Chepkwony v Samoei (Civil Appeal 174 of 2020) [2026] KECA 1036 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that a plot already allotted to one person cannot be re-allocated to someone else without first lawfully revoking that allotment.
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 trial judge was right in finding that plot No. 271 Chepkoiyo Farm validly belonged to the deceased respondent rather than to the appellant
- 2.Whether the trial court properly dismissed the appellant's counterclaim
- 3.Whether the Court should interfere with the trial court's findings of fact
- 4.Whether the directors of the farm and the District Officer had authority to re-allocate the suit plot to the appellant
- 5.Whether the appeal was competent given that the respondent had died and the estate was not listed as respondent
Key legal issues
#Whether the Court of Appeal should interfere with the trial court's findings of fact
The Court declined to interfere, finding no fault with the trial judge's analysis and affirming that the deceased was the rightful owner of plot No. 271.
As a first appellate court, the Court was obliged to reconsider the evidence and draw its own conclusions while making allowances for not having heard the witnesses. Having done so, it agreed with the trial judge that the deceased held a letter of allotment dated 6th March 2003, that the plot was never validly revoked or re-allocated, and that the appellant's contradictory, uncorroborated testimony could not displace the deceased's ownership. The trial judge's conclusions on the receipts, the area list and the absence of proof of purchase were upheld.
Whether the directors of the farm and the District Officer had authority to re-allocate the suit plot to the appellant
They did not; the re-allocation was made without lawful basis and without minutes, and could not extinguish the deceased's ownership.
The Court held that after the property had been allotted to the deceased, it was not available for allocation to another party. Neither DW2 nor the deceased's witnesses testified that the deceased failed to comply with the allotment conditions. The re-allocation by the directors following the District Officer's decision was unsupported by any law; no minutes of the relevant meeting were adduced, and the District Officer's authority to handle the dispute was never established. As long as the letter of allotment was not revoked, nothing could extinguish the deceased's rights.
Whether the appellant's counterclaim was proved
The counterclaim failed; the appellant's own evidence was contradictory and uncorroborated and did not meet the balance-of-probabilities standard.
The appellant gave conflicting accounts - first claiming allocation by the directors in 1986, then claiming purchase from one Clement Chelengo without corroboration - and failed to prove acquisition of plot No. 270. His section 7 Limitation of Actions Act claim of over twelve years' possession was unsustainable given the failure to establish the foundational ownership. The trial judge had also found the receipts and area list unhelpful, and this Court saw no reason to depart from that analysis.
Competency of the appeal where the deceased respondent was wrongly listed as respondent
The Court noted the defect but declined to make a finding on it, since the issue was not raised and the appeal was being dismissed in any event.
The respondent died during the trial and, although substitution had been effected at trial with John Cheruiyot Mursoi appointed as legal representative, the appeal was lodged against the deceased personally. On its face the record was defective, incompetent and irregular. However, neither party raised the issue at the hearing, and since the appeal was for dismissal regardless, the Court left the matter there without pronouncing on it.
Legal principles established
#- On a first appeal, the appellate court must reconsider and evaluate the evidence and draw its own conclusions, while making due allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses.
- Once property has been validly allotted to a person by letter of allotment, it is not available for allocation to another party and cannot be re-allocated without lawful revocation of the allotment.
- Decisions re-allocating land taken by farm directors or a District Officer without minutes or any lawful basis are unorthodox and of no legal effect.
- A party bearing the burden of proof must adduce consistent, corroborated evidence to establish ownership; self-contradictory and uncorroborated testimony cannot sustain a claim to the required standard.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear its own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court (trial court, judge Mwangi, J.)
- Not stated in the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the trial court's decision (appeal by way of retrial; no specific constitutional or statutory provision is cited in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Setting aside of the trial court's judgment; dismissal of the plaint; allowance of the counterclaim; or a retrial before another judge
The appeal raised issues of fact and the appellant failed to demonstrate why the Court should interfere with the trial court's findings, which were affirmed as faultless.
Costs
Each party to bear its own 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.
Ultimately, we find that the present appeal is devoid of merit.
In view of the defect in the record of appeal, which the counsel for the respondent ought to have addressed but failed to do so, we order that each part shall bear its own costs.
this Court must reconsider the evidence, evaluate it, and draw its own conclusions, though it should always bear in mind that it did not have the advantage of seeing or hearing the witnesses and thus should make due allowances in this respect.
we agree with the trial court that once the property was allotted to the deceased, it could not be given to another party, as was the case herein.
As long as the letter of allotment was not revoked, nothing could extinguish the deceased’s ownership rights.
The property was not available for allocation. It was indeed a decision that was unorthodox and made without any lawful basis.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the respondent's letter of allotment is dated 6th March 2003 in the evidence summary, but the quoted trial court judgment refers to a letter of allotment dated 6/3/2004 while also saying the appellant's earliest receipt (dated 23/12/2002) preceded the allotment.
The judgment is internally inconsistent on the date of the oral highlighting of the appeal: submissions dated 25th March 2025 and 22nd November 2025 are said to have been highlighted orally on 3rd March 2026, a chronology that is not self-explanatory.
The judgment records the respondent as deceased and the record of appeal as facially defective for listing the deceased as respondent, yet the appeal is determined on the merits rather than on competence.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chepkwony v Samoei (Civil Appeal 174 of 2020) [2026] KECA 1036 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1036/eng@2026-05-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.