https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4260

Kariuki & 3 others v Spring West Kenya Ltd (Environment and Land Case E024 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 4260 (KLR) (9 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 4260 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Eldoret Environment and Land Case E024 of 2021 CK Yano, J July 9, 2026 Between Joseph Njoroge Kariuki 1st Applicant Thomas Tulo Langat 2nd Applicant Margaret Njeri Wakaba 3rd Applicant Dennis Mwangi Wambui (Suing On Behalf Of Soy United Self Help Group) 4th Applicant and Spring West Kenya Limited Respondent Judgment 1.The Applicants herein commenced this suit by way of an Originating Summons dated 17.08.2021 against the Respondent seeking the following ORDERS: -a.That the Applicants have obtained the Title to 37.5 Acres being part of land parcel number L.R. No. 8508 situated at Soy by way of Adverse Possession.b.That the Respondent is holding title for part of land parcel measuring 37.5 Acres being part of land parcel number L.R. No. 8508 situated at Soy in trust for the applicants.c.That a portion of land measuring 37.5 Acres being part of land parcel number L.R. No. 8508 situated at Soy be curved out by the County Surveyor, Uasin Gishu County and currently occupied by the Applicants and issue a number.d.Pursuant to (a), (b) and (c) above, the land registrar or the registrar in charge of Uasin Gishu District Land registry or the Registrar where the register of land is, to delete the name of the respondent in regard to the portion of land measuring 37.5 Acres being part of land parcel number L.R. No. 8508 situated at Soy and in lieu thereof enter the name of the applicants with a title deed thereof or such other number as the registrar may issue.e.Pursuant to (d) above, the Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu District Land Registry having custody of the register of land parcel number L.R. No. 8508 situated at Soy do issue a title deed to the applicants accordingly over the said 37.5 Acres.f.Costs be borne by the respondent. 2.The Originating Summons is premised on the Supporting Affidavit of Thomas Tulo Langat sworn on even date, on his own behalf and on behalf and with the authority of the other applicants. It is the applicants’ claim that they purchased a portion of the parcel of land known as L.R. No. 8508 measuring 37.5Acres (hereinafter referred to as the ’suit land’) on 27.04.1983 from Soy Club through their then representatives for the benefit of the members of the group. He annexed a copy of the said sale agreement thereto. 3.That pursuant to the said sale and upon full and final payment of the purchase price, they took possession of the suit land in 1985. 4.It was pleaded that at the time of the transaction, the land was registered in the name of Soy Country Club Limited but has since changed ownership severally with the latest registration being effected on 17.03.2014 in the name of the respondent herein. He annexed a copy of the title deed thereto. He however maintained that despite the several changes, they have remained in occupation and use of the suit land. 5.It is therefore the applicants’ claim that the respondent is holding the title in respect to the suit land in trust for the members of the group, who have since acquired prescriptive rights by operation of the law, owing to their possession and use of the land for a period of over 36 years. 6.Further, they did contend during their entire period of possession and use of the suit land, the respondent has neither dispossessed them nor regained possession and they have continued to occupy the suit land peacefully, openly, without permission or force. 7.The applicants thus did maintain that the respondent’s title with respect to the suit land has been extinguished by operation of the law and have since obtained title thereto by way of adverse possession. In conclusion, they urged to court to allow their claim and to grant the orders as sought. 8.The applicants’ suit was opposed. The Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit dated 26.08.2021 sworn by one Mahendra G. Patel, the Managing Director of the respondent company and a Further Affidavit dated 23.01.2024 sworn by one James K. Cheluley, the managing Director of Elite Ventures Limited. 9.In the replying affidavit, it was deponed that the respondent attained proprietary rights over the suit land in the year 2014. However, the said parcel of land no longer exists owing to the various subdivisions which have given rise to new numbers. 10.It was claimed that the respondent followed the due process in the acquisition, registration and subsequent subdivision of the subject land. 11.It was contended that the adverse rights against the respondent’s rights over the suit land started running in the year 2014 and at the time of filing the suit, the 12 years statutory period had not lapsed. They thus dismissed the applicants’ suit as being defective in form and substance. 12.With regard to the sale agreement relied upon by the applicants, it was the respondent’s assertion that the transaction was tainted with illegalities and that the applicants had failed to sufficiently demonstrate why the sale transaction was not completed within the 6 months prescribed by the statute. 13.Further, it was the respondent’s contention that since the applicants are claiming acquisition of the suit land by way of purchase, it therefore means that they are claiming as true owners of the suit land and not adversely to the true owner. 14.In conclusion, it was the respondent’s contention that the suit ought to be dismissed in its entirety for failing to meet the orders sought under the doctrine of adverse possession. 15.In the Further Affidavit, James Cheluley reiterated that the respondent is the legal and registered owner of the parcel of land known as L.R. No. 8508. 16.It was his claim that the suit land was sold to the respondent by Elite Ventures and subsequently transferred in its favor. He further explained that the parcel of land known as L.R. No. 8508 was duly acquired by Elite Ventures pursuant to a sale by public auction held on 18/10/2011. He annexed copies of the newspaper advertisement, notice of sale as well as the certificate of sale. 17.It was his contention that at the time the subject land L.R. No. 8508 was being acquired and subsequently sold to the respondent, the applicants were not in occupation of the subject land. 18.Both the Replying Affidavit and the Further Affidavit by the respondent were duly served upon the applicants. However, on a perusal of the court record, I have not seen any Supplementary Affidavit in response to the averments and claims raised by the respondent in their affidavits. Trial: Applicants’ Case; 19.The Applicants case proceeded for hearing on 25.01.2024. 20.Thomas Tulo Arap Langat testified as PW1. He adopted his witness statement as his evidence in chief. He stated that they filed the suit on behalf of Soy United Self Help Group and that he is the secretary of the group. That currently the group has a membership of 166 members, who authorized them to file and prosecute the case. 21.It was also his testimony that in 1983, they came together and purchased the land at Soy measuring 37 ½ Acres, which formed part of L.R. No. 8508. That the entire land measures 193 Acres. He averred that the registered owner of the suit parcel is the respondent. 22.He produced the following documents as exhibits in further support of their case: -Pexhibit 1 – Sale agreement.Pexhibit 2 - Copy of title deedPexhibit 3 – Certificate of registration of Soy United Self Help Group.Pexhibit 4 – List of members of the Soy GroupPexhibit 5 – Authority to pleadPexhibit 6 (a) – (d) – copies of various letters diversely dated.Pexhibit 7 (a) – (e) – copies of various letters diversely dated.Pexhibit 8 – copies of minutes of meetings held.Pexhibit 9 – copy of valuationPexhibit 10 – copy of a letter of consent from the LCBPexhibit 11 (a) and (b) – copies of lettersPexhibit 12 – copy of receipt dated 29.08.1994. 23.PW1 further stated that they were allowed to take possession of the suit land in 1985 upon making the final payment of the agreed purchase price and have remained in peaceful occupation for a period of over 39 years and made substantial developments thereon including shops, schools, churches and other buildings. 24.It was also his contention that there has never been any case filed against them by anyone neither do they pay any rent to the respondent despite the fact that the ownership of the suit land has changed severally. 25.On cross-examination, he admitted that he had no membership certificate. He however maintained that he has a certificate of registration of their group issued on 21.10.2011. 26.When referred to the sale agreement produced, he admitted that the same does not indicate that those listed in the agreement were purchasing the land on behalf of other members and further that the L.R. number indicated therein is 12896. 27.It was his testimony that they were not aware that at the time of the purchase, the title of the suit land was in the bank. He further denied having knowledge that the suit land was sold in a public auction and that the notice thereof was in respect to the entire land. 28.On re-examination, he clarified that the group was registered in 1999. He did aver that he was not aware about the variance in the parcel numbers but maintained that they are occupying the portion they were shown. 29.He restated that the members of the group are in occupation of the suit land, having purchased the same from Soy Club. 30.Joseph Njoroge Kariuki testified as PW2. He adopted his witness statement as his evidence in chief and stated that he is the chairman of the group. 31.It was further his testimony that their claim is in respect to a portion measuring 37 ½ Acres, where they have been residing for a period of 39 years. He thus urged the court to allow their claim and to order that they be given the title deed to the said portion that they have been occupying. 32.On cross-examination, he stated that he was not aware that the title to the suit land was at the bank. It was further his testimony that he purchased 2 plots of ¼ Acres each. 33.On re-examination, he stated that the respondent has never asked them to vacate the suit land and further that he was not aware of the public auction. 34.Margaret Njeri Wakaba testified as PW3. She adopted her witness statement dated 17.08.2021 as her evidence in chief. On cross-examination, she admitted that she does not stay on the suit land. She further stated that she was not aware that the title to the suit land was at the bank or that the land was auctioned. 35.PW3 further testified that she has 3 plots measuring ¼ of an acre each. On re-examination, she clarified that she has built rental houses on her portion of land and has been in possession and use of the land since 1985. 36.Dennis Mwangi Wambui testified as PW4. He adopted his witness statement as his evidence in chief. On cross-examination, he stated that he is the treasurer of the group. 37.It was also his testimony that he purchased the suit land in 2003 from Chief Kipserem. He confirmed that he did not purchase his portion of the suit land from Soy Club. 38.During re-examination, he reiterated that he purchased his portion of the suit land in 2003 and took possession in 2008. He further stated that no one has ever asked him to vacate the suit land. 39.The applicants thereafter closed their case. Respondent’s Case; 40.The respondent’s case proceeded for hearing on 12.11.2025. Mahendra G. Patel testified as DW1. He stated that he is a director of the respondent company. He adopted his replying affidavit in response to the Originating Summons dated 26.08.2021 as his evidence in chief. 41.He also produced the documents in his list of documents as defence exhibits 1, 2 and 3(a) – (j) respectively in support of their case. 42.Further, it was his testimony that he purchased the suit land in 2014 from Elite Ventures. That at the time of the purchase, there was no one on the land. It is his claim that he only learnt that there were people on the suit land when he was sued in the instant suit. 43.He explained that Elite Ventures bought the suit land by way of public auction by Equity Bank and that the original title of the land was submitted to the lands office for subdivision. 44.He denied knowledge that the applicants purchased the suit land from Soy Country Club and urged the court to declare that he is the rightful owner of the suit land. 45.On cross-examination, when referred to dexh. 2, he confirmed that entry no. 2 refers to L.R. No. 8508/2. He further confirmed that the original title which he surrendered to the lands office was similar to the one produced by the applicants as pexh. 2. He however stated that the land was transferred in the name of the respondent in 2014 as per entry no. 17. 46.He admitted that entry no. 4 indicated a transfer to Soy Country Club in 1973. He did further confirm that there had been some encroachment on the right-hand side of the parcel of land and there were people who had entered into the land though he stated that he was not aware of the number of the said persons. 47.It was his contention that he was not aware whether there were any schools, church or other developments but confirmed that there was a police station. 48.When referred to the Scene Visit Report dated 20.02.2022 by Hon. D. Milimu, the Deputy Registrar and in particular the observations at page 2 paragraphs 2,3,4 and 5, he reiterated that when he bought the suit land in the year 2014, there were no structures, schools, post office, churches and businesses on the land. 49.He denied knowledge that the persons on the suit land settled therein in 1983 or that they purchased a portion of the land measuring 37.5 Acres from Soy Country Club. 50.He confirmed that he was not receiving any rent from the applicants as they are not his tenants. He acknowledged that the encroachment into the suit land has been ongoing. He also confirmed that the developments on the suit land do not belong to the respondent. 51.DW1 did further state that he was not aware of the acreage claimed by the applicants or the circumstances under which they occupy the given portion. He admitted that he has never used the portion measuring 37.5 Acres and that the same is occupied by the applicants who have encroached into the same. 52.On re-examination, he stated that there are empty spaces in between the portions occupied by the applicants and that there is no boundary indicating the portions occupied by each of the applicants. 53.It was his claim that the land he is claiming is L.R. No. 8508/2 as seen in entry no. 5. He did further aver that he was not aware of any agreement between the applicants and Soy Country Club. 54.When referred to the scene visit report filed by the deputy registrar, he confirmed that the information captured therein was similar to what he was claiming. 55.James Kipketer Cheluley testified as DW2. He stated that he is a director and a real estate agent working with Elite Ventures Limited. He relied on his affidavit dated 23.01.2024 as his evidence in chief. 56.He also produced the annexures contained in the affidavit as dexh. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 respectively. 57.It was also his testimony that he bought the parcel of land by way of public auction on 18.10.2011, wherein he emerged the highest bidder at Kshs. 40,000,000/=. It was his claim that after the auction, there was no objection from any person. 58.He did further contend that before buying the parcel of land, he did his due diligence, went to the site and confirmed that there was no one in occupation. That the left hand-side of the land was fenced and the right-hand side was not fenced and was vacant. 59.He testified that he took possession of the suit land after the purchase and later sold the same to the respondent in 2013 and 2014. 60.On cross-examination, he stated that according to the certificate of sale, the property is L.R. No. 8508/2 and the land is on both sides of the highway on the Kitale-Eldoret road. 61.He admitted that he was not privy to the original owner and reiterated that the land was sold to him by Equity Bank Limited. That at the time of the purchase, he conducted an official search and discovered that the title was charged to Equity Bank Limited. 62.He reiterated that after the purchase, he took physical possession of the entire land measuring about 200 acres and was using the same to graze animals. 63.He did however concede that at the time he purchased the land, the only shops which were on the suit land were shops owned by the County Council and the same were on a portion measuring about 3 acres. He also confirmed that the land on the right-hand side is occupied by many families but maintained that the said persons were not on the land when he bought the same. 64.It was his claim that he chased away/evicted those who had trespassed into the land but that the said persons invaded/re-entered the land after he sold the land to the respondent. 65.DW2 confirmed that he had never filed any complaint or filed any case against the said trespassers. He averred that he transferred the title document to the respondent who had bought the land. 66.He acknowledged that he was not aware of the original owner of the suit land other than Equity Bank but admitted that from the documents, and in particular dexh. 4, the original owner is indicated as Soy Country Club, having been registered in 1987. 67.He maintained that the trespassers in occupation of the suit land entered into the land after 2014. 68.There was no re-examination and the defence thereafter closed their case. 69.Upon close of the defence case, parties were directed to file their final submissions. Both parties filed their submissions together with authorities which I have read and considered. Analysis and Determination: 70.I have carefully reviewed the pleadings herein, the evidence adduced, the respective exhibits and parties’ rival submissions in totality and it is my considered opinion that the following issues arise for determination: -i.Whether the applicants have sufficiently proved the elements of adverse possession.ii.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs soughtiii.Who shall bear the costs of the originating summons. 71.Having identified the above issues for determination, I will now proceed to discuss the same as hereunder:- I. Whether the applicants have sufficiently proved the elements of adverse possession; 72.Sections 7,13, 17 and 38 (i) and (ii) of the Limitation of Actions Act, Section 28 (h) of the Land Registration Act as well as Order 37 Rule 7(2) provide the statutory framework for the doctrine of adverse possession. 73.Makhandia, J.A in Mtana Lewa v Kahindi Ngala Mwagandi [2015] eKLR in describing the doctrine of adverse possession held as follows: -“Adverse possession is essentially a situation where a person takes possession of land and asserts rights over it and the person having title to it omits or neglects to take action against such person in assertion of his title for a certain period, in Kenya, it is twelve (12) years. The process springs into action essentially by default or inaction of the owner. The essential prerequisites being that the possession of the adverse possessor is neither by force or stealth or under the licence of the owner. It must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that possession is adverse to the title owner. This doctrine in Kenya is embodied in Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act……” (emphasis mine) 74.From the above, the requirements for a claim of adverse possession may be summarized as follows:-i.The land in question must be registered in the name of a person other than the applicantsii.The applicants must demonstrate that they took possession of the parcel of land, asserted their rights over it in an adverse manner to the title of the land owneriii.The applicants must also demonstrate that their possession and occupation of the said land was not by force or under the licence of the land owner and that the said possession was open, in continuity for an uninterrupted period of over 12 years.iv.Lastly, that the title holder of the subject land did not take any precipitate action against the said Plaintiff for a period of 12 years. 75.I will now proceed to analyse the various exhibits produced by the parties and their witnesses to ascertain whether the necessary elements and/or requirements in a claim of adverse possession have been sufficiently proved to the required standard. Registration: 76.The first ground to be proved is that the suit land is registered in the name of a person other than the applicants. 77.It is not in dispute that the suit land is currently registered in the name of the respondent. The applicants produced, a copy of the title deed of the suit land as P. Exh 2. 78.This fact was further confirmed by the respondent in their replying and further affidavit as well as in the testimony of DW1 and DW2, wherein they produced the various transfer forms in respect of the entire parcel of land known as L.R. No. 8508. 79.To this end, this court finds that the suit land herein is registered in the name of the respondent and the same has been sufficiently proved. Possession and Occupation; 80.The other 3 elements as identified and summarized from the Mtana Lewa case above, are all premised on the question of possession and occupation of the suit land by the applicants. 81.As stated hereinabove, the applicants are under a duty to demonstrate their possession and occupation; the duration and nature thereof, whether the same accrued any prescriptive and overriding rights over the suit land capable of registration and whether any precipitate action was taken to interfere with their occupation. 82.It is the applicants’ claim that they took possession of the suit land in the year 1985 upon completion of the payment of the consideration price in compliance with the agreement of sale dated 27/4/1983. That upon taking possession, they have remained on the suit land, substantively developed the same and have remained thereon to date. 83.They further aver that their possession, occupation and use of the suit land have been quiet, peaceful, continuous, uninterrupted, without force or permission. Thus, at the time of filing the suit herein, they had been in possession, occupation and use of the suit land for a period of about 36 years, which period is in excess of the 12 years statutory period in a claim for adverse possession and are therefore entitled to be registered as owners thereto. 84.The respondent on the other hand maintained that the applicants’ have never been in possession and occupation of the suit land since the year 1985 or for a continuous period of 12 years as alleged. 85.DW1 and DW2 in their testimony denied being aware of the alleged possession and use of the suit land by the applicants as alleged. It is their claim that at the time of buying the subject land L.R. No. 8508 by Elite Ventures and subsequently by the respondent herein, the suit land was vacant and had no buildings. 86.It is further their claim that any possession and use of the suit land by the applicants must have been after the year 2014. They therefore argue that the 12 years statutory period has not lapsed and the orders sought cannot therefore be granted. 87.With regard to the respondent’s argument that having acquired proprietary rights over the suit land and registered as an owner of the subject land in 2014 makes the claim on adverse possession against it premature, I must state that the same is not an accurate position. A change on the ownership of a parcel of land does not affect the time of adverse possession. It has been held that adverse possession is a fact to be observed upon the land and not seen in a title. 88.The Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No 164 of 2011 Gachuma Gacheru vs Maina Kabuchwa [2016] eKLR, when quoting Maweu VS Liu Ranching & Farming Cooperative Society [1985] eKLR held:“Lastly, on argument by the respondent that time in adverse possession can only begin to run once title is issued, we disagree and set out the sentiments of the Court in, MAWEU V LIU RANCHING & FARMING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, [1985] eKLR: “What logic is there in saying that this concept of the absolute and indefeasible title may only be lost, after twelve years of suffering adverse possession from the time of registration, but not for shorter periods because the adverse possession commenced during the time of the owner’s predecessor. How is it lost at all?Adverse possession is a fact to be observed upon the land. It is not to be seen in a title, even under cap 300. Any man who buys land without knowing who is in possession of it risks his title, just as he does, if he fails to inspect his land for twelve years after he had acquired it. If such title can be lost at all, its absolute and indefeasible nature obviously refers to other matters than adverse possession.......” (Emphasis added). 89.Therefore, even though the suit land was registered in the name of the respondent in 2014, time for adverse possession continued to run and/or was not interrupted by such change in the ownership and registration of the suit land. 90.Be that as it may, it is important to ascertain when time of adverse possession started to run. It is not in dispute that the entry of the applicants into the suit land was pursuant to a sale transaction vide an agreement for sale dated 27/4/1983 and which essentially makes their entry permissive and/or by a license. 91.It is therefore important to establish when the permissive possession and occupation ended and when the time for adverse possession started to run. 92.In the case of Public Trustee vs. Wanduru, Madan J A stated as follows; -“…. that adverse possession should be calculated from the date of payment of the purchase price to the full span of twelve years if the purchaser takes possession of the property because from this date, the true owner is dispossessed of possession. A purchaser in possession of the land purchased, after having paid the purchase price, is a person in whose favour the period of limitation can run”. 93.Thus, guided by the above case, it is the finding of this court that the time of adverse possession started to run in the year 1985, when according to the applicants’ pleadings they finalized payment of the purchase price and took possession of the suit land. Therefore, at the time of filing the suit herein, the 12 years’ period had since crystallized. 94.As to the nature of the possession and use of the suit land by the applicants, this court has also carefully looked at the scene visit report dated 28/02/2022 by Hon. D. Milimu, the Deputy Registrar who made observations made therein particularly on the occupation and use of the suit land as well as the various photographs attached thereto. It is therefore clear that the applicants have been in possession and occupation and have substantively developed the same as seen from the photographs. 95.This court therefore finds that the applicants have satisfactorily demonstrated the nature and duration of their occupation and possession of the suit land. 96.In determining whether the applicants acquired prescriptive rights, it is important to ascertain whether their possession, occupation and use of the suit land was in an adverse manner, with the intention to dispossess the actual owner of the suit land. 97.What amounts to dispossession in a claim for adverse possession has been held to be acts done by the adverse possessor which are inconsistent with the true owner’s enjoyment of the soil for the purpose for which he intended to use the same. See Court of Appeal decision in Wilson Kazungu Katana & 101 others v. Salim Abdalla Bakshwein & another [2015] eKLR). 98.As stated hereinabove, the photographs attached to the scene visit report support the applicants’ contention that they have been in possession of the suit land and have carried out extensive developments thereon. 99.Further, during cross-examination, DW1 confirmed that there was encroachment on the right hand-side of the subject land L.R. No. 8508 and acknowledged that the encroachment was ongoing. DW2 did also admit that at the time of the purchase, there were shops on the suit land. 100.Thus, the actions of the applicants of putting up structures on the suit land indeed are adverse to the rights of the respondent as the title holder of the suit land and with the intention to dispossess. 101.The final element is whether any precipitate action has been taken by the title holder to interrupt and interfere with the applicants’ possession, occupation and use of the suit land within the statutory period. 102.From the facts contained in the pleadings by the applicant as well as the testimonies by the witnesses and exhibits adduced in court, it is clear that no precipitate action was taken by the respondent or its predecessor in title to interfere and interrupt the applicants’ occupation and use of the suit land. 103.In view of the foregoing, it is the finding of this court that the applicants have acquired prescriptive rights over the suit land capable of registration owing to their possession, occupation and use of the suit land. 104.Consequently, it is my finding that the applicants have sufficiently and satisfactorily proved their claim on adverse possession to the required standard to warrant the reliefs sought. II. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought; 105.Having held that the Plaintiffs have proven their claim to the required standard, it therefore follows that they are entitled to the reliefs sought in the Originating Summons. III. Who shall bear the costs of the originating summons; 106.Although costs of the suit are awarded on the discretion of the court, the general rule is that costs shall follow the event in accordance with the proviso to section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, unless the court directs otherwise. 107.In the present suit, having held that the applicants have proved their claim to the required standard, I find that they are entitled to the costs of defending the suit. Conclusion: 108.In conclusion, it is the finding of this court that the Originating Summons dated 17.08.2021 is merited and is hereby allowed on the following terms: -a.A Declaration be and is hereby made that the Applicants have obtained the Title to 37.5Acres being part of land parcel number L.R. No. 8508 situated at Soy by way of Adverse Possession.b.A Further Declaration is hereby made that the Respondent is holding title for part of land parcel measuring 37.5 Acres being part of land parcel number L.R. No. 8508 situated at Soy in trust for the applicants.c.An order be and is hereby made that a portion of land measuring 37.5 Acres being part of land parcel number L.R. No. 8508 situated at Soy be curved out by the County Surveyor, Uasin Gishu County as currently occupied by the Applicants and a number issued to that effect.d.An order is hereby issued directing the land registrar or the registrar in charge of Uasin Gishu District Land registry or the Registrar where the register of land is, to delete the name of the respondent in regard to the portion of land measuring 37.5 Acres being part of land parcel number L.R. No. 8508 situated at Soy and in lieu thereof enter the name of the applicants with a title deed thereof or such other number as the registrar may issue.e.A further order is hereby issued directed to the Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu District Land Registrar of the registrar having custody of the register of land parcel number L.R. No. 8508 situated at Soy do issue a title deed to the applicants accordingly over the said 37.5 Acres.f.Costs of the suit to be borne by the respondent. 109.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026.HON. C. K. YANOJUDGEIn virtual presence of: -Mr. Chepkwony for Applicants.Mr. Songok for Respondent.Court Assistant – Laban