Lontebes Group Ranch v KipkemoiI Arap Mendera [2002] KECA 201 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that anyone alleging a document is a forgery must prove it with evidence, not just say so.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the respondent was a member of Lontebes Group Ranch and therefore not a trespasser on the suit land, Narok/CIS-Mara/Lemek/129.
- 2.Whether the appellant discharged the burden of proving that the extract of the Register of Members produced by the respondent was a forgery.
Key legal issues
#Who bears the burden of proving that a document produced by the opposing party is a forgery, and how is that discharged?
The party alleging forgery bears the burden of proving it on a balance of probabilities; the most direct discharge is production of the authentic document, and mere oral assertion does not suffice.
The appellant asserted throughout that the extract of the Register of Members produced by the respondent was a forgery, yet counsel could not point to any evidence laid before the trial Judge to substantiate the allegation. Because the appellant's case was that the respondent was a trespasser rather than a member, it had to prove the forgery on a balance of probabilities. Producing what it believed to be the authentic register would have sufficed. Having done neither, the appellant failed to discharge the burden and the foundation of its case collapsed.
Whether a registered member of a group ranch can be a trespasser on the group land.
A person shown in the Register of Members under section 17(1) of the Land (Group Representatives) Act is a member of the group and not a trespasser on land the ranch holds on behalf of its members.
The respondent's defence was that the suit land was group land held by the appellant under section 7 of the Land (Group Representatives) Act (Cap 287) on behalf of the members, of whom he claimed to be one. He produced the Register of Members showing him as member No. 8, the Land Certificate issued to the ranch, and letters from the Provincial Administration confirming membership. The appellant called evidence to disown him but produced no credible evidence to the contrary. The trial Judge's finding of membership was therefore upheld, defeating the trespass claim.
Legal principles established
#- A party who alleges that a document produced by the opposing party is a forgery bears the burden of proving that allegation on a balance of probabilities.
- Mere oral assertion, unsupported by credible evidence, does not discharge the burden of proving forgery; failure to discharge it collapses the case founded on the allegation.
- A person shown in the Register of Members under the Land (Group Representatives) Act is a member of the group and not a trespasser on land the ranch holds on behalf of its members.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed.
- 2.No order as to costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Kericho
- H.C.C.C. No. 17 of 1992
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly stated in the judgment; the matter came before the Court of Appeal as an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Kericho.
Relief refused
#The appellant's bid to overturn the High Court judgment and obtain ejectment of the respondent from the suit land and damages for trespass
The appellant alleged that the Register of Members extract proving the respondent's membership was a forgery but produced no evidence to prove the forgery; the foundation of its case collapsed and the finding that the respondent was a member, not a trespasser, stood.
Costs
The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In view of what we have said we are clearly of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Since it was the appellant's case that the respondent was not a member of the Group but a trespasser, the appellant had to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the document produced by the respondent as the basis of his claim to membership was a forgery.
All they needed to do to discharge that burden was simply to place before the Judge a copy of what they believed to be the authentic Register of members.
They did not discharge that burden and having not done so, the foundation of their case collapsed.
The appellant produced no credible evidence to the contrary beyond a mere assertion by word of mouth that the respondent is not a member.
In these circumstances, the Judge was quite right to hold that the respondent was a member of the Group and not a trespasser as alleged by the appellant.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lontebes Group Ranch v KipkemoiI Arap Mendera [2002] KECA 201 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2002). Civil Appeal No. 71 of 2000. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2002/201/eng@2002-09-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.