Jama v Board of Management Oloolaiser Secondary School & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E012 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 4835 (KLR)

c. A mandatory injunction be issued directing the 3rd Defendant to resurvey Plot Number 3731/VIII Residential Plot-Ngong and Ngong Township/Block 2/516 and mark out the beacons of both properties. d. A mandatory injunction be issued directing the 3rd Defendants to cancel the grant, deed plan and other title documents in the 1st Defendants possession and to amend their records to refiect the Plaintifi as a rightful owner of Plot Number 3731/VIII Residential Plot-Ngong Township (the suit property). e. A permanent mandatory injunction to order the 1st Defendant to forthwith remove any and all beacons it has put on the suit property. f. General damages for trespasses and attempted wrongful occupation by the 1st Defendant at rates to be assessed by the court g. Cost of the suit. h. Any other or such further relief as this honorable court may deem just and fit to grant. 2. These claims are grounded in the Plaintifi’s assertion that he is the registered owner of the suit property, identified as Plot Number 3731/VIII (Residential Plot, Ngong Township), which he inherited as ancestral land from his father. In contrast, the 1st Defendant is the registered proprietor of Plot Number Ngong Township/Block 2/516, which is derived from Plot Number 209163/II. 3. The Plaintifi alleges that in 2001, the 1st Defendant, as a neighbor, encroached upon his land by obtaining a lease certificate for Plot 2/516. This action allegedly obstructed the Plaintifi from securing a lease certificate for Plot 3731/VIII, despite the Plaintifi’s continued discharge of all requisite rent and rates to the Kajiado County Government. The Plaintifi maintains that the 1st Defendant’s unauthorized settlement and continued possession have caused him detriment by denying him access to his property. Furthermore, the Plaintifi references a survey conducted by the Survey of Kenya, which concluded that, according to their records, Plot 3731/VIII remained unsurveyed and that the encroachment resulted from a double allocation of the subject land parcels to both the Plaintifi and the 1st Defendant. 1st Defendant case 4. In a Statement of Defence filed on 27 April 2022 by Solonka & Solonka Advocates LLP, the 1st Defendant contests the Plaintifi’s assertions, requiring the Plaintifi to provide strict proof of his claims and praying for the dismissal of the suit with costs. The Defendant maintains that its ownership of Plot 2/516 is legitimate, asserting it was allocated the land by the former county council and subsequently issued a lease certificate. Furthermore, the Defendant submits that documentation from the Ministry of Lands and the County Government confirms its status as the registered proprietor. On these grounds, the 1st Defendant argues that the Plaintifi’s suit is time-barred, incompetent, misconceived, and fundamentally defective. 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendants Defence 5. On 11 May, 2022, the Ofice of the Attorney General through Mr. Oscar Eredi, the Chief State Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the Defendants. Counsel replied to the Plaintifi lawsuit through a statement of defence dated 26 April,2022 seeking for its dismissal with costs. While denying the Plaintifi assertions and putting him to strict proof, it is contended that the 1st Defendant never https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4835/eng@2026-07-20 2

page 2 of 19

encroached into the Plaintifi land because they are legally on Plot 2/516, an exclusive property of Oloolaiser Secondary School. Plaintifi reply to Defendants’ Statement of Defence 6. Responding to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants statement of defence in a reply dated 22 June, 2022, the Plaintifi reiterates his claim by asserting that ever since Plot. 3731/VIII was allocated to his late father and afterwards to him on 12 May, 1998, he has faithfully paid the requisite fees, is in its actual possession and occupation and that the gravesite for his kinsmen and women on the plot are clearly visible. The Plaintifi insists that the 1st Defendant was unlawfully and illegally registered as the owner of Plot 2/516 yet its portion was lawfully allocated to him. It is further stated that a resurvey of the suit property ought to be done because the 1st Defendant unlawfully acquired Plot. 3731/VIII lease when it cunningly, unlawfully and fraudulent caused Plot. 3731/VIII and Plot 2/516 to be amalgamated yet there were clearly distinct and demarcated by a wide public road. Given the miscarriage of justice occasioned to the Plaintifi by the 1st Defendant act in collusion with the relevant authorities, the Plaintifi seeks for dismissal of the statement of defence and judgment be entered in his favor as sought. Analysis of Evidence Plaintifi evidence 7. PW1-Mohamed Abdilahi Jama testified that the suit property allotment letter issued to him on 12 May, 1998 by the Commissioner of Lands showed its measurements as 1.3ha. Even though he stated that he paid the standard premium and produced a letter dated 4 July, 2019 confirming payment of rates, he admitted that he has never paid rates since 2017. He also mentioned that his family would occasionally go to the property which also hosted graves of his kin. Referring to the 1st Defendant’s certificate of lease for Plot 2/516, he confirmed that it measured 15.67ha. Based on his testimony, pictorial documentations filed in support of his case disclosed that the suit property and that of the 1st Defendant are separated by a road. He further added that whenever he tried to engage the 1st Defendant about the encroachment on the suit property, its response was that it was not situated within their land. To establish if his suit property forms part of the 1st Defendant land, he strongly opined that a survey ought to be done. 8. Upon being cross-examined, the Plaintifi attested that he has never lived on the suit property which was undeveloped. Based on his testimony, the school was claiming his family land wherein his grandfather had lived. Regardless, he did not have its lease save for an allotment letter. To demonstrate that the suit property standard premium was paid within 30 days after receipt of the ofier, PW1 produced payment receipts short of rent and rate clearance certificate yet the allotment letter stated that the ofier issued to him in 1998 would lapse within 30 days. When he was questioned why the gravesites were not visible in his produced pictorial documentation, he responded that they were covered by the trees which were cut by the 1st Defendant. He also acknowledged that he did not have any proof demonstrating he complained when the 1st Defendant encroached on the suit property in 2001. By his own admission, he swore that the suit property’s allotment letter revealed that it was residential while its certificate of oficial search specified that it was a market place. When he was queried why he enjoined the 3rd Defendant in the proceedings, he answered that it had prepared the PDP (Part Development Plan). 9. During re-examination, he reiterated that the particulars of the suit property in the allotment letter and certificate of oficial search were alike and displayed its measurements as 1.3hactres and named him as its owner and further that it was not situated far from the market. According to PW1, the suit property’s allotment letter was issued to him since his grandfather was the original occupier of the https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4835/eng@2026-07-20 3

page 3 of 19

land. Although the suit property and the school were separated by a road, PW1 mentioned that the 1st Defendant came to his land in 2022, cut down trees to hide the grave sites located on the suit property. 10. PW2- Daniel Felix Onyango, Land Surveyor produced his report dated 12 December, 2023. He explained that the alleged survey was not undertaken because the Surveyor did not bring along with him the requisite equipment nor was a joint site visit undertaken on 7 December, 2023 as per the court directives. Nevertheless, he conducted survey on 9 and 10 December, 2023. Upon surveying the existing boundaries on the ground and comparing them with the PDP and surveyor records, PW2 told court that based on his findings, the suit property existed on the ground and but not in size and its boundaries tallied with the PDP and survey plan in terms of shape and area. Further, the demarcated area of Plot. 3731/VIII and Plot 2/516 on ground was 2.2547ha and 14.4286ha respectively. 11. Based on this conclusion, PW2 told the court that his findings were that PDP and the survey records were erroneous. Consequently, he recommended that if proper planning and surveyor was to be done, the ground would accommodate both plots. His recommendation was informed by his personal visit on the ground and the measurements he took. 12. During cross-examination, PW2 stated that he never signed the school visitors’ book on 9th and 10th December, 2023 during the site visit nor did he have any supporting documents to prove that they were granted access by the school. Further, he was unclear if he had signed the visitor’s book or who had granted him authority to enter the school. He acknowledged that given 9th and 10th December ,2023 were a Saturday and Sunday, only him and the Plaintifi were present and involved in preparing his survey report. This was in spite of his acquaintance that the court issued a directive that the county surveyor, parties and their surveyors be present during the survey exercise. Upon being referred to Plot. 3731/VIII and Plot 2/516 allotment letters issued to the Plaintifi and the 1st Defendant, he confirmed that whereas the 1st Defendant letter was verified by the Commissioner, the Plaintifi’s letter was not. 13. PW2 acknowledged that he did not have any documents demonstrating that he worked for Geomatics Services Limited yet he had signed the surveyor’s report on behalf of John D. Obel. 14. Upon being re-examined, PW2 restated that he undertook field work and signed the surveyor’s report on behalf of Mr. Obel who had passed away the preceding year. When he was shown the approved PDP, he stated that as at the time it was prepared, he was uncertain if K. Omotil was working for the government at the time or as a licensed surveyor. According to him, the PDP is not a survey document but a proposal. 15. PW3- Joshua Lemaika, Kajiado County Government County Surveyor, commenced his testimony by producing his report dated 20th September,2023 filed on 16 February, 2024 in respect of Plot 2/516. He stated that the authenticated and approved survey plan F.R. 410/190 as used to issue the lease certificate for the school and was obtained from the Director of survey. Further, the PDP annexed to his report was in conformity with the ground even though the 15 meters’ public road passing through Plot 2/516 was not shown on the map nor demarcated. When he was asked why he had not prepared any sketch plan, he responded that had conducted a site visit and F.R. 410/190 had all the dimensions. 16. Based on his observation, the school’s allotment letter was verified by the Commissioner of Lands whereas that in favor of the Plaintifi did not go through the Director of Land Administration because it was not certified. In addition, the reference number in the schools’ allotment letter conformed with the PDP while that issued to the Plaintifi did not. PW3 explained that before devolved systems of governments were established, the Department of Physical Planning, Ministry of Land prepared PDPs under the directions of the then local authorities. In addition, he never needed to conduct another survey because the school’s lease certificate was in conformity with the approved F.R. No. 40.190 and https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4835/eng@2026-07-20 4

page 4 of 19

its entire beacons were identified. According to him, the school had not encroached into any other parcel. 17. During cross-examination, he testified that when he obtained a letter from the Director of Survey, he established that the unsurveyed and non-existence suit parcel on the ground was within Plot 2/516. Defendants’ evidence 18. DW1-Abrahim Nduati Njoroge, Chairperson of the Board of Management Oloolaiser Secondary School began his testimony by adopting his witness statement and producing the documents on the 1st Defendant’s list and supplementary bundle of documents dated 27 April, 2022 and 28 February, 2025 respectively. 19. When he was cross-examined, be stated that before becoming the chairperson of the 1st Defendant in 2019, he previously served as its board member from 2016. Before then, he was not involved in the school’s governance and management afiairs. He further stated that the size of Plot 2/516 allocated to the school through an allotment letter dated 22 October 2001 was 15.86ha whereas that indicated in its lease certificate issued on 13 February2003 was 15.67ha. Upon being questioned farther, he stated that he did not have any minutes from Olkejuado county council showing Plot 2/516 was allocated to the school neither would he ofier any explanations why it took 2 years for the school to be issued with a lease certificate after issuance of its allotment letter. 20. DW1 maintained that he was familiar with the school's geographical position, was present at the time the surveyor visited the school but was not issued with any documents when the survey exercise was completed. He also confirmed that a public road separated the school and the disputed property. According to him, the disputed property, claimed by the Plaintifi and which formed part of the school, did not have any structures. Submissions Plaintifi submissions 21. In compliance with the directions by the court, the Plaintifi’s counsel filed submissions dated 23rd April, 2026. Submitting on whether the Plaintifi is the lawful allottee and beneficial owner of the suit property, he submitted that the allotment letter issued in 1998 has never been cancelled nor challenged as established in PW3’s testimony who stated that neither the Commissioner of Lands nor the Chief Land Registrar had issued any communication disputing his ownership rights over it. Additionally, the Kajiado County Government’s Letter dated 20 March, 2025 addressed to the Director of Lands Administration showed that he consistently paid its rates. To support these arguments, reference was made to Wreck Motors Enterprises v Commissioner of Lands & Other C.A.71(1997) eKLR; Benja Properties Limited v Syedna Mohammed Burhannudin Sahed & 4 Others (2015) KLR; Muchira v Njonge & Another 2025 KEELC 1171 (KLR) and Kipsirgoi Investments Ltd v Kenya Anti-corruption Commissions (2010) eKLR. The court was implored to make a finding that the Plaintifi’s allotment letter took precedence because it was issued first based on the holding in Gitwany Investment Ltd v Tajmal Ltd & 3 Others (2006) eKLR 22. According to the Plaintifi submissions, Plot. 3731/VIII and Plot 2/516 are distinct and separate parcels physically separated by a 15-meters’ public road whose existence was confirmed by the county surveyor and the 1st Defendant’s Chairperson. Wilson Kazungu Katana & 101 Others v Salim Abdalla Bakshwein & Another (2015) eKLR is cited to argue that boundary determination is based on survey records and physical features on ground. Features like roads are critical land boundaries indicators. On the issue whether the 1st Defendant encroached and trespassed upon the suit property by obtaining its https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4835/eng@2026-07-20 5

page 5 of 19

possession through continuous occupation since 2001 at the exclusion of the Plaintifi, it was submitted that DW3 recognized that the disputed area situated at the lower end of the 1st Defendant’s school was undeveloped and used for agricultural purposes and that the Plaintifi asserted its ownership through formal communication to the 1st Defendant in 2017. Additionally, the Plaintifi paid the suit property’s rates. Considering trespass is actionable per se once its established, the court has been urged to make a finding that continuous occupation of the suit property by the 1st Defendant without any lawful justification amounts to trespass based on the findings of Park Towers Ltd v John Mithamo Njika & 7 Others (2014) eKLR and Philip Aluchio v Crispinus Ngayo (2014) eKLR 23. According to the Plaintifis submissions, what occasioned double allocation were administration irregularities. Further, the Kajiado County Surveyor’s report dated 16 February, 2025 is unreliable because PW3 acknowledged that it was based on his opinions and unidentified reports rather than scientific survey. It was pointed out that he had not carried survey instruments to the site neither resurveyed the parcels nor fixed the beacons as per the court’s directives. However, the Plaintifi detailed survey report dated 12 December, 2023 established that the Defendants’ Planning and survey documents were inaccurate and were not refiective of the ground position. Further that both plots could be accommodated if proper planning and surveying was undertaken. 24. Premised on the foregoing arguments, the Plaintifi submitted that he is entitled to the reliefs sought because his case has been proven based on Sections 107 to 109 of the Evidence Act (Cap. 80). 1st Defendant submissions 25. Through submissions dated 5 May 2026, filed by Solonka & Solonka Advocates on behalf of the 1st Defendant, Counsel raised two key issues for determination. That is; Whether the Plaintifi has proved the existence and authenticity of his alleged letter of allotment for Plot No. 3731/VIII dated 12 May 1998; and Whether the Plaintifis alleged Plot No. 3731/VIII exists within LR No. Ngong Township/ Block 2/516 or at all. 26. Counsel submits that the Plaintifi did not prove the existence and authenticity of his allotment letter because it was internally inconsistent and unsupported by oficial records. Considering the Plaintifi case rests squarely on the allotment letter, he was obligated to prove on a balance of probabilities that the letter existed within oficial government records; was lawfully issued by a competent authority; corresponded with the PDP; conferred valid and enforceable valid interest in land, was internally consistent, capable of verification, regularly issued and authentic with proper title. 27. It is argued that the Director of Survey’s letter dated 20 March, 2018 addressed to the Director of Land Administration, Ministry of Land and Physical Planning is misplaced and unreliable because it was done at the Plaintifi’s request in his quest for clarity on the existence of double allocation. Additionally, it cannot be construed as proof of title. It was further pointed out that the Plaintifi failed to call any relevant oficials to prove double allocation. 28. Counsel argues that based on PW3’s testimony, the Plaintifi’s allotment letter could not be verified from the Kajiado County Government, (the successor in title of the defunct local authority). It further did not correspond with his purported PDP and the inconsistent reference numbers were not aligned with Kajiado County Land records. Additionally, no witnesses were called from the Ministry of lands to verify and confirm when the allotment letter was made. 29. Regarding the second issue, it is submitted that the reasons why parties agreed to have the county surveyor compare the two plots acreage, positions on the ground and make a determination on whether the suit property lay within Plot 2/516 through a consent dated 20 September, 2023 was to have an independent, impartial and professional survey resolve the dispute. Based on the county surveyor’s https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4835/eng@2026-07-20 6

page 6 of 19

report dated 16 February, 2024 done in the presence of all parties and their counsel using existing survey records and beacons position, it was submitted that PW3 attested as follows. The entire Plot 2/516 belonged to the 1st Defendant. The Plot. 3731/VIII claimed by the Plaintifi was unidentifiable within the surveyed land. Additionally, PW3 equally testified that the survey remained intact, land on both sides of the public road belonged to the 1st Defendant, the identified beacons on the ground corresponded with the survey plan while the suit property fell within the fixed, known and indisputable boundaries and 1st Defendant boundaries which were fixed, known and indisputable while those of Plot 3731/VIII were not 30. According to counsel, the school uses portions of the suit property as a home-science field for students, has authorized communities to drill boreholes and the Plaintifi has never possessed nor developed it. It is argued that a private surveyor cannot impeach an oficial report because it is unquestionable and reliable. It was further submitted that PW2 could not satisfactorily explain how he accessed the school compound without permission despite his admission that he conducted the survey on a weekend in absence of the 1st Defendant and its representatives. 31. While making its findings, the court has been implored to exercise caution before acting on ‘expert evidence’ unless it is demonstrated that his is independent, objective, unbiased, trustworthy, and strictly within his field of expertise. Based on these factors, counsel argues that PW2’s report does not meet the threshold of credible expert evidence because it is unreliable, not transparent, conducted in secret; in the 1st Defendants absence and it is anchored on unverified documents and anchored on unverifiable or proven factual substratum. In contrast, the county surveyor’s report meet the legal threshold of reliable expert evidence because it is independent, objective, professionally verified, grounded in oficial records and statutory data and was done in presence of all the parties. 32. Additionally, being the oficial and statutory custodian of survey records of the defunct Olkejuado County Council, the county surveyor is uniquely placed to verify the existence or non-existence of a plot, authenticity of survey documents, and the correctness of boundaries because he has access to the Registry Index Map, the survey plans, the beacon certificates, the field books, and all other oficial documentation. In the current circumstances it is argued that the principle of first in time which has been invoked by the Plaintifi to advance his interests over the suit property cannot apply in the current circumstances because his allotment letter is not found on any oficial record. Further, the principle is only applicable where there are two valid regularly issued allotments of unalienated government land. 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants’ submissions 33. On behalf of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants, the Attorney General’s representative filed submissions dated 11 May, 2026 which raised the issue whether the Plaintifi had proven his case to the required standard and if he is entitled to the orders sought. It is submitted that the Plaintifi did not ofier any explanation regarding what caused the inordinate delay in filing his suit in the year 2022 yet he alleged that the 1st Defendant encroached it in 2001 and afterwards acquired its title in 2003. Additionally, he never ofiered any evidence demonstrating the suit property had several grave sites of his ancestors as alleged. 34. Counsel argue that the Kajiado County Surveyor’s report dated 16 February, 2024 filed pursuant to this court’s directive touching on the suit property’s actual acreage shows that the PDP presented by the Plaintifi is questionable because it is not available in the Kajiado County Government’s records. Further, its reference number does not match with those of the Kajiado County Government. 35. Osodo & 3 Others v Kongo & 3 Others (2025) KEELC 18518(KLR) is cited to advance the arguments that considering the county surveyor’s report was sanctioned through this court’s directive, it is more https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4835/eng@2026-07-20 7

page 7 of 19

accurate, unbiased, reliable and authoritative compared to the Plaintifi’s private surveyor’s report whose generation and procurement had a direct interest in the outcome of the case. Accordingly, the private surveyor’s report ought to be disregarded because the survey was conducted solely by the Plaintifi and his surveyor in the absence of the 1st Defendant. It is maintained that the sanctity of the 1st Defendant’s lease certificate is protected Section 26 of the Land Registration Act because the Plaintifi has not proven that it was acquired either through fraud, a corrupt scheme and or unprocedural means. Thus, the Plaintifi’s suit ought to be dismissed with costs because he is not deserving of the orders sought against the Defendants. Issues of Determination 36. Having carefully examined the pleadings, the evidence, and the parties' submissions, this court identifies the issues for determination as follows: a. Whether the Plaintifi has established a lawful and enforceable proprietary interest in Plot No. 3731/VIII Residential Plot–Ngong Township capable of protection by this Court. b. Whether Plot No. 3731/VIII Residential Plot–Ngong Township exists as a distinct parcel on the ground and in the oficial land and survey records, or whether it falls within Ngong Township/Block 2/516 registered in the name of the 1st Defendant. c. Whether the allocation and subsequent registration of Ngong Township/Block 2/516 in favour of the 1st Defendant was lawful, regular and indefeasible, or whether it was tainted by double allocation, fraud, illegality, mistake or procedural impropriety. d. Whether the Plaintifi has proved that the 1st Defendant unlawfully encroached upon or trespassed onto Plot No. 3731/VIII Residential Plot–Ngong Township. e. Whether the expert evidence presented by the Plaintifi's private surveyor or that of the County Surveyor should be preferred in resolving the dispute regarding the identity, location and boundaries of the disputed land. f. Whether the Plaintifi has discharged the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities and is entitled to the declaratory, injunctive, rectification, damages and other reliefs sought in the Plaint. Analysis and Determination Whether the Plaintifi has established a lawful and enforceable proprietary interest in Plot No. 3731/ VIII Residential Plot–Ngong Township capable of protection by this Court 37. The foundation of the Plaintifi's case is that he is the lawful allottee and beneficial owner of Plot No. 3731/VIII Residential Plot–Ngong Township by virtue of a Letter of Allotment dated 12 May 1998 issued by the Commissioner of Lands. He contends that the allotment has never been revoked or cancelled and that he accepted its terms by paying the requisite stand premium and land rates. He therefore maintains that the allotment conferred upon him proprietary rights which are entitled to protection notwithstanding that he was never issued with a certificate of lease. The Defendants dispute that assertion. Their position is that the Plaintifi's allotment letter has never been authenticated by the relevant land authorities, is inconsistent with oficial records, does not correspond with an approved Part Development Plan (PDP), and consequently did not confer any recognizable interest in land. 38. The starting point is to determine the legal status of a letter of allotment within Kenya's land tenure system. It is settled that a letter of allotment does not, by itself, constitute title to land. It is an ofier made https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4835/eng@2026-07-20 8

page 8 of 19

by the Government to allocate unalienated public land, which matures into an enforceable interest only upon fulfilment of its terms and compliance with the applicable legal framework. Where those conditions are met, the allottee acquires an equitable interest capable of protection pending issuance of a formal title. 39. The Court of Appeal in Wreck Motors Enterprises v Commissioner of Lands & 3 Others, Civil Appeal No. 71 of 1997 stated: “ Once an allotment letter is issued and the allottee meets the conditions therein, the land in question is no longer available for allotment to any other person unless the allotment is lawfully cancelled." 40. The same principle was reafirmed by the Court of Appeal in Benja Properties Limited v Syedna Mohammed Burhannudin Sahed & 4 Others [2015] eKLR, where the Court held: “ A letter of allotment confers an interest in land capable of protection provided the allottee complies with the conditions contained therein and the allotment has not been lawfully revoked." 41. These authorities establish that the evidential burden rests upon the allottee to demonstrate not only the existence of the allotment letter but also compliance with its conditions and the authenticity of the allocation process. 42. The burden of proving those facts rests upon the Plaintifi by virtue of Sections 107 and 109 of the Evidence Act, Cap. 80. 43. Section 107(1) provides: “ Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist." 44. Section 109 further provides: “ The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on the person who wishes the court to believe in its existence unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person." 45. The Plaintifi therefore bore the burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the allotment letter was lawfully issued, remained valid and vested in him a proprietary interest capable of protection by this Court. 46. The Plaintifi produced a Letter of Allotment dated 12 May 1998 in his name together with receipts showing payment of stand premium and correspondence from the County Government relating to payment of land rates. He also produced an oficial search indicating his interest over Plot No. 3731/VIII. He submitted that these documents demonstrate continuous assertion of ownership and acceptance of the allotment. 47. The Court has considered that evidence alongside the oral testimony. 48. PW1 acknowledged during cross-examination that he has never been issued with a certificate of lease over the suit property. He further admitted that the allotment letter described the property as a residential plot whereas the oficial search classified it as a market plot. He also conceded that the ofier contained in the allotment letter required acceptance within thirty days, yet no evidence was https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4835/eng@2026-07-20 9

page 9 of 19

produced demonstrating that all the conditions stipulated in the allotment letter were satisfied within that period. Although receipts for certain payments were produced, no rent clearance certificate or other documentation demonstrating full compliance with the allotment conditions was tendered. 49. More significant is the evidence tendered by PW3, the County Surveyor. 50. PW3 testified that upon examining the oficial records maintained by the County Government, the Plaintifi's allotment letter could not be authenticated. According to him, unlike the allotment issued to the 1st Defendant, the Plaintifi's allotment letter did not bear certification by the Commissioner of Lands or the Director of Land Administration. He further stated that the reference number appearing on the Plaintifi's allotment did not correspond with the oficial planning records maintained by the County Government. In addition, he testified that the PDP relied upon by the Plaintifi was not traceable in the oficial records. 51. The Court notes that PW3 was called as the County Surveyor, an oficer charged with custody and maintenance of survey records within the County Government of Kajiado. His evidence concerning the absence of corresponding oficial records was not displaced by documentary evidence from the Ministry of Lands, the Director of Physical Planning or the ofice of the Commissioner of Lands. 52. The Plaintifi did not call any oficer from those ofices to authenticate the allotment letter or to explain the discrepancies identified by PW3. 53. The Plaintifi relied on the fact that the allotment letter has never been cancelled. While it is correct that there is no evidence of formal revocation or cancellation, the absence of cancellation does not relieve the Plaintifi of the obligation to prove that the allotment was lawfully issued in the first instance. An allotment letter whose authenticity cannot be verified from oficial records cannot be elevated to the status of conclusive proof of a proprietary interest merely because no revocation has been produced. 54. The Court has also considered the evidence relating to possession. The Plaintifi asserted that his family occupied the land and that ancestral graves exist thereon. However, he admitted that he has never resided on the suit property. No independent evidence was produced to establish continuous occupation. Although photographs were produced, they did not clearly depict the alleged graves. PW3 equally testified that no graves were observed during the oficial site visit. 55. The Court therefore finds that the evidence of possession was inconclusive and incapable of strengthening the Plaintifi's claim to ownership. 56. The Plaintifi also relied upon payment of land rates. Payment of rates may constitute evidence of an assertion of ownership, but it is not proof of title. It cannot cure deficiencies relating to the legality or authenticity of an allotment. 57. As was observed by the Court in African Line Transport Co. Ltd v The Hon. Attorney General, Mombasa HCCC No. 276 of 2013 [2014] eKLR: “ Payment of rates and rents does not confer ownership of land where none exists in law." 58. The Court must also bear in mind that the dispute before it concerns competing claims founded upon difierent instruments of title. Before the Plaintifi can impeach the title held by the 1st Defendant, he must first establish the legal validity of his own claim. 59. Having considered the evidence in its entirety, the Court is not satisfied that the Plaintifi discharged the burden imposed upon him under Sections 107 and 109 of the Evidence Act. Although he produced a letter of allotment and evidence of certain payments, material inconsistencies emerged regarding the https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4835/eng@2026-07-20 10

page 10 of 19

authenticity of that allotment, its correspondence with oficial planning records, and its verification by the relevant land administration authorities. Those inconsistencies were not satisfactorily explained through evidence from the custodians of the relevant public records. 60. The Court therefore finds that the Plaintifi has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that he acquired a lawful and enforceable proprietary interest in Plot No. 3731/VIII Residential Plot–Ngong Township capable of protection by this Court. b. Whether Plot No. 3731/VIII Residential Plot–Ngong Township exists as a distinct parcel on the ground and in the oficial land and survey records, or whether it falls within Ngong Township/Block 2/516 registered in the name of the 1st Defendant 61. The determination of this issue turns on the evidence regarding the identity, location and existence of the Plaintifi's alleged parcel vis-à-vis the parcel registered in the name of the 1st Defendant. It also requires the Court to evaluate the competing survey evidence placed before it. 62. The Plaintifi's case is that Plot No. 3731/VIII is a distinct parcel measuring approximately 1.3 hectares which exists separately from Ngong Township/Block 2/516. According to him, the two parcels are separated by a public road and the dispute arose because the 1st Defendant obtained a lease over land that included his allotted parcel. He relied principally on the report prepared by PW2, a private surveyor, who concluded that both parcels could coexist if planning and survey records were corrected. 63. The Defendants dispute that position. They maintain that the Plaintifi's parcel does not exist within the oficial survey records and that the land claimed by the Plaintifi falls wholly within Ngong Township/Block 2/516, whose boundaries were established upon survey and registration. 64. The Court has considered the expert evidence tendered by PW2 and PW3. 65. PW2 produced a report dated 12 December 2023. His conclusion was that Plot No. 3731/VIII existed on the ground in terms of shape although not in size, and that inaccuracies existed in the planning and survey records. He recommended that both parcels could be accommodated through proper planning and survey. 66. The evidential weight of that report must however be assessed against the circumstances under which it was prepared. 67. PW2 admitted during cross-examination that the survey directed by the Court was not undertaken jointly with the County Surveyor as initially ordered. He further acknowledged that he conducted the exercise on 9 and 10 December 2023, being a Saturday and Sunday, and that only he and the Plaintifi participated. He could not demonstrate that he obtained access to the school lawfully or that representatives of the Defendants were present during the exercise. He also admitted that he signed the report on behalf of another surveyor and did not produce documentary evidence establishing his authority to do so. 68. These admissions afiect the evidential value of his report. 69. Expert evidence derives its weight not merely from the qualifications of the expert but from the objectivity of the methodology employed and the factual foundation upon which the opinion rests. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4835/eng@2026-07-20 11

page 11 of 19

70. The Court of Appeal in Stephen Kinini Wang'ondu v The Ark Limited [2016] eKLR observed that: “ Expert evidence is intended to provide the court with scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the court to form its own independent judgment by applying those criteria to the facts proved in evidence." 71. The Court further stated: “ Like all other evidence, expert evidence must be given only such weight as the court deems appropriate after considering all the circumstances." 72. The Court is therefore not bound to accept expert opinion merely because it is presented by a qualified expert. 73. Against PW2's report is the evidence of PW3, the County Surveyor, who prepared his report pursuant to the directions of this Court. 74. PW3 testified that he relied on the authenticated survey records maintained by the Director of Survey, including Field Records (F.R.) No. 410/190 from which Ngong Township/Block 2/516 was surveyed and registered. According to him, all the beacons for Plot No. 2/516 were identifiable on the ground and corresponded with the oficial survey plan. 75. He further testified that the Plaintifi's alleged Plot No. 3731/VIII could not be identified within the oficial survey records. The Part Development Plan relied upon by the Plaintifi was not traceable in the County records, and its reference numbers did not correspond with the oficial planning records. 76. PW3 also testified that following correspondence with the Director of Surveys, it was established that the unsurveyed parcel claimed by the Plaintifi fell within Plot No. 2/516. 77. The Court attaches considerable weight to this evidence. 78. First, PW3 testified in his oficial capacity as County Surveyor, a public oficer charged with custody of survey records relating to the area in dispute. 79. Secondly, his conclusions were anchored on authenticated survey records maintained by the Director of Surveys rather than solely on physical observations. 80. Thirdly, his evidence remained substantially consistent during cross-examination. 81. The Plaintifi criticized PW3's report on the ground that no fresh survey was undertaken. That criticism overlooks the purpose for which PW3 testified. 82. PW3 explained that where surveyed land already exists, the surveyor's task is verification rather than resurvey. His role was therefore to compare the existing survey records with the position on the ground and identify whether the registered parcel corresponded with the oficial plans. 83. That explanation is consistent with the statutory functions of the Director of Surveys under the Survey Act, Cap. 299. 84. Section 32(1) of the Survey Act provides: “ Every survey shall be carried out in accordance with this Act and any regulations made thereunder." https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4835/eng@2026-07-20 12

page 12 of 19

85. The integrity of cadastral records depends upon adherence to oficial survey plans and authenticated field records. 86. The Court also finds it significant that even the Plaintifi acknowledged that the two parcels are separated by a public road. DW1 equally confirmed the existence of that road. 87. However, the existence of a road does not, without more, establish the existence of the Plaintifi's alleged parcel as an independent surveyed parcel. Boundaries in registered land are determined by authenticated survey records and not merely by physical features. 88. In Wilson Kazungu Katana & 101 Others v Salim Abdalla Bakshwein & Another [2015] eKLR, the Court observed: “ The determination of boundaries is primarily a technical exercise guided by survey records, registry maps and physical features existing on the ground." 89. Applying that principle, the Court finds that the physical existence of a road cannot override authenticated survey records showing the extent of registered land. 90. Having considered the evidence as a whole, the Court is persuaded that the Plaintifi failed to establish that Plot No. 3731/VIII exists as a distinct surveyed parcel capable of identification within the oficial land records. The evidence of the County Surveyor, supported by oficial survey plans and authenticated records, outweighs the opinion contained in the Plaintifi's private survey report. 91. The Court therefore finds that the Plaintifi has not proved that Plot No. 3731/VIII exists as a distinct parcel separate from Ngong Township/Block 2/516. Whether the allocation and subsequent registration of Ngong Township/Block 2/516 in favour of the 1st Defendant was lawful, regular and indefeasible, or whether it was tainted by double allocation, fraud, illegality, mistake or procedural impropriety 92. The Plaintifi alleges that the 1st Defendant procured registration of Ngong Township/Block 2/516 through double allocation of land that had already been allotted to him. He contends that the lease issued to the 1st Defendant should therefore be cancelled. 93. The 1st Defendant maintains that it was lawfully allocated the land by the defunct Olkejuado County Council, complied with all allocation procedures and was thereafter issued with a Certificate of Lease on 13 February 2003. It denies any fraud or illegality. 94. The law relating to registered title is settled. 95. Section 24(a) of the Land Registration Act provides: “ Subject to this Act - (a) the registration of a person as the proprietor of land shall vest in that person the absolute ownership of that land together with all rights and privileges belonging or appurtenant thereto." 96. Section 25(1) further provides: “ The rights of a proprietor, whether acquired on first registration or subsequently for valuable consideration or by an order of court, shall not be liable to be defeated except as provided in this Act." https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4835/eng@2026-07-20 13

page 13 of 19

97. The circumstances under which a registered title may be challenged are set out under Section 26(1) of the Act, which provides: “ The certificate of title issued by the Registrar upon registration, or to a purchaser of land upon a transfer or transmission by the proprietor shall be taken by all courts as prima facie evidence that the person named as proprietor of the land is the absolute and indefeasible owner... and the title of that proprietor shall not be subject to challenge, except—(a) on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation to which the person is proved to be a party; or (b) where the certificate of title has been acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme." 98. The burden of proving fraud or illegality rests upon the party alleging it. 99. The Court of Appeal in Arthi Highway Developers Limited v West End Butchery Limited & 6 Others [2015] eKLR stated: “ Allegations of fraud are serious allegations. They must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. The standard of proof is higher than a balance of probabilities but lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt." 100. Similarly, in Kinyanjui Kamau v George Kamau [2015] eKLR, the Court of Appeal held: “ It is well established that fraud must be specifically pleaded and that particulars of fraud alleged must be stated on the face of the pleadings. The acts alleged to be fraudulent must of course be set out, and then it should be stated that these acts were done fraudulently. It is also settled law that fraudulent conduct must be distinctly alleged and distinctly proved." 101. The Plaintifi pleaded that the Defendants caused his parcel to be amalgamated with that of the 1st Defendant through fraud and collusion. 102. The Court has examined the evidence in support of those allegations. 103. No oficer from the Ministry of Lands, the Director of Physical Planning, the Director of Surveys or the Land Registrar testified that the registration of the 1st Defendant's lease resulted from fraud, manipulation of records or unlawful conduct. 104. The Plaintifi also did not produce documentary evidence showing cancellation or alteration of oficial survey records in favour of the 1st Defendant. 105. Conversely, PW3 testified that the 1st Defendant's allotment letter was verified, corresponded with an authenticated PDP and culminated in a surveyed parcel supported by F.R. No. 410/190. The lease certificate issued to the 1st Defendant was therefore supported by oficial planning and survey records. 106. Although DW1 acknowledged that he had no minutes of the former County Council allocating the land to the school, that omission alone cannot invalidate an existing registered lease supported by oficial land records. 107. The Plaintifi also invoked the doctrine of prior allocation, arguing that because his allotment letter preceded that of the 1st Defendant, his claim must prevail. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4835/eng@2026-07-20 14

page 14 of 19

108. The principle that the first lawful allotment takes priority was stated in Gitwany Investment Ltd v Tajmal Ltd & 3 Others [2006] eKLR, where the Court held: “ Where two titles are issued over the same property, the first in time prevails provided it was lawfully obtained." 109. That principle presupposes the existence of two valid competing allocations over the same parcel. 110. Having found under Issues 1 and 2 that the Plaintifi failed to establish the authenticity of his allotment and the existence of Plot No. 3731/VIII as an identifiable parcel within the oficial survey records, the factual foundation necessary for invoking the doctrine of first allocation has not been established. 111. The Court therefore finds that the Plaintifi has not proved that the registration of Ngong Township/ Block 2/516 in favour of the 1st Defendant was procured through fraud, illegality, procedural impropriety or double allocation. 112. In the absence of proof satisfying the threshold prescribed under Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act, the Court has no legal basis upon which to impeach the 1st Defendant's certificate of lease. Whether the Plaintifi has proved that the 1st Defendant unlawfully encroached upon or trespassed onto Plot No. 3731/VIII Residential Plot–Ngong Township 113. The Plaintifi seeks general damages for trespass together with permanent and mandatory injunctive reliefs on the basis that the 1st Defendant unlawfully entered, occupied and interfered with Plot No. 3731/VIII. He contends that the 1st Defendant crossed into his land in the year 2001, obtained a lease over it in 2003 and has since remained in occupation to his exclusion. He further testified that in the year 2022 the 1st Defendant entered the land and cut down trees in an attempt to conceal ancestral graves situated thereon. 114. The 1st Defendant denies those allegations. It maintains that it has at all material times occupied Ngong Township/Block 2/516, the parcel lawfully allocated and registered in its name, and that it has never entered upon any land belonging to the Plaintifi. 115. The tort of trespass to land protects the possessory rights of a person entitled to immediate possession of land. Liability arises where there is an unjustifiable intrusion upon land in the possession of another. 116. In Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, 21st Edition, paragraph 19-01, the learned authors state: “ Trespass to land consists in any unjustifiable intrusion by one person upon land in the possession of another." 117. The Court in Park Towers Limited v John Mithamo Njika & 7 Others [2014] eKLR adopted that principle and stated: “ Trespass is an intrusion by a person into the land in the possession of another without any lawful justification. Once trespass is proved, it is actionable per se." 118. Similarly, in Philip Aluchio v Crispinus Ngayo [2014] eKLR, the Court held: “ Trespass is proved where a person enters upon land in the possession of another without lawful authority or remains thereon after such authority has expired." https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4835/eng@2026-07-20 15

page 15 of 19

119. These authorities establish that before a claim for trespass can succeed, the claimant must first establish a superior right to possession over the land alleged to have been trespassed upon. 120. The burden of establishing those facts rests upon the Plaintifi under Sections 107 and 109 of the Evidence Act. 121. In determining this issue, the Court must consider its findings on the preceding issues. 122. The Court has already found that the Plaintifi failed to establish a lawful proprietary interest capable of protection over Plot No. 3731/VIII. The Court has further found that the Plaintifi failed to prove that Plot No. 3731/VIII exists as a distinct surveyed parcel separate from Ngong Township/Block 2/516. 123. Those findings have a direct bearing upon the claim for trespass. 124. Where the identity of the land alleged to have been trespassed upon has not been established, the Court cannot conclude that another party unlawfully entered or occupied it. Trespass presupposes the existence of identifiable land over which the claimant enjoys possessory rights. 125. The Plaintifi testified that his family occasionally visited the land and that ten ancestral graves existed thereon. He further alleged that the 1st Defendant cut down trees to conceal those graves. 126. That evidence was not corroborated. 127. PW1 admitted during cross-examination that he had never resided on the suit property. Although photographs were produced, they did not clearly depict the alleged graves. PW3 testified that no graves were observed during the oficial site inspection. No witness from the Plaintifi's family or the local administration testified to confirm the alleged existence of the graves or acts of destruction attributed to the 1st Defendant. 128. The Court therefore finds that those allegations remained unsubstantiated. 129. The Plaintifi also relied on payment of rates as evidence of occupation and ownership. As already observed, payment of rates may demonstrate an assertion of ownership but does not establish possession nor constitute proof that another person has trespassed upon the land. 130. On the other hand, the evidence presented by the Defendants demonstrated that the 1st Defendant has remained in occupation of land comprised in Ngong Township/Block 2/516 pursuant to a registered lease. DW1 testified that the school has developed and utilized portions of the land for educational purposes. That evidence was supported by the oficial survey records produced through PW3. 131. The Plaintifi did not produce evidence demonstrating that the 1st Defendant had crossed beyond the surveyed boundaries of Plot No. 2/516. 132. The Court has also considered the Plaintifi's allegation that the Defendants' occupation resulted from double allocation. Having found that the alleged double allocation was not established, there remains no factual or legal basis upon which the occupation by the 1st Defendant can be characterized as unlawful. 133. The Court therefore finds and holds that the Plaintifi has failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the 1st Defendant unlawfully entered, occupied or interfered with land belonging to him. 134. It follows that the Plaintifi is not entitled to general damages for trespass or to the permanent and mandatory injunctions sought on that basis. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4835/eng@2026-07-20 16

page 16 of 19

Whether the Plaintifi has discharged the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities and is entitled to the declaratory, injunctive, rectification, damages and other reliefs sought in the Plaint 135. The final issue concerns whether, having regard to the pleadings, evidence and applicable law, the Plaintifi has proved his case to the required standard and is consequently entitled to the reliefs sought. 136. The applicable standard of proof in civil proceedings is proof on a balance of probabilities. 137. In Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372, Lord Denning explained the standard in the following terms: “ That degree is well settled. It must carry a reasonable degree of probability, but not so high as is required in a criminal case. If the evidence is such that the tribunal can say: 'We think it more probable than not,' the burden is discharged, but if the probabilities are equal, it is not." 138. That principle has consistently been applied by Kenyan courts. 139. The burden of proof remains with the Plaintifi throughout the proceedings by virtue of Sections 107 to 109 of the Evidence Act. 140. Having analyzed the evidence under the preceding issues, the Court has reached the following conclusions. 141. First, the Plaintifi failed to establish that he acquired a lawful proprietary interest over Plot No. 3731/ VIII capable of protection by this Court. 142. Secondly, he failed to establish that Plot No. 3731/VIII exists as a distinct parcel identifiable within the oficial survey and land record. 143. Thirdly, the evidence before the Court did not establish that the allocation and registration of Ngong Township/Block 2/516 in favour of the 1st Defendant resulted from fraud, illegality, procedural impropriety or double allocation. 144. Fourthly, the Plaintifi failed to prove that the 1st Defendant trespassed upon land belonging to him. 145. The Court has also considered the specific remedies sought. 146. The prayer for a declaration that the Plaintifi is the indefeasible owner of the suit property cannot issue because the Plaintifi has failed to establish the legal basis upon which such ownership may be declared. 147. The prayer for cancellation of the 1st Defendant's lease equally cannot succeed. Cancellation of a registered title is governed by Section 80 of the Land Registration Act. 148. Section 80(1) provides: “ 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." 149. The Court has found that fraud, illegality and mistake were not proved. 150. Likewise, the prayer directing the Director of Surveys to conduct a resurvey and re-establish boundaries lacks legal foundation. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4835/eng@2026-07-20 17

page 17 of 19

151. The evidence of the County Surveyor demonstrates that the oficial survey records adequately identify the boundaries of Ngong Township/Block 2/516. The Court has accepted that evidence. There is therefore no basis for directing a fresh survey merely because the Plaintifi disputes the outcome of the oficial records. 152. The prayers seeking permanent and mandatory injunctions are equitable remedies. 153. The principles governing the grant of permanent injunctions were summarized by the Court of Appeal in Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others [2014] eKLR, where the Court stated: “ A permanent injunction will issue where the claimant has established a legal right which has been infringed or is threatened with infringement." 154. Having failed to establish the existence of a legal right over the disputed land, the Plaintifi cannot obtain the equitable reliefs sought. 155. The claim for general damages for trespass must also fail because trespass was not proved. 156. The Court appreciates that the Plaintifi believes that land historically associated with his family has been lost through administrative processes. However, judicial determination must be anchored upon evidence and the applicable law. Sympathy cannot substitute proof, nor can the Court invalidate a registered title in the absence of evidence satisfying the threshold prescribed by the Land Registration Act. 157. The Court therefore finds that the Plaintifi has failed to prove his case on a balance of probabilities. 158. Accordingly, the Plaintifi is not entitled to the declaratory orders, permanent injunctions, mandatory injunctions, rectification orders, damages or any of the substantive reliefs sought in the Plaint. Who should bear the costs of the suit 159. The final issue concerns liability for costs. 160. The jurisdiction of the Court to award costs is donated by Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21, which provides: “ Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, and to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, the costs of and incidental to all suits shall be in the discretion of the court or judge, and the court or judge shall have full power to determine by whom and out of what property and to what extent such costs are to be paid, and to give all necessary directions for the purposes aforesaid; and the fact that the court or judge has no jurisdiction to try the suit shall be no bar to the exercise of those powers: Provided that the costs of any action, cause or other matter or issue shall follow the event unless the court or judge shall for good reason otherwise order." 161. The provision establishes two principles. First, the award of costs lies within the discretion of the Court. Secondly, that discretion must be exercised judicially, the general rule being that costs follow the event unless there exists suficient reason to depart from that principle. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4835/eng@2026-07-20 18

page 18 of 19

162. The Supreme Court considered the scope of this discretion in Jasbir Singh Rai & 3 Others v Tarlochan Singh Rai & 4 Others [2014] eKLR, where it held: “ It emerges that the award of costs would normally be guided by the principle that 'costs follow the event': the efiect being that the party who calls forth the event by instituting suit, will bear the costs if the suit fails; but if this party shows legitimate occasion, by successful suit, then the defendant or respondent will bear the costs. However, the vital factor in setting the preference is the judiciously exercised discretion of the Court, accommodating the special circumstances of the case, while being guided by ends of justice." 163. In the present suit, the Plaintifi instituted these proceedings seeking declarations of ownership, cancellation of the 1st Defendant's title, mandatory and permanent injunctions, rectification of land records and damages for trespass. Having considered the pleadings, the evidence and the applicable law, this Court has found that the Plaintifi failed to establish the factual and legal foundation upon which those reliefs could be granted. Consequently, the Defendants have successfully resisted the claim. 164. The Court has nevertheless considered whether there exists any reason to depart from the general rule on costs. 165. The dispute arose from competing claims relating to land allocation and survey records. The Plaintifi produced documents which, on their face, disclosed an allotment in his favour and prompted him to seek judicial intervention. There is therefore no indication that the proceedings were frivolous, vexatious or instituted in bad faith. However, those circumstances alone do not constitute suficient reason for depriving the successful parties of their costs. 166. The Court is satisfied that no exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated to warrant a departure from the general principle that costs follow the event. 167. In light of the foregoing findings, the Court reaches the conclusion that the Plaintifi has failed to prove his case on a balance of probabilities. 168. Accordingly, the Court makes the following orders: a. The Plaintifi's suit is hereby dismissed in its entirety. b. The Plaintifi shall bear the costs of the suit, payable to the Defendants. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KAJIADO VIRTUALLY THIS 20TH DAY OF JULY 2026. M.D. MWANGI JUDGE In the virtual presence of: Mr. Nyairo h/b for Mr. E.K Njagi for the Plaintifi Ms. Njeri h/b for Mr. Solonka for the 1st Defendant Ms. Mwalozi for the 2nd to 4th Defendants Court Assistant: Alex https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4835/eng@2026-07-20 19

page 19 of 19