https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2918

Olweny (Suing as the Legal Representative and Administrator of the Estate of the Late Elikamwashingtion Olweny - Deceased) v Kiplagat & 7 others (Environment and Land Case 57 of 2020) [2026] KEELC 2918 (KLR) (14 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 2918 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Eldoret Environment and Land Case 57 of 2020 EM Washe, J May 14, 2026 Between Norah Atieno Olweny (Suing as the Legal Representative and Administrator of the Estate of the Late Elikamwashingtion Olweny - Deceased) Plaintiff and Elijah Kiplagat 1st Defendant Elijah Kibet 2nd Defendant Uasin Gishu Land Registrar 3rd Defendant Uasin Gishu Lands Surveyor 4th Defendant The Attorney General 5th Defendant Hosea Kibet Rutto 6th Defendant Bethuel Kipsang 7th Defendant Esther Jepkemboi Kurui 8th Defendant Judgment 1.The Plaintiff herein did file an Amended Plaint dated 21.03.2022 (hereinafter referred to as “the present suit”) against the 1st to 8th Defendants seeking the following Orders; -a.A declaration that the Plaintiff is the beneficial owner of the Parcel of Land referred to as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448.b.A declaration to issue that the 1st, 2nd ,6th ,7th and 8th Defendants herein are trespassers on the suit property known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448 and that the Plaintiff is the registered owner thereof.c.An Order of eviction of the 1st, 2nd, 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants being Elijah Kiplagat, Elijah Kibet, Hosea Kibet Ruto, Bethuel Kipsang and Esther Jepkemboi Kurui whether by themselves, their agents, servants and any other person acting under their authority and the OCS Kipkaren Police Station to ensure compliance and provide security.d.That an Order of Permanent Injunction do issue against the 1st, 2nd ,6th ,7th and 8th Defendants jointly and severally by themselves, their servants and/or agents from further trespassing onto, remaining thereon, alienating, selling, transferring, disposing off. Charging and/or dealing in any other way with the parcel known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448.e.An Order that the registration of the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants herein by the 3rd,4th and 5th Defendants as the registered owners of the properties known as L.R. No. Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1760,1761,1762,1763 & 1752 all being sub-divisions of the original parcel of land being Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448 is null and void.f.An Order of mandatory Injunction be issued directed to the 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants to cancel the title deeds numbers L.R. No. Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1760,1761,1762,1763 & 1752 and an Order reverting the parcel of land number LR.No. Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448 registered in the name of Eliakim Washington Olweny.g.An Order of mandatory injunction do issue directing the 3rd and 4th Defendants to remove all the entries made in the register for the parcel number LR.No. Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448 by which the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants herein were registered as proprietors of the subsequent sub-divisions of the subject parcel of land and to reinstate Eliakam Washington Olweny as the sole registered proprietor of the subject parcel of land being LR.No. Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448.h.An Order of mesne profit and damages for unlawful trespass.i.Costs and interest of the suit and damages.j.Any other reliefs this Honourable Court deems fit and just to grant. 2.The facts in support of the above prayers are contained in the Amended Plaint dated 21.03.2022 and can be summarised as follows;-i.The Plaintiff herein is the registered owner of the property known as L.R. No. Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448 (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”).ii.The Plaintiff herein did purchase the suit property from one Cherono Martim Maiyo who was the original allottee of the same through an Agreement for Sale dated 20.12.1971.iii.It was a term of the Agreement for Sale dated 20.12.1971 between Cherono Martim Maiyo and the Plaintiff that all outstanding charges to the Settlement Fund Trustee would be made by the Plaintiff and thereafter the suit property would be registered in the name of the Plaintiff herein.iv.The Plaintiff herein did fully comply with the payment of all outstanding charges to the Settlement Fund Trustee and was issued with the relevant transfer documents and a Title Deed issued in his name on the 02.07.2000.v.According to the Plaintiff, the ownership documents issued on the 02.07.2000 are still intact and valid and therefore the any registration of the 1st, 2nd ,6th ,7th and 8th Defendants herein is fraudulent based on an illegal sub-division of the suit property.vi.The Plaintiff then did proceed to specifically plead the Particulars of Fraud perpetuated by the 1st, 2nd ,6th, 7th and 8th Defendants in an effort to create and register themselves as proprietors of the sub-divisions emanating from the suit property.vii.Based on the unlawful, illegal and fraudulent sub-divisions created on the suit property and registered in the name of the 1st, 2nd, 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants, they have also forcefully evicted the Plaintiff herein from the mother property known as LR.No. Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448.viii.In essence, the Plaintiff did seek an Order of declaration to the effect that the sub-division of the mother property known as LR.No. Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448 by the 1st, 2nd ,6th ,7th and 8th Defendants herein was unlawful, illegal and fraudulent.ix.Thereafter, the Plaintiff sought this Court to make a declaration that the registration of the 1st, 2nd, 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants as the registered owners of the sub-divisions emanating from the mother property known as LR.No. Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448 was illegal, unlawful and fraudulent.x.The sub-divisions namely LR.No. Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1760, 1761, 1762, 1763 & 1752 registered in the names of the 1st, 2nd, 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants be forthwith cancelled by the 3rd and 4th Defendants and the 3rd and 4th Defendants do restore the Register of the mother property known as LR.No. Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448 as was on the 20.07.2000.xi.The Plaintiff further did seek for an Eviction Order against the 1st, 2nd, 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants from the mother property known as LR.No. Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448 which is the lawful asset of the Plaintiff.xii.Due to the unlawful occupation of the mother property known as LR.No. Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448 by the 1st, 2nd, 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants, the Plaintiff did seek for mesne profits and damages for unlawful occupation of the said property.xiii.Lastly, the Plaintiff did seek for costs of the present suit as well as interest on the mesne profit and damages sought hereinabove. 3.The present suit was duly served on all the Defendants herein. 4.The 1st and 2nd Defendants herein did oppose the present suit through an Amended Defence dated 28.04.2022. 5.In the Amended Defence dated 28.04.2022, the 1st and 2nd Defendants did oppose the present suit on the following grounds;-i.The 1st and 2nd Defendants did deny the allegation that upon the demise of the Eliakim Washington Olweny on the 28.11.2016, they have been interfering with the original property known as LR.No. Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448.ii.According to the 1st and 2nd Defendants, the property known as LR.No. Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448 did belong to one Wilson Kibor Mutai (DECEASED).iii.During the lifetime of the late Wilson Kibor Mutai, the property known as LR.No. Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448 was sub-divided into two portions namely LR.No. Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1751 and 1752 by the late Wilson Kibor Mutai.iv.The first sub-division known as LR.No. Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1751 was further sub-divided into three more portions namely LR.No. Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1761,1762 & 1763 all registered in the name of the late Wilson Kibor Mutai.v.The 1st Defendant did plead that he was caretaker of the person who had purchased some of the sub-divisions from the late Wilson Kibor Mutai while the 2nd Defendant was a nephew of the late Wilson Kibor Mutai and therefore none of them had any proprietary interest on the same.vi.The 1st and 2nd Defendants did aver that there had been a number of cases namely ELDORET ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT CASE No. 609A OF 2012, CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT CASE No. 47 OF 2008 and ELDORET ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT MISCELLANOUS CASE No. 12 OF 2019 which did deal with the suit property herein.vii.The 1st and 2nd Defendants did raise an objection to the Letters of Administration Intestate issued to the Plaintiff herein on the basis that the same were obtained through concealment of material facts.viii.In essence, the 1st and 2nd Defendants did plead that the prayers sought in the present suit could not be granted to the Plaintiff as she did not have any direct interest in the same.ix.In conclusion, the 1st and 2nd Defendants did seek this Court to dismiss the present suit with costs. 6.The 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants herein did not file any Statement of Defence in opposition to the present case. 7.The 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants did file a Statement of Defence dated 25.04.2022 in opposition of the present suit. 8.In the Joint Statement of Defence by the 6th , 7th and 8th Defendants herein, the present suit was opposed on the following facts;-i.The 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants did aver that the original property known as LR.No. Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448 was the asset of the late Wilson Kibor Mutai.ii.The 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants therefore did specifically deny that the property known as LR.No. Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448 was allocated and registered in the name of the late Eliakim Washington Olweny.iii.The 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants did specifically plead that the property known as LR.No. Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448 was specifically sub-divided into two portions namely LR.No. Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1751 and 1752.iv.Thereafter, the portion known as LR.No. Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1751 was further sub-divided into four portions namely LR.No. Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1760, 1761, 1762 and 1763.v.Currently, the property known as LR.No. Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1760 was registered in the name of the 7th Defendant.vi.The properties known as LR.No. Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1761 and 1762 are registered in the name of the 6th Defendant.vii.While the property known as LR.No. Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1763 is registered in the name of the late Wilson Kibor Mutai.Viii.The Other Portion Of Land Known As Lr.No. Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1752 is registered in the name of the 8th Defendant.ix.In essence, the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants did deny that their titles were created in an illegal, unlawful and fraudulent manner as alleged by the Plaintiff herein.x.The 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants did plead that they are the ones in occupation of their lawful suit properties and are not in occupation of the Plaintiff’s suit property as alleged.xi.In conclusion, the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants did seek this Court to dismiss the present suit with costs. 9.The Statements of Defence by the 1st and 2nd Defendants as well as the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants were duly served on the Plaintiff herein. 10.However, the Plaintiff herein did not file any Reply to the 1st and 2nd Defendants Defence and/or the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants Statement of Defence. 11.As such, the pleadings relating to the present suit were closed and the matter fixed for hearing. Plaintiff’s testimonies & documentary evidence 12.The first Plaintiff witness on the dock was the Plaintiff herself. 13.The Plaintiff did introduce herself as the Legal Representative of the Estate of the late Eliakim Washington Olweny (Deceased) who was also her husband based on the Letters of Administration Intestate dated 14.03.2019. 14.The Plaintiff did further state that the late Eliakim Washington Olweny was the lawful and registered owner of the suit property herein. 15.The Plaintiff did seek to rely on her witness statement dated 05.02.2021 as her evidence in chief. 16.The Plaintiff did further produce the following documents as her Exhibits in support of her testimony; -PW 1 Exhibit 1- A Copy of the Letters of Administration Intestate for the Estate of the late Eliakim Washington Olweny dated 14.03.2019.PW 1 Exhibit 2- A Copy of the Title Deed of the suit property issued on the 20.07.2000.PW 1 Exhibit 3- A Copy of an Agreement for Sale dated 20.12.1971 between Cherono wife of Maritim Maiyo and the late Eliakim Washington Olweny.PW 1 Exhibit 4- Copies of Receipts dated 13.02.1970, 31.04.1970 and 31.12.1970 from the Settlement Fund Trustees.PW 1 Exhibit 5- A Rectification Form by the Land Registrar dated 01.03.1989 to correct the name of the late Eliakim Washington Olweny as the registered owner of the suit property.PW 1 Exhibit 6- An Application Form for Consent to the Land Control Board in respect of the Rectification dated 01.03.1989.PW 1 Exhibit 7- A Copy of the Consent issued by the Land Control Board dated 01.03.1989 for the rectification of the name of Eliakim Washington Olweny.PW 1 Exhibit 8- A Copy of a letter by the Director of Criminal Investigations in respect to a Complaint of forceful retainer made by the Plaintiff on the 06.10.2009.PW 1 Exhibit 9- A Copy of a Discharge of Charge by the Settlement Fund Trustees dated 16.04.1980 over the suit property.PW 1 Exhibit 10- A Copy of the Transfer Form dated 16.04.1980 from the Settlement Fund Trustees to the Plaintiff herein over the suit property.PW 1 Exhibit 11- A Copy of an Order dated 03.06.2010 in the proceeding known as Eldoret Civil Case No. 50 of 2010.PW 1 Exhibit 12- A Copy of a Letter dated 07.09.2012 from the District Land Registrar to the Chief Land Registrar over the suit property.PW 1 Exhibit 13- A Copy of a Site Visit Report dated 04.09.2012 by the District Land Registrar.PW 1 Exhibit 14- A Copy of a Letter dated 30.04.2012 from the Plaintiff to the Commissioner of Lands.PW 1 Exhibit 15- A Copy of a Report dated 09.03.2019 from the Chief of the Area.PW 1 Exhibit 16- A Copy of a Letter from the County Land Registrar dated 10.07.2019 to the Officer of the Attorney General.PW 1 Exhibit 17- A Copy of a Receipt for an Official Search dated 18.03.2019.PW 1 Exhibit 18- Copies of handwritten notes by the Land Registrar dated 15.01.2013.PW 1 Exhibit 19- Copies of the handwritten notes from the Land Registrar dated 26.11.2012.PW 1 Exhibit 20- Copies of a handwritten note from the Land Registrar dated 26.11.2012.PW 1 Exhibit 21- Copy of a receipt of photocopies fees dated 14.09.2010. 17.Upon production of the above documents, the Plaintiff did testify that her late husband had purchased the suit property herein and was issued with a title deed in the year 2000. 18.The Plaintiff did confirm that upon purchase of the suit property, they did take possession of the same and had placed farm workers to manage the same. 19.In the year 1992, there were political tribal clashes within Uasin Gishu Area and the houses for the farm workers were destroyed thereof. 20.Nevertheless, the Plaintiff did return back to the suit property but began leasing the same to a neighbour known as MR. MISOI. 21.In the year 2009, the Plaintiff was informed that there was a stranger who had taken over the suit property. 22.According to the Plaintiff, one of the strangers who had trespassed into the suit property was the 6th Defendant herein who was alleging to be an owner of the same. 23.The Plaintiff did make a report to the law enforcement agencies and the 6th Defendant was arrested. 24.In the year 2019, the 6th Defendant did again trespass into the suit property once again alleging to be the owner. 25.Since then, the 6th Defendant as well as the 7th and 8th Defendants have been claiming ownership of the suit property. 26.The Plaintiff therefore sought this Court to grant the prayers in the Plaint as well as damages for the unlawful use of the suit property by the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants herein. 27.On cross-examination by the 1st and 2nd Defendants, the Plaintiff did reiterate that the suit property was legally owned by the late Eliakim Washington Olweny. 28.The Plaintiff did inform the Court that the late Eliakim Washington Olweny had three wives and many children. 29.The Plaintiff did point out that it was the 1st and 2nd Defendants that had forcefully evicted her farm workers from the suit property. 30.However, currently, the suit property was occupied by the 6th Defendant herein. 31.On further cross-examination by the 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants, the Plaintiff did state that the late Eliakim Washington Olweny had purchased the suit property from Cherono the wife of Maritim. 32.According to the Plaintiff, at the time of purchase the suit property was lawfully owned by CheroNo. 33.The Plaintiff did admit that she was not present at the time when the Agreement for Sale was executed between Cherono and the late Eliakim Washington Olweny. 34.The Plaintiff did confirm that she had seen the Letter of Allotment issued to Cherono but had not produced the same. 35.The Plaintiff did disclose that according to the Agreement for Sale, the purchase price was Kenya Shillings Seven Thousand of which Kenya Shillings Three Thousand was paid on execution of the Agreement for Sale. 36.The Plaintiff could not however confirm how the balance of Kenya Shillings Four Thousand was cleared including the debt to the Settlement Fund Trustees. 37.On being referred to PW 1 Exhibit 4, the Plaintiff did state that the first payment to the Settlement Fund Trustee was on the 13.02.1970 while the last payment was on 31.12.1970. 38.On the other hand, the Agreement for Sale was made on the 20.12.1971 which was after the payments to the Settlement Fund Trustees had been effected. 39.The Plaintiff did inform the Court that the last time she was in occupation of the suit property was the year 2019. 40.The Plaintiff did aver that the suit property should still be in existence based on the Register although she did admit that she had not done a recent search. 41.The Plaintiff did further disclose that there was another matter before the Courts of law which was Chief Magistrates’ Court Eldoret Environment & Land Case 12 of 2019 which was struck out as the Court did not have jurisdiction to handle the same. 42.On cross-examination by the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants, the Plaintiff did confirm that there were investigations as regards the suit property by the law enforcement agencies. 43.The Plaintiff did clarify that the investigations by the law enforcement agencies were not in relation to her ownership documents but the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants documents. 44.The Plaintiff did state that so far, there had been no feedback on the outcome of the investigations. 45.On being referred to PW 1 Exhibit 11, the Plaintiff could not confirm if the said proceeding had been determined. 46.The Plaintiff did deny knowledge of any orders of Dismissal of the said proceedings. 47.On being referred to PW 1 Exhibit 3, the Plaintiff could not state the reason why the payments to the Settlement Fund Trustees was being made first before the Agreement for Sale. 48.The Plaintiff did insist that the suit property was in the use of the Plaintiff between the years 1970 until 2019. 49.The Plaintiff did further insist that the suit property was still intact as she was not aware of any sub-divisions undertaken by the late Eliakim Washington Olweny. 50.The Plaintiff did state that the late Eliakim Washington Olweny did pass away in the year 2016. 51.On being referred to the 6th Defendant’s List of Documents dated 08.12.2021 (Item 2), the Plaintiff did acknowledge seeing the Title Deed issued in favour of Wilson Kibor Mutai on the 07.10.2009. 52.On being referred to PW 1 Exhibit 12, the document did refer to the property known as Plot.1761. 53.On being referred to the 6th Defendant’s List if Documents dated 08.12.2021 (Item 1), the Plaintiff did admit that it was an Agreement for Sale between the late Wilson Kibor Mutai and the 6th Defendant. 54.On being referred to the 6th Defendant’s List of Documents dated 08.12.2021 (Item 6), the Plaintiff did admit that the same was a document in relation to the suit property. 55.In the said document, the Plaintiff did confirm that as at 07.06.1979, the suit property was still in the name of the Settlement Fund Trustees 56.However, on the 26.11.2007, the person known as Wilson Kibor Mutai was recorded and issued with a Title Deed of the suit property. 57.Thereafter, the Register of the suit property was sub-divided and closed on the 09.04.2009. 58.The Plaintiff did state that based on these documents, the suit property herein had since been closed and does not exist. 59.The Plaintiff did aver that based on the sub-division of the suit property, there are other parcels of land which were created and their registers opened. 60.The Plaintiff did admit that she had not placed any caution on the suit property during these disputes. 61.On re-examination, the Plaintiff was referred to the 6th Defendants List of Documents dated 08.12.2021 (Item 6) which she did state that in Entry No. 2, the person known as Wilson Kibor Mutai was registered as the owner in the year 2007. 62.On being referred to PW 1 Exhibit 16, the Plaintiff did confirm that the original owner was Cherono wife of Maritim. 63.Thereafter, In Entry No. 2 made on 14.08.1986, the suit property was discharged by the Settlement Fund Trustee and transferred to the Plaintiff herein. 64.The Plaintiff did point out that the entries made on the 14.08.1986 were not in the genuine Register of the suit property. 65.Similarly, on Entry No. 3, there was another discharge of charge recorded on the 26.11.2007 and a transfer of the suit property to one Wilson Kibor Mutai. 66.However, this discharge of charge and transfer to Wilson Kibor Mutai is not supported by any documents at the Department of Lands. 67.In essence, the Plaintiff did testify that the recording of Wilson Kibor Mutai as the owner of the suit property was fraudulent and illegal and could not give any good title. 68.By extension thereof, any sub-division made by the person WILSON KIBOT MUTAI on the suit property was fraudulent and illegal and cannot exist in law. 69.On being referred to PW 1 Exhibit 14, the Plaintiff did state that the County Land Registrar was writing to the Chief Land Registrar in regards to the suit property. 70.The subject of the letter produced as PW 1 Exhibit 14 was that the genuine and legitimate Register of the suit property had been missing from the local Lands Department. 71.At the end of this re-examination, PW 1 was discharged from the witness box. 72.The Plaintiff’s second witness was one Sammie KiMaiyo Tororei who was marked as PW 2. 73.PW 2 did introduce himself as a former Assistant Chief of Osorongai Sub-location from the years 2000 up to 2012. 74.Thereafter, PW 2 became the Area Chief of Ngenyilel Location from the year 2012 to 2024. 75.PW 2 did inform the Court that he had prepared a witness statement dated 30.03.2022 of which he sought to adopt as his evidence in chief. 76.According to PW 2, the late Wilson Kibor Mutai had approached him to issue a burial permit for the person who had sold him the suit property. 77.However, PW 2 did decline to issue the said Burial Permit as the person who had passed on was not residing on the suit property and was unknown to him. 78.Upon further consultation with the village elders, it was ascertained that the deceased person was a resident of Tapsagoi Location and not his location. 79.Later on, PW 2 was informed of a land dispute over the suit property and a number of people were arrested which was around 2010 and 2011. 80.In conclusion of the evidence in chief, PW 2 did confirm that the late Eliakim Washington Olweny did continue using the suit property until the year 2019 when a fresh dispute did arise once again. 81.At the end of this examination in chief, the 1st and 2nd Defendants did not have any question for PW 2 in cross-examination. 82.On cross-examination by the 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants, PW 2 did reiterate that he was the Assistant Chief of Osorongai Location in the years between 2000-2012. 83.Similarly, PW 2 did state that he is a resident of Osorongai Location. 84.PW 2 did confirm to the Court that he was familiar with the suit property and did always know the same to belong to the late Eliakim Washington Olweny. 85.However, currently, PW 2 did state that the Plaintiff was not in occupation of the suit property. 86.PW 2 could not however state who was the actual person in occupation of the suit property currently. 87.PW 2 did inform the Court that during adjudication, the suit property was owned by Cherono and thereafter, it was sold to the late Eliakim Washington Olweny. 88.PW 2 did confirm that he had seen the original title deed issued to the late Eliakim Washington Olweny as well as the sub-divisions thereof which were five in number. 89.PW 2 could not however tell how the other titles owned by Wilson Kibor Mutai had been processed by the 3rd Defendant. 90.Nevertheless, PW 2 did insist that the lawful owner of the suit property was the late Eliakim Washington Olweny and upon his death, the family was the one to be in occupation. 91.According to PW 2, the person who did remove the persons who had leased the suit property from the Plaintiff was the 6th Defendant herein. 92.PW 2 did point out that he had previously talked to the 6th Defendant by way of a telephone and only met him in person at the hearing of this matter. 93.PW 2 did inform the Court that if one intended to transfer his property, he is required to write a letter of recommendation to the Land Control Board expressing the consent of the parties to transact. 94.However, for the present suit property, there was no such letter that was written to the Land Control Board by his office. 95.On cross-examination by the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants Counsel, PW 2 did aver that in the year 1970, he was about 12 years to 14 years. 96.PW 2 did testify that at that age, he did not know the late Eliakim Washington Olweny in person but knew the property belonged to him. 97.PW 2 further did recollect that around 1978, the person who was in occupation was a lady known as CheroNo. 98.During the years of 1970s and 1980s, the people in occupation were the employees of the late Eliakim Washington Olweny. 99.It was until the year 2009 that PW 2 did meet the Plaintiff Eliakim Washington Olweny in person. 100.At the time PW 2 met the Plaintiff Eliakim Washington Olweny in the year 2009, there was a dispute as to the ownership of the suit property. 101.PW 2 did further reiterate that the suit property used to be leased by the Plaintiff and was even a witness of a similar Lease in the year 2016. 102.However, PW 2 could not tell whether the said Lease Agreement had been produced by the Plaintiff herein. 103.PW 2 did confirm to the Court that there were investigations which were being undertaken by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations over the ownership documents held by the 6th to 8th Defendants but could not tell the outcome of the said investigations. 104.PW 2 did disclose to the Court that although he knew the suit property had been sub-divided into five portions, he could not tell the numbers of the new properties. 105.In conclusion of this cross-examination, PW 2 did admit that he could not tell who is the legitimate owner of the suit property. 106.On re-examination, PW 2 was of the view that based on the history of the suit property and the documents presented by the Plaintiff, he was of the view that the suit property did belong to the Plaintiff herein. 107.At the end of this re-examination, PW 2 was duly discharged from the witness box and the Plaintiff did close her case. Defendants’ testimonies and documentray evidence 108.The first Defence witness was ELIJAH KIPLAGAT who is the 1st Defendant and was marked as DW 1. 109.The 1st Defendant did inform the Court that he resides in Turbo and is a farmer by occupation. 110.The 1st Defendant did confirm to have written a witness statement dated 15.06.2021 of which he sought to rely upon as his evidence in chief. 111.The 1st Defendant did further produce the following documents in support of his evidence in chief; -DW 1 Exhibit 1- A Copy of a Decree dated 16.05.2017 in the proceeding known as Eldoret Environment & Land Court Case No. 609A OF 2012 between Eliakim Washington Olweny-Versus- Wilson Kibor Mutai & Arap Sang.DW 1 Exhibit 2- Copies of pleadings in Eldoret Environment & Land Court Case No. 47 of 2019 between the plaintiff and the 1st and 2nd defendants herein.DW 1 Exhibit 3- Copies of the pleadings in Eldoret Environment & Land Court Miscellanous Application No. 12 of 2019 between the plaintiff and the 1st and 2nd defendants.DW 1 Exhibit 4- A Copy of the Title Deed of the suit property in the name of Wilson Kibor Mutai issued on the 07.10.2009.DW 1 Exhibit 5- A Copy of the Register and/or Green Card of the suit property opened on the 07.06.1978.DW 1 Exhibit 6- A Copy of the Title Deed of the property known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1760 in the name of one daisy jeruto chumba issued on the 14.04.2009.DW 1 Exhibit 7- A Copy of the Title Deed of the property known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1761 in the name of Wilson Kibor Mutai issued on the 07.10.2009.DW 1 Exhibit 8- A Copy of the Title Deed of the property known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1763 in the name of Wilson Kibor Mutai issued on the 07.10.2009.DW 1 Exhibit 9- A Copy of the Mutation Form of the property known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1751. 112.Upon production of the documents mentioned hereinabove, the 1st Defendant did inform the Court that he does not have any ownership interests on the suit property and is not in occupation of the same. 113.The 1st Defendant therefore sought this Court to dismiss the suit against him with costs. 114.On cross-examination by the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants, the 1st Defendant did reiterate that he had never been in occupation of the suit property before the Court. 115.The 1st Defendant could not also identify the persons that were in the suit property at the moment. 116.The 1st Defendant did admit that he was aware of the Plaintiff’s interest in the suit property but had never met the late Eliakim Washington Olweny in person. 117.The 1st Defendant did inform the Court that the Plaintiff herein who is the wife of the late Eliakim Washington Olweny was well known to him. 118.The 1st Defendant did deny being familiar with the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants herein. 119.Nevertheless, the 1st Defendant did confirm that he was aware of an ownership dispute over the suit property but could not tell what the actual dispute is all about. 120.On being referred to DW 1 Exhibit 2, the 1st Defendant could not remember the details of the said case. 121.The 1st Defendant did confess that he did not know much about the suit property because he did not have any interest on the same. 122.On further cross-examination by the 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants, the 1st Defendant reiterated that he had only heard about the late Eliakim Washington Olweny but was only familiar with the Plaintiff herein who is the wife. 123.On being referred to DW 1 Exhibit 2, the 1st Defendant did state that the Plaintiff herein had sued them over the suit property. 124.Nevertheless, the 1st Defendant did deny the allegation that the Plaintiff had obtained a fraudulent title deed of the suit property as was pleaded in their Defence therein. 125.According to the 1st Defendant, a lot of the facts pleaded in their Defence were not true and had been written without his consent. 126.The 1st Defendant did even go further to state that he had not instructed the advocate who was acting for them in the said proceeding or paid any legal fees to him. 127.The 1st Defendant did confirm to the Court that in the years 2013 and 2014, he was a caretaker of the 6th Defendant herein on the suit property. 128.During this time as a caretaker, the suit property was empty and did not have any developments thereon. 129.The 1st Defendant did inform the Court that he did know the person called CheroNo. 130.The 1st Defendant did testify that he was born in the year 1968. 131.The 1st Defendant did further deny being familiar with the person known as Wilson Kibor Mutai. 132.The 1st Defendant did state that he had no dispute with the Plaintiff herein as he currently resides in his rural home and was not aware that any of the sub-divisions emanating from the suit property had been registered in his name. 133.On cross-examination by the Plaintiff herein, the 1st Defendant did confirm that his name was Elijah Kiplagat and had no other name. 134.The 1st Defendant did inform the Court that in the year 2012, he was not on the suit property when the area chief and the surveyor did visit the suit property. 135.On being referred to PW 1 Exhibit 13, the 1st Defendant did acknowledge that his name was on the attendance list but could not remember being present. 136.On being referred to DW 1 Exhibit 2, the 1st Defendant did admit that in these proceeding, he had pleaded that he was only a caretaker of the suit property in the year 2019. 137.On being referred to the Statement of Defence dated 19.10.2020, the 1st Defendant did further admit that it states he was a caretaker of the suit property up to the year 2020. 138.The 1st Defendant therefore did testify that he had been in occupation of the suit property herein for a period of time. 139.However, the 1st Defendant did reiterate that he was no longer in the suit property and had no interest whatsoever with the same. 140.The 1st Defendant did confirm being familiar with PW 2 who was the area chief. 141.The 1st Defendant did inform the Court that PW 2 had been ahead of him in school by a couple of years. 142.During this time when the 1st Defendant was in school, the suit property was known to belong to the late Eliakim Washington Olweny. 143.On re-examination, the 1st Defendant was referred to DW 1 Exhibit 2 but once again, he did deny any knowledge of the said proceedings. 144.The 1st Defendant did state that he knew that Advocate who was representing them and even where his office is located. 145.The 1st Defendant did insist that at the moment, he was not in occupation of the suit property herein and had no interest whatsoever in the same. 146.The 1st Defendant did confirm to the Court that he had no blood relationship with the 6th Defendant herein. 147.At the end of this re-examination, DW 1 was discharged from the witness box. 148.The second Defence witness was Elijah Kibet Rono who is the 2nd Defendant and was marked as DW 2. 149.The 2nd Defendant did introduce himself as a resident of Turbo and a Pastor by profession. 150.The 2nd Defendant did inform the Court that he had prepared a witness statement dated 15.06.2021 of which he did adopt the same as his evidence in chief. 151.The 2nd Defendant did further rely on the documents adduced by the 1st Defendant. 152.On being referred to DW 1 Exhibit 2, the 2nd Defendant did remember the case which had been filed by the Plaintiff herein. 153.On being referred to DW 1 Exhibit 4, the 2nd Defendant did admit being familiar with the person known as Wilson Kibor Kibet as this was his uncle. 154.The 2nd Defendant nevertheless did disclose to the Court that he had no interest whatsoever with the suit property is dispute. 155.On being referred to DW 1 Exhibit 2, the 2nd Defendant did confirm that in their Defence, they had alleged that the Plaintiff’s title had been obtained fraudulently. 156.The 2nd Defendant did inform the Court that the late Eliakim Washington Olweny had three wives and Letters of Administration Intestate had one the Plaintiff as the wife of the deceased. 157.On cross-examination by the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants, the 1st Defendant did deny owning the suit property herein. 158.The 2nd Defendant similarly could not identify who is the lawful owner of the suit property. 159.The 2nd Defendant did disclose that he heard about the late Eliakim Washington Olweny but did not know him in person. 160.The 2nd Defendant did testify that he was only familiar with the 1st Defendant herein. 161.On cross-examination by the 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants, the 2nd Defendant did state that he resides about 15 Kilometres from the suit property. 162.The 2nd Defendant did disclose that he had been born in the year 1987. 163.According to the 2nd Defendant, the suit property had initially belonged to his uncle the late Wilson Kibor Mutai who did pass on around February 2013. 164.The 2nd Defendant did testify that in the year 2007, there was a dispute over the suit property with the late Eliakim Washington Olweny. 165.In this dispute, a suit was filed and the 2nd Defendant was also named as one of the Defendants. 166.The 2nd Defendant did reiterate that his occupation on the suit property was on the invitation of his uncle the late Wilson Kibor Mutai and not as an owner of the suit property. 167.On being referred to DW 1 Exhibit 2, the 2nd Defendant did insist that the late Eliakim Washington Olweny had three wives before his demise. 168.The wives to the late Eliakim Washington Olweny were Anne Wanjiru, Felista Okoth Olweny and the Plaintiff herein. 169.The 2nd Defendant did state that he did not know who the legitimate owner of the suit property was but according to his knowledge, the same did belong to the late Wilson Kibor Mutai. 170.The 2nd Defendant did deny knowledge that the late Eliakim Washington Olweny had a title deed to the suit property. 171.On being referred to DW 1 Exhibit 2, the 2nd Defendant did point out that in their Defence, they did acknowledge that the Plaintiff had a title deed although it had been obtained fraudulently. 172.The 2nd Defendant did deny knowledge that the Plaintiff herein was using the title deed as late as in the year 2007. 173.On being referred to DW 1 Exhibit 1, the 2nd Defendant did confirm that his uncle Wilson Kibor Mutai was one of the Defendants therein. 174.The 2nd Defendant did inform the Court that currently, the suit property was occupied by the 6th Defendant. 175.The 2nd Defendant did testify that the 6th Defendant had acquired the suit property from his deceased uncle Wilson Kibor Mutai in the years around 2016 and 2017. 176.The 2nd Defendant did admit that the late Wilson Kibor Mutai had passed away in the year 2013 but at this time, the Agreements for Sale with the 6th Defendant were already in existence. 177.On cross-examination by the Plaintiff, the 2nd Defendant did aver that he used to visit his deceased uncle Wilson Kibor Mutai from the year 2010. 178.The 2nd Defendant nevertheless could not remember the person known as Beatrice Milehane. 179.The 2nd Defendant did deny the allegation that he was one of the people that had evicted the said Beatrice Milehane from the suit property. 180.On being referred to DW 1 Exhibit 2, the 2nd Defendant did confirm that he was in occupation of the suit property. 181.The 2nd Defendant did state that although his uncle Wilson Kibor Mutai had passed away in the year 2013, he was still visiting the suit property until the year 2019. 182.The 2nd Defendant did reiterate that his uncle Wilson Kibor Mutai had sold off the suit property in the year 2013 to the 6th Defendant herein. 183.The 2nd Defendant did insist that the deceased uncle Wilson Kibor Mutai had been living in Ngenyilel and not ziwa as alleged. 184.On being referred to PW 1 Exhibit 13, the 2nd Defendant did deny the contents on the said document that his uncle was not a resident of Ngenyilel. 185.The 2nd Defendant did further disclose that the deceased uncle Wilson Kibor Mutai had been buried in Merewet in another property that he owned. 186.The 2nd Defendant did admit that he had not seen any other Letter of Administration Intestate save for the one produced before the Court. 187.The 2nd Defendant did further admit that he had no letter from any chief saying that the late Eliakim Washington Olweny had other wives. 188.On being referred to PW 1 Exhibit 15, the 2nd Defendant did testify that the document discloses the Plaintiff as the widow of the late Eliakim Washington Olweny. 189.On being referred to PW 1 Exhibit 11, the 2nd Defendant did confirm that it was a Court Order prohibiting the late Wilson Kibor Mutai from occupying the suit property herein. 190.On re-examination, the 2nd Defendant did aver that the 6th Defendant had taken possession of the suit property in the year 2009. 191.In conclusion of this re-examination, the 2nd Defendant did reiterate that he is no longer in occupation of the suit property and/or has any interest on the same. 192.At the end of this re-examination, the 2nd Defendant was discharged from the witness box and the 1st and 2nd Defendants herein did close their cases thereof. 193.The third Defence witness was Naomi Rop who was marked as DW 3. 194.DW 3 did introduce herself as a Land Registrar currently stationed in Uasin Gishu Land Registry. 195.DW 3 did further state that she would testify on behalf of the 3rd Defendant, the 4th Defendant and the 5th Defendant herein. 196.DW 3 did inform the Court that she had attended Court to testify about the ownership of the suit property which is before the Court. 197.DW 3 did begin her testimony by disclosing to the Court that the suit property had three different Registers in their offices. 198.DW 3 did further testify that the first Register of the suit property was opened on the 14.08.1986 and the lawful owner recorded therein was the late Eliakim Washington Olweny. 199.According to the first Register of the suit property, there was a Discharge of Charge issued by the Settlement Fund Trustees and a Transfer in favour of the late Eliakim Washington Olweny both dated 19.03.1980 and registered on the 14.08.1986. 200.However, this first Register has been missing from the Land Department Records. 201.The second Register of the suit property was opened on the 26.11.2007 and records the late Wilson Kibor Mutai as the registered owner of the suit property. 202.However, in this second Register, the Lands Department has no records of the Discharge of Charge from the Settlement Fund Trustees and the Transfer in favour of the late Wilson Kibor Mutai. 203.The third Register of the suit property is in the name of the 6th Defendant who was registered as the owner on the 20.11.2023. 204.However, in this third Register, the Lands Department has no records of the Discharge of Charge from the Settlement Fund Trustees and the Transfer in favour of the 6th Defendant herein. 205.DW 3 therefore did produce the following documents as the true records from the 3rd and 4th Defendants records; -DW 3 Exhibit 1- A Copy of the Discharge from the Settlement Fund Trustees dated 19.03.1980 and registered on the 14.08.1986.DW 3 Exhibit 2- A Copy of the Transfer of the suit property in favour of the late Eliakim Washington Alweny dated 19.03.1980 and registered on the 14.08.1986.DW 3 Exhibit 3- A Copy of the second Green Card recording the name of the 2nd Defendant on the 26.11.2007.DW 3 Exhibit 4- A Certified Copy of the third Register of the suit property registering the name of the 6th Defendant on the 20.11.2023. 206.At the end of producing the above documents, DW 3 did complete her evidence in chief. 207.The 1st and 2nd Defendants did not have any questions for cross-examination against DW 3. 208.On cross-examination by the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants, DW 3 did state that the office of the 3rd Defendants usually comes in at the time of registering a property. 209.DW 3 did specify that in the registration process of a property that belongs to the Settlement Fund Trustees, the documents expected for registration are the Discharge of Charge from the Settlement Fund Trustees and the Transfer from the Settlement Fund Trustees in favour of the lawful owner. 210.DW 3 did confirm that these documents were available for the first Register in the name of the late Eliakim Washington Olweny. 211.However, the same documents were not in the second Register and the third Register. 212.DW 3 did further confirm that the Title Deed issued to the Plaintiff on the 20.07.2000 was not in the 3rd Defendant’s records. 213.Similarly, the 3rd Defendant did not have copies of the Title Deeds issued to the late Wilson Kibor Mutai and the 6th Defendant over the suit property in their records. 214.On being referred to the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants List of Documents dated 09.06.2025 (Item 1), DW 3 did inform the Court that she was not aware of the letter dated 15.06.2023. 215.DW 3 did point out that the Letter being referred was to never copied to the offices of the 3rd Defendant. 216.On being referred to (Item No. 4) on the same List of Documents, DW 3 did state that the document being referred to was not in the records of the 3rd Defendant and they do not have a copy of the same. 217.On being referred to (Item No.7) on the same List of Documents, DW 3 did recognise the same as the third Register with the 6th Defendant’s name as the lawful owner. 218.DW 3 did inform the Court that the third Register did have a certification from the 3rd Defendant. 219.On being referred to PW 1 Exhibit 12, DW 3 did admit to be aware of the letter dated 07.09.2012. 220.On being referred to the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants List of Documents dated 08.12.2021 (Item 2), DW 3 did testify that the same refers to the registration of the late Wilson Kibor Mutai as the owner of the property known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1751. 221.DW 3 did clarify that the second Register in the name of Wilson Kibor Mutai as the owner of the suit property was closed upon sub-division into two portions namely Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1750 and 1751 on the 04.04.2009. 222.Subsequently thereafter, the two portions namely Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1750 and 1751 were issued with title deeds on the 07.10.2009. 223.The property known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1751 was further sub-divided into Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1760,1761,1762 and 1763. 224.The property known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1760 was registered in the name of DAISY JERUTO CHUMBA while the properties known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1761,1762 and 1763 were recorded in the name of the late Wilson Kibor Mutai. 225.On cross-examination by the Plaintiff, DW 3 did admit that there are three Registers of the suit property held by the 3rd Defendant. 226.DW 3 did testify that this is not procedural and lawful because each property should have only one Register. 227.DW 3 did reiterate that the first Register of the suit property was opened on the 14.08.1986 in the name of the Late Eliakim Washington Olweny. 228.DW 3 did confirm that all the supporting documents relating to the first Green Card were available in the offices of the 3rd Defendant. 229.On the other hand, DW 3 did reiterate that there were no supporting documents relating to the second Register in the name of the late Wilson Kibor Mutai and the third Register in the name of the 6th Defendant. 230.DW 3 did inform the Court that the 3rd Defendant was not aware of any Court Order to cancel the first Register. 231.On being referred to PW 1 Exhibit 14, DW 3 did confirm that the letter dated 30.04.2012 was declaring the first Register as lost and therefore an official search could not be undertaken to verify the ownership. 232.On being referred to PW 1 Exhibit 16, DW 3 did clarify that according to the 3rd Defendant’s records, the original allottee of the suit property was one Cherono wife of Maritim which information was emanating from the Settlement Fund Trustees. 233.DW 3 did go further and testify that on the 14.08.1986, a Discharge of Charge and a Transfer from the Settlement Fund Trustees in favour of the late Eliakim Washington Olweny were received and registered by the 3rd Defendant. 234.So far, DW 3 did inform the Court that the 3rd Defendant had not received any information that the ownership of the late Eliakim Washington Olweny had been withdrawn. 235.At the end of this cross-examination, there was no re-examination of DW 3 and the 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants did close their case thereafter. 236.The fourth Defence witness was HOSEA KIBET RUTO who is the 6th Defendant and who was marked as DW 4. 237.The 6th Defendant did introduce himself as a resident of Uasin Gishu and a businessman by occupation. 238.The 6th Defendant did inform the Court that he had prepared a witness statement dated 09.06.2025 of which he did adopt as his evidence in chief. 239.The 6th Defendant did also produce the following documents in support of his evidence in chief; -DW 4 Exhibit 1- A Copy of an Agreement for Sale dated 07.12.2009 between the late Wilson Kibor Mutai and the 6th Defendant over Plot.No.1761 measuring 3.24 Hectares and PLOT.1762 measuring 2.43 Hectares.DW 4 Exhibit 2- A Copy of the Title Deed of Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1761 dated 07.10.2009 in the name of the late Wilson Kibor Mutai.DW 4 Exhibit 3- A Copy of the Title Deed of Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1762 issued on the 07.10.2009 in the name of the late Wilson Kibor MutaiDW 4 Exhibit 4- A copy of the Title Deed of Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448 in the name of the late Wilson Kibor Mutai issued on 26.11.2007.DW 4 Exhibit 5- A Copy of the Mutation of Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448 registered by the late Wilson Kibor Mutai dated 14.11.2007.DW 4 Exhibit 6- A Copy of the Mutation of Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1751 registered by the late Wilson Kibor Mutai and dated 06.02.2009.DW 4 Exhibit 7- A Copy of a Green Card of Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448 in the name of the late Wilson Kibor Mutai opened on the 07.06.1979.DW 4 Exhibit 8- A Copy of a Letter of offer dated 15.06.2023 by Settlement Fund Trustees to the 6th Defendant in favour of the property known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448.DW 4 Exhibit 9- A Copy of payment Receipt to the Settlement Fund Trustees made on the 16.06.2023 for Kenya Shillings One Hundred and Thirty-One Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty (Kshs 131,350/-) as per the Letter of Offer.DW 4 Exhibit 10- A Copy of the Receipt No. 1 from the Land Settlement Trustee issued to the 6th Defendant.DW 4 Exhibit 11- A Copy of an Ardhi Sasa Receipt No. V2W3P80ZPT dated 15.11.2023 for Kenya Shillings Two Hundred and Fifty (KShs.250/-).DW 4 Exhibit 12- A Copy of an Ardhi Sasa payment receipt No. MB 88YDOOPD dated 15.11.2023 in the name of the 6th Defendant.DW 4 Exhibit 13- A Copy of a Transfer of the property known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448 dated 13.09.2023 in the name of the 6th Defendant from the Land Settlement Trustees.DW 4 Exhibit 14- A Copy of a Discharge dated 13.09.2023.DW 4 Exhibit 15- A Copy of a Title Deed of Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448 issued on the 20.11.2023 in the name of the 6th Defendant. 240.The 6th Defendant did disclose to the Court that he first went on the ground while inspecting the two properties known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1751 and 1752 in the year 2009 and 2010. 241.Upon inspection of the two properties known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1750 and 1751, the 6th Defendant did purchase the same. 242.Since the year 2009 and 2010, the 6th Defendant did testify that he was the one in occupation and use of both Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1750 and 1751. 243.During this period, the two portions namely Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1750 and 1751 were well demarcated and registered in the name of the late Wilson Kibor Kibet. 244.Before the two portions namely Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1750 and 1751 would be transferred to the 6th Defendant, the registered owner Wilson Kibor Kibet did pass on. 245.Unfortunately, the estate of the late Wilson Kibor Kibet did not institute any succession proceedings in relation to the Estate including the two properties known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1750 and 1751. 246.Due to this delay from the Estate of the late Wilson Kibor Kibet, the 6th Defendant did visit the Lands Department in Nairobi and upon verification of the Records relating to Plot.No.448, it was discovered that neither the person known as Cherono and or Wilson Kibor Kibet were the owners of the said property. 247.The 6th Defendant did testify that initially, the property known as Plot.No.448 has been allocated to Cherono wife of Maritim but she did not comply with the terms and conditions thereof. 248.As such, the officials at the Lands Department did confirm that the Plot.No.448 was once again available for allocation. 249.Based on this information, the 6th Defendant did apply afresh to be allocated the property known as Plot.No.448 which application was allowed and a Letter of Offer dated 15.06.2023 was issued in his favour. 250.The 6th Defendant did confirm that upon receipt of the said Letter of Offer dated 15.06.2023, he did make a payment of Kenya Shillings One Hundred and Thirty-One Thousand (KShs.131,000/-) in acceptance of the terms and conditions thereof hence the Title Deed issued in his name on the 20.11.2023. 251.The 6th Defendant did admit being familiar with PW 2 who was the area chief and a neighbour on the suit property. 252.On further cross-examination by the 1st and 2nd Defendants, the 6th Defendant did confirm to be familiar with the 1st and 2nd Defendants herein. 253.The 6th Defendant did confirm that the suit property was in his occupation. 254.The 6th Defendant did testify that the 1st and 2nd Defendants do not live of the suit property. 255.The 6th Defendant did aver that the 1st and 2nd Defendants only did visit the later Wilson Kibor Kibet who was their uncle. 256.On cross-examination by the 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants, the 6th Defendant did aver that he had purchased the properties known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1750 and 1751 from the late Wilson Kibor Kibet in the year 2009. 257.The 6th Defendant did disclose to the Court that he was not familiar with the late Eliakim Washington Olweny. 258.The 6th Defendant did state that the property known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1751 was sub-divided into the properties known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1760, 1761,1762 and 1763 in the year 2009. 259.The 6th Defendant could not explain why the late Wilson Kibor Kibet did not undertake the transfer to him. 260.The 6th Defendant did deny knowledge of the late Eliakim Washington Olweny relating to the original property known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448. 261.The 6th Defendant did further admit that the Land Settlement Fund did allocate him the same property through a Letter of Offer dated 15.06.2023. 262.The 6th Defendant did clarify that according to him, the property known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448 was not the property of the late Wilson Kibor Kibet. 263.The 6th Defendant did insist that the legal and legitimate registration of the property known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448 was the one contained in the Title Deed issued on the 20.11.2023 in his name. 264.On cross-examination by the Plaintiff, the 6th Defendant did reiterate that he had purchased the property known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448 from the late Wilson Kibor Kibet. 265.At this time, the property known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448 had already been sub-divided into the properties known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1750 and 1751. 266.The 6th Defendant did inform the Court that due diligence was done on both properties but did not have the official searches to prove the same. 267.The 6th Defendant did deny knowledge that the late Wilson Kibor Mutai had been charged in a Criminal Case for trespass in the year 2010. 268.On being referred to PW 1 Exhibit 11, the 6th Defendant did confirm that it was an injunctive order prohibiting anyone from trespassing, using and/or occupying the property known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448. 269.However, the 6th Defendant did deny any knowledge of the said Order as he was not a party thereof. 270.On being referred to DW 1 Exhibit 1, the 6th Defendant did state that it was an Agreement for Sale dated 07.12.2009. 271.The 6th Defendant did testify that the consideration was made in cash and he did not have any document to prove the same. 272.The 6th Defendant did deny knowledge of a person known as Beatrice Milikahe. 273.The 6th Defendant did inform the Court that the 1st Defendant had been his caretaker of the suit property between the year 2013 and 2014. 274.The 6th Defendant did state that he did not know the person known as Cherono wife of Maritim. 275.In essence, the 6th Defendant did aver that he was now an owner based on his own Letter of Allotment by the Land Settlement Fund. 276.The 6th Defendant did not have any document to prove that the person known as Cherono wife of Maritim had not paid the premium in the Letter of Offer. 277.The 6th Defendant was also not aware that the property had been discharged and transferred to the late Eliakim Washington Olweny. 278.The 6th Defendant did not also have the application for allocation of land made to the Settlement Fund Trustees. 279.On re-examination, the 6th Defendant was referred to PW 1 Exhibit 12 which he did insist that he was not aware of the Order and/or was not a party in the said proceedings. 280.On being referred to DW 3 Exhibit 8, the 6th Defendant did state that the offer by the Land Settlement Fund was valid for 90 days. 281.During this period, the 6th Defendant did make a payment of Kenya Shillings One Hundred and Thirty-One Thousand (KShs.131,000/-) which was the acceptance amount. 282.The 6th Defendant did not however have the Application for registration of the Discharge and Transfer of the suit property into his name. 283.At the end of this re-examination, the 6th Defendant was duly discharged from the witness box thereof. 284.The fifth Defence witness was one Eliab Kamaru who was marked as DW 5. 285.DW 5 did introduce himself as a Deputy Director in the Directorate of Land Adjudication and Settlement based in Nairobi. 286.DW 5 did inform the Court that some of his duties included dealing with adjudication, ascertaining rights on community land and ensuring that the homeless are settled on Government Land. 287.DW 5 did confirm that he was familiar with the suit property before the Court. 288.DW 5 did admit that the suit property was under the Settlement Fund. 289.According to DW 5, the original allottee of the suit property was one Cherono wife of Maritim.A. Maiyo way back in 1970. 290.However, DW 5 did inform the Court that there were no records to confirm if the person known as Cherono wife of Maritim.A. Maiyo had complied with the terms of the Letter of Offer or not. 291.Subsequently, the 6th Defendant did make an Application for Allocation of the suit property on the 07.03.2023 which application was approved by the Director of Settlement on the 15.06.2023. 292.Due to this approval dated 15.06.2023, a file was opened in the Settlement Registry and an Invoice dated 16.06.2023 for Kenya Shillings One Hundred and Thirty-One Thousand (KShs.131,000/-) issued to the 6th Defendant. 293.The Invoice was subsequently paid on the 16.06.2023 and issued with a Receipt. 294.The Director of Settlement did issue a Clearance Certificate on the 13.09.2023. 295.Thereafter, the Discharge of Charge and a Transfer was made in favour of the 6th Defendant and dispatched for registration with the County Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu through a forwarding letter dated 23.09.2023. 296.However, DW 5 did not have any copy of the Discharge of Charge and Transfer to the 6th Defendant herein before the Court. 297.In conclusion, DW 5 was of the considered opinion that the 6th Defendant’s Title Deed issued on the 15.06.2023 was the legitimate and lawful ownership document of the suit property. 298.On cross-examination by the 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants, DW 5 did admit that the first allottee of the suit property was one Cherono wife of Maritim. 299.DW 5 did further admit that there was no document which demonstrated that the allottee known as Cherono had not been able to comply with the terms and conditions of the Letter of Offer. 300.DW 5 however did not have any investigation report to confirm who was in occupation before the re-allocation to the 6th Respondent. 301.The 1st and 2nd Defendants did not have any questions for cross-examining DW 5. 302.On cross-examination by the Plaintiff, DW 5 did state that part of his duties was to resolve disputes in settlement areas. 303.DW 5 did clarify that in a settlement area, the entity that identifies who should be allocated land is the Sub-County Settlement Selection Committee and not the Director of Settlement. 304.DW 5 did admit that it was the Sub-County Settlement Selection Committee that had identified Cherono as the owner of the suit property. 305.DW 5 could not also recollect the provision of the law that gave the Director of Settlement powers to re-allocate any land within a Settlement area. 306.DW 5 did deny that he was the one that had executed the Letter of Offer in favour of the 6th Defendant. 307.DW 5 however did confirm that the Letter of offer in favour of the 6th Defendant was within their records. 308.DW 5 did point out that in cases of re-allocation, there was no notice in the Kenya Gazette that is required. 309.However, DW 5 did accept that a ground visit is usually a pre-condition before re-allocation. 310.DW 5 did conclude his cross-examination by stating that if the suit property had been sub-divided, the same was illegal and unlawful. 311.On re-examination, DW 5 did reiterate that the Discharge of Charge and Transfer are usually sent to the Sub-County Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer. 312.These documents in according to DW 5 are usually prepared by the Director of Settlement. 313.Lastly, the documents are registered by the County Land Registrar and issued with the relevant Certificate of ownership. 314.At the end of this re-examination, DW 5 was discharged from the witness box and the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants did close their case thereafter. 315.The Court did direct that parties file their final submissions. 316.The Plaintiff did file her submissions dated 12.02.2026, while the 1st and 2nd Defendants did file their submissions dated 04.02.2026 and the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants did file their submissions dated 11.03.2026. 317.The Court has perused the pleadings filed by the parties herein, the testimonies adduced at the hearing, the documentary evidence produced and the submissions and identifies the following issues for determination; -Issue No.1- who was the first allottee of the suit property herein?Issue No.2- Did the first allottee of the suit property comply with the terms & conditions to facilitate registration of the suit property?Issue No.3- Was the late wilson kibor mutai the legitimate owner of the suit property herein?Issue No.4- Is the 6th, 7th & 8th defendants registration of the suit properties thereof lawful and legitimate?Issue No.5- Which of the three registers held by the county land registrar, uasin gishu is legitimate, legal and lawful?Issue No.5- Who is the lawful registered owner of the suit property herein.Issue No.6- Is the amended plaint herein merited or not?Issue No.7-Are the reliefs sought in the amended plaint merited or not?Issue No.8- Who bears the costs of the present suit? 318.The Court having identified the above-mentioned issues for determination will now proceed to discuss the same as provided hereinbelow; Issue No.1- Who was the first allottee of the suit property herein? 319.The first issue for determination in the present suit is to establish who was the first recorded owner of the suit property. 320.According to the pleadings, testimonies and documents adduced by the Plaintiff herein, the suit property was public land which was within a Settlement Scheme known as Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme administered through the Settlement Fund Trustee. 321.The Plaintiff did plead and testify that the original allottee of the suit property was one Cherono wife of Maritim. 322.The Plaintiff’s testimony was corroborated by the evidence of PW 2 who was the area chief during his cross-examination by the 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants as well as the cross-examination of the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants herein. 323.The 1st and 2nd Defendants did deny knowledge of the person known as Cherono wife of Maritim as the right recorded owner of the suit property by the Settlement Fund Trustee. 324.DW 3 who was the County Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu did testify that according to the records in their offices, the first person to be recorded as the owner of the suit property by the Settlement Fund Trustee was Cherono wife of Maritim during cross-examination by the Plaintiff herein. 325.In the testimony of the 6th Defendant, he did inform the Court that upon his visit to the Land Adjudication and Settlement Offices in Nairobi in the year 2023, it was discovered that the suit property had been recorded in the name of Cherono wife of Maritim as the first owner. 326.Lastly, DW 5 who was the Deputy Director in the office of Land Adjudication and Settlement did inform the Court in his evidence in chief that the suit property had been recorded in the name of Cherono wife of Maritim as the first owner of the same. 327.The 6th Defendant who did plead that the suit property had originally been recorded in the name of the late Wilson Kibor Mutai did not produce any document and/or records from the Settlement Fund Trustee or its successor in law to demonstrate the recognition of the late Wilson Kibor Mutai as the first recorded owner of the suit property. 328.In essence therefore, the allegation that the late Wilson Kibor Mutai was the first recorded owner of the suit property by the Settlement Fund Trustee as alleged by the 1st, 2nd and 6th Defendants cannot be sustained. 329.To compliment this position, the testimony in chief of both the 6th Defendant and DW 5 admit that the first recorded owner of the suit property was Cherono wife of Maritim. 330.Clearly therefore, the admission by the 6th Defendant and DW 5 clears the air on who was the first recorded owner of the suit property. 331.Consequently, based on the testimonies of the parties herein and the admission by DW 5, this Court hereby makes a finding that the first legitimate and lawful owner of the suit property as recorded by the Settlement Fund Trustee was the late Cherono wife of Maritim.A. Maiyo as contained in the records maintained in the office of the Land Adjudication & Settlement offices held by the DW 5. Issue No.2- Did the first allottee of the suit property comply with the terms & conditions to facilitate registration of the suit property? 332.The second issue for determination is whether the first Allottee did comply with the terms and conditions of the Letter of Allotment for purposes of facilitating the registration of the suit property. 333.The Plaintiff herein in her testimony in chief did inform the Court that the first lawful recorded owner of the suit property who was Cherono wife of Maritim.A. Maiyo did sell the suit property to the late Eliakim Washington Olweny through an Agreement for Sale dated 20.12.1971 produced as PW 1 Exhibit 3. 334.Based on this Agreement for Sale dated 20.12.1971, the late Eliakim Washington Olweny began paying the Charge created by the Settlement Fund Trustee by way of instalments as demonstrated through the Receipts dated 13.02.1970, 31.05.1970 and 31.12.1970 produced as PW 1 Exhibit 4 (a, b and c). 335.Upon clearance of the amount contained in the Charge by the Settlement Fund Trustee over the suit property, a Discharge of Charge dated 16.04.1980 was issued and a Transfer Form in favour of the late Eliakim Washington Olweny dated 14.08.1986 both produced as PW 1 Exhibit 9 and 10 respectively were issued by the Settlement Fund Trustee. 336.As a result of these two documents, the late Eliakim Washington Olweny was issued with a Title Deed of the suit property on the 20.07.2000 which was produced as PW 1 Exhibit 2. 337.During the cross-examination by the 1st and 2nd Defendants, there was no question that was raised as to the legality and/or authenticity of the Plaintiff’s documents identified as PW 1 Exhibit 2,3,4(a, b and c) as well as PW 1 Exhibit 9 and 10. 338.The only questions that were raised by the 1st and 2nd Defendants did touch on occupation and use of the suit property by the Plaintiff herein. 339.On cross-examination by the 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants, the neither the legality nor the authenticity of the Plaintiff’s documents namely PW 1 Exhibit 2, 3, 4 (a, b and c), 9 and 10 were put in question. 340.The only clarification that the 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants did seek was whether the payments to the Settlement Fund Trustee had been made before or after the Agreement for Sale had been executed. 341.During cross-examination by the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants, the Plaintiff did inform the Court that a Complaint had been made to the Directorate of Criminal Investigations as regards the legality of the 6th Defendants documents. 342.The Plaintiff did clarify that the documents that were under investigations were those of the 6th Defendant and not those of Eliakim Washington Olweny. 343.The Plaintiff nevertheless did admit that so far, there were no charges that had been preferred against the 6th Defendant based on her Complaint to the Directorate of Criminal Investigations. 344.DW 5 on the other hand during his testimony did not make any comments on the documents produced by the Plaintiff demonstrating the manner in which the Title Deed issued to the late Eliakim Washington Olweny had been issued. 345.DW 5’s testimony was that there were no documents in their records to show that the late Cherono wife of Maritim.A. Maiyo had paid the Charge and procured a Title Deed thereof. 346.DW 3 who was the County Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu did produce a Discharge of Charge dated 19.03.1980 and registered on 14.08.1986 as DW 3 Exhibit 1 and the copy of the Transfer Form dated 19.03.1980 duly executed by the Settlement Fund Trustee and registered on the 14.08.1986. 347.It is on the basis of this Transfer Form dated 19.03.1980 duly executed by the Settlement Fund Trustee in favour of the late Eliakim Washington Alweny that a Title Deed in his name was issue on the 20.07.2000. 348.The question before the Court in this issue is whether or not the late Cherono wife of Maritim.A. Maiyo and/or or the late Eliakim Washington Olweny who had purchased the suit property did comply with the conditions of allocation and was issued with an ownership document. 349.The Plaintiff herein did produce various receipts of payments made to the Settlement Fund Trustees as well as the Discharge of Charge duly executed by the said Settlement Fund Trustees and the Transfer Form executed by the Settlement Fund Trustees in favour of the late Eliakim Washington Olweny. 350.DW 3 also did produce the same Discharge of Charge executed by the Settlement Fund Trustees and the Transfer Form executed in favour of the late Eliakim Washington Olweny on the 19.03.1980 and registered on the 14.08.1986. 351.The significance of the document known as a Discharge of Charge executed by the Settlement Fund Trustees in regard to the suit property is that all payments due to the person known as Cherono wife of Maritim.A. Maiyo and the successor in title who was Eliakim Washington Olweny had been completed and there was no further encumbrance by the Settlement Fund Trustees on the said property. 352.The testimony by DW 5 to the effect that there were no documents to show compliance by the late Cherono wife of Maritim.A. Maiyo and her successor in title who was Eliakim Washington Olweny is therefore misleading to the Court and not factual to the position on the ground. 353.Despite the Discharge of Charge and the Transfer Forms executed by the Settlement Fund Trustees dated 19.03.1980 having been presented before the Court, DW 5 did not dispute and/or challenge the legality of the said documents regarding the suit property. 354.In other words, the Discharge of Charge and the Transfer Forms executed on the 19.03.1980 by the Settlement Fund Trustees and registered on the 14.08.1986 are not in contention and confirm the legality and authenticity of the Title Deed issued to the late Eliakim Washington Olweny on the 20.07.2000. 355.In conclusion, this Court hereby makes a finding that the person known as Cherono wife of Maritim.A. Maiyo and her successor in title did comply with the terms and conditions contained in the Letter of offer and the registration of the late Eliakim Washington Olweny as the owner of the suit property on the 20.07.2000 was legitimate, legal and lawful. Issue No.3- Was the late wilson kibor mutai the legitimate owner of the suit property herein? 356.The third issue relates to the legality and/or validity of the suit property by one Wilson Kibor Mutai. 357.To begin with, the 1st and 2nd Defendants did deny any interest or occupation on the suit property. 358.According to the 1st and 2nd Defendants, their presence on the suit property was on the invitation of the late Wilson Kibor Mutai. 359.The 1st Defendant acknowledged being familiar with the Plaintiff herein who was one of the wives of the late Eliakim Washington Olweny. 360.The 1st Defendant did admit that the suit property did have an ownership dispute even before the demise of the late Wilson Kibor Mutai way back in the year 2010 which even did result to a number of proceedings before various Court of Law. 361.The 1st Defendant did confirm that he was one of the Defendants in one of the proceedings before the Courts of law. 362.The 1st Defendant did deny knowledge of the person known as Cherono wife of Maritim.A. Maiyo. 363.On cross-examination, the 1st Defendant did state that he was on the suit property for a temporary period as a caretaker of the 6th Defendant. 364.The 1st Defendant did further admit that sometime ago, he had leased a portion of I acre of the suit property from the Plaintiff herein. 365.Nevertheless, during his school going age, he was aware that the suit property was the asset of the deceased Eliakim Washington Olweny. 366.The 2nd Defendant did further introduce himself a nephew of the late Wilson Kibor Mutai. 367.Based on the 2nd Defendant’s testimony, the suit property herein was the asset of the late Wilson Kibor Mutai. 368.The 2nd Defendant did inform the Court that although he did not have any personal interest of the suit property, the Plaintiff’s title herein had been procured through fraud and the legitimate owner of the same was the late Wilson Kibor Mutai. 369.On cross-examination by the 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants, the 2nd Defendant did admit that there had been a dispute over the suit property between the late Wilson Kibor Mutai and the Plaintiff herein since 2007. 370.The 2nd Defendant did confess that the late Wilson Kibor Mutai was the one that had sold the suit property and its sub-divisions to the 6th Defendant herein. 371.On cross-examination by the Plaintiff, the 2nd Defendant did state that the late Wilson Kibor Mutai had been buried in Merewet and not Ngenyilel where the suit property was. 372.What is important in the 1st and 2nd Defendants testimonies are the documents which they did produce before the Court. 373.The first document of great significance is the Copy of the Title Deed issued on the 07.10.2009 in favour of the late Wilson Kibor Mutai over the suit property which was produced as DW 1 Exhibit 4. 374.To collaborate the existence of the Title Deed issued on the 07.10.2009 in the name of the late Wilson Kibor Mutai, the 1st Defendant did produce a Copy a Green Card of the suit property opened on the 07.06.1976. 375.The question that requires to be answered is whether the registration of the late Wilson Kibor Mutai was legitimate, lawful and legal as demonstrated in the Title Deed issued on the 07.10.2009 and the Copy of the Register opened on the 07.06.1976. 376.The answer to this question begins with the fact that the suit property herein was being administered by the Settlement Fund Trustees based on the fact that it was within a Settlement Scheme. 377.In other words, the late Wilson Kibor Mutai was required to be issued with a Letter of Offer over the said suit property as the actual person in occupation and allocated the said property for his agricultural use. 378.Thereafter, the late Wilson Kibor Mutai was further required to demonstrate that he had made full payment of any Charge in favour of the Settlement Fund Trustees through a Discharge of Charge thereof. 379.Together with the Discharge of Charge, the late Wilson Kibor Mutai was to also procure the Transfer Form duly executed by the Settlement Fund Trustees in his favour and have both documents registered with the office of the 3rd Defendant to procure a lawful, legitimate and legal title over the suit property. 380.Unfortunately, the documents produced by the 1st Defendant did not contain any Letter of offer in favour of the late Wilson Kibor Mutai, or any Discharge of Charge from the Settlement Fund Trustees confirming the settlement of any encumbrances or any Transfer Form executed in favour of the late Wilson Kibor Mutai. 381.DW 3 in her testimony did inform the Court that the Title Deed issued on the 07.10.2009 in the name of the late Wilson Kibor Mutai was not within the records of the 3rd Defendants. 382.Similarly, the 3rd Defendant did not have any Discharge of Charge from the Settlement Fund Trustees and the Transfer Form related to the suit property executed by the Settlement Fund Trustees in favour of the late Wilson Kibor Mutai to warrant the issuance of the Title Deed dated 07.10.2009. 383.DW 5 who was the Deputy Director from the Directorate of Land Adjudication and Settlement in his testimony did not in fact mention the name of the late Wilson Kibor Mutai as the person who was recorded as the owner of the suit property herein. 384.The name that DW 5 did recognise as the lawful first allottee of the suit property was that of Cherono wife of Maritim.A. Maiyo. 385.Clearly therefore, the late WILSON KOBOR MUTAI was never recognised as an owner of the suit property herein by the Settlement Fund Trustees capable of being issued with either a Discharge of Charge or a Transfer Form in his favour to enable his registration as the legitimate, lawful and legal owner of the suit property as contained in the Title Deed dated 07.10.2009. 386.While it is true that Section 24 and 25 of the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012 requires the Courts to hold the sanctity of Certificates of ownership, the provisions of Section 26 of the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012 creates an avenue for the said Certificates of ownership to be challenged on a number of grounds. 387.The Court of Appeal in the case of Dina Management Ltd v County Government of Mombasa & 5 others (Petition 8 (E010) of 2021) [2023] KESC 30 (KLR), held that where the registered proprietor’s root title is under challenge, it is not enough to dangle the instrument of title as proof of ownership; the Court did in fact place an obligation on the registered proprietor to go beyond the instrument and prove the legality of the title and show that the acquisition was legal, formal and free from any encumbrance. 388.In other words, the 1st and 2nd Defendants were under a duty to demonstrate and prove the legitimacy of the Title Deed issued to the late Wilson Kibor Kibet on the 07.10.2009. 389.Sad to state, the only effort the 1st and 2nd Defendants did engage in was the production of a copy of the said Title Deed issued on the 07.10.2009 in the name of the late Wilson Kibor Kibet without any supporting documents to verify its legitimacy. 390.To this end therefore, this Court is of the considered view and finding that the Title Deed issued on the 07.10.2009 as well as the purported Register produced as DW 1 Exhibit 5 opened on the 07.06.1976 in the name of the late Wilson Kibor Kibet were fraudulent and could not possibly bestow any ownership rights of the suit property on him as alleged by the 1st , 2nd and 6th Defendant. Issue No.4- Is the 6th, 7th & 8th defendants registration of the suit properties thereof lawful and legitimate? 391.The fourth issue relates to the registration and ownership of the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants as the legitimate and lawful owners of various sub-divisions from the suit property herein. 392.To begin, the 6th Defendant has two versions on how he did acquire the suit property herein and/or various sub-divisions of the suit property from the late Wilson Kibor Mutai. 393.The first version is that based on the registration and ownership of the suit property by the late Wilson Kibor Mutai through the Title Deed issued on the 07.10.2009 and the Green Card opened on the 07.06.1976 which were recorded in his name, there was a sub-division undertaken to create the properties known as LR.No.Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1751 and 1752. 394.Thereafter, the sub-division known as L.R. No. Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1751 was further sub-divided into L.R. No. Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1760, 1761,1762 and 1763. 395.On the 07.12.2009, the 6th Defendant did enter into an Agreement for Sale with the late Wilson Kibor Kibet for the purchase of LR.No.Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1761 and 1762. 396.Although there was no Agreement for Sale produced by the 6th Defendant regarding the property known as LR.No.Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1760, or the relevant Consent to Transfer or the actual Transfer Form alienating the said property, the said property is alleged to have been purchased by the 7th Defendant and thereafter registered in the name of one Daisy Jeruto Chumba. 397.The last sub-division known as LR.No.Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1763 seems to still be in the name of the late Wilson Kibor Mutai. 398.The second sub-division relating to the property known as LR.No.Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1752 is currently registered in the name of the 8th Defendant. 399.According to the testimony of DW 3 and the documents presented before this Court, all the Title Deeds beginning with the sub-divisions namely LR.No.Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1751 and 1752 are not within the records of the 3rd Defendant. 400.Further to the above, none of the subsequent sub-divisions of LR.No.Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1751 namely LR.No. LR.No.Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1760,1761,1762 and 1763 have any form or records at the 3rd Defendant’s offices. 401.As fate would also have it, the alleged owners of the sub-division known as of LR.No.Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1752 did not attend Court to demonstrate and prove the legitimacy of the property and/or the legality of her acquisition. 402.Similarly, the registered owner of the sub-division known as LR.No.Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1760 who is one DAISY JERUTO CHUMBA on behalf of the 7th Defendant did not also attend Court and defend the legality and authenticity of her Title Deed. 403.The 6th Defendant who had purchased the sub-divisions namely LR.No.Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1761 and 1762 did admit that the properties were still in the name of the late Wilson Kibor Mutai and for one reason or another had been unable to transfer the same to his name. 404.In other words, none of the beneficiaries of the original sub-division of the property known as LR.No.Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448 recorded in the name of the late Wilson Kibor Mutai did provide any lawful and legal documents to demonstrate their ownership of the subsequent sub-divisions thereof. 405.The second version by the 6th Defendant on how he did acquire the suit property is founded on his trip to the offices of the Director of Land Adjudication and Settlement in the year 2023. 406.According to the 6th Defendant, in the year 2023 after experiencing a difficult in registering his sub-divisions known as LR.No.Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1761 and 1762, he did make a visit to Nairobi to verify the authenticity of the late Wilson Kibor Mutai’s ownership over the suit property. 407.During this visit, the 6th Defendant was able to retrieve the file of the suit property and was thereafter informed that the same had initially been allocated to one Cherono wife of Maritim.A. Maiyo. 408.According to the testimony of the 6th Defendant and DW 5, the original allottee known as Cherono wife of Maritim.A. Maiyo had failed to comply with the terms of offer accorded to her and in fact the suit property was available for re-allocation. 409.Armed with this new information, the 6th Defendant did make an Application to the Director of Land Adjudication and Settlement to be allocated the suit property in his own right. 410.True to his word, the Director of Land Adjudication and Settlement did accept the 6th Defendant’s Application and made a Letter of Offer dated 15.06.2023 to the 6th Defendant over the suit property herein. 411.The 6th Defendant did proceed to accept the Letter of Offer dated 15.06.2023 by paying the required amounts provided therein which was Kenya Shillings One Hundred and Thirty-One Thousand (Kshs.131,000/-) 412.Once this payment was made by the 6th Defendant, the Director of Land Adjudication and Settlement did go ahead to issue a Discharge of Charge dated 13.09.2023 and a Transfer Form dated 13.09.2023 in the name of the 6th Defendant herein. 413.The 6th Defendant did testify that it was on the basis of the Discharge of Charge dated 13.09.2023 and the Transfer Form dated 13.09.2023 that he was registered as the lawful owner of the suit property and issued with the Title Deed dated 20.11.2023. 414.Nevertheless, DW 3 in her testimony did deny the existence of the Discharge of Charge dated 13.09.2023 and the Transfer Form dated 13.09.2023 in favour of the 6th Defendants to be in the records of the 3rd Defendant. 415.Going back to the first version advanced by the 6th Defendant as regards having acquired the suit property through the sub-divisions created by the late Wilson Kibor Kibet, this Court did make a finding in Issue No.2 that the said Wilson Kibor Kibet’s registration as the owner of the suit property was fraudulent and unsustainable in law. 416.In essence, the late Wilson Kibor Kibet did not have any lawful and/or legal interests capable of alienating to any party and/or persons including the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants herein. 417.As such, an Agreement for Sale purportedly entered by the late Wilson Kibor Kibet relating to the suit property herein with the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants herein was null and void. 418.As regards the second version by the 6th Defendant, this Court did make a finding in Issue No. 2 that the lawful and legitimate owner of the suit property herein was the late Eliakim Washington Olweny. 419.Based on the testimony and documents adduced by DW 3, the Transfer in favour of the late Eliakim Washington Olweny was registered on the 14.08.986 as contained in DW 3 Exhibit 2. 420.Once the Transfer Form in favour of the late Eliakim Washington Olweny was registered on the 14.08.1986, the suit property herein was the asset of the late Eliakim Washington Olweny protected by the provisions of Section 24, 25 and 26 of the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012. 421.In fact, the suit property from the 14.08.1986 was private property based on the provisions of the Registered Land Act, Cap 300 (now repealed) and not Government Land anymore. 422.In other words, the actions by the Director of Land Adjudication and Settlement in purporting to repossess the suit property from the original owner known as Cherono wife of Maritim.A. Maiyo was not only unlawful and illegal but fraudulent in nature as the same was not Government land put private land incapable of either being repossessed and/or re-allocated to the 6th Defendant. 423.Unfortunate as it is, this is one of the cases where the office of the Land Adjudication and Settlement has acted in a manner that contravenes the very mandate that the law places on their shoulder to execute and protect. 424.Be as it may, this Court is of the considered view and finding that the 6th Defendant’s Letter of Offer dared 15.06.2023 relating to the suit property, the Discharge of Charge dated 13.09.2023, the Transfer Form dated 13.09.2023 in favour of the 6th Defendant as well as the Title Deed issued on the 20.11.2023 are all illegal, lawful and fraudulent in the eye of the law. Issue No.5- Which of the three registers held by the county land registrar, uasin gishu is legitimate, legal and lawful? 425.The first issue is which of the three Registers produced by DW 3 is the legitimate, lawful and legal Register to be maintained by the 3rd Defendant. 426.During the testimony of DW 3 on behalf of the 3rd and 4th Defendants herein, it was confirmed that the suit property has three different Registers with their offices. 427.The first Register was that which was opened upon the registration of the late Eliakim Washington Olweny as the lawful owner based on the Discharge of Charge dated 19.03.1980 and the Transfer Form in his favour by the Settlement Fund Trustees also dated 19.03.1980 and registered on the 14.08.1986. 428.However, DW 3 did disclose to the Court that this Register had been removed and/or lost within their offices and could not be traced. 429.The second Register was the one relied by the late Wilson Kibor Mutai based on his registration as the owner of the suit property on the 26.11.2007. 430.The third and last Register was the one recording the 6th Defendant as the registered owner of the suit property on the 20.11.2023. 431.First and foremost, Section 30 (2) of the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012 provides as follows; -“(2)Notwithstanding subsection (1)-a.only one certificate of title or certificate of lease shall be issued in respect of each parcel or lease; and” 432.Clearly therefore, the action of the 3rd Defendant to maintain three separate and distinct Certificates of Titles as well as three separate and distinct Registers over the suit property is contrary to the provisions of Section 30 (2) of the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012. 433.Based on the Courts finding in Issue No.2, 3 and 4, there is no doubt in the mind of this Court that the only lawful Title Deed relating to the suit property is that which was registered in the name of the late Eliakim Washington Olweny on the 14.08.1986 and its Title Deed issued on the 20.07.2000. 434.Having made this finding, this Court hereby makes a further finding that the second Register in the name of Wilson Kibor Mutai which registers him as the owner of the suit property on the 26.11.2007 is illegitimate, unlawful, illegal, fraudulent, null and void and should be cancelled and or expunged from the records of the suit property held by the 3rd Defendant forthwith. 435.Similarly, the third Register in the name of the 6th Defendant which registers him as the owner of the suit property on the 20.11.2023 is also illegitimate, unlawful, illegal, fraudulent, null and void and is henceforth cancelled and the 3rd Defendant should expunge the same from its records relating to the suit property. Issue No.5- Who is the lawful registered owner of the suit property herein? 436.Based on the Court’s finding in Issues No. 2, 3 and 4 hereinabove, the Court hereby makes a finding that the suit property herein is the lawful and legitimate property of the late Eliakim Washington Olweny and not the late Wilson Kibor Kibet or the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants herein. Issue No.7-Are the reliefs sought in the amended plaint merited or not? 437.The next issue are what orders pleaded in the present suit should be issued. 438.According to the Orders sought in the Amended Plaint dated 21.03.2022, this Court is of the finding that the Plaintiff is entitled to all the reliefs therein based on the findings in Issues No.2, 3, 4 and 5 hereinabove. 439.Nevertheless, there is Prayer No. H in the Amended Plaint dated 21.03.2022 which requires to be assessed. 440.On the aspect of general damages for unlawful trespass by the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants, it was the testimony of the 6th Defendant that they took occupation in the year 2009 based on their Agreements For Sale and the Title Deeds issued on the 09.04.2009. 441.To begin with the Plaintiff suit property is approximately 10.6 Hectares which translates to approximately 25 acres. 442.Assuming that the Plaintiff would have planted maize on the suit property and would possibly harvest 20 bag per acre at a selling price of Kenyan Shillings Three Thousand (KShs.3,000/-) based on an average price from the Kenya Cereal and Produce board, then general damages of Kenya Shillings One Million Five Hundred Thousand (KShs.1,500,000/-) would be sufficient per year. 443.Keeping in mind that the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants have been in forceful occupation of the suit property since 2009 until 2026 when this suit is being determined, this is a period of Seventeen (17) years then general damages of Kenya Shillings Twenty-Five Million (KShs.25,000,000/-) is a fair compensation to the Plaintiff for the unlawful trespass on the suit property. 444.Interest on the General damages awarded hereinabove shall start accruing from the date of this Judgement until payment in full. 445.As to the aspect of mesne profits claimed by the Plaintiff, there was no evidence to prove the same and the Court hereby declines to grant the same. Issue No.8- Who bears the costs of the present suit? 446.The Plaintiff having successfully prosecuted her case against the Defendant; 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants herein are jointly condemned to pay the costs of the present suit. Conclusion 447.In conclusion, this Court hereby makes the following Orders in determination of the present suit herein; -a.The amended plaint dated 21.03.2022 is merited.b.A declaration be and is hereby made that the late Eliakim Washington Olweny IS the legitimate, legal and lawful owner of the property known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448 measuring 10.6 hectares pursuant to discharge of charge and the transfer dated 19.03.1980 and registered on 14.08.1986.c.A declaration be and is hereby made that the title deed issued in the name of the late eliakim washington olweny on the 20.07.2000 is the only letigimate, valid and lawful ownership document relating to the property known as uasin gishu/ngenyilel settlement scheme/448 measuring 10.6 hectares.d.The title deed issued on the 26.11.2007 in the name of the late Wilson Kibor Mutai relating to the property known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448 and the subsequent register recording the late Wilson Kibor Mutai to be the lawful owner of the same be and are hereby declared fraudulent, null and void.e.The title deed issued on the 20.11.2023 in the name of Hosea Kibet Ruto relating to the property known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448 and the subsequent register recording the name of hosea kibet ruto to the lawful owner of the same be and are hereby declared fraudulent, null and void.f.The County Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu be and is hereby ordered to forthwith cancel and expunge both the title deed issued on the 26.11.2007 in the name of Wilson Kibor Kibet as well as the fraudulent register recognising Wilson Kibor Mutai as the lawful owner of the property known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448 from the parcel file held by the 3rd defendant herein.g.The director of land adjudication & settlement is hereby ordered and directed to forthwith cancel and expunge the letter of offer dated 15.06.2023 in the name of Hosea Kibet Ruto relating to plot.no. 448 within ngenyilel settlement scheme in uasin gishu county as well as the discharge of charge dated 13.09.2023 and the transfer of land in settlement scheme for the property known as uasin gishu/ngenyilel/448 also dated 13.09.2023 as the said documents are fraudulent, null and void.h.The County land registrar, uasin gishu be and is hereby ordered to forthwith cancel and expunge both the title deed issued on the 20.11.2023 in the name of Hosea Kibet Ruto as well as the fraudulent register recognising hosea kibet ruto as the lawful owner of the property known as uasin gishu/ngenyilel settlement scheme/448 from the parcel file held by the 3rd defendant herein.i.The County Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu is further ordered to recostruct the lawful missing register of the property known as uasin gishu/ngenyilel settlement scheme/448 in accordance with the discharge of charge dated 19.03.1980 and the transfer form dated 19.03.1980 both registered by the 3rd defendant on the 14.08.1986 and a title deed issued in favour of the late Eliakim Washington Olweny on the 20.07.2000.j.The County Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu is further ordered to cancel and expunge the title deed issued to Esther Jepkemboi Kurui on the 09.04.2009 relating to the property known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1752 as well as any register recognising her ownership of the said property as the same is fraudulent, null and void.k.The County Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu is also ordered to cancel and expunge the title deed issued to the one Daisy Jeruto Chumba on behalf of bethual kipsang on the 14.04.2009 in relation to the property known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1760 as well as any register recognising her ownership of the said property as the same is fraudulent, null and void.l.The County Registrar, Uasin Gishu is ordered to cancel and expunge the title deeds issued to Wilson Kibor Mutai in relation to the property known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/1761, 1762 and 1763 all issued on the 07.10.2009 as well as any registers recognising his ownership of the said properties as the same are fraudulent, null and void.m.An order of eviction be and is hereby issued against the Hosea Kibet Ruto, Bethuel Kipsang, Daisy Jeruto Chumba, & Esther Jepkemboi Kurui, including their agents, employees, servants and/or any person or entity deriving its rights from the above-mentioned persons from the property known as LR.No.Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448 measuring 10.6 hectares forthwith.n.A permanent injunction be and is hereby issued against the Hosea Kibet Ruto, Bethuel Kipsang, Daisy Jeruto Chumba, & Esther Jepkemboi Kurui, including their agents, employees, servants and/or any person or entity deriving its rights from the above mentioned person from entering, using, ploughing, constructing, developing, leasing, selling, charging and/or dealing with the property known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448 in whatsoever manner and whichever manner that is contrary to the rights and priviledges of the plaintiff herein Eliakim Washington Olweny (Deceased).o.The court hereby awards general damages of kenya shillings twenty-five million (kshs 25,000,000/-) to the plaintiff herein payable jointly and severally from Hosea Kibet Ruto, Bethuel Kipsang, Daisy Jeruto Chumba & Esther Jepkemboi Kurui for the unlawful occupation and use of the property known as Uasin Gishu/Ngenyilel Settlement Scheme/448 measuring 10.6 hectares since the year 2009 when they forcefully occupied and utilised the plaintiff’s property.p.Interest on the general damages awarded hereinabove shall start accruing from the date of this judgement until payment in full.q.Costs of the present suit is awarded to the plaintiff payable by the 6th, 7th and 8th defendants herein jointly and severally. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN ELDORET THIS 14TH DAY OF MAY 2026.EMMANUEL.M. WASHEJUDGEIn the presence of:Court Assistant: BrianCounsel for the Plaintiff: Ms. Nasongo holding brief for Mr. YegoCounsel for the Defendants: Ms. Chebet holding brief for Mr. Obara for the 1st DefendantMs. Odeyo for the 3rd, 4th and 5th DefendantsKhayi for the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants