Report On The Petition Concerning The Failure By Kenya Breweries Limited, Kaplan & Stratton Advocate And Harrison Kinyanjui Advo

: h1;;qi PARLIAMENl OF KENYA LI B RATiY REPT'B LIC OF ITDNYA IN 1'I{E HIGH COURT OF KENYA. AT NAIROBI CI\{L CASE NC.279 olr 2003 LAUIRDNCE NDUTTU €,a, 156 OTHERS.... I{E} TA BRDIVERIES I,TD -VI}RSUS- PLAINTIITFS DDFENDANT JUDGEMDIIT 1) The plaintiffs,,numbering .ls7 f:rlecl this rep,rei'entative surit on their beha-lf a:rd on beha-lf of forrner ernployees of Kenya Frrerveries Ltd, the det'endant her:ein, whose term's and conditions of employment .tveie governed by a memr>randum of agreement I ctateitr,Slt' Dedember i997 and 29th July 1999 and rvhose cuntract of employrridnt were affected by the defenda:rts re-engineering ,. process which began in 1.994. The aforesaid action is by rvay of the Furrther Amencled plaint dated 2/12/zoi5 rvhere the plajntiffs sought for judgement as ioliow-s ..a) A declaration that.decision.to.'ccusc. their early.retireritent ruas unlatuful and breached section g0 o,nd. 82 of the constittttion and anas wrortgful and a. nutlitg. E:G.r'n Ecr*,r*'6&,EE.*.*Er,-*,c*g!=fjs:g=f=:.::==:ZrE*e.c,,'*_:--.- n NAIROBI I{IGH COURT CIVIL C/ISE NO. 279 OF 2003 ,UUCc ttr:irtt: .- 1 :f4.

I b) A declq.rcztion that the elefend.ant,s ctction to cquse retirernent o-f the plaintiffs was unlawlful artd unJair ea.rig ctnd amounted to breach of the ptatntiffs, contr.q.cts of etnplogment. c) A declaratiort tho.t tite d.efendant,s carcrdation of the praintifJs, terttinal be'ne;fits were u)rong, arbitraty and. theg helped the defendant to wtthhotd huge sums dlte to.the plaintiffs, d) An order that the defenclant should pag a1t the ptc.intiffs a.tl the outstanding duesignd salaries until their retirem.dit age at st:<tgt ged.rs. e) An order thcrt the defenclant d.o suppty to iltc. plainti,ffs a.nd. each of 'them dues- audited statement of, acccttnt 'detaittng. their be paid a.lt entitlements J) An erder that the plaintiffs and ucrLn ,oj tn"r, outsta.nding d.ues I ancl other co4sequentiq,.l pursuant to.-prayer (b) aboae. ,.; g) AND or q-lterntttivelg, general d.amages Jor loss of emplogrtent . beinlj L2.::fro_nths Satary f,or e_q.ch and euery plaintiff. h) costs of,':lkl andi4 1 uitn interest couers at gourt rates. 2) Tb.€.Utr'fg+da+l,oU itb,part, filed a defence dated Brh May 20Ig, ., .il{a a.aerrded on' 12.1i,2oo' arrd furthe..rr.r".rd.d. 6.1.2or6iin i whicie it denied viclating t-}re plaintiffs, constitutional o, oth", .i nghts- Tire defenda:rt arso siated' that the redund.ancies were declared lrl accordalce r';ith lhg applicable. . Jabour a+ct ciefendant further avered that the Ernployrrrent lau,s. jhe ,1 ,JAIBOB] HIqH..GOURT CIVIL.CASL- N:0. 279 .OI: 2003 IUDCEi\rEN'r

plaintiffs'termination u,as iawful anct tl:at they were paid thbir 4) .q)WhenthesuitCa.Ineupforhearing,theplaintiffssummbnect James sibili (p.'vv.l), Michaer Ifimonyi 1b.r,v.z1 and Lawrence Kyalo Ndutu (P.W.3) to testify in support of their case. The . defendant on the other hand summoned one Ef,ans,Kipngetich Mutai (D.W.g'toitestify in support of its det-eni*,i, ; l' '"' It is the evidence of James sip-iu (pwr) thar he jtogethbi wirh j ; Michael Kimonyi (p ]v 2) and Arb.anus Npviri lvere .appoi.riea, to represent over 82o former emptg5lees of l(enya Breweries Ltd in this suit. Ptrvl adopted the corllents of his r,vitness.statemdnt as his evideqqd in this suit. He -e-l-:aimed that he together" with his colleagueli.; u,e,1. unfairll, sacked bJ, the. difendant in . .',1-lr. -r.'.: : .'l "oa'ii#Ef1tip.rlof th" Iaw through a flawed. pro"L"". known as Ea'fry Retirernent scheme r,vhich begu. in 1994. pw1 further- stated: that the process for early retirement had conditionalities. Pw1 a-lso stated that he dicl not opt for retirement but he ,,vas never SS TSSI]C \^rJ. aIl ear Ie tremertt etter on P.w.1 further statecl that th.ey were retired in breach of the '.? dues. .6. i 8. memorarrdum of agreement between their union and the NAIROBI HIGII couRl'CIVTL cAsE NO ZZS OF 2003 ,uDcEruENT 3

employed new emploJ.ees to replace those r.vho rvere unlawfuJly forced to talie early retirement and cr declared redundant like hirn. P.W.l averred .that he was clairning lor a refund ,of ...... l<sh.5O,OOO/=, ar1 arnount which was retainecl by the defendant when he 'uvas forced to leave the defendant's empioyrneni. P.W. 1 also pointecl that there was a schedule shou,ing rvhat was due to : *'^=-each empioyee as a ,"1rr',d-:..:: ln'his evidence in cross:..1' ;,ir a exarnination, P.\V. 1 stated that his contract of employrnent was basecl on the memora:-:.duim of agreclnent betu,een tireir'union : and. their empioyer, the defendant herein. He also averred that wl-la-tever agreement reached betr,veen the union and the ernployer bounci thgrn. P.W. t conceded in. cross-exarnination that thel' had no evidence that tlre defendant employed neu' ,.,-........ e:fi$loyd'eb, aftbi$iey rlibrg retired. P.W. 1 atso stated ttiat thbugh he Iira-d aJleged thit the defendant discriminatea Lim he had no evidence to piove the allegation levelled against thb defendant 5) Michael Kimon5n (P.W.2) aCopteci the contents of the witness staternent-h1e-execut eo as rrls evrqence .H.(: sl-a.ted tha.t rre wcrkett at ttre security section having been employed at the age o{ 24 years- PW2 claimed that he rvas forced by the defendanJ to ta-ke NAIROBI I.IIGH COUR]'CIVIL CASE NO. 279 Or ZfJO3 'UDGEMENT 5

up edrl.y retirement after working for onl-v I yeargivide a letter datedTT.B.lggg.Heallegedthaihehasneverbeenpaidtlre rnoneY the defenclaat deducted and retained after he left ip.W.Z claimed that there lvas no clal se in the employment. contract of employrnent which proi,ides an early relir-ement' He aLso alleged that the defdh-dant employecl' new emplolee$r:.after retiring them. P\V2 stated in cross-exarnination ttrat'he was PW2 re- afI-rrrrred in his evidence in re-e;tarnination tirat there l\'ere lro sufficient consr,rltation before the irrrplementation of the early retirernent schelne. t.',. . 6) Lawrence-KVaIl Ndutu (P,w.3) alSo acoptec the contents of his '.t witness st4,gmqiit uJ rris evidence in supporl-.g| his claim and ttipse' pt4i4tiffSl,.rvhon:' he' represented' In cross-examination P.W,3 stateti. that there was ar mernorandum of agreement between,!11g. ,Erion and the defenclant which gave r-ise to tire joint Industrial'Council rvhere he rvas a member' P'\V'3 pointed'out ttial -tlie riremolai,rdura'bf agreement'set out the amounts payable to h.ica.. p.W.3 conceded that lie rvas paid the amo,nt specified" P.w.3 also stated that the memorandunr of agreetnent'indicated Grc,E-r'rEc:Ersr=-ffid'5@'@(' NAIROBI.I{ICTT COURT..ct)'rr, rnsa rvo. zzs or zoo:l JtlDGE|\'IENT ' actually paid ksh.50,0OO/= b'u't others r'vere not ptid'

that he raras to reccive comprrtation frorn the fina:'rcia-l accountant rvhich he received but r,,,as itot paid as \f,,as computed therein P.W.3 was emphatic that the defendarit has not paid alt the amounts due the piaintiffs 7) In support of the delence case is the evidencerof Evans Kipngetich Mutai (D.W.1) the defendantis Human Resource Director. D.w'.-1- adopted the contents of .his,witnbs$ statement as tris eviclence. He stated that the-.i"rnemorand.um of r:nderstanding bet*'een the defenclaht and,. the union iwas to ;:."'," ; deterrnine the u,ag€s, hou;'s of wo,rk and, the conditions of emplo3'rnent of unionisabl'e r,vorkers. D.rv.1 stated..that in the i year 1997 tJ:r.e defendant underWent a re-engineering process in rvhich q. r'Adicd].revier,; of business to cut costs and irnprove "6*i;li;lipytugornition. This .*.r.i"", D.iM. 1 saict red to the cl5'sure of the. defenda.nt's Mombasa and Kisumu plans. D.W.l stated*he e..14plo-vees u,ere allowed to opt for early retirement. This witness denied the aJlegation thar the fr^i.,,iff" .\,vere discrirnina-ted. D 1 sl:ated that there u/as a-n agreemenL between.plaintiffs" ulion and the defendant that the defeldant would retain ksh.100,000/= to cover debts and or liabili.ties due %EiE.'*"EhcE?rn:E,r,'l-'u.u.._#r_ NAIRoBI HrcH CCURT CIytL CASE NO. 279 OF 2003 IUDGEMENT 7

to the defendant or Ternbo Cooperative. In cross-examinalion, D.W.1 stated that the retirement age \\,as set at 60 years FIe also. stated that the defenclant cai'ne up with the idea of voluntary Eariy Retirement befare attaining the age of 60 years. Dwl statecl that employees would rvrite to the defendalt requesting'to take an early retirement. It is jthe evidence of D.W.1 that the .docurtient used to operatio:a.?Ji,selitlie early retirement scheme had given ttre defendaht the discretion to reject or accept such rEquests. Dwl stated thht the cefendant revier,'zed its business and found that it had excess employees w.ho neeclecl to be of loaded having iorre.t.o heavily in technologr to improvg.;-ef.FqiencJ', He stated::fiat the unions'fferc engaged' to :. set r:.p the tern{s of ridunclancies ancl the defendant settlecl for .. i;i.i-i -- :t.,r..'- " . red'undaiipy eing ablndoned. the Voluntar], Earty Retirement :l soherne. D.\il. J. further stated that the defendant undertook wl.at it' cdlea''re-engineering to reduce costs of production a,nd improve efficiency. ctLtil trrar inere 'r,vas alornt rnddl;tr ciln,ho met and agreed on \zoluntar) Ear11, Retiremelt Scheme but he failed to tender in evidence the minutes of council meetings held NAIIIOBI HIGH COUP.T CIVIL CASE NO. 279 OF 2003 IUD6Ei\1u.,rr B

D.W. 1 also st'ated that part o[ the initial payments were r-etained by ttie defendant. as for managemenr employees, a sum of .ksh-100,000/= was retained r,r,hile a sum of 1cshs.50,000,/= r,vas retained in respect of unionisable staff. In his evidence in.,re- e.><arnination, D.!vl stated that there rva.s an early retirembnt package rvhich rvas volurntary but the same *,as subsequently 1..;"+r-.i.:{ t-her.e was termination lvhioh,rrvas.not voluntaqr. D:w. l.cleniEd t].at the calculations of the e>{t package w€re arbitrary. He stated.ihat the-clefendant nsed_ the I(enya p.e'enue Authority tax ca.lcrrlation guidetines to emploi-ers tcj..tabuiate rvhat.lvas clue tci the eripioyees leaving. : 9) At ttre clc,5s el evidence, parties were invited to fire and exchange ; rrrritten submissiqn. Learneci go.unsels appearing in trre matter

• "),"'=1...

:-. : - -'l:... . rv.Qfe aJsb'alloreed to rrieil<e oral highlights. Having considered the evitience togeiher with'the rival submissions, the following issues

• cornrrr'€iid.ttreinselves for the determination of tf.is court.

' i) whether or not the earry retirentent scheme ucrs ------ €etrtieel_ott#_itr__coit-trauefttio the cxistittg contracts of ernplogrnent- NAII(OBI HIGI{ COU RT Cll/tl CASE NO. ?29 Oi:2003 ,UDcEr\tENT 9 'I

ii) whether or rtot the plaintiffs are ettitTecl to a reJund of the rnonies atlegedig tuithheld bg the defendant' iiil Whether or not the plainti.ffs are entitled to be paid i rr r- theit' salartes upto the date of retirentent-l ''l 'l 1 iv) Whether or not the ptaintiffi are entitled to general daniages for loss of entplogrnent, u)'+Whether or not the terrr.;inal'.ben'cfits c,laintecl bg the plaintiffs are properlg compited. 1O) On t}. e first iss'-tc, it is the submissio;r of tire plaintiffs itrat defendant deveioped a voluntar5,' earl.l' r(:tilement schcrac in whricLr an1, s1-.rp'o1,gg g.rlis ilesired ear'ly ietii'cpent had to fill a gir.en form arncl pre sent it.1br consideraii,:n blf the managcrneut and.there \-laas lto gura:'antee that the relrrest u'ould be accepted b.y, ttre emploJei:, It rvas pointed out that some of the condiLions rvtricLr l\:ere to be fr-rlflled before an enrplo;ice could be aLlo"i'ed to .l ta.ke Llp a voluntary ean'ly reLirernent irrcluclccl inter alia poor or Jouz procirtctivil--\', poor disciplina:1 recor(l, 1;oor healtii ald that ou a.\.'g a arne subrrlission of tire plaintiffs that empio.vees ri'ho l'zere aged above 50 years rvortld earn his/her salarl'upto ihe retirernent age of 60 .G .--!q;tr'ff -€r€,:q-!r=!G.?.:E't'tq,a'-Ew=t€r:^B'r-d.ffi d :.-!id NAIROBI HIGH COURT CII.;IL CASII NO, 279 OF 2OO3;UDCE[iUiJ]' iO one

4 iJ-." i.n- years. The plaintiffs have pointed out that the Voluntary Early I Retirement Scheme d{d not achic-ve the clesired results of getting marry employees retire frorn their serwice. It is furrther the subrnission of the plaintiffs that r.vithout consulting their union the defendant unilatera-lly crafted a scheme to send home a nurnber'of employees. It.is:.said that the defender-nt wouldi'send upon . arL ernplo_vee on corrrpulsory leave and his/her return, he/she u,ould be issued rvith a letter of eallj;1sii."ment, letter of service and a schedule of co:nputation. b[ his/her dues arld therea-fter the employee rVould be asked to sign documents to clea-r: amd leave':tJre corrpany pren:.ises. The plai:rtiffs referrcd to t}.is latter.,;gchgme as Unilaterd iror ced Iiarll' Retirenrent Schcme. In response to thq plaiutiffs' snilmissions, the ciefendant argured that the:'$t4intlffs' union was conslllted and macle aware of the int'ended implemcn.tation cf the voluntary carly 'relirement scherne:. Tlfe'defendant relied iii evidencc milrutes of a meeting of the "Joint Inclustu-ial Council held on Il.O8.2OO0. The defendant further. stated . thar irr irnpiementing Lhe early retirenaent scheme it did not ciisci.iminate: against any employee. The defendant lurtleer denied breaching Sections BO ahd 82 of '@,E.-ltEGEn NATROBI HIGH COUfi.TCIVTLCASE NO. 279 Or;2003luDCEiuENT 11 I I

the 1963 constitr-rtion. It a-lso denicd breaching the ternns of the meinorandum of unclerstareclir:g eirtered" between it and the plaintiffs' urnion. I hai'e carefully exa-mined the minu.tes heavily relied upon by thc riefendant in respcct of the meeiing rvhich took plac? o. 11tt, August 2OOO. It is apparent that the early retirernent scheme tcok place between the year .t'E9l and 2001. TIie minr:tes relied,upon are in respect of a mectiqg of Joint Industrial council rneeting held.on 11.8.2000. It is evident that the ea-r15' retirement scheme r,vas done .rrrore tl:an three(3) .yea,rs before the consultative meeting rv:as held. The defendant did not tencler rnihutes of aar1,' meetings held betrveen the'defendant and ' :4. the plaintifis" unioi: prior to the commencement oi the forced : early retir€-r1ren-!,qcheme.pA critical examination of ihe minutes tditdercid,.hl: tii"; a.fendant ,,vili show that the union had clearly l st'dted that it—had never been party to the forced earty retir-dment scheme- l4.fact, tJ-re union clearly star;ed that the.clefendalt had turned the initid 'olnntarj, retirement s,:heme to forced.early relirernent. Fa{ter l"ar-ef.rt evaluation of the evidence, I am c] convinceci ttrat the plaintiffs ha.ve showit that thelr ivere forced to (-. -"" take an early retirement without being consurted nor the NAINOBI HIGI{ COURl'CIVIL C.ASIJ }IO, 279 oF 2003 JtrDcEt\lINT 11

participatjon of tireir union. The initial scheme rvas voluntarJ bi-rt the sal'nq v,ras entitle later' ,rorced tlrrough the plaintiffs tirroats. The docurnentary eviclenc presented b,v boih sides shour that the e I plaintiffs' were employeci by tire defendant on perrna':rent and ' pensionable terms and rvere each expectecl to retire at the age of 60 years. ''The plaintiffs leave cornplained that their rights as " .'.i1i".re1'lshrined under sections'90,:and g2 of the constitutior: (notv repealed). The defen.dant has. +:gLlecl that the plaintiffs have 'failed to tender e',,idence shosring,that the1, vier€ d.iscri*irroi"j'n i the implementation of the eail5r retirement schemes. It has emerged frorn :the ei'idei-ice te+dered that though there ttias no open d-iscrim,ipation agajns! th9-plaintiffs, it was not cleeu rvhai criteria inqS applied in iclentifying. those to take LU) early . i..i- rettrernent. 1i''1he absence or a clear expranation, tug-gryr!9- t*Ie. tfrr.t the.re rvas sqltie discriminarigLel;rg31gs r the plaintiffs vis-a-vis those rvho rcmainerl in employment. The ,,_-....1-. . ..- plajntiffs have a-lso arguecl that their right r.o fair labou.practices @i-Ajrlielc-zrl}--oftl:e-€or-rs*.-it-u-tion—ofJ(€nya-,-2€'1€- were breached. In responsr: to this subn:i5sion, the defendarrt cited the case of Alfrec Asid.aga lflurir,ra and z ot]rers =vs= NAIROBI fltcIJ COURT CrVIL C.tiSE N0. 279 CF 2003 JUUcEiuSit.f 13 ; : i

Attorney General and B others, Nairobi c.A no. L79 of 201s in rvhich the cburt of Appeal herd, inter alia, Lltat a court canhot enforce rights created under the new cor:rstitution unless those rights were : recognised and protected und.er the pre,zious consti.tution. with respect, I agree rv-ith ihe d.efencant,s latest srrbrnission. In the circumstances this court by.inference finds t1.at,the plaintiffs' right to protectiofl .froni aiscrijination under sections 80 and 82 of the constitution of I(e,ya (norv repea-led) was breached. J 11.) Ttre other question which is related to lhe above is rvhether the ' irrplementation of the early retiremeni scheme was in breach of ttre contract of emplo-r'ment betq,een ihe plainriffs and the .: defendant.,. The., plaintiffs have arguecl that the letters sending I r'i_1.. tlaa'iln - Hom.e ' for early retirernent cannot be treated as redtmda:icies. The-liare of tl-re vie,"r, that the sa-:lc u,ere unilatera-l p-e.{ g*iy-lg tir. clnc' n t qcl:erne. 12) The clefenclant on the otlier ha:rd is of the r.ierv rhat as -----------uniorristLlrlc-c l-rn s; o crnp oymer-1 as Per the nlemorandur:a of unde:standing provictcci for a decla:.ation of redundancies described as loss of emplo-v-rnent through no fault NAIROBI HIGH COURT CI\/rL c.A,sE HO. 2;' Or 2o03 IUDCEIUEilT 1+

.fl the contract of emproyr:rent reclundancy is statecl to be oue of the metho.dologi in rvhich an emplol,ees, employrnen,t coulcl be brought to a:r encr. It is expressly stated that reclunda'cy shourd be rvith cleariy laid cor.r,n procedures. The c.B.A and the labour laws are very clear on ',.;hat co'ditions rnust met for :-eclundancy to be apptied, First, it mr-rst be jr-rstified and proveir rhat ihere is need to reduce the''n'trmber of employees in orclir."t,J,'save the ernpl05rer fron corlapse- Seccncliy, that the r:ccin,cancy process and pa-c}:age n:ust be negotiatccJ arrd expia.inec in hdva:rce to the persons aifecieci. Third1y, that rhere must be a cLe ar criterion as to rvhich cn:plo.r'ee ',,;ould cxii ancl ri.h1, s1i1.i ire Inicl c.lou,n. h_r this case the crcfc*dant failed to produce its a-n,rr;rJ stateme.t of accou.t tb shori. it_s fi'rar,.rai stat*s clespite har.i:tg bcen ser,,ed w{th'd-'4otice to picidu"e b}, the praintiffs. The pra-intiffs, assertionithat the defendant *,as then a:rd has co,tinued to-date on an lrrp"vard profitability trencr. rernains tinco::tro'erted. There is 'o ewidence that the process was negotiated- by tLre emproyees --eSfe.ete.+---.ln—ti re -a b s err II}CN or]e ures, It ca,not be said the defenclar:t's eai-ry retirenrcnt scireme ca' be treated a.s. redurrclancJ. trVith respect, I a_rn convi.nced that the NArRoBr utcn coui T CIvtL C;ISE ftO. 279 oF 2a03luDGEniENT t6 tI ct I

plaintiffs were justilied to plead tirat tl're defendant's sch.eme lvas left at t.he whims ci sectiona-l heact ancl was irruure.t rvith extreme favourism eud discri;nination. The plaintifls were .therefore right :- to clairn d,iscrirninaticn since there rvere no guidelines to justify r,vhy they rvere retireci while others of similar qr..lalificatien5 ltr€re left to cor::,tinue tc rr.'or . It is clear in my mind that the plaintiffs .irr-r v/ere rernoved' from enrployment q,hintsicafly a:'id":-vrithout following ' the lajd dorvn abour lav;,s eurd procedures. Consequently, the plaintiffs' terrnination and or dismissa-l is 3 declared to be unia',r'ful and therefore the 1riaintiffs are entitled to be corrr ensated.'/ I ( .! 14)Th'e-secondfi.s-guetobecieternipedisrvhetherornottheplaintfffs are e.ntitlccl;.to hg;eturded. monies r'.'ithhclci by the defericiants ir .- t ,, - "j-.,i ' is .the submiision of the defendant that tne plaintiffs are not . "::.- entitled. to bd,'refuncled thb' a,foresaiC sttm because the plaintiffs failed to sp9-cifically plead and provg save for the tu'o plaintilfs who testifled. The Ceferrdant further a-rgUecl that most of the @aiir-l-.zr.clc-tMurri-afteritwas-estrabtished. that- they dicl not oi'",e the compan)' monei'. Tlie defendant also argped. tlrat thc clsr-irn was not sirnila:- tc each plaintiff. The N.AIROBI HtGt{ COURT CI\{L C.'\SE t'lo. 279 0F 2003 'UDGEi\lEliT L7 k I

defendant further pointed out tliat thc scl:edules of payments pfepared b-v the lealnect ad.vocates -uv€r'e' never aclmitted as exhibits in evidence. The defencianr a.lso argued ihat it has set up the defence r.vhich is to the efflect that the claim for a refuird is time-barred therefore the ciaim for ksh.2A,77 5 152 rs not justifred. The plaintiifs have beseeched this corut to crder the ..defendant to:refund the monie-s it rvithheld as.,securit5r. 'It is :: pointed out that the defendant has adrnitted.trhving cieducted.the urged this court to order the defeaclant to pa1'thg claim as per I the scheclules pro','ided by trvo lir:ms of advocates. I have considerecl the evidence provicicC lt;r both sides plus the submission5 gv€.r this ciaim. Thcrc is no doubt that this claim w'a'S pl:ad9.d in.the.piaint.. The.plca niay not have.been.precise dr9.- .t" the numerous nurnber of p1a-ir-itiifs. It is not in dispute ttat ttir:ee plaintiffs restified on bchalf of the rest of the plaintiffs anc this is not unusua-l in rcprescniative sr-lits like in this case. The defendant has stated that the claim is tirneba;reci. It is u:rforlunate that tire clefenciant iras ia.iled to iav both the factua_l and legal' basis of this ground but ir. has insteacl made a general NA IROBI HICH COUR'r'CIVIL CASE NO. 279 OF 2003 'i,DGEiUENT 18 aforementioned arnounts frorn the pia.;ntiffs,.. The plaindffs have

subrnission i,vhich did not help its clefencc:. Both the ltlaintiffs ald the deferedant concllr tirat the defenclar-:.c retaineri iiom each employee either a slin] of l<sh.50,000/ = or ksh.100,000/= as security for [he defenda:rt comparly liabilities. 'l'he piaintiffs provided a fi-rll list of narnes and.amounts cif re.funds due to each plaintiff. I have alreaciy statecl that defendanL has stated thai the a-:nounts rvere repaid lo.the plaintiffs. The defendan-t summoned rvith this colrgf'5 directive tr,',,o lists of claintants anci the pai' off schedulei te confirm tlic ccductiens. The schedule Ii)ed by he fi:fin of itll+tnada and Co. Advocates dated 1lth day of N,lay 2016 sholvs that tLre defendant has u.ithheld a surn of ksl-r.20,775,152 in respect of the pla-rnt;fIs s,horn the aforesaid firm repi-esents 'Itris docurnent has giiideci this court to ascertain the armount wltrrh e.!.{t ar Cr not repai i,) Lll e deiendal-rt I ne delcrrcrmt-Tlar not controver.ted the scheduie. It cannot thereiore Iie in its mouth to der:y tl:.e same. There is no reerson r1,hy the plaintiffs NAIROBI HIGH COtltil' CI\rlL C.,iSti Lio. 279 O1,2003 iUDGEI\.IENT L9 its Human Resource i,',ianage1;,,.(pwi), to teStify in its defence. IJnfortunatell,, D\V1 clid not proau"" in eviclenCe any d.ocuments or form of eviderrce to prove rei!-abursement or repayment of the arnount rvithLrelC. The plaintiffs producecl in cou.rt i., .o*ptian:ce

ciefendant tl-rat at the time o[ plaintiffs' clisrrissal, the remecly available was ciamages if a clciendarft ',,.,as liable, ri,as iimited to the period of notice applicable under the.emplo,/rnent contract. The clefenderlt rvas of the submission that since the plaintifts, emplqJarflent rvas terminated b-1, i'a], of recltrncancl., the1, -tvere not entitled to claim damages, for loss of employmc,t. It is the submission oi the ,plaintifts that the entire process tirey r.vjere subjected to \L'as an iliegaJir-v.* hcnce they a-r c cntitleci to cornpensation in cla,-nages on the basis..of a mr-rlripLier of their saLaries but being caippecl to 12 nonths, gro*ss sala-rl,. Thc plaintiflfs asi<ec.:,'&is cor-rrt to a.rvard each pla.rnti:i a sum o[ kshs-1o,0o0,0c0/=,o.r ti-ris heaci. Having consici.:rec the ri'al ' :.. subrnissigns o'ei rhis ciairn, I am sarisfied that the plaintiffs,exit ,,: frbjrr the: de'fendanrls emplo.r,:nent cannot be tr.eated as redtndancy. The defendant simply disrnissed the plaintiff.s through'a. proc'ess .ot recognised by the c.B.A ancl the contracts of ernploSrrnent signed by each plaintjtl In other rvords, the plainti{fs,-'lt,ere unla"v{ uliy . dismissecl. The plaintiffs are therefore entitred 'to rccei,e darnages equivale,t to the periocL pI notice stated in the contract or the c.B.A. There is no dispute that t\ NAIROBT riIGH COUIIT Clyrt Clrs:; i :'ro. zzrl or 2003 IIJDGF.rUI:NT

• -lle:-

t \J

plaintiffs' employment r,,r,ith the defendant *as ter.minated before the coming into force of the Constitution of Keni,2 20i0 and the Ernployment Act' 2007 ' In the case of Iv'ary wakhbubi British Airways pLc ,or') er{tR the court of Appeal considered.the rerneclies available to an employee dismjssed in 2000. In finding that the remedies ih the constifr-rlion of Ke'y a 2070, "rd th; ::T;::"' 2107.flid not aep-lv i, such a case: rhb court : ,,Ail that said, then is to say that,.this court only has jurisdiction to arvard lthe rernedies available at the tinte of 1.-Ire wrongful Cisn-ris-sal or ur:.f,ai. termination, thqt.,liq, g,hen the causg: of action arose. These are I .. tt-ttiigs that are provided Ibr uncler t,e ,"p.lar"d ':" Dmp]ofment Act, Cap 226 Lar-rs of Kenya and the. repeaierl Tracle Disputes Act, cap 234 Larvs of r(enva.,, In.D.P. Bac.htretha =vs= Govc,rment of the U,ite, a,";_" "; America (2OLT) .I{.L.R .he Courtof r\pl)er_J iteici rrtter alia: <alV srnissal ti,;ls rv!.ongful was ouly entitled to damages equiv:rlent to the salary he 1v ose 1 NAIROBI HIGIl COUR'r CIVIL CiISD NO. 279 oF 2 003 il tD r:L-^ r trr\,1- 5'j

lvoulcl have earned. during the pericd of notice applicable in his contract.,, 1B) In this case, it is clearfi.om the conrract oi employment and the merrrorardum signed betr,treen the plarntiffs, .union and ithe 'i defenda-nt that the detencia-rrt ,-vas required to pay one morltr:,s salaqz in lier-r of notice. I arn of the ,,.-iew that the praintifr"i*. eacle. entitled.to a sum eqr.rivaJent to one.montli,S sal as at the date of teimination as damages.for loss of emproyment. I make the ar+-a;i in favor-rr of the piair:tlris. 'r',c przuniiffs u-.r., ,r"o actvocates fiie a,ci senre the cleferci:rni scneclulqs sho,"r"i'g the .: montl-rl)" gala:-;r-,-each pla-i.tiff'*,a.s ear..ir:3 as. ar the tjme of terminaiior-i. qf empl"f.nerrt. [&ntio:: cn trl2/2O1S to cleterrnine ' .:. ,: 9) The finJ,iSSuc,,to be jeterrnined is ,,r,netircr o. not rhe defenda:rt's ealculation of the plai.trii,s ierrninar benefits rvere lwong, a:b-itr:ary and helpecl the ciei:ncrant to rvithhord h.uge sltms due to the plaintiffs. It is 1re siir..,missio. of the defenclant that tEe aforesaid payrnertts rvere calcillated as requirecl under the Regulations of wages (General) a:rii in accorcrance *,itl: the lar,v govclning employees r,r,ho have iteerr cieciared reclu.ndant counrclvll CASE N0. z7i,) II NA Innpr urn rr o l; 2003 iL; i) i, I: i'; i:,\. T 6C ra .t

The plaintiffs are of trre view that si,ce thelr \vere not consnlted, then the defendant's calcurations shor-rrcl be treated as arbitrary. J have consictered the materiatl placed beiore this co,.rrt aurcl iL is clear to this collrt lhat rholrgh the clefenclatnt clid .ot consr_rit the plaintiffs on the cornputation of their terminal benefits, the defenda,,r nevertheless ga.r,e a schedule show_ing hoi., ihe figrres wer-e a-i-rived ar. whar is clear in m.,,, inii:,i is rthat the. ciefehctant proceeded to cornpute those cluqs as though the plaintifis rvere )t the case here. tri the crrcurr'starnces, I a::: ui:abie to niake a cieclar-ratio:: iLrat ihe proCeSS,rvas \vrong or arC:.rr.tyl 20) i, the finzrJ:an.4l5,sis ttrr= .or, t'--o.rters judgrnc.t i* fa.r,otrr oi t5c ptaintiffs as fo-II o p,s : ',. r .ir,,=t'.. .r.j:,:..' ,!i:,= heie_ly dCclarecl that the.ciecision to causd the ptain[ifg" to'i-take earrf:retirbinent rvas u*ran,fur and in brea.ch o c onsti:Gi:t on' ncl the Iaintiffs'c ontract o f e rnp_lcymin t. 1-t Lr, The defenriant is hereby ordered to pa1, bach of the plaintiffs P r O yiit C1 11 a srtm equiwalent to one (1) rnor:'th's salary as at the tirne of ternrination of emplcyrnerrt. ? ./ c) f.'he defeuciant is ordereci to reftrnci to thc plaintiffs a su:n cf er:,==&.:.r!mra:-r<ui rrlEl.!&_ . _;l_ 5_l N.{IROBI I-IIGI-I COURT CIVIL CASE NO. 279 0F ?00s IUDGr,rre,,.;r

',1 ', qo11r ?:, hsh.3O,18O,685/= bein$ the anrou'nt l'vithirelcl in terrirs of the dcheclules fiIed by the firms of advocates of i'lamada & Co' Aclwocates and the firm ol J' I{arrison Kinyanjui & Co' 1' Iish'2o' 7-i5'144 ' ' ..;;' ^^ -^F t- l'r"' Total E!h.r3-q'-1:sg6$-qE ' r, :;,, . q,\- I ' i. 'tthe suiL' L /v Thb plaiatiffs to be paid by the defcnclants:d-osts o: ,/ | :-l The defendant to pay i;:terest oir (b);':(q ) ar-rd;(d) above at ' -/ ' 2. I(sh. 9 405 541 t rates frorn tht date of radnt unti1 the clate of ful1 d d) e) ) rws : ::' ;..i. i :'; open court this 24h tidy of Januar5r' 2 In ttrd Pres ' : r.-ir" ,. .I enCe'o1: \Jr'1c J. K. SERGON DAiI,D JUt)GD IC EP.T IFYTrits COPY OFT L:_r t) .*s 1.- i1it.l'rYF. (il ir gAU r.' i' r.) Ni\ !li ut si tl\rrit ': ll.E,au" ..N..I.ry......r::... -l't'y'i nNJt'-t'' G, ft- c\t tt " ' for the Pl for the qpon .f". \tr 3 elpr-Lc-.'.'" A \rAIidoBI }iiGI i couliT c(vlL cAs0 N0. 279 cF 20'J3 )uDGEllEi'lT 62 l.l clli'e

5 ;--.,l i IN THE COURT OF APPEAL ATNAIROBI CoRA-t{: w. I(AEANJA J. MO HAII,IMED & LAIBUth JJ.A. CTVIL APPEAL APPLICATION NO . EOB9 2021 BETWEEN :.-iP

• .:..-1.:i

tn fl . ti I I LAIV.RENCE NDUTU & OTHERS... I{EI{^TA BRBWERIES LIMITED.. AND RULIN G OF THE COURT -AP P ELLANTS / RES P O I,iD EI{T S RES P O ND ENT /AP PL I C.{NT (Being an apprtcationfor striking:out the notice of appeatfi.red. .,goi*, tn" i:7:";rT:I::,,X;il{" uisi court o1ri"ns, at Nairobi (r. Kl serson, r.1 . HCCC. No.279 of2OO3)

• *r *:f + *** * * * * *tt*

i** *+***l

• i: * i

1 All the 6,001 res^oondents in this motion -"v.ere fo'aei- ernplovees of r(enya Breweries Limited trcBl) (the respondent in the appeai anci the a'pplica,t in this. application). They sued ttreir emplover vide a plajnt rx'hich .'vas amendeci anci further 'amended on 2-i December. 2015 seeking variou s reliefs on grouncis that they had been sent for earr1, retireraent q,hich they contended w.as unlawful anci contra5r to sections go and g2 0f the retired constituLion. It was their case tirat

I I t lhe record of appeal had not been serv,ed on them, and rvas ?3.d June,.202 i foUowing reminders from the a.oplicant. ". 5' It is under the above circumsta,ces that trre appricant has moved this court by way of the Notice of Motion dated 156 Jury 2021,by invoking RuIes g3 and g4 0f this court's Rures, Articre 15g of the constitu tion arrci sections 34 and 38 of the Appenate Jurisciiction Act seeking orders Serrr'ed Otf as follorvs: ti tt T t t I I I I I I i I I al 3*,ff y#e of appeal datel 7d, Februar-.-, 2or8 be deemed q) ll;t t"t record of appt"l attta 24:\ Februai-v ,2o2rbe sruck c) rr ^ i .o. t" ",, jli,- :lf l"iil". * o o *.. i."."oi]";*..,,., th.e intended appeai t".*"riJio ,n. respondenr. 6' 'The raotion is premised on grounds that judgi:ent at the High court was delivei-ed on 24tir January, 2Olg; that the nodce of appeal u,a5

• lodged on the Ttrr Februarl .2Otg; that an applicalion seeking for

certified copies . of proceedings has not been served upon the respondent; that the appelrants were required to [-le a record of appeal within 60 days after lodging the notice , u,hich has not been complied wr'th; that the appeal q'as to be fiied on or before the gs Aprir, 201g; that the dela-v in irrosecuting .the intended appeal is extremer_v prejud'iciar to ihe respondiat, and that it is in the interest ofjusiice that ttle application be al.lo-w.ed. xaren Mate-Gitong", it. applicant's legal manager,. swore an affidarrit oa beiralf of the applicalt whereby she largell, reiterated the said

E d li : E :-. E Fp li' on the striking out of the.record orappeai, the applicant urges this Gourt to l-rnd that this motion rvas fired q"ithin the stipulated time as provided under mre g4 0f the court of Appeal Rules, having riled the mo[ion on the lsth .Iuly, 2O2l upon being serred rvith the record of appeal on the 23.d June, 2O2 I. 72' The applicant further urges that the respondent cannot rery on rure 82 since no application requesting for lyped proceedings rv45 sysl sei-'-ed on them as prorrided by the Iarv, a-ncr no certificate of dera;z has been tiled by the respondent. The respondents have not given any -explanatioa for the delay, and *ris Court is, therefore, urged not to indulge them l3' In their subrnissions iired in opposiuon to rhe motion, r-h e resoondents urge the Couit to find ihat, after delvery of the judg;:rent. thei-e rvere vanous mentions to ascertain the actual number of respondents involved and this went on till the 26ta Februar.v , 2O1g rvhen the quesLion was settred' Further, Lhat the proceed.ings 'were appried for a:rd thej/ vei-e cer-ei'Eed on the 2gth July, 201g. This was follon,ed up b-v the firing of the record on the 24c\ February, 202 I arvai ting the deliverv- of ihe certificate of d.elay as a supplementalv document. l'he i-esponcjents' urge that rule 77 pro,J.ides for service of the Notice of appeal on Lhe affected parties ,,itt,.i., the stipu,lated time. Hou,ever, it does not extend to the ietter requesting for proceedings, and once a Notice of appeal has b.een filed and served dismissai on the basi there is no rule requiring s that..the letter requesting for proceedings rvas til In ; i -. {' i I 74

f ap.oeal. This was not done, and the appellarts carrnot, therefore, seek solace in the prov-iso lo rule g2(supra)..We wor-rld respectfulll, u;gs counsel for the respondent to farniliarise r,i-derr rrtth thercourt of Appeal Rules because, from the contents of his submissions, it is rrnperative for him to do so 19. As was held in Charles Wqniohi Wathuku u. Gtthi nlL ure & another [2o161 er<LR, the intent a-nd purport oI rule g2 of ihis court,s mles is as iollow-s 'that timeline is 'itiict, and is meant to achieve the constitutional, statutory and rule_based. objective of ensuring that the court processes dispense justice in -....a timely, just, dffiiielrt and cost_effective rrranncr- The rule recognizes however that there could be cielays in the typing and availing of the proceedings at tiie high ccu;t llecessa-, ior the preoa.-ation or- tiie record of apoeal. The proviso to the rule accordin LY provides tha t whe:'e ana pellant has bespoken the pro ce e dings within thirtv davs and senre d the letter uPo n the respo ndent. then the time taken to prepare the copy of the proceedings, duly certified by the registrar of the high court, shall be excluded in the computation of the 6o_day period. A certificate of delay therefore suflices to exclude any delay beyond ihe prescribed.60 days-,, I Emphasis ours/ 2O r1-r'-. ^ -^-!-. L ^. ='-- 'Jiiu€ a pai-v- nas faii ed to fiie a record r.r,i thin the abbve stiourated time, then rure g3 of this court's ,-..les co*es L'rto play. It states : "if a p.art5; who has loCged a ::ctjce of appeai faiis to institute an appeal witl.in the appointed tirne, he shall B t, -t li I : T '. g E I l l I ! I I I i

serve Lhe iecord out of time rvas ever sought or obtained lrom this court' Fro5n the foregoing, it is crear that the application btfore us has merit and the Notice of appea.l herein can be eittcr struck out or be deemed as withdrawn. The application dated l5u July 2021rr....i= ard is hereb_v ajlowed in its enrirety with the result that Civil a p peal No. E089o f 2027 is hereb-v struck out r.r,i th costs to the applicant. Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 3,d Day of February,2023. IV. IL4.RANJA JUDGE OF"APPE.^.L J. I{OHAiVIMED ..i'.. JUDGE OF APPDAL DR. I{. I. LAIBUTA JUDGE OF'APPEAI I certify thaf f/ris zs a tnle copy of the oiginat Signed RDG I ! I 1 I I I I I I I : \ I : I l l I I 1

l(apiari j:ii;";i,,.t<.r ir Advocates Wiliiamson House 4ttr Avenue Ngong P.O. Box {0111 - 00100 Nairobl, Kenya w\vw.kaPlaistratton.com Email: KS(OkaPstrat.conr VAT No.,.Ol t2l90 2lN. P0006155'{lS T: (0) 20 264100C (L') 20 2733919 M: (0) 722 205782i (0) 733 699012,3 lnll. Code: +254 DZ: No. 19 r0 Apa 2018 YOUS REFERENCE: PlqGffifi0/172 n. J. Harrison Kinyaajui & Co. Advocatr:s

• - :- -5t-Ellis-I{tiise-'--'

4th Floor. Door 416 Wabera Sueet NAIROBI Dear Sirs, lligh Court Civil Case No. 279 of ZOOS l,awrence Nduttu & Otbers vs. Ken5'a Brcweries Limited 2. Thank 1,ou for your letter dated 29tb March 2018 We should be graieful if you could please ciirify the followilg; 1. Whettrer the payment of Kshs. 9,405,501 is in full and fural settlement of the suit inclusive of the costs. \\,eeoclose?temPlateoftitriischaigel,oucberforexe,cutionb),e?c@ a n Cidtr,rn-lir us- We shall tbereafter request our clierrt to Eajlc i,a]-melt to your account' tr I Yours iaithfully, P. ulri"- KAPLAN & STRATTON Cc: CIi ent RacrrvED o"re r..tplLl. 0ltr,.l. }e r r-.... rrMe ._..i..11. PT.............. . . srGNED.. .ffi:::. . . . HaARrsoN KtNyANJUt e !:,i. At:V6c,a.rE: ': ': iiii. nbo :.:Pa, SC o. Hrne O. Fc'pler 3 ! ,Einarna N. Shavr P Gachuhi R. Mbai E S,r.h t, ['.sli\ E. Kinyenio C. W6l€,'Ce .:l ..c:'ti.ri;r J t.iL,ttrui A. rArc$.al.Thfthy F. lkimife K h'.srnanllla P Njoru S. |{,jr;.. tvlri: N.t4an3a R f.kungo C.6llrSt:t J lt3'rng'ira l{eml,'Br cl LEX AFSICN

DT EVOU S G e r{-rr Q'-t , holder of ID no. 1 t osc\S S 6 I of P' o' 1 do HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT of payment of the fO-.-,"t*-SSrrS or\rL\ t from Kenya Breweries Limitetl (bereinafter'KBL") of P' O' Box ImREBYACCEPTtheaforesaidsuminfrrllandfilalsettlementofallsumsduetome underthejudgementinEighCourtCivilCaseNo2]Igof2003.LawrenceNduttuand others vs Kenya Breweries Limited ('the Suit")' gmOi-Oo't-Oo, I{airob"' I fiuther shall not make any demand of any nature whatsoever against or its parent company and its insurers' DATED this t& dav or e!.,L 2018 DlCoNslDERATloNoftheaforesaidpaymeBtl,mypersonalrepresentativeoranyother pe$onasmysuc@ssolintitlehereb-vreleaseanddischargeKBL,allitsafEliatedentities, directors,offrcers,employees,agents,successorsorassipsftomallclaimsoranyfurther liabilitytomearisingfrommyformeremploymentwithKBLandinthesuit.Iherebywaive myrichttomakeanyfutureclaimsforanyamounts,expeuses,losses,liabilities,rigttts, benefts or eotitleruents (wiretlrer t''-rorrn :r r:nbxrvn) tber'.:sa}'":.'::-:i t sg froql KBL or anysuchdirector,offrcer'employee'1gent'successororassiporotherwisewhatsoever' KBL, its insurers and $#;, .. P3.1.! :. 3-6'F"al h o11.ttrsln s Sipature ." F-_-'ET I t4 passport/l.D Number los}tl-'l'ffi' WITI{ESS Signature """ 'r' -Name: H ,a—l /r-->--

I .7 l. q \, t ^r-}}.!:\-r rJ - t \-/ !/ l'a '!r: ry '-r I,J .'1 u\4. e: .i \vt'"] t1"t' t t, 'r< rt lrr' 'r holtler ol' lD ner' { t ')}:1 -"- r 5,1q,t':-Y,4.r l-do-,tIIERERY'\(rK\owLED(Iti RIicIil =,r,o.',rr}*.*:*?,,rl"s" "-Io"1t 'r,.1 5 t;, t'c's l' }{Kslrs.ltitrmKeul,aBr.erteriesLirrritetl(hercilraftr:r -10 1 6 I -00100, liairohi. l- iniP.0. ;, \'n1g 11t lrl thC I(BL") of l. O. Dox l/[ rrt rJ I IIEIII1BY ACCEm ihc lforcsaid sum itr full anil [ita[ scttlturunt ot: :rll sttttts rlur; lo mo uudorthc.ju$gemcrrtintligtCrrurr(|ir'il.CascNo]79rrt1{X}3.t,arrr:enccNduttugod olhers ,4s Ken.va Brerterics t'inriled ("rhc SuiiJ' \YIII'NIiSS, SigP:at'tlrr '.. Aildrc ss IN CONSIDITRATION of the illoresaid pavnent I. mv personai rtpresetrtative ('r arl]- other persor! 3s m.,. successor in title hcreb-v relcase ;tnti i'lischargu KBL ali irs ait'ililrttrtl r:rttitics' : tlircctors, .,sq*' cmplol;i:e.':i. :t!pnts, succi}sor\ or itssigtts i.rorn aIL cllrints tlr tnv [urther li:$tlitv ttr,mc firi$lrE. Iionr t rr. [brrtrer. enrplay-urcnl with KBL iil1d'ivr r]re Stit- t hcrehl': '*aive a}], li-e'hr to rj1;r}ic :rt:'t {rilurc clitjnr.s tor anv alnounrs. exPense:. il,lsses. liubilities. riglrts. lrnelits trr Cntitler.crrLt iwlrctlrcr Llr()l,r ir ol unktttrl'rn) tliat n"y bc duc tg m': frtrm KBI-- Oi :loy suL:h dircctt:r' oiiit'er' ernplol'ee' agollt' Succllss<tr ol assigtt (}r trtht:rr+-isc \i ii:!!'r)'ji d;- I trtrtlru.r shalI hot tnltkL' any r1enianl ol lln5- llilitlrc \\tlilK(revcr aquinst KIJI " irs insttrerr and or iLs olrrent comPirnv ancl. irsinstrl.ers- DATEfr rhts day of ?(lls I ?_]? 1Z L. .Sign;,tur.r .tdbt-; Pussportrl'D Nurntrt:r ""-""t' r' -, [i'] ti?' 'r?-t-\- i ! It.|X[, ,,; ]*r',-..S- l-'-.h,1r*L 'ii t');'ii''.l' 'it':- 7;'- tii I t-s "/ ;! Nitm';: 59

t I o C. lov ri Jt ; - ,]r-\ lao '-!,J i:,:g:r : ir!= ,..,::r-r lr=r !i tilizir.:.i"oxfi r.1!. :l: ': 1;.) i ..li ,taEr fa< I I -'r:i:il:9':: -....--^..'. t r Ir '" :t' ' T.*:e Depi.,-ry llcg is irri iiig.h Court cf K rr:;a UtYIi Utvlsr.Gn liilirnaci Len Cotst I .\.\ I !.:{.}f.rl i,:.ia;,(ii lci i;? i) J2,r4,20'.t2 Lr=tt )u. [[ith C,ruri Ci!.ii (.e.re J.r. ]14 trf ltio-i Llrvrcacc;Yduitu & Ot[crs vs. Kenr': 8r*r "'ri*s Liiojted Ye r=qtcst ycu o ki-r!ii';:cod ti: ;oll.e;ri4 c,o*rr rpv (-r)N{IF:.J'I l-ne srrh bgtttcr.t rr ttefilg1dsnf srd ttc PlaiilitTs ligcd il tk. g i-iecn':; sched,rlc egi rct'-rrcd ro at p: r:5ragrir. ! 4 of.er;.rdgn::r:J d- 5vs:d cc 244 iesun:)'20I B rg bcrr-iry r''rgr'<cd as setilcd" Yours S.:i'drLY, t .L\'i Lit .t c-11 T ON .\i)'. ()(..1. l'ii-\ F'(|l{.'}IlE nI:f Fi\.I)-t li- { :-. ,3+:h.rhi i E. l'ji. ,J'i I ,1{..A'€ng.?'l , , d.,i i8...".h : C. iS=rt, F. C lP. rs F. ,I}t,; i .!l g. F?.1asr iccr=ulEnl) -- Lq rr7l5'. ,.:n , -1. i.r'liiJl lss ..,.,. ; .i i)..'iic.1.Tf :i rflR 'i-iil. !'i,..i l.'Jl'l l;i-'\

1 D I RE C TO R,,I T E O F C R T il N,.,1 L TN I'ES T I G,4 T' I O i\,5 Puge Na....,. Polic,c cttsc ,yo .......20...... -.. ... . ..li ! l;201-j it. L!lis l.louse -I 't t'ii,r'r r ril i-ij{rfi;-5 I i I ! i P: 1|e 125 people r rcpr- accoLlnt \\.its as ji: I lr1 r.1. s ; IJ Decremental sum oi 2) [nterest q,a.s 4,3SO,7 _ .rJ l-ar+.and part-\. cosi. roralrng to ties 1.i.7515,3 l2 esented, the amounr rentirEed bY K Kes.9,405,541/= 7 t.35i = :r'as l,00O,OO0I= .3s/ = BL to our clienrs i |t: r_eceipr oi rhe sajd amo.unr inco i I,OOo.OoO,i = ro Ir j x " p r ", r',,.i ; ":i'-'" ;'1, *:i.*i: #j:#:l i+l i?H' i *'lll iji rs fi t 1' left the balance iherer:ti";i;d-;l[r',"flT"1fi:atio. on rire sciuemenir, .jrJ I t uen requcsrecl r\lr i Accounranr: ir, <rrci.l Lau'rence Nduttu ro I u' n' n' j n l;'' ;:' H " :? " i""T:fll#ll! ::T''ti;::"':1il ::* i"# il Iaccornrant .r. li,".J;;.'i;:;,:";l'^',.:l1r^T-."?yrg happ_r.ro \rork rvirh mr. j etr..ur.Jr;;; .;;*ttnce Karogo Thoithi.,o ao .jr-t]r"'::ii; iHi*rn*rii+iir"'{"t::'*i*;#Ti:;T*q'#"*$ii*j i inctiviclueJs ol' odrer Adrocalss'r.,1; ;;Lratton Advs641c'5. rhers. *,ere orlier i Justicc Sergon a.nci sorrght to appeal. noc satisfied $'irh rhe .,r.ag.-"rri'li i il:jHf?TI, 'i;il":?T:,'i,,#:;,.J:.::::ln 1s pe. Ge c'ui.t or Appear .{ i:![: g * : ;'d;: :'::' u n" "a - iI :;;.]#,i i"' ** i:: ] :,"i'ii *'.: .:: ttrer,. o.nuii;";;:; [';J3r[:ffL'*urd appear i,, ,r," 6"r., ,r Appear on The. pa-v.rnent of onc month salan, as darr IHl"i,1HI""i;'J:. .t.* t.." ar"il"'-*'" ordered b-r' .ne'court n'as nor appeal *hiJ ;:,,',,;.1X;!:eal and heve to rvajt rilt the My clien ts r.ere agre r.otlchcrs f."; i;'il eeable rvith the eariier. court .order anci sign-ed discharge ,qor,.signing ;;'-";;"" agrecd to all tlre li"i" tr,erc"rl,a lu=',rr.irer craim "ir."a"rE,io};;;:,". so rhar the__v coutd receite tr.,.i.-r,l.,Ja,o"u., ". per che I instructed formallv in rhrt ?^-^_) - t vo,-,"r",.i "i;';ffi:: in that rcgard and eall.of rhem processed the Discrrarge thereof. -"r^"{rrng to them (rhi'ough ;vrr. r-a",.J.,* ,i.I*r rhe irapor_r 6Pr (U 92?- !Orn-./2OE --.-_-.----. ! i I I I I I I L 351

AIL 'i;-t']\YX 1 \" TJx t [fifiiit6iiHf 'rr I r*r: cF * I r t 0il'iilil cEoRGE N. NIIGTJ P.O. BOX 55 MARAGWA MURANG? COUNTY CELL: 0721- 366 226 RECEI\iEX} 1 I OCT 2010 OFFICE OF THE CHiEF Jr."rsTlcE -- t !o i I I ;c.i.Ot.{

• 00100

P.M. GACHUHI- KAPLAN &STRATTON 1,ilLLIAM SON HOUSE 4TH AVENUE NGONG P.O. BOX 4011 _ 00100 NAIROBI, KENYA Dear Sir, REF: HCCC NO.ZTg OF ZO03 o Yours faithfull 0e GE IGU Honourable Clrief f ustice High courtJudge J. Sogon Managing Director K.B,L i rer-er ro the above anci your letter dated 29th March paragraph 2,3 and4 of the discharge voucher for execution by each one of us the above paragraphs shoutd not affect me. on my side I feel you shourd return the same ro my lawyer Harrison Kinyanjui who is the custodran of my document concernlngthe mafter. Having recelved t]le voucher since 4th of July 2018 I feel time has come foryou to return it without any furtler deray. Bearing rn mind tlat at one point y* i"ra the former chref justices Evans Gicheru that our emproyment was terminated unrawfu[y and t]rat the company was willing to pay us and since 2003 you have done nothing to fulfill your words and went furtler to tell the court that the company was denying you our docurenL I feel that you should return tle same to my Iawyer immediately. (P- G-@) KA$E 8tr_8.$m#',trr@Es l8 ocl 2818 fir}r...., tr[ mtr Al il / B T Cc: IJarrison Kinyanjui & Co. Advocates t 18th October 2019 CIViLii 1) I -.I 1v e)^

I i.i,.: , 1,1 i1 iI! y,rh|tr i lail' ti\LsE i{LEGAI tgN$ AE,ui pEil,t NG KBt. AppEAt g 1 FALsE ALLECAiiCNs ABOUi PENDING KBL APPq41 ii.rr:isi,.it i(iiry;:riur (gr';aiiurrisorrQyrhcc cctntl rtlir:; ugei;r'1i J9 i t Jgnt':rl'icrtl Wecj.resd.rll DecL'rtiber 1i, :Ull ;t t0:12 Al''{ r-'''vli+l t,I I E T T F T I T t t i I I I I ry'Jl:ai are you tarking abour? you aie ol AFFECTE0 person under Rure i1 of rhe courtof Appeal Rules in tfre Appeal lh.,lt wes fite,J by Nanrada. \bu kno,r very well I explaineO to yorln iri.if rU.utit' VVhai is your insult about? Why make faise allegations against me? Dear Sir, \bu have senl rnB 3 Dlanf Emails. U/hatioes that mcan? Very Kind Regards J. HARRISON KINYANJUI 0n saturday. December g, 2023 at 06:16:36 AM G[,lT-S, George l',ljigu <njigugeorgezgl@gnail'cont> wrote: Dear Sir we nao veru nigii ltopes rriih ,irlr only ior (-i;chuhi to tiisclcse that you di'Jn't irl': the iltptral and you signed Has the Appeal been heard and I have failed ro allend? Please get the conect infoimation before you falsely accuse rne' You signad the KBL documents AFTER I explained 1o you everything and the ,91::1:tt we had lvith you lias that you get what vras being sent to you and that vre wouh tren r,raitforthe ionclusion of lhe Appeal' Why are ;,ou now wriling an omail of lalse accusatiorr as thortgh you did not knovr lhis? lhe conseril lhal lhe nli:iter tri]s l,'tisn sellletl [rrrl tltt:tr]'$ God in hr:aven

-r !t G REPUBLIC OF KEI.TYA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY.GENERAL & DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Your Ref: Our Refs: TBA cctPvFEB/23/6 Date: 24ih July,2024 VIA EMAIL Dear 5irs, RE: YOUR COMPL\INTS AGAINST HARRISON KINYANJUI. ADVOCATE HCCC No. 279 of 2OO3 Lawrence Nduttu & Others v5. Kenva B reweries Limited which instructions the Advocate accepted and proceeded with your instructions to the suit's rogicar end, The advocate represented 125 Praintiffs out of the 6,000 craimants in the suit. Judgement in the matter was delivered in favour of the 125 plaintiffs represented by the Advocate for a sum of Kshr. 14,156,312/=. We refer to the above. The Advocates compraints commission is estabrished under section 53 of the Advocates Act (cap 16) Laws of Kenya to enquire into compraints againrt advocates, law firms and their emproyees. After due inquiry, the commission i, mandated to reiect the complaint. or promote reconciriation and/or encourage and facilitate an amicable settlement. or if a disciprinary offence that is serious or aggravated is disclosed, to file a formal complaint before the Disciplinary Committee. A. Vide the commission's Help Forms dated the 9rh Februa ry,2023 you registered your complaints as follows: a' That you instructed the above Advocate to reprerent you in Nairobi A-t voc^Tl{t colllalrt\i colulaalo, - cootEt arvE l^tlK rtourr, 2O1. t tlooi rE &E SE!,AaIIE AVETUE P.o Bor .6016-m Ioo. r,rrRoat. xENYA.TEL.25 t zo zzztize lzztoitjitooot;/ito.rt "rgggs EMrt|L r.<ranr m.k. WEtlStT* qv..cc.to.kclsu"o_.r.e"*r.f .g..t "' -- Lawrence Nduttu George Njigu James Suiyanka & Julius Mulwa, iawilaservices@ gmai l.com

b. That the said sum of Kshs. 14,756,312/= was made up of the decretal sum in terms of the judgment delivered on the 24rh January, 20l g being Kshs. 9,405,541l-; lnterest up to 3ln November. 2021 being Kshs. 4,350.771/= and party and party costs amounting to Khs. l.00O.0OO/=. c. Further, you alleged that the Advocate paid you a sum of Kshs. 71,106/=; Kshs. 67,769/-: Kshs. 135,539/= and Kshs. 6t.ZZ5/= respectively in settlement of the claim with a promise that he would lodge an appeal against the decision of the High Court at the Court of Appeal. d. That you alleged that the Advocate failed to lodge an appeal as promised. e. That thereafter, you noted that the appeal that the advocate was referring to and which was pending in court was filed by the firm of Namada &. Co. Advocates for and on behalf of his clients and had nothing to do with you. f. That the said Appeal was subsequently dismissed vide a ruling delivered on the 2ln March. 2023 and parties applied to have it revived. B. On receipt of your complaint, the Commission notified you of its mandate in handling your complaints: that only possible acts of professional misconduct were to be investigated and addressed. c. Further. you were informed that the commission in addressing the issues raised in (A) above. will not seek to reopen the case; act as an appellate body or lnterrogate court procesJes and/or address possible criminal acts. Do note that the offices of the Directorate of Criminal lnvestigations (DCl) and the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) are mandated with the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences. complainants on allegations of professional negligence on the other hand should be referred to court for proper action /remedies. D. Forming part of the Commission's invertigative processej. we made enquiries on the Jettlement status and proof thereof. The Defendant'j advocates - lGplan &. Stratton Advocates vide their letter dated the 20'h September, 2023 noted that a total ium of l3hs. 14,755,312/:being full and final settlement of your claim was remitted to your advocate for his onwards transmission to you. We noted that the Advocate for the Defendant, despite making reference to payment of one month'r salary equivalent for loss of employment as per the Judgment delivered on the 24rh January,20lB by Hon. Sergon J, provided no evidence in support of the same when furnishing the Commission with proof of Jettlement of the matter. E. On the basis of the above, we made further enquiries with the Defendant's Advocates. lGplan &, Stratton Advocates asserted that no further payments were advanced to the Advocate in settlement of the claim since you individually executed Discharge Vouchers with the Defendant accepting the

sums paid to them. ln support of the firm's claim that the ,um of Kshs. 14,756,312/=was full and final settlement of the claim, copies of the executed Discharge Vouchers were annexed. The said firm further indicated that there was no pending appeal touching on your claims because you discharged the Defendants from all claims or further liability and waived your rights to any entitlement or further clalms or any ,ums whatsoever. F. On assessment of your complaints and in line with the Commission's mandate. we narrowed down the posrible acts of professional misconduct as follows: Falling to provide any/adquate professional seruice detpite payment of feet, Wthholding money collected from a client Overcharging and claiming costs notJurtlfied by circumttancet, Failing to behave with lntegrity and behaving in a way likely to diminish public trust in the legal profession. . iii. tv. We invited the Advocate's reply to your complaints and specifically the possible acts of professional misconduct listed above. G. He responded on the 24rh April. 2024 and provided the Commission with background information of the matter from the time he first received instructions to act. He alleged that when he sought to represent you and the other I2l claimants in the matter, another law firm contested the said representation. The issue of reprerentation allegedly proceeded to apex court. He claimed that you did not pay his legal fees at the High Court. the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. H. Further the advocate in his defence alleged that he withheld the sum of Kshs. 1.000,000/= awarded to you as Party and Party Costs from the Defendant on account of his legal fees for both his representation in the substantive suit and the application that proceeded to the rupreme court. The Advocate stated that he notified you of his intention withhold the said sum. l. The Advocate further claimed that it was inconceivable that an appeal could be lodged since you individually and voluntarily accepted the sumr received from the Defendant in full and final settlement of the matter. J. The Advocate further claimed that the Plaintiffs represented by the other Firms of Advocates lodged an appeal against the decision of the Court in the substantive matter in which appeal you were named as the recipients of the Notice of Appeal as per the Court of Appeal Rules. The Advocate further reiterated that he wa5 entitled to fees in the subsisting appeal since you did not withdraw inrtructions from him. The Advocate denied any wrongdoing on his part. K We requested you to comment on the Advocate's responre vide our letter dated the 30'h April. 2024. You responded vide yours received at the Commission on the 8rh May, 2024. ln your response. you indicated that you did not wish to dwell on the history of the suit.

L. Your response was majored on the contents of the Judgement of Hon. Sergon J. delivered on the 24th January, 2024. Further. you denied understanding the contents of the Discharge Vouchers you executed. You claimed that the Advocate failed to behave with integrity andlor behaved in a manner likely to diminish public trust in the legal profession. M. On assessment of your complaint. the Advocate's response and the rejoinder thereto. we wish to addresi you as follows: Sergon J. in his Judgment dated the 24,h April, 2024 declared that the Defendant's act of retiring you was in breach of the Constitution: that you were entitled to one month's salary as damages for loss of employment and the Defendant ordered to refund a sum of Kshs. 9.4O5,541/= plus costs and interests. Fundamentally, you were entitled to enjoy the fruits of the judgment as delivered, we note however that you thereafter proceeded to execute a Discharge Voucher with the Defendant effectively agreeing to receive the sums paid to you as indicated in the voucher in full and final settlement of your claim. Please note that a Discharge Voucher has legal contractual implications that the Commission cannot address/interrogate. Further. you alluded to the Advocate being negligent to wit: allowing you to sign consent letters to mark your matters settled knowing very well that the /udgment had three partt to be executed..- we wish to inform you that such allegations of professional negligence - which is failure by an advocate to offer services with the requirite degree of care or performance of service in a manner that falls ihort of the norm of that would be expected from a reasonable legal practitioner in the specific field of law: should be referred to court for proper redress. That, the background and history of the Advocate's repreJentation is important as it forms the basis for the Advocate's claim for legal fees. We noted that you indicated that you did not wish to address it as raised by the Advocate in his letter to the Commission. There is a dispute on the amount payable to the Advocate in legal fees. The Advocate admitted to have withheld the rum of Kshs. I,O0O.O00/= on account of legal fees. He claims that he is entitled to further payment for his participation in the subsisting Appeal. On this specific aspect of your complaint. the proper forum for redress would be filing an advocate<lient bill of cortr in Court for it to determine the sum payable to the Advocate on account of fees. ln summary, your complaint has substance but does not disclose disciplinary offence(s) that can be addrersed by the Commission, the issues raised in your complaint. the annexures thereto and the reliefs sought at the Commission cannot be adequately addressed and be granted by the Commission. ll. I . vl N. Section 54(4)(el of the Advocates' Act provides:

.. lt thall be the duty of the Commission to receive and consider a complaint made by any person, regarding the conduct ofany advocate, firm of advocates, or any member or employee thereof; anL if it appears to the Commission that there is substance in a complalnt but that the circumiances of the ase do not disclose a disciplinary offence with which the Disclplinary Committee can properly deal and that the Commission itself should not deal with the matter but that the proper remedy for the complainant is to refer the matter to the courts for appropriate redress the Commistion shall fotthwith to advite the complainant. O. ln light of the forgoing therefore, your complaint does not disclose any professional misconduct on the part of the Advocate to warrant further investigations andlor action against the Advocate in line with the Commission's mandate. You are therefore advised that you may take action against the parties in the suit and/or the advocate as advised above. P. If you are dissatisfied with our decision. you may file your complaint directly to the Advocates Disciplinary Committee as provided under Section 60fl) of the Advocate's Act, Chapter 16, Laws of lGnya. Q. You may also file an appeal againrt our decision at the High Court as provided for under Section 58(8) ofthe Advocates Act, Chapter 16, Laws of Kenya. Yours faithfu lly, KK KIPNG'ENOH K. K SENIOR STATE COUNSEL FOR: COMMISSION SECRETARY ADVOCATES COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

i] i!,:nrail Syst"rl h ttps://nt a il.sov nr a i l. ke/modern/enra il/con versat iorr/j 9 009 Sucject F,,vd: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY LAU/RENCE NDUTTU & 3 OTHERS (Ref: CClPEIFEB/23/76) Fro.n acc@ag.go.ke.a'cc@ag.go.ke> To kenneth.kikwai <ken neth.kikwai@ag.go. ke' Date Monday Aptil29,2024 8:48:19 AM Cit:,od m<lrning, I{indli'dca!. l.leg;rrcls, For: Advoccres Complaints Commission Frorn: harrisi>n (qre a rha r riso n@va hoo. cotn ) TCr: rrcc <xcciatrg.,fo.l(c> Dare: [;iici'rr, 26 -\ptil 2021 7:29 P,.\l E-\T Strbjecr: RII: -\\S\irllli 1o co\iPL \lNT' llY I-,\\111E\CIl \DU'I-f Ii .-t 3 O't'tlli,li: flie t: lcj/pu,/l;ljli i1ji26) t Our licE-f H.t<i D\I/iCn)5/201? \but Rcr: CCIPE/FER/23i26 l)rr te: AP lill 2{ t' tI, 2021 -I'FI l.': SECiif:'f.\11\' C Oi\fPI^-\ i N'f S C O r\ IlJll-<S IO N c o- L)PIi.tl-v| i v F. LlnN I< t-i o us ti, 2c't' t-I l' I-o olt ii..\ILE SL:LL-\SSIE :\\'ENUE li.r.IiioBi E,nra il: acc@iq.go. lic' L'el: O-l 32- 529'19 5 Dear Sir'.,/ \ Iar-llm, Iii:: ,\NS\\I]li'fO COitill-AINf' :\GI\lS'l' US llY L.\\X'ltllNCll NDU'11'U, J,\\lnS S U \.nN C.\, J UL I US N I UL\VA & G I:'lL) llGE N-l OIiOGE \\re rcfcr to rhc abi)\,c a6c! v()ur lcrtcr clercci -1rh -\pril 2021 (rcccir-cci i>\'tts on lirlr,\pril 2{)2'l), ::trrcl vc r.r. nrtrclr regrcr ro ncrte r.hirr rve clicl NO'f rcccivc thc CoLrt l:lairru rtt\ Cotnplaint as mxdc t() \'c)Lr' ir-r t>rdcr for tis to scc thc b:rscs oI thc allcgari<-rns lcvcled aqaiost us. \\'itt:.or-rr prciLrdicc ancl in c,rclcr ro rcsporrC to thc specific itcrr-rizetl allcqatkrns maclc aqainst us s't: s t'.1[c as foilorvs: ln respect oiitcm "a" in \r>1r Lcrccr I dcnl rhc inrputxtiort of -\NY Nr()r1q(loirlg ancl state:- I T I F E t T '! F E E E E I I I Ilr I E 7 4n9n024, l0:52 AI'

I !;rnail SVstem I T I T T I I I T I I to I I I I Il r It is NO'I'r-rlrc rhat rhc -lComplainanls wcre thc sc>lc l']lainriitl in chc Nairr':l:i FICC:r"o.279 oI )0()-i l.,arr"rerrce Nclutru .\ Othets vs. I(ctrva 1]r:erqctics Limircd-* 1.1'5c,actistSatdrete\\trcallegedrobeabotrr6,000former:t'l'tpiot'"csof l(enrallteu'eries, sornc represented b1, Girobrr lr.r,Inyara & Co. .\ctr.ocares, sonle b,r Namacla & Co. -'\clr.ocates, and sorne b). O.P. Ngoge & Co. -\clr.ocarcs. Sorne <>[ tlre PlrrinriFt.s leti Gitobr-r Lnanvar'l c\ Co' Acl,"-ocates and carne to scek re1>rescnudon irom rnf la$' [inn. 'fhcv lr'etc iLr perrr-rrt'atrd I o[fcred . ro itcr for ONLY idencifiabte Piaintiffs trom lV,/S Gitobu [manvata r\dvocare' ?. Abour i25 o( the said indigiduals approachcd nrt'larv tirnr through Larvreuce Nduttu ro so represenc rhern in the citecl suir. o.P. Ngoge ct Co. --\dvocates lvefe trnhappy about rhis and.rvl1cn cl.,-. ,.,.,ntrc, rvas called betbre FIon. LndyJr-rstice -\rrg'as'a shc Listcd rhc said individuals as beinq :rligncd urndet nrv lirrr., firm and rhose aligoed trnder Narllada & co. ndrrccates- 3. U*happr,, O.1r. Ngoge .\dtocate sued m;'larv Frrrn as rvell as Narnlda c\ Co' Adrocates to appeal :isai,sr ^ if.,t"g of If,":H6n Crrurr dated 16th Decetnber,201 I (ing'a*'a,J) rhar had allorvcd sonrt: 1irrri",, loiled ii the s.,ir ai plainriFts ro be rei)rescnred b1'the t]fl o[NI/sJ. Harrison Kinvanjui & bo. .,\clu.ocares, insread of \its'O.P. Ngog. ct .,\ssocites rvho s'crc represencine all rhe pltiuti[ts joinrlr'. -{.'l6is rvas ogcrrulec[ b.r.[-lon. \,lr.Jtrsricc Gichinii. \\hrsamc c\ \{usinga 0.1-f) bl'anC)rclcrdntcd_ 19ri-r Nor.ember,2013 i,r Nrrirobi Ctutr ot.\ppeal Ciril -\ppiicatiotr No. NnI 51 ot2013' NONII oI rhe .l Conrplainarrts l'rcrci,r pai,l rn,v lar.r, Fu'rri a St-ll[,LING to dctcnd rhcm irr tlte Court o[ --\ppeal i. rhose proceeclings. to,, ,l'r" Complaiuarrcs even allegc that rvc "tailed co proviclc anvf ,.i.q.,n," pro[ession,rl scn,ice" in.chis hstance clcspirc NO lce bcirrg rcn'ittcd? 5. Unhappv rvirh the Court of Appealk dccision against hinr, O. P. Ngc'ge Advocatc rhcn lodgcd ,.,.1 r\pp.nl in the Suprcm. Couit, r'ide Sr-rPtcrne Court Pecitk;n No' 13 oi2013' I'l,v larv firn'r $'as ,,.,ed aiil-rc 3td liespr.rndenr rhcrcin r'.,hile thc 4 Cr.rn'rplainirrrts hctcin as Part of chc llesponderrrs No. { in che Supreme Court nppeal rel.ied otr mt rePrcseutacion' 6. The Supreme coLrrt D[*c\{iSSED rtre srrid rppeal entilelt'. NoNq oI the complairranrs ot ildeed tl-re rest of rhc 125 persorls uurdel Lawrencc Nclutm paicl rnv law firrn a SHII.i-ING'fo dare. Can t6e Complain,,,,r, .t"r, allcgc thlrr rl'e "tailecl to provide an1'z"adecltta te protessional serr.ice" in this instnncc despire NO fee bcirrg rcLrrittcd? 7. The srated decisio6 of tlle Sgprenre Court rvhich dctails the t'nattct irr e-\tensoE including our rcDrcsell;erions before the Apei Court can be tburrd here for rcrificadon: Pctcr Odiutror Ngoge r/a O P Ngoge &.\ssociarcs Advocates c\ 5379 others vJ Nanrada Simoni t/a Namada & Co Adr.ocaces c\ 725 oclrcrs [201a] eI{-R (See Annesrurt 1) li. I appeared <Iuring thc crrrirc Flearirrg of thc Fligh Court rrial bc[crre thc t{on- r\'{r.-lustice Scrgon "rr.l ,ire -t Complniriar:rs rrc rnisrepresi,'rd,rg the facs beiore this Honournble Commissiorr irr alieging rtrar ..judgcrnent yas delirlcrcd in far.our of all the Plaintiffs rcprescnted by [us.l tbr a sunr oE l(sh. 14,756,312/=. Irr rel<-:inder to rhe brealidol,n of the sums srated invourl-etrer''s paragraph "b"'rve DENY the sar:re and respond as follorvs:- hrtps://mail. govrnai l.ke/rnodern/emai liconversatiorr/39009/prin t 4l?9n0?4, l0:52 r\ tr

tlIt -'illn'ail s)'stc'n 1a II; fr E B E https://urai l.g<lvmai l.ke/rnodetrr/enrai l,/convenarion,i9009/prir 9. I lrc trtrth of thc lrl,rttc[ is tltrr r'.'r,: rc(lL!!:stccl Iiiiplan & Srt';trtt,rr t() pa\'()Llr'lcgal cosrs irr;r rlc oi i<s11. 1.()()0,1)0()/= s'holh scp;rr^Lc trorn rhc I(sh.1i,756,.1 127=.1u. rrr rhc 1?5 I)lairrrrt:i.s ruc !:cp[cscnt, lnd tits \t:z1s c(r tt] ll)tr o icir rcd trt rhc I)la-iLrriiti thrr>r.reh,\11. l,.nq1,sc11cc NclurrrL. ..\h-citrh', l>r' nrisrcprcs^crrting rhar theil surns :rcctuing [o thcnr is I(sh. 11,,- t6,312/= thc Oonrp l:rin;rrt rs iusirr,-rarc rhrlt \\.c lrarc piltctccl thcit morru-. \\t Nl:,\rt',lt rool< arrcl t'ould NI:,\rEIl ralic a;rcnrrv,r['l'Fll':,Iil ri ut<:s. I [,. On a2rrd.lanuar-v 20?2 Kaptan ct Suacton a sum oI l(sh. 11,7 56,312/ = or our Cl.ierrr lccount irr tirrcherancc o[ rhe Dischargc Vouchcrs execured br, e lch and crerv one oI rhc 125 indiriduals. \Y.,e ntrrre-t a coPy o[ ttre said Ttansmission as Arrnesrure 3. 1 l. No orre compclled -\NY oi the Claimarlts ro execute rhe Discharge \Iouchers. \'[r'. l,arvrerrce Ncir-rrru s'as utsked bv thc Hon. I-adlJustice Arrg'as'a rvith reprcsencing rhe Claim:rnts. Flc rhus , arrar'tr;ecl [ot each o[ them co be turnished rvidr a copv of tlreit respectirc Discharge \i<ruchcr trom I..cnva Brcrvrtics' adr.bcarcs on rccord trI/-s. I(aplan ct Srratron Advocares, and each of rhcm .i ese:cured thc same. 12. The\i each r.olurrtirtilv end rvithour anv cornpulsiorr esecutcd the same a[rcr being intr.rnncd of rhe cr-rnccnts and rarrrificarions chereot-.'I'heir parnrcrlrs \r:crc made bu bankers c[rcclcs. inncxcd is cnch of chc snid Chcclucs irr proof as Anncsnrrc -i. 'l 3. [t rvas on rhc bascs oI rhcsc Discharge \Touchers tl'rar rhc pro-rated sums \!'cre rcmitted. ){orc thnr thc individuals rvere ro rcccir,'c cach accor:dirrg ro rhcil Discharge Vcrucheg. :\s a Clieorbinds rc, .\clvocare ro a conrrnicnrcrrr maclc r','hich rhc -{ch'ocatc lras ro nbidc [rv, rhcsc Discharuc \rcrucher:s are categorical and clenr in their tcrms. Florr could I be accuscd t-r[ or.cttiCirrg rlte s:rrrrei 14. Ttre Complainarrrs RE1D ancl UNDERSTOOD rvhat the Discharge Vouchcrs surrcd IIEFORE exccuting rhe sarnc. \\/c the n [on,'ardcct cach o[ *rc said du\' exccttted DischaLjc Vouchers ro I(aplan c\ Scrattorr i\dr.ocaces b1. our letter datedJune 5th, 2028. They canrrot bc hea.rd to resile frour their orvn cornmitnlerrts thcrcitr conraincd. Please sec Arrne-<ture 3 in proot. Orr the allctatiotrs iu paraetlph "c" "c1", "c", "[", "g", and "h" oIyour: I-,crtcr ro us, s,c [)E,NY tirc sanrc, an<i srnte as [bll<>q.s: l.i. Thc citcC prrauiairhs :rr.e .\LL inrcrnr.ir'rcd orr rhe rllcgrcions tclatirrg t() thc Courc o[.\ppcat issr-Lc hencc rr'c [ravc (ir.r s:rr-ing rime) rc:r1.tondcd ar r.rrrcc ro, aroid jumblirrg t[rc isstres as hcrt'irr l:clos, statcd. 16. At NO cirnc did ',vc ir'rtirrnr the Corrplainanrs or ANY o[ dre Plaintif[s that s,c u'crc lodginu irn Appeal on TFIE,IR betralf. E,r'et'. Let drenr pror.idc the evidence of sucl'r, and \VHEN we allcgccl rcr so do. They NEVEIL irrstructcd us to Al)pcal and at anv rate \\..c informccl them o[ tlrc contcrtts o[ t['re it Discharue \/ou6hsq in pardcular rhe 4 Cornplainanrs. 1.7. Whac se informcd the Plair'rri[ts reprcsenred bv N.Ir'. Lat'tencc Nclutnr irntnediatell' \\rt \uetc se rvcd rvirh a Nodce of Appcrt in rhc Nairobi FICC No. 279 of 2003I-arvrcnce Nduttu & Orhcrs vs. Iieuya Btes,crics Limircd lnafter rvas that rhe Plainrifts represented by Namada & Co. i\drrocates (arrd somc rvho had rcmaiocd rvith O.l). Ngogc Advocatc) clccted to appcal againsr thc decisit-ln of rhc I-Ion, N.lr. _[ustice Scrgou. q t' 4D912024, l0:i2 Al T t I I x Y T I I I I I

I I I I I T I s I E g B E b nail Systcllr lrups:/inrai l.govur ai l.ke/rnodern/enrai l/conversation/39009/print B H E E Et i 8. \\jc r',,crc ruLnccl xs rccipicnts oI thc Noticc o[ -\ppcel and as AFFI]C'I EI) parric-" thcir: lclll:cscrlcauon irt rhc Cotrrt oI t\1:lpcirl s,o.r.r [d a.risc. 'l'har \rras thc l;asis oI our rcttrcncc t() thcnl ()l rl'," C.r.,r, of -\ppcal prcrccccli,'rqs. .-\, tt',. "Cor',rr of ,\Pr.,cal Rrrlcs dcr-natlcl rtrar.\1,1., -\FFllcl'l1i) P:\li-I'Ills bc scrr.cd stth chc Cogri o i.\ppcal Nocicc ancl proccss, n'c ir-rtorrncd tlrc Cornplainants rhirr irrer-itablr rve s,ortld rcpreserrt ctrern s'herr rhc petrcline -\ppcaI ar()sc t()[ aditrd ic rr rio rr' 19. \\lrs rh:rr a nisre presen ta rio rr [rorn ns co rt'rc Plairrti[[s s'e lepresentccl as s'e[l as the Conrplainerrrs rranrccl? NO. liulc 77 (i) ot rhc Corrrr i:[ --\i>pcrrl ll-rlcs suttcs: tr.rlc sripLrlrrr,:s :rs t'o ikru.s: ''.\p inccncled appellanr shall, bctblc or sir[irr sercn clars airer lodging rr()rice oixPl)crl, servc copics rhcrcofon all pcrsorrs dirccrlr af[cctccl bt thc :rppcal." (lirnphasis addcd) , 20. \\ie itnmcdintelv irr[ormed rhc Cornplrrinrnt Li\r:rerlcc Ndr-rtrlr rcPrcsencitlg thc rcst of rhc 13-i.i Ptainri[is rvirh us rhar NamacliL & Co. --\clrocrrcs FI--\D i-iled:r Notice o[--\ppeal nrrd thltTFtiiY u,cr:c t)IRII(l'fLY nFFIIC-tEI) prrltics u:idcL'rhc al>or.e IL.rlc. It is ther:ctorc a lic tor thc Cr> r'r'rplainarrrs ro mi-;rcprcscnr rhar \\:c \\'crc i'llirrq arr -\1>pcal on'I'FIEIll behalt, n'hich rvc rrcit'lrct' pr:onriscd nor did. -,, [. Iihecoricalll-, u.as thc paticipaciorl oI rhc t2-i Plaindtts thcn goine to bc ircc-o t'-c harr:c irr rl'": Aplteal lodgcd bv rhcirCo-plainriitl in rhc t-ligir Corrrr, l,:rrt in rr'lrich drcv stood DIlili(;'i'l '\' aFFccreci?Sinccthc(lcrurtof-\ppeirlRttlcstiOUNDust()thcsaicl;\ppcrrllotlqcdbv\:tn.rad:r& Cr>. --\clr.-oc:,!c u,:rs it a nisrc [-)rcscnrilrir.-' n ro rhcr-n thar s'c trould FI-\'' li to patricipatc ttt tllc '\'Pr-rc:ti Process? No. 12. l.;or rhe tccc>r.cl, q'e 5ar-e NOT exl:e6clcd a SHILLING c.,I tirci-r mone-\' irl the Clicrrt\ -\ccottttt No. 204430E773 'I'O D-\'IE. 'l'hc Sr:rrcLrrcnr o f j\ccoLrn t (icp t in confidcnrirlitl o i thc o thct l l I PlairtCifts irt tr-u:r6crance oI their Dara Protccriotr -\cr rights) is ;\V'\IL"\L]LE tbt scrurint' lrrci inspectioo to cst:r6lish if \\,.c har.e DI\'trRl'FlD r Shilling t>[ rlic Comptairrarrr\ nronics hcld rirctcirr or pilttrecl il [)enn\r therc[ror,l. 23. As \!.-e speali aucl ererr as ar --\pril 4th lt)14, rhe Perrclinq --\ppcal lodged lrr the scli-sarr.re Plair-rritt-s rcprcscgtcd [-ir]rcrto l:v Nlnrldr 3i Co. -\dvocatcs issLtc is S'I'lLL ongoing' c()tltrilrv t() the alle.gariorrs oi the Cot'nplirirrrnrs. 24. They failed ro disclosc ro \:()rr rhis i:rct, rhar r.idc NAIItoBI couliT oF APPLI.-\L Clvll APPEr\I NO. EO69 OF 2O2i L..\\\]IENCI] NDIJT'|U & O'TFI]]RS r'S. I(I]N1,\ I}RE\\iEI1-II]S LiilIITED is pcncling and n,c \\/crc sct:\'ed rvith rhc annesccl aPPlication, mallied as -\nncstutc -i ilr proof. 2-5. tsy our Lerter clated ,lr[.r;\pdl 2(,124 ro rhe l2-5 Piainrjit.s represented b1'h11'1s11g.,-\dutrtr, rvc irrtbrrrcd rScr.rr rhrr *,c hrrd nEfN SEIIVED orr rhcir bchrrlFs'ith thc said proccss nr N:\tll'Oiil (loullT oF.\PP[AL Cl\rIL -I\PPE;\L NO. ri069 OIr 202't Lr\\vlitrNCE r'.*DU'l-lU c\ O' f FI ElfS vs. I(l:NYl B IIE \x/Ell Il-':S l .i i[l-I'hll). 26. Ther' aclinol lcdgcd rcccipt crI our saicl lcttcr ancl promiscd ro call or'r us orr ,\;:ril 19rtr 2t]2't ancl on Aprit 22ncl ZilU+. fnel,did r.rot. lrlcase sec Anncstutc r.\o.5 iD prooI ?7 4t2912024, l0:i2 A

.I-lu16il $1,51q,,1 T T I T T E a E g B E E Hr E ! ! I I 27. In lighr oI thc smrecl N--\lltol]l COUR'f OF -\PPll.\t- CIVIL -'\PPF.,\I. NO. Ii()69 OF 2(]2'1 L.-\VIiENCE NDU-I-I'U ct O'l-l-iEliS vs. I(ENYA BlthiWijltlES LINII]'[1l), rlrcl havc NO'I' u.ithdrau'n irrsrrucriorrs tlorn usirr appointcd ANOTFIIIIi -'\drocatc to acr in licu tlf r]urscl.cs. 18. We rcmdrr professionallr bound in the matter [or the Plairrriits, under Order 9 liulc 5 of thc Civil Procedure lhrlcs Irs statcs: Change o[:1ck'ocarc [OrdcL 9, rLrlc 5.] "-\ P:rrn'stting r-rr ciclcnclirre bt an ad.ocatc slrell [:c ar libcrcv to clrarrgc his at]rocrrc irr :trtl ctusc ()[ r-nitttcr, rr.irhout an orcier tor th;rt purpose, bur ltnless and unril rrorjce ttI ant' ch ttl-e oi lc|'-oclte is t-riccl in tfic C,turr in rvhich :r.rclt c;rrrsc r)r r']riltic[ i:i plttcccclurq ;rnd scrrcd irr rtcct>L'.lltrlcc u irh , rulc 6, r[e tbrmel acl...ocare sh:Lll. sub jeci tr> rttlcs i 2 ar-rcl 1.] l-:e considcr.ctl thc aclvoc:tIc oi thtr p:rrrt, urrtil thc t'irtal conclu.;ion oi th,: c:rtrse oI rt)attc,], inclLrding ittrt' rcr-icts oI riP[)cill." [crrtptrasis i :rc-ictecJ I Rhetodcallv also, rvitlr rvhar do \!e secure resourccs o bc ONI-INE, to print thcse doctrnrcrrts and lettets to the Cornplainanrs and even rnaintein an ottrce rvherre J'I{IIY short' uP llmosr even' orher *reck .',r,irhourr their rcnrirmrrcc even oI Consultarion t-ces7 Flavc n'c evctr irrr:oiccd them tces at aU fot drern ro allcgc chat t'c lrar.c pocketed t]rcir mouies? 33. l\'{ote fundarncncall,r,, ir cau l>e askcd: Are thc proccedings in NAIROIII COA .\PPEAI- NO 'D069/20/4 LAWRENCE nvDU1-fU & 156 O'II-IERS VERSUS KENYA BRE\{/EIIIES I-IN'IITED in acrual cxisrencc in rhc Coun of Appeal pending adiudicatiorr s'ittr thc Complainanrs cited to tespoud? Yes. - 34- Tire seid C<>rnpleinunrs atc ro thc saitl estent plainll,dishonest nnd have NJOT cr-cn crrcd tcr . st1ltc to us rhirt thc1. 1111,q ir.lrluccl a Cornplr.int bcfc,rc vou irr rcgar:d ttt tlrcir Clairl-r. ln sncciFrc rcgard to itcrn cl lollc>u's: r:risccl itr vout lcttcr, rrc D[iNY the saulc arld our rcsponsc is as I '7 I 4i29n024, l0:52 Al https://nrail.govrnail.kc/rnodern/enra il/co n vcrsar iorr,,i 9009.rpr.inr 29. Clearlr., thc CornPlain:rnrs -i'I'U-l- comc to m): Chxnlbcrs to darc tbr rc P rcsc t1t;rtio rl ias vott c:rtr sec frr)m Anrrc-rrtrr:e No. 5 alrorc). Orr [-trh Fcl:rurrt' 2023 uc u'crc scrr.ec] lf isl'. P[()ccss ri'ith \[/s C)'l\\,':U- & NI-\N\\'.\ -\SSO(-t-\'I't:S -\I)\.:OC-\'IFIS rvho rook o\-cr sonrc Pl:rirrtiits irotrr Natlaclir c\ (1rl. ;\d1.66i1tcs ..111d s'c :rrrcrrclcd Coulr orr bchalI of thc't'crt s;rrnc CorlIl:tiLrrrrts u'lrctl rlrc lrraacc.[ rgas bg[olc rhc Flon. I.:rch'.lr-r:rice Ongcri. I)[easc scc .\ntrcxtt-tlc N,-,. 6 irr Pioot. f i.r. e rr .r\prii 2nd 20r-l ri,c lcccivcd an cmrril ctisclosint scn'ice oi thc 1:rrtrccss irr \.\tiiOtll CO-\ AtrPE.{L NO tr069r'?021 i--\\\'li[:]iCll NDU1TU ct 156 OTHIIRS YljlisU..i lil-Nr'"\ B1(EWEIaIIIS l.ll,IIl'FlD scr:r'c-l on trs orr bchalf oIthc Cornpl:rinarrts arrd rhc l]1 Oilrcrs thar t'c rcpresenL \\,'c ciull'rrorificd rlrc Cclrnplrinanrs ls indicated abrirc. Picase set -\trrtcrrttrc \r,. I irr prcioi. 31. All this pr;o6essiorrnl rvorl< irr perusine cor:rrnunicarion [tonr rhc Cour:r of .\pp';rl, ;lrrcrlding to rcspond ro rhe sarnc, ltrcnrlir'is rhe Conrphir'rxnts ro nodft'tirern on rhe,\iil:il\G .\ppc!l:rre p rcrcecd.i ngs is (r'hcto r:icrl h') icr r no rh ing?

T U n U B E t I I I T T Ig rnail Systern 35. 1'trc Cornplain:rnrs clo NC)'t'clcnr rhar thev u'cre 1:>eicl s'hlt rtas (luc to thcnt.'l'hc calcr-rlariorrs o f rirc ,"rp.a,.i.-. clucs rvcrc urr>nitorcd by none r:thcr than l-arvrencc Nclutlu cvcn tnicrr.r rnanirgirr.q r6e snme in rlrc i'r',i,'r.,rest dctail. NO'f one crf rhe t25 Ptainiiis has bccrr depr:ived oIt'har s'rs duc co thcrrr. _i(r. \Ve arrach hcrcrvich thc bundle oIBanlicr\ Chcquc signed collccrcd b1-chose Plainriffs s'hc.r calied on gs xr collecr rheil Checlr-res. Tlrose u,ho aue deceased ll,e did NOT relcase theit checlucs ro Lan,rence Nclurrlr rs ire hld DllNIANDfiD. Wc rotalir dcclinccl to hand thcm orer cr.r him. I 37. Indcccl, Lar,,,rcnce Nclurru (a1:parerrclv kcco to pocl<et rhe nrouics oI thc clcccascd PLainciiis) t<:.rmed a CBO cnlled t{INBREX Sr\CCO GIIOUP to collect dre said srtnrs tionr us aud tve I cjcclirred. 81. t>ur lertcr ro rhe said persorls including \.Ir. Las,rcocc Nch.Lcttr (Compl:rin:rr-rr1 deted r tSth lr.Iarclr 2022we informed them chat rlris *.as NOT possiblc. Plcase see.\ntresture,S. .., 38.i\ccordirrglrrr,elrarecorrtilluedtopal.ONLYrhelegatreprescnmrivesoitlrcdeceasedt,laindft ONL\: An cxarnple is arrichcd Anen-.<rurc 9. Otrt oI the nced to Protect thc datrr o[ rhe pcrsr:trs ' NOTpartoFthe4ComplairrlrrtsouroIrhe l25,allos'usropror-iclcchisrlsancxample. .j9. I.;,-rrcl-lcr, u-hen Lini'rcrrce Ndurru rcalized char he coulcl NO't'cotlccr frour us thc dcccirsctl t)e:rsor.rs' chcqrrcs, he scarrccl cllling up thc berrelrciaries of tl'lesc dcceascd Pcrsous and s'ould ACCONflTANty rhcp.r r9 t>r.u Cfia6rber:s allegccllv to "ditcct fiss1" grtr hot ro gu about the mlrttcr' '['hcv g,o r:1,-l tlrcrr be crror.rcd s,,ms o[.,ronct irr rhe process. -['his s.rs rcrea[cc[ ttl us l>r' t.rrrc oI tlrc bcrrcficiarics so aftccreci ot \icsaidiJuma. Eirch ot the CH.ANGFIt) chccprcs drcu'a Eanli chlrgc fee chatg,a\le on THE,i\t as a s,hole, and che sdci pardes are F,:lh' .\\\ARL] o[ rhis fact' In responsc ro rhe allegacion drat s,e har.e "tithhcld nlonev col]ected ttrom a CUcrrC', s'e DENY chc san:e and t'ebtrr rhc satnc as [ollost: .1.0. .\Fter thc unclaimed liarrlicrs Cheques oversrared wirh us, rr'c did ti-E'I Ufu\ rhe satle to chc ..-\BSl ISANK C[enr\:\ccourrr arrd rlie monq.is SO I-IELD thcre to d:rce. \\t produce tl'rc cvidence (r'critiable uith rhe Bank) of this as .,\nr:c-xturc 10' 41. Rhetoricallr., horv cito rve possib\. l>e s,ricl to rvithhold sLrtlls Eo Petso(rs rvtro arc deccased and their reprcsentadr.es are in the Ptocess oIobtaining Letters of AdminisCratjorl and.the complainanrs hittl der:rancled that \\,'e pa), TFIIIN{ rhe said monev "to transrnit ro the beteficiarics", rvhich rvc dccLincd as statccl. ^{2. As to rhc allcgarjon of "orrcrchargir.rg and clairning costs not iuscificd irr dre citcr'unstances", rve veheprcntlv DENY the samc a,',d if rhctomplaioants insist on chc said total[]' spurious a[egacion, we arc neacly arrd yillins ro T,\X Advocatc-Ciicnt Bill of Cosa in respcct o[rvhat rv'e havc satcd in 1>atagraphs 4, 5, 7, 25, it, ^na 29 above. Irrclucling thc da1' to day acriviues thar arc ongoirrg with thc said- Co,nplainants to attcnd to thcm as stxteL{ in patagraph 2'5 abovc' 43. As ro thc allcgnrion o[ "faiting to l:chave rvirh iotegrity and bchaving in a s'av to ct'inrinish public trusr in the legal p,,o["ssio-,r" s,c veherrcntlv d.iry the same.'l'he ;rbc-rre esplicatior'r clearlv *l'ro*.,,. tlurt thc Co*floi,ru,lts are N{,'\LICIOUSI.Y inscigating totally unioundcd and spuriotrs allegeri<ius beczttrsc rvc deciined thc manoeuevres. I x ! I I I { 412912024, lO:52 i\ , https ://mai l.govnrai l.ke/rnodctr/cnta i l,/con versation/3 9009/1;rinl

Kaplan Stratton Aclvocatos .ioL,i .ta tfiritr CC/PE,1TEI}/23il6 l'lvl( r rK I) I 0/t 72 20 ScPtcortrr 2i)':i ',(,irir !(xl Ydlro ,llh AYr\ro l{qolE tr 11. 1,or 40J ll . 0OlCo rlrilb, K6tt ! ,.v.*,knir!oclr*)r!. col n lim.J: KsGt P#d.ctrnt ,' r.r dltrrrto tlt m.tili !: ).: , .1, , Comtnissiotr Sccretary Advocates (lornplaints Cornmission Oilrcc o[ tlrc AtromeY Gcncrol & []coanmettt t'f Jurl,icr- 20{ Floor. Clplrrative Baok llouse Hailc Sclassie Avenue Neirobl Atln: KiPng'cneh K'K' Dear Sir HCCC No.279 of 100J Lawrcncc Nrtuttu & Othorc vg Kcnyt Ilrcwcricr Limitcd Wcrofcrtoyourletlerdstcd5.hJuoe20?3(rcccivcdEtouromccsorr4thscprcurbcr202}) sccking informu0on ln ti. uuo* *r.,ter in rvhich rrt act for Kcnya Brcwerics Limltcd' Byunyofbrckgrourd,alt}rougbthemattcrwclfiledin2fi)3,itwassubsuntiallydelryedin CounasarestrltrrtareprcscnmtionclisptrtcryI*sorncofthcpldntiffsardrlrcitfomter advocale.o'P.Ngqsc,o.P.Ngogecontinuerlfilirrgintcrlocutoryapplicationswhich[sdloan appcal ro rho cont of iftal]]i-," isru..uat ev^cotrully lcttldd by thc supGmc court in the pwodcut rcrtins a""i,i"l-oli*rcucc Ndutu-& 6,000 othon v Kcnya tlrfirods umitcd

• 'Cio",u"r tz0f Zl oKlRr{ellvercd on 46 0t:tobn20l2'-

Themattcrpfocoodcdforhearingon3dock}bcr,22JNovcrrber20l5rnrllocJuly20l7wih tu Pldatifi! *tt;;;bv ryc" individul larr fims - J' Hurriron Kinyrqiui & Compaoy AdvoclL*'NtJ; A Co'p-y Advocacs' rrd o'P' Ngogo & Company Advocrtes. Aftsr tull hcrrirg, sc judgrnsnr wrs d;;;, tbc tton. Iusricc scrgon on 24s Jmury 201t. Inrurnnrry, L Cou't' ot paragraph20' odcrcd ar follows: a)AdeclarrtiontharrlrePlainriffs,earlyrcdruneotwasinbreuchufdrecoostitudonand thcir tcrmr of corPloymcnq ,b}ftcDeforamtT-i",*Plaintiflsonemonths'salarynsdamagcsforlos.<of cmPlolmerrt; c)TlrcDefeadmttorcfundttrcPlaintiffstirqrrnsofKEss0,lE0'6S5intlrcfollowiru PlaintifB rePrescn tcd by Nanrada & ConPuY Advocatcs 20,7'15,144 KFS F.qlre'sc.r6c.P ITI i:YH' P'G!dur' "ryI'"'ffiffi tffiJ'Ix'r' rr(,lIEr ffd* ;. frrc.a;fi,a N. Mrr{s R rh{' c' ery8o+to'rteld J Ndelglr r' LErF ^ 'u$r $-- '- ! b'.1f,I*tc-rr-rt : I {*

J't:): LJ 1r t-t

br ,,:.i, Kr;s 9.405.54! d) Thc ebow sunr.\ lo bcol inlcrcst frorD tha date of iudgpDcn( (ill Jre)'rnenf in fulli c) flro Dctcrrclsnt to bcar rlrc costs oflhp suit. Followiug dclivery oF Judgmcnt, Mr. Khyaqiui lcnr u-! u, lctrcr datod 29d Mrrch 2018 dcmalding prlment of the sums arvardcrl to lrlr clicnts through hir clicot sccounl Mr. Kinyudui also seot discharge votrchcn signcd by sll his clicna throogh r fettcrdrr.d.fh July 20t 8. Each of tha plnintifi's conlirmatl that lrceipt of thc rtms otrtlincd r+trrld bc in irrrll anrl lnal scrtlcmcnt" ofthe above rnaner. In addition, of HK xlvocatss wa:; coslt in(crcsl Kinyujui ruc,poniliil o thit lct r socolr,lt oo hanuy 2&,2 Vy bmten dorqr u-q follorvs Dcscription Amount in KES Dccrctal Sum in tera$ of thc judEcnrcnt 9,{05,541,orJ dclivcrtd on 246 Jmr:ary 2O I E .1,350,771.15 rye..I P.M. Grchuhl K,r.PL{N & STRATI'OI! bot: l) IAt.r &l.d 29^ Mad 2016 fron J Harrian Kbryoajut &. Coarputy Advq-qtcs lPaga I - El 4 lttts ded f July 2Ol8 lllottt J,llpilsos Ktwsitd lL CoamW_l4wca*. forwditg disckrga vouhers lPega 9 - lStJ l( IntcrEst up to f l'r Novcflrbqr 202I 1,000,000.00 KES r4,756312.35 Party and plrty costs Total i) Lcucr datd 2d Dannbat 2o2t from Kqloa & Strur,,on ldwcatts [Pages 139 - l) Lettct futtd l? Jontty 2022 from J. Hanlrcn KhSon)ul & Company Adtocolcs arro4hlag tlgtad coate*. lPatcs 119 - l50l 5) Rcgbrt Ior RIGS TTtrqfcr dat.d 2l' Jan t&! 2021 [Pogc IfIJ. 6) Copy of cmdl lntm tlA9{ Bank o$ralng ,rc,smrloa. ll'qerl52 -1531 7) krlar dar..l I N Novanber 2022 ,from J. Hottlson Klayanjui lQ. Coapany :{'deocarcs. ll'aga I Sl 8) Rultng ln Natrobi Civil Al.rylicatton No. D0S9 d 2021 ll\qcs 159 * t63l 9) ,ludgacat ln Ntirobi IICC 279 o/ 2003 {Pagcs 161 - 21sl (lL:: (.llicnt ii,t;;;iifi'i" '"r';cie,,rcJ"[i1 i.' tla;ir;;- Kiriruujui * i tg':ltolr*'\.i:Tr:t:1--*- - *-_- . .i Wc harc - r Wc hrvc eaclosod a pugirraEd bEdl€ with dI thc Gtcvant corrosporxicnce r8d docurDcnbrion. Wc erc availeble to matc un1' clrrification or pmvidc rny edditionrl iaformrtioh or rrsin thc comnrision iu arry rnanocr rc4uircd to rcsolve lhis i*srrc- "Tff I

j ,il i I

Kenya Breweries To: MIt. GEORGE NJOROGE coY No. l9l7 CEI{TRAL REGION .. . - - .Tt Yrlrisl-t{a,rvtn }far'/ta!6 -. Date: 22"d April, 199E Ref: KBL/GI\{-HR From: GENERALMANAGER IXUMAN RESOURCES Subiect:EARLY RETIREMENT Following the re<ngineering process going on wittrin the Company, it has been decided to reduce staff levels firrther. Accordingly, you wili be released to proceed on your outstanding eamed lcave with I effect tom 1st May, 1998. Please note thet ycur services with the company will terminate at the ald of your leavo or on 31st May ; 1998 vihichever is the earlier. .Any outstanding leave after 31 lvlay, 1998. will be paid in lieu thereof. The following early retirement package strall be applicable to you:- I - Wages ad allorvances eamed to the last day of servrce. 2- Pay in lieu of leave on pro-rata basis, drdre applicable, based cn your , morthly basic pay. 3- . P.ey in lieu oi 4 monthjs notice based oiyour monthly tdal pay package. .li.i-.t ,- .1- n l'!,1 '., ,L' 4- Compansation for ioss of future eamings which will be calculated as follows: - Y ge4p-l_q.d_ lyfnpsf $ v91s servi ce t 75% of baiii ind*hlypaffius 1009'o of gross morthly pay I I a) b) 1, 5 Refrmd of own and company's coutribution and interest to Staff Provident Fwrd wbere applicable. 6. Less any nroney owned to the Company.and/or Tembo Savings & Credit Society You will receive the details of computation from t-he Financial Controller. J. N. MUHOHO (MRS.) C"py, Ft"r"""t Controller Group Conpany Secretary SPF Accountant Treasruer, Tembo SACCO Regional Manager, Central Region, Westem Region Gorerai Ivianager, 'Raw iviator iai, Supirly Commercial Services Managers, Ceutral, Westem, and Raw Materials Supplies ._d\'*.'\-d=-

surn of ksh.9,4o5 ,S4I /_ worked oUt in the aforesaid schedule as HARRISON KINYANJUI &co ADVOCATES - SCHEDULEOF YIdENT AM OUNT PAIT) s0,0oo/= s0,000/= 2;050.40 so,000/= s0,000/= so,000/= HILARY MBURU FRANCIS 1,300,283.22 PA 5 NO NAME COY NO DATE OF TERMINA TION AMOUNT TAXED OFF AMOUNT WITHHELD KYALO t-q,wRENCE NDUTU o542 to /9 /1998 OTOLO GORDON NGOLO 4053 la 8,000/= NGINGA JAN,{DS WAIR]OKO 4022 tr / 7./ L9e8 r998 742,255/: 722,O0o/ 132,0o0/= 4 NJOROGE GEORGE NJIGU t917 t22,91r l= r5,132.69 t740 JAMES SAIYALtrLE SUryANCA APRIL I998 18/2ltee4 KINYANJUI PHILIP GITHi 327,770.36 24t,298.OO /= 111,90.50 MWANGI CHARLES GAK-OMQ JUNE 1998 1,039,07 1.68 278,950.93 B !q, WAMBUOU MARY HOLOMENA r997 7,327 ,738.63 373,49O /- ro0,ooo/- IvtWANGI q PHEN WERU 515 171 10/1994 960,462/ = 246,366/= s0,o00/ = t0 o THOMAS, AMWOMA 3062 FEB. 1998 ,10 r,150. t0 2 16,686/= s0,000/ = i1 MONAYO ANDREW NTARIBO 2242 FEB 1998 12 354,367.:i5 DAN 60,910.44 s0,o00/ = MAWATHE 96:a8- 0 13 6004 18/2/ 1998 438,842/= 10 ,000/= NAIROBI HIGTI CO URT CIVIL CASD No. 279 oF 2003 IUDGEIuENT ]T follows: J. 2 6 l 891,348.31/ = 51,326 s0,00o/= s0,0c0/ = FEB i 998 DEC. 50

--T l1 DAVID N. KINUTTIIA I 69sq r 998 I e60,000i= rcl6 t998 278,702.12 22/7l20ao 20 2l zo JOHN IUUTUA 248,OOO/= r5 MBUGUA EDWARD GITAU 71 l3 37,83 r.03 toopooF- s0,000/ = i6 MAINA SIMON GATHERU r 34,084 / = s0,000i = rt GiKONYO JULIUS KAMAU 248,OOO/ = s0,000/ = 18 MWANGI JULIUS KAMBIA 360,t221= s0,000/= l9 M MUIRURI KARUGU 235,r4o/= s0,000/= AGALE JACOB OWAK 2l,999.69 r00,000/= NJERI ALICE GATHUNGU MATUNDA JAMBS SAISI a? N MARIETTA MUTISYA MWANGI IRUI'IGq ,( U U JUSTUS MATHEKA 22t3 3265 1996 960,000/= 1643 r996 760,000/= 510 I995 836, r4s/= 46 l0 JUNE r998 r5i,710. 11 1999 96,257.45 7333 27 /7 / rse6 210 416,894.33 t 2_10 19/Ltt/ tctis t7 t,617 .30 05:,3 1998 860, I 35/ = t946 1998 642,r38 / - 560,13 703 902.65 51, r 5 r.27 s2,6so /= i4s,000/= 50,000/ - 49,814.83 s0,000/= 33s,00o/= s0,000/= t6,702l= 26 MUTIS NzlJrq NEOLO |42,OOO/= so,000/ = IVIIRINGU PETER MWAURA 5094 t8 /2 / 1998 1,010, 135/= 464,13s/= s0,000/= JULIUS M MULWA +J) / 17/8/t999 96,573.37 r00.000/ = 29 MOSES M: I\i.tACHrRA 55 10 18/2i1998 501,116.8s 1,210,135/= 363, i3s/= 100,00o/-- 30 JERUSHA I$YABOKE 869 1s/s/ 1998 964,13s1= 241 ,t4O / = 100,000/= 31 MAKIMEI WAIGANJO 882 14/2/199s 13s,000/= 50,000/= 32 JAN,ItrS MWANGI 5785 1995 s90,136/= 1,110,060/= 26s,ooo/= .,) OTIENO MOSES NDOLO 1369 1998 32O,r35/ = s0,000/= 34 26+3 r993 764,r3O l* 679,760 /- 170,000/=. s0,000/ = NAIROBI HIGII COURi CIVIL CASO No. ?79 OF 200s IiTDGEMENT 51 0079 22 MAY EO8_ 50,000/r= s0,000/= I

:\ MUTISYA FATUMA CHACHA Lit\ I t 199 5 464,1301= s0,000/ = 301 6l t99e 28,135.36 100,000/ = 7,2tr,552.28 50,000/ = 100,000/= 40 44 100,000/ = 100,000/ = 1O0,000/ = 1 r 35 4 288 1r2,0oo/= 36 KAROKI 3t DOMINIC NGURE 1998 2t9,943.64 38 LOKI TIMOTHY MATHEA 5 r97 360, r.45l= 39 KAI.IYI JOHN NJOROGE 399 i998 i998 764,r3s l= T 1B 1,132/= s0,000/= WAMBUA THO\4AS NGUI 0300 APRIL I999 r,360,423.85 456,738.65 . s0,000/= CHRISTINE NDUKU 5404 980,13s/= 26s,180/= 100,000/ = KINGORO ALOIS GICTIANA t725 11/rI/199s MARCH r998 1 ,814,639.63 185,329. 15 100,000/= .tJ 4355 r998 794,13s1= 29s,180/= 100,000/= 409 r 5586 2l 12 I 1997 i998 r76,955/= 289,s5r i= io0,000/= r00,000/ = 4720 1998 463,17.62 1,622,244.s3 842,16s 1 = r84,135/= s0,000/= ROSE MUTUKU -n-oupA-- NZOMO JOSPPI-I:: t(OKOYO oGwAYO .. 45 \AVIKALI,. 46 47 ZIA ANTHO}TY KILOT{ZO '30s7 1999 1,I42,564.25 166,404.95 'Alonew - -xaueu G.tTp'rE , 15864 t997 764,14s 1= 19 GEORGE WAWERU MWANGI: 6023 1995 968,138/ = 264,r351 50 BIRUNDU LINUS OMBUNA 3746 19l 10/ 1998 s8 r,3 r3/ = 82,338/ = 5O,000/ = 5l NZIOKA NDUNDA . 9s6 512,7961 = 135,640/= s0,000/= S\7NDI DAVID KILUNDO '21 L'2 I 1991 r r b,+ou/ = 53 OMBURA b0u 3788 31/ r0/2003 4r5:TTr.26-l 1,692,66 7.90 647 ,598 | = ro0,oo0/ = ry# NAIROBI HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE NO, 279 OF 2OO3 JUDGEIUENT 52 48 a PETER WAIRIUKO 7203 20t,907.14 I I59 1,34604.30 K. MICHAEL MUNANDI MUENI 136,1341= i994 GIDEON OUMA

54 NDUNGU SII\,ION WANYEI.:I 188 r 57 l3s,36s/ = i26,574.18 38,083.75 96, 1ss/= 58 PHILIP }IYANZt MUTUKU 2326 464,135, = 764,+2O/= 132,135/= 100,oo0/= 10o,000/= s9 P.A EVELYNE OYWA 37 L7 1994 MAY 1999 321,561.30 60 NYAMBARIGA.:SILAS ONGIGE 267,r NOV. 1998 318,130/ = s0,0o0/= 6l JOHN KIVULI 7926 DEC. 1997 I ,3.5 i ,944.70 1,356,462.30 259 ,2r2 . 14 100,0o0/= 62 MWENGI PETER NCUNZE 5642 3112/t997 e,10I/= 238,135/= 100,0o0/ = 63 7986 2/t2/ r9e7 r4,95s/= lq0,oo0/= !04- SUSAN CHTTECH RAS}IID ABDUL RASMAS KANYAU 09s0 )I t2 / 1997 960,136/= t76,428.09 462,189 / = 65 ROBERT'N,1. NJULU 7950 66 NDAIII.ICA DAVID MUTUVI 2846 JUMA T,(OHAMIVIED KIDANGA 7932 38,13s/= 100,000 / = ls,443 / = r00,o00/- 8,398/= 236,145/= s0,000/ = s0,oo0/= 67 SAID D o M H.CuVI IvItl RWANA IMANI 7807 12o,587 /= 100,o00/= 69 GIDEON K MWDNGI 436 2it2/ 1997 25r,938.77 2/t2/1997 412,025.67 2/12/ 1997 1,38s,392/= DEC. 1997 2l 1211997 188,707.7'/ 834,599.73 2s2,766/= 1Q0,O00/ = 70 FRANqIS NGUNZE K t22 2/t21t997 r 80,13s/ = 10o,o00/ = MBEKE DO ROTHY SHENYE 6307 I998 872, 150. 13 764,18O l= 234,r35 /= s0,00o/= MAUzuCE SAI(WA 4331 JUND 1998 23,243.34 s0,000/= IJ STANLEY G 7 t32 2116 /2000 231,13s/= s0,000/= KENGARA 25 1,36 95 74 BARSHORA WACHU BAJARA 187 4 lto,777/= 100,0o0/ = 75 GEORGE S. MSHDDI 776r r997 289,767 /= 100,000/= AMBUA MBELENZi 2806 .1998 964,13s/= LAWEREI.ICE MWANGI IRERI I 140 l998 57 t,527 15 56 r998 215,625.7 5 1994 2/ 12lrgei 875,74A.25 1,512,41,8.37 s0,000i = 50,0ooi = s0,000/= NAIROBI HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE NO 279 OF 2003 JUDGETI{ENT a.) 3970 EDWARD MULI s0,000/ = 68 (L 864,135/ = -

76 1 r998 820,558.49 136,626 /= l o0,000/= 250,262.47 1s,76s l= i 00.000/= 642,tac i= 812,693.55 1,O87,852.29 r 00,000/= s0,00/= 100,o00/= DZOMBO CHARLES MBURA JEREMIAH NUNZAA 7964 199? la DOUGLAS HARMTON MALINGI 27 l6/ r99s 136,190/= 10o,000/= HA}IAD MWANGUPU 79 JUMA 037 7726 r 0o,000/ - 80 DUME LEO}JARD MBOGA i994 2l t2lr9e7 1s7,438/= 6t IvIAZERA 7900 2l 12 / 1997 18,602l = I 100,000/= 100,o00/ = 82 JOSEPHINE CHEZEZ NDOSHO .447 1996 136,142/= 100,000/= 83 AWADHI SAIDI AWAYU 1996 269,646.03 930, 1651= 864,135/ = rso,16s/= 84 DARIUS KILAMBO 7886 1997 44,6261= 85 KIRICHA DONAS LOMEiO 2915 2/12/ie97 39 1,871.3+ 86 RACHEL V. tV. KEAR 7839 t997 658,888.82 86,O85/ = 194,r32/= 100,000/= 87 DIL'I-ON KITATU 0502 I I t997 579,591 t = 100,000/ - QA CDM KU BONIFA NDAKA 7868 t997 100,000/ = 89 N,GERD KIIVTAN] WAJTITLi t997 100,000/ = 90 ..DENA ZIPPORAH FU,I(WD :O!62 7759 t99',7 1oo,0oo7= - 91 KENAH. KOTIORA 0548 1997 585,435.60 77,625 /= 1s8,1 r5/= 7 64 ,r38 / = --- t97 ,432 / :. 842,1381= 214,r34 | = 1,114.740.17 10o,000/= o, 4360 20,698/- s0,o00/= o? M. ASHODI M. NGIMI 790 t t997 288,312/= 246,627.29 13,04 /= KUN(jLI\INGA s0,o00/= 94 OCHIENG OMOLLO 5136 1998 s60,000/= 1s2,8911= 95 ALPHONCE MWAVULA 05s5 199 5 I,180,460/ = 564, 13sl = 96,13s/= 100,000/ = NAIROBI HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE NO. 279 0F 2003 JUDGDiUENT 54 o506 7709 DAVID JOHN 3400 981,13s/= ---- PASCAL 69,884/=- CONSTANiIUS-. MWAKIO MAGHANGA 1997

MWAK]ZAI 96 BERNICE WANGECI KINGORI 38r,t 42 I = r00,000i = GIBSON M. 97 WANJIHIA 5658 3878 98 99 l\,lWANGI WAMBUGU ANDREW KENGARA MAIGO 10 i4 724 r00 AWUOR GLORIA MANGO 5403 764,1351= i84, r 35/= s0,000/= a65,1321= 764,r351= r995 1,164,135/= 348,135/= 100,o00/= 1998 L49,2OO/= r 99s 95,13/= 2r8,r34 /= s0,000/= s0,000/= r01 IvIBI U REUBEN MWATINGU 696 t02 2263 r 998 10 i,600/= 103 BOOKER OGUTU JECONIAH OWUOR ORONJE 3227 1998 96 r, 13s/ = s0,000/= s0,000/ = 104 BEATRICE M. KILIO 7762 t997 108,882.76 39,99s/= 100 o00/- 105 MA ASHFORD AYUBTJ 7945 r997 250,592.31 18,806/r ,106 VICTOR IvITUANGUO 3111 r994 641,t321= 160, r 4sl = r00,000/= lo7 NARI I S lvl S ULA 785 r 1997 35,34s/= 100,000/= 108 NJUKI WILSON ..,',t MAARA ,".- 1997 414,929.76 1,231,98.0s 388,650/- 109 GABRIEL W,AIRE 1266 MAINA 5119 ,KA.BUGUA,.. cH4RlES 325,813.3 110 46r,136 /= r00,000/= lll NDEGD PATRICI( MUGANE 1694 1,9 15,696.20 30/411996 1,41a,600 / = i995 s64,145/= I995 i998 484,1651= 7 4,138 /= s0,000/= 112 WALLACE SHAKE 4433 65,L4sl= 100,000/ = 113 MULWA BENJAMIN MWANIA 28t6 lt,296/= s0,000/= lI4 1995 192,100/ = 100,000/= i 15 998 I lJ6 MWAWUGANGA RAU TSUMA 1994 r 31,640/ = 100,000/= 2002 t 998 r,1i0,000/= 961, r36/= 646,1+5/= 100,000/-- 100,000/= s0,00o/= NAIROBI HIGIT COURT CIvTLCASH NO. 279 0F2003 JUDGEMENT 55 1995 13,600/= s0,000/= 663,61r.70 AV/IMBO 234,tBO1- tB l2 / 1ee8 94,030.70

-t-tl --It 764,164 /= r38, r42 / = 121 122 100,000/= t24 616,73., l= 93,297,344.44 1.5) In the end, I fi+d merit in the plaintiffs'claim. consequently, I issue an -order djrectihg the defendeint to fay the plaintiffs a sum of ksh.20,775,15j?,as per the schedure dated 11.s.2016 filed by Namanda & Co. Advocates and kshs.9 40 47 l= as per the schedule dated 23.10.2017 and filed by,J. Harrison Kinyanjui & . II rates from the date ofjtrdgment until the date of full payment 16) The third issue whicf has been identified for determinatlon is l16 159 I 1995 100,000 / = s0;000/= tt7 ABRAHAM ORINA 319 0 2003 |,to7 ,307 .20 I.129.981.20 2000 1,I36,430.10 1997 980, r4.30 I995 964,138/= r998 934,13s 1= 477 ,747 l= 118 ZACKARIA STANLEY WAMBUGU 2380 206,2O2/= 50;000/= 1i9 PATRICI( KAGOTHO KAMALI 189,160/= r00,000/= t20 JERUSHA SUERO IRNE 5954 r90,13s/= ,100,000/= DA!'ID WACHI MIRERA 597 16s, r34/ = so,oooir PAUL rVUSU MUTHINI 326C 180;i aO/ = 50,000/= t23 ISAACK KARANJA WAMBUGU 5489 1999 |,5t2,269.75 th.o,sOtsz DAVID KITISO MYI\ryWOKI 3543 1998 7t7,707.90 9,39s I = so,000/ = JOHN KUR,]ANGUMI 1910 1998 98,13s/= s0,000/ = TOTAL 4t,4LA,429 9,405,541 NAIRO BI HIGII COURT CIVIT C.ASE NO. 279 OF 2OO3 IUDGEMENT 56 HAMISA MOHAMMED KIDANGA JUNE ]998 s829 125

ABSA BANK KENYA PLC REQUEST FOR RTGS TRANSFER Kindly pake the following transfer on a+y&ur behalf' Date: 27/0i./2022 Remitte/s DetaLls Name of'Account: KAPLAN STRATTON CLIENT Our chequc no 225 80 Beneficlar/s Details for above amount infavour of'ABSA Bank Kenya PLC hercwith attached' Details of Paymenu P,ayment of the d e cre tal sum rTfrlilHil{|,,. FLc re r ure di'(ri.ron rn ddcrdrntthc mc$od of rra,,smi,rron !nd m, opt rc !r. rh. krvir.r clinolhGr b.nt !o ?..1 lAi\i 2022 aorooraie AbSa SiEna$re & No Signature & No. !tfrcr rhc ,rrmcn'. 2. Abr. Brnk K.^rr PLCwtllrtrnIr $! funds to dt. b.nclkLtyi blnk oo dto d'E rnd r.rithin r.rtonablc timc ottrcrlPt of lnJtru'$on' frorl| tho (gt(ornrryrovldad tu€h lntE-'!clion! lrc rt(cle.d lIIlhlD lhr clt'off dic: orhc:r,rLo thc o'r.ttfcrwlll bo !ffc<tcd th' followlnS urod.inl drr. Hor.Y.n Abt. B.nk K.nld PLC Ld Cvca no.oinmlEr'nion rhc rblllry oluc b.nclt.irry'' brnk to P'yln. b.Daflri.ry oa thildru rnd/orwldrin a rc.sonablc dma d by dch)r lntarrurbgnr, mitifll'rPt'Ltjonr ot G[ort ln rr'nsftit'ion of 3. Thc brok do.' nol xi.Pt r.Jporii bill(Y for rny lo59 ca us. palmontl whlch ara not dlr..-tly du{ lo n!81i8.n.. or da[aultorli! brntll own om(..! nrlbllltt.J lGPos.d bY rh. .a. Th! Blrtgmar shlllb! bound and h.rabi ind.Innln.s rhr rranrfa th, balk.!r .ovcrwhlci ldrttll oblliiigns.nd tho r.Jto ti. b:nk hrt no contrgl ar mirlltr5 *E tn.Er,!ilon< lo aunt6..r 1. Th''! lorrn lhorldb!filldCln (JPllAL LFrISiS r. Ean.fti.irl, .((.10!1t oumbar; brnk.nd b6nrh MtiST b! auo(!J l. itCS tnncic. trn ONLY b. tft.(L(d l, th€ Pavmenl j' to bc .rBda tn xanya t!.llrrt$ Ind tD a bc{€,klarr', e(count b ' (ommri(tid bint trlttin K.nrr. 20++308?73 Account Number Name: I, Harrison KiuYanjui & Co. AdvoQates, Client Account Bank & Branch Absa Bank KenYa Plc - QueeEswaY House Charges to bc patd bY; bie choices) (delote the lnapplica Remtttery'Shar€dr8€'-ref,Giatr Actount Number finclude t]e branch codeJ 0945022833 TelephonE Nu mber; 02 0-28 410 0 0 Bransh Name: QUEENSWAY H0USE illings: Fourteetr mlllion se fifty slx thousand three hundred t'welve:cents thirty five only ven h undred Amount in words: Kenya Sh Sirnature(sl vgli!3!L .l "a Partner Partnei sl at PAIS To be com @ Test: agreed/disa$eed/missJng Sign Sign ed txres vc Bra n ch officlal's sl SiSn Sign To be ted the Branclr Xshsl Amount Remitted Kshs - Comflisslon Kshs.- 0ther'Charges K.shs, Total Test No TreasurY Ref: lsl Anloirntin Figures Kshs. 14,755;312.3s

/, t(apiar-i .Strattr:n Wiliiamson Housc 4th Avenue Ngong P.O. Box4011l - 00100 Nairobi, Kenya c t,J. A D\/oc,a.T SS T: (0) 20 2841000 (r,) 20 2733s19 M: (o) 7222o578uj (0) 733 699012/3 lnll. Code: +2S4 DZ: No. 19 I Advocates w'\,w.kaplails'.r3tton.com Email: KS@kaPstrat.conr VAT No..lor 12t90 2lN. PgO06l3S4lS YOUS RAFERENC€: PN{SfE39E10/172 r0 AplE 2018 J. Harrison Kini'anjui & Co. Advocalcs -St-Ellislio=se- .- 4th Floor. f)oor 416 Vv abera Streer NAIROBI Dear Sirs, High Court Civil Case No. 279 of 2003 Laivrence Ndutt:r & Otbers vs. KeuS'a Brcwcries Limited Thank you for your letter dated 29tb March 2018. We should be graieful if you could please ciirify the foliowi'ag; 1. \ilhettrer rhe payment of IGhs. 9,405,501 is in full and final SettlemeDt of the suit ' inclusive of tle costs. 2. \trre enclose'a temPlate of tire iischarge voucber for execution by e an C.iJtu'm-t+ u*.- We shall tbereafter request our clierrt to mate lrayment to your account' t' I Yows Iaithfully, P. uhin KA.PLAN & STR.dTTON Cc: Cliant Rt;.ctrrvED o"rr l..tolll.0flr: l. ?."r.r- . rrME." J..12. fly:................ . srGNED.. ffi:::. ... . -'. HeAntsoru Krrvyer..i..rur n .?i:i,r'bo t.:AS. gC o.,t-ti!E O. Frwter :; t^,rinrrn3 N. Slr.,, P G.chehi R. Ub.i E Shah N. M.lit E. Xinyanc C. y'r6te,de l.t .'.:t;..i? j l,{ulhui .1 ..{erral.Thclhy F. lklmire K. K..nttllra P Nra,u S. f.jr;gl.rur N. M.nga R r.hlnga C. Flvsr:g J NC?rrg'ta . f,,lemlrer ci LEX AF!l'CA