https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3793

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT** **AT ELDORET** **E&L CASE NO. E019 OF 2023** **RAEL MORAA KEMEI ….…………………………………..PLAINTIFF** ***-VERSUS-*** **RICHARD KIMUTAI KERONEI ……………………..1ST DEFENDANT** **MARTHA TUWEI ………………………….………….…2ND DEFENDANT** **ELY KIPTANUI …………………………………………..3RD DEFENDANT** **PETER KIPCHIRCHIR SEGO ………………………..4TH DEFENDANT** **EZEKIEL KIPRONO …………………………………….5TH DEFENDANT** **J U D G E M E N T** 1. The Plaintiff herein prosecute an Amended Plaint dated 27.02.2025 (hereinafter referred to as **“the present suit”**) seeking the following Orders against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendants herein; - 2. **THAT the Court do declare the property known as LR.NO. KAPSARET/SIMAT BLOCK 2 (SIMAT)/49 belongs to the Plaintiff.** 3. **THAT all the Defendants be evicted from the Plaintiff’s land known as LR.NO. KAPSARET/SIMAT BLOCK 2 (SIMAT)/49.** 4. **THAT an Order of Permanent Injunction do issue against all the Defendants from trespassing into the Plaintiff’s land known as LR.NO. KAPSARET/SIMAT BLOCK 2 (SIMAT)/49.** 5. **THAT the OCS Simat Police Station be authorized to supervise the execution of the Court’s Decree.** 6. **Costs of this suit.** 7. **Any other or further relief that this Honourable Court may deem fit and expedient to grant in the circumstances.** 8. The facts and grounds pleaded in the Amended Plaint is support of the prayers hereinabove can be summarised as follows;- 9. The Plaintiff herein is the lawful and registered owner of the property known as LR.NO.KAPSARET/SIMAT BLOCK 2 (SIMAT)/49 measuring approximately 16 acres thereof (hereinafter referred to as **“the suit property.”**) 10. On the other hand, the 1st, 4th and 5th Defendants are the Plaintiffs biological sons while the 2nd and 3rd Defendants are the daughters in law thereof. 11. The Plaintiff did state that upon all sons attaining the age of majority, she did allocate a portion of approximately two (2) acres to each one of them to occupy and use within the suit property. 12. However, in the year 2018, the Plaintiff did face various personal health challenges but to her utter surprise, none of her sons and/or the daughters in law did assist her in terms of the financial burden or her own personal care. 13. In fact, the Plaintiff did plead that the sons and the daughters in law did encroach into the portion which she was in occupation of and began interfering with the same. 14. In essence, the Plaintiff herein did plead that she has now terminated her permission granted to all the sons to occupy and use the suit property and sought this Court for an order of eviction to be issued against them. 15. The Plaintiff further did seek for a Permanent Injunction prohibiting the 1st to 5th Defendants from occupying, using, residing and/or in any manner whatsoever interfering with her quiet occupation and/or use of the suit property herein. 16. The present suit was duly served on the 1st to the 5th Defendants herein. 17. In response thereof, the 1st to 5th Defendants did file a Joint Statement of Defence dated 24.05.2023 in opposition to the present suit. 18. The facts pleaded by the 1st to 5th Defendants in their Statement of Defence dated 24.05.2023 are as follows; - 19. The 1st to 5th Defendants did acknowledge that the Plaintiff herein was their biological mother and/or mother-in-law. 20. The 1st to 5th Defendants did plead that the Plaintiff herein was married to the late BENJAMIN MALAKWEN (deceased), who was their biological father and/or father-in-law. 21. According to the 1st to 5th Defendants, the suit property was not purchased by the Plaintiff herein. 22. The 1st to 5th Defendants did plead that the suit property was purchased by their uncle SUBEI KEMEI for the benefit of the entire family of their late father BENJAMIN MALAKWEN. 23. The 1st to 5th Defendants did further plead that the funds used to purchase the suit property by their uncle SUBEI KEMEI was from the proceeds of assets belonging to their late father BENJAMIN MALAKWEN which had been sold off. 24. The 1st to 5th Defendants therefore did admit that they each occupy a portion of two (2) acres on the suit property. 25. As regards the registration of the Plaintiff’s name as the owner of the suit property, the 1st to the 5th Defendants did plead that it was in trust and for the benefit of the entire family of the late BENJAMIN MALAKWEN and therefore, the suit property was not the private property of the Plaintiff herein alone. 26. They based their claim on trust on the ground that the funds used to purchase the suit property was from their late father’s estate. 27. The 1st to 5th Defendants did admit that the Plaintiff had suffered some health issues but did deny the allegations that they had neglected her during her time of need. 28. According to the 1st to 5th Defendants, every effort was taken, including disposing off of other family assets to cater for the treatment expenses of the Plaintiff. 29. In conclusion, the 1st to 5th Defendants did reiterate that the Plaintiff’s registration as the owner of the suit property was in trust for the family of the late BENJAMIN MALAKWEN and not her own private benefit. 30. The 1st to 5th Statement of Defence dated 24.05.2023 was duly served on the Plaintiff herein but there was no Reply to Defence filed thereof hence pleadings did close thereafter. 31. However, before the hearing of the matter would commence, the Plaintiff and the 4th Defendant did record a Consent on the 08.12.2025 striking out the name of the 4th Defendant from the proceedings. **THE PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONIES & DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE** 1. The Plaintiff herein was the first witness and was marked as PW 1. 2. The Plaintiff did introduce herself a senior citizen of this county who resides in Simat area within Uasin Gishu County and was engaged in farming activities for a living. 3. The Plaintiff informed the Court that she had prepared, executed and filed two witness statements dated 26.05.2023 and 05.12.2025, which she did adopt as her evidence in chief. 4. In support of her evidence in Chief, the Plaintiff did produce the following documentary evidence; - PW 1 EXHIBIT 1 – A Copy of the Title Deed in respect to the suit property issued in the name of the Plaintiff on the 12.09.1990. PW1 EXHIBIT 2 – A Copy of a Discharge from National Bank of Kenya in favour of the plaintiff dated 02.10.2001 over the suit property. 1. The Plaintiff did inform the Court that she was a mother of Eight Children although one of them was now deceased. 2. The Plaintiff did testify that her late husband who is also the father of her children had been killed in Maasailand before she decided to relocate back to Eldoret. 3. Upon arrival in Eldoret, the Plaintiff did purchase the suit property measuring 16 acres with her income and settled on the same. 4. The Plaintiff did clarify to the Court that her deceased husband had not been in occupation of the suit property and/or contributed in any way in the acquisition of the same. 5. PW1 further testified that she resides on the suit property which measures 16 acres. 6. The Plaintiff did further state that the suit property is not an inheritance from her deceased husband and/or the customary land that belonged to the family of the late husband. 7. The Plaintiff therefore asked the Court to grant her vacant possession of the suit property, and if the Defendants refused to vacate, then an Order of Eviction be issued against them. 8. On cross-examination by the 1st Defendant, the Plaintiff did admit that she had stayed with her deceased husband in Maasailand way before she moved to Eldoret. 9. The Plaintiff did confirm that the person known as SUBEI KEMEI was a brother to her deceased husband BENJAMIN MALAKWEN. 10. The Plaintiff did reiterate that the suit property herein was her personal property and was not any ancestral or customary land from her deceased husband known as BENJAMIN MALAKWEN. 11. The Plaintiff did testify that for every son who turned the age of majority, she would identify a portion of land upon which the said son would establish his residency. 12. However, the Plaintiff did disclose that the actual size of the portion of land identified for the sons was not accurately measured to conform if it was two (2) acres or not. 13. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff did confirm that all the sons were given the same size of a portion of the suit property for their use. 14. The 2nd Defendant although present did not have any questions for the Plaintiff. 15. The 3rd Defendant despite being aware of the hearing date was not present at the hearing date. 16. On cross-examination by the 5th Defendant, the Plaintiff did reiterate that she had given equal portions of land to all her sons upon finishing their secondary school education. 17. At the end of this cross-examination, there was no re-examination of the Plaintiff. 18. The Plaintiff was therefore discharged from the witness box and her case was closed thereafter. **DEFENDANTS TESTIMONIES & DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE** 1. The first Defence witness was the 1st Defendant who was marked as DW 1. 2. The 1st Defendant did introduce himself as a resident of Simat area within Uasin Gishu and a businessman by occupation. 3. The 1st Defendant did admit that the Plaintiff was his biological mother. 4. The 1st Defendant did testify that in the year 1993, the Plaintiff did give him a portion measuring two and half acres within the suit property. 5. The 1st Defendant did aver that the Plaintiff did give him the said portion measuring two and a half acres in the presence of SUBEI KEMEI, DANIEL TOO and CHRISTOPHER LAGAT. 6. The 1st Defendant did testify that during the handover of the portion measuring two and a half acres by the Plaintiff, there was a Surveyor who did measure and confirm that the same was the correct size. 7. The 1st Defendant did inform the Court that the same exercise was once again repeated in favour of his brother MARK TUWEI who is now deceased, although he was the husband to the 2nd Defendant herein. 8. The 1st Defendant did disclose to the Court that it was during the handover of the portion measuring two and a half acres from the Plaintiff that his uncle SUBEI KEMEI and DANIEL TOO told him that the entire suit property was an asset of his father BENJAMIN MALAKWEN KEMEI. 9. According to the information disclosed to the 1st Defendant by his uncle SUBEI KEMEI and DANIEL TOO, the suit property had been purchased in the year 1977 from one THOMAS CHUMBA through SUBEI KEMEI for the benefit of the Estate of BENJAMIN MALAKWEN. 10. The 1st Defendant did inform the Court that the Plaintiff and his deceased brother MARK TUWEI were the first to settle in the area known as Simat in the year 1969 and the rest of the siblings were born in Simat. 11. Thereafter in 1971 and 1972, the area known as Simat was sub-divided by the original owner for individual persons. 12. It after this sub-division that the suit property was purchased in the year 1987 and registered in the name of the Plaintiff in trust for the entire family of the late BENJAMIN MALAKWEN. 13. On cross-examination by the Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant did confess that he never met his father BENJAMIN MALAKWEN. 14. The 1st Defendant did inform the Court he was informed that his father had died in Maasailand. 15. The 1st Defendant did state that the Plaintiff had moved to the area known as Simat when he was only 9 years old. 16. The 1st Defendant did further disclose to the Court that both SUBEI KEMEI and DANIEL TOO who had informed him that the suit property belonged to the late father BENJAMIN MALAKWEN had since passed on. 17. The 1st Defendant nevertheless did admit that currently, the suit property was in the name of the Plaintiff. 18. Nevertheless, the 1st Defendant did reiterate that the suit property was being held in trust for the entire family of the late BENJAMIN MALAKWEN by the Plaintiff herein. 19. At the end of the cross-examination, the 1st Defendant was discharged from the witness box. 20. The second Defence witness was the 2nd Defendant herein who was marked as DW 2. 21. The 2nd Defendant did inform the Court that she resides in Simat area within Uasin Gishu County and was a farmer by occupation. 22. The 2nd Defendant did testify that she was married to the late MARK TUWEI in the year 2003 who is the son of the Plaintiff. 23. The 2nd Defendant did state that upon her marriage to the late MARK TUWEI, she was settled on a portion of two and a half acres within the suit property where she resides up to now. 24. The 2nd Defendant did admit that the suit property belongs to the Plaintiff and requested the Plaintiff to allow her occupy the portion she had settled as she did not have any other place to reside. 25. On cross-examination, the 2nd Defendant did inform the Court that the Plaintiff was willing to allow her use one acre of the suit property but the said discussions had not been finalised. 26. The 2nd Defendant did confess that if the Plaintiff would allocate her one acre on the suit property, she would accept the same. 27. At the end of the cross-examination, there was no re-examination and the 2nd Defendant was discharged from the witness box. 28. At earlier stated, the 3rd Defendant was not present in Court dispute being aware in Court and his case was subsequently close. 29. The fourth Defence witness was the 5th Defendant who was marked as DW 3. 30. The 5th Defendant did introduce himself as a resident of Simat and a casual labourer. 31. The 5th Defendant did inform the Court that he had been born and raised on the suit property. 32. The 5th Defendant did admit that the suit property did belong to the Plaintiff herein who is the mother. 33. The 5th Defendant did testify that if the Plaintiff was willing to allocate him one acre of the suit property, he would be ready and willing to take the same. 34. At the end of this testimony in chief, there was no cross-examination by any party and the 5th Defendant was discharged from the witness box. 35. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendants then did proceed to close their case thereafter. 36. The parties were then directed to prepare, file and exchange their final submissions. 37. The Plaintiff did file her submissions dated 20.02.2026 while the Defendants did file their submissions dated 10.04.2026. 38. The Court has carefully perused the pleadings by the parties, the testimonial evidence, the documentary evidence and the submissions herein and identifies the following issues for determination; - **ISSUE NO. 1- WHO IS THE ACTUAL AND/OR REGISTERED OWNER OF THE SUIT PROPERTY?** **ISSUE NO. 2- IS THERE A CUSTOMARY TRUST ON THE SUIT PROPERTY AS CLAIMED BY THE 1ST, 2ND, 3RD AND 5TH DEFENDANTS?** **ISSUE NO. 3- ARE THE 1ST, 2ND, 3RD AND 5TH DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO ANY RIGHT OF OCCUPATION ON THE SUIT PROPERTY?** **ISSUE NO. 4- IS THE PLAINT MERITED OR NOT?** **ISSUE NO. 5 – WHO SHALL BEAR THE COSTS OF THE SUIT?** 1. The Court having identified the above mentioned issued for determination, the same will now be discussed as provided below. **ISSUE NO. 1- WHO IS THE ACTUAL AND/OR REGISTERED OWNER OF THE SUIT PROPERTY?** 1. The first issue for determination is whether or not the Plaintiff herein is the lawful registered owner of the suit property. 2. The Plaintiff in her pleadings as well as her testimony did state that she was the lawful registered owner of the suit property. 3. The Plaintiff did produce her ownership document of the suit property as PW 1 EXHIBIT 1 at the hearing of the present suit. 4. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendants did not challenge legality of who the Plaintiff herein was registered the owner of the suit property. 5. The only issue raised by the 1st, 2nd 3rd and 5th Defendants was that the Plaintiff’s registration as the owner of the suit property was in trust for the estate of BENJAMIN MALAKWEN who is their biological father. 6. The provisions of **Section 26 of the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012** provides as follows; - ***(1) The certificate of title issued by the Registrar upon registration, or to a purchaser of land upon a transfer or transmission by the proprietor shall be taken by all courts as prima facie evidence that the person named as proprietor of the land is the absolute and indefeasible owner, subject to the encumbrances, easements, restrictions and conditions contained or endorsed in the certificate, and the title of that proprietor shall not be subject to challenge, except—*** ***(a) on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation to which the person is proved to be a party; or*** ***(b) where the certificate of title has been acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme*** 1. Based on the above provision, it is clear that the Plaintiff is the prima facie owner of the suit property based on the Certificate of Ownership produced as PW 1 EXHIBIT 1. 2. None of the 1st, 2nd ,3rd and 5th Respondents did plead any or the grounds provided under Section 26 (1) (a) and (b) of the Land Registration Act, no. 3 of 2012 seeking to challenge the legality of the Plaintiff’s registration. 3. Consequently, it is the Court’s finding that the Plaintiff herein is the lawful registered owner of the suit property as contained in the ownership document produced as PW 1 EXHIBIT 1. **ISSUE NO. 2- IS THERE A CUSTOMARY TRUST ON THE SUIT PROPERTY AS CLAIMED BY THE 1ST, 2ND, 3RD AND 5TH DEFENDANTS?** 1. The second issue is one raised by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendants in their Statement of Defence herein. 2. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendants did plead that the suit property registered in the name of the Plaintiff was the property of one BENJAMIN MALAKWEN who was their biological father and the husband to the Plaintiff herein. 3. The 1st Defendant in particular did testify that the suit property had been purchased from proceedings of the late BENJAMIN MALAKWEN by one SUBEI KEMEI (Deceased) and registered in the name of the Plaintiff who was the wife on behalf of the entire family. 4. In essence, the 1st Defendant did inform the Court that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendants were beneficiaries of a customary trust over the suit property registered in the name of the Plaintiff. 5. All this information according to the 1st Defendant had been communicated to him by his deceased uncle SUBEI KEMEI and DAVID TOO. 6. This line of testimony was also adopted by the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendants. 7. However, on cross-examination, the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendants did concede that the suit property did belong to the Plaintiff and they were ready to accept the one acre which the Plaintiff was offering to allow them use. 8. The Plaintiff on the other side did refute the allegation that the suit property was registered in her name in trust for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendant. 9. The Plaintiff did point out that her husband BENJAMIN MALAKWEN (now deceased) who was the father of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendants had passed on in Maasailand way before she had migrated to Uasin Gishu. 10. The Plaintiff did testify that she had settled around Simat area in 1969 and/or 1970 and later did purchase the suit property with her own funds from the original owner of the entire area within Simat. 11. The Plaintiff did also produce a Discharge of Charge issued by National Bank of Kenya dated 20.09.2001 as PW 1 EXHIBIT 2 which did demonstrate that the suit property had been charged by the Bank and thereafter was discharged. 12. The doctrine of customary trust is provided under Section 28 of the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012 as follows;- ***Unless the contrary is expressed in the register, all registered land shall be subject to the following overriding interests as may for the time being subsist and affect the same, without their being noted on the register—*** 1. ***spousal rights over matrimonial property;*** ***(b) trusts including customary trusts;*** ***(c) ………..*** 1. In the interpretation of the above proviso and further discussing the doctrine of customary trust, the Supreme Court in the case of **KIEBIA-VERSUS-M’LINTARI (2018) KESC 22(KLR)** did state as follows;- ***“Flowing from this analysis, we now declare that a customary trust, as long as the same can be proved to subsist, upon a first registration, is one of the trusts to which a registered proprietor, is subject under the proviso to Section 28 of the Registered Land Act.*** ***Under this legal regime, (now repealed), the content of such a trust can take several forms. For example, it may emerge through evidence, that part of the land, now registered, was always reserved for family or clan uses, such as burials, and other traditional rites.*** ***It could also be those other parts of the land, depending on the specific group or family setting, were reserved for various future uses, such as construction of houses and other amenities by youths graduating into manhood.*** ***The categories of a customary trust are therefore not closed. It is for the court to make a determination, on the basis of evidence, as to which category of such a trust subsists as to bind the registered proprietor.*** ***Each case has to be determined on its own merits and quality of evidence. It is not every claim of a right to land that will qualify as a customary trust.*** ***In this regard, we agree with the High Court in Kiarie v. Kinuthia, that what is essential is the nature of the holding of the land and intention of the parties.*** ***If the said holding is for the benefit of other members of the family, then a customary trust would be presumed to have been created in favour of such other members, whether or not they are in possession or actual occupation of the land.*** 1. Turning to the facts before the Court, it is not disputed that the person known as BENJAMIN MALAKWEN (now deceased) was the husband of the Plaintiff and the biological father of the 1st Defendant herein as well as the late MARK TUWEI (now deceased) who was the husband to the 2nd Defendant. 2. It was clear also that the late BENJAMIN MALAKWEN had passed on in the late 1969 or thereafter in Massailand. 3. Both the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant did confirm that it was upon the demise of the late BENJAMIN MALAKWEN that the Plaintiff herein did migrate to Uasin Gishu and settle in the area known as Simat where the suit property was located. 4. Consequently, it could not have been possible for the late BENJAMIN MALAKWEN to have acquired the suit property for the benefit of his family when he had already passed on. 5. The 1st Defendant did advance the argument that the deceased uncle SUBEI KEMEI was the one that had purchased the suit property and registered it in the name of the Plaintiff as a trustee of the entire family. 6. The 1st Defendant sought to persuade the Court that the funds used to purchase the suit property had been obtained from the sale of other properties owned by the late BENJAMIN MALAKWEN. 7. Unfortunately, the 1st Defendant did not identify the properties that were allegedly sold by the Uncle SUBEI KEMEI on behalf of the late BENJAMIN MALAKWEN to facilitate the purchase of the suit property. 8. Similarly, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendant did not produce any evidence to show that the suit property herein was ancestral land which had been left behind by the late BENJAMIN MALAKWEN. 9. This Court is clear in its mind that the Plaintiff herein did acquire the suit property in her own personal capacity and was issued with a Title Deed to that effect on the 21.09.1990. 10. Thereafter, the Plaintiff did procure a financial facility with National Bank of Kenya and a Charge was registered on 23.11.1992 which was later discharged through the Discharge of Charge dated 20.09.2019. 11. The significance of the Charge registered on 23.11.1992 shows that the Plaintiff herein was a person engaged in gainful employment and had the capacity to acquire the suit property through her own means. 12. In essence, this Court hereby makes a finding that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendants have not established any customary trust over the suit property registered in the name of the Plaintiff herein. **ISSUE NO. 3- ARE THE 1ST, 2ND, 3RD AND 5TH DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO ANY RIGHT OF OCCUPATION ON THE SUIT PROPERTY?** 1. The third issue is whether or not the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendants have any right of occupation of the suit property registered in the name of the Plaintiff herein. 2. The Plaintiff herein did testify before the Court that the 1st Defendant, the husband to the 2nd Defendant known as MARK TUWEI, the 3rd Defendant and the 5th Defendants had been allocated various portions of land on the suit property to occupy and use the same. 3. The Plaintiff did further disclose that this was her practice to all her children upon reaching the age of majority and completing their secondary education. 4. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff was aggrieved that despite this good gesture to her children and daughters in law, none of them was there for her during her hour of need based on ill health. 5. The Plaintiff did therefore aver that she had decided to reclaim her land back so that it can help her at the time of need. 6. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendants did admit being in occupation of various portions of land within the suit property. 7. The 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant did testify that the portion in which they are in occupation was measuring two and a half acres based on a surveyor’s measurement during the allocation exercise. 8. However, the 1st and 2nd Defendants did not produce any Surveyor’s Report to confirm that indeed the portions they were in occupation were two and a half acres. 9. Be that as it may, it is important to remember that alienation of land is one that must be done through writing and following the legal procedures applicable to the circumstances arising thereof. 10. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendants do not have any documentary evidence to demonstrate any lawful acquisition of the portions they occupy in the suit property from the Plaintiff. 11. In the absence of any documents to acquire their ownership rights over the portions the 1st, 2nd ,3rd and 5th Defendants occupy within the suit property, then their occupation on the same can only be through a license and/or consent of the registered owner. 12. The Plaintiff did testify that she had been the one who had pointed out the various portions occupied by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendants within the suit property on the basis that they were her children. 13. This being the scenario, then the occupation and use of the various portions occupied by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendants was always subject to the consent and/or license of the Plaintiff. 14. Unfortunately, the Plaintiff herein was clear during the hearing of this matter that the consent and/or license granted to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendants to occupy the suit property had been terminated. 15. Based on this termination of the consent and/or license, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendants are required to vacate the suit property. 16. **Section 24 of the Land Registration Act, No.3 of 2012** provides as follows; - ***“Subject to this Act-*** 1. ***The registration of a person as the proprietor of land shall vest in the person the absolute ownership of that land together with all rights and privileges belonging or appurtenant thereto; and*** 2. ***The registration of a person as the proprietor of a lease shall vest in that person the leasehold interest described in the lease, together with all implied and expressed rights and privileges belonging or appurtenant thereto and subject to all implied or expressed agreements, liabilities or incidents of the lease.”*** 3. The above proviso clearly states that the registered proprietor is entitled to all ownership rights and privileges. 4. In other words, the Plaintiff herein as the registered proprietor of the suit property is entitled to all the ownership rights and privileges to the exclusion of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendant. 5. As such, this Court is of the finding that the 1st, 2nd ,3rd and 5th Defendants do not have any legal right to occupy and or use any portion of the suit property without the express consent of the Plaintiff herein. **ISSUE NO. 4- IS THE PLAINT MERITED OR NOT?** 1. Based on the determinations in Issue No. 1, 2 and 3 hereinabove, this Court is of the finding that the Plaint herein is merited and the prayers sought therein should be granted. **ISSUE NO. 5 – WHO SHALL BEAR THE COSTS OF THE SUIT.** 1. Costs are usually awarded to a winning party. 2. The Plaintiff herein having succeeded in the present suit, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants are condemned to pay the costs thereof. **CONCLUSION** 1. In conclusion, this Court hereby makes the following Orders in determination of the present suit; - 2. **THE AMENDED PLAINT DATED 27.02.2025 BE AND IS HEREBY ALLOWED.** 3. **A DECLARATION BE AND IS HEREBY MADE THAT THE SUIT PROPERTY KNOWN AS KAPSARET/SIMAT BLOCK 2 (SIMAT)/49 BELONGS TO THE PLAINTIFF.** 4. **THE 1ST, 2ND, 3RD AND 5TH DEFENDANTS HEREIN ARE DIRECTED TO HEREWITH YIELD VACANT POSSESSION OF THE PORTIONS OF LAND THEY OCCUPY ON THE SUIT PROPERTY TO THE PLAINTIFF WITHIN ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS JUDGEMENT.** 5. **AN ORDER OF EVICTION BE AND IS HEREBY GRANTED UPON THE EXPIRY OF THE ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY DAYS FROM TODAY’S DATE IN THE EVENT THE 1ST, 2ND, 3RD AND 5TH DEFENDAHTS FAIL TO COMPLY WITH ORDER NO. III HEREINABOVE.** 6. **UPON EXPIRY OF THE ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS JUDGEMENT, THE 1ST, 2ND, 3RD AND 5TH DEFENDANTS BE AND ARE HEREBY PROHIBITED BY WAY OF A PERMANENT INJUNCTION FROM ENTERING, USING, OCCUPYING, RESIDING AND/OR ANY OTHER WAY INTERFERING WITH THE QUITE POSSESSION AND OCCUPATION OF THE PLAINTIFF’S SUIT PROPERTY KNOWN AS LR.NO. KAPSARET/SIMAT BLOCK 2 (SIMAT)/49.** 7. **THE OCS SIMAT POLICE STATION BE AND IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO SUPERVISE THE EXECUTION OF THE COURT’S DECREE.** 8. **THE 1ST, 2ND, 3RD AND 5TH DEFENDANTS ARE HEREBY CONDEMNED TO PAY THE COSTS OF THIS SUIT TO THE PLAINTIFF HEREIN.** **DATED**, **SIGNED** and **DELIVERED** at **ELDORET** this **15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.** **EMMANUEL.M. WASHE** **JUDGE** **IN THE PRESENCE OF:** Court Assistant: Brian Counsel for the Plaintiff: Mr. Chemwok Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Kaptich (N/A)