Chumo (Suing as the administrator of the Estate of the Late Cheruiyot Arap Chemoigut - Deceased) v Sirng'ewo (Sued as the administrator of the Estate of Kimutai Arap Murei - Deceased) (Environment and Land Case E005 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 18317 (KLR) (16 December 2025) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 18317 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KITALE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND CASE E005 OF 2025 CK NZILI, J DECEMBER 16, 2025 BETWEEN SAMUEL KIBET CHUMO (SUING AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE CHERUIYOT ARAP CHEMOIGUT DECEASED) ................................................................................................. PLAINTIFF AND ABRAHAM ASMAN SIRNG'EWO (SUED AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF KIMUTAI ARAP MUREI - DECEASED) ....................... DEFENDANT JUDGMENT 1. 2. What is before the court is a plaint dated 18/2/2025. The plainti, pursuant to a grant of letters of administration of the estate of Cheruiyot Arap Chemoigut, seeks: a. Declaratory orders that the plainti is entitled to 5.8 acres in Plot No. 79, Karara Bororiet Settlement Scheme, the defendant to 4.8 acres, and 0.4 acres reserved for public utility, and for an order that the said land be demarcated through survey forthwith. b. A permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his family members, agents, and/or servants, or any other person who may claim interest or act through the defendant, from interfering in whatever manner or style with the plainti’s 5.8 acres in plot No.79, Karara Bororiet Settlement Scheme, otherwise known as Karara Bororiet Farm. The plainti relies on P. Exhibit No. (1)-(12). His testimony and the case are supported by the evidence of PW2 and PW3. PW4 conrmed that the request to subdivide the land into three portions among the plainti and the defendant, as well as 0.4 acres on account of public utilities, has been hampered by the defendant. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18317/eng@2025-12-16 1
page 1 of 3
3. The defendant has not opposed the suit despite service with summons to enter appearance, through adavit of service dated 7/3/2025, sworn by George Mumali on 7/3/2025, or attended court to justify why the Land Adjudication and Settlement Oce cannot visit the locus in quo and eect the subdivision on the ground so that the plainti can access his rights under Article 40 of the Constitution as read together with Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 63 of the Civil Procedure Act. 4. The role of a Land Adjudication and Settlement Ocer in land subdivision and survey in settlement schemes includes identication of rights, resolution of disputes, and facilitation of the demarcation of the plots under the Land Adjudication Act Cap 284, and the Land Act 2012. 5. In Joseph Kiemechwa vs County Land Adjudication and Settlement Ocer & Others [2025] KEELC 1042 [KLR], the court cited Bandi vs Dzomo & Others [2022] KECA 584 [KLR] (24th June 2022) (Judgment), on the operative law in a settlement scheme in general and in particular on the manner of identifying the beneciaries. 6. PW4 testied that there is no dispute as to who the beneciaries of the 5.8 and 4.8 acres are on the ground. 7. The plainti has tendered evidence on the eorts made through letters for the defendant to give room for him to enjoy the ownership rights. The right to own land includes enjoyment of the same. The defendant has not refuted the said ownership rights since 1974, when the land was acquired by the plainti. 8. Breach of ownership rights attracts the intervention of this court by way of a permanent injunction under Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules. a permanent injunction is a nal order that prevents a party from doing something as a conclusive relief after a hearing of the witnesses. There is undisputed evidence that the plainti has been deprived of his ownership rights since land holds intrinsic value in Kenya; loss of its use for no justication constitutes irreparable harm or damage. Refusing a permanent injunction in the circumstances, this case will y against the clear provisions of the law to safeguard the plainti’s proprietary rights. 9. Frustrating the plainti’s rights by denying the statutory body freedom, subdividing and surveying the land among the beneciaries cannot be tolerated by this court. It calls for the order prayed for, for permanent injunction and declaratory orders. 10. The court has looked at the exhibits by the plainti. The evidence supports the plainti’s rights as the owner of 5.8 acres out of the subject land. In Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd vs Sheri Molana Habib [2018] eKLR, the court held that a permanent injunction is granted on the merits of the case after the evidence in support of or against the claim has been tendered. A permanent injunction nally determines the rights of the parties before the court. 11. The evidence by the plainti has not been shaken by the defendant. the court hereby declares that the plainti is entitled to have the share of 5.8 acres subdivided from that of the defendant, so that he can continue to use, access, enjoy, and develop the land unperturbed. 12. The District Land Adjudication and Settlement Ocer in charge is directed under the security of the OCS of the area, to eect the survey and subdivision within 30 days from the date hereof. Prayer No. (a) and (b) are granted. Costs of the suit, subdivision, and the site visit to be met by the defendant. 13. Orders accordingly. JUDGMENT DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS/OPEN COURT AT KITALE ON THIS 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18317/eng@2025-12-16 2
page 2 of 3
In the presence of: Court Assistant - Dennis Lichuma for the plainti present Defendant absent HON. C.K. NZILI JUDGE, ELC KITALE. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18317/eng@2025-12-16 3
page 3 of 3