https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5297
The ground report and testimony of the Senior Physical Planner confirmed that Plot No. 113, Block 4, Narok Township is the same as Plot No. 236, Block 4, and that Plot No. 109 is a separate plot. That evidence supported the trial court's finding that the Respondent was the rightful owner of the disputed plot,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEELC 5297 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: David Ole Samate; Respondent: Jackson Kalebu Sempele
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal E014 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal Over Land Ownership and Plot Identity / Appellate Judgment Following Further Directions and Ground Report
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs to the Respondent
- Judges
- ["LN Gacheru"]
- Legal Topics
- Appeal, Ownership of Plot, Plot Identity and Boundary Verification, Ground Report/additional Evidence, Dismissal of Appeal With Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
David Ole Samate
Appellant
Jackson Kalebu Sempele
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Over Land Ownership and Plot Identity / Appellate Judgment Following Further Directions and Ground Report
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Plot No. 113, Block 4, Narok Township is the same as Plot No. 236, Block 4, Narok Township
- 2 Whether the trial court erred in finding the Respondent to be the bona fide owner of the disputed plot
- 3 Whether the appellate court should overturn the trial court judgment after considering the ground report and submissions
Ratio Decidendi
The ground report and testimony of the Senior Physical Planner confirmed that Plot No. 113, Block 4, Narok Township is the same as Plot No. 236, Block 4, and that Plot No. 109 is a separate plot. That evidence supported the trial court's finding that the Respondent was the rightful owner of the disputed plot, leaving no basis to overturn the judgment.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs to the Respondent
Orders
- The judgment of the trial court dated 29 October 2024 is upheld.
- The instant appeal dated 21 November 2024 is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
***REPUBLIC OF KENYA*** ***IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAROK*** ***ELC APPEAL NO EO14 OF 2024*** ***DAVID OLE SAMATE……………………………….………….APPELLANT*** ***VERSUS*** ***JACKSON KALEBU SEMPELE………………….………..RESPONDENT*** ***(Being an Appeal from the Judgment and Decree of Hon. H.M. Nyaberi (CM) delivered on 29th October 2024, In Narok Civil Case No 177 of 2017, between Jackson Kalebu Sempele and David Ole Samante).*** ***FURTHER DIRECTIONS IN RESPECT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT DATED 5TH MARCH 2026.*** 1. As indicated in the preamble of the above Judgment, the Respondent as a Plaintiff in ***Narok EMELC NO 117 OF 2017,*** had sought for Judgment against the Appellant herein, as a Defendant thereon for various prayers; among them a declaration that the Plaintiff( Respondent ) was the bona fide registered owner of ***Plot No Narok Township /113 Bock 4***, which was changed to ***Plot No 236, Narok Township*** measuring ***approx. 0.0665 ha*** within **Narok Township**, and that the Defendant’s claim is ***fraudulent and unlawful, and therefore null and void.*** 2. After the viva voce evidence, the trial court found in favour of the Plaintiff (Respondent) herein, and held that ***Plot No 113*** is one and the same as ***Plot No 236***, and consequently entered judgment for the Plaintiff as against the Defendant as prayed in the Plaint in terms of ***prayers No (a) and (b***) with costs. 3. The Appellant herein as the Defendant was dissatisfied with the said Judgment of the trial court, and vide ***Memo of Appeal*** dated ***21st November 2024***, filed the instant Appeal and urged the court to allow the Appeal, and set aside the Judgment of the trial court dated ***29th October 2024***, together with the consequential decree, and review the same. 4. The Appeal was opposed by the Respondent herein, and the said Appeal was canvassed by way of written submissions. After considering the Memo of Appeal, the Record of Appeal, and after re-evaluation and re-consideration of the available evidence, and the rival written submissions together with the cited authorities, this court in its Judgment of ***5th March 2026,*** held that as provided by ***Section 78(1)(d)*** of the ***Civil Procedure Act,*** it suspended the Judgment of the trial court dated ***29th October 2024***, and directed the ***Narok County Physical Planning officer*** and ***County surveyor*** to visit the disputed plots and prepare a ***Ground Report,*** and pick out the exact positions of ***Plots No 109*** and ***113,*** and confirm which plot was indeed changed to plot ***No 236.*** 5. The court had thus called for additional evidence to assist it effectively determine the Appeal, while relying on ***Sections 1A, 1B and 3A*** of the ***Civil Procedure Act***, for the end of justice to be done. 6. In compliance thereto, ***Levin Kimeu***, a ***Senior Physical Planner*** filed a ***Ground Report*** dated ***12th March 2026***, wherein he indicated that ***Plot No 109*** falls in Land parcel ***No 234,*** whereas ***Plot No 113, Narok Township*** falls on land parcel ***No 236***, as per the Development Plan. 7. Upon cross examination by both counsels for the Appellant and Respondent, the ***Physical Planner Levin Kimeu*** confirmed that ***Plot No LR 113, Narok Township*** is the same as ***Plot No LR 236, Block 4,*** while ***Plot No LR 109***, was ***Plot No LR 234.Block 4, in Narok Township.*** He was also able to identify both plots on the ground, and he stated that the two plots were two distinct plots. 8. The Physical Planner also confirmed that the owner of ***Plot No 236,*** ***Block 4,*** which was also ***LR No 113***, ***Narok Township,*** was rightful on his Plot as per the Development plan. 9. With the above ***Ground Report***, there is no doubt that the Respondent herein is the owner of ***Plot No 113*** ***Block 4***, in Narok Township, which was changed to ***LR NO 236***, and the trial court correctly found in favor of the Plaintiff (Respondent) herein, Consequently, this court finds no reasons to set aside and/or overturn the Judgment of the trial court delivered on ***29th October 2024***, and all the consequential orders emanating therefrom. 10. For the above reasons, this court in its appellate Jurisdiction upholds the Judgment of the trial court dated ***29th October 2024,*** and proceeds to ***dismiss the instant Appeal*** vide the ***Memo of Appeal*** dated ***21st November 2024***, with costs to the Respondent herein. 11. For avoidance of doubt, the order of the court issued on ***5th March 2026***, suspending the Judgment of the trial Court dated **29th October 2024**, is hereby ***vacated*** and/or ***discharged.*** The said Judgment remains in force. ***It is so directed,*** ***Dated, Signed and delivered Virtually this 6th day of August 2026.*** ***L. Gacheru*** ***Judge.*** ***06/08/2026*** ***Delivered online in the presence of*** ***Boniface Maluki Court Assistant*** ***No appearance for Appellant*** ***Mr. Okinyi for Respondent*** ***L. Gacheru*** ***Judge*** ***06/08/2026***