https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3296

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT** **AT ELDORET** **ELC PETITION No. 15 OF 2019** **IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 1, 2, 10, 19, 21, 22, 28, 40, 43 AND 258 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION AND THREATENED BREACH OF ARTICLES 10, 40, AND 47 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF THE DOCTRINE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF CONSTITUTION OF KENYA (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS) PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE RULES, 2013** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF ALLOCATION AND SETTLEMENT OF SQUATTERS IN THE LAND PARCEL KNOWN AS ELDORET MUNICIPALITY/BOCK 15(KIPKAREN SQUATTER SETTLEMENT) - PART DEVELOPMENT PLAN ELD 17/2005/2** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF THE LAND REGISTRATION ACT, No. 3 OF 2012** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF THE COMMUNITY LAND ACT, No. 27 OF 2016** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL LAND COMMISSION ACT, No. 5 OF 2012** **BETWEEN** **CHARLES WANYAMA SIMIYU** **JULIUS KIPKENY TARUS** **EMILY JEBET RONO** *(Petitioning on Their Own* *Behalf and That of 57 Other Persons Commonly* *Described as the Roho Moja Genuine Squatters)* …………..........**PETITIONERS** ***-VERSUS-*** **THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL** ……………..1**ST RESPONDENT** **NATIONAL LAND COMMISSION** ……………….**2ND RESPONDENT** **THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEYS** ………….……..**3RD RESPONDENT** **AND** **JOSEPH KIBET** ………………………………..**1ST INTERESTED PARTY** **MOSES JACOB SIMI**………………………….**2ND INTERESTED PARTY** **SELLY NAFULA** ………………………..………**3RD INTERESTED PARTY** JUDGEMENT 1. The Petitioner herein did file a Petition dated 03.09.2019 (hereinafter referred to as **“the present Petition”**) against the 1st to 3rd Respondents seeking the following Orders: - 1. **THAT a declaration that the Respondents have breached or will breach the rights under Articles 10, 40, 47 and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 by their acts of denying genuine squatters property rights over the land parcel known as KIPKAREN SQUATTERS SETTLEMENT - BLOCK 15(ELDORET MUNICIPALITY PLOT 17/2005/2) and a breach of the tenet of legitimate expectation coupled with an award of damages for the breach of Articles 10, 47 and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.** 2. **THAT an order of certiorari do issue to move into this court and quash the decision to allocate the land parcel known as KIPKAREN SQUATTERS SETTLEMENT - BLOCK 15(ELDORET MUNICIPALITY PLOT 17/2005/2) to the 92 persons named in the list signed by the District Land Officer on 25th November, 2005 and the District Commissioner - Uasin Gishu on the 23rd December, 2005 and the Allotment Letters issued pursuant to thereto, the proceedings of the CHIEF MAGISTRATES COURT ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT CASE NO. 17 of 2019-Moses Jacob Simiyu & 2 Others vs Charles Wanyama Simiyu & 2 Others quashed and the decision to create the amended registry index maps (RIM) of the land parcel known as KIPKAREN SQUATTERS SETTLEMENT - BLOCK 15(ELDORET MUNICIPALITY PLOT 17/2005/2) under Plan F/R no. 439/77-78 representing survey parcels no. 2603, 2607, 2608, 2610, 2616, 2622, 2623, 2630, 2631, 2643, 2645, 2648, 2649, 2650, 2656, 2658, 2662, 2667, 2670, 2673, 2675, 2677, 2680, 2681, 2682 as contained in the letters dated 15th February, 2018 and 24th April, 2018 by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents quashed.** 3. **THAT an Order of mandamus do issue against the 1st and 2nd Respondents to compel them to allot the land parcel known as KIPKAREN SQUATTERS SETTLEMENT - BLOCK 15(ELDORET MUNICIPALITY PLOT 17/2005/2) to only the genuine squatters who are the petitioners and the 57 others under the Roho Moja Genuine Squatters Group, do settle them on the respective land parcels and issue titles to Moses Jacob Simiyu, Kimani Mwangi, Eunice Nekesa Wamukota, Laban Misheni Mieso, Elijah Siratei, Charles Wanyama Simiyu, Sammy Kipchumba Chirchir, William Tuwei Chirchir, Davi Kipkemboi Kogo, Hosea kirwa Too, Constantina Jelagat, Emily Jebet Rono, Rosa Jepketer Tarus, Mark Kipkosgei Keni, Christine Nekesa, Agnes Namae Simiyu, Fred Alwama Matere, Mary Angano Lugado, Silbano Kipkolum Kogo, Grace Jelagat Maina, Julius Kipkeny Tarus, Sophia Abdi, Sarah Sawe, Elkana Yebei Kipruto, Margaret Muthoni Mburu, Leah Chebitok, Robert Kipchoge Birgen, Gladys Nakhumicha Simiyu, Betwel Kiplagat Rono, Benson Wanyama Wanyonyi, Rupano Jepkosgei Kogo, Antony Wafula Namukhana, Samwel Kiptanui Barno, Edwin Kipkorir Keny, Sarah Jepkemboi Kogo, Dismus Barasa Musokwa, Jonas Kiprugut Kogo, Andrew Juma Namukana, Tecla Cheptoo, Faith Cherop, Jmaes Kipkemboi Ng’elechei, Vanis Nanjala Simiyu, Ernest Kipkemboi Kendagor, Judith Namchanja Ansaya, Simon Kiprono Kogo, Wilfred Kimutai Kipkeny, Priscilla Jepkemei Boson, Jackline Nafula Barasa, Benjamin Kipruto, Fred Nyongesa Simiyu, Wangoi Kimani, Wilson Cheptarus Song’ony and Rose Anjeme Mindalo.** 4. **THAT costs and interests be awarded to the petitioners.** 5. The prayers sought in the present Petition are premised on the facts outlined in the body of the present Petition as well as the Supporting Affidavit sworn by the 1st Petitioner on 03.09.2019 and are summarized as follows: - 6. That the Petitioners being destitute and landless began occupying an area of public land described as **KIPKAREN SQUATTERS SETTLEMENT - BLOCK 15(ELDORET MUNICIPALITY PLOT 17/2005/2)** in Kipkaren Area, Uasin Gishu County (hereinafter **“the suit property”**)as exhibited in the List of 60 persons whom they term genuine squatters. 7. The Petitioners did aver that the said genuine squatters did engage the Government of Kenya to be allocated a portion of the public land and subsequently, the process of securing their tenure over the suit property began with the establishment of a Special District Plots Allocation Committee (DPAC) chaired by the then Uasin Gishu District Commissioner in year 2004. 8. The Petitioners did aver that during the verification exercise of the genuine squatters, they were represented by one Mrs. Florence Nelima Simiyu. 9. On the 24.11.2004, the Petitioners did plead that the Government of Kenya did express its willingness to settle the genuine squatters on a portion of the suit property through the registration of their land rights on the same. 10. In furtherance of this decision to settle the genuine squatters on the portion of the public land, the Government did establish the KIPKAREN SQUATTERS SETTLEMENT SCHEME which was to consist of 92 plots each to be registered through the office of the Commissioner of Lands. 11. The Petitioners did disclose that the different Plots would be alienated to them by the Commissioner of Lands through Leases with clear terms and conditions on the development control standards. 12. However, due to the inability of the Petitioners financially, the Commissioner of Lands did waive the premiums payable by the genuine squatters of the portions allocated to them. 13. The Petitioners did plead that on the 14.11.2005, the District Surveyor and the District Lands Officer did both confirm that there was no adverse comments and/or objection to the approval of the Part Development Plan (PDP) for the portion known as KIPKAREN SQUATTER SETTLEMENT-ELDORET MUNICIPALITY- ELD.17/2005/2. 14. Based on the approval of the proposed Part Development Plan (PDP) known as KIPKAREN SQUATTERS SETTLEMENT-ELDORET MUNICIPALITY-ELD.17/2005/2 by both the District Land Surveyor and the District Lands Officer, the same was forwarded to the Commissioner of Lands through the blue print copies for approval. 15. Consequently, thereafter, the District Land Officer did request the Commissioner of Lands through a Letter dated 25.11.2005 to issue the appropriate Letters of Allotment. 16. Based on the Letters dated 25.11.2005 by the District Land Officer to the Commissioner of Lands, a number of the genuine squatters did receive their Letters of Allotment from the Commissioner of Lands which contained the waiver of premium payable as earlier disclosed. 17. Unfortunately, only 14 genuine squatters out of the 60 genuine squatters did receive the Letters of Allotment as expected but the remaining genuine squatters did not. 18. On investigations by the Petitioners, it was discovered as follows; - 19. Based on the Letter dated 25.11.2005 by the District Land Officer and approved the District Commissioner, there were 92 persons of which only 14 genuine squatters were included. 20. The Commissioner of Lands in collaboration with the 3rd Respondents with a view of depriving the genuine squatters who are the Petitioners herein had prepared Plan F/R no. 439/77-78 representing survey parcels no. 2603, 2607, 2608, 2610, 2616, 2622, 2623, 2630, 2631, 2643, 2645, 2648, 2649, 2650, 2656, 2658, 2662, 2667, 2670, 2673, 2675, 2677, 2680, 2681, 2682 and 2684 and commenced the process of amending the RIM of the aforesaid parcels for processing as emerged from the correspondence dated 15.02.2018 and 24.04.2018. 21. In essence, the Petitioners did plead that the 1st Respondent had acted contrary to the Petitioners’ expectation despite recognition of the Petitioners by the office of the Commissioner of Lands vide letter dated 22.03.2006 and further, despite the Commissioner of Lands writing to the District Commissioner, Uasin Gishu District to help them maintain the land pending formalisation of their allocation. 22. Upon discovery of the above omissions by the Commissioner of Lands and the 3rd Respondent, the Petitioners did lodge a complaint with the 2nd Respondent which was acknowledged by stamping on 12.09.2018 but no action was taken on the same. 23. The Petitioners aver that they then reported the matter to the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) regarding how the allocation of the land had been done, which resulted in the EACC conducting an authentication of the genuine squatters on 31.12.2018 at its offices in Eldoret. 24. According to the authentication exercise done by EACC, a List of 53 genuine squatters was compiled, which has been attached in this present Petition for the Court’s consideration. 25. Be as it may, the Interested Parties herein did file the proceedings known as ELDORET CHIEF MAGISTRATES COURT ENVIRONMENT & LAND CASE NO. 17 OF 2019 BETWEEN MOSES JACOB SIMIYU & 2 OTHERS-VERSUS- CHARLES WANYAMA SIMIYU & 2 OTHERS wherein they sought an Interlocutory Temporary Injunction and were issued on the 05.07.2019 with the same stopping any interference of their titles that had been issued based on the Registry Index Map relating to **KIPKAREN SQUATTERS SETTLEMENT - BLOCK 15(ELDORET MUNICIPALITY PLOT 17/2005/2).** 26. The Petitioners accused the Respondents of abrogation and/or threatening to breach their fundamental rights and freedoms, as well as breaching the Leadership and Integrity values and deprivation of legitimate expectation as follows: - 27. That the creation of the amended RIM by the Commissioner of Lands and 3rd Respondents who knew that the Petitioners had accrued interests as genuine squatters undermined the national values and principles of governance under Article 10 of the Constitution. 28. The Allotment of land to persons who were not genuine squatters yet the government had since 2004 formulated a policy to allot land to the genuine squatters breached the principle of legitimate expectation. 29. The Government has and still intends to breach its commitment to allocate the genuine squatters land and once more breached the principle of legitimate expectation as well as breach of the rule of law under Article 10 of the Constitution. 30. That the allotment of land under the Government Lands Act was an exercise of statutory power which affects third parties such as the Petitioners, who ought to be heard, failure to which, the allotment is rendered null and void. 31. That the creation of settlement schemes is meant to settle landless people who have been staying on government land without legal documentation, and to depart from that would be a breach of the purpose meant for the schemes. 32. That the failure by the 2nd Respondent to address the Petitioners’ complaint based on its mandate under the National Land Commission Act, 2022 is a breach of the right to fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. 33. The Chief Magistrates Court in the proceedings known as ELDORET CHIEF MAGISTRATES COURT ENVIRONMENT & LAND CASE NO. 17 OF 2019 BETWEEN MOSES JACOB SIMIYU & 2 OTHERS-VERSUS- CHARLES WANYAMA SIMIYU & 2 OTHERS did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction and/or powers to determine the dispute before it. 34. That the decision to create the amended RIM Plan F/R no. 439/77-78 representing survey parcels no. 2603, 2607, 2608, 2610, 2616, 2622, 2623, 2630, 2631, 2643, 2645, 2648, 2649, 2650, 2656, 2658, 2662, 2667, 2670, 2673, 2675, 2677, 2680, 2681, 2682 as contained in the letters dated 15.02.2018 and 24.04.2018 by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents is a breach of the right to fair administrative action and the petitioner’s legitimate expectation under Articles 10 and 47 of the Constitution as they were not heard before the decisions were taken yet they had an interest in the land as genuine squatters. 35. The present Petition was duly served on the both the Respondents herein as well as the Interested Parties. 36. The 1st and 3rd Respondents did oppose the present Petition by way of the Grounds of Opposition dated 21.06.2022. 37. According to the Grounds of Opposition dated 21.06.2022, the 1st and 3rd Defendants did plead as follows; - 38. That the present Petition is a non-starter, misconceived, bad in law, and an abuse of the Court process since the reliefs sought cannot be granted by the Court as the present Petition did not raise any arguable constitutional matters but only moral lamentations. 39. The 1st and 3rd Respondent did state that the present Petition was premature and not ripe for hearing and determination by this Court as the issues raised therein had not crystallised. 40. According to the 1st and 3rd Respondent, the suit property was un-alienated government land hence neither the Petitioners nor the Interested Parties have any legitimate interest thereon as they had not acquired any registrable interest. 41. The 1st and 3rd Respondents did acknowledge that the Petitioners had a right to pursue their claim against the 2nd Respondent as the custodian of public land including un-alienated government land. 42. Consequently, it was the 1st and 3rd Respondents’ claim that the Petitioners had wrongly joined them in this proceeding as they did not have any responsibilities under the new Constitution, 2010 to deal with public land. 43. In addition to the above, the 1st and 3rd Respondents did plead that the Court did not have jurisdiction in the manner in which public land should be alienated and/or managed as this jurisdiction was bestowed on the 2nd Respondent solely by the citizens of this Country under the Constitution, 2010. 44. The 1st and 3rd Respondents did admit that where there is a dispute on who should be the lawful beneficial owner of the suit property including the validity of the Interested Parties ownership documents, then the right entity to resolve the same was the 2nd Respondent herein. 45. In any event, the 1st and 3rd Respondents did plead that if any Letters of Allotments were issued by the Commissioner of Lands, then the same were no longer legitimate and/or valid due to effluxion of time and therefore neither the Petitioners nor the Interested Parties had any legal claim on the suit property which is still public land. 46. Lastly, the 1st and 3rd Respondents did state that the Petitioners had not exhausted the dispute resolution mechanism established under the new land dispensation hence the present suit is premature. 47. The 2nd Respondent did also oppose the present Petition by filing a Replying Affidavit dated 30.04.2025. 48. In the Replying Affidavit dated 30.04.2025, the 2nd Respondent did state the following facts and/or grounds in opposition of the present Petition; - 49. The 2nd Respondent was a body corporate established under Article 67 of the Constitution and operationalized by the National Land Commission Act, No. 5 of 2012 to manage public land on behalf of the National and County Governments. 50. The 2nd Respondent did state that it was a stranger to the facts and contents of the present Petition as it was not in existence during the purported allocation, thus it did not undertake the purported acquisition nor any process related thereto. 51. Nevertheless, the 2nd Respondent did confirm that any allocation ought to have been done by the office of the Commissioner of Lands and in accordance with procedures and processes articulated by the legal, regulatory, statutory and institutional regimes at the time of the allocation. 52. The 2nd Respondent did therefore state that any documents and/or records of the purported allocation process, if any, would be domiciled by the requisite institutional offices, thus the Petitioners ought to have made any claim, complaint or allegation as required. 53. The 2nd Respondent claims that due to its non-existence at the time of alienation of the suit property, it did not have any documents and/or records of the said process. 54. Nevertheless, the 2nd Respondent did admit receiving a complaint from the Petitioners herein upon which investigations did commence but could not be concluded due to the present Petition that was pending in Court. 55. The 2nd Respondent did point out that under Section 134 and 135 of the Land Act, No. 6 of 2012, the function of settling people on public land is vested with the Land Settlement Fund Board as provided in the Constitution, 2010. 56. In essence, the 2nd Respondent did seek this Court to dismiss the present Petition on the grounds that it was untenable and lacks merit. 57. The Interested Parties did also oppose the present Petition though a Replying Affidavit dated 14.11.2024. 58. In the Replying Affidavit sworn by the Interested Parties on the 14.11.2024, the following grounds were advanced in opposition thereof; - 59. First and foremost, the Interested Parties did deny the facts and allegations pleaded by the Petitioners herein in the present Petition. 60. The Interested Parties did nevertheless admit the existence of the proceedings known as ELDORET CHIEF MAGISTRATES COURT ENVIRONMENT & LAND CASE NO. 17 OF 2019 BETWEEN MOSES JACOB SIMIYU & 2 OTHERS-VERSUS- CHARLES WANYAMA SIMIYU & 2 OTHERS wherein they sought for declarations to be the lawful owners of their respective properties and permanent injunctions against any interference thereof. 61. According to the Interested Parties, the Petitioners herein were never recognized as the genuine squatters of the suit property and therefore had no legal right to file the present Petition. 62. In essence, the Interested Parties did plead that they hold valid and genuine Letters of Allotments and/or ownership documents emanating from the suit property and the Petitioners claims were therefore not merited and/or justified. 63. Upon the filing of the Replying Affidavit by the Interested Parties, pleadings relating to the present Petition did close. 64. The Court thereafter did direct that the present Petition would be canvassed by way of written submissions. 65. Based on this direction, the Petitioners did file their submissions dated 19.11.2025, while the 1st and 3rd Respondents did file their submissions dated 23.01.2026. 66. In addition to the above, the 2nd Respondent did file its submission on the 23.06.2025 and lastly, the Interested Parties did file their Joint submissions dated 02.02.2026. 67. This Court has indeed perused the present Petition, Grounds of Opposition, the two Replying Affidavits as well as the submissions by all parties and identifies the following issues for determination; - **ISSUE NO.1-WHETHER THE PETITIONERS HAVE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN LAW TO OWN THE SUIT PROPERTY?** **ISSUE NO.2-WHETHER THE PETITIONERS HAVE DEMONSTRATED ANY VIOLATION OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO OWN THE SUIT PROPERTY?** **ISSUE NO. 3- WHETHER THE PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO THE ORDERS SOUGHT IN THE PRESENT PETITION** **ISSUE NO. 4- WHO BEARS THE COSTS OF THE PRESENT PETITION?** 1. The Court having identified the above issues for determination, the same will now be discussed as provided below. **ISSUE NO.1-WHETHER THE PETITIONERS HAVE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN LAW TO OWN THE SUIT PROPERTY?** 1. The first issue for determination is whether or not the Petitioners herein have established any Constitutional Rights within the suit property contained in the present Petition. 2. According to the Petitioners, it is their position that they are citizens of this great Republic who reside within what is now known as Uasin Gishu County. 3. The Petitioners did further plead that they are people of little financial means who had been in occupation of a public portion of land within Uasin Gishu County. 4. In an effort to improve their livelihoods through owning a decent home and engaging in meaningful activities, the Petitioners did seek the Government to alienate part of the public land on which they were in occupation and allocate the same to them. 5. Based on the Petitioners pleadings, the Government did accede to their request to be allocated a portion of public land by creating the proposed Part Development Plan (PDP) for the portion known as KIPKAREN SQUATTER SETTLEMENT-ELDORET MUNICIPALITY- ELD.17/2005/2. 6. The Part Development Plan (PDP) for the portion known as KIPKAREN SQUATTER SETTLEMENT-ELDORET MUNICIPALITY- ELD.17/2005/2 was duly approved by the local departments and on the 14.11.2005, the same was forwarded to Commissioner of Lands as then was for its approval and registration by the 3rd Respondent. 7. On the other front, a Special District Plots Allocation Committee was established under the Chairmanship of the District Commissioner, the District Land Surveyor and other Government Officials which also included one Mrs. Florence Nelima Simiyu as the person representing the genuine squatters. 8. On the 25.11.2005, the District Land Officer and the District Commissioner did write a letter to the Commissioner of Lands authorizing the issuance of the Letters of Allotment in relation to the sub-divisions within the suit property. 9. The Petitioners claim is that the Letter dated 25.11.2005 by the District Land Officer and the District Commissioner to the Commissioner of Lands did not contain the genuine squatters who are the Petitioners herein in line with the List of genuine squatters acknowledged by the Special Districts Plots Allocation Committee in the meeting held on the 24.11.2004. 10. To begin with, it is not in dispute by either the Respondents and/or the Interested Parties that the Petitioners herein reside and/or have been in occupation of the suit property herein which was originally contained Part Development Plan (PDP) for the portion known as KIPKAREN SQUATTER SETTLEMENT-ELDORET MUNICIPALITY-ELD.17/2005/2. 11. It is also not disputed by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents that there was a request to alienate the public property contained in the Part Development Plan (PDP) for the portion known as KIPKAREN SQUATTER SETTLEMENT-ELDORET MUNICIPALITY-ELD.17/2005/2 by the Government of Kenya. 12. It is further not disputed that there was a Special Plot Allocation Committee that was established to identify and allocate the genuine squatters on the suit property contained in the Part Development Plan (PDP) for the portion known as KIPKAREN SQUATTER SETTLEMENT-ELDORET MUNICIPALITY-ELD.17/2005/2. 13. Lastly, it is not in dispute that there was a meeting held on the 24.11.2004 which did approve a List of Sixty (60) Genuine Squatters presented by their representative Mrs. Florence Nelisa Musila. 14. The Petitioners however now state that the List of Genuine Squatters forwarded to the Commissioner of Lands on the 23.12.2005 did only contain Fourteen (14) genuine squatters out of the Sixty (60) genuine squatters thereby depriving the genuine squatters their lawful portions which they had a legitimate expectation to be allocated as the lawful owners of the same. 15. At the very beginning, Article 28 of the Constitution, 2010 provides for dignified life to every person and/or citizen of this Republic. 16. Article 35 of the Constitution, 2010 gives the right to every citizen to access information held by the state and such information must be correct devoid of any deletion and/or untrue or misleading information that affects such persons. 17. Article 40 of the Constitution, 2010 further gives the right to every citizen of this Republic to acquire and own property within the Republic of Kenya. 18. Further to that, Article 10 requires that all states offices and public servants shall undertake their delegated duties in line with the National Values and principles of governance. 19. Clearly therefore, in the present Petition, the Petitioners who are citizens of Kenya are entitled to enjoy the rights provided in the Constitution, 2010 which include specifically the rights provided under Article 10, 28, 35 and 40 therein. 20. As such, this Court is of the finding that indeed the Petitioners hold a number of legal Constitutional rights under the Constitution, 2010 which this Court had jurisdiction to evaluate whether the same were breached and/or infringed by the 1st to the 3rd Respondents in the manner in which the various portions within the suit property contained in the Part Development Plan (PDP) for the portion known as KIPKAREN SQUATTER SETTLEMENT-ELDORET MUNICIPALITY- ELD.17/2005/2 were alienated and allocated. **ISSUE NO.2-WHETHER THE PETITIONERS HAVE DEMONSTRATED ANY VIOLATION OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO OWN THE SUIT PROPERTY?** 1. The second issue is whether there was any constitutional breach and/or infringement by the 1st to 3rd Respondents in the alienation and allocation of the suit property contained in Part Development Plan (PDP) for the portion known as KIPKAREN SQUATTER SETTLEMENT-ELDORET MUNICIPALITY-ELD.17/2005/2. 2. Based on the pleadings by all the parties herein, there is no doubt that the portion of public land contained in the Part Development Plan (PDP) for the portion known as KIPKAREN SQUATTER SETTLEMENT-ELDORET MUNICIPALITY- ELD.17/2005/2 was indeed alienated for allocation to individual people. 3. Similarly, there is no doubt that there was a meeting held on the 24.11.2004 wherein a list of the Genuine Squatters on the public land contained in the Part Development Plan (PDP) for the portion known as KIPKAREN SQUATTER SETTLEMENT-ELDORET MUNICIPALITY- ELD.17/2005/2 was submitted to the Special District Plots Allocation Committee and approved for allocation of the various portions contained therein. 4. According to the Petitioners, the List of Genuine Squatters presented before the Special District Plots Allocation Committee did contain Sixty (60) Genuine Squatters who had petitioned the Government to be allocated public land and issued with the relevant ownership documents. 5. Clearly therefore, the Petitioners had a legitimate right of expectation from the Government of Kenya to be the rightful owners of their portions of land measuring between 0.10 Hectares and 0.20 Hectares within the suit property contained in the Part Development Plan (PDP) for the portion known as KIPKAREN SQUATTER SETTLEMENT-ELDORET MUNICIPALITY-ELD.17/2005/2 as per the meeting of 24.11.2004. 6. The doctrine of legitimate expectation is a public law principle ensuring fairness, and meant to ensure that individuals can enforce promises or established practices made by public authorities. 7. In essence, if an authority creates a reasonable expectation through conduct or representation, they cannot arbitrarily rescind it. 8. The doctrine is not merely confined to whether an expectation exists in the mind of an aggrieved party, but whether viewed objectively, such expectation is in a legal sense, legitimate. 9. In the case of **COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONS OF KENYA & 5 OTHERS-VERSUS- ROYAL MEDIA SERVICES LIMITED & 5 OTHERS (PETITION 14,14A,14B & 14C OF 2014 (CONSOLIDATED) (2014) KESC 53 (KLR)**, the Supreme Court did pronounce itself as follows; - ***“[263] ‘Legitimate expectation’ is a doctrine well recognized within the realm of administrative law, as is clear from the English case, In re Westminster City Council, [1986] A.C. 668 at 692(Lord Bridge):…the courts have developed a relatively novel doctrine in public law that a duty of consultation may arise from a legitimate expectation of consultation aroused either by a promise or by an established practice of consultation”.*** ***[264] In proceedings for judicial review, legitimate expectation applies the principles of fairness and reasonableness, to the situation in which a person has an expectation, or interest in a public body retaining a long-standing practice, or keeping a promise.*** ***[265] An instance of legitimate expectation would arise when a body, by representation or by past practice, has aroused an expectation that is within its power to fulfil. A party that seeks to rely on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, has to show that it has locus standi to make a claim on the basis of legitimate expectation.”*** 1. For a party to rely on the principle of legitimate expectation, it must establish that it had an expectation in a public body retaining a long-standing practice; that the expectation was reasonable and the representation made was one which the decision maker was competent to make. 2. In the case of **SEHMI & ANOTHER -VERSUS- TARABANA COMPANY LIMITED & 5 OTHERS (PETITION NO. E033 OF 2023)(2025) KESC 21 (KLR)**, the Supreme Court did outline the following ingredients of a legitimate expectation capable of being enforced;- ***“The following guiding principles were applicable where a party sought to place reliance upon the principle of legitimate expectation:*** 1. ***there must be an express, clear and unambiguous promise given by a public authority;*** 2. ***the expectation itself must be reasonable;*** 3. ***the representation must be one which it was competent and lawful for the decision-maker to make; and*** 4. ***there could not be a legitimate expectation against clear provisions of the law or the Constitution.”*** 5. Based on the facts pleaded by the Petitioners herein, it is clear that in the meeting held on the 24.11.2004, there was an express, clear and unambiguous promise by the Government of Kenya through the Special Plot Allocation Committee chaired by the District Commissioner to alienate between 0.10 Hectares and 0.20 Hectares within the property contained in the Part Development Plan (PDP) for the portion known as KIPKAREN SQUATTER SETTLEMENT-ELDORET MUNICIPALITY- ELD.17/2005/2 to all genuine squatters within it. 6. This expectation was indeed reasonable keeping in mind that the same was being made by the Special Plot Allocation Committee which was chaired by the District Commissioner, the District Land Surveyor and the District Land Officer who were exercising delegated powers emanating from the Commissioner of Lands who had the authority and powers to alienate public land and allocate the same to any person whose need had been approved by the said office. 7. Lastly, the decision made on the 24.11.2004 as a Special Plot Allocation Committee in execution of the mandate given to the Commissioner of Lands was clearly founded on the provisions of Section 2 of the Government Land Act (now Repealed). 8. In essence, this Court is of the considered view and finding that the Petitioners herein had a legitimate expectation to be allocated between 0.10 Hectares and 0.20 Hectares of the suit property contained in the Part Development Plan (PDP) for the portion known as KIPKAREN SQUATTER SETTLEMENT-ELDORET MUNICIPALITY- ELD.17/2005/2. 9. The question that now follows is whether this legitimate expectation was fulfilled by the 1st to 3rd Respondents herein or the same was breached hence infringing on the Petitioners constitutional rights as provided under Article 28, 35 and 40 the Constitution, 2010. 10. The main issue in the present Petition by the Petitioners is that the List ratified and approved by the Special Plots Allocation Committee on the 24.11.2004 is not the same as that which was forwarded to the Commissioner of Lands in the letter dated 23.12.2005 by the District Land Officer and the District Commissioner. 11. According to the Petitioners, the second List of Squatters forwarded by the District Land Officer and the District Commissioner only contained Fourteen (14) genuine squatters as opposed to the Sixty (60) original genuine squatters. 12. The end result of this second list of squatters forwarded by the District Land Officer and the District Commissioner on the 23.12.2005 was the elimination of a huge number of the original squatters from the suit property contained in the Part Development Plan (PDP) for the portion known as KIPKAREN SQUATTER SETTLEMENT-ELDORET MUNICIPALITY- ELD.17/2005/2. 13. In essence, the Petitioners did plead that the actions by the District Land Officer and the District Commissioner by preparing a second list of squatters through the letter dated 23.12.2005 was in contravention of the Article 10, 28, 35, 40 and 47 of the Constitution, 2010. 14. The 1st and 3rd Respondents herein did not file any substantive response to the constitutional issues raised by the Petitioners. 15. Instead, the 1st and 3rd Respondents did file Grounds of Opposition dated 21.06.2022. 16. In these Grounds of Opposition dated 21.06.2022, the 1st and 3rd Respondents did admit that the suit property public land whose alienation should be undertaken by the 2nd Respondent herein. 17. The 1st and 3rd Respondents did further plead that the Courts do not have powers and/or jurisdiction to manage and/or alienate public land to private individuals and/or entities. 18. The 1st and 3rd Respondents did state that if any Letters of Allotments had been issued, then such Letters of Allotment had since become null and void due to effluxion of time and were not binding to the Petitioners herein. 19. In essence, the 1st and 3rd Respondents were of the view that the Petitioners herein had no legal rights on the suit property contained in the Part Development Plan (PDP) for the portion known as KIPKAREN SQUATTER SETTLEMENT-ELDORET MUNICIPALITY- ELD.17/2005/2 and they should pursue their interests before the 2nd Respondent herein and not this Court. 20. The 2nd Respondent did in fact file a Replying Affidavit dated 30.04.2025 but also failed to substantively articulate the Constitutional issues raised by the Petitioners herein. 21. Instead, the 2nd Respondent did deny any involvement in the alienation and allocation of the suit property contained in the Part Development Plan (PDP) for the portion known as KIPKAREN SQUATTER SETTLEMENT-ELDORET MUNICIPALITY-ELD.17/2005/2. 22. The 2nd Respondent did plead that it had not been established in the year 2005 and therefore did not have any documents about the alienation and allocation of the suit property contained in the Part Development Plan (PDP) for the portion known as KIPKAREN SQUATTER SETTLEMENT-ELDORET MUNICIPALITY-ELD.17/2005/2. 23. From the responses by the 1st and 3rd Respondents and the 2nd Respondent, it is not in doubt that none of them was willing to provide the relevant information on how the suit property contained in the Part Development Plan (PDP) for the portion known as KIPKAREN SQUATTER SETTLEMENT-ELDORET MUNICIPALITY- ELD.17/2005/2 was alienated and allocated in line with Article 35 of the Constitution, 2010. 24. This Court is of the view that there was nothing as easy as providing the information and records used by the Respondents to alienate and allocate the suit property contained in the the Part Development Plan (PDP) for the portion known as KIPKAREN SQUATTER SETTLEMENT-ELDORET MUNICIPALITY- ELD.17/2005/2. 25. By doing so, both the Petitioners and importantly the Court would have had a chance to verify the authenticity of the List of Squatters allocated the 92 portions of land within the suit property contained in the Part Development Plan (PDP) for the portion known as KIPKAREN SQUATTER SETTLEMENT -ELDORET MUNICIPALITY- ELD.17/2005/2. 26. Further to that, the Petitioners and the Court would have also verified the procedure and manner that the original Part Development Plan (PDP) for the portion known as KIPKAREN SQUATTER SETTLEMENT-ELDORET MUNICIPALITY- ELD.17/2005/2 approved by the Special District Plots Allocation Committee was reviewed and/or amended. 27. In essence thereof, the 1st to 3rd Respondents actions of not providing the relevant and appropriate documents that were used to alienate and allocate the suit property contained in the Part Development Plan (PDP) for the portion known as KIPKAREN SQUATTER SETTLEMENT-ELDORET MUNICIPALITY- ELD.17/2005/2 to either the Petitioners herein and/or the Court contravenes the provisions of Article 35 of the Constitution, 2010. 28. Due to the failure by the 1st to 3rd Respondents to provide the relevant information regarding the manner and process applied in the alienation and allocation of the suit property contained in the Part Development Plan (PDP) for the portion known as KIPKAREN SQUATTER SETTLEMENT-ELDORET MUNICIPALITY- ELD.17/2005/2, the Petitioner further did plead that there right under Article 28 of the Constitution, 2010 was violated and/or infringed due to the unlawful elimination from the original List of Genuine Squatters ratified and approved on the 24.11.2004 by the District Special Plots Allocation Committee. 29. The Petitioners did plead that the actions by the District Lands Officer and the District Commissioner in the preparation of the second List of Squatters dated 25.11.2005 did deny them the right to own land as envisaged in Article 40 of the Constitution,2010. 30. Looking back at the responses by the 1st to 3rd Respondents, none of these issues were adequately addressed in their responses to the present Petition. 31. Be as it may, the Petitioners did inform this Court through the present Petition that a Complaint was first to the 2nd Respondent as regards the names contained in the List of Squatters being used to allocated the suit property contained in the Part Development Plan (PDP) for the portion known as KIPKAREN SQUATTER SETTLEMENT-ELDORET MUNICIPALITY- ELD.17/2005/2. 32. Similarly, a second Complaint was made to the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC)’s by the Petitioners through a Letter dated 31.12.2018. 33. The 2nd Respondent did admit in its Replying Affidavit that indeed a Complaint had been received from the Petitioners as regards the list of squatters being used to allocate the suit property contained in the Part Development Plan (PDP) for the portion known as KIPKAREN SQUATTER SETTLEMENT-ELDORET MUNICIPALITY- ELD.17/2005/2 but nothing had been done due to this pending Petition. 34. The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission upon receipt of the Petitioners Complaint Letter dated 31.12.2018 did commence a verification exercise of the List of Squatters and indeed found various anomalies as regards the persons who had been allocated the suit property contained in the Part Development Plan (PDP) for the portion known as KIPKAREN SQUATER SETTLEMENT-ELDORET MUNICIPALITY – ELD.17/2005/2. 35. During this verification exercise by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission, it was discovered that GLADYS NASIMIYU WAMASALI who was allocated PLOT.NO.43 was not a genuine squatter but the wife of the then Commissioner of Lands. 36. In addition to the above, PLOT.NO.15 was allocated to PATRICK ONGAYA KAMUSALE who was an Officer at the offices of the Commissioner of Lands and not a genuine Squatter of the suit property. 37. Apart from the two plots mentioned hereinabove, there were other plots that had been allocated to the spouse of the Area Chief Pioneer as well as other persons who were not residing on the suit property. 38. The area Councillor known as DAVID LETTING was also allocated a number of plots on the suit property together with his wife and daughter. 39. At the end of the verification exercise by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission, it was found that the List of Squatters being issued to allocate the suit property did not contain true and/or genuine squatters as envisaged when the process began. 40. Based on the Constitution, 2010, it is true that the 2nd Respondent was not in existence at the time the process of the proposed allocation of the land to the Petitioners commenced. 41. However, the 2nd Respondent did take over the management of public land on behalf of national and county governments, a function previously held by the office of the Commissioner of Lands, which office commenced and was involved in the process of allocation of the land to the Petitioners. 42. This is confirmed by the letters annexed by the 2nd Respondent which show that it had written to the Regional and County Office to conduct the investigations and conclude the matter of resettling of the genuine squatters of Roho Moja. 43. In this instance, the Commissioner of Lands in this case represented by the 2nd Respondent, the Area Chief, the 3rd Respondent, the Area Chief Mr. Kipkirong Samoei, the Area Councillor Mr. David Letting, Mrs. Florence Nelima who was representing the squatters and all other public officers who took part in the process of land allocation to the Petitioners were bound to abide by the values and principles espoused under Article 10 of the Constitution. 44. Instead of allocating plots to the genuine squatters, they went ahead to unjustly allocate land to themselves and their relatives at the expense of the genuine squatters. 45. This was contrary to the requirement of good governance, integrity, transparency, accountability and protection of the marginalized and thus was indeed a violation of Article 10 of the Constitution. 46. There is no doubt that the acts of the Respondents in allocating the suit property to strangers yet it had been reserved for allocation to the Petitioners who were recognised as genuine squatters was a violation of Article 40 of the Constitution of Kenya, as it amounted to deprivation of their interest in the suit property. 47. The diversion and subsequent re-allocation of the land to individuals that were not genuine squatters was not sanctioned by law and the Respondents have not shown that they acted as they did or that their actions were supported by or pursuant to any law. 48. Furthermore, having been reserved for settlement and allocation to the squatters occupying it, the suit property was no longer un-alienated government land capable of being allocated to other parties at the expense of the genuine squatters. 49. That being the case, this court finds and holds that the Respondents actions violated the Petitioners’ right to property guaranteed under Article 40 of the Constitution, 2010. 50. The provisions of Article 47 of the Constitution, 2010 has been held to be a deliberate step towards the attainment of a fair and dependable government advancing expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair public policies. 51. In this regard, the Petitioners have pleaded that by failing to address the complaint they lodged and institute investigations into the matter herein as mandated by the National Land Commission Act, the 2nd Respondent breached their right to fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution. 52. The Petitioners claimed that they lodged a complaint, which was acknowledged by stamping on 12.09.2018 but no action was taken. 53. The 2nd Respondent however claims that upon receipt of the complaint, it commenced investigations, but later realised that the present Petition was active in court, thus it was curtailed from conducting any further investigations. 54. The 2nd Respondent annexed a letter dated 25.07.2022 from its Office in Uasin Gishu County to the Chairman, NLC referring to an earlier letter dated 14.07.2022 on Roho Moja Squatters and acknowledging that they had received a request to carry out investigation and conclude the resettlement of genuine squatters. 55. The 2nd Respondent annexed another letter also dated 25.07.2022 from its Office in Uasin Gishu County to the Regional Manager-North Rift referring to a letter dated 21.07.2022 on Roho Moja Squatters which asked them to investigate and conclude the resettlement of the genuine squatters. 56. In both letters the Uasin Gishu County NLC Office stated that the dispute had been taken to court by way of the present petition, thus they could not conduct any further action on the matter until the suit was finalized by the court, but would carry out ground assessment and other investigations as soon as this court pronounced itself on the matter. 57. Notably, the complaint by the Petitioners was received on 12.09.2018 and this Petition was filed a year later on 04.09.2019, and there is no justifiable reason given as to why the complaint was not acted upon until the year 2022. 58. Evidently, it is this delay in acting that prompted the Petitioners to move to this court seeking redress vide this suit. 59. However, despite the delay, the NLC did eventually act by instructing its County Office in Uasin Gishu to undertake investigation and conclude the resettlement of the squatters. 60. It is understandable that upon discovering that the matter had been taken to court, the 2nd Respondent could not proceed with any further investigations into the allocation until the court determined the present Petition. 61. The allegation that the 2nd Respondent did not act on the Petitioners Complaint is therefore not true, and thus the claim of breach of Article 47 of the Constitution is not substantiated. 62. Lastly, the Petitioners are seeking the quashing of the proceedings and determination of the proceedings known as ELDORET CHIEF MAGISTRATES COURT ENVIRONMENT & LAND CASE NO. 17 OF 2019 BETWEEN MOSES JACOB SIMIYU & 2 OTHERS-VERSUS- CHARLES WANYAMA SIMIYU & 2 OTHERS. 63. The Plaintiffs in the proceeding known as ELDORET CHIEF MAGISTRATES COURT ENVIRONMENT & LAND CASE NO. 17 OF 2019 BETWEEN MOSES JACOB SIMIYU & 2 OTHERS-VERSUS- CHARLES WANYAMA SIMIYU & 2 OTHERS are the Interested Parties in the present Petition. 64. According to the Petitioners, the CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT did not have the jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute before it on grounds that the disputed properties were way out of its pecuniary jurisdiction. 65. In essence, the proceedings before the CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT were annulity and contravened the provisions of Article 50 of the Constitution, 2010. 66. Declaration that their right to fair hearing under Article 50 of the Constitution has been violated. 67. To begin with, the Pleadings regarding the proceeding known as ELDORET CHIEF MAGISTRATES COURT ENVIRONMENT & LAND CASE NO. 17 OF 2019 BETWEEN MOSES JACOB SIMIYU & 2 OTHERS-VERSUS- CHARLES WANYAMA SIMIYU & 2 OTHERS were duly placed before the Court. 68. The Plaint filed therein dated 07.02.2019 did identify the property in dispute to be the ownership of KIPKAREN SQUATTER SETTLEMENT/BLOCK 15- ELDORET MUNICIPALITY (PLOT.17/2005/2). 69. The reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs therein who are the Interested Parties herein was that the whole parcel of land therein be declared the lawful property of the Plaintiffs therein and a Permanent Injunction be issued against the Defendants over the said parcel of land. 70. According to the Valuation Report dated 13.05.2019, the property being valued was the property known as ELDORET MUNICIPALITY/BLOCK 15/PLOTS NO. 2603- 2684 comprising 92 plots commonly known as KIPKAREN SQUATTER SETTLEMENT- KIPKAREN AREA-UASIN GISHU. 71. Based on this description, it is clear and of no doubt that the suit property in the proceedings known as ELDORET CHIEF MAGISTRATES COURT ENVIRONMENT & LAND CASE NO. 17 OF 2019 BETWEEN MOSES JACOB SIMIYU & 2 OTHERS-VERSUS- CHARLES WANYAMA SIMIYU & 2 OTHERS is the same as the suit property herein. 72. The value given in the Valuation Report dated 13.05.2019 was a Market Value of Kenya Shillings One Hundred and Sixty Million (Kshs.160,000,000/-) and a forced value of One Hundred and Twenty Million (Kshs.120,000,000/-). 73. The Magistrates Act specifically provides that the pecuniary Jurisdiction of the Chief Magistrates Court is Kenya Shillings Twenty Million (Kshs.20,000,000/-). 74. In essence therefore, the Trial Court which did entertain the proceedings known as ELDORET CHIEF MAGISTRATES COURT ENVIRONMENT & LAND CASE NO. 17 OF 2019 BETWEEN MOSES JACOB SIMIYU & 2 OTHERS-VERSUS- CHARLES WANYAMA SIMIYU & 2 OTHERS was not couched with the appropriate legal jurisdiction to make any Orders on the same. 75. In conclusion, the proceeding known as ELDORET CHIEF MAGISTRATES COURT ENVIRONMENT & LAND CASE NO. 17 OF 2019 BETWEEN MOSES JACOB SIMIYU & 2 OTHERS-VERSUS- CHARLES WANYAMA SIMIYU & 2 OTHERS was filed in a Court which lacked jurisdiction therefore, any determination thereof was annulity and void and did contravene the provisions of Article 50 of the Constitution, 2010. **ISSUE NO. 3- WHETHER THE PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO THE ORDERS SOUGHT IN THE PRESENT PETITION** 1. Based on the Court’s findings in Issue No.2 hereinabove, the Court is of the considered view that the Prayers sought by the Petitioners herein are merited. **ISSUE NO. 4- WHO BEARS THE COSTS OF THE PRESENT PETITION?** 1. Costs usually follow the event, the Petitioners have only partially succeeded in prosecuting the present Petition. 2. Bearing that in mind, this court is of the opinion that each party should bear its own costs of the Petition. **CONCLUSION** 1. In conclusion, this Court hereby makes the following Orders in final determination of the Petition dated 03.09.2019: - 2. **DECLARATION DO AND IS HEREBY ISSUED THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAVE BREACHED THE PETITIONERS’ RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 10, 28, 35, 40 AND 50 OF THE CONSTITUTION, 2010 BY THEIR ACTS OF DENYING THE GENUINE SQUATTERS OF THEIR LAND RIGHTS MEASURING BETWEEN 0.10 HECTARES AND 0.20 HECTARES ON THE SUIT PROPERTY CONTAINED IN THE PART DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. KIPKAREN SQUATTERS SETTLEMENT - BLOCK 15(ELDORET MUNICIPALITY PLOT 17/2005/2) AND HAVE ALSO BREACHED THE TENET OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION.** 3. **AN ORDER OF CERTIORARI BE AND IS HEREBY ISSUED MOVING INTO THIS COURT AND QUASHING THE DECISION MADE BY THE DISTRICT LAND OFFICER, UASIN GISHU ON THE 25.11.2005 AND THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, UASIN GISHU ON THE 23.12.2005 REVIEWING THE ORIGINAL LIST OF SQUATTERS TO BE SETTLED ON THE SUIT PROPERTY IN THE PROPERTION OF PUBLIC LAND CONTAINED KIPKAREN SQUATTERS SETTLEMENT - BLOCK 15(ELDORET MUNICIPALITY PLOT 17/2005/2) APPROVED ON THE 24.11.2004.AS WELL AS ALL THE LETTERS OF ALLOTMENTS ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF LANDS PURSUANT TO THE LIST OF SQUATTERS PREPARED BY THE DISTRICT LAND OFFICER DATED 25.11.2005 AND THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DATED 23.12.2005 THERETO.** 4. **AN ORDER OF CERTIORARI BE AND IS HEREBY ISSUED MOVING INTO THIS COURT AND QUASHING THE PLEADINGS, PROCEEDINGS AND ORDERS AND/OR DECREES ISSUED IN ELDORET CHIEF MAGISTRATES COURT ENVIRONMENT &LAND COURT CASE NO. 17 OF 2019 BETWEEN MOSES JACOB SIMIYU & 2 OTHERS -VERSUS- CHARLES WANYAMA SIMIYU & 2 OTHERS FORTHWITH.** 5. **AN ORDER OF CERTIORARI BE AND IS HEREBY ISSUED TO REMOVE INTO THIS COURT AND QUASH THE DECISION TO CREATE THE AMENDED REGISTRY INDEX MAP (RIM) OF THE LAND PARCEL KNOWN AS KIPKAREN SQUATTERS SETTLEMENT - BLOCK 15(ELDORET MUNICIPALITY PLOT 17/2005/2) UNDER PLAN F/R NO. 439/77-78 REPRESENTING SURVEY PARCELS NO. 2603, 2607, 2608, 2610, 2616, 2622, 2623, 2630, 2631, 2643, 2645, 2648, 2649, 2650, 2656, 2658, 2662, 2667, 2670, 2673, 2675, 2677, 2680, 2681, 2682 AS CONTAINED IN THE LETTERS DATED 15TH FEBRUARY, 2018 AND 24TH APRIL, 2018 BY THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS.** 6. **THE COUNTY LAND REGISTRAR, UASIN GISHU IS HEREBY ORDERED TO FORTHWITH CANCEL AND EXPUNGE ANY CERTIFICATES OF TITLE ISSUED TO THE INTERESTED PARTIES HEREIN OVER THE SUIT PROPERTY, AS WELL AS ANY CERTIFICATES OF TITLE ISSUED TO ANY OF THE 92 PERSONS IN THE PURPORTED LIST OF SQUATTERS SIGNED BY THE DISTRICT LAND OFFICER ON 25TH NOVEMBER, 2005 AND THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER - UASIN GISHU ON THE 23RD DECEMBER, 2005 PURSUANT TO THE QUASHED RIM.** 7. **AN ORDER DO ISSUE THAT THE 2ND RESPONDENT DO PROCEED TO CONTINUE THEIR OWN INVESTIGATION INTO THE GENUINE SETTLERS ON THE LAND PARCEL KNOWN AS KIPKAREN SQUATTERS SETTLEMENT - BLOCK 15(ELDORET MUNICIPALITY PLOT 17/2005/2) AND CONCLUDE THE MATTER OF RE-SETTLEMENT OF THE SQUATTERS ONCE THIS COURT PRONOUNCED ITSELF ON THIS MATTER.** 8. **EACH PARTY SHALL BEAR ITS OWN COSTS OF THE PETITION.** **DATED**, **SIGNED** and **DELIVERED** in **ELDORET** this **28TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.** **EMMANUEL.M. WASHE** **JUDGE** **IN THE PRESENCE OF:** Court Assistant: Mr. Brian Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Assesso Counsel for the 1st and 3rd Respondents: Ms. Odeyo Counsel for the 2nd Respondent: Ms. Obino Counsel for the Interested Parties: Ms. Akinyi.