Kosgey & 2 others (Suing as Administrators of the Estate of the Late Rhodah Teriki Cheptongoch) v Cheserem (Environment and Land Case 232 of 2018) [2026] KEELC 4615 (KLR)

2. c. A permanent injunction do issue restraining the 1st defendant his agents and or servants from entering and/or trespassing into the plaintifi’s deceased’s parcel of land known as Kabarnet Municipality /158. d. General damages. e. Costs of this suit. f. Any other order that this Honourable court may find just and fit to grant. The Defendant filed his Amended Statement of Defence dated 12th May, 2022, where he denied the contents of the Amended Plaint. Plaintifi ’s Case 3. PW1 Agnes Jepkemboi Kimulwo, adopted her witness statement dated 3rd March, 2020, as her evidence in chief, and testified that she is the daughter of the late Rhoda Teriki Cheptongoch 4. PW1 stated that her mother was the legal allotee of Kabarnet Municipality/158 formerly unsurveyed Plot No. 8 Kabarnet Township having been allotted vide an allotment letter from the Commissioner of Lands dated 20th April 1979, and produced PExh.9, PExh.10, PExh.11, PExh.12, PExh.13(a) and 13(b), 14, 15, and 16 as evidence. . 5. It was PW1’s testimony that the suit land changed to No. 9038/114, when the County Council of Baringo changed to Kabarnet Town Council and later to Kabarnet Municipal Council/158 when the Town Council changed to Municipal Council and thereafter Baringo County. 6. PW1, stated that the changes, did not afiect the ground as the Surveyors fixed the beacons and the deceased was issued with a beacon certificate, and payment receipt. The Deceased further fenced the suit land and built a kiosk. 7. It was PW1’s evidence that the deceased paid the standard premium, survey fees as well as the annual rates. According to PW1, that when she went to the Lands ofice, she was told that the land belonged to another person who had also deposited stones for construction. She stated that in 2002, the Defendant fraudulently obtained a Certificate of Lease for the deceased’s suit parcel from the District Land Registrar’s ofice, Baringo and proceeded to register it in his name under Kabarnet Municipality/158. 8. PW1 produced PExh.17 – PExh.20 and further testified that the Lands Ofice wrote to the relevant parties and a caveat was registered. She testified that they conducted a search PExh.26 and later wrote to the Kabarnet Municipal PExh.21 where she paid the normal dues for the land as per PExh.27(a), PExh.27(b) and 27(c) and PExh.27(d). 9. PW1 further stated that the Defendant had been directed by the Commissioner of Lands, District Land Registrar Baringo and the Town Clerk of Kabarnet Municipality to surrender the Lease Certificate for cancellation and reissue to the deceased but he refused/neglected to do so. 10. Upon cross-examination by Mr. Chebii, she denied being an administrator of the deceased’s estate but confirmed that their names were in the Grant. PW1 was referred to PExh.9 where she stated that her name was featured in Minute No. 23/78 of the meeting of 7th July, 1972 under item No. 1. PW1 further testified that the Advisory Committee used to issue plots and admitted that there was no PDP. She stated that she was only given the letter dated 2nd February, 2011. (page 25 of the bundle of documents). 11. PW1 was referred to DExh.15(b), and stated that she had built a temporary structure, and confirmed that she was shown plot No. 8, which later became plot No. 9038/114, paid Kshs.6,160/= as land rent https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4615/eng@2026-07-20 2

page 2 of 10

and the Council approved the development. PW1 also testified that there was a caveat dated 13th July, 2012, and a search dated 25th March, 2008. 12. Upon re-examination by Ms. Sabaya, she stated that the minutes did not have Plot numbers and the allotment letter read plot No. 8. Further, the deceased was not notified about the removal of the restriction. 13. PW2 Zakariah Ndege Musongo adopted his witness statement dated 12th June 2023, as his evidence in chief and stated that he was the Principal Land Administration Oficer at the Directorate of Land Management. PW2 produced his list of documents attached to the witness statement as Pex No. 23. It was his evidence that the suit parcel of land was allocated to the deceased for a term of 99 years from 1st April, 1979 vide an allotment letter of an unsurveyed plot No. 8, dated 20th April, 1979, and plan number 34229/11/8A.He further stated that the allocation was through recommendation by the Locational Advisory Committee which approved the same on 7th July, 1972. 14. PW2 testified that the plan was approved as part of DP No. 15 and the deceased thereafter accepted the ofier on 12th June, 1979 and made the necessary payments to the Commissioner of Lands.Further,the Commissioner of Lands before preparing the title discovered that the parcel of land was afiected the land that was meant for government pool housing. 15. The Commissioner of Lands realizing this, the government through the District Commissioner instructed the allottees not to develop plots as their names would be forwarded for allocation of alternative plots, however, the District Commissioner never forwarded a plan for alternative plots and the Director of Surveys processed the survey to LR No. 9038/114 and later converted it to No. 158. 16. PW2 told the court that they later discovered that a direct allocation had been done to the Defendant in 1996 and the Commissioner of Lands wrote a letter to the Land Registrar to have the title restricted as it had been erroneously issued. He stated that the Defendant had been requested to surrender the title due to an earlier allocation, but he failed to do so. He testified that the documents were authenticated by the Commission and refiected the true position of the record. 17. Upon cross-examination by Mr. Chebii, PW2 confirmed that the Plaintifi had been allocated plot No. 8 where she paid stand premium and legal fees. It was his testimony that the document was a development plan (PDP), and that a Zonal plan was the bigger plan and the PDP was a part of the zonal plan. He further stated that in 1979, planning was done difierently before the Physical Planning Act of 1996. 18. According to PW2, the PDP was approved and vide a letter dated 17th February, 1989, addressed to the Director of Surveys showed that plot No.8 was not to be processed as it afiected government pool housing. The County Council of Kabarnet and the government had a duty to look for an alternative plot for the Plaintifi, and that the issuance of a beacon certificate was proof that the survey was done. 19. PW2 admitted that he did not have the PDP for the alternative plot that was to be allocated to the Plaintifi, and confirmed that there would be no cancellation until the alternatives were given, hence the allocation to the Defendant was irregular. 20. It was PW2’s further testimony that the Commissioner of Lands recognized the anomaly of allocation to the Defendant and wrote to the Defendant to surrender the title in 2002, whereby there was a response by Mrs. Amiani vide a letter dated 20th November, 2002. 21. Upon re-examination, PW2, confirmed that the records produced in court were the ones held by the Commission and the Ministry of Lands. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4615/eng@2026-07-20 3

page 3 of 10

Defence Case 22. DW1, Kiprop Kipsang Chepserem, adopted his witness statement dated 31st May, 2022, as his evidence in chief, and produced a list of documents as Dex No. 1 to 15 and a further list of documents dated 14th June, 2022 as Dex No’s 16 to 22 and Dex No. 23. 23. It was his testimony that there was a vacant space within Kabarnet, and in 1996, he went to the Physical Planning Ofice and made an application to the Commissioner of Lands, whereby he was allocated unsurveyed residential plots A & B and paid a total of Kshs.33,100/=. 24. DW1 stated that the Commissioner of Lands considered his application in conjunction with the defunct Municipal Council of Kabarnet, and testified that he processed the title and was invited to collect the certificate of lease on 8th July, 2002. It was his evidence that he had been paying rates to the defunct Municipal Council. 25. DW1 gave evidence that there was no house on the suit plots and he planted cypress trees and fenced. On 16th March, 1998, he was issued with a beacon certificate by the District Surveyor, and applied for the amalgamation of the two plots which he paid Kshs. 9,613/=. 26. According to DW1, throughout the planning and allocation process, the plots had been marked as difiered recreation area, and he was issued with a letter from the Assistant Commissioner of Lands to surrender the title as it had been erroneously allocated to him. Further, that he was to be allocated an alternative plot, and wrote a letter dated 8th November, 2002, to the Commissioner of Lands stating that he had made payments and followed the right process. 27. He further testified that the Commissioner of Lands wrote back vide a letter dated 20th November, 2002 to the District Land Registrar copied to him and the Plaintifi, and that the Commissioner of Lands had requested the Land Registrar to remove the restriction as they looked for an alternative plot. 28. It was DW1’s testimony that he had been paying rates and that the County Council had also approved his development plans. He added that his plot was No. 310 in the zonal plan of 1997 and was an open space. See Dex No. 20 - map. 29. Upon cross-examination by Mr. Opondo, DW1 admitted that the Plaintifi’s allotment issued in 1997 preceded his allotment, and there was no evidence that the Plaintifi’s allotment was cancelled. He admitted that the Plaintifi produced receipts, which confirmed that she paid rents and rates for the plot. He further stated that the Commissioner of Lands did the amalgamation and the total approximate acreage was 0.2287 Hectares. DW1 stated that he did not surrender the allotment letters as directed by the Commissioner of Lands. 30. Upon re-examination, by counsel, he stated that the plot that he had been allocated was difierent from the Plaintifi’s, and was not aware that the Plaintifi had been allocated the plot in 1979. Plaintifi ’s Submissions 31. Counsel for the Plaintifi filed her submissions dated 24th February, 2026, and identified the following issues for determination: a. Whether the late Rodah Teriki Cheptogoch was lawfully allocated Unsurveyed Plot in 1979 and complied with the conditions of that allotment. b. Whether the 1979 allotment was ever lawfully revoked, cancelled, forfeited or otherwise extinguished prior to the Defendant’s purported allocation in 1996. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4615/eng@2026-07-20 4

page 4 of 10

c. Whether the suit land (now known as Kabarnet Municipality/158) was legally available for allocation to the Defendant in 1996. d. Whether the Defendant was lawfully allocated two plots and whether a lawful amalgamation process was undertaken in accordance with the applicable land administration and survey procedures. e. Whether the Defendant’s certificate of lease issued in 2002 was obtained regularly, lawfully and procedurally. f. Whether the Defendant’s title is impeachable under Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act. g. Whether the Plaintifis are entitled to the declaratory, rectification, injunctive and ancillary reliefs sought in the Amended Plaint. 32. On the first issue, Counsel submitted that the Plaintifi’s documentary evidence established that the deceased was allocated the suit parcel on 20th April 1979, which was designated as LR No. 9088/114 and converted to Kabarnet Municipality/158. 33. It was counsel’s further submission that the Plaintifi formally accepted the allocation and paid the requisite stand premium, rent and survey fees, and relied on the cases of Wreck Motors Enterprises V Commissioner of Lands & 3 Others [1997] eKLR, Henry Muthee Kathurima V Commissioner of Lands & Another [2015] eKLR, and Kemboi V Macharia & 2 Others [2025]KECA 1665 (KLR), where the Court of Appeal held that where an allotment letter is issued and an allotte complies with its terms within the stipulated time, a binding contract is formed between the allottee and the government. 3.4 Ms. Sabaya submitted that the Plaintifi produced the allotment letter dated 20th April 1979, Ref. No. 8788/11/129 in respect of unsurveyed Plot No. 8, accepted the ofier on 12th June 1979, paid survey fees vide receipt No. A2553339 dated 21st June 1979, and designated as LR No. 9088/114 and converted to Kabarnet Municipality/158. Counsel stated that the Defendant never disputed the above facts and that the Plaintifi’s allocation predated his by approximately 17 years. 35. Ms. Sabaya stated that the Defendant’s allotment letter was issued in 1996 and a certificate of lease of 2002 does not contain any recital, reference, or instrument demonstrating cancellation of the 1979 allotment. Counsel relied on Section 26(1)(b) of the Land Registration Act and the cases, of Arthi Highway Developers Ltd V West End Butchery Ltd & 6 Others [2015] eKLR, and Kogo Flats LTd V Sammy Cherunya & Another [2019] eKLR, where the Court of Appeal held that where the root of title is under challenge, the registered proprietor must go beyond the certificate and demonstrate the legality of acquisition. 36. On the second issue, as to whether the 1979 allotment was ever lawfully revoked, cancelled, forfeited or otherwise extinguished prior to the Defendant’s purported allocation in 1996, counsel submitted that the Defendant failed to produce any Gazette Notice, cancellation letter or evidence of forfeiture showing that the 1979 allotment to the deceased was ever extinguished. Counsel relied on the cases of Funzi Island Development Ltd & 2 Others V County Council of Kwale & 2 Others [2014] and Kemboi V Macharia & 2 Others [2015] KECA 1665 (KLR), and Chemey Investment Ltd V Attorney General & 2 Others [2018] eKLR. 37. It was counsel’s submission that the suit land was never lawfully available in 1996 and, in addition, the land never reverted to the government; hence, the Defendant’s allocation was ultra vires. Further, the root of the Defendant’s Certificate of Lease was unprocedural and illegal, thus impeachable. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4615/eng@2026-07-20 5

page 5 of 10

38. Ms. Sabaya submitted that the Defendant’s allocation was made over land that had not reverted to the government and therefore, the purported allotment was void ab initio and the subsequent certificate of lease could not stand. Further, the Defendant’s claim that his title emerged from the amalgamation of two separate plots ("Plot A" and "Plot B"), was not supported by any foundational documents, namely: two distinct allotment letters, a written request for amalgamation, approval by the allocating authority, or an authenticated combination plan. 39. Counsel for the Plaintifi further submitted that there was inconsistency in the acreage since the Plaintifi’s original allotment measured 0.1930ha while the Defendant’s measured 0.2287. Counsel argued that the Defendant never produced the survey computation that demonstrated how the acreage increased. 40. On the fifth and sixth issue, counsel submitted that the Defendant’s Certificate of title is impeachable as the root was tainted with illegality and relied on the case of Dina Management Limited V County Government of Mombasa & 5 Others [2023] KESC 30 (KLR) and Section 80(1) of the Land Registration Act. Counsel urged the court to allow the Plaintifi’s claim as prayed with costs. Defendant’s Submission 41. Counsel for the Defendant filed submissions dated 23rd March, 2026, and identified three issues for determination: a. Whether the defendant acquired the suit property fraudulently. b. Whether the plaintifi was allocated the suit property? c. Whether there was a double allocation of the suit property? 4.2 Counsel submitted that the Plaintifi’s allotment letter dated 19th November 1972 never referred to the minutes of 7th July 1972, as it referred to the minutes of 24th July 1972, where she is alleged to have been allocated a residential plot under minute Number KBT/155(b), which was completely difierent from the allotment of 7th July 1972 under minute 23/73. 43. He further submitted that the Plaintifi did not produce any minutes from the County Council of the Central Rift in support the alleged allotment of 24th July 1972. He argued that the allotments of 7th July 1972 and 24th July 1972 were for difierent plots. 44. Mr. Chebii further submitted that the allotment letter dated 20th April 1979, purportedly issued by the Commissioner of Lands was a forgery since it was not supported by any PDP that identified the plot that she had been allocated. Further, Plot No. 8 could not be traced on the zonal plan and argued that if Plot No. 8 changed to LR No.9038/114 and subsequently to Kabarnet Municipality/158, why did the Plaintifi pay rates for Plot No. 8 throughout? He submitted that the reason would only be that the alleged Plot No. 8 was not the same as LR No. 9038/114 and/or Kabarnet Municipality/158. 45. According to Mr. Chebii, the Plaintifi did not have any documentation for the alleged P lot No.8 because, once her allocation fell on a government pool house, the allocation was never processed. He submitted that some of the documents produced by the Plaintifi were fraudulently procured from the defunct Municipal Council of Kabarnet for purposes of defrauding the Defendant of his lawfully acquired plot. 46. Counsel submitted that the Plaintifi’s rate payment receipts revealed that she paid for unsurveyed Plot No. 8, yet she alleged that she had been issued with a beacon certificate and that the plot number had progressively changed. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4615/eng@2026-07-20 6

page 6 of 10

47. Mr. Chebii submitted that PW2 never exhibited the new PDP for the alternative plot thus; a clear indication that the suit property is separate and distinct from the plot allocated to her in 1972, or the plot to be allocated to her. Counsel also stated that PW2 conceded that he did not know whether the suit property was Plot No. 8 and only the Director Surveys could address the same. 48. Counsel submitted that the plot the Plaintifi claimed was never processed in the first instance; hence, it could not have progressed from No. 8 to LR No. 9038/114 and finally to Kabarnet Municipality/158 as alleged. He added that assuming it progressed, which is denied, there was no PDP, RIM, among other documents that authenticated the alleged processing. 49. It was his submission that it was clear from the Defendant’s evidence and exhibits, which have not been controverted or impeached by the Plaintifi that the Defendant’s acquisition of the suit property was lawful, and cited Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act, 2012. 50. According to Mr. Chebii, the Defendants’ exhibits showed a clear and methodological process that led to the acquisition of the lease, which was devoid of any fraud, and the same was conceded by the Commissioner of Lands. 51. Counsel submitted that the property allocated to the Defendant was separate and distinct from the property purportedly allocated to the Plaintifi, and the Plaintifi cannot purport to claim that her allocation was first in time. Counsel relied on the cases of Gitwany Investment Limited V Tajmal Limited & 3 Others [2006] KEHC 2519 (KLR), and Benja Properties Limited V Syedna Mohammed Burhannudin Sahed & 4 Others [2015] KECA 457 (KLR), and urged the court to find that there was no double allocation since the Plaintifi’s allocation was cancelled and was never allocated another plot. He further urged the court to dismiss the Plaintifi’s suit with costs. Analysis And Determination 52. This court has considered the pleadings, evidence on record and submissions and the issues for determination are as follows: a. Whether Plot No. 8 and LR No. 9038/114 and/or Kabarnet Municipality/158 are the same. b. Whether there was double allocation of the suit parcel of land to the Plaintifi and the Defendant. c. Whether the Plaintifis are entitled to the orders sought. d. Who bears the costs of the suit? 53. The dispute between the Plaintifi and the Defendant is in respect of allocation of the suit Plot No. 8, which both parties lay claim to. It was the Plaintifi’s case that the deceased was allotted Kabarnet unsurveyed Plot No. 8, vide allotment letter dated 20th April, 1979, while the Defendant was allotted Plot No. A and B Kabarnet Municipality vide allotment letters dated 17th June, 1996. 54. It was the Plaintifi’s case that at the time the Advisory Committee used to issue plots, without PDPs, a fact that was never challenged by the Defendant. It was not in contention that in 1982, the Municipal Council changed from County Council to Kabarnet Town Council, whereby the Plaintifis’ plot changed from unsurveyed Plot No. 8 to L.R No. 9038/114. 55. It was not in dispute that the survey was conducted by the Director of Survey and L.R No. 9038/114 converted from RTA to RLA causing it to change to Kabarnet Municipality/158. This evidence can https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4615/eng@2026-07-20 7

page 7 of 10

be seen from the letter from the Director of Surveys to the Commissioner of Lands dated 30th May, 2002. There was also evidence of the beacon certificate issued to the Plaintifi. 56. The evidence on record shows that Rhodah Teriki Cheptongoch (deceased) wrote a letter dated 7th June, 1978, to the Director of Surveys requesting for survey of the Plot No. 8. It is also not in contention that the survey of L.R No. 9038/114, is referred to in FR 147/96. 57. It was the Defendant’s case that his property parcel No. 158 was separate and distinct from Plaintifi’s, but from the perusal of the documents and the evidence of record, it shows that both the Plaintifi and Defendant were each issued with an allotment letter for unsurveyed plots. 58. Notably, the Defendant confirmed that the total approximate acreage that resulted from the amalgamation of his two allotted plots A and B was 0.2287 Hectares. A perusal of the Plaintifi’s allotment letter shows that the approximate acreage of his Plot No. 8 was 0.1930 Hectares. The acreage clearly shows that the two properties measure approximately the same in size. This also shows that the unsurveyed plot allotted to both the Plaintifi and Defendant is the same. 59. In the circumstances, I find that Plot No. 8 and LR No. 9038/114 and/or Kabarnet Municipality/158 refer to the same parcel being the suit parcel of land. 60. In the case of Caroline Awinja Ochieng & another V Jane Annan Mbithe Gitau & 2 others [2015] KECA 450 (KLR), the court held as follows: “ In determining the above issue it would perhaps be appropriate to first state that tracing ownership of unregistered land is dependent on tracing the root of title. Unlike registered land where ownership is domiciled and founded in the register of titles, ownership of unregistered land and the ascertainment or confirmation thereof involves the intricate journey of wading through documentary history… It is the delivery of deeds or documents which assist in proving not only dominion of unregistered land but also ownership. The deeds must establish an unbroken chain that leads to a good root of title or title paramount. A good compilation of the documents or deeds relating to the property and concerning the claimant as well as any previous owners leading to the title certainly proves ownership. It is such documents which are basically ‘the essential indicia of title to unregistered land’’: per Nourse LJ in Sen vs Headley [1991] Ch 425 at 437. The documents in my view are limitless. It could be one, they could be several. They must however establish the claimant’s beneficial interest in the property. Examples of the deed or documents include, at least in the Kenyan context: sale agreements, Plot cards, Lease agreements, allotment letters, payment receipts for outgoings, confirmations by the title paramount, notices, et al.” 61. Having found that the Plaintifi and the Defendant both claim unsurveyed Plot No 8, the court must trace the root of the title and who was allotted first and whether that party complied with the terms and conditions of the allotment. The Plaintifi gave a chronology of how she was allocated the suit land which has been captured in the evidence and submissions. 62. The Defendant admitted that the Plaintifi was issued with an allotment letter dated 20th April, 1979, before his which, came in after 17 years in 1996, which means that the land had been alienated and was not available for allocation. The Defendant further told the court that there was no evidence that the Plaintifi’s allotment was cancelled. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4615/eng@2026-07-20 8

page 8 of 10

63. PW2, an Oficer from the Lands Department, confirmed that vide a letter dated 17th February, 1989 addressed to the Director of Surveys showed that the processing of Plot No.8 was not to be undertaken since it afiected government pool housing. 64. PW2 further gave evidence that the Commissioner of Lands recognized the anomaly of allocation to the Defendant and wrote to the Defendant to surrender the title in 2002, which the Defendant never did, He also confirmed that the Plaintifi’s allocation still stood until an alternative plot was to be found. This is a case of double allocation. 65. In the case of Clement V Chebii [2023] KEELC 16142 (KLR), the court held as follows: “ Double allocation occurs where by mistake which is admitted by the allotting authority, two letters of allocation are issued to two difierent people in respect of the same property. These allocations must have been issued regularly and procedurally without fraud save for the mistake. If this be the case, then the first in time prevails and the second one cannot sufice.” 66. Similarly, in the case of Gitwany Investment Limited V Tajmal Limited & 3 Others [2006] KEHC 2519 (KLR), the court held that: “ The legal efiect of the said allocations can only be determined by applying the fundamental priority rules. These rules are that firstly, equitable rights bind the world except the bona fide purchaser for value of a legal estate without notice of the equitable right. Secondly, where the bona fide purchaser is a purchaser of an equitable interest, the rule is that as between competing equitable interests the first in time prevails, as it is an established principle that equitable interests rank in order of creation.” 67. In the case of James P. Maina Muriuki –vs- Moses Maina Ngugi & Another [2012] eKLR, the court, while considering a case of double allocation observed as follows: “ Therefore, so long as parties meet the conditions of an allocation, then that allocation is valid. Both the plaintifi and the 1st defendant have brought evidence to show payments made and allocation of the suit plot by the 2nd defendant. The plaintifi’s certificate of allocation was issued by the 2nd defendant on 30th September 1994, while that of the 1st defendant was issued on 8th March 2006. It is therefore the finding of this court that this was a case of double allocation and both allocations were valid.” 68. In the instant case, the Plaintifi’s allotment was issued earlier than the Defendant’s and the Defendant had been asked to surrender the allotment letter for cancellation, which he never did. The Defendant did not file a counterclaim against the allocating authority to rectify the anomaly. 69. In the case of Republic v City Council of Nairobi & 3 Others (2014) eKLR, the court held on the issue of double allocation as follows: “ Once an allotment letter is issued and the allottee meets the conditions therein, the land in question is no longer available for allotment since a letter of allotment confers an absolute right of ownership or proprietorship unless it is challenged by the allotting authority or is acquired through fraud mistake or misrepresentation or that the allotment was out rightly illegal or it was against public interest. In other words, where land has been allocated, the same land cannot be reallocated unless the first allocation is validly and lawfully canceled.” https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4615/eng@2026-07-20 9

page 9 of 10

70. The import of the above holding is that once an allocation has taken place, then the land is not available for a subsequent allocation and therefore, the first allottee is held to be the legal owner and any subsequent allocation is deemed to be irregular as the same plot cannot be allocated twice. 71. This court having already established that the Plaintifi was allotted the suit property before the Defendant, it follows that the Plaintifi has established that her equitable rights ranks first in time than the Defendant’s. 72. The Plaintifi sought general damages for inconvenience arising from the double allocation. This having been done by the allocating authority who was never sued, the court cannot grant orders against a person who is not a party to the suit. It follows that this limb fails. 73. The court is empowered under Section 80(1) of the Land Registration Act, to cancel a title which was procured unprocedurally. The Section provides as follows: 74. “ (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Court may order the rectification of the register by directing that any registration be cancelled or amended if it is satisfied that any registration was obtained, made or omitted by fraud or mistake. (2) The register shall not be rectified to afiect the title of a proprietor, unless the proprietor had knowledge of the omission, fraud or mistake in consequence of which the rectification is sought, or caused such omission, fraud or mistake or substantially contributed to it by any act, neglect or default.” Consequently, I find that the Plaintifis are the lawful owners of the suit property and therefore entitled to the prayers, as sought in their Further Amended Plaint dated 5th December, 2019 and I make the following specific orders: a. A declaration is hereby made that the deceased is the rightful owner and/or allottee of the parcel of land known as Kabarnet Municipality /158 and that the purported registration of the defendant as the proprietor is null and void. b. An order is hereby issued directing the Land Registrar Baringo to rectify the register by cancelling the registration of the defendant as the proprietor of title number Kabarnet Municipality /158 which is in the name of the 1st defendant and the same be re- issued in the name of the deceased. c. A permanent injunction is hereby issued restraining the 1st defendant his agents and or servants from entering and/or trespassing into the deceased plaintifi’s parcel of land known as Kabarnet Municipality /158. d. Costs to the Plaintifi. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 20TH DAY OF JULY 2026. M. A. ODENY JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4615/eng@2026-07-20 10

page 10 of 10