RULING
1. The Applicants brought the instant application dated 10 th March, 2025 under Articles 22, 23, 47 and 165 of the Constitution, Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, Sections 89 and 115 of the County Governments Act and all enabling provisions of the law. They seek that pending the hearing and determination of the main Petition, this Honourable Court do issue an interim conservatory order suspending the implementation of the alleged increased business permit fees for the financial year 2024/2025.
2. The application is supported by the sworn affidavit of James Magane Njuguna dated 10 th March, 2025 in which he states that;-
a) The Respondent has imposed exorbitant, discriminatory and unjustified increases in the business permit fees for the 2024/2025 financial year in contravention of the law.
b) There was no meaningful public participation before the said increments contrary to Articles 10 and 201 of the Constitution.
c) The Respondent has failed to provide basic and essential services despite continued levy collection from traders hence affecting business operations.
d) In 2024 the deponent paid Kshs. 5500 for single permit fees. For the financial year 2024/2025 the fees are assessed at Kshs. 11,360, an increment of 100% which is exorbitant and unreasonable.
e) If the Respondent is not restrained, the traders will suffer irreparable harm and many businesses may collapse due to the unfair and baseless financial burden imposed.
3. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. Each party filed and served their respective submissions; Hereunder is a summary;-
THE APPLICANTS’ SUBMISSIONS
4. The Applicants submitted that the Court has the duty to administer justice fairly particularly matters affecting the Bill of Rights. Allowing the application will protect the rights of traders in Wangige and Kiambu hence improve the economy of the County as well as the quality of life of the Applicants and people who depend on them.
5. The Applicants cited Article 209 (4) and (5) of the Constitution to support their preposition that the Constitution only allows the collection of taxes for services rendered to the public. The Article provides;-
(4) The national and county governments may impose charges for services they provide.
(5) The taxation and other revenue-raising powers of a County shall not be exercised in a way that prejudices national economic policies, economic activities across county boundaries or national mobility of goods, services, capital and labour.
6. The services provided to the Applicants are not commensurate with the tax collected by the Respondent. The Applicants are business owners who require a well maintained environment to be able to effectively carry out their businesses but the County Government of Kiambu has failed to perform its duty. The County has failed to discharge its duty to provide essential services including proper garbage collection, town planning, controlling hawking, maintaining the sewer system and town decongestion.
7. The Applicants relied on the case of Base Titanium Limited v County Government of Mombasa & Another [2021] KESC 33 (KLR) where the Supreme Court held that Counties cannot impose charges for services they do not offer.
8. The Kiambu County Finance Act, 2024 is irregular for the reasons that there was no proper public participation. The public hearings were advertised but there was no proper facilitation. The Applicants who contribute the biggest amount of revenue and who are affected by the Finance Act were not represented at the hearing and therefore their views were not considered. The Applicants relied on Robert N Gakuru & Another v County Government of Kiambu & Another [2015] KEHC 7158 (KLR) .
9. There was no proper public participation before the enactment of the Kiambu Finance Act 2024 and as a result the Respondent passed a legislation containing unreasonable provisions that are punitive with high taxation. The Applicants have been subjected to discrimination in terms of taxation and hence exposing them to risk of closure of business and loss of livelihood thus denying them fundamental right to economic well-being and the right to earn a living.
10. The Applicants contended that they have an arguable case and unless the orders sought are granted, the main Petition would be rendered nugatory. They urged this Court to preserve the substratum of the Petition and submitted that on a balance of convenience, the interest of the public ought to be considered.
THE RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS
11. The Respondent stated that one of the prayers in the Applicants’ application dated 10 th March, 2025 was that an order be issued restraining the Respondent from collecting alleged increased single business permit fees which was granted. This prompted the Respondent to file an application dated 21 st March, 2025 which resulted in the variation of the orders enabling the Respondent to resume collection of revenue but with a rider that the fees collected be the same as what was being collected the previous year. The submissions therefore support the said application dated 21 st March 2025 and oppose the Petitioners’ application dated 10 th March, 2024.
12. The enactment of the Kiambu County Finance Act, 2024 did not introduce any new or additional fees. The Respondent only adopted a pre-existing model known as the unified business permit, which consolidated pre-existing charges such as waste management, public health inspection, signage and business licensing fees into a single invoice. The objective was to enable business owners to operate in a more systematic, orderly and efficient manner by eliminating the need to obtain multiple licences or pay various charges separately.
13. The charges payable by a business for various services are not uniform and are dependent on the type of business, size of the business and location. Some of the Petitioners who have alleged that their business permit fees were increased failed to mention that their codes have since changed and as a result one cannot pay for permit fees that do not correspond to their business classification. The documents produced in evidence demonstrates that what the Petitioners are using to compare the year 2024 and the year 2025 are documents containing different codes and such cannot be the basis for comparison. The permit fees remained the same but what changed was the business classification.
14. The enactment of the Kiambu County Finance Act, 2024 strictly complied with the constitutional requirement for public participation. A public notice was issued via local and national dailies on 27 th September 2024 in various media outlets, inviting the residents of Kiambu to public hearings held on 7 th ,9 th and 11 th October, 2024. The County Assembly provided sufficient opportunity for residents to voice their views, as evidenced by the Sectoral Committee Report. All the responses gathered from various public hearings were recorded in the said report. The Respondent relied on the case of Cabinet Secretary for National Treasury and Planning & 4 Others v Okoiti & 52 Others; Bhatia (Amicus Curiae) (Petition E031, E032 & E033 of 2024 (Consolidated)) [2024] KESC 63 (KLR) (29 October 2024) (Judgment) .
15. There was no need to conduct public participation on the alleged increased business permit fees because there was no such increment in business permit fees. All charges, license fees and business classification are anchored on the Kiambu Trading and Licensing Act, 2016 as amended by various Kiambu County Finance Acts over the years. The last Finance Act was enacted through a proper legislative process including public participation.
16. The doctrine of separation of powers dictates that the judiciary must refrain from directing or interfering with executive functions, particularly involving policy choices and budgetary allocations. The executive arm of government bears the mandate to allocate and utilize public resources in accordance with the laws passed by the County Assembly. The funds collected under the unified business permit regime are earmarked for various public services, including waste management, regulation of public health and maintenance of urban infrastructure including markets.
17. The Courts jurisdiction does not extend to determining whether the residents of the county can refuse to pay taxes imposed on them due to poor service delivery. The Court can only direct the County to consider improving on any area of service delivery but does not have the jurisdiction to determine how to do that and further determine that until that is done, no taxes would be paid by the residents of Kiambu County.
18. The grant of conservatory orders is not as a matter of right. A party must demonstrate sufficient reason for the grant of the orders. The Respondent relied on the case of Law Society of Kenya v Office of the Attorney General & Another; Judicial Service Commission (Interested Party) [2020] eKLR . The Respondent urged the Court to allow the application dated 21 st March, 2025 and dismiss the Petitioners’ application dated 10 th March, 2025.
THE INTERESTED PARTY’S SUBMISSION
19. The Interested Party contended that the Petitioners have established a prima facie case with a likelihood of success. The Interested Party cited Wilson Kaberia Nkunja v The Magistrate and Judges Vetting Board and Others Nairobi High Court (2016) eKLR and Board of Management of Uhuru Secondary School v City County Director of Education & 2 Others [2015] eKLR .
20. The Respondent unilaterally increased business permit fees by over 100% from Kshs.5500 to Kshs.11,360 without due process or justification. There was no meaningful public participation prior to the increment contrary to Article 10 and 20 of the Constitution, which enshrine the principles of public participation. The Respondent has failed to provide commensurate services despite continuous levy collection. The traders have suffered financial hardship and business disruptions as a result of the increments. These averments raise constitutional questions on compliance with Articles 10, 27, 201(a) and (b)(i) of the Constitution which demand public participation, equality and fiscal responsibility respectively.
21. The Court is not required to make definitive findings at this interlocutory stage but it must be satisfied that the Petitioners have raised arguable and weighty constitutional issues worthy of determination. The Petitioners have demonstrated a prima facie case with a likelihood of success. Unless the Respondent is restrained from enforcing the increased fees, their businesses will collapse due to the exorbitant and unjustified levies. The Interested Party urged tis Court to find that the Petitioners have met the threshold for the grant of conservatory orders and suspend the implementation of the increased business permit fees for the financial year 2024/2025 pending the hearing and determination of the Petition.
ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION
22. The application raises only one issue for determination being; whether the Petitioners have met the threshold for the grant of conservatory orders.
ANALYSIS
23. Article 23 of the Constitution provides that the Court can use a conservatory order as one of the instruments to protect the enforcement of Constitutional Rights. A conservatory order is a decision by a Court of law to maintain status quo/current status of affairs to ensure that circumstances do not change while a matter is before a Court of law pending judgement. The order therefore ensures that nothing changes circumstantially in a matter, pursuant to the existence of other factors to be determined by the court.
24. It is critical to point out that at this interlocutory stage the court is not required to make definite and conclusive findings of either fact or law as to do so would prejudice the hearing of the main petition. The principles guiding the decision whether or not to grant conservatory orders were set out in Board of Management of Uhuru Secondary School v City County Director of Education & 2 others (2015) eKLR , as follows;-
a) The Applicant ought to demonstrate an arguable prima facie case with a likelihood of success, and that in the absence of the conservatory orders sought, he is likely to suffer prejudice as a result of the violation or threatened violation of the Constitution;
b) Once the Applicant has established to the court's satisfaction a prima facie case with a likelihood of success, the court has then to decide whether the grant or denial of the conservatory relief will enhance the constitutional values and objects of the specific right or freedom of the Bill of Rights;
c) Thirdly, flowing from the first two principles is whether if an interim conservatory order is not granted, the Petition or its substratum will be rendered nugatory. It is indeed the business of the court to ensure and secure as far as possible that any transitional motions before the court do not render nugatory the ultimate end of justice;
d) The court must consider conservatory orders also in the face of public interest dogma; and
e) Finally, the court is to exercise its discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny a conservatory order. The court must consequently consider all relevant material facts and avoid immaterial matters. The court will consider the Applicant's credentials, the prima facie correctness of the availed information, whether the grievances are genuine, legitimate, and deserving, and finally, whether the grievances and allegations are grave and serious or merely vague and reckless.
25. The Applicants’ main Petition raises a number of alleged contraventions of the Constitution including unconstitutional increase in fees contrary to Articles 10 and 201 of the Constitution; failure to provide public services contrary to Articles 43 and 46 of the Constitution; flawed and unlawful public participation contrary to Article 10 of the Constitution and Sections 87 and 115 of the County Governments Act; and unfair trade practices and administrative injustices contrary to Article 47 of the Constitution.
26. These allegations and the supporting documents indicate that the Applicants may have partially fulfilled the first threshold that there should be an arguable prima facie case with a likelihood of success. The Applicants also partially satisfy the second requirement that a grant of the conservatory relief will enhance the constitutional values and objects of the specific right or freedom of the Bill of Rights.
27. As regards the third requirement, this court is required to determine whether if an interim conservatory order is not granted, the Petition or its substratum will be rendered nugatory. Without falling into the temptation of making definitive findings of fact or law at this stage, this court notes that neither the grant nor denial of conservatory order would render the substratum of the Petition nugatory. Any possible risks following denial of a conservatory order can be compensated by way of damages if the Petition succeeds.
28. The fourth requirement is that this court must consider conservatory orders in the face of public interest dogma. Is it in the best of public interest for this court to issue an interim conservatory order suspending the implementation of the alleged increased business permit fees for the financial 2024/2025? The answer is in the negative. An interim order with an effect of suspending payment of single business permit for the financial year 2024/2025 would frustrate the County Government in revenue collection and cause possible mass disruption of service delivery that would transcend beyond the issues raised by the Petitioners and affect all citizens of Kiambu County who are not necessarily parties to this matter.
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS
29. For the foregoing reasoning, this Court makes the following findings and determinations
(i) This Court finds that the Applicants have not satisfied the threshold for the grant of interim conservatory order.
(ii) The application dated 10 th March, 2025 is dismissed and the temporary orders issued on 11 th March, 2025 as later varied on 28th March, 2025 are set aside.
(iii) The Costs shall abide the outcome of the Petition
(iv) Parties to file and exchange written submissions on the Main Petitions within Twenty-One (21) days each;
(v) Mention before DR on 4/03/2026 for compliance. All files consolidated with this Petition be availed. Notice to Issue to absent Petitioners
Orders Accordingly
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA TEAMS AT KIAMBU THIS 23 rd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
A.MSHILA
JUDGE
In the presence of;
Sanja – Court Assistant
N/A - For Petitioners in E020/2025
Rukwaro – h/b for Kinuthia - For Petitioners in E031/2025
Ometo – For Respondent - County Govt of Kiambu
N/A - For Interested Party
1. The Applicants brought the instant application dated 10 th March, 2025 under Articles 22, 23, 47 and 165 of the Constitution, Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, Sections 89 and 115 of the County Governments Act and all enabling provisions of the law. They seek that pending the hearing and determination of the main Petition, this Honourable Court do issue an interim conservatory order suspending the implementation of the alleged increased business permit fees for the financial year 2024/2025.
2. The application is supported by the sworn affidavit of James Magane Njuguna dated 10 th March, 2025 in which he states that;-
a) The Respondent has imposed exorbitant, discriminatory and unjustified increases in the business permit fees for the 2024/2025 financial year in contravention of the law.
b) There was no meaningful public participation before the said increments contrary to Articles 10 and 201 of the Constitution.
c) The Respondent has failed to provide basic and essential services despite continued levy collection from traders hence affecting business operations.
d) In 2024 the deponent paid Kshs. 5500 for single permit fees. For the financial year 2024/2025 the fees are assessed at Kshs. 11,360, an increment of 100% which is exorbitant and unreasonable.
e) If the Respondent is not restrained, the traders will suffer irreparable harm and many businesses may collapse due to the unfair and baseless financial burden imposed.
3. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. Each party filed and served their respective submissions; Hereunder is a summary;-
THE APPLICANTS’ SUBMISSIONS
4. The Applicants submitted that the Court has the duty to administer justice fairly particularly matters affecting the Bill of Rights. Allowing the application will protect the rights of traders in Wangige and Kiambu hence improve the economy of the County as well as the quality of life of the Applicants and people who depend on them.
5. The Applicants cited Article 209 (4) and (5) of the Constitution to support their preposition that the Constitution only allows the collection of taxes for services rendered to the public. The Article provides;-
(4) The national and county governments may impose charges for services they provide.
(5) The taxation and other revenue-raising powers of a County shall not be exercised in a way that prejudices national economic policies, economic activities across county boundaries or national mobility of goods, services, capital and labour.
6. The services provided to the Applicants are not commensurate with the tax collected by the Respondent. The Applicants are business owners who require a well maintained environment to be able to effectively carry out their businesses but the County Government of Kiambu has failed to perform its duty. The County has failed to discharge its duty to provide essential services including proper garbage collection, town planning, controlling hawking, maintaining the sewer system and town decongestion.
7. The Applicants relied on the case of Base Titanium Limited v County Government of Mombasa & Another [2021] KESC 33 (KLR) where the Supreme Court held that Counties cannot impose charges for services they do not offer.
8. The Kiambu County Finance Act, 2024 is irregular for the reasons that there was no proper public participation. The public hearings were advertised but there was no proper facilitation. The Applicants who contribute the biggest amount of revenue and who are affected by the Finance Act were not represented at the hearing and therefore their views were not considered. The Applicants relied on Robert N Gakuru & Another v County Government of Kiambu & Another [2015] KEHC 7158 (KLR) .
9. There was no proper public participation before the enactment of the Kiambu Finance Act 2024 and as a result the Respondent passed a legislation containing unreasonable provisions that are punitive with high taxation. The Applicants have been subjected to discrimination in terms of taxation and hence exposing them to risk of closure of business and loss of livelihood thus denying them fundamental right to economic well-being and the right to earn a living.
10. The Applicants contended that they have an arguable case and unless the orders sought are granted, the main Petition would be rendered nugatory. They urged this Court to preserve the substratum of the Petition and submitted that on a balance of convenience, the interest of the public ought to be considered.
THE RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS
11. The Respondent stated that one of the prayers in the Applicants’ application dated 10 th March, 2025 was that an order be issued restraining the Respondent from collecting alleged increased single business permit fees which was granted. This prompted the Respondent to file an application dated 21 st March, 2025 which resulted in the variation of the orders enabling the Respondent to resume collection of revenue but with a rider that the fees collected be the same as what was being collected the previous year. The submissions therefore support the said application dated 21 st March 2025 and oppose the Petitioners’ application dated 10 th March, 2024.
12. The enactment of the Kiambu County Finance Act, 2024 did not introduce any new or additional fees. The Respondent only adopted a pre-existing model known as the unified business permit, which consolidated pre-existing charges such as waste management, public health inspection, signage and business licensing fees into a single invoice. The objective was to enable business owners to operate in a more systematic, orderly and efficient manner by eliminating the need to obtain multiple licences or pay various charges separately.
13. The charges payable by a business for various services are not uniform and are dependent on the type of business, size of the business and location. Some of the Petitioners who have alleged that their business permit fees were increased failed to mention that their codes have since changed and as a result one cannot pay for permit fees that do not correspond to their business classification. The documents produced in evidence demonstrates that what the Petitioners are using to compare the year 2024 and the year 2025 are documents containing different codes and such cannot be the basis for comparison. The permit fees remained the same but what changed was the business classification.
14. The enactment of the Kiambu County Finance Act, 2024 strictly complied with the constitutional requirement for public participation. A public notice was issued via local and national dailies on 27 th September 2024 in various media outlets, inviting the residents of Kiambu to public hearings held on 7 th ,9 th and 11 th October, 2024. The County Assembly provided sufficient opportunity for residents to voice their views, as evidenced by the Sectoral Committee Report. All the responses gathered from various public hearings were recorded in the said report. The Respondent relied on the case of Cabinet Secretary for National Treasury and Planning & 4 Others v Okoiti & 52 Others; Bhatia (Amicus Curiae) (Petition E031, E032 & E033 of 2024 (Consolidated)) [2024] KESC 63 (KLR) (29 October 2024) (Judgment) .
15. There was no need to conduct public participation on the alleged increased business permit fees because there was no such increment in business permit fees. All charges, license fees and business classification are anchored on the Kiambu Trading and Licensing Act, 2016 as amended by various Kiambu County Finance Acts over the years. The last Finance Act was enacted through a proper legislative process including public participation.
16. The doctrine of separation of powers dictates that the judiciary must refrain from directing or interfering with executive functions, particularly involving policy choices and budgetary allocations. The executive arm of government bears the mandate to allocate and utilize public resources in accordance with the laws passed by the County Assembly. The funds collected under the unified business permit regime are earmarked for various public services, including waste management, regulation of public health and maintenance of urban infrastructure including markets.
17. The Courts jurisdiction does not extend to determining whether the residents of the county can refuse to pay taxes imposed on them due to poor service delivery. The Court can only direct the County to consider improving on any area of service delivery but does not have the jurisdiction to determine how to do that and further determine that until that is done, no taxes would be paid by the residents of Kiambu County.
18. The grant of conservatory orders is not as a matter of right. A party must demonstrate sufficient reason for the grant of the orders. The Respondent relied on the case of Law Society of Kenya v Office of the Attorney General & Another; Judicial Service Commission (Interested Party) [2020] eKLR . The Respondent urged the Court to allow the application dated 21 st March, 2025 and dismiss the Petitioners’ application dated 10 th March, 2025.
THE INTERESTED PARTY’S SUBMISSION
19. The Interested Party contended that the Petitioners have established a prima facie case with a likelihood of success. The Interested Party cited Wilson Kaberia Nkunja v The Magistrate and Judges Vetting Board and Others Nairobi High Court (2016) eKLR and Board of Management of Uhuru Secondary School v City County Director of Education & 2 Others [2015] eKLR .
20. The Respondent unilaterally increased business permit fees by over 100% from Kshs.5500 to Kshs.11,360 without due process or justification. There was no meaningful public participation prior to the increment contrary to Article 10 and 20 of the Constitution, which enshrine the principles of public participation. The Respondent has failed to provide commensurate services despite continuous levy collection. The traders have suffered financial hardship and business disruptions as a result of the increments. These averments raise constitutional questions on compliance with Articles 10, 27, 201(a) and (b)(i) of the Constitution which demand public participation, equality and fiscal responsibility respectively.
21. The Court is not required to make definitive findings at this interlocutory stage but it must be satisfied that the Petitioners have raised arguable and weighty constitutional issues worthy of determination. The Petitioners have demonstrated a prima facie case with a likelihood of success. Unless the Respondent is restrained from enforcing the increased fees, their businesses will collapse due to the exorbitant and unjustified levies. The Interested Party urged tis Court to find that the Petitioners have met the threshold for the grant of conservatory orders and suspend the implementation of the increased business permit fees for the financial year 2024/2025 pending the hearing and determination of the Petition.
ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION
22. The application raises only one issue for determination being; whether the Petitioners have met the threshold for the grant of conservatory orders.
ANALYSIS
23. Article 23 of the Constitution provides that the Court can use a conservatory order as one of the instruments to protect the enforcement of Constitutional Rights. A conservatory order is a decision by a Court of law to maintain status quo/current status of affairs to ensure that circumstances do not change while a matter is before a Court of law pending judgement. The order therefore ensures that nothing changes circumstantially in a matter, pursuant to the existence of other factors to be determined by the court.
24. It is critical to point out that at this interlocutory stage the court is not required to make definite and conclusive findings of either fact or law as to do so would prejudice the hearing of the main petition. The principles guiding the decision whether or not to grant conservatory orders were set out in Board of Management of Uhuru Secondary School v City County Director of Education & 2 others (2015) eKLR , as follows;-
a) The Applicant ought to demonstrate an arguable prima facie case with a likelihood of success, and that in the absence of the conservatory orders sought, he is likely to suffer prejudice as a result of the violation or threatened violation of the Constitution;
b) Once the Applicant has established to the court's satisfaction a prima facie case with a likelihood of success, the court has then to decide whether the grant or denial of the conservatory relief will enhance the constitutional values and objects of the specific right or freedom of the Bill of Rights;
c) Thirdly, flowing from the first two principles is whether if an interim conservatory order is not granted, the Petition or its substratum will be rendered nugatory. It is indeed the business of the court to ensure and secure as far as possible that any transitional motions before the court do not render nugatory the ultimate end of justice;
d) The court must consider conservatory orders also in the face of public interest dogma; and
e) Finally, the court is to exercise its discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny a conservatory order. The court must consequently consider all relevant material facts and avoid immaterial matters. The court will consider the Applicant's credentials, the prima facie correctness of the availed information, whether the grievances are genuine, legitimate, and deserving, and finally, whether the grievances and allegations are grave and serious or merely vague and reckless.
25. The Applicants’ main Petition raises a number of alleged contraventions of the Constitution including unconstitutional increase in fees contrary to Articles 10 and 201 of the Constitution; failure to provide public services contrary to Articles 43 and 46 of the Constitution; flawed and unlawful public participation contrary to Article 10 of the Constitution and Sections 87 and 115 of the County Governments Act; and unfair trade practices and administrative injustices contrary to Article 47 of the Constitution.
26. These allegations and the supporting documents indicate that the Applicants may have partially fulfilled the first threshold that there should be an arguable prima facie case with a likelihood of success. The Applicants also partially satisfy the second requirement that a grant of the conservatory relief will enhance the constitutional values and objects of the specific right or freedom of the Bill of Rights.
27. As regards the third requirement, this court is required to determine whether if an interim conservatory order is not granted, the Petition or its substratum will be rendered nugatory. Without falling into the temptation of making definitive findings of fact or law at this stage, this court notes that neither the grant nor denial of conservatory order would render the substratum of the Petition nugatory. Any possible risks following denial of a conservatory order can be compensated by way of damages if the Petition succeeds.
28. The fourth requirement is that this court must consider conservatory orders in the face of public interest dogma. Is it in the best of public interest for this court to issue an interim conservatory order suspending the implementation of the alleged increased business permit fees for the financial 2024/2025? The answer is in the negative. An interim order with an effect of suspending payment of single business permit for the financial year 2024/2025 would frustrate the County Government in revenue collection and cause possible mass disruption of service delivery that would transcend beyond the issues raised by the Petitioners and affect all citizens of Kiambu County who are not necessarily parties to this matter.
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS
29. For the foregoing reasoning, this Court makes the following findings and determinations
(i) This Court finds that the Applicants have not satisfied the threshold for the grant of interim conservatory order.
(ii) The application dated 10 th March, 2025 is dismissed and the temporary orders issued on 11 th March, 2025 as later varied on 28th March, 2025 are set aside.
(iii) The Costs shall abide the outcome of the Petition
(iv) Parties to file and exchange written submissions on the Main Petitions within Twenty-One (21) days each;
(v) Mention before DR on 4/03/2026 for compliance. All files consolidated with this Petition be availed. Notice to Issue to absent Petitioners
Orders Accordingly
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA TEAMS AT KIAMBU THIS 23 rd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
A.MSHILA
JUDGE
In the presence of;
Sanja – Court Assistant
N/A - For Petitioners in E020/2025
Rukwaro – h/b for Kinuthia - For Petitioners in E031/2025
Ometo – For Respondent - County Govt of Kiambu
N/A - For Interested Party