RULING OF THE COURT
(1) At the hearing of this appeal, Mr. George Oraro, learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent, took a preliminary objection on the jurisdiction of this Court to hear and determine the appeal. Although Mr. Oraro had not filed and served on the other parties to the appeal, notice of the preliminary objection, the court nevertheless allowed him to argue the objection for three reasons. First, if the objection was successful, it would determine the entire appeal. Second, as was stated by this Court in the Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v. Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd (1989) KLR, 1 a court seized of a matter in which the question of jurisdiction is raised is obliged to decide the issue right away on the material before it. Lastly, the appellant and the second and third respondents were prepared to argue the objection notwithstanding lack of notice, due to the urgency and importance of the appeal to them. In the event, the objection was strongly resisted by Mr. A…