https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4360

Mohamed & 5 others v Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology & 8 others (Environment and Land Case 48 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 4360 (KLR) (8 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 4360 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Kitale Environment and Land Case 48 of 2019 CK Nzili, J July 8, 2026 Between Mude Husein Mohamed 1st Plaintiff Rodgers Samanya 2nd Plaintiff Hassan Abdulahi Ali 3rd Plaintiff James Njenga Nyaga 4th Plaintiff Abdulrahman Wamala 5th Plaintiff The Publican (Africa) Ltd 6th Plaintiff and Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology 1st Defendant Turkana University College (Being Sued As A Constituent College Of The 1st Defendant) 2nd Defendant The County Government Of Turkana 3rd Defendant The Commissioner Of Land 4th Defendant The County Surveyor Turkana County 5th Defendant The Hon. Attorney General 6th Defendant The Community Land Registrar, Turkana County 7th Defendant The Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer, Turkana County 8th Defendant and Mount Kenya University Interested Party Judgment 1.The plaintiffs approached this court through an amended plaint dated 4/4/2025. They seek:b.An order directed to the 1st and 2nd defendants ordering them to unconditionally withdraw the vacation notices dated 31/5/2019.b.Order to the 2nd and 5th defendants to revoke any survey, subdivisions, mutation forms, and amendments of maps that gave rise to Land Ref. No. 14691/425 Kanamkemer, Lodwar, Turkana County and rectification of the same to its original state, and all that parcel of land adjacent to the fence in the forecourt of the 2nd defendantc.An order directed to the surveyor ordering him to hive out all that land adjacent to the fence in the forecourt of the 2nd defendant and surrender to the plaintiffs based on individual sizes from the Land Ref. No. 14691/425, Kanamkemer.d.An order directed to the Commissioner of Lands to cancel the 1st and 2nd defendants’ title deed, if any, and amend the register book to Land Ref. No. 14691/425.e.In the alternative to the above, the County Government of Turkana be ordered to compensate each of the plaintiffs for the unlawful acquisition of the plaintiffs’ parcels of land adjacent to the fence in the forecourt of the 2nd defendant in favour of the plaintiffs at the current market value indicated on page 9 of the valuation report dated 1/4/2024.f.Declaration that Title No. I.R. No. 6477, L.R. No.14691/425 Kanamkemer Lodwar Turkana County transferred by the Interested Party to the 1st and 2nd defendants on 9/2/2017 comprises land measuring 100 metres or thereabouts adjacent to the fence in the forecourt of the 2nd defendant touching Lodwar - Kitale Highway and which land the Interested Party voluntarily surrendered to the then defunct Lodwar Municipal Council and the same was re-allocated to the plaintiffs as original allottees and or purchasers.g.Declaration that the Interested Party lacks a better title to the plaintiffs’ respective parcels of land, being the land measuring 100 meters or thereabouts, adjacent to the fence in the forecourt of the 2nd defendant touching Lodwar - Kitale Highway, by virtue of the plaintiffs’ being the original allottees and for purchasers of the same now comprised in Land Parcel I.R. No. 6477, L.R. No. 14691/425, Kanamkemer, Lodwar, Turkana County and therefore cannot give/pass a better title to the 1st and 2nd defendants than it is.h.Declaration that the 3rd and 5th defendants are in breach of their statutory duties owed to the plaintiffs to ensure that proper and correct relevant documents, including PDP, and survey plan, and other documents protecting the interest of the plaintiffs’ land measuring 100 meters or thereabouts, adjacent to the fence in the forecourt of the 2nd defendant touching Lodwar - Kitale Highway, thereby allowing the plaintiffs’ respective suit lands to be unlawfully included in I.R. No. 6477, L.R. No. 14691/425, Kanamkemer, Lodwar County.i.Declaration that the survey plan FR. No. 590/103 for IR No. 6477, L.R. No. 14691/425, Kanamkemer, is null and void for including the plaintiffs’ suit parcels of land and should be amended to exclude the plaintiffs’ suit parcels of land.j.An order for the cancellation of Title No. L.R. No. 6477 No. 14691/425, transferred and issued in the names of the 1st and 2nd defendants, and an order for rectification issued, excluding the plaintiffs’ suit parcels of land measuring 100 meters or thereabouts, adjacent to the fence in the forecourt of the 2nd defendant, touching Lodwar - Kitale Highway, and a new title issued to the 1st and 2nd defendants.k.Declaration that the 1st and 2nd defendants are not bona fide purchasers of the plaintiffs’ suit parcel of land measuring 100 meters or thereabouts, adjacent to the fence in the forecourt of the 2nd defendant touching Lodwar - Kitale Highway, which land the interested party voluntarily surrendered to the then defunct Lodwar Municipal Council and the same be re-allocated to the plaintiffs as original allotees and or purchasers.l.Order directing the 1st and 2nd defendants to voluntarily vacate the plaintiffs’ suit parcel of land, L.R. No. 14591/425 Kanamkemer, Lodwar-Turkana County, and also to remove any structures erected thereon, and in default, they be forcefully evicted at their own costs, and the OCS Lodwar Police Station to provide security.m.Permanent injunction barring and restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants, and the Interested Party, their agents, servants, or employees, or anyone acting on their behalf, from selling, charging, leasing, cultivating, interfering with, and claiming any interest in the plaintiffs’ suit parcel of land allocated and purchased by the plaintiffs and now comprised in Land Title No. I.R. No. 6477, L.R. No.14691/425, Kanamkemer, Lodwar-Kitale Highway, measuring 100 meters or thereabouts, adjacent to the fence in the forecourt of the 2nd defendant.n.General damages for trespass. 2.The plaintiffs contend that they are the beneficial owners of all that land adjacent to the fence in the forecourt of the 2nd defendant, having been allocated the same by the defunct Lodwar Municipal Council or purchased from persons previously allocated by the defunct council, as per the particulars of allocation for Plot Nos. 931, 932, 829, 976 “A”, 790, 920, and 932, with respect to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th plaintiffs as particularised in paragraph 9 of the amended plaint, which are situated in Kanamkemer Ward of Turkana County, just in front of the present Turkana University College, adjacent to Turkan town along Lodwar – Kitale Road. 3.The plaintiffs aver that after acquiring the plots by way of purchase, the 3rd and 4th plaintiffs caused development plans to be drawn by the 3rd defendant’s agents, namely, the County Physical Planners, who also demarcated the respective plots on the ground, after which the plaintiffs, whose allotment was different times and or purchase, took possession of their respective plots and occupied them on diverse dates. 4.The plaintiffs aver that the 3rd defendant’s agent, the County Physical Planner, and the 5th defendant failed in their duty to rectify or amend the plan and draw a new deed plan to exclude all that stretch of land measuring 100 meters or thereabouts adjacent to the fence in the forecourt of the 2nd defendant. 5.It is averred that the suit properties touching on the Lodwar - Kitale Highway that were purchased by the plaintiffs or were allocated to them by the defunct municipal council of Lodwar, after the interested party allegedly voluntarily surrendered the same to the defunct council. 6.The plaintiffs aver that failure by the 3rd defendant’s agent and the 5th defendant to ensure a plan is drawn, surveying and beacons effected to exclude all that stretch of land measuring 100 meters, adjacent to the fence in the forecourt of the 2nd defendant, touching on Lodwar - Kitale Highway was illegal, and unlawful entitling the interested party and the 1st and 2nd defendants to claim an interest in the plaintiffs’ respective suit parcel of land. 7.The particulars of unlawfulness and illegality on the part of the 3rd and 5th defendants, include drawing a PDP in favour of the interested party to include their parcels of land without consent ad or consultation; failing to conduct ground surveying and beaconing of their plots; drawing and beaconing in possession of contradictory two PDPs in favour of the 4th plaintiff and another in favour of the 1st and 2nd defendants; drawing a PDP in favour of the interested party while including their plots hence enabling the 1st and 2nd defendants to claim an interest in their plots. 8.It is averred that the said plan enabled the 1st and 2nd defendants to unlawfully construct on their suit parcels of land, enabling them to claim the land by issuing a vacation notice, and partly ignoring the surveying documents such as maps, demarcations, PDPs, and descriptions in respect of the area, which documents were available at the County Survey Department. 9.The plaintiffs aver that vide the notice to vacate from I.R. No. 6477 L.R. No.14691/425 Kanamkemer, Lodwar-Turkana County, dated 31/5/2019, the 1st defendant, without any colour of right and legality, demanded that the plaintiffs and other concerned persons vacate the suit property on account of unlawful encroachment and trespass on its land purchased from the interested party in 2016. 10.The plaintiffs term the 1st and 2nd defendants’ possession and occupation of their parcels of land as acts of trespass, following which the 5th defendant, through its agent, illegally surveyed the suit parcels of land, without consulting them, prepared a biased and misleading ICT survey report dated 8/1/2019, and used such a biased and illegal report to issue a notice to vacate the land. 11.The plaintiffs aver that they are the lawful beneficiaries of the land by virtue of allocation or purchase. The plaintiffs aver that, contrary to the allegation of ownership of I.R. No. 6477, L.R. No. 14691/425 Kanamkemer, members of the public had requested the then municipal council of Lodwar to consider allocating all of them all that land adjacent to the fence of the forecourt of 2nd defendant, which request was considered by the municipal council of Lodwar in 2011, which resolved that the initial allottee, the interested party be moved slightly far from the main highway, to create space for the members of the public who had applied to be allocated all that land to enable them to build hostels since the said university college did not have boarding facilities. 12.The plaintiffs aver that it was resolved that the committee will consult the management of Mt. Kenya University on the intention to repossess some of its land for reallocation to members, so that the public can build hostels and other related amenities for the university, which land was to be 100 meters stretch of land from the Lodwar-Kitale Highway. 13.The plaintiffs aver that vide a letter dated 28/1/2011, the Mt. Kenya University agreed to the intended repossession of the 100-meter stretch, on condition that it be compensated with land similar in size, which the defunct municipal council acceded to. 14.It is averred that by a letter dated 15/2/2011, Mt. Kenya University and the County Physical Planner were asked to facilitate the execution of a demarcation exercise to reduce Mt. Kenya University’s land at the front by 10 meters and reallocate an equivalent size of land at the back to the university. 15.The plaintiffs aver that the Mt. Kenya University indeed abandoned the 100-meter stretch of land in front and was reallocated a similar land size behind its campus, after which it refenced its new portion of land and reorganised its fence, which still exists to date. 16.The plaintiffs aver that even after the 1st interested party was compensated for the 100-meter stretch of land, it acted illegally and in collusion with the 3rd and 5th defendants to annex the plaintiffs’ suit parcel of land and with that of the interested party in I.R. No. 6477 L.R. No. 14691/425 Kanamkemer, Lodwar-Turkana County, by interfering with the PDP and survey plan, processing a title deed which included the said plots, failed to rectify the title to exclude their plots and instead prepared an amended PDP and survey documents to process the title and lease, whose interest was sold and transferred to the 1st and 2nd defendants. 17.The plaintiffs aver that it was therefore surprised to learn that the 1st defendant, while purporting to act on behalf of the 2nd defendant, had demanded to repossess a portion of land its predecessor in title had willingly ceded to the defunct municipal council of Lodwar in exchange for a similar size of land behind the campus. 18.The plaintiffs term the 1st defendant’s purported purchase of the plaintiffs’ respective suit parcels of land as lacking due diligence for it to be termed as a bona fide purchaser for value, for lack of consultation with them, being party to a title deed which is a product of illegality and fraud, purchasing the parcels of land before allotment letters in their favour were revoked, for failing to conduct historical search at the 3rd defendant’s offices and or conduct a ground search to establish why the plaintiffs were in possession of their respectively portions of land, which had been surveyed and beaconed by the county surveyors, after which they took possession and began paying land rates. 19.The plaintiffs term the notice to vacate issued by the 1st defendant as illegal, misplaced, lacking merit, fraudulent, irregular, and amounting to illegality, barring them from peacefully occupying and utilising their respective parcels of land contrary to the law. 20.The plaintiffs aver that the 1st defendant’s officials, employees, and servants are guilty of fraud for purporting to issue a notice to vacate on land not belonging to it, lacking capacity to issue such notice, laying an illegal or inequitable claim on the land which had already been surrendered by its predecessor, unjustly enriching themselves, due to compensation of similar land size elsewhere; failing to consult them before obtaining title, acquiring land where they had equitable interests; colluding with county officials to grab their land, colluding with police, impunity and high handedness, and failing to consult the officials of the defunct municipal council. 21.Further, the plaintiffs aver that the acts of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th defendants acted irregularly, and in abuse of procedure by failing to consult them before obtaining title, unilaterally transferring the land to the 2nd defendant while disregarding their equitable interests, failing to conduct due diligence before and after allocation of the land, failing to conduct survey to establish the land size, ignoring the fact that the land is community land, fraudulent registering title or unregistered and unadjudicated community land, grabbing their land, forging survey map, mutation form and related survey documents and impersonating officials of the county government to transfer the land, and obtaining title to the suit land while their letters of allotment by the county remained valid and uncancelled to date. 22.The 1st and 2nd defendants opposed the suit through an amended defence and counterclaim dated 4/6/2025. They deny that the plaintiffs are beneficial owners of all that land adjacent to the fence of the forecourt of the 2nd defendant by way of allocation by the defunct municipal council of Lodwar and/or by way of purchase from a person previously allocated the land by the defunct municipal council of Lodwar, as alleged or at all. 23.The 1st and 2nd defendants deny that after the plaintiffs purchased their respective portions of land, the 3rd and 4th defendants caused development plans to be drawn by the 3rd defendant’s agent, and all caused demarcation of their respective plots as alleged or at all. To the contrary, the 1st and 2nd defendants aver that they are the registered owners of L.R. No. 14691/425 Kanamkemer measuring 42.02 Ha, having purchased the land for value from the interested party, Mt. Kenya University, on which the plaintiffs have no rights or interests whatsoever. 24.The 1st and 2nd defendants deny that the plaintiff, on diverse times of allotment or purchase of the suit plots, took possession of their respective plots and occupied them on diverse dates. 25.The 1st and 2nd defendants aver that the 3rd defendant’s agents and the 5th defendant did not fail in their duties to rectify and or amend the plan and draw a new deed plan to exclude all the stretch of land measuring 100 meters or thereabout adjacent to the fence on the forecourt of the 2nd defendant touching on Lodwar - Kitale Highway for reasons that there was no plan to be amended or rectified since the suit land was already registered under an absolute proprietor and no surrender of land was made to the defunct council. 26.The 1st and 2nd defendants maintain that they are the bona fide registered owners of the suit land, and they had no business in claiming an interest in the land from the plaintiffs, who were not the registered owners of the suit land. The 1st and 2nd defendants deny the particulars of unlawfulness and illegality on the part of the 3rd and 5th defendants. The 1st and 2nd defendants term the notice a valid agreement, and any encroachment of the land by the plaintiffs. 27.The 1st and 2nd defendants deny that they can be trespassers on their own land; otherwise, it would not have been possible to have had the land allocated to the plaintiffs or persons who sold the land to them for purposes of building hostels when the interested party had not even built the university in the first place. 28.The 1st and 2nd defendants aver that there was no land available for allocation by the municipal council of Lodwar to the members of the public, including the plaintiffs. The 1st and 2nd defendants aver that they bought the land after conducting due diligence, were bona fide purchasers for value, and that they hold a valid title to the suit land, hence deny the particulars of lack of due diligence attributed to them. 29.The 1st and 2nd defendants aver that they are the absolute registered proprietors of all that piece of land, and at no time were the plaintiffs or the person who sold to them noted on the certificate of title, for the plaintiffs to have any rights whatsoever over the suit land, making their encroachment acts of trespass. 30.The 1st and 2nd defendants deny any particulars of fraud, illegality, collusion or irregularity in the manner they obtained title to the suit land, which title, at the time of purchase, the plaintiffs had no interest in, for they had not been registered in the title. The 1st and 2nd defendants deny that they were involved in the survey, which the plaintiffs conducted to achieve a certain end. 31.By way of a counterclaim, the 1st and 2nd defendants reiterated that they were bona fide purchasers and absolute owners of the land measuring approximately 42.02 Ha, which they have not disposed of, parted with, or surrendered any part of the land to anybody, including the plaintiffs. 32.The 1st and 2nd defendants aver that the plaintiffs have, without any colour of right or interest whatsoever, trespassed onto and destroyed parts of their fence. The 1st and 2nd defendants prayed for:a.Eviction of the plaintiffs from their land.b.Permanent injunction. The counterclaim was later on abandoned at the hearing. 33.The 3rd defendant opposed the suit through an amended defence dated 16/6/2026. The 3rd defendant avers that the land acquired by the 1st and 2nd defendants had been allocated as Plot Nos. 790, 829, 920, 931, 932, 976A, and 888 to members of the public, as per a site plan developed by its technical staff showing the demarcation between the interested parties of land and the allocated plots. 34.The 3rd defendant denied the alleged collusion of its officials with the 1st defendant to grab the plaintiffs’ parcel of land, or collusion between its officials and the 1st and 2nd defendants to obtain title to the suit land. 35.The 3rd defendant denies that the plaintiffs, upon allocation of the land, took possession and occupied the same plots. The 3rd defendant denies that the County Planner failed in its duty to rectify or amend the plan or draw a new deed plan. 36.The 3rd defendant denies that it failed in its duties to exclude the 100-meter stretch adjacent to the fence in the forecourt of the 2nd defendant touching on the Lodwar – Kitale Highway for reasons that there was no plan to be amended or rectified since the suit land was already registered under an absolute proprietor and no surrender of land was made to the defunct council. 37.The 3rd defendant denies the particulars of unlawfulness, illegalities, collusion, or unlawfulness attributed to it and the 5th defendant or with the 1st and 2nd defendants. The 3rd defendant avers that there is no backup storage system from the defunct municipal council of Turkana to verify the documents held by the plaintiffs, save for the land register showing that the plaintiffs were allocated plots with specific plot numbers within Lodwar municipality, which unfortunately shows no particulars of the size, location of the property allocated, survey plan, land rent-payment receipts, and letters of confirmation. 38.The 3rd defendant avers that it is true that the defunct municipal council of Lodwar was the one that allocated the land to both the plaintiffs and the interested parties, which had certain conditions attached thereto, including payment of land rates and development of the property within an ascertained period of time. 39.The 4th, 5th, and 6th defendants oppose the suit through an amended statement of defence dated 18/9/2025. The 4th, 5th, and 6th defendants insist that they played no role in the alleged allocation or land purchase or in the transactions alluded to in the amended plaint. Equally, the 4th, 5th, and 6th defendants deny knowledge or being party to the contents of paragraphs 10, 11, 11A, 11B, 12, 12A, 14, 14A, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,22,22A, 23, 24, and 25 of the amended plaint. 40.The 4th, 5th, and 6th defendants deny knowledge of the alleged eviction notice or the alleged arrangements between the interested party and the defunct municipal council of Lodwar. The 4th, 5th, and 6th defendants aver that the 5th defendant always performed its work with due regard to the Survey Act and any other applicable regulations; hence, its actions were lawful. 41.The 4th, 5th, and 6th defendants state that it got no agent called the ICT authority as alleged in paragraph 11B of the amended plaint; otherwise, any other licensed and registered surveyor could conduct a survey over a parcel of land with the authority or instructions of the owner. 42.The 5th defendant avers that it has always conducted its business with utmost honesty and good faith, with a lot of professionalism, and as such, the reports done in respect to this suit property were a reflection of the information in respect to the suit parcel of land. 43.The 4th, 5th, and 6th defendants deny the contents of paragraph 21A of the amended plaint, more specifically that they interfered with the PDP and relied on illegal documents to process the title deed, and state that they acted in good faith and with a lot of due diligence. 44.The 4th, 5th, and 6th defendants, with respect to paragraphs 27-34(C), aver that the interested party acquired the suit property by way of a lease from the National Government for a term of 99 years, while the 1st defendant acquired the same by way of land purchase; hence, it lawfully transferred the same to the 1st defendant as the current owner. 45.The 4th, 5th, and 6th defendants term the suit as incurably defective, incompetent, scandalous, speculative, and without any semblance of cause of action. The 4th, 5th, and 6th defendants averred that the interested party was the leasehold owner of the suit land measuring 42.02 Ha. 46.The 4th, 5th, and 6th defendants aver that following a transfer which was duly executed on behalf of the interested party and lodged for registration on 22/2/2017. 47.It is averred that the said parcel of land was transferred and registered in favour of the 1st defendant for a valuable consideration, which had been acknowledged by the interested party. 48.The 4th, 5th, and 6th defendants aver that as a consequence of the transfer, the 1st defendant is the current leasehold owner of the remainder of the lease in respect of the suit title. The 4th, 5th, and 6th defendants contend that the said registrations were based on duly executed lease and transfer documents together with other crucial completion documents, such as the consent to transfer and the fact that the said parcel of land was unencumbered at the time of the transfer, and that all statutory fees were paid. 49.The 4th, 5th, and 6th defendants aver that they acted in good faith and after exercising due diligence pursuant to their statutory and constitutional authority and were not party to the alleged prior or subsequent allocations to or purchases by the plaintiffs. 50.The 4th, 5th, and 6th defendants contend that the plaintiffs’ alleged land allocation or land purchased in respect of the said parcel of land was never registered at the land registry in the County, hence their interests remain speculative or non-registrable rights or interests as opposed to the 1st defendant, whose interest or right had crystallised upon registration. 51.The plaintiffs filed replies to the statements of defence by the defendants dated 12/6/2025, 11/9/2025, and 23/9/2025, respectively. The plaintiffs term the title held by the 1st and 2nd defendants as unlawfully and irregularly acquired. The plaintiffs insist that the 3rd defendant agent is the one who prepared and approved a PDP in favour of the interested party, subsuming the plaintiffs’ plots without any consultation or consent from them, where it totally ignored or overlooked the existing land register, PDPs, and survey demarcation clearing identifying their plots as lawfully allocated and occupied by them. 52.The plaintiffs term the site plan as aligning with its ground status report, showing that the defendants had full knowledge of the existence of their plots before issuing and registering the lease in favour of the interested party and later the 1st and 2nd defendants. The plaintiffs aver that the 2nd defendant is liable for the procedural impropriety and illegality, as it actively participated in the alienation leading to the issuance of a title deed. 53.The plaintiffs aver that the 2nd defendant is the one who served them with an eviction notice dated 31/5/2019, accompanied by an ICT Survey Report dated 8/1/2019, a clear indication that it was prepared at the 2nd defendant’s instructions. 54.At the hearing, the plaintiffs testified through Abdullah Wamala as (PW1). Eliud Wakubha Sore (PW2), James Njenga Nyaga (PW3), Rodger Samenya (PW4), David Kinyonge (PW5), Jecinta Epenyonyi (PW6), Festus Ekitela Lorongoi (PW7), Mude Hussein Mohamed (PW8), David Chege Kariuki (PW9), Jackson Lomoe (PW10), to advance their claim. 55.Abdulrahman Wamala, as the 5th plaintiff, relied on a witness statement dated 4/4/2025 as his evidence-in-chief. Briefly, he told the court that in the year 2012, he received information that the defunct Lodwar Municipal Council was allocating a parcel of land near the University land, situated within Kanamkemer location, to which he visited their offices expressing interest in the plot and was advised to make a formal application, which he did. 56.PW1 said that he thereafter received an allotment letter on 16/1/2013 for Plot No. 920, after a survey was conducted by Mr. Mark Oyoo.PW1 said that since allocation alongside other allottees, they have occupied the land peacefully and managed to fence it with a barbed wire fence and put up developments therein. 57.PW1 said that on 20/6/20219, the plot owners received a demand letter from the 1st defendant to vacate the land parcel No. 14691/425 Kanamkemer Turkana County, which is different from Plot No. 920, yet the one belonging to the university is distinct, intact, and well fenced, which they have not encroached upon. 58.PW1 said that he also learned from a friend or neighbour that the 1st defendant had hired goons to cause malicious damage to his property alongside those of other occupants, leading to the initial suit, to which a temporary orders of injunction were issued. 59.PW1 relied on an allocation letter dated 27/8/2012 as P. Exhibit No. (1), receipt of the same date as P. Exhibit No. (2), letter dated 27/8/2012 as P. Exhibit No. (3), letter dated 30/8/2012 as P. Exhibit No. (4), demarcation survey record dated 8/2/2012 as P. Exhibit No. (5), Brief on pages 111-114 of the bundle as P. Exhibit No. (6), photographs and a certificate as P. Exhibit No. 7(a), (b), (c), and (d), OB No. 77/12/02/2021 as per P. Exhibit No. (8), valuation reports dated 6/9/2021 and 1/4/2025, PMFI No. (9) and (10), ground survey status report dated 11/9/2022 as PMFI No. (11), letter dated 27/4/2020 as P. Exhibit No. (12), letter dated 12/5/2020 as P. Exhibit No. (13), note to vacate dated 31/5/2019 and 24/6/2019 as P. Exhibit No. (14) and (15), respectively. 60.PW1 also relied on a notice to produce as P. Exhibit No. (16), allotment letters for Plot No. 692 dated 14/9/2011 as P. Exhibit No. (17), survey report dated 2019 as PMFI No. (18), allotment letter dated 16/1/2013 as P. Exhibit No. (19), letter dated 25/7/2013 as P. Exhibit No. (20), demarcation survey report of Plot No. 920 as P. Exhibit No. (21). 61.PW1 said that he did not make a written application for the plot allocation. He said that the minutes to allocate land are showing a meeting that had taken place on 23/9/1992, only for the allotment letter to be issued ten years thereafter. PW1 confirmed that there were conditions in the allotment letter, including developing the plot within 2 years of issuance. 62.PW1 confirmed that P. Exhibit No. (3) was silent on the plot acreage.PW1 confirmed that the 1st defendant had obtained a title for the land, which he had not registered as a caution over. PW1 said that he had not developed hostels on the land by the time the premises were demolished. 63.PW1 denied that his allocation of the land came after the land had been acquired by the University. PW1 confirmed that some of the allottees were former councilors with the defunct Municipal Council of Turkana. He denied that he was a mere speculator on the land. PW1 confirmed that he was 17 years old at the time he was allocated the land in 1992. Shown receipt dated 28/8/2012, PW1 confirmed who the Town Clerk was by then. 64.Similarly, PW1 confirmed that the letter of allotment is silent on the coordinates of the allocated plot, though the same appear in the survey report produced as P. Exhibit No. (20). The court noted the demeanor of the witness. 65.PW1 admitted that P. Exhibit No. (20) was not preceded by any invoice. Equally, PW1 admitted that the receipt produced had vital features missing, such as a payment stamp. Equally, PW1 admitted that the allotment letter had no accompanying PDP. PW1 said that P. Exhibit No. (4) did not refer to any approved PDP. 66.PW1 confirmed that the title held by the 1st defendant had defined boundary features of the land and was accompanied by a deed plan, showing that the land extends to the Lodwar – Kitale Highway. PW1 admitted that he had not started developing the plot by the time of the issuance of the notice to vacate. Equally, PW1 said that he had not received demand notices for ground land rent and rates. 67.PW2, on his part, told the court that he carried out a ground survey status report on request by the plaintiffs regarding Plots Nos. 931, 932, 829, 976, 750, 920, and 888 in relation to L.R. No. 14691/421, and came up with a report dated 11/9/2022, which he produced as P. Exhibit No. (11). He also relied on an affidavit sworn on 25/5/2022, attaching his practicing certificate, receipt dated 11/9/2022, and certificate of registration dated 11/11/1993 as P. Exhibit Nos. 12(a), (b), (c), and (d). 68.PW2 told the court that he prepared the report on 11/11/2022 during the pendency of this suit without the involvement of the defendants or the interested parties. PW1 said that he relied on the plaintiffs’ allotment letters to identify the disputed plots, which unfortunately lacked plot sizes. PW2 confirmed that the 1st and 2nd defendants’ certificate of title is based on a deed plan. PW2 admitted that the letters of allotment lacked coordinates, sizes, or measurements for the respective plots. 69.Further, PW1 said that he conducted no official search or inquiries with the Turkana County Government to verify the authenticity of the allotment letters. PW1 admitted that the Physical Planning Department was the one in charge of physical planning. He termed the plan appearing in the bundle as ineligible. 70.Equally, he confirmed that the allotment letters were silent on the head lessor. PW2 said that his report solely relied on the survey plan from the defunct council, but not on any physical planning plans or reports from the Physical Planning Department; hence, his report was not based on any approved PDP. 71.PW3 was the 4th plaintiff. He relied on a witness statement dated 4/4/2025 as his evidence-in-chief. PW3 produced a sale agreement dated 31/5/2016 as P. Exhibit No. (22), deposit slip dated 31/6/2016 as P. Exhibit No. (23), receipt of payment dated 31/5/2016 as P. Exhibit No. (24), receipt for payment of survey application and survey issued on 28/6/2016 as P. Exhibit No. (25), letter of demarcation dated 26/7/2016 as PMFI-(26), demarcation survey report dated 26/7/2016 as PMFI No. (27), allotment letter dated 22/8/2012 as PMFI No. (28), minutes dated 1/4/2011 as PMFI No. (29), letter dated 12/5/2021, and an affidavit by Anthony Mwangi Ndungu as PMFI No. (30). 72.PW3 confirmed that the original allottee of the plot was Jackson Lomole, who had not developed the plot at the time he bought it in 2016. PW3 told the court that he had done due diligence to verify the ownership of the plot, going by the documents availed to him by the initial allottee. PW3 said that he was not aware that one could transact merely on a letter of allotment. 73.PW3 said that he was not aware that the 1st defendant was the registered owner of the land by the time he bought it on the strength of the letter of allotment for Plot No. 790, since the county surveyor had confirmed to him the validity of the allotment letter. 74.PW3 said that his development structures on the land were demolished by the 1st and 2nd defendants. PW3 said that he had already fenced the land, erected a container on the land, and planted some trees therein, on which a church was being operated by his caretaker. 75.PW3 confirmed that the initial allottee did not supply him with any application that he had made to be allocated the plot. PW3 said that he was not aware that the allotment letter had expired, and the land reverted to the county, on account of a breach of its terms and conditions, after 2 years of the issuance. Equally, PW3 said that he did not come across any acceptance letter of the offer by the initial allottee. According to PW3, he conducted adequate due diligence before purchasing the land, including obtaining P. Exhibit No. (26). 76.PW3 admitted that the allotment letter and P. Exhibit No. (26), as well as PMFI Nos. 28 and 29, were silent on the plot size, its measurements, and locality. Equally, PW3 confirmed that the allotment letter did not refer to or was not accompanied by an approved PDP from the Director of Physical Planning. 77.PW3 said that he could not tell if there was an advertisement for the plots before the allocation in 1992. PW2 said that he had no receipts to prove payments of land rates and land rents for the plot. As to the demarcation that happened on 26/7/2016, PW3 could not tell if the same was based on any approved PDP or development plan. 78.PW3 said that he did not make any inquiries with the Mt. Kenya University or the 1st defendant about the plot when he was purchasing it, regarding the alleged surrender of the same for reallocation. PW3 said that he did not know that the 1st defendant had obtained a lease for the land on 1/3/2013, based on the survey plan FR 405918 dated 29/7/2016. 79.PW3 claimed that the University was only allocated 100 acres and not 142 acres. PW3 said that the seller had not disclosed to him any meeting or rival claims over the land by either the interested party or the 1st and 2nd defendants at the time he bought the land. 80.Despite seeing the University on the land, PW3 said that he nevertheless went ahead to purchase the plot after the county surveyor assured him and prepared PMFI No. (27) and on the strength of P. Exhibit No. (19). PW3 clarified that, going by the certificate of title issued on 15/8/2016, it is apparent that the land was duly registered and surveyed with clear boundaries, which was three months after he had bought it. PW3 said that he did inquire why, after the issuance of an allotment letter in 1992, the initial allottee of Plot No. 790 had not developed the land, who claimed that he lacked resources to do so. 81.Concerning the payment of the consideration in the account of the allottee’s mother, PW3 said that he did not make inquiries about the same. PW3 said that he started development or fenced off the land without approvals from the county government of Turkana, though he had lodged an application dated 28/6/2016 with the county. 82.PW3 said that he did not come across evidence of any settlement of the dispute between the allottees and the university regarding the surrender, going by the minutes dated 14/2/2011, before he bought the plot. Asked about the ID Card of the initial allottee, who was born on 28/11/1991, yet it is alleged he had been allocated the plot in 1992, PW3 could not tell how he was able to be allocated the land while he was only one year old at the time. 83.PW3 said that he had already purchased the land on 30/5/2016, by the time the certificate of lease and deed plan accompanying it were issued on 15/8/2016 and 29/7/2016, respectively. PW1 could not explain how his plot No. 790 ended up being plot No. 186. 84.Rodgers Samenya testified as PW4. He relied on a witness statement dated 4/5/2025 as his evidence-in-chief. PW4 told the court that he bought Plot No. 829, measuring one acre of land, from Festus Ekitela Lorogoi and erected a fence around it in 2015, which was adjacent to the University. 85.PW4 said that he talked to the neighbours of the plot and also visited the county government offices and confirmed that the seller is the owner. He also said that an officer by the name Samson also assured him that the University land did not cover the said plots, going by the survey plan that he showed him. 86.PW4 said that after ascertaining the ownership on 4/5/2015, he signed, wrote, and signed a sale agreement with the seller before Oduor Stanley Advocate to purchase the plot at Kshs. 600,000/=, which he paid through a money transfer. PW4 said that he thereafter took vacant possession until 2019, when he learned of a notice to vacate from his neighbour, sent by the 1st and 2nd defendants. 87.PW4 said that he then paid a visit to the college's principal, Prof. Thomas Akuj, who, after a week, issued him with a notice to vacate dated 24/5/2019, giving him a month to vacate Plot No. 829, said to be part of the university land, hence the suit. PW4 said that he later on found out that the university went ahead to demolish his fence without a court order. PW4 said that he also made a report at Lodwar Police Station vide OB No. 77/12/02/2021 on 15/2/2021 for the malicious damage to his fence by the university, and later on, after inaction, wrote to the DCI Headquarters. 88.PW4 said that in March 2019, a joint meeting took place between the Subcounty Security Committee, Land Office Turkana County, under the chairman of the area DCC, with the attendance of the Director of Surveys, Turkana County, who clarified that during the time the Turkana University was buying the land from the University, the plaintiffs were already in occupation, based on valuation report dated 69/2016 from the Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning Nairobi. 89.PW4 said that the plaintiffs ought to seek redress from the County Chief Officer, Lands, Housing and Urban Areas Management, who, through a letter dated 12/5/2020, clarified that the disputed land belonged to individual allottees as per the affidavit filed by the Deputy Director for Surveys, one Henry Ekai Nalipan. 90.PW4 said that on 24/8/2019, there was a visit to the land by the Department of Survey, Turkana County Government, to ascertain the status of the plots from their record, considering the registration of L.R. No.14695/925 in favour of the 1st and 2nd defendants. PW4 said that one Mumo Mutemi, a Land Surveyor from the Department of Land, who had demarcated plot No. 790, told him that parcels of land fronting the Lodwar Kitale Highway were overlapped by the deed plan of the university while preparing its lease title. 91.PW4 said that he also shared with him a university site plan that had covered 52.9981 Ha, contrary to 42.021 Ha contained in the certificate of lease and the deed plan, which was equivalent to 100 acres of land as per the municipal council of Lodwar records at the allotment stage. PW4 said that with the help of PW3, they secured the services of PW2, a licensed surveyor, who visited the land on 11/9/2022 and prepared a report showing that the fenced university land covered 54.23 Ha and not 42.77 Ha. 92.PW4 said that upon purchase, he was handed the plot allotment letter and receipts to facilitate the change of ownership. PW4 said that he was also familiar with the Approved County Integrated Strategic Urban Development Plan 2011-2030, which was certified and approved on 22/12/2015 by the then governor, which shows the land tenure, land registration status, and the size of the land that was allocated to the University. 93.PW4, who relied on the affidavit sworn by Anthony Ndungu Mwangi on 1/8/2018, confirmed that the University land covers the plaintiffs’ plots. PW4 relied on as exhibits a sale agreement dated 45/2015, P. Exhibit No. (31), deposit slip, P. Exhibit No. (32), receipts issued on 15/7/2015, P. Exhibit No. (33), allotment letter accompanied by a receipt issued on 28/8/2012 as P. Exhibit No.34(a) and (b). 94.Further, PW4 relied on a gazette notice No. 2676 of 7/3/2025, declaring the area as an administration area, P. Exhibit No. (35), County Integrated Strategic Plan 2011-2030, published in November 2013, P. Exhibit No. (36), and a valuation report as PMFI No. (9). 95.In cross-examination, PW4 confirmed that the land was unregistered when he bought plot No. 829 from the initial allottee on 4/5/2015, who used to be a town clerk at the defunct municipal council of Turkana, whose allotment letter showed that the allocation had taken place in 1992. PW4 confirmed that their terms and conditions in the allotment letter, with which the initial allottee had not complied, save for putting up a perimeter fence. 96.PW4 confirmed that by 2019, he had not made any developments on the land. PW4 clarified that his letter of allotment had no PDP or deed plan. PW4 clarified that P. Exhibit No. 34(a) had no plot size or coordinates to ascertain its locality and boundaries. PW4 could not clarify the inconsistencies in P. Exhibit No. 34(a) and (b) regarding the names. 97.PW4 insisted that he had conducted enough due diligence at the county government offices. He could not tell whether the land registration records held by the government had been swept away by floods a while ago. 98.PW4 said that he had no copy of the plot register held by the county government showing the status of plot No. 829. PW4 blamed the 3rd and 5th defendants for using the deed plan covering his plot to allocate the said land to the University, the 1st defendant, which was later transferred to the 2nd defendant. 99.PW4 told the court that he had no application letter showing that the seller had initially applied to be allocated plot No. 829. PW4 insisted that the university had surrendered the plots before they were re-allocated to individuals. At this juncture, the court noted that documents supplied to the parties on 6/3/2026 were not before the court when PW1 and PW2 testified and were supplied thereafter without leave of court. 100.Further, PW4 confirmed that his name is missing in the cash transfer form produced as P. Exhibit No. (32). PW4 admitted that the seller did not supply him with either an application or an acceptance letter for the allotment offer. PW4 clarified that P. Exhibit No. 34(b) had not captured the plot numbers, such as plot No. 829. PW4 said that other than visiting the county offices and the physical planner’s office, he made no official search at the land registry. 101.PW4 confirmed that the 1st and 2nd defendants had a PDP, which had a departmental Ref. No./WA/341/1 012, No. Approval Plan/3, and a date of 23/4/2012. 102.PW4 said that he was not aware of the existence of the PDP when he bought his plot in 2015. PW4 said that other than the letter dated 12/5/2020 from the 3rd defendant, he had no other document to confirm registration of the suit land in favour of the university and later the 1st and 2nd defendants. 103.PW4 said that he did not obtain any documents from one Samson to verify his assertion that the University land did not extend to the main highway. PW4 said that he had no minutes for the alleged joint meeting with the Subcounty Security Committee. 104.According to PW4, PMFI No. (9) had shown the area as zoned for the University for educational purposes. PW4 admitted that a chief officer lacks the power to allocate land, and therefore the letter dated 20/5/2020 was not accompanied by any supporting documents to back the said opinion on the authenticity of the plot ownership. 105.PW4 could not tell if the initial allottee had followed up to be issued a certificate of lease or title from the allocating authority. PW4 could not tell if the seller was also the signatory to the letter of allotment since he was also the town clerk at the time of allocation up to 2013. PW4 could not tell what an unsurveyed plot was going by P. Exhibit No. (11). PW4 clarified that the F/R No. 590/103 had shown the boundaries between their plots and the 1st and 2nd defendants’ land, with no open space between the Mt. Kenya University and the main highway. 106.PW4 said that he had only made verbal inquiries on the ownership status of the plot from the Mt. Kenya University before buying Plot No. 829. Thought P. Exhibit No. (8) shows that its allocation took place on 26/11/2011. PW4 could not confirm if P. Exhibit No. 34(a) and (b) were also signed by the town clerk who sold the plot to him. PW4 denied that the seller had abused his office by allocating a plot to himself. 107.David Edoket Kinyonge testified as PW5. He relied on a witness statement dated 4/4/2025 as his evidence-in-chief. As a former mayor of the defunct municipal council of Turkana between 2008 and 2013. PW5 told the court that sometime in 2010, the then Deputy Principal of the University, Mr. Mati Felis Sialo, applied for land allocation to the defunct municipal council for its Lodwar Campus, whose request was considered, and the proposed university campus was allocated 100 acres of land in the Kanamkemer area. 108.PW5 said that, upon allocation, due to public outcry from the local community insisting that the Mt. Kenya University land should not extend to the main highway, and that the university should cede the frontage area for reallocation to individuals. The municipal council ceded a 100-meter stretch of land, earlier allocated to the Mt. Kenya University, and allocated the same to private individuals, who had expressed interest in the same. PW5 told the court that the Mt. Kenya University, through a letter dated 28/1/2011, requested to be compensated with a piece of land at the back of its compound, equivalent to 100 meters that had been taken from it at the front. 109.PW5 said that by a town planning committee meeting held on 12/2/2011, the council approved the said compensation by extending the land at the back by 100 meters from the last beacon, once they engaged the local county for the same, which request was also implemented by the council vide a letter dated 26/11/2011, with which the Mt. Kenya University acknowledged compliance. 110.PW5 said that thereafter, the new allottees were issued with allotment letters, since the land fell under the Trust Land Act. PW5 said that the said minutes were also ratified by the full council. He did not avail the full council minutes, other than saying that the town clerk, then known as Festus, was present during the meeting. PW5 confirmed that Mt. Kenya University took full possession of the 100 acres once the application was done around January 2010. 111.PW5 confirmed that all the allotment letters were backdated to 1992. He could not tell the basis of the reference to 1992. He denied that it was a cover-up for illegal reallocation of the land already belonging to the university, which had already moved on to process a title deed for 100 acres. PW5 said that the defunct council was justified in repossessing and reallocating the land to private individuals. PW5 said that they had not come across any letter of surrender of the 100 meters or acceptance of the proposal to surrender the same by the University. 112.PW5 said that once the land was allocated for educational purposes, it was not possible to be reallocated for private use. According to PW5, Mt. Kenya University was ably compensated with an alternative land of equivalent size. PW5 admitted that there was a constitutional change in 2010/2013 during the alleged allocation. 113.PW5 said that the defunct municipal council did not seek or need permission from the national government to repossess and reallocate the land already set aside for public educational use. PW5 said that if there was already a PDP in place, his council did not seek the opinion of a physical planner or recommend an amendment to the PDP to cater for the reallocation; otherwise, they acted in the best interests of the community. 114.PW5 confirmed that the proposal to repossess and reallocate the land was initiated by the then town clerk, courtesy of the local community. PW5 confirmed that PMFI No. (29) shows that it is the physical planner who proposed pushing Mt. Kenya University away from the frontage to the main highway. PW5 confirmed seeking some application letters from members of the public expressing interests to be allocated plots. 115.PW5 said that the minutes show that there were consultations involving the Mt. Kenya University and other stakeholders. PW5 clarified that he was not the chair of the committee or a signatory to the minutes. PW5 said that the issue of compensation was left with the town clerk to implement. PW5 admitted that their action to quell the public outcry may not have followed the law on repossession and reallocation of land set aside for public use. PW5 was surprised to learn that among the beneficiaries of the reallocation were the then town clerk and the then deputy principal of Mt. Kenya University, Dr Sialo. 116.Jecinta Akal Epeyon testified as PW6. She relied on a witness statement dated 4/4/2025 as her evidence-in-chief. As a former nominated councilor and chairperson of the town planning committee of the defunct municipal council of Turkana, she associated her testimony with that of PW5 regarding the allocation of 100 acres to the Mt. Kenya University and thereafter the repossession of 100 metres at the front of its gate by private individuals, among them the plaintiffs, after a public outcry. 117.Further, PW6 said that the town clerk was not among the herders who had raised the public outcry. She could not tell if discussions with the Mt. Kenya University took place or what their outcomes were. PW6 did not confirm whether she was the signatory to the minutes before the court or was producing them. PW6 could not rule out misallocation or double allocation of the plots. 118.PW6 agreed with counsel for the county government that it would be unlawful to reallocate for private use land already allocated for public use or for educational purposes. Failure, if any, to comply with the law on allocation according to PW6 will only be visited upon the defunct municipal council’s officers. 119.PW6 blamed the then town clerk and the physical planner if there was any irregularity in the reallocation of the disputed suit land. PW6 said that her committee had no power to repossess and reallocate land already set aside for public or educational purposes to be used for private purposes. PW6 could not tell if a notice to repossess and reallocate was published by her committee or the municipal council of Turkana. 120.Again, PW6 said that she would not recall her committee receiving approval from other defunct Commissioners of Lands or the then Ministry of Land and Settlement over the repossession and reallocation. PW6 said she could not recall a notice of compensation being issued to the University before the repossession and reallocation. 121.Equally, PW6 said that the minutes were silent on whether the University approved the request for surrender or repossession and reallocation of 100 meters of its land, or acceptance of compensation for an equivalent position at the back of its compound. PW6 said that upon allocation, the duty was on the beneficiaries to follow up on the issuance of the title deed, just like Mt. Kenya University did to obtain a certificate of lease. 122.PW6 admitted that the Mt. Kenya University allocation of 100 acres was informed by its social, economic, and educational impact as an institution of its nature, as the first one in the region to be in the county. PW6 could not ascertain if there were negotiations, resolutions, and agreements with the University before the meeting on 14/2/2011, captured on PMFI No. (29) concerning the repossession and compensation. 123.PW6 confirmed that in the letter dated 14/12/2011, Mt. Kenya University had been allocated 100 acres, which were eventually captured in the lease issued in 2016. Answering questions from the court, PW6 said that PMFI No. (29) were supposed to go to the full council meeting for ratification. 124.Festus Ekitale Ekitela Lorongoi testified as PW7. He relied on a witness statement dated 4/4/2025 as his evidence-in-chief. PW7 told the court that he was a former Town Clerk of the defunct Municipal Council of Turkana, up to the year 2013. PW7 said that the Mt. Kenya University, having surrendered 100 meters stretch of land fronting the Lodwar - Kitale Highway, said the parcel was allocated to members of the public who had expressed interest in the area. 125.PW7 said that the University was compensated with a 100-meter stretch of land behind it, hence maintaining the 100 acres of land allocated to it by the defunct municipal council. PW7 said that they prepared their plan as per their allocation, which was approved for the development of the University Lodwar Campus, currently known as Turkana University College of Masinde Muliro of Science and Technology University. 126.PW7 said that the Mt. Kenya University had also been issued with an allotment letter No. 692 measuring 100 acres under his land as the then clerk. PW7 said that all the members of the public who were allocated the 100-meter land took vacant possession of their respective plots, fenced them off, and some of them started carrying out developments thereon. 127.Further, PW7 said that throughout his term as a town clerk, land within Turkana County used to be administered under the Trust Land Act and no land had yet been registered with a certificate of title, a position that obtains to date. PW7 said that he also acquired a plot measuring 1 acre by way of allocation, after which he transferred it to Rodgers Samanya on 14/5/2015 at a consideration of Kshs.600,000/=, who did not raise any complaint to him until 2019 when the 1st and 2nd defendants issued a notice to vacate the land dated 24/6/2019. 128.In cross-examination, PW7 denied he was a town clerk when the Mt. Kenya University was allocated the land. He said his involvement only arose during the public engagement, particularly the community efforts to apply for land allocation. Asked if he was one of the herders who were entitled to allocation, and if the community members' intention to be allocated land was to erect hostels, PW7 was non-committal. He feigned a lack of awareness of the same. PW7 termed the title deed, if any, held by the Mt. Kenya University as fake 129.PW7 said that it was the community that advised them to apply for the land allocation. PW7 said that the land initially belonged to the community as trust land. PW7, contrary to his witness statement, said that what he was allocated was one acre and not one hectare. PW7 denied taking advantage of his position to acquire the plot. 130.PW7 said he could not remember how much he sold the land to PW5 for. PW7 said that he was not a physical planner to verify whether what he was allocated and sold to PW5 was one acre or one hectare, since he measured the approximate size using his bare eyes. PW7 said that there were several other allottees, whose numbers or the size(s) of land allocated, he could not remember. 131.PW7 said that part of his responsibilities as a town clerk was to oversee valid records on the allocation of plots within the municipality. He said that all the land records of the defunct municipality were handed over to the incoming county government. 132.PW7 said that if there were any wrong entries in those records, he would not be solely responsible since there were other officers, such as the clerk, the register administrator, and the deputy town clerk, with whom he would share the responsibility. He denied that he abused his office by allocating land to himself. 133.Further, PW7 said that he had applied for the plot, though he did not have a copy before the occurrence. PW7 said that what he obtained was an allotment letter produced as P. Exhibit No. 34(a), which was issued to him in 1992. Asked about his age in 1992, PW7 said that he was still in primary school. PW7 said that he was the one who signed the allotment letter in his capacity as the town clerk in 2012. 134.PW7 said that he paid Kshs.12,900/= for allotment fees as per an invoice generated by the clerk register. PW7 said that the land belonging to Mt. Kenya University, as allocated, did not extend up to the Lodwar - Kitale Highways. 135.PW7 declined to answer questions posed to him on repossession of the 100-meter stretch and compensation for the same with an alternative land of equivalent size. The court observed the demeanor of the witness. He said that he had no minutes or documents to prove his assertion on surrender, repossession, and compensation of the 100-meter stretch. 136.PW7 insisted that the land currently occupied by the 1st and 2nd defendants was more than what was allocated to them as 100 acres, by close to three acres. PW7 insisted that the extra land occupied by the 1st and 2nd defendants lawfully belongs to the plaintiffs. PW7 insisted that the title deed held by the 1st and 2nd defendants was fake or fraudulently obtained. 137.PW7 admitted that he was the signatory to the letter of allotment in favour of Mt. Kenya University dated 14/12/2011, vide council minutes of 23/9/1992. PW7 also admitted that he was the signatory to all the allotment letters issued to the claimants for the 100 meters of land, which Mt. Kenya University surrendered to the council for reallocation. PW7 admitted that he did not issue an equivalent letter of allotment of 100 meters of land to the University as compensation for the 100-meter stretch at the front. 138.PW7 conceded that he applied for the land in 2010 and not 1992. PW7 could not explain why the allotment letters were referenced to 1992, yet they were issued in 2012 or thereabouts. PW7 said that it was the chief who undertook public engagements before the reallocation of the 100-meter stretch. 139.Asked why he did not pursue a title deed after allocation, PW7 had no answer other than saying that, as a local herder, he was entitled to be allocated the plot measuring 100ft by 100ft. This was contrary to what he had earlier said was 100 meters by 100 meters. 140.Mude Hussein Mohamed, the 1st plaintiff, testified as PW8. He relied on a witness statement dated 4/4/2025 as his evidence-in-chief. PW8 told the court that he applied for land and allocated plot Nos. 931 and 932, opposite the University land in Kanamkemer in 2012, by the town planning committee. PW8 said that after his application was approved, he was taken to the land by the area committee, and an officer from the municipality showed him the plots, made payments for land rent and rates as per a receipt issued on 8/7/2012. 141.PW8 said that after payments, he fenced the two plots measuring 0.6910 Ha and 0.6337 Ha respectively, and was issued with receipts No. 14918 and 14916 for Plots No. 931 and 932. PW8 said that he was later issued with the plot ownership confirmation document per the attached minutes Ref. No. PA/1/4/72, Serial No. 1369, and minutes No. PA/1/4/92 Serial No. 1370, all dated 23/1/2012. 142.PW8 said that he also received a confirmation of plot demarcation from the Turkana District Survey office, signed by Mr. Mark Oyoo, the then District Surveyor, dated 9/1/2012, and later obtained an official allotment letter, Ref. No. PAP/1/4/92, Serial No. 1369 for plot No. 931 and Ref. No. PAP/1/4/92, Serial No. 1370 for plot No. 932, Kanamkemer. PW8 said that he later learned that Turkana University officials had arranged for the demolition of the fenced parcels, alleging ownership of the same, leading to the filing of a suit after lodging a complaint with the CID Headquarters, Nairobi, dated 9/6/2021. 143.PW8 produced his documents, namely allotment letters dated 31/1/2013, demarcation letter dated 9/1/2013, and demarcation survey dated 9/1/2013, receipts issued on 9/1/2012, 8/2/2013, and 23/1/2013 as P. Exhibit No. (38), (39), (40), 41(a), (b), and (c). PW8 also relied on similar documents for plot No. 931 as P. Exhibit No. (42), (43), (44), (45), and 46(a), (b), and (47), respectively. 144.PW9 clarified that he was also a sitting councilor during the time of the allocation of the two plots. Though the allotment letters refer to the allocation made in 1992, PW8 clarified that he obtained the letters of allotment in 2013. PW8 denied that he abused his position to acquire the two plots. PW8 said that he was only able to fence off the plot, but not to develop it. Equally, PW8 could not explain why he did not follow up to obtain a title deed. 145.David Chege Kariuki testified as PW9. As a Licensed Valuer, he confirmed that the plaintiffs contracted him to undertake the valuation of plots Nos. 931, 932, 829, 976, 790, 920, and 888, situated in Kanamkemer, Lodwar, Turkana County, to which he visited the plots on 26/3/2025 and made a report dated 1/4/2025, which he produced as P. Exhibit No. (10). He said that the plots consist of an acreage of 10.09 acres with a return value of Kshs.47,000,000/= based on comparable data from the area where they are situated. 146.PW9 said that he did not find it necessary to consult or involve the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants during the valuation exercise. PW9 said that he relied on the allotment letters made available to him. He said that he never verified the acreage on the ground of each plot. PW9 admitted that the market comparable data he relied upon is not attached to his report. PW9 said that he never checked or ascertained the coordinates of the Mt. Kenya University land. 147.PW9 said that the only due diligence he conducted was over the allotment letter and nothing else; he said that he did not ascertain the authenticity or legality of the same from the relevant offices. PW9 said that his valuation was not based on the status of the land as of 2016. 148.PW9 said that the photos attached to the report are general but not specific to each plot. PW9 clarified that his report was silent on the annual appreciation value. PW9 admitted that the preamble to his report was erroneous as regards the acreage. PW9 termed the plots as unsurveyed land lacking both beacons and a survey map for identification purposes. 149.PW9 said that the report does not capture which client showed him which plot. PW9 said all the plots were vacant except plot No. 888. PW9 said that he relied on geometrics survey report to come up with his valuation. He denied that his report was full of assumptions. 150.Jackson Lumoe testified as PW10. He relied on a witness statement dated 4/4/2025 as his evidence-in-chief. He confirmed that he was allocated a plot No. 186 for commercial use next to the Mt. Kenya University land, which he later sold in 2016 to PW4, at Kshs.3,200,000/=. 151.Professor George Chemimigwa, the Principal of Turkana University College, testified as DW1. He relied on a witness statement dated 18/8/2021 as his evidence-in-chief. He told the court that the 2nd defendant is a constituent college of the Masinde Muliro University College of Science and Technology. 152.DW1 told the court that the Interested Party (Mt. Kenya University) was the leasehold owner of the land Title No. I.R. No. 6477, L.R. No. 14691/425 Kanamkemer, measuring 42.02 Ha, which, vide a sale agreement dated 30/11/2016, was sold to the 1st defendant with full developments thereon. DW1 told the court that upon payment of the agreed purchase price, the interested party transferred the aforesaid land to the 1st defendant, who subsequently registered it as the new owner, after the 3rd and 4th defendants gave the relevant consents to the transfer. 153.DW1 told the court that the certificate of title was clear on the demarcation of the land, as touching Kitale - Lodwar Highway, going by the deed plan, and hence took full possession of all the 42.02 Ha. DW2 said that the plaintiffs have no title whatsoever to any part of the suit land and have no colour of right whatsoever to be on the land, hence the basis upon which it issued notices dated 31/5/2019 to the plaintiffs to stop encroaching on its land by interfering with its fence. 154.DW1 denied that the plaintiffs were in occupation of parts of its land as alleged or at all, other than attempting to interfere with the fence, or the land which the interested party, before the sale and transfer, was fully occupied as the registered allottee and owner, hence was incapable of allocation to the plaintiff. 155.DW1 told the court that the plaintiffs have no documentary evidence of ownership of the said land and have never paid any rates or other outgoings in respect of the suit land. 156.DW1 said that it defeats logic that somebody can apply for allocation of land to build hostels, and before building the hostels, dispose of the land to third parties. DW1 said that the 1st and 2nd defendants were not privy to the surrender of any part of their land to the plaintiffs, and at no time were they compensated. 157.Similarly, DW1 said that at the time the 1st defendant purchased the land from the interested party, there was nothing on the register confirming the plaintiffs’ interest in the land, if any, making the plaintiffs’ suit misconceived, lacking merit, and an abuse of the court process. 158.DW1 produced the following documents as exhibits, namely, a certificate of title in the name of Mt. Kenya University as D. Exhibit No. 1(a) and (b), a certificate of lease as D. Exhibit No. (2), sale agreement dated 30/11/2016, as D. Exhibit No. (3), transfer of title dated 9/2/2019 as D. Exhibit No. (4), certificate of title in the name of Masinde Muliro of Science and Technology University endorsed on 22/7/2017 as D. Exhibit No. (5), certificate of lease as endorsed for Masinde Muliro of Science and Technology University as D. Exhibit No. (6), plot clearance letter from the County Government of Turkana dated 4/12/2015 as D. Exhibit No. (7), letter of allotment dated 14/12/2011 as D. Exhibit No. (8), a consent to transfer dated 7/12/2016 as D. Exhibit No. (9), miscellaneous receipt issued on 14/12/2016 as D. Exhibit No. (10). 159.DW1 clarified that Turkan University College is a public university serving the country at large. DW1 said that the 1st and 2nd defendants bought the land, which was already surveyed, beaconed, and registered. DW1 said that he has not come across any registered instrument of surrender of part of the land in favour of the plaintiffs, contrary to the deed plan produced as P. Exhibit No. 1(b). 160.DW1 said that on the strength of the documents held by the interested party and the current exhibits, the 1st and 2nd defendants’ title was issued procedurally, regularly, and legally, hence the notice to stop any encroachment by the plaintiffs. DW1 said that after the notices were issued, the plaintiffs did not supply the 1st and 2nd defendants with any superior ownership documents for the alleged seven plots. DW1 denied that the 1st and 2nd defendants had accepted to surrender any part of their land or received compensation for the stretch at the front of their gate with an equivalent piece of land at the back of their land. 161.DW1 said that before purchasing the land from the interested party, it conducted due diligence both on the register and on the ground to confirm the land size, boundaries, and occupation on the ground as per the deed plan and title produced as D. Exhibit No. 1(a) and (b). 162.DW1 said that after the sale was finalised, Mt. Kenya University handed over vacant possession of the land to the 1st and 2nd defendants, with no adverse claim by anyone, at the handover ceremony. DW1 said that the 1st and 2nd defendants are public institutions occupying public land. 163.DW1 clarified that apart from the D. Exhibit No. (1) - (10), they have not produced minutes on how the land was initially allocated to Mt. Kenya University. DW1 said that he had no payment record showing clearance of the purchase price to Mt. Kenya University. DW1 said that the 1st and 2nd defendants had no reason to consult the plaintiffs before purchasing and taking possession of the land from the Mt. Kenya University, since no adverse claims had been raised by either the plaintiffs or the allocating authority, including the County Government of Turkana. 164.DW1 insisted that the acreage of the 1st and 2nd defendants’ land is approximately equivalent on the ground to what is reflected in the sale agreement, certificate of title, lease, and the deed plan. DW1 denied that the plaintiffs, as of 2015/2016, were in occupation of the alleged plots. DW1 said that he was not aware of any alleged surrender of part of its land in favour of the plaintiffs as captured in the minutes of allocation. 165.DW1 denied that its land was community land as alleged by the plaintiffs. DW1 said that the notices produced as D. Exhibit No. (10) were triggered by the plaintiffs’ act of attempting to destroy its perimeter fence. DW1 denied that there was a reservation or surrender of a 100-meter portion of its land as alleged by the plaintiff; otherwise, none was reflected on the register at the time the land was transferred from MKU to the 1st and 2nd defendants. DW1 denied any involvement of the 1st and 2nd defendants in the preparation of P. Exhibit No. (11). 166.Joseph Egram testified as DW2. He relied on a witness statement dated 16/6/2025 as his evidence-in-chief. He told the court that he was a Deputy Director of Survey of the 3rd defendant. DW2 relied on a proposed Mt. Kenya University site plan dated 28/5/2012 as D. Exhibit No. (11), which had been prepared by a County Physical Planner. 167.Further, DW2 said that from the minutes before the court, Mt. Kenya University had surrendered a portion of its land for reallocation to the plaintiffs as per P. Exhibit No. (29). DW2 said that he was not aware that another allotment letter was issued to Mt. Kenya University to compensate for the surrendered portion. 168.Equally, DW2 said that he had not come across any instrument of surrender for the said portion. DW2 admitted that D. Exhibit No. (11) had not been registered with the relevant authorities for it to be legal in line with the Surveys Act, to amend D. Exhibit No. 1(b). 169.DW1 said that all land allocation and registration documents held by the 3rd defendant were destroyed. DW2 admitted that he was not a registered land surveyor holding any valid license to practice survey work. DW2 admitted that in the absence of an amended survey plan, D. Exhibit No. 1(b) remains valid other than P. Exhibit No. (29). DW2 said that the county has no other valid documents to show that the plaintiffs’ seven plots were lawfully allocated as superior to the title documents held by the 1st and 2nd defendants. 170.DW2 said that D. Exhibit No. (7) dated 14/12/2015 was lawfully issued by the 3rd defendant to validate the land transfer between the 1st and 2nd defendants and the interested party. He said that the clearance letter did not mention any existing allotment letters for part of the land in favour of the plaintiffs. 171.DW2 said that the 3rd defendant had yet to receive any objection to the said transfer, registration, and issuance of title in favour of the 1st and 2nd defendants. DW2 confirmed that MKU was the 1st allottee to the suit land, which, following allotment, a deed plan, certificate of title, and lease were issued to it as per D. Exhibit No. 1(a) and (b) signed by the Director of Survey on 29/6/2016. 172.DW2 admitted that other than allotment letters held by the plaintiffs, the seven plots were never surveyed or perfected, and a PDP was not prepared by his office. DW2 could not tell what prompted the preparation of D. Exhibit No. (11) for he was not its signatory. He termed the allotment letter in favour of the plaintiffs as valid, giving them interests over the plots. 173.At this juncture, the interested party and the 2nd and 4th defendants opted to close their statements of defence without calling any witnesses. It is at this juncture that the plaintiffs unsuccessfully sought a site visit, which the defendants opposed, and the court declined to grant one. The plaintiff's counsel also brought it to the attention of the court that all the original documents were available for the court's perusal. The parties were directed to look at them and, if there was no objection, file a consent and lodge it with the deputy registrar before close of business that day. None were available by the close of the day as directed. 174.Parties thereafter were directed to file written submissions. 175.The court has carefully gone through the pleadings, evidence tendered by the parties, and the written submissions. The issues calling for my determination are:1.If Plot Nos. 931, 932, 829, 976A, 790, 920, and 888 were lawfully alienated to the plaintiffs or the initial allottees by the 2nd and 5th defendants, after an alleged surrender, compensation, and reallocation by the interested party.2.If the plaintiffs have proved that they are bona fide allottees or owners of the suit properties to be entitled to the orders sought.3.If the plaintiffs have proved any unlawfulness and illegality on the part of the 3rd and 5th defendants in failing to perfect the allotment of the suit properties under their names, both on the records and on the ground.4.If the 1st and 2nd defendants were justified in issuing a notice to the plaintiffs to vacate I.R. No. 6477, land parcel No. L.R. No. 14691/425 Kanamkemer, Lodwar, Turkana County.5.If the plaintiffs have proved that the 1st and 2nd defendants are registered owners of L.R. No. I.R. No. 6477 Land Parcel No. 14691/425, who were and remain trespassers on the suit properties.6.If the plaintiffs have proved illegalities against the 5th defendant in relation to its statutory duties relating to the processing, issuance of title, and a notice to vacate by the 1st and 2nd defendants.7.If the plaintiffs have proved collusion, illegality and unlawfulness on the part of the interested party, and the 3rd and 5th defendants in interfering with the Part Development Plan and Survey Plan to include the plaintiffs’ plots as part of the title held by the 1st and 2nd defendants.8.If the plaintiffs have proved that the 1st and 2nd defendants were not innocent purchasers for value of Land Parcel I.R. No. 6477, L.R. No. 14691/425 Kanamkemer, in view of their allotment letters.9.If the plaintiffs have proved that the registration of land known as I.R. No. 6477, L.R. No. 14691/425 was fraudulently, illegally, and irregularly obtained through the acts of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants.10.If the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought.11.Whether the 1st and 2nd defendants are duly registered as proprietors of Land Parcel Title No. I.R. No. 6477, L.R. No. 14691/425 Kanamkemer, Lodwar, Turkana County.12.Whether the suit land owned by the 1st and 2nd defendants is a community land.13.What is the order as to costs? 176.A cause of action is defined as acts on the part of the defendant that give rise to a cause of complaint by the plaintiff. See D.T. Dobie & Co. (K) Ltd. -vs- Muchina [1982] eKLR. What triggered the plaintiffs’ case is the notice issued by the 1st and 2nd defendants dated 31/5/2019 to the plaintiffs to vacate land known as I.R. No. 6477, L.R. No. 14691/425 Kanamkemer, initially owned by the interested party, who sold and transferred the lease title dated 10/8/2016 to the 1st and 2nd defendants on the strength of a deed plan No. 40.5918, certificate of title for 42.02 Ha and a sale agreement dated 30/11/2016. 177.The 1st and 2nd defendants, on their part, term the certificate of title issued to them as prima facie evidence of ownership in absolute and indefeasible terms, which was issued to them free of any encumbrances or overriding interests or rights. The 1st and 2nd defendants term themselves as innocent purchasers of the suit land for value and without notice of the plaintiffs. 178.The 1st and 2nd defendants term the alleged allotment letters held by the plaintiffs as invalid, for the land was not available for alienation after the 1st interested party, the initial interested party was initial first allottee, who did not surrender part of the land for reallocation to the plaintiffs. The 1st and 2nd defendants deny any alleged fraud, collusion, illegalities, and irregularities in the issuance of a title deed to them. The 1st and 2nd defendants deny that the plaintiffs have proved any case to be entitled to the reliefs sought. 179.The interested party supports the 1st and 2nd defendants' defenses, stating that it was the first allottee of the land as per D. Exhibit No. (8) dated 14/12/2011 for land measuring approximately 100 acres, which it did not cede any part of it for reallocation to the plaintiffs as alleged or at all, or receive an equivalent compensation for the same from the allocating authority. 180.The interested party pleads and submits that the issuance of its title, sale, and transfer of the land to the 1st and 2nd defendants were lawful, procedural, and regular. 181.The interested party submits that the 3rd and 6th plaintiffs failed to testify and prove their case. The interested party terms the evidence of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th plaintiffs as shaky, inconsistent, and based on documents that do not account for or are incapable of conferring a registerable or transferable title or interest in land, to override the certificate of lease and title issued to it. The interested party pleads and submits that the certificate of lease and title transferred to the 1st and 2nd defendants was free of any infirmities, making the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs unmerited. 182.The 5th and 6th defendants take the view that the suit property forms part of a large parcel that had already been allocated and set apart for institutional use by the interested party, which process was formalized by an Approved Development Plan No. 20 dated 23/4/2014, followed by survey and the preparation of deed plan No. 405958 in 2014, which land was later issued with a lease, certificate of title, which later were lawfully transferred to the 1st and 2nd defendants by the interested party. 183.The 5th and 6th defendants plead and submit that before 2010, land within municipalities such as Lodwar town fell under the repealed Trust Land Act 288, which allowed for the setting apart and commitment of land to a specific purpose, such as institutional use. The 5th and 6th defendants submit that once such land was set aside or committed to a specific purpose, it ceased being held in trust for the community and therefore could not, with the 2010 Constitution, be defined as community land under Article 63(2)(1) of the Constitution, to vest in the County Government or National Land Commission. 184.The law is that when a land title is under challenge, it is not enough to waive the instrument of title and claim indefeasibility. A party, as held in Munyu Maina -vs- Hirman Gathiha Maina [2013] KECA 94 [KLR], must move beyond the instrument of title and show that it was acquired procedurally, formally, and free of any encumbrances. 185.Further, as held in Chemey Investment Ltd -vs- Attorney General & Others [2018] eKLR, Article 40 of the Constitution protects the property right but does not extend the protection to unlawfully acquired title. Similarly, in Dina Management Ltd -vs- County Government of Mombasa & Others [2023] eKLR, the court reaffirmed the principle that constitutional protection of property rights cannot be invoked to sanitise an illegality or to protect property interests that have no lawful foundation. 186.The doctrine of indefeasibility of title has therefore been deconstructed by our courts and extended to those who acquire title to land to undertake due diligence. Investigating the title, therefore, enables any buyer or owner of the land to avoid potential contestation of the title. Thus, the said potential owner is shielded and is involved in the doctrine of innocent purchaser for value without notice of any adverse claim to the land. 187.The threshold of an innocent purchaser for value without notice includes showing that there was a valid and legal title, that the purchaser carried out necessary due diligence to determine the lawful owner from whom he acquired the title, and lastly, that he paid valuable consideration for the purchase of the land, as held in Samuel Kamere -vs- Land Registrar, Kajiado [2015] eKLR. 188.Land title can therefore be defeasible as held in Dr. Joseph Arap Ngok -vs- Justice Moijjo Ole Keiwua & Others [1997] KECA 1 [KLR], and Wreck Motors Enterprises & Others -vs- Commissioner of Lands & Others [1997] eKLR. 189.The doctrine was recently reaffirmed in Sehmi & another -vs- Tarabana Company Ltd & 5 others [2026] KESC 15 (KLR). The court held that the burden of proof is on the person invoking the doctrine to prove three elements. 190.The court said that the innocence of a purchaser means that he acted innocently, and that his conduct should not raise any suspicion that he had notice or knowledge of the existence of a rival interest in the land. The second one is beyond merely executing a transfer instrument. The third element is the purchase of a legal estate as opposed to an equitable interest. The court reaffirmed and expanded the scope of the doctrine in the previous decision in Dina Management (supra). 191.The plaintiffs rely on letters of allotment, which were issued to them by the 3rd and 5th defendants, as a basis that they hold rights or interests in the suit land that have been breached by the defendants. The law on the legality of a letter of allotment was discussed in Torino Enterprises Limited -vs- Attorney General [2023] KESC 79 (KLR). The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that a letter of allotment, even when perfected, does not inherently grant transferable title to the allottee until the purchasers are officially registered as landowners following the finalisation of the letter of allotment. 192.In Clark -vs- Njoroge & Others Civil Appeal No. 340 of 2019 [2026] KECA 718 [KLR] (10th April 2026), the court was clear that under Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act, a title may be impeached if it is shown that it was obtained irregularly, fraudulently, unprocedurally, or through a corrupt scheme. 193.In Freedom Ltd -vs- Omar Awadh Mbarak [2026] KESC 2 [KLR] (23rd January 2026), a land registry file had gone missing. An application for reconstruction was allowed by the High Court. On that basis, the appellant insisted that the title was valid and indefeasible. The other party was asserting the purchaser’s right to the whole parcel of land, possession, and uninterrupted occupation for over two decades. On appeal, the superior court's decision was reversed on the basis that the appellant’s root of title was questionable and tainted with illegalities. 194.At the Supreme Court, the approach was the interplay between registered title, equitable interest, and evidentiary sufficiency. The court emphasised that protection of title under Article 40 of the Constitution and Section 26 of the Land Registration Act is not absolute, that the doctrine cannot be invoked in a vacuum, and that a registered owner must still demonstrate a credible and lawful root of title. The court said that registration in itself does not cure foundational defects. 195.The court said that the claim by the respondent amounted to a registrable but unregistered interest arising out of an uncompleted sale of land, which did not confer ownership but also remained vulnerable to defeat by a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, provided the latter’s title was valid. 196.The court held that it was unable to conclusively determine ownership because both parties’ claims were riddled with unresolved factual issues, such as unexplained multiple title numbers, absence of clear evidence of subdivision, uncertainty as to possession, and lack of testimony from crucial public officials. Where there is a double allocation of land, courts look at the root of the title. 197.In Ashmi Investment Limited -vs- Riakina Limited & another [2023] KESC 66 (KLR), there were two allotment letters, but one of the allottees proceeded to take up possession, paid the prerequisite fees, and sought approvals from the relevant government offices. The two plots were eventually surveyed and given deed plan numbers and land reference numbers. The 1st respondent allegedly invaded the suit property in an attempt to forcefully take possession, leading to a suit seeking restoration orders. 198.The Court of Appeal confirmed the trial court's holding that in a case of double allocation, acceptance only took legal effect upon full payment of the requisite fees, and imposition without which the properties would not have been vested on either party.in 199.The plaintiffs and the 1st and 2nd defendants, as well as the interested party, trace their roots of title to the pre-2010 Constitution. 200.The plaintiffs describe and allegedly term the subject land as community land, which the allocating authority had the power to alienate to them. The 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 6th defendants take the opposite view that the interested party was the first allottee, who moved with speed and perfected its allotment and acquired a lease and a certificate of title, unlike the plaintiffs, who rely on mere letters of allotment. 201.The terms public and community land were creatures of the 2010 Constitution, as held in Kiluwa Ltd & Another -vs- Business Liaison Co. Ltd & Others [2023] KESC 37 [KLR]. Conversion of unalienated government land to alienated government land, with the consequence of the property becoming private, is a legal process. It is the fact of registration that moved the property from the ambit of government land as held in Benja Properties Limited -vs- Syedna Mohammed Burhannudin Sahed & 4 others [2015] eKLR. 202.The 5th and 6th defendants have submitted that the suit land was set apart and designated for institutional purposes, hence became unavailable for conversion or allocation to private use. The 1st and 2nd defendants, alongside the interested party, have produced evidence that after the interested party was issued with a letter of allotment in 2011, the land was surveyed, planned, and reserved for institutional use. 203.In Dina Management (supra), the court said that under the Land Planning Act, Cap 303, which was repealed by the Physical Planning Act 2019, there was a provision defined as public purpose, which would include educational, public open spaces, government, and local government purposes. 204.In Nelson Kazungu Chai & Others -vs- Pwani University [2014] eKLR, the court said that it is trite law under the repealed Government Land Act that a PDP must be drawn and approved by the Commissioner of Lands or the Minister for Land before unalienated government land could be allocated, followed by a letter of allotment, based on an approved PDP. The court said that after the letter of allotment is issued, a cadastral survey is conducted for the purpose of issuing a certificate of lease. 205.In African Line Transport Co. Ltd -vs- Attorney General [2007] eKLR, it was held that planning comes first, then surveying. Concerning the sale of land based on a letter of allotment, in Torino Enterprises Ltd -vs- Attorney General (supra), the court cited with approval Dr. Ngok (supra), that a letter of allotment is incapable of conferring interest in land, being nothing more than an offer, awaiting the justification of conditions stipulated therein. 206.The court cited Gladys Wanjiru Ngacha -vs- Teresa Chepsat & Others [2008] eKLR, that a letter of allotment does not constitute a contract between the offeror and the offeree, and does not confer an interest in land at all. The court further cited with approval Kadzoyo Chombo -vs- Ahmed Muhammed Osman & 11 others (Environment & Land Case 42 of 2021; [2021] KEELC 30 (KLR), that it is the act of registration after fulfilment of the conditions in the letter of allotment that a valid title is acquired, which gives a transferable interest or confers a transferable title to the registered proprietor. 207.In Dickson Nyaga Ngugi -vs- Commissioner of Lands & Another, Petition No. 9 of 2019, there was a challenge to new allotments, where the appellant had not fulfilled the terms and conditions of the letter of allotment issued to him in 1977, leading to the land reverting to the government. The trial court holds that in the absence of a registrable lease and having failed to fulfil the mandatory conditions in the grant of the lease, the appellant had no legal or equitable proprietary interest in the suit land capable of enforcement or confirmation. The Supreme Court also declined to assume jurisdiction over the matter. 208.Guided by the current jurisprudence on the various issues raised by the parties for the court’s determination, and mindful that the law is that when there is a dispute over the same piece of land, each party in dispute has to trace the root of title, both parties appear to describe the suit land as the same one on the ground. 209.The suit land referred to by the plaintiffs as plot Nos. 931, 932, 829, 976A, 790, 920, and 932. According to the 1st and 2nd defendants and the interested party, the suit land is known as Land Parcel I.R. No. 6477, L.R. No. 14691/425, Kanamkemer, Lodwar. 210.Order 4 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that where the subject matter is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it. The plaintiffs in paragraph 9 of the amended plaint describe themselves as the beneficial owners of all that land adjacent to the fence in the forecourt of the 2nd defendant, having been allocated the same by the defunct municipal council of Lodwar or purchased from a person previously allocated by the said defunct council, described as plot Nos. 931 and 932, in favour of the 1st plaintiff, plot No. 829 in favour of the 2nd plaintiff, which he bought in 2015, plot No. 979A in favour of the 3rd plaintiff, plot No. 790 in favour of the 4th plaintiff, bought in 2016, plot No. 920 in favour of the 5th plaintiff and plot No. 932 in favour of the 6th plaintiff, bought in 2016. 211.The plaintiffs rely on the minutes of allocation No. PA/1/4/92, allotment letter serial No.1369, issued on 23/1/2013 in favour of the 1st plaintiff, Minutes No. PA/1/4/92, allotment letter serial No. 1370, issued on 23/1/2013, in favour of the 1st plaintiff; Minute PA/1/4/92 allotment letter serial No. 1425, issued on 28/1/2012, in favour of Festus Ekitela Lorogoi, bought by the 2nd plaintiff; Minute PA/1/4/92 allotment letter serial No 1497, issued on 27/2/2012, in favour of the 3rd plaintiff; Minute No. PA/1/4/92 allotment letter serial No. 1241 issued on 22/8/2012 in favour of Jackson Lomoe Lokilelo, bought by the 4th plaintiff; Minute No. PA/1/4/92, allotment letter serial No.1356 issued to the 5th plaintiff on 16/1/2012, and lastly, Minute No. PA/1/4/92 issued to Felix Wekesa Sialo and bought by the 6th plaintiff. The plaintiffs rely on allotment letters as exhibits. 212.On the other hand, the 1st and 2nd defendants, the interested party, the 3rd, 4th, and 5th defendants, in their statements of defence dated 4/6/2025 and amended defence dated 18/9/2025, confirm that the interested party was allocated 100 acres of land by the defunct Lodwar Municipal Council by a letter of allotment dated 14/12/2011 produced as D. Exhibit No. (8), which was surveyed, planned, and registered with title No. I.R. No. 6477 L.R. No. 14691/425 issued with a certificate of lease dated 1/3/2015 with deed plan No. 40591 verified and signed by the Director of Survey. 213.The 1st and 2nd defendants aver that the title to the suit land while already developed was later sold and transferred to them by the interested party following a clearance letter dated 14/12/2015 by the 3rd defendant, making the 1st defendant the registered owner on 22/2/2017 as per the certificate of title before the court produced as D. Exhibit No. 1(a) and (b), showing the locality of the land as bordering the main highway effectively leaving no 100 meter space in between as claim by the plaintiffs, going by D. Exhibit No. 11(a) and (b) and the report of P. Exhibit No. (10) dated 28/3/2025. 214.According to the amended plaint at paragraph 11A, though they were allocated the plots, the 3rd defendant’s agent, namely a county physical planner, and the 5th defendant failed in their duties to rectify and or amend the plan and draw a new deed plan to exclude the 100 meter stretch out of the interest parties and later the 3rd defendant’s land touching Lodwar - Kitale Highway, which they were lawfully allocated by the council and or purchased after the interested party voluntarily surrendered the same to the said defunct council. 215.In paragraph 11B, thereof, the plaintiffs aver that the failure by the 3rd defendant’s agent and the 5th defendant to ensure that a plan is drawn and surveying and beaconing are done. 216.The plaintiffs aver that the said process, which was supposed to be undertaken to exclude the 100-meter stretch in the forecourt of the 2nd defendant touching the Lodwar - Kitale Highway, was illegal and unlawful, hence entitling the interested party and the 1st and 2nd defendants to claim an interest in the plaintiffs’ respective suit parcel of land. 217.The plaintiffs have listed the particulars of unlawfulness and illegality on the part of the 3rd and 5th defendants at paragraph 11B of the amended plaint. The plaintiffs now blame the 1st and 2nd defendants for trespass on those plots in paragraph 12 of the amended plaint by giving notice to vacate from land parcel I.R. No. 6477 L.R. No. 14691/425 Kanamkemer, Lodwar, dated 31/5/2019, without any colour of right or legality, terming the 1st and 2nd defendants’ possession and occupation of the plots as comprised in the title I.R. No. 6477 L.R. No. 14691/425, as acts of encroachment. 218.The plaintiffs also blame the interested party for collusion with the 3rd and 5th defendants. In paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 of the amended plaint, the plaintiffs aver that they had made a request which was considered by the defunct municipality in a TPC meeting held on 14/2/2011, for the interested party to be relocated slightly to create a 100-meter space for members of the public to be allocated land to build hostels. 219.The plaintiffs allege that the allocation was necessitated by the fact that the 2nd defendant did not have boarding facilities, and after the resolution, after it was made, they were assured that the interested party would be consulted on the intention to repossess a portion of its land for reallocation. 220.The plaintiffs aver and testify that vide Minute No. MCL/03/02/2013, the interested party, vide the letter dated 28/1/2011, agreed to the intended repossession of 100 meters, on condition that it be compensated with land of similar size, and that, having mutually agreed on the compensation, the defunct council was to reallocate a similar 100 meters, and hence the physical planner of the defunct council was forthwith to organise for the demarcation exercise. 221.The plaintiffs aver and testify that the repossessed land, as per the agreement and consent or concurrence of the interested party, was to be reallocated to the members of the public and stakeholders who had applied to the defunct council, and the area chief was to be involved in the exercise. The plaintiffs aver and testify that the facilitation of the defunct council resolution to repossess the land from the interested party vide a letter dated 15/2/2011 was issued by the then town clerk, which, after receipt, the interested party abandoned the 100 meter stretch near the highway and was relocated to a similar land behind its campus, after which it refenced its new portion and re-organized its fence, which is existing to date. 222.The plaintiffs aver and testify that after repossession of the 100 meter land and compensation thereof, they were allocated the plots as pleaded above, hence it is an act of collusion, illegality, and unlawfulness for the interested party and the 3rd and 5th defendants to interfere with the PDP and survey plan by annexing their plots within that of the interested party, yet it had voluntarily surrendered it to the 3rd defendant. 223.The plaintiffs aver and testify that by allocating and processing the title documents in favour of the interested party, the 3rd and 5th defendants relied on illegal documents, namely a PDP, and other survey documents, including the survey plan, to unlawfully include their plots as part of the interested party’s title, which it later sold and transferred to the 1st and 2nd defendants. 224.The 1st and 2nd defendants are also blamed for lack of due diligence in acquiring the land without consulting the plaintiffs, relying on an illegally acquired title, purchasing the land before their letters of allotment were revoked, failing to carry out a historical search with the 3rd defendant, and or conducting a ground verification exercise, to ask them why they were in use, possession and possession of their respective plots. 225.The plaintiffs also plead and testify that the 1st and 2nd defendants’ claim is based on a fraudulent and illegally obtained title through illegality and abuse of procedure by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants, while aware that the land was community land as per Article 63 of the Constitution, yet they proceeded to fraudulently register title over unregistered and unadjudicated community land. 226.The burden in law is on he who alleges as to the existence of certain facts, upon which his rights accrue. It is not disputed from the pleadings that the interested party was the 1st allottee of 100 acres as per the letter of allotment dated 14/12/2011. The rest of the plaintiffs’ letters of allotment, dated 14/12/2011 and 23/1/2013, were issued at least a year after the allotment of 100 acres of the land to the interested party. The minutes for the allocation are the same, but the allotment letters are dated 23/1/2012. 28/8/2013, 27/8/2012, 22/8/2013, and 16/1/2013, respectively. 227.It is a principle of law that where two or more equities are equal, the law prevails. It means that where two parties have equal competing equitable claims, the party with legal title prevails. See Philemon L. Wambia -vs- Gaitano Lusitsa Mukofu & 2 others [2019] eKLR, Mburu -vs- Kariuki & Another [2026] KECA [KLR] (12TH March 2026) (Judgment) and Kenya Ihenya Company Ltd & another -vs- Njeri Kiriba [2019] eKLR. 228.In this suit, the plaintiffs admit that their plots are products of a repossession and reallocation of land initially allocated to the interested party in 2011. Logically, and as the day follows the night, the plaintiffs had the obligation in law to conduct due diligence to know whether the alleged acts of surrender, repossession and alienation in their favour had been perfected in law before they could lay claim to the land. The burden in law is on he who alleges the existence of certain facts to be entitled to legal remedies. 229.The plaintiffs are levelling fraud, illegality, collusion, abuse of office, and inclusion of their plots as part of the 1st and 2nd defendants’ title, while the interested party had allegedly surrendered to the 3rd defendant the 100 meters for reallocation to them and had allegedly accepted the surrender and compensation of the same with similar land of the same size. 230.Fraud, illegality, and collusion must be specifically pleaded and specifically proved on a balance of higher than in ordinary suits, as held in Virjay Morjaria -vs- Nansingh Madhusingh Darbar & Another [2000] eKLR, Kuria Kiarie & Others -vs- Sammy Magera [2018] KECA 467 [KLR], and Kinyanjui Kamau -vs- George Kamau [2015] eKLR. 231.Starting with the status of the suit properties, the interested party maintains that it was the first allottee of 100 acres, which it did not surrender a portion equivalent to 100 meters touching the Lodwar - Kitale Highway, as alleged by the plaintiffs for any reallocation. 232.The interested party pleads and submits that it was not possible to reduce its land for reallocation as alleged by the plaintiffs, based on the minutes, without the benefit of a hearing or an opportunity to participate in the surrender or reallocation. Reliance is placed on Tom Dola & Others -vs- Chairman National Land Commission & Others [2020] KECA 432 [KLR] and Mburu -vs- Kariuki & Another [2026] KECA 529 [KLR]. 233.The interested party urges the court to find, based on the evidence of PW7, who was the then mayor, that the town planning committee minutes produced as P. Exhibit No. (29) were never adopted by a full council meeting of the 3rd defendant, followed by a surrender instrument to the council by the interested party. 234.The interested party submitted that, going by the evidence of PW8, who was the town clerk and the signatory of the allotment letters, in the absence of compensation of equivalent acreage, the letter dated 15/2/2011, allegedly written to the interested party, lacks legality. 235.The interested party further submitted that the plaintiffs appear not to be contesting its allotment letter, which is why they joined the first allottee as an interested party and not a substantive defendant. 236.The interested party submits that an admitted fact need not be proved, as held in University of Nairobi -vs- Ogot [2025] KECA 1736 [KLR], Ochieng Jujahon Ltd & Others [2023] KEHA 17337 [KLR] and Ewon -vs- Chom ANM & Another (IP) [2022] KECA 796 [KLR]. 237.The interested party submits that it is also clear that the letter from the physical planner featured in Minute (1) notes was never produced as an exhibit by either of the attendees to the meeting, namely PW6 and PW7, yet it was a critical aspect in the plaintiffs’ case, alongside the application for allocation of the plots by the plaintiffs. 238.Similarly, the interested party submits that a letter purportedly written by the interested party dated 28/1/2011 requesting compensation, if it ever existed, was not produced by the plaintiffs; hence, the court should draw an inference that if it had been produced, it would be adverse to the plaintiffs’ case. Reliance is placed on Direct Assurance Co. Ltd -vs- Nyasi [2023] KEHC 27373 [KLR], Josephine Kiragu -vs- Vyas Hauliers Ltd [2017] KEHC 8094 [KLR], and Ajega -vs- China Piangsu International Co. Ltd [2026] KEELC 762 [KLR]. 239.The 5th and 6th defendants, on the other hand, have pleaded and submitted that the suit land was subjected to a lawful process of allocation, planning, survey, and registration culminating in the issuance of a lease and certificate of title long before the Community Land Act came into force, which Act does not operate retrospectively to invalidate already acquired title before its operation. 240.The 5th and 6th urge the court that going by the evidence of DW1 and his exhibits the process of allocation was formulated through an approved developed plan No. 30 dated 23/4/2014, followed by survey and the preparation of deed plan No. 405918 in 2014, and thereafter a lease and certificate of title in the name of the interested party, later lawfully transferred to the 2nd defendant as per D. Exhibit No. (1), (2), (4), and (5), respectively. 241.The 5th and 6th defendants submit that before 2010, land within municipalities such as Lodwar fell within the repealed Trust Land Act Cap 285, as the legal framework for setting apart land for public or institutional use, which once set apart and committed to a specific purpose as per D. Exhibit No. (1) - (10), or entity ceased to be held in trust for the community, and thereof not fall under Article 63(2)(b) of the Constitution, to be termed as community land under the Constitution or Section 6 of the Community Land Act, 2016. 242.The 5th and 6th defendants submit that when the County Government was established in 2013, it acknowledged the existence of the allocation to the interested party by consenting to the transfer as per the clearance letter produced as D. Exhibit No. (8), followed by the preparation of PDP by its physical planner, with no objection to it by anyone, paving the way to the issuance of the lease and, thereafter, a certificate of title. 243.The 5th and 6th defendants urge the court to rely on Wangai & 2 Others -vs- Wangai & Another and Caroline Awinja Ochieng & Another -vs- Jane Annah Mbithe Gitau & Others [2015] KECA 450 [KLR], on the principle of tracing the root of title. 244.The starting point is that the law is that once an allotment letter is issued and the allottee meets the conditions therein, the land in question is no longer available for reallocation unless the letter of allotment is challenged by the allocating authority or is proved to have been acquired through fraud, mistake, misrepresentation, or that the allotment letter was outrightly illegal or was issued against public interest. See Republic -vs- City Council of Nairobi & Others [2014] eKLR. 245.The plaintiffs have relied on P. Exhibit No. (8). This is a letter dated 26/11/2011 from the interested party to the defunct municipal council of Lodwar. 246.The letter acknowledges the allocation of 100 acres for the university. It sought bank particulars to clear the land rates as part of the conditions in the offer letter. In P. Exhibit No. (36) dated November 2013, relied upon by the plaintiffs at page 36, the 3rd defendant acknowledges that the interested party had been allocated 100 acres for university development. The allocation letter to the interested party was for plot No. 692. It is dated 14/12/2011. That was before the coming into effect of the Land Act 2012. 247.Section 14 of the Land Act relates to the allocation of public land, including reallocation, as presupposing that the initial grant has been lawfully withdrawn or revoked. Section 26 of the Land Registration Act protects interests lawfully acquired unless shown to have been obtained through fraud, illegality, or procedural impropriety. 248.It is the plaintiffs who are alleging that the interested party’s allocation letter dated 14/12/2011 was reviewed, revoked, varied, or cancelled to the extent of removing 100 meters at the forecourt of the defendants’ gate, next to the Lodwar - Kitale Highway. Other than the minutes, the plaintiffs have not produced a letter of variation, review, notice of revocation, instrument of surrender, or a formal administration action from the allocating authority to extinguish the interest party’s allocation letter to the extent of its 100 meters on the front adjoining the Lodwar - Kitale Highway. 249.It is the plaintiffs who are alleging that they were issued with letters of allotment, which the 3rd and 5th defendants unfortunately failed to process by way of a PDP, and a survey plan to remove their portions from the interested party’s lease and eventually the certificate of lease and title produced as D. Exhibit Nos. (1) - (10). The power to revoke, vary, review, and reallocate vests with the allocating authority. It must, however, be exercised expressly, procedurally, and lawfully. 250.In Rukaya Ali Mohamed -vs- David Gikonyo Nambacha HCCA 9 of 2004, the court held that once an allottee meets the conditions set in the allotment letter, the land in question is no longer available for reallocation. 251.The legal burden, as held in Mbuthia Macharia -vs- Annah Mutua Ndwiga & Another [2017] eKLR, and in Halsbury’s Laws of England 4th Edition Vol. 10 paras 13 and 14, is on the plaintiffs to discharge by establishing the facts and connection that support their case. A case is not won on the weakness of the opponent's case, but on the strength of the claimant’s case. It is the plaintiffs who are pleading that the interested party and the 1st and 2nd defendants’ title documents are illegal, fraudulent, unprocedural, and tainted, as held in Dina Management Ltd (supra). 252.It is also the plaintiffs’ submissions based on the case of Samuel Kamere -vs- Land Registrar, Kajiado [2015] eKLR, that the court finds that the 1st and 2nd defendants are not bona fide purchasers for value without notice since the interested party had no better title to pass in view of their letters of allotment and the accompanying supporting documents. other than PW1, PW3, PW4, and PW5, the rest of the plaintiffs did not testify. Therefore, I find the 5th and 6th plaintiffs’ cases unsupported by any evidence. The same are dismissed with costs. 253.As to PW6 and PW7, they confirmed that minutes of the town planning committee had to be adopted by a full council meeting for them to be valid in law. The plaintiff placed heavy weight on the evidence of the former town clerk and the signatory of their letters of allotment. In Joseph Ndungu Kimany -vs- Republic [1979] KECA 5 [KLR], the court said that a witness whose evidence is to be relied upon should not create an impression in the mind of the court that he is not straightforward person, or raise a suspicion about his trustworthiness or do or say something which indicates that he is a person of doubtful integrity and therefore unreasonable witness, which make it unsafe to accept his evidence. 254.Section 154 of the Evidence Act provides that during cross-examination, a witness may be asked questions to test his occupation, veracity, or credibility, shake his credibility, or discover his position in life. 255.PW8 was not just a former town clerk. He was one of the beneficiaries and an allottee of the 100-meter. PW8 was the one who sold plot No. 829 to the 2nd plaintiff on 4/5/2015, having signed the allotment letter dated 28/8/2012, while he was the sitting town clerk. PW8's fingerprints and signatures appear on all the plot allotment letters, except for the interested party's. 256.PW8 was not in attendance at the town planning committee meeting as per P. Exhibit No. (29). The exhibit is not certified and signed by the makers, namely the town clerk, Mr. Peter Keitany, and the chairperson, Mrs. Jacinta Akal. There are no full council meeting minutes that approved, endorsed, and ratified P. Exhibit No. (29). 257.A Town Planning Committee, in law, has no power to amend, review, or reduce land already allocated, or to reallocate it, without an instrument of surrender, consent from the previous allottee, or approval thereof by the full council meeting. 258.Exhibit No. (7) is written by the Municipal Council of Lodwar and not the Lodwar Municipal Council. Its maker was not called to testify. The exhibit is a photocopy. It was not certified. It does not bear any receipt stamp or date from the interested party. Its date is 15/2/2011, which is close to ten years after the interested party was allocated the land. 259.The letter does not bear a file reference number. It refers to a letter dated 28/1/2011 from the interested party, which was never produced as an exhibit before the court by the plaintiffs as a basis that the interested party had consented to the surrender and compensation. The exhibit does not refer to a full council meeting resolution, acceptance, or surrender of 100 meters out of the interested party’s land. 260.Assuming that the 3rd defendant had accepted the surrender and also reallocated the interested party an equivalent land, one would have expected PW8 or Mr. Peter Keitang to have referred to such minutes and followed up both the minutes and the exhibit with a letter of allotment of 100 meters of land, bearing a plot number as compensation. 261.Looking at both P. Exhibit No. (7) and (29), one is left wondering why the names of the applicants and members of the public who eventually became the successful allottees were not captured in any of the minutes of the reallocation. 262.The plaintiffs, other than the letters of allotment, are silent in tracing their root title as to when they applied for the plots, whether there was public balloting of the same, the criteria leading to their identification as the successful bidders, and whether Section 19 of the Physical Planning Act, which was the law on plot allocation in place at the time, was followed. A letter of allotment is only a transient right and not a good title to property. It cannot rank higher than a title deed, as the plaintiffs want this court to find. See Dorothy Wacera Macharia & Another -vs- Attorney General & Another, Nairobi ELC No. 353 of 2007. 263.In M'Ikiara M'Mukanya & Another -vs- Gilbert Kabere M'Mbijiwe [1982-88] 1 KAR 196, the court said that the plot was not available for allocation, following the laid-down procedure of reallocation. The court further said that once the parcel of land was allocated, become private property and was no longer available for allocation to another person unless the first allocation was cancelled. See also Rukaya Ali Mohamed (supra), Wreck Motors Enterprises & Others -vs- Commissioner of Lands & Others [1997] eKLR, and Jaj Super Power Cash and Carry Ltd -vs- Nairobi City Council & Others CA No. 112 of 2002. 264.In Esther Ndegi -vs- Leonard Gatei (2014) eKLR, the court said that the land was not available for reallocation. It is the plaintiffs who are impeaching the titles held by the 1st and 2nd defendants out of an alleged surrender and reallocation of the 100 meters. 265.Section 41 of the Physical Planning Act provided for procedures and the requirements of a Physical Department Plan and its approval. Conditions of approval included reservation of land for road and public purpose or for other purposes referred to in the Act for which land may be reserved. 266.Section 91 of the Physical and Land Use Planning 2019, which repealed the Physical Planning Act in Section 7, provides for the surrender of land for public utilities. Sustainable development requires effective and efficient management of socio-economic and environmental aspects of land, as land is a limited resource in Kenya. 267.Surrender of land, as held in Fanikiwa (supra), is a legal process. The intention of surrender must be clear. Acceptance of surrender must also be clear, since surrender is one of the bases for land planning and development control by both the county and the national government, to attain the constitutional tenets enshrined under Articles 60 and 66 of the Constitution. 268.There is no evidence from the plaintiffs that the interested party and the 3rd defendant executed any instrument of surrender, detailing any repossession and reallocation of the plot of a similar size. The court, in the absence of an instrument of surrender and acceptance, cannot presume that the disposition of land is a legal surrender and acceptance of the same before the alleged reallocation of the 100 meters of the interested party’s land. 269.It is PW8 who should have been the star witness for the plaintiffs to shed more light on whether the law on surrender, acceptance, and reallocation was followed before he issued the allotment letters to himself and the plaintiffs. 270.Even after the plaintiffs blamed the 3rd and 5th defendants for not perfecting their allotment letters and instead facilitating the interested party to process a lease and a certificate of title, based on a PDP and a deed plan, still none of the plaintiffs put to task PW8 why he issued them with allotment letters but failed to effect the acts of surrender and reallocation. 271.It is in this context that the court finds the evidence of PW8 unbelievable, inconsistent, misleading, and, to say the least, unreliable. 272.Lord Camden CJ in Entick -vs- Carrington [1765] held that.“One law holds the property of every man so sacred, that no man can set his foot upon his neighbour as close without his leave.” 273.In this suit, it is the plaintiffs who, armed with letters of allotment, trespassed into the 1st and 2nd defendants' close, yet the land was already planned, surveyed, and registered. Planning, as held in Nelson Kazungu Chai (supra), precedes allocation. 274.A court, when faced with a case of two or more titles over the same land, has to make an investigation so that it can be discovered which of the two titles should be upheld. In Hubert L. Martin & Others -vs- Margaret J. Kamar & Others [2016], the court held that the investigation must start at the root of title and follow all processes and procedures that brought forth the two titles at hand, without any break in the chain of acquisition. 275.In Republic -vs- City Council of Nairobi & Others [2014] eKLR, the court, Warsame J as he then was, in Rukaya Ali Mohamed (supra), held that once an allotment letter is issued, and the allottee meets the conditions therein, the land is unavailable for reallocation. 276.In Kamau James -vs- Serah Wanjiru & Another [2018] eKLR, the court cited M'Ikiara M'Mukanya (supra) that the 1st allotment must prevail. 277.Similarly, in Benja Properties Limited (supra), the court cited with approval Gitwany Investment Ltd -vs- Tajmal Ltd & Others [2006] eKLR and Wreck Motors Enterprises & Others -vs- Commissioner of Lands & Others (supra) and Furaj Maharun vs J.B. Martin Glass Industries Ltd & Others, Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2013, that a grant takes priority and that, like equity, it keeps teaching us the first in time prevails. 278.In Pati Ltd -vs- Funzi Island Development Ltd & Others SC Petition No. 37 of 2019, the court dismissed the concept of setting apart and trust land as per Section 114 of the former Constitution. The court said that by virtue of Sections 117 and 118 of the former Constitution, a county council could set apart an area of the trust land for use and occupation by a public body or for purposes specified therein. 279.The court said that the council could alienate to or by any person or persons for a purpose in the opinion of that county council is likely to benefit the person ordinarily resident in that area or any other area of the trust land vested in that county council, either by reason of the use to which the area so set apart is to be put or by reason of the revenue to be derived from the rent in respect thereof. 280.In this suit, the 1st and 2nd defendants have produced D. Exhibit No. (1) - (10) showing the paper trail they used to obtain titles to the suit land. The 1st defendant is described as a university resident under the Universities Act No. 42 of 2012, while the 2nd defendant, a constituent college of a university, falls under the jurisdiction of the national government as per Articles 185(2), 186(2), and 187(2), 2nd Schedule 4 of the Constitution. A state organ includes a body established under the Constitution. The allocation of the 100 meters to the plaintiffs as Plot No. 960 was done on 23/8/1992. The lease was issued to the interested party on 20/1/2015. 281.The allotment letter required the allottee to undertake developments on the land within 2 years. P. Exhibit No. (9) shows that as of 23/6/2016, the interested party had made extensive developments on the land. The said development plans were approved by the relevant government offices as per the exhibits before the court. 282.On the other hand, the plaintiffs rely on a couple of letters. The letters dated 27/4/2020 and 12/5/2020 were not produced by the makers. The exhibits are not accompanied by any land registers. The allotment letters by the plaintiffs lack an accompanying PDP. The land was already planned, set apart, reserved, and in actual use by the interested party as of the time the defunct Lodwar Municipal Council was purporting to request its surrender and reallocate it to the plaintiffs. 283.The plaintiffs admit that the deed plan, survey plan, and PDP used to alienate the land in favour of the interested party have not been reviewed, set aside, or vacated to date by the Department of Surveys under the Survey Act to accommodate their plots, which they held through the allotment letters from the plaintiff. 284.As held in Frann Investments Ltd -vs- Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission & Others Civil Appeal No. E038 of 2021, citing with approval Dina Management Ltd (supra), a PDP must be drawn and approved before any allocation of unalienated government land. 285.Surrender and planning of the land for reallocation to the plaintiff under the law ought to have preceded the issuance of the allotment letter to the plaintiff; if at all, the land had reverted to the allocating authority. 286.Again, the land, as per the exhibits tendered, was already under the use, possession, and occupation of the interested party. The same was not available for alienation, for it was already in the wisdom of the allocating authority set apart for public purpose, namely, the advancement of university education in Turkana County. 287.To deal with the land otherwise by the allocating authority requires not only minutes for repossession, involvement of the first allottee, and an amendment of the deed plan, survey plan, and the PDP. Once the land was set apart for institutional use, it became alienated land and moved out of the ambit of government land or trust lands as of 2015. 288.Further, once the land was sold and transferred to the 1st and 2nd defendants and registered in the name of the 1st defendant on 22/2/2017 upon clearance by the 3rd defendant on 14/12/2015, the suit land ceased being private and automatically assumed public land status, by dint of Article 62(2)(b) of the Constitution, since the 1st and 2nd defendants are state organs. 289.The 3rd and 5th defendants had no role, mandate, or otherwise under the Constitution, including the Cabinet Secretary for Land, Public Works, Housing, and Urban Development, to purport to issue letters, directives, approvals, and gazettement of the same as community land by Gazette Notice No. 2679 produced as P. Exhibit No. (35). 290.Public purpose, as defined by the Physical Planning Act, Cap 286, and Registration 11(3) of the Development and Use of Land (Planning Registration 1961), includes educational, government, and local government purposes. Section 29 of Cap 286 also gave the local authorities powers to reserve and maintain land planned for educational use. 291.As held in Frann Investments Ltd (supra), once such land as in the instant case was alienated and not legally surrendered for reallocation, it was no longer unalienated land which the defunct Lodwar Municipal Council and, by extension, the 3rd and 5th defendants could deal with, otherwise than in compliance with the law, to dish out to the plaintiffs. 292.The letters of allocation held by the plaintiffs have no accompanying PDP drawn and approved by the Commissioner of Lands or the Minister for Lands. They refer to no approved development plan. The plaintiffs did not cause a cadastral survey to be done, followed by the issuance of a lease. 293.Apart from the letters of allotment, none of the plaintiffs has produced authenticated and verified documents from the Director of Surveys and the Physical Planning Department, which are superior to the lease certificate of lease and title held by the 1st and 2nd defendants. Planning comes first, then surveying, as held in Nelson Kazungu Chai (supra), and in African Line Transport Co. Ltd -vs- Attorney General [2007] eKLR. 294.The lease held by the 1st and 2nd defendants, obtained from the interested party, complied with Section 10 of the Government Land Act repealed. Without superior documents of allocation and evidence that the 1st and 2nd defendants could not obtain and were not passed a good title by the interested party; the court finds no basis to cancel the said title. 295.In Frank Logistics Limited -vs- Golden Lion Real Estate Company & Others Civil Appeal No. E303 of 2024, the two parties were claiming the same physical property despite differing land reference numbers. The court emphasised that the registered proprietor must prove the legality of title acquisition over and beyond presenting a certificate, while the purchaser must also trace the title history to the original allotment, verify regime conversion, and confirm physical boundaries with surveyors. The court said that courts require evidence of irregularities, unprocedural, or illegal acquisition. 296.Fraud, illegality, or irregularity cannot be inferred, assumed, or presumed. In Gathoga & Another -vs- Safaricom Co. Ltd & Others [2026] KECA 306 [KLR], the court cited R.G. Patel -vs- Lalji Mkanji [1957] EA 314, that an allegation of fraud must be strictly proved, and also in D.N. Parurn -vs- Salim Mohamed Salim CA No. 138 of 2018, that forgery or fraud being a serious charge, it is not simply enough to infer fraud from the facts. 297.In this suit, the plaintiffs pleaded fraud, illegalities, irregularities, and unprocedural irregularities were used by the interested party, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th defendants, to obtain the title document, which was not substantiated with tangible and cogent evidence. Specific fraudulent conduct by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th defendants, together with the interested party, was not supported by any credible report from the investigative agencies mandated to do so in Kenya. 298.The plaintiffs produced no single complaint letter to the allocating authorities to demand that the titles held by the interested party and the 1st and 2nd defendants be reduced by 100 meters. The plaintiffs produced no evidence that the 1st and 2nd defendants were not bona fide purchasers for value without notice. Evidence of any approved developments, taking of possession, and lawful entry and occupation of the allocated parcel of land before the interested party obtained title to the land in 2015 is lacking. 299.The plaintiffs have deliberately kept silent in both their pleadings and testimonies on what measures they undertook to perfect their letters of allotment between the date of issuance in 2012 and 2013, to the time when the interested party obtained its title to the land, and eventually sold and transferred the land to the 1st and 2nd defendants as public land. 300.I think I have said enough to show that the plaintiffs’ suit must fail. It is dismissed with costs. Any interim orders are hereby discharged. 301.Orders accordingly. JUDGMENT DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS/OPEN COURT AT KITALE ON THIS 8TH DAY OF JULY 2026.In the presence of:Court Assistant - Dennis5th Plaintiff presentMr. Kimani for the plaintiffKitiwa for the 1st and 3rd defendant absentMr. Okul for Kenyatta for the interested party present3rd defendant absent4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th defendants absentHON. C.K. NZILIJUDGE, ELC KITALE.