Sarah Chelel Boit v David Soin & 14 others [2014] KEELC 31 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court ordered 15 long-time farm occupants evicted because they couldn't prove an oral promise gave them rights to the land.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a trust over registered land was established
No trust proved; the alleged promise was oral and uncorroborated by documents or independent witnesses.
The only document relied on was a letter by Eastern Produce Kenya Ltd, the management agents, addressed to Peter Boit who held no proprietary interest or administrator's capacity. No minutes of the D.O's meeting or Chief's baraza were produced, and neither the D.O, the Chief, Peter Boit nor Scroggie testified. The claim rested on an alleged oral promise which was not proved on a balance of probabilities.
Whether the defendants could resist eviction once the trust claim failed
Having lived on the land with the owners' licence, which was withdrawn, the defendants had no right to remain and eviction was warranted.
The adverse possession claim had already been struck out by Mwilu J in 2009, so length of occupation was irrelevant. Occupation was by licence; upon withdrawal by the plaintiff the defendants became trespassers. The court found the eviction prayer framed as against the defendants and persons claiming through or under them proper despite the presence of other households.
Status of deceased defendants and parties claiming under them
The court declined to declare any defendant dead absent proof, and treated the 8th and 15th defendants as having filed no defence.
No documentary proof of death was tendered, no application for abatement was made, and no personal representative came forward. The court therefore confined its determination to the defendants who had filed the defence and counterclaim. Persons not covered by the suit were left at liberty to apply to court to determine their rights.
Legal principles established
#- A claim founded on an oral promise to settle persons on land must be proved to the balance of probabilities with credible independent evidence; occupation with licence can be defeated on withdrawal of the licence.
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the defendants failed to prove entitlement to the land parcel L.R No. 9401/1 (I.R No. 15951) or any portion of it by dint of a trust
- 2.Declaration that the defendants failed to prove entitlement to remain upon the suit land
- 3.Order that the plaintiff is entitled to an order of eviction
- 4.Defendants given up to 31 December 2014 to vacate, failing which plaintiff at liberty to apply for eviction
- 5.Costs of the suit to the plaintiff
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction over land (Environment and Land Court Act); suit transferred from the High Court to the Environment and Land Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sarah Chelel Boit v David Soin & 14 others [2014] KEELC 31 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Eldoret E&L Case No. 979 of 2012 (formerly Kisumu HCCC No. 9 of 2004; Eldoret HCCC No. 15 of 2005). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2014/31/eng@2014-11-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.