https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2938

Madanyi & another (Suing as Officials and on behalf of International Pentecostal Holiness Kenya) v Githinji (Sued as the administrator of the Estate of the Late Githinji Kanyi – Deceased) & another (Environment and Land Case 406 of 2015) [2026] KEELC 2938 (KLR) (7 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 2938 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Eldoret Environment and Land Case 406 of 2015 CK Yano, J May 7, 2026 Between Rev Bishop Saul Kisato Madanyi 1st Plaintiff Rev Samuel Akweyu 2nd Plaintiff Suing as Officials and on behalf of International Pentecostal Holiness Kenya and Gideon Chege Githinji (Sued As The Administrator Of The Estate Of The Late Githinji Kanyi – Deceased) 1st Defendant Uasin Gishu County Land Registrar 2nd Defendant Judgment 1.The Plaintiffs herein instituted the present suit vide a Plaint dated 06.11.2015, Amended on 19.04.2016 and Further Amended on 21st May, 2019, against the Defendants, seeking the following orders:-a.A declaration that the 1st defendant has encroached on 0.7Acres of land which should be the plaintiffs’ and he be ordered to surrender the said 0.7 Acres of land back to the plaintiffs.b.An order compelling the 2nd defendant being the land registrar in charge of Uasin Gishu County to amend its record and reflect the plaintiffs as the owners of an additional 0.7Acres of land neighboring the 1st defendant’s and a title deed be issued forthwith in favor of the plaintiff for the extra 0.7Acres of land.c.A permanent injunction be issued restraining the 1st defendant, its agents or servants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ 1 Acre of land neighboring him.d.Any other remedy this court may deem fit to grant.e.Costs of the suit. Plaintiffs’ Case; 2.The Plaintiffs aver that at all material times, the plaintiff’s church was allocated 1 acre of land in the year 1982 by the then officials of Nzoia Sisal Company Limited but the title thereto was to be issued at a later date. That pursuant to the said allocation, they took immediate possession of the said land. 3.They further aver that the said 1-acre parcel of land was neighboring the 1st defendant’s parcel of land measuring 10 acres or thereabouts. 4.It is the plaintiffs’ claim that the 1st defendant has encroached into a portion of their land measuring approx. 0.7Acres bordering his land. 5.It is their contention that they made complaints to the local leaders, including the area chief, the D.O. and the Land Registrar, who arbitrated over the dispute and ruled in their favor and they even started on the process of acquiring a title deed for the land. 6.However, it is their contention that when the title deed was issued, they were surprised to discover that the records at the 2nd defendant’s office had been erroneously entered and the same reflected that their parcel of land only comprised of 0.3 Acres instead of the 1 acre. 7.Further, it is the plaintiff’s claim that from the official records of the 2nd defendant, the same showed that the 1st defendant’s parcel of land comprised 10 acres whereas the ground survey revealed that the same was 16 acres. 8.They maintained that the 1st defendant had no official document from Nzoia Company Limited to prove how they attained the 16 acres of land that he is currently possessing. 9.The plaintiffs thus pleaded that there is need for survey to be carried out on the 1st defendant’s parcel of land known as MOI’S BRIDGE/ZIWA BLOCK 16 (CHEBARUS)/936 to ascertain the real acreage. 10.It is their contention that upon the said re-survey, any portion in excess of the 10 acres rightfully allocated to the 1st defendant should be hived off and be declared to be the plaintiffs’ portion. 11.In conclusion, the plaintiffs urged the court to allow their claim and to grant the orders sought. 12.The plaintiffs’ suit was opposed. The 1st and 2nd defendants filed their respective statements of defence diversely dated. 1st Defendant’s Case; 13.The 1st defendant filed a Statement of Defence dated 15.12.2015 and Amended on 29th October, 2019 in response to the plaintiff’s case. 14.He denied all the allegations made in the plaint and dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit as being misconceived and bad in law and the same ought to be struck out. 15.He further denied the alleged allocation of the 1-acre portion of land to the plaintiffs by Nzoia Sisal Company Limited as pleaded in the plaint or that the plaintiffs’ church took possession of the said land. 16.In the alternative and without prejudice to the foregoing, it was the 1st defendant’s contention that if the plaintiffs were indeed allocated any land by Nzoia Sisal Company Limited, then the land allocated measured 0.3 of an acre and put the plaintiffs to strict proof of the contrary. 17.The 1st defendant stated that his parcel of land comprised in Title No. Moi’s Bridge/Ziwa Block 16/ Chebarus/936 and maintained that his parcel of land measures 6.487 Ha and which is equivalent to 16.2 Acres and not the 10 acres pleaded by the plaintiffs in the plaint. 18.Further, he strongly denied the allegations of trespass and/or encroachment into the plaintiffs’ land or of having hived off a portion of the plaintiffs’ land measuring approx. 0.7 of an Acre and put the plaintiffs to strict proof thereof. 19.It is his contention that the plaintiffs suit is non-suited for the reason that the plaintiff had not enjoined Nzoia Sisal Company Limited, which allegedly did the allocation, prepared the area list, did the survey and issued the clearance letter. 20.In conclusion, the 1st defendant maintained that his parcel of land measures 6.487Ha and which measurement is reflected in the area list, map and is commensurate to the payment he made. 21.He therefore urged the court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ suit with costs. 2nd Defendant’s Case; 22.The 2nd defendant filed a Statement of Defence dated 22nd December, 2021 in response to the plaintiffs’ claim. 23.The contents of paragraphs 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15, 16 and 17 of the further amended plaint were denied in toto and the plaintiffs put to strict proof thereof. 24.He further dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit as being defective, frivolous, mischievous, incurably defective, a non-starter, scandalous, vexatious, bad in law, untenable and one that does not disclose any cause of action against the 2nd defendant. 25.The 2nd defendant admitted that the suit parcel known as Moi’s Bridge/ Ziwa Block 16 (Chebarus)/936 is registered in the name of the 1st defendant and the title thereto was issued on 16.07.2004 after confirming that the 1st defendant was a beneficiary as per the member’s register of the Nzoia Sisal Farm Limited. 26.The 2nd defendant maintained that the registration in respect to the suit land in the name of the 1st defendant was done in good faith and fair dealing. 27.Further, it was the 2nd defendant’s claim that there was no record found in the Nzoia Sisal Farm Limited member’s register showing that a parcel of land was set aside for the Plaintiff church, International Pentecostal Holiness Kenya. 28.The 2nd defendant pleaded that it is statutorily mandated to conduct land registration upon payment of the required fees and presentation of the requisite documents. 29.In conclusion, the 2nd defendant urged the court to dismiss the suit with costs. Trial: 30.The Plaintiffs’ case proceeded for hearing on 19.10.2023. The 2nd plaintiff testified as PW1 and called 2 witnesses to testify in support of their case. 31.PW1 adopted his witness statement as his evidence in chief. He stated that he comes from Moi’s Bridge and is an Education Officer based in Nairobi. 32.He further stated that he filed a bundle of documents which he produced as plaintiffs’ exhibits 1 – 14 respectively in support of the plaintiffs’ case. 33.It was also his testimony that he had sued the 1st defendant for having encroached into a portion of the church’s parcel of land known as Moi’s Bridge/Ziwa Block 16 (Chebarus)/1196 measuring approx. 0.7 of an Acre. That as a result of the said encroachment, the church land was left measuring only 0.3 of an Acre. 34.It was further his testimony that the church purchased the suit land measuring approx. 1 acre from Nzoia Sisal Company Limited and the same was duly surveyed. 35.It was his claim that they have sued the land registrar because the records at the land’s registry indicate that their land is only measuring 0.3 of an Acre. He however blamed the mistake on their surveyor. 36.PW1 also testified that the 1st defendant was only entitled to 10 acres but on the ground, he had more than the 10 acres. 37.In the end, he urged the court to grant them the orders sought in the Amended Plaint. 38.On cross-examination by counsel for the 1st defendant, he reiterated that the church purchased the suit parcel on 26.04.1982 but conceded that he was not involved in the said purchase and does not also know who represented the church during the sale. 39.He further conceded that he did not have any evidence of exchange of money. He admitted that the church land is vacant. 40.It was his testimony that he noticed the encroachment in the year 2015. 41.On cross-examination by counsel for the 2nd defendant, it was his testimony that the receipts show that they were allocated one acre. 42.He however conceded that the title deed issued in their name showed that their land measures only 0.3 of an acre. He acknowledged that the 2nd defendant had been sued wrongly for the reason that the land registrar only acted on the documents that were presented to him in issuing the title deed and they do not therefore blame him. 43.On re-examination, he clarified that the 2nd defendant had been sued because they wanted him to rectify the title deed issued in their name to reflect/read 1 acre. 44.He however acknowledged that the mistake in the registration and issuance of the title deed was caused by the surveyor although he could not recall when the survey was done. 45.Joseph Kiptabut Chepkwony testified as PW2. He stated that he comes from Matunda and is a farmer by profession. He confirmed to have recorded a witness statement which he adopted as his evidence in chief. 46.It was also his testimony that the church is a member of the Chebarus Farm and that the church was given a portion of land measuring 1 acre. 47.He stated that he was the secretary of the Chebarus Farm and that after the death of the chairman of the Farm, he was elevated to the position of the Chairman. 48.It was his testimony that the plaintiffs’ land is parcel No. 1199 while the 1st defendant’s land is parcel No. 936. 49.That the entire land owned by the Chebarus Farm was 5000 Acres and the same was subdivided amongst its members in the exercise which took place between the year 1992 and 1996. 50.He stated that the suit had been filed by the church because they were given a title reflecting 0.3 of an Acre instead of 0.7 of an Acre. He however acknowledged that it was the surveyor who made a mistake of stating in his report that the church was entitled to 0.3 of an Acre. 51.On cross-examination by counsel for the 1st defendant, it was his testimony that he became the chairman of the Farm in the year 2004 but conceded that he did not have any document to show that he was the chairman of the farm. 52.It was also his testimony that the farm used to enter into a sale agreement and maintained that there was no resolution made/required regarding the sale of the farm land. 53.He confirmed that the plot owners were present during the survey exercise. He however stated that the church was late in paying for the survey fees and that explained why there was a difference between parcel 936 and 1119. He therefore blamed the surveyor for the less acreage issued to the plaintiffs. 54.He further admitted that the late Githinji, the 1st defendant herein, was a member of the farm. He conceded that the surveyor did not fix the beacons. 55.On cross-examination by counsel for the 2nd defendant, he reiterated that the mistake was done by the surveyor. He however conceded that the surveyor had not been sued in the present proceedings. He acknowledged that the land registrar was not supposed to be sued. 56.On re-examination, he confirmed that the 2nd defendant was not supposed to be sued. He also clarified that the survey was carried out by the late Charles Musee in the year 1993. 57.Peter Nyapola Wekulo testified as PW3. He stated that he comes from Moi’s Bridge and is a farmer by profession. He adopted his witness statement as his evidence in chief. 58.It was his testimony that he is the treasurer of the Chebarus Farm. He stated that the church purchased a parcel of land measuring 1 acre from the previous officials, but they were given a portion measuring 0.3 of an acre instead of the 1 acre. He however blamed the surveyor for the mistake. 59.He stated that the 2nd defendant should rectify the mistake to reflect the accurate position. It was his testimony that the church’s land is parcel No. 1119 while the 1st defendant’s land is parcel No. 936 and the said parcels boarder each other. 60.On cross-examination by counsel for the 1st defendant, he confirmed that he was not an official of the Chebarus farm at the time the church and the 1st defendant purchased their parcels of land. 61.He however maintained that he was present when the Land Registrar went to the ground but conceded that he did not see the report by the land registrar. 62.He further confirmed that it was the 1st defendant who purchased his land earlier than the church. He also admitted that there is no structure on the church land. 63.The 2nd defendant’s counsel did not ask any questions in cross-examination neither was there any re-examination. 64.The plaintiffs thereafter closed their case. 65.The Defence case proceeded for hearing on 19.05.2025. Naomi Rop, the Land Registrar and the 2nd defendant, testified as DW1. 66.It was her testimony that according to their records, the registered owner of the parcel of land known as Moi’s Bridge/ Ziwa Block 16 (Chebarus)/936 is Githinji Kanyi, the 1st defendant herein. 67.She also confirmed that the said parcel of land, Moi’s Bridge/ Ziwa Block 16 (Chebarus)/936 measures approx. 6.487Ha and the registration is a first registration, being a transfer from the government. 68.She further testified that she relied on the members’ register of Chebarus Farm, and which confirmed that the 1st defendant land, Githinji Kanyi was number 936 and that is the same number that is indicated in the title document. 69.DW1 also stated that she was not aware that there was a boundary dispute over the suit land. She was also not aware that the same parcel of land Moi’s Bridge/ Ziwa Block 16 (Chebarus)/936 had been allocated to the plaintiff. 70.On cross-examination by counsel for the 1st defendant, she confirmed that from a copy of the title deed, the 1st defendant’s land measures 6.487Ha and that he was the first title holder of the said parcel of land. 71.She explained that they use the members register to issue the title documents. She confirmed that at the time of registering the suit land, the members register was supplied to them. 72.It was her contention that if anyone claims that the land is more or less than the acreage on the title, there is need to go to the ground to ascertain the same. 73.She however maintained that she was not aware of any document showing that the acreage of the parcel of land Moi’s Bridge/ Ziwa Block 16 (Chebarus)/936 was bigger or lower. 74.On cross-examination by counsel for the plaintiffs, she confirmed that pexh. 6 showed Moi’s Bridge/ Ziwa Block 16 (Chebarus)/1199 was in the name of International Pentecostal Holiness Church Mulimani and that the same was signed by the land registrar. 75.She also confirmed that from pexh. 6, the measurement of the said parcel of land is 0.14Ha, which is about 0.34 Acres. 76.When referred to the bundle of receipts produced as pexh. 2, she confirmed that the same were issued by Chebarus Farm in favor of the plaintiff. She confirmed that receipts signify payments and from the receipt dated 17.12.1993, the said receipt was for one acre. 77.It was her testimony that she could not confirm the exact acreage of plot No. 1199 occupied on the ground. She however explained in the event there is an error in the documents presented and the title deed issued in terms of the acreage, the surveyor may be directed to visit the site, prepare a report and it is that report that may then be used to amend the records as sought in prayer 2 of the amended plaint. 78.She conceded that she was not aware of any share certificate presented to her by the 1st defendant. She also stated that she did not have any clearance letter from the Chebarus Farm. 79.She acknowledged that from the plaintiffs’ exhibits, there was clearance letter for plot No. 1199 and the same was signed and stamped. 80.She further conceded that she had never visited the ground to confirm and/or ascertain the acreage of parcel No. 936. 81.On re-examination, it was her testimony that the plaintiffs’ suit was in respect to Moi’s Bridge/ Ziwa Block 16 (Chebarus)/936 and there was no mention in the plaint of parcel Moi’s Bridge/ Ziwa Block 16 (Chebarus)/1199. She thus maintained that her testimony was in regards to parcel No. 936. 82.She stated that she was not aware of any relation between parcel No. 936 and parcel No. 1199 or that there was a dispute over the acreage of parcel No. 936 and 1199. Further stated that she was not aware of any boundary dispute between the parcels of land neither did she see any surveyor’s report with regards to the issues in dispute. 83.It was also her testimony that the 2nd defendant did not have any mandate to issue the receipts to any of the parties but the same were being issued from the farm. 84.At the end of the re-examination, the 2nd defendant closed their case. 85.The 1st defendant’s case proceeded for hearing on 25.11.2025. Gideon Chege Githinji testified as DW2. He confirmed having obtained the relevant letters of administration to represent his father’s estate. 86.He stated that before his death, his father had signed a witness statement dated 19.12.2015 and he had also prepared and signed a statement dated 18.10.2023. He adopted both statements as his evidence in chief. 87.He also produced a copy of the grant of representation dated 28.03.2019 as Dexh.1, a copy of the title deed in respect to the suit land as Dexh. 2. 88.It was also his testimony that the suit land Moi’s Bridge/ Ziwa Block 16 (Chebarus)/936 was purchased by his late father as a member of the Nzoia Sisal Company and the same measured approx. 6.487Ha which is about 16.2 Acres. 89.He further stated that they had occupied the said parcel of land since 1973 to date. He denied the claims of encroachment and/or curving out a portion belonging to the plaintiffs’ land measuring 0.7 of an Acre. 90.He maintained that their parcel of land is clearly demarcated by boundaries and beacons and that his late father obtained his title deed in respect to the suit parcel No. 936 much earlier than the plaintiffs obtained theirs. He thus contended that any claim on less acreage should be blamed on the surveyor. 91.On cross-examination by counsel for the 2nd defendant, he restated that his late father’s land is parcel No. 936 while the church’s land is parcel No. 1199. He confirmed that the two parcels share a common boundary on the ground. 92.He further confirmed that the plaintiffs’ parcel measures 0.3Acres. He however stated that he was not sure how the plaintiffs acquired their land. 93.It was also his testimony that he did not see any surveyor visit the suit land or any report thereto confirming that the boundary had been moved/interfered with. 94.He further testified that the plaintiffs are currently not in occupation of their portion of land No. 1199 neither has he ever seen any church on the said parcel. 95.He maintained that his late father was allocated parcel No. 936 measuring 6.487Ha and that there has never been any changes from the time of the said allocation. It is therefore his contention that the 2nd defendant did not make any mistake in issuing the title document that reflected the said position. 96.It was his testimony that by the time the plaintiffs were purchasing their parcel of land No. 1199, his late father had already acquired his plot No. 936. 97.On cross-examination by counsel for the plaintiffs, he reiterated that the plaintiffs’ parcel No. 1199 is neighboring their parcel of land No. 936. 98.He conceded that he had not produced a share certificate for Nzoia Sisal Company membership neither had he produced a clearance certificate for parcel No. 936. 99.It was his testimony that he has never carried out any survey on the land but acknowledged that before a title deed is issued, a surveyor must go to the ground. 100.When referred to the receipt dated 17.12.1993 in the plaintiffs’ bundle of documents, he confirmed that the said receipt was for the payment of one acre. He however maintained that he could not tell whether the plaintiff’s land was 0.3 of an acre or one acre. 101.In conclusion, he conceded that other than the title deed in respect to parcel No. 936, he did not produce any other document to confirm that his father was allocated 6.487Ha. 102.On re-examination, it was his testimony that his presence in court was as a representative of the interest of his father’s estate and confirmed that he was not there when the suit land was being allocated or the title thereto being issued. 103.He however maintained that the title deed in respect to the suit land was issued pursuant to the information given by the officials of the Nzoia Sisal Company Limited. 104.It was his testimony that he could not verify the documents shown to him by the plaintiffs’ counsel if the same emanated from the officials of the farm. 105.He reiterated that there are boundaries on the ground which were put by the officials of Nzoia Sisal Company Limited and the beacons put in 1973. He maintained that everything that was done in respect to their parcel of land was done pursuant to the information by the officials of the Nzoia Sisal Company Limited. 106.In concluding his re-examination, it was his testimony that he had not been shown any document showing that the officials of the Nzoia Sisal Company Limited had stated that his father’s title was not correct. 107.After the re-examination, the 1st defendant closed his case. 108.Upon close of the defence case, this court issued directions on the filing of final written submissions within 21 days by each party. However, at the time of writing this judgment, only the plaintiffs had filed their submissions dated 28.11.2025, which I have read and considered. 109.Be that as it may, I will proceed to render my decision as hereunder. Analysis and Determination: 110.I have critically considered and reviewed the Further Amended Plaint herein, the respective statements of defence by the defendants, the respective testimonies and exhibits produced during trial as well as the plaintiffs’ submissions and authorities in totality. 111.Consequently, it is my considered view that the following issues arise for determination: -a.Whether or not the 1st Defendant has trespassed and/or encroached into a portion of the plaintiffs’ parcel of land No. 1199 measuring approx. 0.7 of an acreb.Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought in Plaintc.Who shall bear the costs of the suit. Whether or not the 1st Defendant has trespassed and/or encroached into a portion of the plaintiffs’ parcel of land No. 1199 measuring approx. 0.7 of an acre; 112.At the centre of the dispute herein is a claim of encroachment into a portion of the parcel of land known as Moi’s Bridge/ Ziwa Block 16 (Chebarus)/1199 measuring approx. 0.7 of an acre by the parcel known as Moi’s Bridge/ Ziwa Block 16 (Chebarus)/936. 113.It is the plaintiffs’ claim that they lawfully purchased and/or were allocated the said parcel of land No. 1199 measuring 1 acre by the Nzoia Sisal Company Limited and which land boarders parcel No. 936. 114.It is the plaintiffs’ contention that the 1st defendant, who owns the adjacent parcel of land No. 936 encroached into their suit land No. 1199. They have based their allegations of trespass and/or encroachment on the averment that the 1st defendant was allocated a portion measuring 10 acres whereas the title deed issued to them reflects a portion of about 16 acres. 115.The 1st defendant on the other hand has maintained that he is the rightful owner of the parcel of land No. 936, the same having been purchased from the Nzoia Sisal Company Limited and allocated to him by virtue of his membership. 116.It was DW2’s claim that the size of the land allocated to his late father was 6.487Ha and which translates to about 16 acres and the same is correctly reflected on the certificate of title issued in favour of his late father on 16.07.2004. 117.He maintained that the information used to generate the said title deed were provided by the officials of the Nzoia Sisal Company Limited and no proof had been adduced to the contrary. 118.The 2nd defendant on its part also maintained that from their records, parcel No. 936 was lawfully registered in the name of the late Githinji Kanyi as the first registered owner. 119.DW1 confirmed that the said registration was pursuant to the information contained in the Nzoia Sisal Company Limited membership list as well as the documentations provided by the said company. 120.From the onset, the ownership of the two parcels of land in question is not in dispute. It is not in dispute that Moi’s Bridge/ Ziwa Block 16 (Chebarus)/1199 belongs to the plaintiffs while Moi’s Bridge/ Ziwa Block 16 (Chebarus)/936 belongs to the 1st defendant. 121.The acquisition of the said parcels of land is also not in dispute. It is evident from the testimonies of the witnesses and the exhibits adduced that both the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant were members of the Nzoia Sisal Company Limited and they acquired their respective parcels of land by virtue of their membership. 122.What however appears to be in dispute and which is at the centre of the encroachment claims is the acreage of the respective parcels of land. This court in determining this issue thus seeks to answer the question on whether there has been encroachment by the 1st defendant as alleged or not. 123.Section 3 (1) of the Trespass Act, Cap 294 provides that:“Any person who without reasonable excuse enters, is or remains upon or erects any structure on, or cultivates or tills or grazes stock or permits stock to be on, private land without the consent of the occupier thereof shall be guilty of an offence.” 124.The onus is therefore on the plaintiffs to discharge the burden of proof by sufficiently demonstrating that their parcel of land indeed measured 1 acre whereas the 1st defendant’s parcel measured 10 acres as pleaded. 125.To support their claim, the plaintiffs produced various documents marked as Pexh. 1 – 15. Of interest are Pexhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively, which they heavily relied on to support their claim that the parcel of land allocated to them measured 1 acre and not the 0.3 of an acre as contained in the certificate of title produced as pexh. 6 126.I have critically looked at the said documents. Other than the receipts which the payment referenced is in respect to a portion measuring 1 acre, there is no other relevant document to support the said averments. 127.Pexh. 4, which is the registration form dated 05.01.1994 from Nzoia Sisal Company Limited does not indicate the portion/acreage of the parcel allocated to the plaintiffs and accepted by the management committee of the farm. It is therefore not clear whether what was allocated was the available and empty land as per pexh.1, or whether the same measured 1 acre or 0.3 of an acre is not clear. 128.In addition, a crucial document which ought to have been adduced to support the averments by the plaintiffs with regard to the acreage of the parcel No. 1199 would have been the membership list or the area list. This was not produced. Instead, the plaintiff adduced Pexh. 3, which was a card for plot no. 1199 from Chebarus. This is not a membership list or the area list in respect to the farm and share entitlement and the same did not support the assertions of the 1 acre. 129.Further, the plaintiffs pleaded that the 1st defendant’s share entitlement was a portion measuring 10 acres and not the 16 acres contained in the certificate of title produced as Dexh. 2 in respect to parcel No. 936. 130.It is trite law that he who alleges must prove. The plaintiffs therefore bore the evidentiary burden to prove to the required standard that parcel No. 936 allocated to the 1st defendant was indeed 10 acres. From the documents adduced in evidence, there was no document to prove the said allegations of 10 acres. 131.In the absence of sufficient and satisfactory proof, the said averments that the 1st defendant’s land measured 10 acres are mere unsubstantiated allegations and this court will therefore disregard the same. 132.Section 26 of the Land Registration Act is clear on the position of the certificate of title as conclusive and prima facie evidence on ownership and that the person named as the proprietor is the indefeasible owner thereto. 133.Section 26 further provides for the 2 instances of challenging a title document. The same has not been done by the plaintiffs in the present suit. Consequently, it is the finding of this court that the Dexh. 2 and the information contained therein is the accurate position. 134.Thus, taking the foregoing in totality, it is the finding of this court that the plaintiffs have not discharged this burden to the required standard and to the satisfaction of the court in proving their claim on trespass. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought in Plaint; 135.The plaintiffs in their further amended plaint sought orders of permanent injunction against the 1st defendant, a declaration that the 1st defendant has encroached on 0.7Acres of their land, an order compelling the 2nd defendant to amend its records to reflect the plaintiff as the owner of an additional 0.7acres bordering the 1st defendant’s land and to be issued with a title deed thereto in respect of the portion measuring 0.7 of an acre as well as costs of the suit. 136.Having held that the plaintiffs have not proved their claim on trespass against the 1st defendant to the required standard, it is the finding of this court that they are not entitled to the reliefs sought in the further amended plaint. Who shall bear the costs of the suit; 137.A successful party should ordinarily be awarded costs of an action unless the court, for good reason, directs otherwise. 138.In the present suit, having held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their claim to the required standard, it is my considered finding that the defendants are entitled to costs of defending the suit. Conclusion: 139.The upshot of the above is that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove their claim against the defendants on a balance of probabilities. Consequently, this court finds as hereunder: -i.The Further Amended Plaint dated 21st May, 2019 is not merited and is hereby dismissed.ii.Costs of the suit to be borne by the plaintiffs. 140.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT ELDORET ON 7TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.HON. C.K. YANOJUDGEIn the virtual presence of: -Mr. Kwame for 2nd Defendant.No appearance for Mr. Kagunza for Plaintiff.No appearance for Kiarie for 1st Defendant.Court Assistant – Laban