Kitale Chepkorok Farm Limited v Peter Nasasa, Hassan Ndamwe, Andrew Gutitila, Deputy County Commissioner Trans-Nzoia West & Attorney General [2021] KEELC 299 (KLR) | Company Membership Disputes | Esheria

Kitale Chepkorok Farm Limited v Peter Nasasa, Hassan Ndamwe, Andrew Gutitila, Deputy County Commissioner Trans-Nzoia West & Attorney General [2021] KEELC 299 (KLR)

Full Case Text

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KITALE

ELC NO. 145 OF 2015

KITALE CHEPKOROK FARM LIMITED............................................... PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

PETER NASASA....................................................................................1ST DEFENDANT

HASSAN NDAMWE.............................................................................2ND DEFENDANT

ANDREW GUTITILA..........................................................................3RD DEFENDANT

THE DEPUTY COUNTY COMMISSIONER

TRANS-NZOIA WEST........................................................................4TH DEFENDANT

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL............................................................5TH DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. By a Plaint filed on dated 13/07/2015 and amended and filed on 02/10/2019, the Plaintiff, Kitale Chepkorok Farm Limited,brought this suit against five Defendants. It sought the following reliefs:

(a)A declaration that the 1st, 2nd and  3rd Defendants are not among the 126 people and to whom the land comprised in Parcel No. Saboti/Sikhendu Block  5/Chepkorok should be transferred to;

(b)Any other relief that this Honorable Court  may deem fit to grant.

(c)Costs.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Plaintiff was duly incorporated on 14/02/1973. Soon after it acquired land parcel LR. No. 5777/3measuring approximately 1351acres or thereabouts. Later, on 23/02/1994,it successfully applied for a consent from the area land Control Board for the land be subdivided amongst its shareholders who numbered126. On14/07/2007it surrendered the original title to the Ministry of Lands for the parcel to be converted from theRegistration of Titles Act, Chapter 281to theRegistered Land Act, Chapter 300 both Laws of Kenya which are now repealed. The Conversion was completed by5/08/2011when the Chief Land Registrar authorized in writing the District Land Registrar Kitale to issue freehold titles. On 08/04/2015it applied to the area Land Control Board for consent to issue titles to some of its members. The first three defendants objected to the consent being granted and the process was deferred. Then the Plaintiff sued them together with the fourth and fifth for the prayers sought as stated above.

THE PLAINT

3. Through the Amended Plaint dated 01/10/2019and filed on 2/10/2019, the Plaintiff contended that the Defendants are not intended beneficiaries the parcel of land it owns since they are not its members. Therefore, they had neither capacity nor any right to oppose the issuance of a consent for the subdivision of the suit land by the Board. It pleaded that it bought Land Parcel No. LR. No. 5777/3 which was later converted to parcel No. Saboti/Sikhendu/Block 5/Chepkorok.  It pleaded further that applied initially for the subdivision of LR. No. 5777/3 into 126 portions for its original members who were 126 and the consent was given on 27/06/1994. Further, it averred that on 08/04/2015 it applied to the Kiminini Land Control Board for a consent to transfer some 30parcels to some of its 30 members but the first three defendants objected to its applications claiming that the land ought to have been subdivided to 856portions. It pleaded further that the Defendant had no justifiable cause to do so since it that hindered the transfers to the legitimate beneficiaries to the suit land hence delaying the process and prejudicing the shareholders.

4. In the course of the proceedings, the Plaintiff withdrew the case against the 4thand 5thDefendants. This was on 27/09/2021. It was done by the consent of the parties, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. Accordingly, the suit against last Defendants was withdrawn with no orders as to costs, leaving the one against the first three.

THE DEFENCE

5. The First, Second and Third Defendants filed a joint Statement of Defence dated 24/10/2019. They denied the allegations presented by the Plaintiff. They pleaded that the suit was filed by fictitious persons. They further stated that the suit was res judicata as against the decisions in Kitale SRM Land Case 28 of 1995;Eldoret H.C. Civil Appeal No. 36 of 1986andBungoma HCCC No. 34 of 1999 (O.S.). The Defendants averred in paragraph 5 of the Defence to the Amended Plaint that the proprietary rights of LR. No. Saboti/Sikhendu Block 5/Chepkorok vest in the Government of Kenya, the Plaintiff having been surrendered the original title to it hence it is not the Plaintiff’s. Furthermore, to them the said parcel is home to more than 856 people who purchased it from the original owners pursuant to the consent dated 28/07/2004. It is further contended that the parcels of land were subdivided into 856 portions. Ultimately, they prayed that the suit be dismissed.

EVIDENCE

6. On the 26/1/2021, one Fredrick Kipkemboi Biwott, one of the Plaintiff’s directors testified as PW1. He relied on as his evidence in-chief his witness statement dated 08/10/2020. He then produced asP. Exhibit 3the Company’s resolution for the institution of the suit. He testified that, Kitale Chepkorok Farm Limited,is a limited liability company duly incorporated in the Republic of Kenya. It was duly registered on 14/02/1973and issued with a Certificate of Incorporation number 11469, which he produced as P. Exhibit 1. Its mandate is outlined in both its Memorandum and Articles of Association which he produced as P. Exhibit 2. This includes, but is not limited to, acquiring movable and immovable property.

7. Further evidence was given by PW1 that the Company bought and was registered the proprietor of all that parcel of land namely LR. No. 5777/3measuring approximately 1351acres or thereabouts. He testified that in the course of time the Company intended to subdivide the parcel of land referred to into 126portions and transfer them into the names of its 126members and/or shareholders. Consequently, it lodged an application before the Saboti/Kwanza Land Control Board on 23/02/1994. It was produced as P. Exhibit 4. The application to the Board sought consent for the sub-division of L.R. No. 5777/3 into the intended portions. According to the documentary evidence adduced as P. Exhibit 5 which was the consent dated 27/6/1994for consent by the Saboti/Kwanza Land Control Board, the sizes of the portions ranged from 3acres to39.  Also, according to the same application, some of the lands were to change user to, for instance, School, Trading Centre, Dip and Dams. PW1testified and the documents produced show that the Land Control Board approved the request on 12/05/1994.

8. The approval was challenged by way of litigation in Kakamega HC. Misc. Civ. App. No. 42 of 1995. The parties wereJoseph Chebungei Saban & Others -vs- Saboti Land Control Board. They wanted the land subdivided into87portions. On 22/2/1996 the Court found the subdivision survey of the property LR. 5777/3 proper. It directed that the exercise proceeds for survey in tandem with the Land Control Board decision. The Court order was produced as P. Exhibit 6. Aggrieved by the Court’s finding, the party therein lodged an appeal, namely Kisumu Civil Appeal No. 91 of 1996. The appeal was dismissed. The Order was produced as P.Exh7.

9. Subsequently, on 14/07/2007 the Plaintiff surrendered the original title for LR. 5777/3 for conversion and registration from the Registration of Titles Act (R.T.A.), Chapter 281 Laws of Kenya (now repealed) regime to the Registered Land Act (R.L.A.) Chapter 300 of the Laws of Kenya (now repealed) one. PW1 produced the copy of the Surrender letter as P.Exh8. The title was converted and registered as LR. No. Saboti/Sikhendu Block 5/Chepkorok. As a result, on 05/08/2011 the Chief Land Registrar confirmed in writing, by a letter dated the same date and produced as P. Exhibit 9, the successfulness of the conversion and directed the District Land Registrar, Trans Nzoia to issue freehold titles in the name of the Plaintiff. PW1 produced the letter stated above forwarding also a Registry Index Map (R.I.M.) and Area List of34members as P. Exhibit 10. The list contained Thirty-Four (34) portions out of the 126were forwarded to the District Land Registrar for further action. Thirty-Four (34) Green Cards were opened and the Plaintiff registered as the proprietor of the respective parcels. Kenya Shillings 1500/=was paid for each parcel. The Plaintiff produced ten (10)copies of certificates of official search results and receipts respectively as P. Exhibit 11 to show the registered proprietor. The number of parcels tallies with the blocks listed in the partial area list.

10. In furtherance of the plan of apportioning the 34 blocks to the members, the Plaintiff lodged another application for consent before the Kiminini Land Control Board. The Board was held on 08/04/2015. He produced Minutes of the said Board Meeting which shows that all the applications were deferred.

11. According toPW1,during the sitting of the Board the first three Defendants, namely, Peter Nasasa, Hassan Ndamwe & Andrew Gutitila objected to the applications. They wanted the land subdivided into 856 portions instead of 126. Because of the objections the Board deferred the Plaintiff’s applications. Against this background the Plaintiff instituted the proceedings against the three Defendants.

12. The Plaintiff prayed that this Court finds the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants to have, without any color of right, opposed the application at the Land Control Board. It was further its prayer that the consent pending be issued and that an award for costs be made in its favor. With this, the plaintiff closed its case without calling any further witness.

THE DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE

13. This matter having proceeded before another judge who had since gone on transfer, the Court gave directions, on 27/09/2021, that it proceeds from where it had reached. Thus, the matter proceeded for defence hearing the same date. DW1,the 1st Defendant, started by adopting his witness statement dated 08/02/2021as evidence in- chief. He testified that he resided on the subject parcel of land. His further oral evidence was that the Plaintiff was no longer in existence. He did not produce any document from the Registrar of Companies to support his evidence. His evidence was that one member of the Plaintiff sold his land to nine (9) people and went to live in Eldoret. In his written statement he stated that he was aware that the Plaintiff Company does not exist anymore and that the original members surrendered to the government the title to the suit land, namely LR. No. 5777/3. His statement reads that upon that, they sold their shares to 856people who have been in peaceful occupation thereof. He then stated that even as at the time of making the statement, subsequent buyers have been selling either their full or part shares to other new buyers whose total now is 1741 people. He then stated that the Company ceased to exist and only three people, namely, Felix Kemboi Biwott, Livingstone Kang’ahi and Andrew Kotochai, are “hanging on that name”.

14. He reiterated in cross-examination that all shares of the land were sold to about 856 persons. To him therefore, no proprietary rights vest in the Plaintiff. He stated that he was amongst the purchasers having acquired his parcel from one Zakayo Chemuku. It was his evidence that the land is in continuous subdivision to date. He stated that there is in place a government titling program intended to issue genuine titles. According to him, so far 1741 members are set to benefit from it. He urged this court to dismiss the suit to pave way for the government titling project. He further stated that he was an original member of the Plaintiff Company. He stated further in cross-examination that it was true a consent was given to subdivide the land into 126 portions. He stated that the land in dispute belongs to the Plaintiff. He confirmed that subdivisions were obtained for the benefit of the members. But it was his position that there were two subdivision processes, one for 126 portions and another for 856. He further admitted that he was not aware of the existence of the facts alluded to in the Plaintiff’s exhibits marked P. Exhibit 9, 10and 11. In conclusion he denied having participated in the meeting of 08/04/2015.

15. DW2,the 2nd Defendant, testified on the same date. His evidence was that he resided on the subject parcel of land. He adopted his statement dated 08/02/2021 as his evidence in-chief. His witness statement was very sketchy. It only referred to the agreement between him and the seller of the parcel of land he bought, one Festo Ngeywa. It also stated that “the original promoters including Felix Kemboi Biwott had surrendered the original title to the government.” He then stated further that history had moved on, they cannot go back to the original promoters many of who had passed on and that even those who are alive they do not reside on the land. He gave oral evidence that he purchased his portion from Festo Ngeywa (Deceased) who was an original member of the Plaintiff. His testimony was that the original members surrendered the title to the government and subdivision took place for more than 850 plots. He thus concluded that the suit lacked merit as the property had undergone several subdivisions. Consequently, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit. On being cross-examined by learned counsel, he said he had no knowledge of the contents of P. Exhibits 9, 10and 12. He stated further that there was a consent initially granted defeating the consent sought on 08/04/2015. He denied having attended the meeting that disrupted the Kiminini Land Control Board. He, however, demonstrated that he was aware that the consent was deferred because of objections raised. It was his evidence that some of the people who advocated for the 856 plots were among the 126 original members.

16. The 3rd Defendant did not testify. Counsel indicated that his evidence was substantially similar to that of the 1st and 2nd Defendants. After that they the closed the defence case. In support of their case, the Defendants produced a number of documents as exhibits. I have carefully studied the documents as against the witness statements adopted and the two Defendants’ oral evidence. DW1produced a copy of the Ruling in Kitale SRM Land Case No. 28 of 1985asD. Exhibit 1. He also produced a copy of the Judgment inEldoret HCCA No. 36 of 1986as D. Exhibit 2,a copy of the Ruling in Bungoma HCCC No. 34 of 1999as D. Exhibit 3,the List of shareholders and their buyers asD. Exhibit 4,the Letter of consent from the Kiminini Land Control Board dated28/07/2004approving subdivision of 856 plots, as D. Exhibit 5,the Letter dated13/03/2009from the District Surveyor Trans Nzoia to the Director of Surveys requesting for clarity as the subject parcel of land bore two sets of records on subdivision into either126 plotsor856plots asD. Exhibit 6,the Letter dated24/06/2009from the Director of Survey to the Chief Land Registrar as D. Exhibit 7,the Letter dated31/10/2011forwarding copies of amended Registry Index Map with area list of 856plots asD. Exhibit 8and9,the Letter dated15/10/2012recommending approval of subdivision into 856 portions from the District Surveyor to the District Lands Officer asD. Exhibit 10, the Letter dated17/10/2012approving the subdivision scheme to856plots from the District Physical Planner to the District Lands Officer asD. Exhibit 11, the Letter dated18/10/2012recommending approval of the subdivision by the Principal Land Administration to the Commissioner of Lands asD. Exhibit 12,the Surrender letter asD. Exhibit 13,the Registration of surrender of title on27/07/2011 as D. Exhibit 14,the Letter dated06/06/2013approval of subdivision scheme by the chairman National Land Commission to the Plaintiff as D. Exhibit 15,the Letter dated08/05/2013requesting farm occupiers of Trans Nzoia to allow surveyors to enter farms and survey the properties in line with the government of the day’s promise to issue3 milliontitles within5 yearsfrom 2013 - D. Exhibit 16,and a Summary list of members in the subject property asD. Exhibit 17.

SUBMISSIONS

17. After close of the parties’ cases, they elected to file written submissions. As at the time of writing this judgment, there was only the Plaintiff’s on the record. They were in a set of two – initial and supplementary ones dated 18/02/2021 and 15/10/2021 respectively. In them Plaintiff summarized the facts and evidence. It submitted that Section 8 (2) of the Land Control Act provides avenues for appeal where one is dissatisfied with the decision of the Land Control Board. It stated that the subdivision of the land to 856 plots was not substantiated. To it, the 34 parcels of land in its name are held in trust for its 34members and that such rights are protected under Section 25 (1) of the Land Registration Act. The Plaintiff submitted that since it remains the rightful legal proprietor, no one else can claim interest in the subject property. It pointed out that the Defendants raised no counterclaim thereby vitiating their allegations. The Plaintiff asked this court to allow it to continue with the process of transfer of the suit land without any interference. It fortified further their submission by stating that its rights are protected under the Constitution. It submitted further that the issue in dispute is not whether the land ought to be subdivided into 856 portions as that was determined in favor of the 126 portions. Finally, the Plaintiff submitted that issue of res judicata was determined by this court. It is therefore a non-issue.

ISSUES

18. I have carefully considered the pleadings herein, the evidence and the submissions as well as the authorities and statutes cited. I arrive at the conclusion that the only two issues for determination are:

(a) Whether the Plaintiff is in existence or not.

(b) Who between the plaintiff and the defendants should the land in question be transferred to

DETERMINATION

(a) Whether the Plaintiff is in existence or not.

19. Regarding the issue as to the existence or otherwise of the Plaintiff,PW1 produced in evidence a copy of the Certificate of Incorporation of the Plaintiff showing the Plaintiff on 14/02/1973. He testified that it is still in existence. DW1 and DW2 stated in evidence that the Plaintiff was not in existence. They did not produce any evidence from the Companies Registrar to show this fact. They only relied on their oral testimony that since many of the original members or shareholders has died, the company was no longer in existence. Nothing can be far from the truth.  A Company once incorporated is a separate entity from its members. The members come and go, and they can even die. But unless the company is wound up, it continues to exist irrespective of the non-existence of its shareholders. I am guided by the seminal case of Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1896] UKHL 1, [1897] AC 22. Thus, the Plaintiff is in existence and therefore able to transact business relating to the suit land until it hands it over to the rightful beneficiaries.

(b) Who between the Plaintiff and the Defendants should the land in question be transferred to?

20. The Plaintiff seeks this court’s declaration that the 1st, 2ndand3rd Defendants are not direct beneficiaries of the subdivision of the subject parcel of land. It then sought that the Defendants be barred from disputing any mode of subdivision commenced and or instituted by the Plaintiff.

21. Further, it is the Plaintiff’s belief that the three Defendants stalled the subdivision process in 2015. Evidence was led by the Plaintiff through PW1that the Defendants raised objections to the issuance of the consent to subdivide that land as intended by the Plaintiff. That caused the process to be put in abeyance. The Plaintiff relied on the Minutes of the Kiminini Land Control Board which halted the issuance of the consent to subdivide the land further.

22. Section 107 (1) Evidence Act provides as follows:

“Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist…”

23. It is no doubt, from the provision of law cited above, that the one who bears the burden of proof is he who alleges a fact. The only exception to the evidentiary burden being born by the one who asserts a fact is where the law expressly shifts that burden to the other party. In this case, the Plaintiff is the one seeking to prove to the Court that the land comprising of No. Saboti/Sikhendu/Block 5/Chepkorok should be transferred it. The onus is on it to do so.

24. I have considered the pleadings, the evidence on record and the law. I find that the Plaintiff proved that it is an existing company. It also gave evidence, which was not disputed by the Defendants, that its’ original members were 126. It proved that it was the original proprietor of land parcel number LR. No. 5777/3. There was clear evidence by the Plaintiff that it applied to the Saboti/Kwanza Land Control Board for a consent to subdivide the land into 126portions which were to be registered in the names of its 126 members and the consent was given on 27/6/1994. Both the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed in evidence that after the issuance of that consent, some members challenged it in the Kakamega High Court Misc. Civ. App. No. 42 of 1995and they lost. They appealed to the Court of Appeal sitting in Kisumu Civ. Appeal No. 91 of 1996which they also lost. The Plaintiff also proved, and this evidence was not controverted by the Defence evidence, that on 14/07/2007, it surrendered the title to the entire parcel of land to the government in order for it to issued titles to the 126 members. It was common evidence by the parties that the parcel of land was converted from the repealed Registration of Titles Act to the repealed Registered Land Act regime. It was also common evidence after the conversion, the parcel was given a new title number Saboti/Sikhendu/Block 5/Chepkorok. The Defendants contended in evidence that upon the surrender of the title by the Plaintiff for conversion, the land reverted to the government hence it is the government that it supposed to issue titles to the many new buyers who including the initial 856 many of whom bought parcels of land from the original 126.

25. While an excerpt of the minutes of the meeting demonstrates that indeed the subdivision requests were deferred, there is no iota of evidence evincing that there were objectors to the application. A list of attendees or any written objections presented before this Court would have sufficed. I am therefore not convinced that the Defendants were the objectors behind the deferment.

26. That notwithstanding, I note that the Defendants averred that the land parcel namely L.R. No. Saboti/Sikhendu Block 5/Chepkorok is to be subdivided into 856 portions. For this proposition the Defendants produced letters dated 15/10/2012 from the District Surveyor to the District Lands Officer recommending approval of subdivision into856 portions and one dated 17/10/2012 approving the subdivision scheme to 856 plots from the District Physical Planner to the District Lands Officer and one dated 18/10/2012 recommending approval of the subdivision by the Principal Land Administration to the Commissioner of Lands. They further presented a consent dated 28/07/2004 from the Kiminini Land Control Board. Their position is that this was a subsequent subdivision of the suit land.

27. I note that this alleged second subdivision came after the approval of the subdivision into 126plots. The consent that gave rise to126subdivisions is the valid consent over the suit land. It was granted on 27/6/1994. That is a settled issue now. And as facts are, it was granted to the proprietor of the parcel of land to carry out the subdivisions. The proprietor was the Plaintiff and no other. The argument by the Defendants that the since the original title was surrendered to the government for conversion it belongs to the government is incorrect. The surrender was for conversion from one land regime to another but the ownership remained with the owner. The process the Defendants allude to in their evidence is compulsory acquisition. That was not what was done in this matter. Actually, that is why the titles that came out after the subdivision were in the name of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff has testified that it holds them in trust of its members.

28. It is not clear how the subdivision of 856 plots could be made while there was a valid consent from the Land Controls Board to subdivide the same subject parcel of land into 126plots. The law on subdivision of agricultural land and transfer thereof to any new owners is clear. Both the owner and intended transferee must apply jointly within the prescribed time to the relevant Land Control Board for and be given consents for subdivision and transfer. The Board can be an ordinary or special one. Anything short of the application process being done properly is a nullity.

29. I find the documents relied on by the Defendants about the existence of the division of the suit land to856 portions incorrect and invalid. I therefore find that the purported consent subdividing the 856 plots subsequent to the 126 plots subdivision improper. I am guided and associate myself with the sentiments of Onyancha Jin the case ofAlberta Mae Gacie V Attorney General & 4 Others[2006[ eKLRwho stated as follows:

“Cursed should be the day when any crook in the streets of Nairobi or any town in this jurisdiction, using forgery, deceit or any kind of fraud, would acquire a legal and valid title deceitfully snatched from a legal registered innocent proprietor. Indeed, cursed would be the day when such a crook would have the legal capability or competence to pass to a third party, innocent or otherwise, a land interest that he does not have even if it were for valuable consideration. For my part, I would want to think that such a time when this court would be called upon to defend such crooks, has not come and shall never come….”

30. In the instant case, if any part of the land comprising of L.R. No. Saboti/Sikhendu Block 5/Chepkorok should be transferred to any other individual or subdivided to anyone, it can be done only by the proprietor. It is that proprietor who should have sought consent to transfer. It matters not how many buyers exist. The owner must be involved in the process. I have found that the proprietor of the suit land is the Plaintiff.

31. In case there are buyers, they should wait patiently for the owner, the Plaintiff to transfer the land to the original 126 members who shall then transfer to the subsequent buyers in succession depending on who bought what share from whom. Objection, by any persons other than the original members, to the grant of consents sought by the Plaintiff to transfer the respective portions of the126 original members to them will serve no purpose than delaying the process of issuance of titles ultimately to all buyers. It would be advisable that the Company is given chance to obtain those consents from the relevant Board.

32. Whereas the Defendants testified that they did not participate in the objection proceedings that led to the deferment of the Land Control Board of 8/04/2015 they adduced evidence that their position is that the land should have been subdivided to856portions. The Plaintiff produced P. Exhibit 12 to show that the Applications it made on the material date were deferred. There were no other records to show who attended the Board and why the deferral was made. The Plaintiff adduced further evidence that the persons who caused the issuance of the consent on the material date intended that the land be subdivided into 856portions and not 126. This evidence marries well with that of the Defendants that there has been tension and a dispute over the number of parcels that should emanate from the intended subdivision of the suit land. Therefore, it is clear to me that, although the Plaintiff did not produce a document to show specifically that the Defendants were the ones who objected during the Board of 8/04/2015, since the Defendant still hold onto the about subdividing suit land into 856portions, I am convinced on a balance of probabilities that they and or their agents must have been participants in that process.

33. In light of the above, I find that the Plaintiff’s continued subdivision process should not be defeated by virtue of the Defendants’ actions. In their statements and further documents and in particular, D. Exhibit 4 the Defendants demonstrate that they are not the original members of the Plaintiff. In substance, they do not reap the direct benefits as accrue to the original 126 members of the Plaintiff. They have demonstrated that they all were purchasers from the original 126 members. They did not give evidence to demonstrate

34. To my mind therefore, they cannot benefit from that lawful subdivision into 126 plots. It is in fact to the Defendants’ best interest in having the subdivision proceed to its logical conclusion. In any event as I have said above, once the buyers of or part of the parcels of land to be transferred to the original 126 members proof that they rightly acquired parcels from them, the original 126 members will transfer the respective portions to the buyers, and the buyer to other buyers if that has been the process to date. I therefore proceed to make the following orders:

(1) A declaration be and is hereby made that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants are not among the 126 people and to whom the land compromised in parcel no. L.R. No. Saboti/Sikhendu Block 5/Chepkorok should be transferred to.

(2) The Plaintiff is awarded costs of the suit as against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants together with interest thereon.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KITALE VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ON THIS 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021.

HON. DR. IUR FRED NYAGAKA

JUDGE, ELC, KITALE.