Kiplagat v Chebore (Environment and Land Case 218 of 2016) [2026] KEELC 3557 (KLR) (4 June 2026) (Judgment)

Kiplagat v Chebore (Environment and Land Case 218 of 2016) [2026] KEELC 3557 (KLR) (4 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3557 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Eldoret Environment and Land Case 218 of 2016 EM Washe, J June 4, 2026 Between Gregory Kibiy Kiplagat Plaintiff and Joseph K Chebore Defendant Judgment 1.The Plaintiff herein commenced this suit by way of a Plaint dated 30.07.2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘present suit’) against the Defendant seeking the following ORDERS: -a.A Declaratory Order holding that the Plaintiff is the legal owner of land parcel Uasin Gishu/ Kipkabus Settlement Scheme/1047.b.An Order holding that the Defendant’s occupation and use of land parcel Uasin Gishu/ Kipkabus Settlement Scheme/1047 is unlawful.c.An eviction order against the Defendant from land parcel Uasin Gishu/ Kipkabus Settlement Scheme/1047.d.An order of Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant and/or his agents from further encroaching on or in any other way interfering with the Plaintiff’s peaceful enjoyment of land parcel Uasin Gishu/ Kipkabus Settlement Scheme/1047.e.Costs of this suit.1.The prayers above are premised on the following grounds as outlined in the Plaint;-i.The Plaintiff avers that he is the lawful and rightful owner of the parcel of land known as Uasin Gishu/ Kipkabus Settlement Scheme/1047 measuring1.87Ha (hereinafter known as the ‘suit property’)ii.According to the Plaintiff, the suit property was purchased from one Julius Chepsoi Chepkieny for a consideration of Kenya Shillings Four Hundred and Fifty Thousand (KShs.450,000/-)iii.The Plaintiff purchased the suit property from Julius Chepsoi Chepkieny, the same had been purchased from Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto who was the registered owner.iv.Based on this disclosure by Julius Chepsoi Chepkieny, it was mutually agreed that the original owner Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto would directly transfer the suit property to the Plaintiff upon performing the terms and conditions agreed upon with Julius Chepsoi Chepkieny.v.Upon compliance with the terms and conditions of sale between the Plaintiff and Julius Chepsoi Chepkieny, the registered owner Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto did transfer the suit property to the Plaintiff directly and a Title Deed dated 17.07.2015 was issued in favour of the Plaintiff over the suit property.vi.At the time of the transaction between the Plaintiff and Julius Chepsoi Chepkieny, it was further disclosed that the Defendant had been given a Lease of the suit property which would lapse in December 2015.vii.However, by February 2016, the Defendant was still in occupation and use of the suit property dispute his Lease having expired and had in fact constructed a Temporary house of the same.viii.On inquiry of the Defendant’s continued occupation of the suit property, Julius Chepsoi Chepkieny did inform the Plaintiff who was the registered owner of the suit property that the Defendant had refused to yield vacant possession and/or vacate the same for no justifiable reason.ix.It is for this reason that the Plaintiff did institute this suit seeking the Orders outlined hereinabove. 3.The Plaint was duly served upon the Defendant who did file a Statement of Defence dated 06.07.2018 in opposition of the same. 4.In the Statement of Defence dated 06.07.2018, the Defendant did oppose the present suit on the following grounds; -i.The Defendant claimed ownership of the suit property on the ground that he had purchased the same through an Oral Agreement for sale.ii.Consequently therefore, the Defendant had enjoyed exclusive, open and continuous use of the suit property since the year 2000 based on the said Oral Agreement For Sale.iii.In essence, the Defendant did plead that at the time of the Plaintiff acquiring the suit property, the Defendant had acquired ownership rights by way of adverse possession.iv.Consequently, the Defendant did further plead that the Plaintiff’s cause of action against him was time barred under the Limitation of Actions Act.v.The Defendant did aver that at the time the Plaintiff was purchasing the suit property, his ownership rights could not be extinguished keeping in mind that he had acquired legal rights by way of adverse possession.vi.The Defendant did disclose that during his occupation on the suit property, he had undertaken numerous developments on the same.vii.In conclusion, the Defendant did urge this Court to dismiss the present suit with costs thereof. 5.The Statement of Defence was duly served upon the Plaintiff who did file a Reply to Defence dated 22.08.2018. 6.In his Reply to Defence dated 22.08.2018, the Plaintiff did state as follows; -i.First and foremost, the Plaintiff did deny the Defendant’s allegation that he had been in the suit property since the year 2000 or thereabout.ii.The Plaintiff therefore did deny the allegation that the Defendant had acquired any legal rights by way of adverse possession as pleaded in the Statement of Defence.iii.The Plaintiff did deny the allegation that the cause of action against the Defendant was time barred as alleged in the Statement of Defence.iv.Lastly, the Plaintiff did deny the allegation by the Defendant that he had purchased the suit property by way of an Oral Agreement.v.In conclusion, the Plaintiff did urge this Court to dismiss the Defendant’s Defence and grant the prayers sought in the present suit. 7.Upon filing the Reply to Defence dated 22.08.2018 which was duly served on the Defendant, pleadings closed and the matter was set down for hearing. Plaintiff’s Testimonies And Documentary Evidence 8.The Plaintiff was the first witness to testify and was marked as PW 1. 9.The Plaintiff did inform the Court that he had prepared a witness statement dated 30.07.2016, which he did adopt as his evidence in chief. 10.In support of his testimony in chief, the Plaintiff did produce the following Exbibits before the Court;-PW1 Exbibit 1 – A Copy of Title Deed for Suit property issued on 17.07.2015.PW1 Exbibit 2 – A Copy of the Agreement For Sale dated 13.11.2012.PW1Exbibit3– A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 26.11.2012PW1 MFI 4 – A Copy of the Official Search of the suit property. 11.The Plaintiff did inform the Court that he had purchased the suit property from one Julius Chepsoi Chepkieny through an Agreement For Sale dated 13.11.2012 and complied with all the terms and conditions of sale thereof. 12.However, at the time of the purchase, the suit property had been registered in the name of one Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto who through the Memorandum of Understanding dated 26.11.2012, did agree to transfer the same to the Plaintiff herein. 13.Based on this Memorandum of Understanding dated 26.11.2012, the registered owner Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto did transfer the suit property legally and lawfully upon obtaining the relevant Consent to Transfer and the Title Deed was duly issued on 17.07.2015. 14.The Plaintiff however did inform the Court that the Defendant herein had refused to yield vacant possession and/or vacate the suit property thereby hindering and/or interfering with the Plaintiff’s lawful use and occupation of the same resulting to the filing of the present suit. 15.In conclusion, the Plaintiff did seek this Court to grant the prayers sought in the present suit and/or an eviction order be issued against the Defendant as well as costs. 16.In cross-examination by the Defendant, the Plaintiff did confirm that the property known as LR.NO.Uasin Gishu/ Kipkabus Settlement Scheme/1047 and the suit property was one and the same. 17.The Plaintiff did admit that in the Agreement For Sale and the Memorandum of Understanding, the property described therein was LR.NO.Uasin Gishu/ Kipkabus Settlement Scheme/1047. 18.The Plaintiff did inform the Court that at the time of purchasing the suit property, it was the Defendant who was in occupation of the same and was cultivating on it. 19.The Plaintiff could not state the exact time the Defendant had taken possession of the suit property prior to the year 2012 when he purchased the same. 20.The Plaintiff did inform the Court that he had purchased the suit property from one Julius Chepsoi Chepkieny who had not been registered as the owner of same. 21.The Plaintiff did admit that the Agreement for Sale between Julius Chepsoi Chepkieny and Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto had not been produced before the Court. 22.The Plaintiff did further admit that he had not produced the relevant Consent to Transfer from the Land Control Board from the registered owner known as Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto to himself or the relevant receipts in support of the transfer. 23.The Plaintiff did inform the Court that prior to entering the Agreement for Sale with Julius Chepsoi Chepkieny, he did not undertake an Official Search of the suit property. 24.Be that as it may, the Plaintiff did deny the allegation that the Defendant had taken possession and/or occupation of the suit property in the year 2000. 25.In concluding his cross-examination, the Plaintiff did reiterate that he was the lawful registered owner of the suit property and had all the privileges and rights to be in occupation and use of the same. 26.On re-examination, the Plaintiff did clarify that although the Agreement For Sale and the Memorandum of Understanding did describe the property as LR.NO.Uasin Gishu/ Kipkabus Settlement Scheme/1047, it was the same property as the suit property herein. 27.The Plaintiff did further confirm that at the time of purchasing the suit property, the Defendant was the one in use of the same based on a Lease granted to him by Julius Chepsoi Chepkieny. 28.At the end of this re-examination, the Plaintiff herein was discharged from the witness. 29.The Plaintiff’s second witness was Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto who was marked as PW2. 30.PW 2 did inform the Court that he had prepared a witness statement dated 30.07.2016, which he did adopt as his evidence in chief. 31.PW 2 did inform the Court that he had been allocated the suit property in the early 1990s and was issued with a Title Deed in his name on the 19.09.2000. 32.PW 2 did confirm to the Court that the Title Deed issued on the 19.09.2000 was duly transferred to the Plaintiff herein and the original surrendered back to the District Land Registrar thereafter. 33.PW 2 did disclose to the Court that during his ownership of the suit property, he did not reside on the same but had been leasing it to the Defendant for a sum of Kenya Shillings Fifteen Thousand (Kshs.15,000/-) per annum since the year 2006. 34.PW 2 did proceed to produce the Lease Agreement dated 17.03.2006 confirming that the Defendant had a Lease of three (3) years on the suit property for purposes of cultivation. 35.In essence, PW 2 did testify that the Defendant had only been in occupation of the suit property for a period of three (3) years as at the year 2010. 36.Despite the Lease of Three (3) Years lapsing, the Defendant herein did refuse to yield back vacant possession and/or vacate the suit property herein. 37.Be as it may, PW 2 did confirm to the Court that the suit property was sold off to Julius Chepsoi Chepkieny in the year 2011 who thereafter did sale the same to the Plaintiff herein. 38.Based on the Memorandum of Understanding produced, the suit property was lawfully transferred to the Plaintiff after procuring the relevant Consent to Transfer and registration of the Transfer at the Lands Department. 39.PW 2 did produce the Consent to Transfer from himself to the Plaintiff before the Court. 40.PW2 did aver that as the registered owner who had leased the suit property to the Defendant, he did write a demand letter dated 08.12.2015 requesting him to vacate the suit property but the Defendant had refused, neglected and/or declined to comply thereof. 41.The Demand Letter dated 08.12.2015 was duly produced before the Court at the end of PW2’s testimony. 42.On cross-examination, PW 2 did dispute the allegation that he had sold the suit property to the Defendant in the year 2000. 43.PW 2 did inform the Court that the signature appearing on the Lease Agreement was examined and confirmed not to belong to the Defendant herein. 44.PW 2 nevertheless did admit that the suit property had been in use by the Defendant since the year 2006 and not the year 2000 as alleged by the Defendant. 45.PW 2 did confirm that the Consent to Transfer the suit property had been made three (3) years after the Agreement For Sale and Memorandum of Understanding had been executed. 46.In concluding his cross-examination, PW 2 did reiterate that the property known as LR.NO.Uasin Gishu/ Kipkabus Settlement Scheme/1047 was one and the same as the suit property herein. 47.On re-examination, PW 2 did state that the Defendant’s use of the suit property was from the year 2006 and not the year 2000 as alleged by him. 48.PW 2 did confirm to the Court that the only funds paid by the Defendant over the suit property were in regards to the Lease and no purchase price had been discussed, agreed and/or paid by the Defendant relating to the suit property as alleged. 49.At the end of the re-examination, PW2 was discharged. 50.The Plaintiff’s third witness was one ELIZABETH MORAA who was marked as PW3. 51.PW 3 did introduce herself as the County Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu County who had attended Court based on witness summons issued by the Court. 52.PW 3 did inform the Court that she had attended Court to produce the Register of the suit property herein which was subsequently marked as PW 3 Exbibit 1. 53.According to PW 3, the suit property herein was an asset of the Government of Kenya based on the entry made on the 18.12.2000 under the Settlement Fund Scheme. 54.Thereafter, the suit property was transferred to one Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto on the 19.12.2000 and a relevant Title Deed issued thereof. 55.The person known as Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto did later on transfer the suit property to the Plaintiff herein on the 17.07.2015 and a Title Deed was issued lawfully to him on the same date. 56.PW 3 therefore did confirm to the Court that the suit property herein was lawfully and legally registered in the name of the Plaintiff. 57.PW 3 did produce the Application for Consent to Transfer made to the Land Control Board as PW 3 Exbibit 2, the Consent to Transfer from the Land Control Board as PW 3 Exbibit 3, the Copy of the Transfer Form duly registered on the 17.07.2015 as PW 3 Exbibit 4 and the Surrendered Copy of the Title Deed issued to the Vendor, Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto as PW3 Exbibit 5. 58.PW 3 did clarify to the Court that although the Title Deed of the suit property did not contain the word Settlement Scheme, the same was within a Government Settlement Scheme and this could only be a typing error which does not negate the registration of the Plaintiff. 59.PW 3 did reiterate that the suit property had been registered lawfully and that there were no encumbrances in the Register thereof. 60.On cross-examination, PW 3 did admit that the Application For Consent to Transfer and the Consent to Transfer were not accompanied by the Minutes of approval from the Land Control Board made on the 02.07.2015. 61.According to PW 3, the Minutes from the Land Control Board made on the 02.07.2015 in relation to the issuance of the Consent to Transfer were not necessary for purposes of registration. 62.PW 3 did state that the Transfer Form produced before the Court did not have the appropriate evidence to show payment of Stamp Duty or the Identification Card and KRA Pin Certificate of the Vendor and the Purchaser. 63.On re-examination, PW 3 did confirm that the description of the suit property in the Application For Consent to Transfer made before the Land Control Board was the same as that provided in the Consent to Transfer issued thereof. 64.PW 3 did testify that the Transfer Form relating to the suit property was procedurally booked in the Presentation Book and the registration of the Transfer was lawfully undertaken. 65.At the end of the re-examination, PW3 was discharged. 66.The Plaintiff’s fourth witness was one Kipkurui Chebet Romboewho was marked as PW4. 67.PW 4 did introduce herself as a resident of Kisok within Baringo County. 68.PW 4 did inform Court that she had prepared and signed a witness statement dated 14.06.2022, which she did adopt as her evidence in chief. 69.PW 4 did not produce any documentary evidence in support of her testimony before the Court. 70.On cross-examination, PW 4 did confirm being familiar with the parties before the Court. 71.PW 4 did inform the Court that indeed the Defendant had been in occupation and use of the suit property but could not give the exact date when the occupation and use by the Defendant had begun. 72.PW 4 did confirm to the Court that the first registered owner of the suit property was Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto who later did sale the same to the Plaintiff herein. 73.On re-examination, PW 4 did state that she had been in occupation of the property known as Uasin Gishu/ Kipkabus Settlement Scheme/1049 since the year 2007 before she moved to Baringo County. 74.At the end of the re-examination, PW4 was discharged and thereafter the Plaintiff did proceed to close his case. Defence Testimonies & Documentary Evidence 75.The Defence’s first witness was one Titus Kiprop who was marked as DW 1. 76.DW 1 did introduce himself as a resident of Kipkabus and a farmer by occupation. 77.DW 1 did confirm to the Court that he had prepared a witness statement dated 21.02.2022, which he did adopt as his evidence in chief. 78.DW 1 did testify that the Defendant was the one in use of the suit property since the year 2000 and had he been helping him in ploughing and harvesting maize of the said suit property. 79.On cross-examination, DW 1 did disclose to the Court that the Defendant was a neighbour and they were not related in any way. 80.DW 1 did disclose that the Defendant was residing on another property and did only use the suit property for agricultural purposes only. 81.DW 1 did deny being familiar with the Plaintiff herein or the previous owner known as Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto. 82.DW 1 did further confirm that the area known as Kipkabu swas had been a Government Settlement Scheme allocated to various persons. 83.DW 1 could not testify the manner in which the Defendant had been allocated the suit property but his assumption was that the Defendant had acquired the same from the Government of Kenya. 84.In concluding his cross-examination, DW 1 did inform the Court that the Defendant had constructed a temporary wooden house in the year 2000 on the suit property to shelter his workers that were ploughing on the same. 85.On re-examination, DW 1 did reiterate that it was only the Defendant who had been on the suit property since the year 2000 and not the Plaintiff herein. 86.The Defendant herein was the second Defence witness and was marked as DW 2. 87.The Defendant did inform the Court that he had prepared a witness statement dated 14.12.2021, which he did adopt as his evidence in chief. 88.The Defendant did produce the following documents in support of his testimony above; -DW 2 Exbibit 1 – A Copy of a Forensic Examiners Report dated 12.07.2019DW2 Exbibit 2- A Copy of the Register in respect to the Plot.No. 1047 89.To begin with, the Defendant did challenge the Lease Agreement executed in favour of the previous owner known as Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto. 90.It was the Defendant’s testimony that the suit property was never allocated to Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto and the Lease which he had procured was forged. 91.The Defendant did inform the Court that the issue of forgery of the Lease relating to the suit property was reported before the Directorate of Criminal Investigations for investigations and in particular the signature of Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto which was appearing therein. 92.The Defendant did state that he had been in occupation of the suit property since the year 2000 through cultivation of the same. 93.The Defendant did aver that he had been given possession of the suit property by the Settlement Fund Trustees in the year 2000. 94.However, the Defendant did learn that the suit property had been registered in the name of Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto on the 19.12.2000 and the Title Deed issued thereof. 95.The Defendant did deny knowledge of the subsequent sale and transfer of the suit property from Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto to the Plaintiff herein. 96.In any event, the Defendant did insist that neither Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto nor the Plaintiff herein had ever been in occupation and/or use of the suit property. 97.In conclusion thereof, the Defendant did seek this Court to dismiss the present suit and allow him to continue occupying and using the suit property. 98.On cross-examination, DW 2 did disclose that he had been a Councillor from Keiyo County Council between the years 1997 and 2002. 99.DW 2 did further disclose that it was during this time that he was allocated the suit property and also did purchase a second property known as PLOT.NO.1041. 100.However, the Defendant did not have any Letter of Allotment issued in his name and/or the appropriate Title Deed over the suit property. 101.The Defendant did admit that Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto had been registered as the first owner of the suit property and issued with the relevant Title Deed. 102.The Defendant did inform the Court that he had come to learn of Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto’S ownership over the suit property in the year 2016 when this suit was filed. 103.The Defendant did deny the allegation that he had leased the suit property from Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto. 104.The Defendant did however admit that the wooden house of the suit property had been erected by him for the use of his workers during the ploughing and harvesting seasons. 105.On re-examination, the Defendant did insist that he had purchased the property known as PLOT.NO.1041 from one Kipkutain the year 2002. 106.However, as regards the suit property, it was allocated to him in the year 2000 but he did not have the Letter of Allotment and/or Offer or the Title Deed thereof. 107.The Defendant did disclose to the Court that his efforts to get the relevant ownership documents of the suit property from the offices of the Settlement Fund Trustees, Eldoret, Nakuru and Elgeyo Marakwet had not been successful to date. 108.At the end of the re-examination, DW2 was discharged. 109.The Defence third witness was one William Maina Kiptaruswho was marked as DW3. 110.DW 3 did introduce himself as resident of Kabiyet Ward within Kipkabus Settlement Scheme. 111.DW 3 did inform the Court that he had prepared a witness statement dated 28.09.2022, which he did adopt as his evidence in chief. 112.DW 3 did testify that the Defendant was a neighbour within Kipkabus Settlement Scheme although he could not positively identify the property which the Defendant was in occupation of. 113.Nevertheless, DW 3 did aver that the Defendant had been in occupation of the suit property since the year 2000 when he took possession thereof. 114.DW 3 did state that the suit property was allocated to the Defendant by the Local Authorities as then did exist. 115.DW 3 did inform the Court that he was familiar with Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto who is a former Councillor but did deny the allegation that he was allocated any property within Kipkabus Settlement Scheme. 116.DW 3 did confirm to the Court that the Defendant had erected a temporary wooden house and had been cultivating the suit property during his occupation and use of the same. 117.DW 3 did insist that the Defendant had been on the suit property for a period of over 25 years and there was no interruption of his occupation by the Plaintiff and/or Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto. 118.In conclusion, DW 3 did testify that the suit property belonged to the Defendant herein. 119.On cross-examination, DW 3 did state that the Defendant’s house had been destroyed by fire in the year 2007. 120.On being referred to Paragraph 12 of his witness statement, DW 3 did admit that it showed the Defendant’s house had been destroyed by fire in the year 2021. 121.DW 3 nevertheless did confirm that the Defendant was not residing on the suit property. 122.According to DW 3, the properties within Kipkabus Settlement Scheme were owned by the Government and he was allocated PLOT.NO.1037 through a Letter of Allotment and thereafter issued with a Title Deed. 123.DW 3 did concede that although the suit property belonged to the Defendant, he had not been shown an ownership document in favour of the Defendant. 124.In conclusion, DW 3 could not confirm if there was any form of Agreement between the Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto and the Defendant over the suit property. 125.On re-examination, DW 3 did reiterate that the Defendant’s house had been destroyed by fire in the year 2007 and not 2021. 126.DW 3 did insist that the person who has been in occupation of the suit property was the Defendant and not the Plaintiff or Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto. 127.After this re-examination, DW3 was discharged from the witness box. 128.The Defence fourth witness was one C.I. Kiplagat Kimaiywa of S.N. 236993 and he was marked as DW4. 129.DW 4 did introduce himself as Document Examiner attached to Forensic Document Examination Laboratory within the Directorate of Criminal Investigation. 130.DW 4 did confirm to the Court that he had been summons to come and testify about the Forensic Document Examination Report dated 12.07.2019 which had been produced as DW 1 Exbibit 1. 131.According to DW 3, the documents submitted for examination were as follows;-Exbibit A- A Copy of the Agreement For Sale of the suit property dated 17.03.2006 between Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto and the Plaintiff.Exbibit B- A Copy of the Paying Voucher No. 10852 from Chepkorio SACCO A/C NO. 924 in the name of the Plaintiff.Exbibit C- A Copy of an Acknowledgement Note from the firm of Chepseba Lagat& Associates confirming receipt of KSHS 105,000/- dated 10.11.2012.Exbibit D- A copy of an Application For Clearance made by the Plaintiff dated 21.12.2020 before the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission.Exbibit E (I) & (II)- Copies of known signature specimen of the Plaintiff dated on the 20.03.2019 by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations, Eldoret. 132.The request made by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations, Eldoret was to verify if the questioned signatures appearing on Exbibit A were similar and/or made by the same persons as those appearing on ExbibitS B, C, D, & E. 133.DW 3 did confirm that a verification exercise was duly undertaken and upon analysis, the document examiner known as Chief Inspector Bernard Cheruiyotwas of the view that the signatures appearing on Exbibit A were made by different persons compared to the signatures appearing on Exbibit B, C, D and E. 134.In other words, the signature appearing on Exbibit A was not made by the Defendant herein. 135.Based on practice, the outcome of the analysis was subject to verification by one SSP John Muinde who did confirm the same outcome on the 12.07.2019. 136.On cross-examination, DW 4 could not ascertain whether the document marked as Exbibit A submitted for examination was an original or copy. 137.DW 4 did acknowledge that none of the Exbibits presented for examination had a known signature of the Defendant herein prior to the year 2006. 138.DW 4 did state that dispite the absence of a document with the Defendant’ signature prior to 2006, the document examination would still be conducted and an outcome ascertained. 139.DW 4 did insist that signatures do not change with time and did maintain that a signature examination was based on other facts other than the periods it was authored. 140.DW 4 did disclose to the Court that in signature examination, the examiner would look at the characteristics of the signatures including the variations and pen strokes thereof. 141.On re-examination, DW 4 did confirm that the signatures appearing on Exbibit B, C and D were of the same person as those contained in Exbibit E. 142.DW 4 did inform the Court that the outcome in the Forensic Document Examination Report was based on the documents availed to them. 143.At the end of the re-examination, DW4 was discharged from the witness box and the defence thereafter did close their case. 144.The Court then did give directions for parties to file and exchange their final submissions. 145.The Plaintiff did file his submissions dated 10.02.2026 together with authorities while the Defendant did file his submissions dated 30.03.2026 together with authorities. 146.The Court has carefully perused the pleading before the Court, the testimonies of the witnesses herein, the documentary evidence thereof and the submissions filed by the parties and identifies the following issues for determination; -Issue No.1- Whether The Plaintiff’s Suit Is Time Barred Pursuant To The Provisions The Limitation Of Actions Act?Issue No.2- Whether Or Not The Plaintiff’s Registration Is Lawful Or Not?Issue No.3-whether The Deefendant Has Acquired The Suit Property By Way Of Adverse Possession?Issue No.4-whether The Plaintiff Is Entitled To The Reliefs Sought In The Plaint?Issue No.5-who Shall Bear The Costs Of The Suit? 147.The Court having duly identified the above-mentioned issues for determination, the same will now be discussed as herein. Issue No. 1 – Whether The Plaintiff’s Suit Is Time Barred Pursuant To The Provisions The Limitation Of Actions Act? 148.The first issue for determination is whether or not the present suit herein is time barred. 149.This issue was raised by the Defendant in his pleadings thereby disputing the Court’s jurisdiction to hear and determine the present suit. 150.According to the Defendant, he took possession of the suit property in the year 2000 and has enjoyed continuous occupation of the same since then. 151.The Plaintiff on the other hand did institute this suit in the year 2016 which is a period of over twelve (12) years since the Defendant’s entry and occupation of the suit property. 152.In essence, the Defendant was of the view that the Plaintiff’s cause of action before the Court was time-barred and the Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the same. 153.It is settled law that where an issue of Jurisdiction is raised by any party before the Court or by the Court suo motto, then this issue has to be determined first before the Court considers any other issue. 154.This is because once a Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction, it must down its tools and not proceed an inch thereafter. 155.To be able to resolve this issue of whether the Plaintiff’s suit is time-barred or not, the Court is required to peruse the Plaint or pleadings before outlining the cause of action and apply the provisions of the Limitation of Actions Act. 156.From perusal of the Plaint filed by the Plaintiff herein, it is clear that the Plaintiff herein is seeking to regain the suit property from the Defendant who is in occupation of the same. 157.According to the Plaint, the suit property was registered in the name of the Plaintiff on the 17.07.2015 as indicated in the Title Deed thereof. 158.The present suit on the other hand was filed against the Defendant on the 01.08.2016. 159.The provisions of Section 7 of the Limitation of Action Act states as follows; -“An action may not be brought by any person to recover land after the end of twelve years from the date on which the right of action accrued to him or, if it first accrued to some person through whom he claims, to that person.” 160.Based on the pleadings before the Court, the Plaintiff herein did become the legal and lawful owner of the suit property on the 17.07.2015 as confirmed in the Title Deed and Register of the suit property produced before the Court. 161.In other words, the Plaintiff’s time for purposes of the Limitation of Actions Act began running from 17.07.2015 against any cause of action that would arise against the Defendant or any other person over the suit property. 162.The present suit against the Defendant herein was filed on the 01.08.2016 which was slightly over one year after the Plaintiff had been registered as the owner of the suit property. 163.As such, the period of twelve (12) years provided under Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act allowing the Plaintiff to institute any proceedings against the Defendant and/or any other person in relation to the suit property had not lapsed. 164.In essence, this Court hereby makes a finding that the Plaintiff’s cause of action against the Defendant herein is not time-barred and/or statute barred and the Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the same. Issue No.2- Whether Or Not The Plaintiff’s Registration Is Lawful Or Not? 165.The second issue raised by the parties in this present suit is whether the Plaintiff’s registration as the owner of the suit property was lawful or not. 166.The Plaintiff herein did plead that he was the lawful and legitimate owner of the suit property by virtue of the Title Deed issued on 17.07.2015. 167.The Plaintiff did disclose to the Court that he had purchased the suit property from one Julius Chepsoi Chepkieny way back in the year 2012 through an Agreement for Sale dated 13.11.2012 which was produced before the Court. 168.At the time of purchase, Julius Chepsoi Chepkieny had also purchased the suit property from one Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto who was the registered owner but a transfer had not been effected thereof. 169.Due to this scenario, a Memorandum of Understanding dated 26.11.2012 was prepared and executed by the Plaintiff and Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto confirming that the suit property would be transferred to the Plaintiff in due course. 170.It is on the basis of this Memorandum of Understanding dated 26.11.2012 that Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto did transfer the suit property to the Plaintiff herein. 171.The County Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu did attend Court and produce the Application for Consent to Transfer, the Transfer Form from Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto to the Plaintiff herein and the resultant Title Deed issued on the 17.07.2015. 172.In the opinion of the County Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu, the suit property was lawfully and legally registered in the name of the Plaintiff. 173.The Defendant on the other hand did dispute the legality of the Plaintiff’s registration over the suit property. 174.According to the Defendant, the suit property was never allocated to the person known as Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto. 175.In fact, the Defendant was of the view that the property being claimed by the Plaintiff which was purchased and transferred by Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto was LR.NO.Uasin Gishu/ Kipkabus Settlement Scheme/1047 and not the suit property which is LR.NO.Uasin Gishu/Kipkabus Settlement/1047 which was in occupation and use by the Defendant. 176.Secondly, the Defendant was of the position that if there was any Letter of Allotment and/or offer issued to Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto over the suit property, then the same was obtained unlawfully and the resultant title thereof was not lawful and legitimate. 177.The Defendant did further support this position by the Forensic Document Examination Report which did analyse the signatures of the person known as Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto and the Defendant herein over the alleged Lease of the suit property. 178.Clearly, there are two aspects to the issue before the Court. 179.The first aspect is whether or not the Defendant herein can impeach and/or challenge the registration of Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto over the suit property and the subsequent transfer of the same to the Plaintiff herein. 180.The second aspect is whether the alleged forged Lease by Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto over the suit property would nullify the Plaintiff’s Title Deed issued in the year 2015. 181.Commencing with the first aspect of this issue, there is no doubt that the Plaintiff herein is the registered owner of the suit property. 182.As such, the Plaintiff is entitled to enjoy the rights and privileges of the suit property in line with Section 24 and 25 of the Land Registration Act, No.3 of 2012. 183.The only way that the Plaintiff’s ownership rights under Section 24 and 25 of the Land Registration Act, No.3 of 2012 can be impeached and/or cancelled is through the provisions of Section 26 (1) (a) and (b). 184.To be able to invoke the provisions of Section 26 (1) (a) and (b) of the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012, the Defendant was required to plead and/or provide the Particulars of Fraud or Misrepresentation and/or the manner in which the suit property was acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme. 185.Thereafter, Section 107 (1) and (2) of the Evidence Act, Cap 21 did require the Defendant to produce and/or tender the appropriate evidence either through the relevant documents and/or testimonies. 186.A perusal of the Defence dated 06.07.2018 clearly shows that the Defendant did not plead any particulars of Fraud or Misrepresentation and/or any particulars of how Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto and/or the Plaintiff herein did obtain the Title Deed of the suit property illegally, unprocedurally and/or through a corrupt scheme. 187.Similarly, the Defendant did not provide any evidence either through documents and/or witness testimonies to substantiate any allegations of whether the Title Deed issued to Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto or the Plaintiff was acquired through fraud or misrepresentation and/or through an illegal, unprocedural and/or corrupt scheme. 188.In the absence of the grounds provided under Section 26 (1) (a) and (b) being specifically pleaded and proved, then this Court cannot interfere and/or cancel the registration of Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto or the Plaintiff herein. 189.The second aspect was what the Defendant sought to rely more in challenging the registration of Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto and by extension the Plaintiff herein. 190.In this aspect, the Defendant sought to rely on the illegality and/or forgery contained in the alleged Lease Agreement dated 17.03.2006 between Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto and the Defendant over the suit property. 191.According to the Defendant, Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto had forged his signature of the Lease Agreement dated 17.03.2006 as proved in the Forensic Document Examination Report dated 12.07.2019. 192.However, the dispute before the Court is not whether the Lease Agreement dated 12.07.2019 is legitimate and/or legal between Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto and the Defendant but whether it can actually invalidate the ownership of Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto and the Plaintiff herein. 193.Unfortunately, the Lease Agreement dated 17.03.2006 only deals with occupation and use of the suit property and does not assist much in the determination of who is the lawful and legitimate owner of the suit property. 194.In essence, this Court hereby makes a finding that the Plaintiff herein is the lawful, legal and legitimate owner of the suit property as provided for under Section 24 and 25 of the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012. Issue No.3-whether The Deefendant Has Acquired The Suit Property By Way Of Adverse Possession? 195.The third issue for determination is whether or not the Defendant is entitled to a claim of adverse possession. 196.The Defendant in his Defence did plead a claim of adverse possession based on the period of his occupation on the suit property. 197.The Defendant did plead and testify that he did enter the suit property in the year 2000 and had actually been in occupation of the same by constructing a home for his workers and ploughing on the same. 198.The Defendant was of the view that a period of over 12 years since the year 2000 when he took possession had passed and therefore, the Plaintiff herein had no right over the suit property, the same having been extinguished by the time he was being registered as the owner or was filing the present suit. 199.The Plaintiff herein did dispute the allegation that the Defendant herein was in occupation of the suit property since the year 2000. 200.The Plaintiff’s witness who is Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto did also dispute the Defendant’s allegation that he had been on the suit property since the year 2000. 201.According to the testimony of Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto, the Defendant herein did take possession and use of the suit property in the year 2006 based on the Lease Agreement dated 17.03.2006. 202.In other words, by the time the present suit was being filed, the mandatory period of twelve years in occupation had not lapsed to give rise to a claim of adverse possession. 203.The Court has carefully read the Defence dated 28.11.2018 and it is not clear whether the Defendant was seeking ownership by way of adverse possession and/or was using the claim of adverse possession as a Defence. 204.Either way, it is settled law that for one to seek refuge in a claim of adverse possession as a claim and/or a Defence, he or she must admit the legality and/or ownership of the registered owner to the particular suit property. 205.A party cannot seek to challenge the registration of the owner and at the same time claim a right under adverse possession. 206.In the case of Haro Yonda Juaje -versus- Dzengo Maburo & Another(2014) KEHC 6665 (KLR), the Court did hold as follows;-“One cannot succeed in a claim for adverse possession before conceding that indeed the registered proprietor is the true owner of the said land.It does not lie in the mouth of a claimant to aver that the title held by the registered proprietor was fraudulently acquired and then claim the same parcel of land under the doctrine of adverse possession.If the Plaintiff’s averment is that the title which was issued to the Defendant was fraudulently acquired, his cause of action would be for the rectification of the title by cancellation pursuant to the provisions of Section 143 of the Registered Land Act and not adverse possession” 207.It is clear from the Defence dated 28.11.2018 that the Defendant herein admits to an attempt to purchase the suit property from Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto but the said attempt was not fruitful. 208.During the testimony of the Defendant, it was alleged that the suit property had been allocated to him by the Government of Kenya and it is on this basis that he did take possession. 209.In fact, during the hearing the Defendant did dispute entering the suit property with the consent of Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto and/or based on the Lease Agreement dated 17.03.2006. 210.Based on all these inconsistences, it is not clear whether the Defendant did enter the suit property after being allocated the same by the Government of Kenya or did take possession during the attempt to buy the same from Benjamin Kipchumba Chemisto and/or through the Lease Agreement dated 17.03.2006. 211.These contradicting positions by the Defendant makes it difficult for the Court to identify when the Defendant indeed took possession of the suit property and whether the ingredients of adverse possession have been proved or not. 212.As such, the Defendant’s claim of adverse possession either as a cause of action or as a defence against the Plaintiff’s cause of action cannot stand and is therefore denied. 213.In any event, there is no counter-claim in the Defence dated 28.11.2018 to grant any prayer of adverse possession against the Plaintiff herein. Issue No. 4 - Whether The Plaintiff Is Entitled To The Reliefs Sought In The Plaint? 214.Based on Issue No. 2 hereinabove, it is clear that the suit property herein is the lawful and legitimate property of the Plaintiff. 215.As such, this Court is duty bound to ensure that the Plaintiff enjoys the rights and privileges outlined in law as provided under Section 24 and 25 of the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012. 216.To that effect, the Plaintiff herein is entitled to the reliefs sought in the present suit. Issue No. 5 – Who Shall Bear The Costs Of The Suit? 217.The general rule is that the winning party is entitled to costs unless the Court directs otherwise. 218.In the present suit, having held that the Plaintiff has sufficiently proved his claim to the required standard, the Court hereby makes a finding that he is entitled to the costs of the suit. Conclusion 219.In conclusion, this Court hereby makes the following Orders in determination of the present suit;-A.The Plaint Dated 30.07.2016 Be And Is Hereby Allowed.B.An Order Be And Is Hereby Issued Declaring The Plaintiff As The Legal Owner Of The Suit Property Known As Uasin Gishu/ Kipkabus Settlement Scheme/1047.C.An Order Be And Is Hereby Issued Declaring The Defendant’s Occupaton And Use Of The Suit Property Known As Uasin Gishu/ Kipkabus Settlement Scheme/1047 As Unlawful.D.Consequently, The Defendant Is Hereby Ordered To Yield Vacant Possession Of The Suit Properrty Known As Uasin Gishu/ Kipkabus Settlement Scheme/1047 Within 90 Days From The Date Of This Judgment.E.Failure To Comply With The Strict Timelines Outlined In Order (iv) Above, An Order Of Eviction To Be Issued Forthewith Without Further Referrence To This Court.F.The Said Eviction Should Comply With The Mandatory Provisions Of Section 152e Of The Land Act, 2012.G.An Order Of Permanent Injunction Be And Is Hereby Issued Restraining The Defendant And/or His Agents From Further Encroaching On Or In Any Other Way Interfering With The Plaintiff’s Peaceful Enjoyment Of Land Parcel Known As Uasin Gishu/ Kipkabus Settlement Scheme/1047H.Costs Of The Suit To Be Borne By The Defendant. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.EMMANUEL.M. WASHEJUDGEIn The Presence Of:Court Assistant: Mr. BrianCounsel for the Plaintiff: Nyokei holding brief for Mr. KeterCounsel for the Defendants: Mr. Nyachiro holding brief for Mr. Ndege