Korir (Suing as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Reverend Abraham Kipkorir Tarus) v Kogo (Sued as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Nathan Kimaiyo Tarus) (Environment and Land Case E065 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 4917 (KLR)
The bottom line
#An Eldoret court dismissed a family land trust claim because the family could not prove with documents that the land was held in trust for their relative.
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 Plaintiff has established a trust was created over the suit property in favour of the late Abraham K. Tarus
- 2.Who shall bear the costs of this suit?
Key legal issues
#Whether a trust was created over the suit property in favour of the late Abraham Kipkorir Tarus
No trust was established. The receipt from the Settlement Fund Trustee did not prove payment by Abraham Tarus, and no record of the elders'/Tribunal's alleged allocation decision was produced.
The plaintiff bore the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that Abraham Tarus paid part of the purchase price and that an agreement existed for allocation of 300 acres. The receipt issued by SFT was paid through B.K. Arap Tanui Advocates, but no evidence showed that firm acted for Abraham Tarus. The letter of 06.04.1978 only showed he acted on behalf of his father. No minutes or proceedings of the elders and Land Tribunal meeting were produced. Consequently, the circumstances for inferring a constructive or implied trust did not exist.
Burden of proof in an undefended suit
The plaintiff's burden is not lessened by the defendant's failure to file a defence or testify; formal proof is still required.
Relying on Sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act and Karugi v Kabiya, the court held that the burden on a plaintiff remains the same even where the case proceeds by way of formal proof, though it may be easier to discharge. Charterhouse Bank confirms that judgment cannot be entered merely because the defendant did not testify; the plaintiff must adduce credible, believable evidence that convinces the court on a balance of probabilities.
Costs of the suit
Despite the plaintiff's failure, no costs were awarded to the defendant due to her non-participation and the family nature of the dispute.
Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act vests discretion in the court, with costs normally following the event. Although the defendant would ordinarily have been awarded costs, she barely participated in the suit and the parties are members of the same family disputing property held in the name of the family patriarch, so awarding costs would exacerbate animosity.
Legal principles established
#- Failure by a defendant to file a defence or call evidence does not relieve a plaintiff of the burden of proving his case on a balance of probabilities
- Before entering judgment in an undefended case, the court must be satisfied that the plaintiff has adduced credible and believable evidence which can stand in the absence of rebuttal
- Existence of a trust is a factual question requiring proof through evidence justifying the inference of an implied or constructive trust
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiff's suit is dismissed
- 2.No orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act
Relief refused
#Declaration that the late Nathan Kimaiyo Tarus held 200 acres of TURBO WEST/OSONGORAI BLOCK 3(TAPSAGOI)/36 in trust for Abraham Kipkorir Tarus
No evidence that Abraham Tarus paid part of the purchase price or of any agreement to allocate him additional land
Order directing the Land Registrar to register 200 acres in the name of Abraham Kipkorir Tarus (Deceased)
The trust alleged was not proved; the circumstances for an implied or constructive trust do not exist
Permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit property
The suit failed on the merits
Costs of the suit
Although the plaintiff did not succeed, the court deviated from the general rule given the defendant's minimal participation and the family nature of the dispute
Costs
Suit dismissed with no orders as to costs - each party to bear their 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.
Consequently, I hereby find that the Plaintiff has not proved his case to the required standard. As such, the Plaintiff’s suit is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
failure to file a defence does not relieve a plaintiff of the burden of proving their case.
the circumstances required for a constructive/implied trust to be inferred do not exist in the present suit.
there is not only no evidence of payment of the part of the purchase price, but also of any agreement/understanding to allocate the late Abraham Tarus the extra 200 Acres in addition to the 100 Acre portion already given.
the court is satisfied that there is sufficient cause to deviate from the general rule that costs follow the event.
Issues in the judgment
#Plaintiff's list of documents dated inconsistently - the Plaint is dated 12th November, 2024 but the List of Documents is dated '12.11.1024'
The court directed parties to file submissions at the close of hearing on 28.04.2026, yet the plaintiff's witness statement is dated 16.05.2026 and was adopted at the hearing
Variations in the spelling of the Court of Appeal case on trust, cited as 'Hatayan Twalib Hatayan' in submissions but 'Twalib Halayan Twalib Hayatan' in the analysis
Minor typographical inconsistencies in the name of the deceased ('Kiprorir' for 'Kipkorir')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Korir (Suing as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Reverend Abraham Kipkorir Tarus) v Kogo (Sued as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Nathan Kimaiyo Tarus) (Environment and Land Case E065 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 4917 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Case No. E065 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4917/eng@2026-07-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.