' Introduction and Background
1. The matter before the Court is a Chamber Summons Application (the "Reference") dated 8th May 2024, filed by the Plaintiff/Applicant (herein, the "Applicant"). The Applicant seeks to challenge and set aside the ruling and consequential certificate of taxation rendered by the Taxing Officer, Hon. Mary Osoro, on 24th April 2024.
2. In particular, the Reference seeks the following orders:
i. Spent
ii. The court be pleased to rescind and/or quash the ruling and decision of the Taxing Master rendered on the 24th April 2024 and the consequential certificate of taxation arising therefrom.
iii. The court be pleased to assume jurisdiction, where appropriate, and to undertake the requisite taxation of the various impugned items.
iv. In the alternative and without prejudice to prayer (iii) above, the court be pleased to refer the Party and Party Bill of Costs dated the 15th December 2022 to another Taxing Master, other than Hon Mary Osoro [DR].
v. The court be pleased to award costs of the Reference to the Applicant.
3. The genesis of the taxation is a suit filed by the Applicant, ELC Civil Suit No. 509 of 2018 (currently HCCC No. 241 of 2019), where the Applicant simultaneously filed a Notice of Motion dated 28th November 2018 (the "primary Application") for an application for an interim measure of protection under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act.
4. Both the Plaint and the primary Application essentially sought an order of prohibition/inhibition to be registered against property LR No. 11785/1 until the conclusion of pending arbitral proceedings between the parties.
5. On 24th November 2022, the Court rendered a ruling that dismissed the Application with costs to the Defendant (herein, the "Respondent").
6. Following the dismissal, the Respondent filed a Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 15th December 2022 for a sum of Kshs. 5,735,224.37/=. The Applicant subsequently filed a Preliminary Objection dated 10th June 2023, challenging the Taxing Officer''s jurisdiction to tax the Bill on the grounds that the costs arose from an interlocutory application without a special order, and that the main suit was still pending.
7. On 24th April 2024, the Taxing Officer delivered her ruling dismissing the Applicant''s Preliminary Objection and proceeded to tax the Bill of Costs, awarding a sum of Kshs.5, 735, 224.37/=.
8. Aggrieved by this decision, the Applicant filed the instant Reference, supported by the affidavit of Rachael Muthoni Njoroge, a Counsel in the law firm representing the Applicant. premised on the following main arguments/grounds:
(a) The Party and Party Bill of Costs dated the 15th December 2022 relates to a nonexistent court order.
(b) In any event, the Ruling and/or Decision of the Judge that anchors the Bill of Costs under reference only relates to an interlocutory application and not the main suit, which was still pending.
(c) The Taxing Master acted improperly by violating the right to a fair hearing (Article 50(1)) and erroneously assessing instruction fees based on pleadings when the main suit was allegedly still pending.
9. The Respondent vide the affidavit sworn on 15th April 2025 by Kipkurui Cornelius - Advocate, and filed on 16th April 2025, opposed the Reference, contending that it is fatally defective for being non-compliant with the mandatory provisions of Rule 11(2) of the ARO, and that the dismissal of the Section 7 Arbitration Act Application, concluded the entire suit, justifying the taxation.
10. The Respondent further took the position that the Reference does not demonstrate any evidence of improper exercise of discretion on the part of the Taxing Master. The Respondent therefore prayed that the application be dismissed with costs in its favour.
11. The Application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The Applicant filed submissions dated 26th August 2024, whilst the Respondent’s submissions are dated 15th April 2025.
Plaintiff/Applicant’s Submissions.
12. The Applicant refuted the Respondent’s objection on the competence of the Reference and submitted that the Reference was legally tenable as it complied with Rule 11(1) of the ARO by filing a Notice of Objection to Taxation dated 2nd May 2024, which explicitly specified the impugned items (Items 1, 2, 4, 5, …34, 35, and 36) and cited the case of Machira & Co Advocates v Arthur K Magugu & Another (2012) eKLR in support of the argument.
13. The Applicant further contended that the taxation was improper as it arose from an interlocutory application and the main suit was still pending. They cited Peter Muthoka & Another v Ochieng & 3 Others (2019) eKLR to argue that the Instruction Fees could not be properly ascertained using the pleadings, as the true value of the subject matter had not been determined by a final Judgment.
14. Finally, the Applicant argued that the Taxing Master infringed upon the right to a fair hearing under Article 50(1) of the Constitution by dismissing their Preliminary Objection and immediately proceeding to allow the Bill of Costs without affording them an opportunity to challenge the quantum of the items. This, they argued, constituted an error in principle.
15. Citing Mbogo v Shah [1968] EA 93, the Applicant argued that the by the Taxing Master justifies appellate interference since it failed to take into consideration the Applicant''s right to be heard.
Defendant/Respondent’s Submissions
16. The Respondent’s submissions were that the Reference was fatally defective and incompetent because the Applicant failed to request the reasons for the Taxing Officer''s decision as mandated by Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order. Citing, among others, the case of Evans Thiga Gaturu, Advocate v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited [2012] eKLR, the Respondent asserted that filing a reference without the Taxing Officer''s reasons is an incurable omission that strips the Court of jurisdiction.
17. They also relied on Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 6 others (2013) eKLR to stress that procedural rules are not to be disregarded under the guise of Article 159(2)(d).
18. In answer to the Applicant’s submissions that the underlying suit was not conclusively determined, the Respondent maintained that the dismissal of the Application, which sought an interim measure of protection under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act, conclusively determined the entire suit. They relied on Safaricom Limited v Ocean View Beach Hotel Limited & 2 others (2010) eKLR and Paul Omondi Obiero v Cytonn Integrated Project LLP [2022] eKLR to assert that a suit for interim measures is rendered moot once the application is determined. Therefore, the taxation was proper and not premature.
19. As to whether the Applicant was denied a fair hearing by the Taxing Master, the Respondent asserted that the Applicant was duly heard on the Preliminary Objection by which they chose to defend the Bill of Costs. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant failed to file any substantive response or opposition to the Bill of Costs for over sixteen months, despite being served, only has itself to blame.
20. The Respondent therefore urged this Court to find that the Taxing Officer properly exercised her discretion by taxing the Bill as unopposed. It was therefore the Respondent’s prayer that the Reference be dismissed, with costs.
Analysis and Determination
21. Having carefully considered the application, the response thereto, the applicable law, and the submissions by the parties in support of their respective positions, I find the following issues to be requiring determination:
i. Whether the Reference complies with the mandatory procedure under Rule 11(1) and (2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
ii. Whether the Main Suit was conclusively determined by the ruling of 24th November 2022.
iii. Whether the Applicant established evidence of improper exercise of discretion by the Taxing Master.
Whether there was compliance with Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
22. The procedure for challenging a Taxing Officer''s decision is strictly governed by Rule 11(1) and (2) of the ARO, which provides as follows: -
“1. Should any party object to the decision of the taxing officer, he may within fourteen days after the decision give notice in writing to the taxing officer of the items of taxation to which he objects.
2. The taxing officer shall forthwith record and forward to the objector the reasons for his decision on those items and the objector may within fourteen days from the receipt of the reasons apply to a judge by chamber summons, which shall be served on all the parties concerned, setting out the grounds of his objection.”
23. In this case, the Applicant contended that it complied with Rule 11(1) by filing a Notice of Objection specifying the items. However, the Respondent submits, and the record confirms, that the Applicant did not request the reasons for the Taxing Officer''s decision before filing the Reference.
24. I have carefully perused the record. I agree with the Respondent that while the Applicant complied with Rule 11(1) of the ARO, the Applicant failed to comply with subrule 2 of Rule 11.
25. The Taxing Officer''s reasons are the foundation upon which a Judge reviews the exercise of discretion. The failure to demonstrate that the mandatory step of requesting and receiving reasons was taken renders the subsequent Reference procedurally incompetent.
26. The Court is guided by the Court of Appeal decision in Machira & Co Advocates v Arthur K. Magugu & Another (2012) eKLR, where the Court emphasized that specifying the items is crucial for the Taxing Officer to provide reasons, stating that without a proper notice specifying the items and seeking reasons: "the issue of when the taxing master''s decision was received is immaterial."
27. Crucially, this Court must also consider the High Court''s position in Paul Gicheru T/A Gicheru & Co. Advocates V Kargua (K) Construction Co. Ltd (2008) KEHC 2942, where it was held:
"There are no reasons on record after the Notice of Objection... This omission is incurable as the requirement for the recording and forwarding of reasons is a mandatory one. The effect of this is that this Court truly in the said circumstances has no jurisdiction to entertain the application."
28. This is a jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution, as observed in Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 6 others (2013) eKLR, where the Court held that Article 159 was not meant to aid in the overthrow or destruction of rules of procedure.
29. Accordingly, I find and hold that the Applicant''s failure to adhere to the mandatory sequential requirements of Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order renders the Reference fatally defective.
Whether the Main Suit was conclusively determined by the Application
30. The Applicant argued that the taxation was premature because the substantive suit was pending. The Respondent on the other hand argued that the dismissal of the Application, which was for an interim measure of protection under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act, concluded the entire suit.
31. The Court concurs with the Respondent. The jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act is specific. The Court of Appeal in Safaricom Limited v Ocean View Beach Hotel Limited & 2 others (2010) eKLR settled the position when it stated that:
"In addition, after the grant or failure to grant an interim measure under section 7 of the Arbitration, there is no pending suit because the substance of the suit under section 7 is grant or refusal interim measure itself."
32. Given that the Plaint and the dismissed Application sought the same interim measure, the Ruling of 24th November 2022 effectively disposed of the matter before the Court. There was no "stayed" substantive suit in the conventional sense, making the Bill of Costs ripe for taxation.
Whether the Taxing Master improperly exercised her discretion.
33. The Applicant claimed a violation of the right to a fair hearing under Article 50(1) of the Constitution because the Bill was taxed immediately after the dismissal of the Preliminary Objection, denying them the chance to challenge the quantum.
34. I find the Respondent’s counter-argument persuasive. The Applicant had over sixteen months to file a substantive opposition to the Bill of Costs filed on 15th December 2022, but failed to do so.
35. Evidence on record demonstrates that the Taxing Master heard the Applicant on the Preliminary Objection. Upon dismissing it and finding no formal opposition to the Bill of Costs on record, she was perfectly entitled to treat the Bill as unopposed and proceed with taxation.
36. The Applicant''s failure to file an opposition to the quantum, having chosen instead to only challenge jurisdiction, constitutes a procedural omission on their part., for which they only have themselves to blame. The Taxing Master''s action was not, therefore, an error in principle but a correct application of the law to the facts before her. The claim of violation of Article 50(1) is therefore unsubstantiated.
37. The right to a fair hearing requires the Court to afford a party an opportunity to present its case, but it does not absolve the party of the responsibility to utilize the afforded procedure.
38. As established in Mbogo v Shah [1968] EA 93, interference with discretion is only warranted if the lower court misdirected itself or acted on matters it should not have acted on, or failed to take into consideration matters which it should have. In this case, no domination has been made by the Applicant that the Taxing Master misdirected herself as to warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
39. In view of the jurisdictional incompetence of the Reference and the Applicant''s failure to demonstrate any error in principle or improper exercise of discretion by the Taxing Master, the Court is unable to grant the reliefs sought.
40. Accordingly, the Chamber Summons Application dated 8th May 2024, be and is hereby dismissed.
41. In accordance with Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and the principle that costs follow the event (Jasbir Singh Rai & 3 others v Tarlochan Singh Rai & 4 others (2014) eKLR), the costs of the Reference shall be borne by the Plaintiff/Applicant and are awarded to the Defendant.
42. It is so ordered.
SIGNED, DATED, and DELIVERED IN VIRTUAL COURT THIS
27TH NOVEMBER 2025
ADO MOSES
JUDGE
In the presence of: -
C/A – Moses
Odegi…………..for the Plaintiff
Frida Gatwiri..... for the Respondent
'
1. The matter before the Court is a Chamber Summons Application (the "Reference") dated 8th May 2024, filed by the Plaintiff/Applicant (herein, the "Applicant"). The Applicant seeks to challenge and set aside the ruling and consequential certificate of taxation rendered by the Taxing Officer, Hon. Mary Osoro, on 24th April 2024.
2. In particular, the Reference seeks the following orders:
i. Spent
ii. The court be pleased to rescind and/or quash the ruling and decision of the Taxing Master rendered on the 24th April 2024 and the consequential certificate of taxation arising therefrom.
iii. The court be pleased to assume jurisdiction, where appropriate, and to undertake the requisite taxation of the various impugned items.
iv. In the alternative and without prejudice to prayer (iii) above, the court be pleased to refer the Party and Party Bill of Costs dated the 15th December 2022 to another Taxing Master, other than Hon Mary Osoro [DR].
v. The court be pleased to award costs of the Reference to the Applicant.
3. The genesis of the taxation is a suit filed by the Applicant, ELC Civil Suit No. 509 of 2018 (currently HCCC No. 241 of 2019), where the Applicant simultaneously filed a Notice of Motion dated 28th November 2018 (the "primary Application") for an application for an interim measure of protection under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act.
4. Both the Plaint and the primary Application essentially sought an order of prohibition/inhibition to be registered against property LR No. 11785/1 until the conclusion of pending arbitral proceedings between the parties.
5. On 24th November 2022, the Court rendered a ruling that dismissed the Application with costs to the Defendant (herein, the "Respondent").
6. Following the dismissal, the Respondent filed a Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 15th December 2022 for a sum of Kshs. 5,735,224.37/=. The Applicant subsequently filed a Preliminary Objection dated 10th June 2023, challenging the Taxing Officer''s jurisdiction to tax the Bill on the grounds that the costs arose from an interlocutory application without a special order, and that the main suit was still pending.
7. On 24th April 2024, the Taxing Officer delivered her ruling dismissing the Applicant''s Preliminary Objection and proceeded to tax the Bill of Costs, awarding a sum of Kshs.5, 735, 224.37/=.
8. Aggrieved by this decision, the Applicant filed the instant Reference, supported by the affidavit of Rachael Muthoni Njoroge, a Counsel in the law firm representing the Applicant. premised on the following main arguments/grounds:
(a) The Party and Party Bill of Costs dated the 15th December 2022 relates to a nonexistent court order.
(b) In any event, the Ruling and/or Decision of the Judge that anchors the Bill of Costs under reference only relates to an interlocutory application and not the main suit, which was still pending.
(c) The Taxing Master acted improperly by violating the right to a fair hearing (Article 50(1)) and erroneously assessing instruction fees based on pleadings when the main suit was allegedly still pending.
9. The Respondent vide the affidavit sworn on 15th April 2025 by Kipkurui Cornelius - Advocate, and filed on 16th April 2025, opposed the Reference, contending that it is fatally defective for being non-compliant with the mandatory provisions of Rule 11(2) of the ARO, and that the dismissal of the Section 7 Arbitration Act Application, concluded the entire suit, justifying the taxation.
10. The Respondent further took the position that the Reference does not demonstrate any evidence of improper exercise of discretion on the part of the Taxing Master. The Respondent therefore prayed that the application be dismissed with costs in its favour.
11. The Application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The Applicant filed submissions dated 26th August 2024, whilst the Respondent’s submissions are dated 15th April 2025.
Plaintiff/Applicant’s Submissions.
12. The Applicant refuted the Respondent’s objection on the competence of the Reference and submitted that the Reference was legally tenable as it complied with Rule 11(1) of the ARO by filing a Notice of Objection to Taxation dated 2nd May 2024, which explicitly specified the impugned items (Items 1, 2, 4, 5, …34, 35, and 36) and cited the case of Machira & Co Advocates v Arthur K Magugu & Another (2012) eKLR in support of the argument.
13. The Applicant further contended that the taxation was improper as it arose from an interlocutory application and the main suit was still pending. They cited Peter Muthoka & Another v Ochieng & 3 Others (2019) eKLR to argue that the Instruction Fees could not be properly ascertained using the pleadings, as the true value of the subject matter had not been determined by a final Judgment.
14. Finally, the Applicant argued that the Taxing Master infringed upon the right to a fair hearing under Article 50(1) of the Constitution by dismissing their Preliminary Objection and immediately proceeding to allow the Bill of Costs without affording them an opportunity to challenge the quantum of the items. This, they argued, constituted an error in principle.
15. Citing Mbogo v Shah [1968] EA 93, the Applicant argued that the by the Taxing Master justifies appellate interference since it failed to take into consideration the Applicant''s right to be heard.
Defendant/Respondent’s Submissions
16. The Respondent’s submissions were that the Reference was fatally defective and incompetent because the Applicant failed to request the reasons for the Taxing Officer''s decision as mandated by Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order. Citing, among others, the case of Evans Thiga Gaturu, Advocate v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited [2012] eKLR, the Respondent asserted that filing a reference without the Taxing Officer''s reasons is an incurable omission that strips the Court of jurisdiction.
17. They also relied on Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 6 others (2013) eKLR to stress that procedural rules are not to be disregarded under the guise of Article 159(2)(d).
18. In answer to the Applicant’s submissions that the underlying suit was not conclusively determined, the Respondent maintained that the dismissal of the Application, which sought an interim measure of protection under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act, conclusively determined the entire suit. They relied on Safaricom Limited v Ocean View Beach Hotel Limited & 2 others (2010) eKLR and Paul Omondi Obiero v Cytonn Integrated Project LLP [2022] eKLR to assert that a suit for interim measures is rendered moot once the application is determined. Therefore, the taxation was proper and not premature.
19. As to whether the Applicant was denied a fair hearing by the Taxing Master, the Respondent asserted that the Applicant was duly heard on the Preliminary Objection by which they chose to defend the Bill of Costs. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant failed to file any substantive response or opposition to the Bill of Costs for over sixteen months, despite being served, only has itself to blame.
20. The Respondent therefore urged this Court to find that the Taxing Officer properly exercised her discretion by taxing the Bill as unopposed. It was therefore the Respondent’s prayer that the Reference be dismissed, with costs.
Analysis and Determination
21. Having carefully considered the application, the response thereto, the applicable law, and the submissions by the parties in support of their respective positions, I find the following issues to be requiring determination:
i. Whether the Reference complies with the mandatory procedure under Rule 11(1) and (2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
ii. Whether the Main Suit was conclusively determined by the ruling of 24th November 2022.
iii. Whether the Applicant established evidence of improper exercise of discretion by the Taxing Master.
Whether there was compliance with Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
22. The procedure for challenging a Taxing Officer''s decision is strictly governed by Rule 11(1) and (2) of the ARO, which provides as follows: -
“1. Should any party object to the decision of the taxing officer, he may within fourteen days after the decision give notice in writing to the taxing officer of the items of taxation to which he objects.
2. The taxing officer shall forthwith record and forward to the objector the reasons for his decision on those items and the objector may within fourteen days from the receipt of the reasons apply to a judge by chamber summons, which shall be served on all the parties concerned, setting out the grounds of his objection.”
23. In this case, the Applicant contended that it complied with Rule 11(1) by filing a Notice of Objection specifying the items. However, the Respondent submits, and the record confirms, that the Applicant did not request the reasons for the Taxing Officer''s decision before filing the Reference.
24. I have carefully perused the record. I agree with the Respondent that while the Applicant complied with Rule 11(1) of the ARO, the Applicant failed to comply with subrule 2 of Rule 11.
25. The Taxing Officer''s reasons are the foundation upon which a Judge reviews the exercise of discretion. The failure to demonstrate that the mandatory step of requesting and receiving reasons was taken renders the subsequent Reference procedurally incompetent.
26. The Court is guided by the Court of Appeal decision in Machira & Co Advocates v Arthur K. Magugu & Another (2012) eKLR, where the Court emphasized that specifying the items is crucial for the Taxing Officer to provide reasons, stating that without a proper notice specifying the items and seeking reasons: "the issue of when the taxing master''s decision was received is immaterial."
27. Crucially, this Court must also consider the High Court''s position in Paul Gicheru T/A Gicheru & Co. Advocates V Kargua (K) Construction Co. Ltd (2008) KEHC 2942, where it was held:
"There are no reasons on record after the Notice of Objection... This omission is incurable as the requirement for the recording and forwarding of reasons is a mandatory one. The effect of this is that this Court truly in the said circumstances has no jurisdiction to entertain the application."
28. This is a jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution, as observed in Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 6 others (2013) eKLR, where the Court held that Article 159 was not meant to aid in the overthrow or destruction of rules of procedure.
29. Accordingly, I find and hold that the Applicant''s failure to adhere to the mandatory sequential requirements of Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order renders the Reference fatally defective.
Whether the Main Suit was conclusively determined by the Application
30. The Applicant argued that the taxation was premature because the substantive suit was pending. The Respondent on the other hand argued that the dismissal of the Application, which was for an interim measure of protection under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act, concluded the entire suit.
31. The Court concurs with the Respondent. The jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act is specific. The Court of Appeal in Safaricom Limited v Ocean View Beach Hotel Limited & 2 others (2010) eKLR settled the position when it stated that:
"In addition, after the grant or failure to grant an interim measure under section 7 of the Arbitration, there is no pending suit because the substance of the suit under section 7 is grant or refusal interim measure itself."
32. Given that the Plaint and the dismissed Application sought the same interim measure, the Ruling of 24th November 2022 effectively disposed of the matter before the Court. There was no "stayed" substantive suit in the conventional sense, making the Bill of Costs ripe for taxation.
Whether the Taxing Master improperly exercised her discretion.
33. The Applicant claimed a violation of the right to a fair hearing under Article 50(1) of the Constitution because the Bill was taxed immediately after the dismissal of the Preliminary Objection, denying them the chance to challenge the quantum.
34. I find the Respondent’s counter-argument persuasive. The Applicant had over sixteen months to file a substantive opposition to the Bill of Costs filed on 15th December 2022, but failed to do so.
35. Evidence on record demonstrates that the Taxing Master heard the Applicant on the Preliminary Objection. Upon dismissing it and finding no formal opposition to the Bill of Costs on record, she was perfectly entitled to treat the Bill as unopposed and proceed with taxation.
36. The Applicant''s failure to file an opposition to the quantum, having chosen instead to only challenge jurisdiction, constitutes a procedural omission on their part., for which they only have themselves to blame. The Taxing Master''s action was not, therefore, an error in principle but a correct application of the law to the facts before her. The claim of violation of Article 50(1) is therefore unsubstantiated.
37. The right to a fair hearing requires the Court to afford a party an opportunity to present its case, but it does not absolve the party of the responsibility to utilize the afforded procedure.
38. As established in Mbogo v Shah [1968] EA 93, interference with discretion is only warranted if the lower court misdirected itself or acted on matters it should not have acted on, or failed to take into consideration matters which it should have. In this case, no domination has been made by the Applicant that the Taxing Master misdirected herself as to warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
39. In view of the jurisdictional incompetence of the Reference and the Applicant''s failure to demonstrate any error in principle or improper exercise of discretion by the Taxing Master, the Court is unable to grant the reliefs sought.
40. Accordingly, the Chamber Summons Application dated 8th May 2024, be and is hereby dismissed.
41. In accordance with Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and the principle that costs follow the event (Jasbir Singh Rai & 3 others v Tarlochan Singh Rai & 4 others (2014) eKLR), the costs of the Reference shall be borne by the Plaintiff/Applicant and are awarded to the Defendant.
42. It is so ordered.
SIGNED, DATED, and DELIVERED IN VIRTUAL COURT THIS
27TH NOVEMBER 2025
ADO MOSES
JUDGE
In the presence of: -
C/A – Moses
Odegi…………..for the Plaintiff
Frida Gatwiri..... for the Respondent
'