https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4787

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT GARISSA** **ELC APPEAL NO. E004 OF 2025** **FATUMA HUSSEIN HASSAN.....................................................1ST APPELLANT JAMA ABDI KHALIF...................................................................2ND APPELLANT ABDIRAHMAN MUHUMED FARAH (Alias Abdi Iman)........3RD APPELLANT ADAN MOHAMED BARE...........................................................4TH APPELLANT** **VERSUS** **ALI ABDI KORIO..............................................................................RESPONDENT** **(Being an appeal from the Judgment and Decree of Hon. Jackson Omwange (Principal Magistrate) delivered on 14th May 2025 in Garissa CMELC No. E10 of 2023)** **JUDGMENT** 1. **INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND** 2. This is a first appeal arising from the Judgment and Decree of the Principal Magistrate's Court at Garissa (Hon. Jackson Omwange, PM) delivered on 14th May 2025 in Garissa CMELC No. E10 of 2023. By that judgment, the learned trial magistrate found in favour of the Respondent, Ali Abdi Korio, in a dispute concerning ownership and occupation of Plot No. GSA/B/20004 situated at Bulla Medina within Garissa Municipality. Aggrieved by that determination, the Appellants lodged the present appeal by a Memorandum of Appeal dated 16th May 2025, inviting this Court to set aside the judgment and decree of the subordinate court. 3. The appeal arises from competing claims to an unregistered municipal plot allegedly allocated by the former Municipal Council of Garissa. Unlike disputes involving registered land where proprietary rights ordinarily derive from registration under the Land Registration Act, the parties herein trace their respective claims to the administrative processes of the former local authority. The appeal therefore calls upon this Court to determine whether the Respondent established, on a balance of probabilities, a superior proprietary interest in the suit property and whether the learned trial magistrate properly evaluated the evidence in resolving the competing claims. 4. The dispute is representative of a class of land disputes that frequently confront courts in relation to properties allocated by former local authorities before the current constitutional and statutory land administration framework came into force. In such disputes, parties seldom rely on registered titles. Instead, their claims are founded upon applications for allocation, committee resolutions, allotment letters, payment receipts and other municipal records. The court's task is not merely to compare those documents, but to examine the legality of the allocation process from which they emanate and determine whether they establish a lawful and superior proprietary entitlement. 5. According to the record, the Respondent commenced the suit before the subordinate court vide a plaint dated 23rd August 2023, contending that he had lawfully acquired Plot No. GSA/B/20004 through allocation by the former Municipal Council of Garissa. He asserted that after the allocation, the Appellants unlawfully entered upon the property and interfered with his possession, thereby necessitating the institution of proceedings seeking protection of his proprietary rights. 6. The Appellants denied that claim, asserted a competing entitlement to the suit property, and maintained that they had occupied the land since approximately 1998. They further challenged the authenticity and legal effect of the Respondent's allocation documents and asserted that the trial court failed to properly consider their own evidence. 7. Upon hearing the parties and considering the evidence adduced, the learned trial magistrate entered judgment in favor of the Respondent, finding that he had established a better claim to the suit property. The Appellants, being dissatisfied with that decision, now challenge both the factual findings and the legal conclusions reached by the subordinate court. In essence, they contend that the learned trial magistrate misapprehended the evidence, failed to properly evaluate the competing documentary claims, wrongly rejected or failed to consider material evidence tendered on their behalf, and consequently reached an erroneous conclusion on ownership of the suit property. 8. The Respondent opposes the appeal and urges this Court to uphold the judgment of the subordinate court. He maintains that the learned trial magistrate correctly appreciated both the oral and documentary evidence, properly applied the law governing competing claims to unregistered land, and rightly concluded that the Respondent had established a superior proprietary interest in Plot No. GSA/B/20004. 9. As this is a first appeal, this Court is required to undertake a fresh and independent evaluation of the entire record before the subordinate court and draw its own conclusions on both the facts and the law, while bearing in mind that it neither saw nor heard the witnesses testify. Against that backdrop, I now turn to consider the parties' respective cases, the issues for determination, and the applicable legal principles before analyzing the merits of the appeal. 10. **THE PARTIES' CASES** 11. The Respondent, who was the Plaintiff before the subordinate court, claimed to be the lawful allottee of Plot No. GSA/B/20004 situated at Bulla Medina, Garissa. His case was that he applied to the former Municipal Council of Garissa for allocation of the suit property in December 2008 and that the application was subsequently considered and approved by the Town Planning Committee. Pursuant to that approval, the Municipal Council issued him with an allotment letter and thereafter recognised him as the allottee of the suit property. 12. In support of his claim, the Respondent relied upon, among other documents, his application for allocation, the minutes of the Town Planning Committee approving the allocation, the allotment letter, municipal correspondence confirming his allocation and receipts evidencing payment of rates and other municipal charges. His evidence was that those documents established a lawful chain of allocation by the Municipal Council and demonstrated that he had acquired a superior proprietary interest in the suit property. He further testified that disputes concerning the property had previously resulted in criminal proceedings and that, notwithstanding earlier interventions, the Appellants continued to interfere with his possession of the land. 13. The Appellants, who were the Defendants before the subordinate court, denied the Respondent's claim and asserted a competing interest in the suit property. Their case was that they had occupied the land continuously since approximately 1998 and possessed documents evidencing a superior claim to ownership. They challenged the authenticity, consistency, and legal effect of the Respondent's allocation documents, contending that they were incapable of conferring proprietary rights. They further maintained that the learned trial magistrate improperly declined to admit or consider documentary evidence tendered in support of their defence and counterclaim, thereby prejudicing the presentation of their case. 14. Upon considering the pleadings, the oral and documentary evidence, and the submissions of counsel, the learned Principal Magistrate entered judgment in favour of the Respondent. The trial court accepted the Respondent's documentary evidence as establishing a superior claim to the suit property, granted the reliefs sought in the Plaint, and dismissed the Appellants' defense and counterclaim. Being dissatisfied with that determination, the Appellants lodged the present appeal. 15. In their written submissions dated 20th April 2026 before this Court, the Appellants contend that the learned trial magistrate failed to properly evaluate the evidence and consequently reached findings unsupported by the record. They submit that the Respondent failed to establish the legality of the alleged allocation of Plot No. GSA/B/20004; that the municipal documents relied upon by him contained material inconsistencies and irregularities; and that the trial court erred in declining to admit or consider documentary evidence tendered by the Appellants. They further argue that the learned trial magistrate wrongly treated the Respondent's case as uncontroverted and failed to appreciate the legal significance of the Appellants' occupation of the suit property since 1998. In urging this Court to allow the appeal, they rely, inter alia, on **Selle & Another v Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd [1968] EA 123**, **Kirugi & Another v Kabiya & 3 Others [1987] KLR 347**, **Mumbi M'Nabea v David M. Wachira [2016] eKLR**, and **Kanyungu Njogu v Daniel Kimani Maingi [2000] eKLR**. 16. The Respondent opposed the appeal through written submissions dated 13th May 2026 and supports the judgment of the subordinate court. He submits that the learned trial magistrate properly evaluated both the oral and documentary evidence before correctly concluding that the Respondent had established a superior claim to the suit property. According to the Respondent, the documentary evidence demonstrated a lawful chain of allocation by the former Municipal Council of Garissa, while the Appellants failed to adduce evidence capable of impeaching that allocation or establishing a competing legal entitlement. 17. He further contends that the allegations of fraud, illegality, and irregularity directed at his allocation documents were unsupported by cogent evidence and that occupation of land, without proof of a corresponding legal right, cannot defeat a lawful allocation. He therefore urges the Court to dismiss the appeal, relying, among other authorities, on **Arthi Highway Developers Ltd v West End Butchery Ltd & 6 Others [2015] eKLR**, **Wreck Motors Enterprises v Commissioner of Lands [1997] eKLR**, **Wambugu v Njuguna [1983] KLR 172**, **Peters v Sunday Post Ltd [1958] EA 424**, and **Mbogo & Another v Shah [1968] EA 93**. 18. **ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION** 19. I have carefully considered the Memorandum of Appeal, the Record of Appeal, the judgment of the subordinate court and the rival submissions of the parties. Although the Memorandum of Appeal sets out six grounds of appeal, those grounds substantially overlap and revolve around the trial court's evaluation of the evidence and its ultimate finding on ownership of the suit property. In my view, the appeal may conveniently be determined under the following issues: 1. Whether the learned trial magistrate properly evaluated the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the subordinate court. 2. Whether the Respondent established, on a balance of probabilities, a superior proprietary interest in Plot No. GSA/B/20004 situated at Bulla Medina, Garissa. 3. Whether the Appellants established a competing legal entitlement to the suit property, including whether the learned trial magistrate erred in his treatment of the Appellants' documentary evidence. 4. Whether the Appellants have demonstrated any error of law or fact warranting interference by this Court with the judgment of the subordinate court. 5. Who should bear the costs of the appeal. 20. The issues identified above are closely interrelated. Their determination depends upon an evaluation of the evidence in light of the principles governing first appeals, the burden and standard of proof in civil proceedings, and the law applicable to competing claims over unregistered municipal land. I therefore turn to consider those principles before examining the merits of the appeal. 21. **APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES** 22. The issues arising in this appeal fall to be determined against well-established principles governing the jurisdiction of a first appellate court, the burden and standard of proof in civil proceedings, and the legal framework applicable to competing claims over unregistered land allocated by public authorities. It is against those principles that this Court must evaluate the evidence on record and determine whether the learned trial magistrate committed any error warranting appellate intervention. 23. This being a first appeal, the Court is under a duty to reconsider, re-evaluate and re-analyse the entire evidence on record and to draw its own independent conclusions. In undertaking that exercise, however, the Court must bear in mind that it neither saw nor heard the witnesses testify and must therefore give due allowance to the advantage enjoyed by the trial court in assessing their credibility. 24. The duty of a first appellate court was authoritatively stated in **Selle & Another v Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd [1968] EA 123**, where the former Court of Appeal for East Africa held that a first appellate court is required to reconsider the evidence, evaluate it itself and draw its own conclusions, though always bearing in mind that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses and should therefore make due allowance in that regard. The same Court, in **Peters v Sunday Post Ltd [1958] EA 424**, observed that although an appellate court has jurisdiction to review the evidence in order to determine whether the conclusions reached by the trial court should stand, it should be slow to differ from findings of fact unless it is satisfied that the trial court failed to appreciate the weight or bearing of the evidence, acted on no evidence, misapprehended the evidence, took into account irrelevant matters, omitted relevant matters, or reached conclusions that cannot reasonably be supported by the record. 25. It follows that the role of this Court is not to retry the case or to substitute its own opinion merely because it might have reached a different conclusion on the evidence. Its task is to determine whether the decision appealed from is supported by the evidence and the applicable law. Where the findings of the trial court are borne out by the record and disclose no error of principle, an appellate court ought not to interfere. Conversely, where the trial court has proceeded on a misapprehension of the evidence or applied wrong legal principles, appellate intervention becomes not merely permissible but necessary. 26. The dispute before the subordinate court was a civil claim. The burden and standard of proof are therefore governed by Sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act. Under those provisions, the legal burden rests upon the party who asserts the existence of a fact, while the evidential burden may shift depending on the evidence adduced. Accordingly, the Respondent, as the Plaintiff before the subordinate court, bore the legal burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that he had acquired a lawful proprietary interest in the suit property and that the Appellants had unlawfully interfered with that interest. 27. The Court of Appeal has consistently affirmed that a plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case rather than on the weakness of the defence. In **Kirugi & Another v Kabiya & 3 Others [1987] KLR 347**, the Court held that the burden always remains upon the plaintiff to prove his case on a balance of probabilities whether or not the defendant adduces evidence. Similarly, in **Palace Investment Ltd v Geoffrey Kariuki Mwenda & Another [2015] eKLR**, the Court observed that proof on a balance of probabilities requires the court to determine which of the competing versions is more probable after evaluating the totality of the evidence. 28. The present dispute concerns an unregistered municipal plot allegedly allocated by the former Municipal Council of Garissa. It does not involve competing registered titles under the Land Registration Act. Consequently, the doctrine of indefeasibility of title contemplated under section 26 of the Land Registration Act has no direct application. Instead, the Court is concerned with determining whether the documentary evidence relied upon by the parties establishes a lawful allocation capable of conferring a superior proprietary interest. 29. The Supreme Court has emphasized that an allotment letter is not, in itself, title to land see **Torino Enterprises Limited v Attorney General (Petition 5 (E006) of 2022) [2023] KESC 79 (KLR)** Rather, it evidences an offer by the allocating authority which, upon lawful acceptance and compliance with its conditions, may mature into an enforceable proprietary interest. Where competing allotments are asserted, the court's task is to interrogate the legality of the allocation process and determine which claimant demonstrates the superior root of entitlement. 30. In **Wreck Motors Enterprises v Commissioner of Lands & 3 Others [1997] eKLR**, the Court of Appeal underscored that disputes concerning public land are resolved by examining the legality of the allocation process rather than the mere production of allocation documents. Likewise, in **Daudi Kiptugen v Commissioner of Lands & 4 Others [2015] eKLR**, the Environment and Land Court held that an allotment letter, without proof that the conditions attached thereto were fulfilled and that the allocation was lawfully made, is insufficient to establish ownership. The significance of those decisions is that a court must evaluate the entire chain of allocation and not merely isolated documents. 31. It therefore follows that, where competing claims arise over land allocated by a public authority, the court must consider whether the allocating authority had the legal mandate to allocate the land; whether the allocation complied with the applicable legal and administrative procedures; whether the allotment was duly communicated and accepted; whether the allottee complied with the conditions of allocation; and whether there existed any prior or competing lawful allocation capable of defeating the claimant's interest. The court's inquiry is directed not simply at the authenticity of the documents produced but at the legality of the process from which they emanate. 32. Closely allied to that principle is the requirement that a claimant whose title is challenged must establish the legality of its root. In **Munyu Maina v Hiram Gathiha Maina [2013] eKLR**, the Court of Appeal held that where the root of a claimant's title is under challenge, it is insufficient merely to produce the instrument relied upon; the claimant must go further and demonstrate the legality of its acquisition. Although that decision concerned registered title, the underlying principle applies equally to competing claims founded upon municipal allocations. Where rival allotments are asserted, each claimant bears the obligation of demonstrating the legality of the allocation process upon which his claim rests. 33. The Appellants have alleged that the Respondent's allocation documents were irregular and incapable of conferring proprietary rights. It is settled law that allegations of fraud, forgery or illegality must not only be specifically pleaded but must also be strictly proved. While the standard of proof is not beyond reasonable doubt, it is higher than proof on a balance of probabilities. Mere suspicion, conjecture or perceived inconsistencies are insufficient to invalidate documentary evidence unless supported by cogent proof. 34. Finally, the Appellants rely upon their alleged occupation of the suit property since 1998. Long occupation is undoubtedly a relevant evidential circumstance. It may corroborate possession, explain developments upon the land or strengthen a claim founded upon a recognised legal right. However, occupation alone does not confer ownership. Unless coupled with a legally recognised doctrine capable of creating or transferring proprietary rights, possession cannot defeat an otherwise lawful allocation. As the Court of Appeal held in **Wambugu v Njuguna [1983] KLR 172**, occupation acquires legal significance only where the statutory requirements of adverse possession have been pleaded and proved. The Appellants did not plead adverse possession. Their claim is one of ownership founded upon an alleged superior allocation, and their occupation must therefore be evaluated within that legal framework. 35. Guided by the foregoing principles, I now proceed to re-evaluate the evidence on record in order to determine whether the Respondent established a superior proprietary interest in the suit property and whether the learned trial magistrate committed any error of law or fact warranting interference by this Court. 36. **ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION** 37. Guided by the foregoing principles, I now proceed to undertake an independent evaluation of the evidence on record. In doing so, I remain mindful that the function of this Court is not to retry the dispute but to determine whether the conclusions reached by the learned trial magistrate are supported by the evidence and the applicable law. I have therefore considered the pleadings, the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the subordinate court, the impugned judgment, the Memorandum of Appeal and the rival submissions filed before this Court. 38. Although the Memorandum of Appeal contains six grounds of appeal, those grounds substantially converge on a single complaint: that the learned trial magistrate failed to properly evaluate the evidence and consequently erred in finding that the Respondent had established a superior proprietary interest in Plot No. GSA/B/20004 situated at Bulla Medina, Garissa. The grounds may therefore be conveniently determined together. 39. There is no dispute that the Respondent bore the legal burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that he acquired the suit property through a lawful process of allocation and that his claim was superior to that of the Appellants. Equally, once the Respondent adduced evidence disclosing a prima facie lawful allocation, the evidential burden shifted to the Appellants to rebut that evidence or to demonstrate a superior legal entitlement to the property. 40. The Respondent's claim rested principally upon documentary evidence emanating from the former Municipal Council of Garissa. The Court has carefully examined those documents, not merely in isolation, but as constituent parts of the alleged chain of allocation. Their evidential value lies in whether they collectively demonstrate a lawful administrative process culminating in the allocation of the suit property to the Respondent. 41. The first document is the Respondent's application dated 20th December 2008, addressed to the Municipal Council, requesting allocation of land at Bulla Medina. That document is significant because it marks the commencement of the administrative process leading to the allocation. It demonstrates that the Respondent sought allocation through the established municipal procedure rather than asserting an informal or undocumented claim. 42. The second document comprises the minutes of the Town Planning Committee dated 5th January 2009, recording approval of the Respondent's application and recommending allocation of Plot No. GSA/B/20004. Those minutes are of considerable evidential significance because they demonstrate that the allocation was preceded by deliberation and approval by the committee charged with considering applications for municipal plots. They provide the administrative foundation upon which the subsequent allotment letter was issued. 43. The third document is the allotment letter also dated 5th January 2009, issued by the Municipal Council. As correctly submitted by both parties, an allotment letter is not, of itself, title to land. However, in the present case, the allotment letter did not stand alone. It was preceded by the Respondent's application and the committee's resolution and was followed by the letter dated 12th January 2009 recognizing the Respondent as the allottee. Read in that context, the allotment letter forms an important link in an otherwise coherent chain of allocation. 44. The Respondent also produced receipts evidencing payment of allocation fees, rates and other municipal charges. Those receipts do not independently establish ownership. Their significance lies in demonstrating that the Respondent acted in accordance with the allocation by complying with the financial obligations imposed by the Municipal Council. They therefore corroborate, rather than create, the proprietary interest asserted by the Respondent. 45. The letter dated 12th January 2009, recognizing the Respondent as the allottee, is material. Although it cannot validate an otherwise unlawful allocation, it is relevant as evidence that the allocating authority consistently recognized the Respondent's entitlement following the allocation. 46. The Respondent also relied upon the document titled “Memorandum of Agreement” dated 6th November 2017, showing that disputes concerning the property had previously resulted in criminal proceedings and that an agreement was subsequently executed in which the fourth Appellant allegedly undertook not to interfere with the Respondent's possession. I agree with the Appellants that criminal proceedings cannot determine questions of ownership, nor can such an agreement confer proprietary rights. Nevertheless, the evidence is relevant in explaining the history of the dispute and demonstrating that the Respondent had asserted possessory rights over the property long before the institution of the present suit. I therefore treat that evidence as contextual rather than determinative. 47. When the foregoing documents are considered cumulatively, they disclose a logical and internally consistent administrative sequence commencing with the Respondent's application, followed by approval by the Town Planning Committee, communication of the allocation through the allotment letter, compliance with the financial obligations attached to the allocation, and continued recognition by the Municipal Council of the Respondent as the allottee. In the absence of credible evidence impeaching that process, those documents constitute cogent evidence of a prima facie lawful allocation. 48. Against that documentary chain, the Appellants were required to demonstrate either that the Respondent's allocation was unlawful or that they themselves possessed a superior competing entitlement. Their principal challenge was that the Respondent's documents contained inconsistencies and irregularities which rendered them unreliable. They also maintained that the learned trial magistrate improperly excluded documentary evidence tendered on their behalf. 49. I have carefully considered those arguments. Allegations that documents are irregular, fraudulent or otherwise unreliable are serious allegations. They cannot, however, be established through suspicion or conjecture. The law requires such allegations to be specifically pleaded and supported by cogent evidence. In the present appeal, the Appellants did not adduce evidence from the Municipal Council contradicting the Respondent's allocation, nor did they produce expert evidence demonstrating forgery, alteration or fabrication of the municipal records relied upon by the Respondent. Their challenge therefore remained largely speculative. 50. Equally, although the Appellants assert that the trial court improperly declined to admit certain documentary evidence, they have not demonstrated the legal basis upon which those documents ought to have been admitted or shown that their exclusion occasioned a miscarriage of justice. An appellate court does not interfere with an evidentiary ruling merely because another judge might have exercised the discretion differently. It must be shown that the ruling was erroneous and materially affected the outcome of the proceedings. That burden has not been discharged in this appeal. 51. More fundamentally, the Appellants have not established a competing chain of allocation comparable to that demonstrated by the Respondent. Their assertion that they possessed ownership documents superior to those relied upon by the Respondent remained unsupported by evidence demonstrating a lawful allocation by the Municipal Council. A claimant cannot succeed merely by attacking the weakness of the opposing party's case. Where competing claims are asserted, each party must establish the legality of the root of his own claim. 52. The Appellants also relied heavily upon their alleged occupation of the suit property since 1998. There is no doubt that evidence of long occupation is relevant. It may corroborate possession and explain the existence of developments on the land. However, occupation, without more, does not confer ownership. The Appellants neither pleaded nor proved adverse possession or any other recognized legal doctrine capable of converting their occupation into proprietary rights. Their occupation could therefore only reinforce an otherwise lawful claim; it could not substitute for proof of lawful allocation. 53. The Appellants further fault the learned trial magistrate for allegedly treating the Respondent's case as uncontroverted. Having reviewed the record, I do not share that view. The learned trial magistrate considered the competing positions advanced by the parties and ultimately preferred the Respondent's documentary evidence. While the judgment could perhaps have engaged more extensively with every argument advanced by the Appellants, appellate intervention is not justified merely because an appellate court might have expressed the reasoning differently. The decisive question is whether the conclusion reached is supported by the evidence. 54. Upon my own independent evaluation of the record, I am satisfied that the Respondent established, on a balance of probabilities, a lawful and coherent chain of allocation in respect of Plot No. GSA/B/20004. The Appellants, on the other hand, failed to establish a competing legal entitlement capable of displacing that claim. Their challenge to the Respondent's documentary evidence remained unsubstantiated, while their reliance upon occupation, without proof of a corresponding legal right, could not defeat the Respondent's documented allocation. 55. I therefore find that the learned trial magistrate neither misdirected himself in law nor misapprehended the evidence in any manner warranting appellate interference. The findings reached are supported by the evidence on record and by the applicable legal principles. Consequently, none of the grounds of appeal has been established. 56. **DISPOSITION** 57. Having undertaken a fresh and independent evaluation of the pleadings, the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the subordinate court, the judgment of the learned trial magistrate, the Memorandum of Appeal and the rival submissions filed by the parties, I am not persuaded that the Appellants have established any basis upon which this Court should interfere with the decision appealed from. 58. The Respondent bore the legal burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that he had acquired a lawful and superior proprietary interest in Plot No. GSA/B/20004 situated at Bulla Medina, Garissa. In my considered view, he discharged that burden. The documentary evidence relied upon by the Respondent disclosed a coherent and consistent chain of allocation commencing with his application for allocation, followed by consideration and approval by the Town Planning Committee, communication of the allocation through the allotment letter, compliance with the financial obligations attendant to the allocation, and continued recognition by the Municipal Council of Garissa as the allottee of the suit property. Considered cumulatively, those documents established a prima facie lawful allocation which was not displaced by the evidence adduced by the Appellants. 59. Conversely, the Appellants failed to establish a competing legal entitlement capable of defeating the Respondent's claim. Their challenge to the Respondent's documentary evidence rested largely on allegations of inconsistency and irregularity which were not supported by cogent evidence. Equally, although they relied upon their alleged occupation of the suit property since 1998, they neither pleaded nor proved any recognised legal doctrine capable of converting that occupation into proprietary rights. Occupation, however longstanding, cannot, without more, prevail over a lawful allocation. 60. I have also considered the complaint that the learned trial magistrate improperly declined to admit certain documentary evidence relied upon by the Appellants. However, the Appellants have not demonstrated that the impugned evidentiary ruling was based on wrong principles or that it occasioned a miscarriage of justice affecting the outcome of the proceedings. In the absence of such demonstration, there is no basis for appellate interference with the exercise of the trial court's discretion. 61. Having independently re-evaluated the entire record, I arrive at substantially the same conclusion as the learned trial magistrate. Although this Court has undertaken a more detailed examination of the documentary evidence and the applicable legal principles, I am satisfied that the ultimate conclusion reached by the trial court—that the Respondent established a superior proprietary interest in the suit property—was correct in both fact and law. The Appellants have not demonstrated any misdirection, misapprehension of the evidence, or error of principle that would justify disturbing that conclusion. 62. Accordingly, I find that the appeal is devoid of merit. 63. On the question of costs, the rule of thumb is that costs follow the event unless the Court, for good reason, orders otherwise. The Respondent has successfully resisted the appeal, and no exceptional circumstances have been shown that would warrant a departure from that principle. He is therefore entitled to the costs of the appeal. 64. In consequence, I make the following orders: 1. The appeal is hereby dismissed in its entirety. 2. The Judgment and Decree of the Principal Magistrate's Court at Garissa (Hon. Jackson Omwange, PM) delivered on 14th May 2025 in Garissa CMELC No. E10 of 2023 is hereby affirmed. 3. The Appellants shall jointly and severally bear the costs of this appeal. 4. The Deputy Registrar shall forthwith transmit the original lower court file together with a certified copy of this judgment to the Chief Magistrate's Court at Garissa for compliance and any further proceedings that may be necessary. It is so ordered. **DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT GARISSA THIS 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2026.** **DR. OMONDI R. OWINO, FCIArb** **JUDGE** **ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT** **DELIVERED VIRTUALLY ON THE TEAMS PLATFORM** **IN THE PRESENCE OF:** Mr Upendo for the Appellants Mr Chacha for the Respondent Mr Dabar Mohamed (Court Assistant)