quasi-judicial bodies while the 1st Respondent contends that as per Article 165(6), this supervisory jurisdiction is a preserve of the High Court only.

33.The 1st Respondent relied on the decision delivered by the 5-Judge bench in the case of Patrick Musimba v. National Land Commission & 4 others(2016)eKLR where it was held that:
    “By the amendments of 2012, Parliament took away the supervisory jurisdiction of the ELC over subordinate, judicial and quasi-judicial tribunals under Article 165(6) and also the jurisdiction to determine matters of a constitutional nature involving environment and land generally. Parliament clothed the ELC with jurisdiction to deal with constitutional matters touching on a clean and healthy environment only but not other constitutional matters, including matters touching on other fundamental rights.”

34.However, Article 165 (5) of the Constitution expressly provides that the High Court shall not have jurisdiction over matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court and states that;
(a)The High Court shall not have jurisdiction in respect of matters— (a) reserved for the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under this Constitution; or
(b)falling within the jurisdiction of the courts contemplated in Article 162(2).

35.In the court\'s view, this means that the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court is delineated to matters only where the High Court has jurisdiction and does not extend to matters where the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction.

36.Recent cases have seen courts expound on the limitations of the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 165 of the Constitution. In the case of Robert Alai Onyango v Cabinet Secretary In Charge of Health & 7 others [2017] eKLR,  it was held that under sub-Article (6)  the High Court has no supervisory jurisdiction over superior courts.
37.Angote J dealt with the supervisory jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under Article 165 of the Constitution in the case of Eveready Security Guards Limited v Etseem Energy Limited (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E205 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 1145 (KLR) (29 February 2024) (Ruling) and reasoned as follows:
“If the High Court cannot exercise supervisory jurisdiction over matters reserved for courts created under Article 162 (2), then who can$1 Are the subordinate courts dealing with such matters left to their own devices, to act as they see fit with no superior court to ensure that their actions are done within the law$2 I don’t think so.
It should be noted also, that when parliament deleted Section 13(5) of the Environment and Land Court Act through the Statute (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act, 2012, the Magistrate\'s Court still had not been vested with jurisdiction over environment and land matters. At that point in time, it can be argued that the supervisory jurisdiction was unnecessary because there was no subordinate court to supervise per se.
All this changed in 2015 when Parliament decided it was wise to vest magistrate’s court with jurisdiction over matters falling within the jurisdiction of this court. This was done through Section 25 of the Magistrates’ Court Act of 2015 which amended Section 26 of the Environment and Land Court Act which allowed the Chief Justice to gazette magistrates’ court to hear environment and land matters. The new Section 25 of the Magistrates’ Court Act reads as follows:-
“Amendment of section 26 of Act No. 19 of 2011
Section 26 of the Environment and Land Court Act (No. 19 of 2011) is amended by inserting the following subsections immediately after subsection
(2) __
(3)The Chief Justice may, by notice in the Gazette, appoint certain magistrates to preside over cases involving environment and land matters of any area of the country.
(4)Appeals on matters from the designated magistrate\'s courts shall lie with the Environment and Land Court.”
Since the lawmakers found it wise to vest the appellate jurisdiction on this court, it is only logical that the lower courts in as far as environment and land matters are concerned, fall under the supervision of this court. The Court in the Lariak Properties case (supra) went further to state as follows:-
“As a superior Court, this Court has appellate jurisdiction over the Magistrates who have been gazetted to handle land matters as well as multiple Tribunals including the National Environment Tribunal, the Business Premises and Rents Tribunal, Water Tribunal and the Cooperatives Tribunal.
Taking into account the Applicants’ arguments, are we then to say that when these subordinate courts and Tribunals, which are answerable to the ELC on appeal, step outside their mandate, it is the High Court that has the jurisdiction by dint of Article 165 (6) and (7) of the Constitution to intervene$3 From the exposition in the USIU case and the provision of Article 165 (5) of the Constitution, the answer is a resounding no! What then becomes of these Courts and Tribunals$4 Are they left unchecked$5”

38.The Court agrees with the reasoning in the above decision of Angote J and holds that this court has supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate courts and any person, body or authority exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial function in matters related to the use and occupation of, and title to, land.

39.The issue at hand then is whether in this particular case, the court ought to exercise its discretion and call for the lower court file and give directions as sought by the Applicant. Whether or not these directions can be granted in this case will become clear and the issue determined as the court considers the other prayers sought in the application herein.

    Whether the proceedings, judgment and decree in Kitui Chief Magistrates Land Case No.E033 of 2020 meet the standard of what is fair, unequivocal, predictable and effective resolution of the issues presented before the trial court.

40.The court has considered the dissatisfaction of the Applicant with the judgement of the subordinate court on the grounds set out elsewhere in this Ruling. It is noted that the Applicant did not attach to his application the pleadings, proceedings and judgement of the subordinate court.

41.The 1st Respondent attached to his replying affidavit a copy of the judgement of the subordinate court. It is noted that the court allowed all the prayers sought in the plaint in terms of prayer (a) (b) (c ) and (d). The trial court issued further directions inter alia that subdivision to be done by a government surveyor as per the minutes of the clan elders exhibit -10, The OCS Kitui Police Station to provide security at the exercise and the Land Registrar to implement the issuance of various title deeds as per the sub-divisions.

42.The Applicant complains that the above decision only stated that the interested party and the defendants ought to be allocated land as determined by the clan. He complains that instead of reverting to the clan the interested party unilaterally extracted a decree and invited surveyors to the land without his participation. He further stated that the interested party and the other respondents cannot agree on the boundaries purported in the decree.

43.The court finds it curious that the applicant is opposed to a judgement that was granted in his favour. All the prayers sought in the plaint were granted and the court proceeded to give further directions on implementation. In the court\'s view clarity on boundaries and sizes of subdivisions would be contained in pleadings and evidence and the applicant\'s dissatisfaction with the clarity or lack thereof cannot, in the court\'s view, form the basis for the exercise of the court\'s supervisory jurisdiction.

44.Without going into the details of what the applicant ought to have done given his dissatisfaction, the court is of the view that the supervisory jurisdiction of this court is wrongly invoked for the reason that the issues raised by the Applicant can be properly addressed and resolved by the trial court in the exercise of its ordinary jurisdiction.

45.The question of whether the decree reflects what was contained in the judgement ought to have been raised for determination by the trial court in the first instance as provided under Order 21, rules 7 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules which deals with the contents of a decree and the procedure for settlement of the decree and states that;
(1)The decree shall agree with the judgment; it shall contain the number of the suit, the names and descriptions of the parties, and particulars of the claim, and shall specify clearly the relief granted or other determination of the suit.
(2)The decree shall also state by whom or out of what property or in what proportion the costs incurred in the suit are to be paid.
(3)The court may direct that the costs payable to one party by the other shall be setoff against any sum which is admitted or found to be due from the former to the latter.

46. Rule 8 states that;
1.A decree shall bear the date of the day on which the judgment was delivered.
2.Any party in a suit in the High Court may prepare a draft decree and submit it for the approval of the other parties to the suit, who shall approve it with or without amendment, or reject it, without undue delay; and if the draft is approved by the parties, it shall be submitted to the registrar who, if satisfied that it is drawn up in accordance with the judgment, shall sign and seal the decree accordingly.
3.If no approval of or disagreement with the draft decree is received within seven days after delivery thereof to the other parties, the registrar, on receipt of notice in writing to that effect, if satisfied that the draft decree is drawn up in accordance with the judgment, shall sign and seal the decree accordingly.
4.On any disagreement with the draft decree any party may file the draft decree marked as “for settlement” and the registrar shall thereupon list the same in chambers before the judge who heard the case or, if he is not available, before any other judge, and shall give notice thereof to the parties.
5.The provisions of sub-rules 2, 3 and 4 shall apply to a subordinate court and reference to the registrar and judge in the subrules shall refer to magistrate.
6.Any order, whether in the High Court or in a subordinate court, which is required to be drawn up, shall be prepared and signed in like manner as a decree.
7.Nothing in this rule shall limit the power of the court to approve a draft decree at the time of pronouncing judgment in the suit, or the power of the court to approve a draft order at the time of making the order.
47.The above procedure was restated by The Supreme Court of Kenya in Non- Non-Governmental Organizations Coordination Board v EG & 5 others (Petition (Application) 16 of 2019) [2023] KESC 102 (KLR) (Civ) (8 December 2023) (Ruling) when considering similar provisions under the Supreme Court Rules stating that;
“A draft decree was not submitted to the applicant for approval or rejection in terms of rule 29 of the Supreme Court Rules. Rule 29(4) set out in some detail the steps to be followed when a decree had been drawn;
a.the parties must themselves, first be satisfied that the decree reflected the decision;
b.the process of exchanging a draft decree may be initiated by either party, and
c.it was only when the parties failed to agree that the court stepped in to settle the terms of a decree.
….……The main consideration in approving or rejecting a decree was that a decree must always mirror the judgment. The applicant did not claim that the decree was at variance with the judgment of the court, which in so far as costs were concerned merely stated that the 1st respondent shall have the costs.”
48. Another issue raised by the Applicant relates to the process of execution of the decree. He stated that the process commenced by way of a letter from the office of the District Surveyor indicating that they would visit his land and subdivide the same pursuant to the court decree. His problem was that he was given a one day notice of the subdivision. He further stated that the letter showed that the interested party already owned the land yet the decree showed that the land was to be subdivided and that the survey office subdivided the land without involving him. Further, the letter showed that there are two parcels of land namely parcel No. 2416 and 2417 yet he still held the original undivided title deed. He also stated that he had not signed any documents that would lead to the subdivision.

49.The Court considers the above issues to be for determination by the subordinate court in the first instance since they involve the determination of issues arising out of the execution of the court\'s decree. Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Act provides for questions to be determined by court executing decree and states that;
(1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.
(2) The court may, subject to any objection as to limitation or jurisdiction, treat a proceeding under this section as a suit, or a suit as a proceeding, and may, if necessary, order payment of any additional court fees.
(3) Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the court.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed, and a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed, are parties to the suit.

Whether the Court ought to set aside, vary or review the judgment, orders and decree of the trial court.

50.The power to set aside, vary or review orders is provided under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010. Order 45 Rules 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (2010) provides that:
    Any person considering himself aggrieved—
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is hereby allowed, and who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree or order, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order without unreasonable delay.”

51.Order 45, rule 2. Provides that the applications for review may be made only to the judge who passed the decree. It stipulates that:
    “An application for review of a decree or order of a court, upon some ground other than the discovery of such new and important matter or evidence as is referred to in rule 1, or the existence of a clerical or arithmetical mistake or error apparent on the face of the decree, shall be made only to the judge who passed the decree, or made the order sought to be reviewed.”
52.Therefore, this Court cannot review the decree issued by the Chief Magistrates’ Court in this case.

Whether the prayers sought ought to be granted.
53.As discussed above, the applicant seeks an order to call for the record of proceedings in Kitui Chief Magistrate Court Land Case No.E033 of 2020 and to make such orders and give such directions the court considers appropriate to ensure the fair administration of justice, to find and hold that the entire proceedings, judgment and decree in the Trial Court do not meet the standard of what is fair, unequivocal, predictable and effective resolution of the issues presented before the trial court.

54.Having considered the issues discussed above, the court is of the view that issuing the orders sought in this prayer would be going beyond the purview of supervisory jurisdiction and would enter into the territory of micro-managing, if not taking over, the functions of the Subordinate Court.

55.Okong’o J in the case of National Social Security Fund v Sokomania Ltd & another [2021] eKLR held that:
    “Where, or if, it is intended to exercise Supervisory Jurisdiction under the Constitution, I think the following safeguards should be observed:
i.  A balance has to be struck in the exercise of constitutional Supervisory Jurisdiction to ensure there is no appearance that its object is to micro-manage the trial court\'s independence in the conduct and management of its proceedings.
ii.  Ideally, constitutional Supervisory Jurisdiction should be exercised only after the parties are heard on the subject matter in question
iii. Supervisory Jurisdiction should not be used where the option of revision is appropriate or applicable;
iv.  Supervisory Jurisdiction should not be used as a shortcut for an appeal where circumstances for appeal clearly pertain and are more appropriate;
v.  Supervisory Jurisdiction should be exercised to achieve the promotion of the public interest and public confidence in the administration of justice;
    The above situations are not exhaustive neither are they unique to only the exercise of Supervisory Jurisdiction.”

56.The Applicant had various options including making applications as set out above or taking any other action as may be deemed fit and appropriate before the trial court. It is noted from the ruling of the trial court dated 23rd November 2023, the Applicant filed an application dated 20th January 2023 seeking to set aside the judgement of the court. The trial court found that the firm of M.M. Kimuli was not properly on record and the application filed offended the provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The application was found to be incompetent and was struck out. In the Court\'s view, the Applicant was not prevented from making any further application in the matter.

57. Given all the above findings, the court concludes that the orders sought in the Notice of Motion dated 6th December 2023 will not serve to achieve the promotion of public interest and public confidence in the administration of justice but can only be seen to be micro-managing the trial court’s independence in the conduct and management of its proceedings.
58.On the issue of costs, the Court declines to award costs to the 2nd to 5th Respondents for the reason that they were in support of the application.

59.The Court finds that the Notice of Motion dated 6th December 2023 lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to the 1st Respondent.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Kitui this 3rd Day of  October  2024

L. G. KIMANI
JUDGE
Judgement read in open Court and virtually in the presence of
  M. Kimuli for the  Applicant
Wambua for the 1st Respondent
M/S Mati for the 2nd to 5th Respondents