1. There are two applications pending before the court. The first one is the Appellants’ application for bond/bail/pending the hearing and determination of the appeal(s) and the second one is by the Respondent seeking that all the 25 appeals in this series be consolidated for ease of hearing and determination.
2. In principle, there is no strong objection by either side to the respective Applications. We however needed a formal determination for proper completeness of the record.
3. I will start with the Application for consolidation even though it was filled later. This is just for good order so that the directions on the bond terms have proper grounding.
4. The Respondent’s application is dated 17/2/2025. It is brought
(under article 50, 159 (2)(d),165 of the Constitution, Section 66, 347 and 350 Criminal Procedure Code and the inherent power of this Court) application for Orders: -
i. THAT the Honorable Court does and hereby makes a finding that each of the appeals in Criminal Appeal No 153 of 2014 ,MSA , Criminal Appeal No 4 of 20I5, MSA, Criminal Appeal No 169 of 2014, MSA, Criminal Appeal No 5 of 2015, MSA, Criminal Appeal No 184 of 2015,MSA , Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2015, MSA, Criminal Appeal No 19 of 2015, MSA, Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2015, MSA, Criminal Appeal No 22 of 2015, MSA' Criminal Appeal No17 of 2015, MSA ,Criminal Appeal No 175 of 2014,MSA, Criminal Appeal No174 of 2014, MSA, Criminal Appeal No 173 of 2014, MSA ' Criminal Appeal No 8 of 2015, MSA Criminal Appeal No 9 of 2015, MSA, Criminal Appeal No 10 of 2015 MSA, Criminal Appeal No 2 of 2015, MSA, Criminal Appeal No 3 of 2015, MSA, Criminal Appeal No7 of 2015, MSA ,Criminal Appeal No 6 of 2015, MSA ' Criminal Appeal No168 of 2014, MSA, Criminal Appeal No 171 of 2014, MSA, Criminal Appeal No 176 of 2014, MSA, Criminal Appeal No 169 of 2014, MSA, SIMON NJOROGE MBUGUA, Criminal Appeal No 172 of 2014, substantially raise the same or similar questions of law.
ii. THAT the Honorable court does and hereby makes a finding that each of the appeals in order (l) substantially raise common or similar questions of fact that turn on the same or similar questions of law.
iii. THAT the Honorable court hereby consolidates each of the respective appeals in order (l) for ease of hearing and determination.
iv. THAT the court any other orders it deems fit and appropriate for the expeditious hearing and disposal of the appeals herein.
THE APPLICATION is supported by the Supporting Affidavit of PETER KIPROP and on the following grounds:
i. THAT by this application, DPP (Applicant/Respondent) intends to assist this Honorable Court to comply with the orders of the Court of Appeal as captured at par 131(3) of its judgment dated 1st March 2024 directing that the rehearing of the appeals should be expedited and determined on a priority basis, having regard to the period that has so far lapsed' (and the period is now 9-10 years).
ii. THAT a reading of para 120 and 125 of the judgment reveals that the Learned Judge would not have been faulted for delivering a single judgement that fully complied with the provisions of section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code and this court may therefore consolidate the appeals. The Court of Appeal observed;
‘We would add that, had the judge issued a single judgment where all issues in each appeal was exhaustively addressed so that it could be seen to have- complied with all the requirement of Section 169 (1) for each case, the judge would not have been faulted for delivering such single judgment'
iii. THAT the Respondent/Applicant in the appeals now moves this Honorable Court to admit and consolidate for re-hearing and determination all the Appellants/Respondents appeals;
a. Firstly, determining the suitability of consolidation and
b. Secondly exhaustively and independently re-evaluate,
re-examine and analyze the facts in each appeal by
application of the findings of law that are common to
all appeals
c. Thirdly proceeding to deliver a single judgement that
makes a uniform finding on the main common
questions of law arising in all the appeals and
iv. THAT since it is trite law that the main purpose of consolidation is to save costs, time, and effort and to make the conduct of several actions more convenient by treating them as one action, the consolidation of these appeals will assist in their just, fair and expedited disposal.
v. THAT FURTHER all the appeals may be consolidated for hearing and determination for reasons that;
a. Each of the appellants were presented before the Court
martial sitting at Mombasa, individually tried, convicted and sentenced to serve a term of life imprisonment of the very same offence of Desertion contrary to Section 74(l)(a) as read together with Section 7a(3)(a)(i) of the Kenya Defense Forces Act.
b. The main ingredients that were to be satisfactorily met
as supported by evidence remains to be the very same ingredients of the said offence in all 25 trials and on appeal this Court is capable of/or not prevented from independently identifying the ingredients of the offence that were to be proven and to arrive at a common finding on all the legal findings on the question what the ingredients of the offence are.
c. The Honorable Court is able to embark on a fresh
exhaustive examination of the facts in each appeal under respective sub-headings for each appellant and to make factual findings of each within a single judgement.
d. This Honorable court is able to apply its legal findings to each appellant set of factual findings and to arrive at an independent opinion objectively and dispassionately as to whether the findings of the martial court render the respective convictions and sentences safe.
vi. THAT upon this court arriving at its own independent findings on the said common questions of law on one appeal (e.g. as to what constitutes the necessary ingredients of the offence of Desertion under Section 71 of the Kenya Defense Forces Act/ the court may not arrive at different findings in another appeal/ and consequently the same findings must uniformly be applied to all the individual appeals for a fair and just outcome.
vii. THAT the Respondent/applicant now frames (in draft) the following common questions or issues of law and common questions of fact arising for re-hearing and determination in all the appeals whether or not they are heard separately or together but which this court is capable disposing off in a single judgment;
a. What constitutes the offence of ‘desertion' and as may
be contra-distinguished from the offence of absence without leave -AWOL)- (legal question)
b. What is discharge from service, the relevance of a discharge certificate and what is the role of the competent service authority in the process of discharge - (legal question)
c. Whether any of the appellants stood discharged at the material time (matter of evidence)
d. Whether each of the appellant deserted at the material times (matter of evidence)
e. What constitutes 'active service' or being under orders for active service (legal question)
and
f. Whether each of the appellant or their units were under active service during all material times (matter of evidence)
g. Whether the director of military prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt (mixed matter of law and fact to be applied to each set of facts)
h. Whether there's any ground to interfere with the Court Martials judicial sentencing discretion.
viii. THAT consolidation is neither intended to give any party an undue advantage nor cause any other
party avoidable prejudice.
ix. THAT in the unlikely event that by reason of separate legal representation and different strategies in prosecution of the appeals, it is still possible to collapse into two or three consolidated appeals for purpose of hearing (the filing and highlighting of submissions) in line with each appellants’ trial strategies if that is necessary to meet the ends of justice but the same may not prevent this Honorable Court from rendering a single judgement in.
x. THAT the alternative position is to have the court peruse 50 sets of submissions (25 by the appellants each and 25 responses by the DPP) and to deliver 25 judgments in each ' a situation that is not only undesirably tedious, untidy and an in efficient use of limited judicial time and resources but likely to occasion an undue delay in the rehearing of the appeals.
5. As earlier stated, the Appellants do not strongly oppose this
application. In fact, a majority did not file any response since consolidation appears to be most prudent manner to proceed. We have mentioned the matter severally and the main concern by the Appellants was how to best accommodate those who may have divergent positions or arguments or different opinions on how to proceed.
6. The Advocates for the respective appellants proposed that we go
ahead with the consolidation, but give room for divergent views or approaches, either by the individual appellants or groups of Appellants as represented and the court should take into account any unique circumstances or approach.
7. My key concern with this proposed way forward was that consolidation featured prominently in the respondents’ appeal in this matter to the Court of Appeal. In fact, in the Judgment by that court, this features as the first ground of Appeal.
8. This is reflected at page 24 of the Judgment which reads: -
“Highlighting the appellant’s submissions, Mr. Yamina stated that the main grievance against the decision was that the High Court failed in its duty to independently and thoroughly evaluate the decision of the court martial and in so doing, arrived at the wrong conclusion; and that he learned Judge failed to review the factual findings and conclusions in respect of the individual appeals. Furthermore, the consolidation at the appellate stage of all 25 appeals denied the High Court an opportunity to assess the case of each of the respondent separately, yet they had been charged, tried and convicted individually, that for instance, the court was required to interrogate the facts to ascertain whether the respondents absented themselves for a period of 90 or more…”
9. Interestingly, it was Mr. Jami Yamina who raised that issue in the
Court of Appeal. It is the same Mr. Jami, who has now sought the consolidation. Hence my initial concern;
“Is the learned counsel digging a pit for us all??”
May be not. This is because I note that the learned counsel has made a very good case for consolidation. Actually, I also noted that the first two prayers before me were that the court considers whether the
matters are ripe/or fit for consolidation.
10. The learned counsel Mr. Jami, even went ahead and proposed how
the court should make that decision: By evaluating the evidence and facts. He even framed issues for consideration. I will not go down that route as that appears to be delving into the main petition even before we take the directions and hear the Appellants’ position.
11. Basically I am persuaded that consolidation is the most practical
and efficient time management tool in this series. As pointed out by the applicant, the alternative to the consolidation is
hearing each of the individual 25 appeals and writing a judgment in each. Though that is an option, it is not very efficient as it is agreed that the appeals raise similar matters of laws.
12. To accommodate everyone, in allowing the consolidation, I will come up with a compromise that will give anyone with any peculiar or divert issues a window to be heard.
13. I therefore allow the application in the following terms:
i. That the court finds that the 25 appeals raise similar questions of law and have common or similar questions of facts.
ii. That in the interest of saving time and costs, it is prudent to consolidate the 25 appeals and hear them in one appeal.
iii. That 25 appellants is a big number. There are some variances in some facts and evidence and even approach in handling the respective appeals.
Therefore, the court will accommodate any specific appellant or group of appellants who may have unique or appellant specific approach, or evidence or request. This will be set out in the directions on the way forward.
14. The court will write one Judgment but will include determinations for each appellant or group of appellants as agreed.
15. The 25 Appeals be and are now consolidated and we will proceed in the lead file being Mombasa High Court Criminal Appeal number 153 of 2014.
16. We now move to the Application for bond/bail.
17. As earlier stated, there does not appear to be any strong objection to the 2nd application for bond/bail either. It is noteworthy that the Appeals was brought back for retrial way back in March 2024 and the Respondent has not sought to arrest either of them. In fact, even the execution of the court martial ‘s Judgment was stayed. The appellants have been attending court as agreed.
18. Again Mr. Jami Yamina, for the State, has graciously stated on multiple times that they do not oppose the Application for bond/bail. He even added that the respondent is aware that some of the Appellants are outside the court’s Jurisdiction. Their only request or condition for this concession was that each of the Appellants files an affidavit as to their location/residence, then they appear for the hearings either virtually or through their advocate. There was however a rider that each of the 25 appellants be physically present in court on the Judgment date.
19. This position was accepted by the Appellants whose only request that they be given adequate notice so that those who are out of the court’s Jurisdiction have adequate time to travel back in good time.
20. Bond pending appeal and stay of execution of a judgment/sentence are allowed under sections 356 and 357 0f the criminal procedure code. Further under sections 353 and 354 of the criminal procedure code, service of notices to appear may be served to either the appellant personally or their advocate, and even the hearing of the appeal may be conducted by the appellant in person or his or her advocate.
21. Our judicial system has also advanced in the uptake of technology and parties are now able to join court sessions virtually. So we can comfortably accommodate the parties out of the court’s jurisdiction.
22. We are one year down the line and at the appellants have been co- operating and I see no need to interfere with the orders earlier on granted.
23. Therefore, for avoidance of doubt, the execution of the sentence by the Court Martial is stayed until the Appeals as consolidated are heard and determined.
24. I also allow the Application for bond/bail pending the hearing and determination of the appeal appeal. Each of the Applicants is granted a free bond on the condition earlier set:
That each one of them files an affidavit as to their whereabouts. This should have been done now and if not, each applicant must comply within the next 30 days from today.
25. That the Appellants, continue to appear in court either physically if they choose, or virtually or through their advocates.
26. That each Appellant must appear physically in open court on the date the Judgment will be delivered. Adequate notice will be given.
27. It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered in Open Court/online through MS TEAMS,
this …22nd …day of …May… 2025
HON. LADY JUSTICE W. K. MICHENI
JUDGE
In the presence of: -
Mr. Sirima hold brief for Mr. Jami Yamina for the State
Mr. Magolo for 1st Appellant
Ms. Mwikali hold brief for Mr. Kamunda for 2nd, 5th, 6th, 11th, 12th and 20th Appellant
Mr. Onyiejo for Nyamboye for 3rd Appellant
Mr. Odhiambo for 7th, 8th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 18th, 22nd and 25th Appellant
Mr. Makhahoha for 9th, 21st and 23rd Appellant
Mr. Kinyanjui for 10th Appellant
Ms. Mwikali hold brief for Ms. Mwalimu for 4th, 13th, 17th, 19th and 24th Appellant
HON. LADY JUSTICE W. K. MICHENI
JUDGE
2. In principle, there is no strong objection by either side to the respective Applications. We however needed a formal determination for proper completeness of the record.
3. I will start with the Application for consolidation even though it was filled later. This is just for good order so that the directions on the bond terms have proper grounding.
4. The Respondent’s application is dated 17/2/2025. It is brought
(under article 50, 159 (2)(d),165 of the Constitution, Section 66, 347 and 350 Criminal Procedure Code and the inherent power of this Court) application for Orders: -
i. THAT the Honorable Court does and hereby makes a finding that each of the appeals in Criminal Appeal No 153 of 2014 ,MSA , Criminal Appeal No 4 of 20I5, MSA, Criminal Appeal No 169 of 2014, MSA, Criminal Appeal No 5 of 2015, MSA, Criminal Appeal No 184 of 2015,MSA , Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2015, MSA, Criminal Appeal No 19 of 2015, MSA, Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2015, MSA, Criminal Appeal No 22 of 2015, MSA' Criminal Appeal No17 of 2015, MSA ,Criminal Appeal No 175 of 2014,MSA, Criminal Appeal No174 of 2014, MSA, Criminal Appeal No 173 of 2014, MSA ' Criminal Appeal No 8 of 2015, MSA Criminal Appeal No 9 of 2015, MSA, Criminal Appeal No 10 of 2015 MSA, Criminal Appeal No 2 of 2015, MSA, Criminal Appeal No 3 of 2015, MSA, Criminal Appeal No7 of 2015, MSA ,Criminal Appeal No 6 of 2015, MSA ' Criminal Appeal No168 of 2014, MSA, Criminal Appeal No 171 of 2014, MSA, Criminal Appeal No 176 of 2014, MSA, Criminal Appeal No 169 of 2014, MSA, SIMON NJOROGE MBUGUA, Criminal Appeal No 172 of 2014, substantially raise the same or similar questions of law.
ii. THAT the Honorable court does and hereby makes a finding that each of the appeals in order (l) substantially raise common or similar questions of fact that turn on the same or similar questions of law.
iii. THAT the Honorable court hereby consolidates each of the respective appeals in order (l) for ease of hearing and determination.
iv. THAT the court any other orders it deems fit and appropriate for the expeditious hearing and disposal of the appeals herein.
THE APPLICATION is supported by the Supporting Affidavit of PETER KIPROP and on the following grounds:
i. THAT by this application, DPP (Applicant/Respondent) intends to assist this Honorable Court to comply with the orders of the Court of Appeal as captured at par 131(3) of its judgment dated 1st March 2024 directing that the rehearing of the appeals should be expedited and determined on a priority basis, having regard to the period that has so far lapsed' (and the period is now 9-10 years).
ii. THAT a reading of para 120 and 125 of the judgment reveals that the Learned Judge would not have been faulted for delivering a single judgement that fully complied with the provisions of section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code and this court may therefore consolidate the appeals. The Court of Appeal observed;
‘We would add that, had the judge issued a single judgment where all issues in each appeal was exhaustively addressed so that it could be seen to have- complied with all the requirement of Section 169 (1) for each case, the judge would not have been faulted for delivering such single judgment'
iii. THAT the Respondent/Applicant in the appeals now moves this Honorable Court to admit and consolidate for re-hearing and determination all the Appellants/Respondents appeals;
a. Firstly, determining the suitability of consolidation and
b. Secondly exhaustively and independently re-evaluate,
re-examine and analyze the facts in each appeal by
application of the findings of law that are common to
all appeals
c. Thirdly proceeding to deliver a single judgement that
makes a uniform finding on the main common
questions of law arising in all the appeals and
iv. THAT since it is trite law that the main purpose of consolidation is to save costs, time, and effort and to make the conduct of several actions more convenient by treating them as one action, the consolidation of these appeals will assist in their just, fair and expedited disposal.
v. THAT FURTHER all the appeals may be consolidated for hearing and determination for reasons that;
a. Each of the appellants were presented before the Court
martial sitting at Mombasa, individually tried, convicted and sentenced to serve a term of life imprisonment of the very same offence of Desertion contrary to Section 74(l)(a) as read together with Section 7a(3)(a)(i) of the Kenya Defense Forces Act.
b. The main ingredients that were to be satisfactorily met
as supported by evidence remains to be the very same ingredients of the said offence in all 25 trials and on appeal this Court is capable of/or not prevented from independently identifying the ingredients of the offence that were to be proven and to arrive at a common finding on all the legal findings on the question what the ingredients of the offence are.
c. The Honorable Court is able to embark on a fresh
exhaustive examination of the facts in each appeal under respective sub-headings for each appellant and to make factual findings of each within a single judgement.
d. This Honorable court is able to apply its legal findings to each appellant set of factual findings and to arrive at an independent opinion objectively and dispassionately as to whether the findings of the martial court render the respective convictions and sentences safe.
vi. THAT upon this court arriving at its own independent findings on the said common questions of law on one appeal (e.g. as to what constitutes the necessary ingredients of the offence of Desertion under Section 71 of the Kenya Defense Forces Act/ the court may not arrive at different findings in another appeal/ and consequently the same findings must uniformly be applied to all the individual appeals for a fair and just outcome.
vii. THAT the Respondent/applicant now frames (in draft) the following common questions or issues of law and common questions of fact arising for re-hearing and determination in all the appeals whether or not they are heard separately or together but which this court is capable disposing off in a single judgment;
a. What constitutes the offence of ‘desertion' and as may
be contra-distinguished from the offence of absence without leave -AWOL)- (legal question)
b. What is discharge from service, the relevance of a discharge certificate and what is the role of the competent service authority in the process of discharge - (legal question)
c. Whether any of the appellants stood discharged at the material time (matter of evidence)
d. Whether each of the appellant deserted at the material times (matter of evidence)
e. What constitutes 'active service' or being under orders for active service (legal question)
and
f. Whether each of the appellant or their units were under active service during all material times (matter of evidence)
g. Whether the director of military prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt (mixed matter of law and fact to be applied to each set of facts)
h. Whether there's any ground to interfere with the Court Martials judicial sentencing discretion.
viii. THAT consolidation is neither intended to give any party an undue advantage nor cause any other
party avoidable prejudice.
ix. THAT in the unlikely event that by reason of separate legal representation and different strategies in prosecution of the appeals, it is still possible to collapse into two or three consolidated appeals for purpose of hearing (the filing and highlighting of submissions) in line with each appellants’ trial strategies if that is necessary to meet the ends of justice but the same may not prevent this Honorable Court from rendering a single judgement in.
x. THAT the alternative position is to have the court peruse 50 sets of submissions (25 by the appellants each and 25 responses by the DPP) and to deliver 25 judgments in each ' a situation that is not only undesirably tedious, untidy and an in efficient use of limited judicial time and resources but likely to occasion an undue delay in the rehearing of the appeals.
5. As earlier stated, the Appellants do not strongly oppose this
application. In fact, a majority did not file any response since consolidation appears to be most prudent manner to proceed. We have mentioned the matter severally and the main concern by the Appellants was how to best accommodate those who may have divergent positions or arguments or different opinions on how to proceed.
6. The Advocates for the respective appellants proposed that we go
ahead with the consolidation, but give room for divergent views or approaches, either by the individual appellants or groups of Appellants as represented and the court should take into account any unique circumstances or approach.
7. My key concern with this proposed way forward was that consolidation featured prominently in the respondents’ appeal in this matter to the Court of Appeal. In fact, in the Judgment by that court, this features as the first ground of Appeal.
8. This is reflected at page 24 of the Judgment which reads: -
“Highlighting the appellant’s submissions, Mr. Yamina stated that the main grievance against the decision was that the High Court failed in its duty to independently and thoroughly evaluate the decision of the court martial and in so doing, arrived at the wrong conclusion; and that he learned Judge failed to review the factual findings and conclusions in respect of the individual appeals. Furthermore, the consolidation at the appellate stage of all 25 appeals denied the High Court an opportunity to assess the case of each of the respondent separately, yet they had been charged, tried and convicted individually, that for instance, the court was required to interrogate the facts to ascertain whether the respondents absented themselves for a period of 90 or more…”
9. Interestingly, it was Mr. Jami Yamina who raised that issue in the
Court of Appeal. It is the same Mr. Jami, who has now sought the consolidation. Hence my initial concern;
“Is the learned counsel digging a pit for us all??”
May be not. This is because I note that the learned counsel has made a very good case for consolidation. Actually, I also noted that the first two prayers before me were that the court considers whether the
matters are ripe/or fit for consolidation.
10. The learned counsel Mr. Jami, even went ahead and proposed how
the court should make that decision: By evaluating the evidence and facts. He even framed issues for consideration. I will not go down that route as that appears to be delving into the main petition even before we take the directions and hear the Appellants’ position.
11. Basically I am persuaded that consolidation is the most practical
and efficient time management tool in this series. As pointed out by the applicant, the alternative to the consolidation is
hearing each of the individual 25 appeals and writing a judgment in each. Though that is an option, it is not very efficient as it is agreed that the appeals raise similar matters of laws.
12. To accommodate everyone, in allowing the consolidation, I will come up with a compromise that will give anyone with any peculiar or divert issues a window to be heard.
13. I therefore allow the application in the following terms:
i. That the court finds that the 25 appeals raise similar questions of law and have common or similar questions of facts.
ii. That in the interest of saving time and costs, it is prudent to consolidate the 25 appeals and hear them in one appeal.
iii. That 25 appellants is a big number. There are some variances in some facts and evidence and even approach in handling the respective appeals.
Therefore, the court will accommodate any specific appellant or group of appellants who may have unique or appellant specific approach, or evidence or request. This will be set out in the directions on the way forward.
14. The court will write one Judgment but will include determinations for each appellant or group of appellants as agreed.
15. The 25 Appeals be and are now consolidated and we will proceed in the lead file being Mombasa High Court Criminal Appeal number 153 of 2014.
16. We now move to the Application for bond/bail.
17. As earlier stated, there does not appear to be any strong objection to the 2nd application for bond/bail either. It is noteworthy that the Appeals was brought back for retrial way back in March 2024 and the Respondent has not sought to arrest either of them. In fact, even the execution of the court martial ‘s Judgment was stayed. The appellants have been attending court as agreed.
18. Again Mr. Jami Yamina, for the State, has graciously stated on multiple times that they do not oppose the Application for bond/bail. He even added that the respondent is aware that some of the Appellants are outside the court’s Jurisdiction. Their only request or condition for this concession was that each of the Appellants files an affidavit as to their location/residence, then they appear for the hearings either virtually or through their advocate. There was however a rider that each of the 25 appellants be physically present in court on the Judgment date.
19. This position was accepted by the Appellants whose only request that they be given adequate notice so that those who are out of the court’s Jurisdiction have adequate time to travel back in good time.
20. Bond pending appeal and stay of execution of a judgment/sentence are allowed under sections 356 and 357 0f the criminal procedure code. Further under sections 353 and 354 of the criminal procedure code, service of notices to appear may be served to either the appellant personally or their advocate, and even the hearing of the appeal may be conducted by the appellant in person or his or her advocate.
21. Our judicial system has also advanced in the uptake of technology and parties are now able to join court sessions virtually. So we can comfortably accommodate the parties out of the court’s jurisdiction.
22. We are one year down the line and at the appellants have been co- operating and I see no need to interfere with the orders earlier on granted.
23. Therefore, for avoidance of doubt, the execution of the sentence by the Court Martial is stayed until the Appeals as consolidated are heard and determined.
24. I also allow the Application for bond/bail pending the hearing and determination of the appeal appeal. Each of the Applicants is granted a free bond on the condition earlier set:
That each one of them files an affidavit as to their whereabouts. This should have been done now and if not, each applicant must comply within the next 30 days from today.
25. That the Appellants, continue to appear in court either physically if they choose, or virtually or through their advocates.
26. That each Appellant must appear physically in open court on the date the Judgment will be delivered. Adequate notice will be given.
27. It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered in Open Court/online through MS TEAMS,
this …22nd …day of …May… 2025
HON. LADY JUSTICE W. K. MICHENI
JUDGE
In the presence of: -
Mr. Sirima hold brief for Mr. Jami Yamina for the State
Mr. Magolo for 1st Appellant
Ms. Mwikali hold brief for Mr. Kamunda for 2nd, 5th, 6th, 11th, 12th and 20th Appellant
Mr. Onyiejo for Nyamboye for 3rd Appellant
Mr. Odhiambo for 7th, 8th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 18th, 22nd and 25th Appellant
Mr. Makhahoha for 9th, 21st and 23rd Appellant
Mr. Kinyanjui for 10th Appellant
Ms. Mwikali hold brief for Ms. Mwalimu for 4th, 13th, 17th, 19th and 24th Appellant
HON. LADY JUSTICE W. K. MICHENI
JUDGE