Registered Trustee Moi University Pension Scheme v Attorney General & 4 others (Environment and Land Case 89 of 2015) [2026] KEELC 2490 (KLR)
The bottom line
#An Eldoret court cancelled a land title created by fraud and restored the full parcel to the pension scheme that bought it first.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.What was the acreage of parcel 304 at the time of allotment?
- 2.Was there any land available for allocation to the 4th Defendant after allocation of parcel 304?
- 3.Was parcel 320 hived off from parcel 304 and if so was the hiving lawful?
- 4.Was the title which was obtained by the 5th Defendant obtained lawfully?
- 5.Is the Plaintiff and the Defendants entitled to their respective claims?
- 6.Which order should be made on costs?
Key legal issues
#Acreage of parcel 304 at allotment
Parcel 304 measured 0.36 hectares on the ground notwithstanding that the certificate of lease showed 0.25 hectares; the ground acreage reflected the allotment and sale agreement
The allotment letter of 10th June 1997 showed 0.36 hectares (stated in parts as 0.3). The 5th Defendant occupied the whole parcel, and a valuer's report found the ground measurement was 0.903 of an acre. DW4 testified that title acreage can be amended to reflect the ground position. The court accepted the ground acreage as the true measure.
Availability of land for allocation to the 4th Defendant
No land remained available for allocation to the 4th Defendant; the second allocation was invalid
Relying on Cabin Crew Investment and the Heldo Foodstuff appeals, the court held that once the Commissioner of Lands had allotted the whole of parcel 304 to the 5th Defendant and she accepted and paid, the same land could not be deemed unalienated and re-allocated without revoking the earlier allotment. Any error in the title processing did not legitimise a fresh allocation.
Whether parcel 320 was hived off from parcel 304
Parcel 320 was unlawfully hived off from parcel 304 through a corrupt scheme involving the 2nd and 3rd Defendants and the 4th Defendant
The 1989 RIM showed parcel 304 bordered only parcel 209 with no parcel 320 within it; the 1995 PDP relied on by the 4th Defendant showed a different parcel 320 far away. Two parcels cannot bear the same number in one block. The 4th Defendant never took possession, and its allotment letter was paid for long after expiry. The survey that reduced parcel 304 was done without the Plaintiff's involvement while title existed.
Whether the 5th Defendant's title was lawfully obtained
The 5th Defendant's title was lawfully obtained; the fraud particulars against her were not proved
The 5th Defendant produced her allotment letter, disproving the allegation that she had none. No overlap was proved; rather the 4th Defendant hived off parcel 320. She took possession of the 0.36 hectares allotted and sold exactly that to the Plaintiff. The 1st to 3rd Defendants, alleging fraud, bore the burden of proof and failed to discharge it.
Entitlement to respective claims
The Plaintiff proved its case on a balance of probabilities; all counterclaims failed
The Plaintiff demonstrated the unlawful excision and occupation of the full 0.36 hectares. A typing error in prayers (ii) and (iii) of the plaint was excused as the injunction was intended against the 4th Defendant. The counterclaims, founded on unproved fraud allegations and a defective root of title, were dismissed.
Legal principles established
#- Land already alienated cannot be re-allocated by the Commissioner of Lands without revoking the earlier allotment
- A registered proprietor whose root of title is under challenge must prove the legality of the acquisition beyond merely producing the title instrument
- Possession of land is itself a root of title against those who can show no better right
- Fraud must be pleaded and strictly proved to a standard higher than a balance of probabilities
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the Plaintiff is the bonafide owner of Eldoret Municipality/Block 7/304 as shown in the original survey
- 2.A declaration that the excision of what belonged to Eldoret Municipality/Block 7/304 without the Plaintiff's knowledge is unjust, illegal, null and void
- 3.A declaration that the creation of parcel Eldoret Municipality Block 7/320 which was granted to the 4th Defendant was done through fraud, misrepresentation, illegally, unprocedurally and or through a corrupt scheme
- 4.An injunction restraining the 4th Defendant, its successors or assigns, from trespassing, disposing of, leasing, charging or dealing with Eldoret Municipality/Block 7/320
- 5.The 3rd Defendant ordered to rectify the register by cancelling title to Eldoret Municipality/Block 7/320 and reverting it to the Plaintiff so as to form an undivided parcel known as Eldoret Municipality/Block 7/304 measuring 0.36 hectares
- 6.Costs of the suit to the Plaintiff
- 7.The counterclaims of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over disputes relating to title to land (Land Registration Act; suit filed 31st March, 2015)
Relief refused
#The 1st to 3rd Defendants' counterclaim for cancellation of the title registered in the Plaintiff's name
Particulars of fraud against the 5th Defendant were not proved to the required standard
The 4th Defendant's counterclaim for declaration of ownership of parcel 320, injunction, eviction, general damages for trespass of Kshs.2,000,000 and mesne profits
Parcel 320 was unlawfully hived off from parcel 304 and the 4th Defendant never occupied it; the Plaintiff cannot be a trespasser on land unlawfully taken from it
Costs
Costs of the suit to the Plaintiff; the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants' counterclaims dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff
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.
The 3rd Defendant is hereby ordered to rectify the register by cancelling title to Eldoret Municipality/Block 7/320 and reverting back to the Plaintifi so as to form an undivided parcel known as Eldoret Municipality/Block 7/304 measuring 0.36 hectares.
On the other hand, I find that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants have failed to prove their respective counterclaims which are hereby dismissed with costs to the Plaintifi.
It is therefore clear that parcel 320 was unlawfully hived ofi from parcel 304.
The 4th Defendant's root of title is tainted.
This hiving was as a result of a corrupt scheme between the 2nd and 3rd Defendants on the one part and the 4th Defendant on the other part.
no damages can be awarded for trespass as the Plaintifi cannot be a trespasser on what was unlawfully taken from it.
Issues in the judgment
#Acreage discrepancy in the judgment itself: the allotment letter is described as 0.3 hectares while the ground and sale agreement acreage is consistently stated as 0.36 hectares
Inconsistent citation of the Cabin Crew appeal number: the submissions section cites 'Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 441 of Cabin Crew Investment Limited' while the analysis cites 'Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 441 of 2019'
Judgment delivery date of 2026 appears anomalous against the last filings dated 1st December, 2025 and survey certification in 2024, but is internally consistent as printed
The case number of the suit is not stated anywhere in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Registered Trustee Moi University Pension Scheme v Attorney General & 4 others (Environment and Land Case 89 of 2015) [2026] KEELC 2490 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2490/eng@2026-04-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.