https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3578

M’mbui (Suing on his own Behalf and on the Behalf of 55 other Ex Employers of the Ngusishi Farm Limited) v M’Ringera & 10 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E007 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3578 (KLR) (2 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3578 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Meru Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E007 of 2024 JO Mboya, J June 2, 2026 Between Silas Muuru M’mbui (Suing on his own Behalf and on the Behalf of 55 other Ex Employers of the Ngusishi Farm Limited) Plaintiff and Onesmus Kinoti M’Ringera 1st Defendant Sammy Gitonga Mbaka 2nd Defendant James Kinyua Rutere 3rd Defendant Stephen Mwiti Mínoti 4th Defendant Japhet Kathuni Ngatuni 5th Defendant Joan Mwirigi Maingi 6th Defendant Delvina Karimi Mwirigi 7th Defendant Ayub Yusuf Mucheke 8th Defendant Mina Mwendwa Alias Mina Muthoni Kaburu Alias Minnie Mukami Kaburu 9th Defendant Land Registrar Meru County 10th Defendant The Hon. Attorney General 11th Defendant Judgment 1.The Plaintiffs herein approached the court vide the Plaint dated the 15.04.2024; and wherein the Plaintiffs have sought various reliefs. The reliefs sought are:a.An order of permanent injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th , 8th 9th defendants either by themselves their agents, assigns or servants whatsoever form interfering and or trespassing in any manner with land parcel number Ngusishi Settlement scheme Nos. 854, 855,856,857,858,859,860, 861.b.An order of cancellation of the certificates of title numbers Ngusishi Settlement Scheme 854, 855,856,857,858,859,860, 861 and the same reverts to the parcel number Ngusishi Settlement Scheme 676.c.A declaration do issue that the parcel number Ngusishi Settlement Scheme 676 is the property of the 56 plaintiffs.d.The area OCS Timau Police Station does ensure compliance with Order [A] if need arises.e.Costs and interests of this suit as against the 1st – 9th defendants from date of filing of this suit until payment in full.f.Any other relief that this Honourable court may deem fit to grant. 2.The Plaintiffs’ suit is premised on various assertions. The assertions are: The plaintiffs were employees of Ngusishi Farm Limited [hereinafter referred to as the company]; the said company belonged to the white settlers; the white settlers sought to reward their employees; the plaintiffs herein were the employees of the company; the plaintiffs herein were allocated/rewarded with 300 acres of land that initially belonged to the company; plot number 676 [now sub-divided] forms part of the 300 acres that was allocated to the 56 ex-employees of the company; plot number 676 was illegally subdivided; the subdivision of the said plot was undertaken in collusion with the 10th defendant; the subdivision birthed the suit properties; and the transfer and registration of the suit property in the names of the 1st to the 9th defendants were fraudulent and illegal. 3.Additionally, it has been posited thus: The plaintiffs herein were allocated the portions of land comprising the suit property; the plaintiffs have been in actual possession/occupation of the suit properties; the 1st to 9th defendants do not occupy the suit properties; the titles in favour of the 1st to 9th defendants were procured by fraud; and the said titles ought to be cancelled. 4.Flowing from the foregoing, the plaintiffs have sought various reliefs, whose details have been highlighted elsewhere hereinbefore. 5.The 1st, 3rd, 6th and 7th defendants duly entered appearance; filed statement of defence; and counter claim. The statement of defence is dated the 02.07.2024. The defendants denied the claims by the plaintiffs. Moreover, the named defendants posited that the various properties that are registered in their names were allocated to them by settlement fund trustees[SFT]; that the allocation was lawful; they paid the requisite premiums; the certificate of title[s] were prepared; and that the same are the lawful owners of the suit properties. 6.Furthermore, the named defendants have posited that the plaintiffs herein have no lawful rights to and in respect of the suit properties. In addition, it has been contended that: The plaintiffs have illegally entered upon and trespassed onto the suit properties; the actions of the plaintiffs are illegal; the plaintiffs have deprived/denied the defendants of their right to the suit properties; and the plaintiffs ought to be evicted. 7.The 5th defendant duly entered appearance; filed a statement of defence and counter claim. Similarly, the 5th defendant denied the claims by the plaintiffs. Moreover, the 5th defendant contended that same was duly and lawfully allocated parcel number Ngusishi Settlement Scheme 859 by the Settlement Fund Trustees; that same paid the statutory levies; and that the title was lawfully processed and registered in his name. 8.The 10th defendant [the land registrar] duly entered appearance and filed a statement of defence dated the 30.04.2025. The 10th defendant denied the accusations levied against same by the plaintiffs. In addition, the 10 defendant posited thus: The suit properties arose from the subdivision of LR No. Ngusishi Settlement Scheme/676; the subdivision was undertaken by and the instance of the Settlement Fund Trustees; the settlement fund trustees was the first registered owner of the suit properties; the settlement fund trustees transferred the suit properties to the 1st to 9th defendants; the 1st to 9th defendants are the lawful owners of the suit properties; and the titles in favour of the 1st to the 9th defendants were lawfully issued. 9.The subject matter went through the usual pretrial. The parties confirmed that same had filed and exchanged the list and bundle of documents; the list of witnesses; and the witness statements. Thereafter the parties covenanted that the matter was ready for hearing. 10.The plaintiffs’ case is premised on the evidence of one witness. The witness is Silas Muuru M’Mbui. Same testified as PW1. 11.It was the testimony of the witness [PW1] that he is conversant with the facts of this matter. In addition, the witness averred that he has since recorded a witness statement dated the 15.04.2024. Thereafter the witness sought to adopt and rely on the witness statement as his evidence in chief. Suffice it to state that the witness statement was duly adopted and constituted as the evidence in chief of the witness. 12.Additionally, the witness alluded to the witness statement of three other witnesses and thereafter sought to adopt the witness statements. The witness statement[s] that were alluded to/referenced belong to:i.Jacob Muthaura Kireraii.Lucy Mbaru M’Mbuiiii.Karimi Mwirebua 13.The witness sought to adopt the statement of the named witnesses. There being no objection by the learned counsel for the defendants, the witness statements [ details in terms of the preceding paragraph] were adopted and constituted as further evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs. Moreover, the witness also referenced the authority that was donated unto him by the co-plaintiffs. The authority is dated the 15.04.2024. 14.Furthermore, the witness referenced the list and bundle of documents dated the 15.04.2024 and thereafter sought to produce the documents as exhibits. There being no objection by the learned counsel for the defendants, the documents at the foot of the list dated the 15.04.2024 were tendered and admitted as exhibits P1 to P11, respectively. 15.Other than the foregoing, the witness referenced the plaint dated the 15.04.2024 and sought to adopt the contents thereof. In addition, the witness also reiterated the reliefs at the foot of the plaint. Thereafter the witness invited the court to grant the reliefs sought. 16.On cross examination by learned counsel for the 1st, 3rd, 6th and 7th defendants [the named defendants], the witness testified that the case before the court has been filed by the 56 former [ex] employees of Ngusishi Farm Limited. The witness further testified that he has been given authority by the co-plaintiffs. In addition, the witness testified that the rest of the former employee[s] have also executed authority which has been filed before the court. 17.While still under cross examination, the witness averred that the 56 former employees worked with Ngusishi Farm Limited from the year 1976. Moreover, the witness posited that the said former employees are still residing on portions of the land which was allocated to them. 18.Regarding whether same has tendered and produced any documents to show that the plaintiffs were ex employees of Ngusishi Farm, the witness averred that the documents were given to their lawyer. However, the witness conceded that he has not tendered the documents before the court. 19.Upon being referred to the document at pages 26, 30 and 31 of the Plaintiffs bundle of documents,the witness averred that the said documents contained the details of the parcels of lands which were to be allocated to the ex-employees. Moreover, the witness averred that he has also tendered and produced a copy of the mutation form before the court. To this end, the witness referenced the document at page 36 of the bundle of the documents. 20.While still under cross examination, the witness testified that parcel number 676 was not given to the employees. Furthermore, the witness testified that he has no document to show that the total acreage arising from the subdivision[s] works to 300 acres. Moreover, it was the testimony of the witness that a portion of the land was given to the employee but the balance of the land was sold to settlement fund trustees. 21.It was the further testimony of the witness that same has tendered and produced copies of the various green cards relating to the suit properties. In addition, the witness posited that all the green cards show that subdivision were all registered in names of the settlement fund trustees as the first owner. Moreover, the witness conceded that it is the settlement fund trustees that transferred the suit properties to the 1st upto the 9th defendants. 22.Additionally, the witness testified that parcel number 676 was given to the community and not the Ex- employees. However, the witness conceded that same has not tendered any evidence to show that the land was given to the community. The witness reiterated that he had no evidence to demonstrate that parcel number 676 was gifted to the community. 23.On further cross examination, the witness testified that they have not sued the settlement fund trustee [SFT]. Moreover, the witness admitted that he has not tendered any document to show that they were employees of Ngusishi Farm Limited. 24.On cross examination by learned counsels for 5th defendant, the witness testified that he has indicated that the plaintiffs and the other parties, who have given authority to him were employees of Ngusishi Farm Limited. However, the witness posited that the land in question belonged to one Richard Carris. 25.It was the further testimony of the witness that parcels numbers 675 and 676 arose from the subdivision of the earlier parcels. However, the witness conceded that he has not tendered any document[s] to court to show how parcels numbers 675 and 676 were created. 26.Regarding whether parcel number 676 was allocated to the Ex-employees of Ngusishi farm or the community, the witness testified that parcels 676 was given/gifted to the community. The witness added that the community was to use parcels 676 to build a Polytechnic. On the other hand, the witness averred that parcels number 675 was to be used to construct a cattle dip. 27.Regarding whether he has tendered or availed any documents showing whether the plaintiffs were ex employees, the witness testified that he has not tendered any such document. 28.Upon being referred to the documents at page 6 of the 5th defendant’s bundle of documents, the witness averred that the document is a copy of the letter of allotment. In addition, the witness posited that the letter of allotment was in favor of the 5th defendant. Moreover, the witness clarified that the letter of allotment in question was issued by the settlement fund trustees. 29.Regarding occupation of the suit properties, the witness testified that it is the plaintiff[s] who are in occupation of the suit properties. Nevertheless, the witness conceded that he has not tendered or produced before the court any evidence to show that they [plaintiffs] are the ones in occupation of the suit properties. 30.On cross examination by learned counsel for the 10th and 11th defendants [ the Hon. Attorney General] the witness testified that parcel number 676 measured 28 acres. In addition, the witness averred that the said parcel of land was subdivided into various portions. However, upon being shown the green card for parcel number 676, the witness stated that the acreage shown thereon is 8.7 acres. 31.It was the further testimony of the witness, that same has also referenced parcels numbers 5121 and 2194. Besides, the witness posited that he has brought documents relating to the said parcels of land. In addition, averred that the employees were to be given portions of parcel number 5121. 32.Regarding parcel number 676, the witness testified that same has since seen the letter of offer in respect thereof. The witness averred that the letter of offer shows that the land [parcel 676] was being offered to settlement fund trustees. Moreover, the witness clarified that the employees were never given parcel number 676. 33.Upon being referred to the green card for parcel number 676, the witness testified that the green card shows that the title was created in 1977. Furthermore, the witness testified that the title of parcel number 676 is now closed. 34.On re-examination, the witness testified that parcel number 676 was sold to settlement land trustees. Moreover, the witness averred that the plaintiffs were all the employees of Ngusishi Farm. However, the witness conceded that he has not tendered any letter of employment. 35.On further re-examination, the witness averred that parcel number 676 was gifted to the community. The witness added that the said parcel was meant for the construction/building of a polytechnic. 36.With the foregoing testimony, the plaintiffs’ case was closed. 37.The case for the 1st, 3rd, 6th and 7th defendants is premised on the evidence of one witness. The witness is James Kinyua Rutere. The witness testified as [DW1]. 38.It was the testimony of the witness that same is conversant with the facts of this case. The witness further averred that same has since recorded and filed a witness statement. To this end, the witness referenced the statement dated the 05.05.2025 and which statement the witness sought to adopt and rely on. Suffice it to state that the witness statement was thereafter adopted and constituted as the evidence in chief of the witness. 39.Additionally, the witness referenced the list and bundle of documents dated the 05.05.2025 and which documents, the witness sought to tender and produce before the court. There being no objection to the production of the documents, same were admitted and marked as exhibits D1 to D11, respectively. 40.Furthermore, the witness posited that the named defendants have since filed a statement of defence and counter claim. The witness referenced the statement of defence dated the 02.07.2024. Moreover, the witness invited the court to grant the reliefs sought thereunder. 41.On cross examination by learned counsel for the 5th defendant, the witness averred that the various properties which are registered in the names of the 1st, 3rd, 6th and 7th defendants, were processed by the settlement fund trustees [SFT]. In addition, the witness reiterated that the certificate of title[s] were lawfully issued. 42.On cross examination by learned counsel for the 10th and 11th defendants [the Hon. Attorney General] the witness averred that the 1st, 3rd, 6th and 7th defendants were variously issued with letters of allotment. The witness clarified that the letters of allotment were issued by the settlement fund trustees. In addition, the witness posited that his parcel of land is plot number 856. Moreover, the witness averred that plot number 856 arose from the subdivision of plot number 676. 43.On cross examination by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, witness testified that the plot number 856 was allocated to him by the settlement fund trustees. Moreover, the witness averred that he was thereafter issued with a certificate of title. Further, and in addition, the witness posited that he has not taken possession of the land. 44.Regarding occupation, the witness posited that it is the plaintiffs herein who are in occupation. The witness added that the plaintiffs have barred him from entering into; taking possession of; and using parcel number 856. 45.With the forgoing testimony, the case for the 1st , 3rd , 6th and 7th defendants was closed. 46.Next was the case for the 5th defendant. The 5th defendant case is premised on the evidence of one witness, namely; Lucy Kaari Kathumi. The witness testified as DW2. 47.It was the testimony of the witness that same is a holder of Power of Attorney on behalf of the 5th defendant. Moreover, the witness averred that she is conversant/familiar with the facts of the case. In addition, the witness posited that same has since recorded and filed a witness statement. To this end, the witness referenced the statement dated 22.10.2025; and which statement the witness sought to adopt and rely on as her evidence- in chief. Instructively, the witness statement was duly adopted and constituted as the evidence in chief. 48.The witness further alluded to list and bundle of documents dated the 25.11.2025, containing 7 documents; and thereafter sought to produce the documents as exhibits. There being on objection to the production of the named documents, same were duly produced and marked as exhibit D1 to D7 on behalf of the 5th defendant. 49.Furthermore, the witness indicated that the 5th defendant has since filed a statement of defence and counter claim. The witness thereafter adverted to the statement of defence dated the 22.10.2025 and invited the court to grant the reliefs sought thereunder. 50.On cross examination by learned counsel for the plaintiffs, the witness averred that she had testified on behalf of the 5th defendant on the basis of power of Attorney. Moreover, the witness averred that the power of attorney has been filed before the court. 51.Regarding the relationship with the 5th defendant, the witness averred that the 5th defendant is her father. Moreover, the witness testified that her father currently resides at Chuka. In addition, the witness posited that her father is the owner of parcel number 859. 52.As pertains to occupation, the witness averred that her father has tried to enter upon and take possession of the suit property, but the plaintiffs herein have been adamant. Moreover, the witness added that it is the plaintiffs who are currently occupying /using the land. 53.With the foregoing testimony, the case for the 5th defendant was closed. 54.Next was the case for the 10th and 11th defendants [the land registrar Meru County and the Hon. Attorney General]. The case for the named defendants is premised on the evidence of one witness. The witness is Mwiti Kaleyio. The witness testified as DW3. 55.It was the testimony of the witness that same is the Land Registrar in charge of the Meru Central. The witness added that by virtue of his office, same is conversant with the facts of this matter. In addition, the witness averred that he has recorded and filed a witness statement dated the 30.04.2025. To this end, the witness sought to adopt and rely on the witness statement. 56.Suffice it to state that the witness statement was thereafter adopted and constituted as the evidence in chief of the witness. Moreover, the witness also pointed out that the same has also availed assorted documents before the court. 57.The witness thereafter sought to produce the various documents at the foot of the list dated 16.04.2025. There being no objection to the production of the documents, same were duly tendered and marked as Exhibits D1 to D9, respectively. 58.Other than the foregoing, the witness alluded to the statement of defence dated the 16.04.2025. Thereafter the witness sought to adopt and rely on the contents thereof. 59.On cross examination by learned counsel for the 5th defendant, the witness averred that he has produced and tendered certified copies of the green card in respect of the suit properties. In addition, the witness posited that the green card show that the suit properties were first registered in the name of Settlement Fund Trustees; and thereafter the same were transferred to the 1st to the 9th defendants. 60.While still under cross examination, the witness posited that the transfer of the suit properties to and in favour of the 1st to 9th defendants was done in accordance with the law. Moreover, the witness averred that the acquisition of the title in respect of the suit property was lawful and procedural. 61.On cross examination by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, the witness averred that same has not visited the suit properties. In addition, the witness averred that he is not able to confirm the parties who are in occupation. The witness clarified that he does not know whether the 1st to the 9th defendants are in occupation of their parcels of land. 62.As pertains to who was the first registered owner of the suit properties, the witness averred that the properties were registered in the name of Settlement Fund Trustees. Furthermore, the witness added that it is the settlement fund trustees who transferred the parcels of land to the 1st upto the 9th defendant. 63.With the foregoing testimony, the case for the 10th and the 11th defendants was closed. 64.Following the conclusion of the hearing, the advocates for the parties sought time to file and exchange their written submissions. To this end, the court proceeded to and issued directions on the filing and exchange of the submissions. The directions were: the Plaintiff to file and serve Written submissions within 21 days from the date of the directions; the defendants to file and serve written submissions within 21 days from the date of service; and the Plaintiff is at liberty to file and serve rejoinder submissions [if any] within 7 days from the date of service. 65.The Plaintiffs filed written submissions dated the 04.04.2026. The plaintiffs have highlighted four [4] key issues. The issues are: The plaintiffs were ex-employees of Ngusishi Farm Limited; the plaintiffs were allocated various portions of land previously belonging to Ngusishi Farm Limited; the plaintiffs have been in occupation of the land that was allocated; the plots namely; 676 forms part of what was allocated to the plaintiffs; and the certificate of title[s] to and in favour of the 1st to 9th defendants were procured by fraud. 66.Flowing from the foregoing, learned counsel for the plaintiffs have invited the court to find and hold that the plaintiffs have placed before the court cogent and credible evidence to prove their claim. To this end, the court has been implored to allow the plaintiffs suit; cancel the certificate of title[s] in favour of the 1st to the 9th defendants; and to issue titles to the plaintiffs. 67.The 1st , 3rd , 6th and 7th defendants filed written submissions dated the 11.05.2026 and wherein same have highlighted three[3] key issues: The issues are: The plaintiffs’ claim to the suit property is statute barred; the plaintiffs have failed to prove the allegations of fraud; and the certificate of title[s] to and in favour of the 1st, 3rd, 6th , and 7th defendants were lawfully procured and issued. 68.Additionally, learned counsel for the named defendants has submitted that the titles in question were processed and issued at the instance of the settlement fund trustees, who was the first registered owner of the suit property. Moreover, it has been submitted that having failed to join/implead settlement fund trustees in respect of the instant matter, the plaintiffs herein are non-suited. 69.Regarding the counter claim on behalf of the 1st, 3rd, 6th and 7th defendants, learned counsel has submitted that the named defendants are the lawful and legitimate owners of the suit properties. To this end, the court was invited to find and hold that the named defendants are entitled to exclusive occupation and possession of the suit properties. In addition, the court has been implored to allow the counter claim and issue orders of eviction; permanent injunction, general damages for trespass; and costs. 70.The 5th defendant filed written submissions dated 30.04.2026. Similarly, the 5th defendant has raised three [3] key issues. The issues are: The plaintiffs’ have not proved their claim to and in respect of the suit properties; the plaintiffs have no lawful rights to the suit property; and the actions by and on behalf of the plaintiff constitute trespass. 71.Regarding the counter claim, learned counsel for the 5th defendant has submitted that the 5th defendant was lawfully allocated parcel number 859 by the settlement fund trustees; the 5th defendant duly complied with the terms of the allotment; the title in respect of the suit property was lawfully processed; and the 5th defendant holds a valid title to the suit property. Furthermore, it has been submitted that the actions by /on behalf of the plaintiffs constitute to and amounts to trespass. 72.Flowing from the forgoing, learned counsel for the 5th defendant has invited the court to allow the counter claim; grant the order of eviction; an order of permanent injunction; and to award costs as against the plaintiffs. 73.Having reviewed the pleadings filed by/on behalf of the parties; considered the evidence tendered [both oral and documentary]; and upon taking into account the written submissions on record, three [3] key issue crystalize for consideration and determination. The issues are: Whether the plaintiffs have established their claims to the requisite standard or otherwise; Whether the named defendants [1st, 3rd , 5th , 6th , 7th and 9th defendants] have proved their counter claims; and What reliefs [if at all] ought to issue. 74.Regarding the first issue, it is important to reiterate that the plaintiffs herein approached this court contending thus: the plaintiffs were employees of Ngusishi Farm Limited; Ngusishi Farm Limited sought to allocate 300 acres of their land to their employees; 300 acres of land were allocated to the plaintiffs who are ex-employees of the Ngusishi Farm Limited; parcel number 676 forms part of the land which was allocated the plaintiffs; parcel number 676 was illegally subdivided and thereafter transferred to the 1st upto the 9th defendants; the certificate of titles issued in favour of the suit properties are fraudulent; and the plaintiffs are entitled to be registered as the lawful owners of the suit properties. 75.Having made the foregoing assertions, it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to tender and place before the court cogent and compelling evidence to prove their case. Simply put, the burden of proving the assertions at the foot of the plaint rested on the shoulders of the plaintiffs. [see James Muniu Mucheru Versus National Bank of Kenya Limited [2019] eklr; Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi versus Mwangi Stephen Mureithi [2014] eKLR ; Munya versus Kithinji [2014] eKLR; and Dr. Samson Gwer and five others versus KEMRI [2020] eKLR, respectively]. 76.Though the plaintiffs posited that they were the employees of Ngusishi Farm Limited and were thus allocated 300 acres out of the land that belonged to the said company, the plaintiffs herein did not tender or produce before the court any Documents to show that they were indeed employees of the said company. Furthermore, the plaintiffs were obligated to the demonstrate that they were part of 56 Ex-Employees of Ngusishi Farm Limited who were to benefit from the 300 acres. However, no evidence was placed before the court. Indeed, PW1 conceded that he had not produced any document[s] to show that the Plaintiffs’ were employees; or to show that the plaintiffs were part of [sic] the 56 Ex -employees who were to benefit from the 300 acres, which was to be curved out of Parcels Numbers 5121 and 5194; and not otherwise. 77.The Plaintiffs had also posited that parcel number 676 formed part of the land which was allocated to the 56 ex-employees. However, in the course of the cross examination PW1, conceded that parcel number 676 was not allocated to the ex-employees. For good measure, and while under cross examination by learned counsel for the 1st , 3rd, 6th and 7th defendants, PW1 stated thus:“I can see parcel number 676. The parcel of land number 676 was not given to the employees.” 78.While still under cross examination by the named counsel PW1 stated thus:“I do confirm that parcel number 676 was given to the community. I have not availed any evidence to show that the land was given to the community I do not have any evidence to show that parcel number 676 was given to the community.” 79.It is the plaintiffs who had approached the court contending that parcel number 676 formed part of the land which was allocated to the employees [ex employees] of Ngusishi Farm Limited. However, in the course of cross examination, the witness admitted that the said parcel was not allocated to the employees. Moreover, the witness thereafter shifted goal posts and stated that parcel number 676 was allocated to the community and not the employees [ex-employees]. 80.Other than the foregoing testimony, it is also worthy to recall that when PW1 was shown the letter of allotment in respect of parcel 676, the witness stated thus:“I have seen the letter of offer in respect of parcel number 676. The land was being offered to settlement fund trustees. I do wish to confirm that we were not given parcel number 676.” 81.The plaintiffs conceded that the suit properties whose titles are being challenged arose from the subdivision of parcel number 676. Moreover, it was conceded that parcel number 676 was not allocated to the employees [ex-employees] of Ngusishi Farm Limited. 82.It is the plaintiffs who had sought to impeach the subdivision of plot number 676 and the transfer that were made to and in favour of the 1st to the 9th defendants. However, evidence abound that parcel number 676 was sold to and in favour of settlement fund trustees [SFT] and was not allocated to the employees or ex-employees of Ngusishi Farm Limited. 83.From the foregoing, there is no gainsaying that the foundation upon which the plaintiffs’ claim was anchored, is untenable. Moreover, I am at pains to understand the basis of the allegation of fraud, taking into account that parcel number 676 was neither allocated to [sic] the employees/ex-employees of Ngusishi Farm Limited. 84.It is the plaintiffs who had impleaded fraud. The Plaintiffs were therefore obligated to tender and place before the court credible evidence to prove fraud to the requisite standard. Sadly, the plaintiffs failed to prove fraud, either in accordance with the law or at all. The plaintiffs claim must surely fail. 85.Before concluding on this issue, it is apposite to state that allegations of fraud must be proven to the intermediate standard. In the case of Doshi v Chemutut & 7 others [2025] KECA 776 (KLR), the court of appeal reaffirmed the legal position pertaining to proof of fraud. 86.The court stated as hereunder:41..In the often-cited decision of this Court in the case of Vijay Morjaria v Nansingh Madhusingh Dabar & Another [2000] eKLR, Tunoi, JA. stated that:“It is well established that fraud must be specifically pleaded and that particulars of the fraud alleged must be stated on the face of the pleading. The acts alleged to be fraudulent must of course be set out, and then it should be stated that these acts were done fraudulently. It is also settled law that fraudulent conduct must be distinctly alleged and as distinctly proved, and it is not allowable to leave fraud to be inferred from the facts.”42.In the same vein, the Court in the case of Kinyanjui Kamau v George Kamau Njoroge [2015] eKLR reiterated that:“It is trite law that any allegations of fraud must be pleaded and strictly proved. See Ndolo v Ndolo [2008] 1 KLR (G&F) 742 wherein the Court stated that:“...We start by saying that it was the respondent who was alleging that the will was a forgery and the burden to prove that allegation lay squarely on him. Since the respondent was making a serious charge of forgery or fraud, the standard of proof required of him was obviously higher than that required in ordinary civil cases, namely proof upon a balance of probabilities; but the burden of proof on the respondent was certainly not one beyond a reasonable doubt as in criminal cases...” 87.The next issue that falls for consideration is whether the 1st ,3rd , 5th ,6th ,7th, and the 9th Defendants [namely; the only Defendants who entered appearance; and filed their Defences; and Counter-claims] have been able to prove their Claim[s]. It is important to underscore that DW1,DW2 and DW3, respectively, gave evidence to show how the named Defendants obtained the Titles to their respective parcels of Land. 88.Notably, evidence was tendered that LR. No. Ngusishi Settlement Scheme/ 676 [hereinafter referred to as the original Land] was sold to and in favour of Settlement Fund Trustees [SFT] by the previous owners thereof. 89.Additionally, there is evidence that the Original parcel of Land belonged to and was owned by Ngusishi Farm Limited; and who are the ones who sold the Land to Settlement Fund Trustees. 90.It is important to highlight that once the parcel of Land was sold to Settlement Fund Trustees, the same caused the original parcel of Land to be sub-divided into various portion[s]; and thereafter the Fund issued Letters of allotment to the various Defendants. DW1 tendered and produced a copy of the Letter of allotment, which was issued in respect of Plot Number 856 dated the 22.05.1996. 91.Furthermore, it is not lost on me that upon the sub-division[s] that resultant parcels of Land [the sub-divisions] were all transferred and registered in the name of Settlement Fund Trustees. Their Green card[s], which were tendered in evidence by DW3, clearly showed and confirmed that Settlement Fund Trustees, was the first registered owner[s] of the suit properties. 92.Moreover, evidence abound that Settlement Fund Trustees is the one who thereafter caused the suit properties [sub-divisions of the original parcel of Land] to be transferred to and in favour of the First to the Nineth Defendants. The transactions leading to the registration of the suit properties in the names of the First to the Nineth Defendants, was confirmed to have been undertaken in accordance with the Law. For good measure, the evidence of DW3 [the Land Registrar- Meru Central Sub-County] was succinct and apt. 93.Taking into account the totality of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, I encounter no difficulty in returning a finding that the sub-division; and consequential transfer of the suit properties in favour of the 1st to the 9th Defendants, was procedural, lawful, and in accordance with the Law. 94.Further, and in any event, I wish to state that the Plaintiffs who had sought to impugn the transfer and registration of the suit properties in favour of the named Defendants, failed to tender any credible evidence; or at all. Simply put, the totality of the evidence on record has justified and proven the root of the Title[s] in favour of the 1st to the 9th Defendants. 95.Having come to the conclusion that the sub-division[s] of the original parcel of Land; and the consequential transfer in favour of the various Defendants was lawful, there is no gainsaying that the named Defendants are therefore entitled to partake of and benefit from the statutory rights and privileges attendant to ownership of Landed properties.[See the provisions of Sections 24 and 25 of the Land Registration Act, 2012[2016]. 96.Additionally, I also wish to underscore that the scope of the rights and privileges that accrue to the registered Land owner was highlighted in the case of Moya Drift Farm Limited versus Theuri [1973] EA; and Embakasi Properties Limited versus The Commissioner of Lands and Others [2019] eKLR, respectively. 97.Suffice it to state that the rights of the registered owner of the Land include: the right to exclusive occupation; possession; use; and benefit, without the interference of any person subject only to the known overriding Interest[s]. See the provisions of Section[s] 26 and 28 of the Land Registration Act, 2012. 98.In the premises, there is no gainsaying that the action[s] of the Plaintiffs, who are admittedly in occupation of the suit properties, amount[s] to and constitutes trespass to the suit properties. The action[s] complained of are thus illegal and unlawful. 99.What constitutes trespass has been the subject of definition in a plethora of decisions of the Court of Appeal and the Superior Courts below. Notably, the Court of Appeal offered an exhaustive definition of Trespass; and continuing trespass in the case of Church Commissioners of Kenya for the Anglican Church vers Simon Orwa Wayuga [2024] KECA 1048 [KLR]. 100.Flowing from the foregoing, I come to the conclusion that the 1st ,3rd ,5th ,6th, and the 7th Defendants have indeed proved and established that same are the lawful and registered proprietors of their various parcels of Land. 101.Before departing from this issue, it is also important to point out that even though the Plaintiffs were aware and knowledgeable that the Defendants procured their parcels of land from the Settlement Fund trustees, the Plaintiffs sought not to implead the said Fund. The failure to implead the fund further shows that the allegation[s] of the plaintiffs against the Defendants, were far from proved. 102.My answer to issue number two [2] is three-fold. Firstly, the suit properties belonged to and were previously registered in the name Settlement Fund Trustees, who was duly registered as the first owners thereof. 103.Secondly, the suit properties were lawfully allocated to and in favour of the various Defendants, who thereafter proceeded to and paid the stipulated statutory charges to and in favour of the Settlement Fund Trustees. 104.Thirdly, the transfers and the ultimate registration of the titles in favour of the named Defendants was lawful, valid; and the named Defendants acquired proprietary rights to the suit properties. Furthermore, the rights that were acquired by the named Defendants warrants due protection under the Law. 105.Next is the issue of What reliefs [if any] which ought to issue, taking into account the circumstances of the case. To start with, it is important to state that both the Plaintiffs; and the various Defendants have raised claim[s] and cross-claims. In this regard, it is apposite to deal with the claims by the Parties sequentially. 106.I beg to start with the claims by/ on behalf of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs sought declaration that the LR No Ngusishi Settlement Scheme/ 676 [the original parcel of Land] belonged to the Plaintiffs. However, during cross examination of PW1 by Learned Senior Litigation Counsel, Ms Miranda, the Witness confirmed that the said Title ceased to exist. In this regard, it is difficult to fathom how the Plaintiffs would want a declaration that the said parcel of land [ which is non- existent] belong[s] to same. 107.Additionally, it is worth recalling that PW1 also conceded that Parcel Number 676, was never allocated to the Employees [Ex-employees] of Ngusishi Farm Limited. Assuming for one minute that the Plaintiffs were ex- employees of the said Company [which was never proven], then there is no basis for the Plaintiffs to lay a claim to the said parcel of Land at all. 108.The other aspect of the Claim that has been raised and canvassed by the Plaintiffs relates to the cancellation of the Certificate[s] of Titles issued in favour of the various Defendants. The basis of the claim was to the effect that the Title[s] were procured by fraud; and collusion between the named Defendants and the Land Registrar, namely, the 10th Defendant herein. 109.Be that as it may, it is worthy to recall that while addressing the question of fraud elsewhere hereinbefore, I pointed out that the Plaintiffs did not lay before the Court any material to warrant a finding of Fraud. Moreover, I pointed out that the Plaintiffs’ case is loud on allegation[s], but devoid of evidence. Suffice it to assert that Courts of Law do not act on assumption[s]; allegation[s]; speculation[s]; or hypothesis. There must be credible evidence. [See the provisions of Section 3[2] of the Evidence At, Chapter 80, Laws of Kenya]. 110.In a nutshell, I find no basis to cancel the Certificate[s] of titles, which were duly; and lawfully issued in favour of the named Defendants; and whose legitimacy has not been impugned. 111.The final claim that was propagated by the Plaintiffs touched on and concerned an Order of Permanent Injunction to restrain the named Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiffs’ use and possession of the suit Properties. It suffices to state that the suit properties are still registered in the names of the First to the Nineth Defendants. In this regard, the prayer for Permanent Injunction is being sought as against the registered owners of the suit properties. 112.The question that does arise is whether such an Order can issue or be issued as against the registered owner of the Land. To my mind, the issuance of such an Order would be tantamount to [sic] ‘revoking’ the certificate of title, albeit through the backdoor. 113.Pertinently, the Court of Appeal had occasion to consider a similar situation in the case of Nguruman Limited versus Jan Bonde Nielsen and Others [2014] KECA 605. The court observed that:‘It must be remembered that it is a serious thing to restrain a registered owner of what is undeniably his/ hers, unless there are justifiable grounds to do so.’’ 114.I do wish to underscore that there are no justifiable grounds to warrant the issuance of the Orders of Permanent Injunction in this matter, or at all. 115.Turning to the claims by/ on behalf of the Named Defendants, it is imperative to underscore that the suit properties are duly registered in the name[s] of the 1st to the 9th Defendants. I am aware that the suit against the 9th Defendant was withdrawn. However, the common denominator remains that same owns his parcel of Land. 116.Insofar as the 1st , 3rd ,5th ,6th and 7th Defendants are the registered owners of their respective parcels of land, it suffices to state that same are entitled to exclusive possession and occupation. And where there are persons, who have encroached thereon, such persons, whoever they are, must cede possession; and allow the owners to partake of and benefit from their Land[s]. In this case, and bearing in mind the decision in the case of Mohanson [K] Limited versus The Registrar of Titles and Another [2017] eklr, I am minded to and do hereby decree that an order for vacant possession suffice[s]. 117.Quite clearly, the Plaintiffs must vacate and hand over vacant possession; and in default to do so, then same must be evicted therefrom. 118.The named Defendants have also sought and order of permanent Injunction to restrain the Plaintiffs from further trespass onto the suit property. I am convinced that the named Defendants are entitled to an order of Permanent Injunction. Instructively, without an Order of Permanent injunction, the Plaintiffs will overrun the suit properties and thus violate; or continue to violate the property right[s] of the First to the Nineth Defendants. Such a situation must not be countenanced in a civilised society like ours. [See the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Aikman versus Muchoki [1984] KLR 353]. 119.Finally, the various Defendants have sought for General damages for Trespass. It suffices to state that PW1, admitted and confirmed that they [ Plaintiffs] are the ones using the suit properties. In addition, evidence was tendered by DW1 and DW2, respectively; that the Plaintiffs have been violent and barred the named Defendants from taking possession of the suit properties. Simply put, evidence abound that the Plaintiffs have trespassed onto the suit properties. 120.I wish to underscore that trespass is actionable per se. One does not need to prove Loss. Once trespass is established, the registered owner is entitled to recompense. The only issue is the quantum of damages payable. [See Municipal Council of Eldoret versus Titus Gatitu Njau [2020] eklr]. 121.In respect of the instant matter, DW1 and DW2, testified that the offensive activities by/ on behalf of the Plaintiffs/ Defendants to the Counter-claim has persisted over time. In addition, evidence was tendered that the said Plaintiffs have resorted to violence in an endeavour to ward off any attempts by the named Defendants to enter the suit properties. Such conduct constitutes a serious threat to property rights; and hence the registered owners of the suit properties merit compensation. To this end, I am minded to and hereby decree that the 1st ,3rd ,5th ,6th ,and 7th Defendants are entitled to General Damages. 122.Regarding the quantum of damages due and awardable, I do take cognizance of the fact that the suit properties are agricultural Lands; the same lie in the fertile parts of Meru County; same constituted part of what was hitherto referred to as the ‘white highlands’ under the colonial settlers; the Plaintiffs have been benefitting therefrom the Suit Lands without lawful titles; the named Defendants have suffered violation of property rights; and the duration of deprivation has been extensive. In this regard, I hereby return the following awards;(a)First Defendant -Parcel Number 855 [Acreage of 0.8 Ha]- Kes 3,000,000 Only.(b)Third Defendant- Parcel Number 856 [ Acreage of 0.8 Ha]-Kes 3,000,000 Only.(c)Fifth Defendant-Parcel Number 859 [Acreage of 0.8 Ha]-Kes 3,000,000 Only.(d)Seventh Defendant-Parcel Number 860 [Acreage of 1.2 Ha] -Kes 5,000,000 Only.(e)Sixth Defendant -Parcel Number 860 [Acreage 1.2 Ha]- No Damages insofar as same was transferred to the Seventh Defendant.(f)Nineth Defendant -Parcel Number 861 [ Acreage 1.1 Ha] – No Damages as the suit against same was withdrawn. 123.Finally, I wish to deal with the issue of Costs of the Suit; and the Counter-claim. The general position of the Law is to the effect that costs follow the event. The event denotes the outcome of the suit; or matter before the court. In this regard, if the party who invoked the jurisdiction of the court succeeds, then same is entitled to costs, unless there exists some exceptional or pecurliar reason[s] to warrant denial of costs. Conversely, if the party who invoked the jurisdiction of the court fails, the same must bear the costs incidence, unless the court deems otherwise, subject to existence of a good reason. 124.The law on award of costs, has been the subject of a myriad of decisions of the Supreme Court of Kenya. In the case of Jasbir Singh Rai and 3 Others versus Tarlochan Singh Rai and 4 Others [2013] Eklr; the Supreme Court highlighted the applicable principles governing the award of costs.[ See also the decision of the Court of Appeal in the Case of Farah Award Gullet versus CMC Motor Group Limited [2018] eklr] 125.Flowing from the principles discernable from the decisions [supra], I am persuaded to award costs of the Suit; and the Counter-claim to the Defendants, with the exception of the 2nd, 8th and 9th Defendants herein. Conclusion: 126.It is the Plaintiffs who invoked the Jurisdiction of this court seeking to prove the various assertion[s] at the foot of the Plaint. In this regard, the Plaintiffs bore the burden of proof. However, the plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proof. To this end, I come to the conclusion that the Plaintiffs did not prove their claim[s]. 127.On the other hand, the named Defendants who had been impleaded and thereafter mounted their Counter-claims, have proven the root[s] of their Titles. In this regard, the Counter-claims are successful. Final Orders: 128.Arising from the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, the Final Orders which commend themselves to me are:a.The Plaintiffs’ suit be and is hereby Dismissed.b.Judgment be and is hereby entered in favour of the First, Third, Fifth, and Seventh Defendants in terms of their respective Counter-claim[s].c.The Plaintiffs/ Defendants to the Counter-claims be and are hereby directed to vacated and hand over vacant possession of the suit properties within 90 Day[s] from the Date of the Judgment.d.In default to vacate and hand over vacant possession in terms [c] above, the named Defendants/ Counter-claimers shall be at liberty to levy Eviction as against the Plaintiffs/ Defendants to the Counter-claim. In this regard, an Eviction shall issue.e.In the event of Eviction being levied by the named Defendants/ Counter-claimers, the costs and Expenses arising therefrom shall be certified by the Deputy Registrar and be recoverable from the Plaintiffs.f.General Damages be and are hereby awarded in terms of paragraph 122 of the Judgment.g.The award of General Damage[s] shall accrue Interests at Court rates [14%] from the Date hereof; and until payments in Full.h.The costs of the Suit be and are hereby awarded to the Defendants save for the Second; Eight; and Nineth Defendants.i.Costs of the Counter-claims be and are hereby awarded to the First; Third; Fifth; Sixth; and Seventh Defendants/ Counter-claimers.j.The costs in terms of [h] and [i] above shall be agreed upon; and in default to be taxed in the Conventional manner. 129.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026.OGUTTU MBOYA, FCIArb;CPM [MTI-EA]JUDGE.In the presence of:Court Assistant: Zakayo.Mr. Mwendwa for the Plaintiffs.Mr Gregory Mutuma for the 1st, 3rd , 6th , and 7th Defendants/ Counter-claimers.Mr. Mikwa for the Fifth Defendant/ Counter-claimer.Ms Miranda- Senior Litigation Counsel for the 10th and the 11th Defendants.