Kiplagat v Masit

RULING 1. The Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the Applicant”) did file a Notice of Motion dated 12th June, 2026 (hereinafter referred to as “the Present Application”) against the 1st to 7th Defendants (hereinafter referred to as “the Respondents”) seeking for orders that:i) ii) 2. THAT this Application be certified urgent and be set for priority hearing date. THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to Order that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants/ Respondents/Mosop Marichor Women Group of Chepkorio by themselves, their representatives, agents, tenants’ licensees, employees or whoever else whatsoever do give vacant possession to the Plaintiff within ten (10) days of court orders the property namely ELDORET/MUNICIPALITY BLOCK 7/150. iii) THAT in the event of default to give vacant possession within ten (10) days as per Order “2” above then the Plaintiff to enter the parcel using a Court Bailiff. iv) THAT the (OCS) Office Commanding Station, Eldoret Central Police Station, to help in the enforcement of the above Orders. v) THAT the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents/Mosop Marichor Women Group of Chepkorio do pay all costs of the application and for vacant possession. The prayers sought hereinabove are premised on the facts pleaded in the Applicant’s Supporting Affidavit dated 12.06.2025 and can be summarised as follows; - ELC.930 of 2012 RULING 2

page 2 of 14

a) The Applicant herein was declared the lawful owner of the property known as LR.NO.ELDORET MUNICIPALITY BLOCK 7/150 (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”) in a Judgement pronounced on the 08.07.2022. b) So far, the Judgement pronounced by this Court on the 08.07.2022 is still binding and in force as no contrary Orders of Stay have been issued by this Court or any other Court of competent jurisdiction. c) One of the Orders issued by the Court in the Judgement pronounced on the 08.07.2022 was that the 1 st to 3rd Defendants do yield vacant possession of the suit property to the Applicant herein. d) Further to the foregoing, the 1 st to 3rd Respondents were permanently prohibited by way of an injunction from using, occupying, dealing with and/or interfering with the suit property which was the lawful property of the Applicant herein. e) However, despite the clear and express Orders granted in the Judgement pronounced on the 08.07.2022, the 1 st to 3rd Respondents still continue to illegally and unlawfully occupy the suit property without any lawful justification. f) The Applicant therefore seeks the Orders sought hereinabove to enforce the Orders issued in the Judgement pronounced on the 08.07.2022 against the 1st to 3rd Respondents. g) The Applicant further does acknowledge the existence of a Notice of Appeal dated 12.07.2022 against by the Judgement pronounced on the 08.07.2022 filed by the ELC.930 of 2012 RULING 3

page 3 of 14

1st to 3rd Respondents, but no Memorandum of Appeal and/or the substantive Record of Appeal has been filed thereafter. h) In essence, the Applicant was of the view that the 1 st to 3rd Respondents are not interested in pursuing their intended Appeal and the Applicant should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of the Judgement pronounced on the 08.07.2022. i) 3. In conclusion, the Applicant did pray that this Court do grant the prayers sought in the present Applicant including the costs of the same. The present Application was duly served on all the Respondents herein. 4. The 1st to 3rd Respondents did respond to the present Application through a Replying Affidavit dated 16.02.2026 sworn by the 2nd Respondent on behalf of the 1st and 3rd Respondents as well as her own behalf. 5. The 1st to 3rd Respondents did plead the following facts in opposition of the present Application; a) The 2nd Respondent did introduce herself as the Honourable Secretary and Trustee of MOSOP MARICHOR GROUP OF CHEPKORIO. b) The 2nd Respondent did plead that MOSOP MARICHOR GROUP OF CHEPKORIO had an interest in the suit property which had been registered in their names and the title produced in Court. ELC.930 of 2012 RULING 4

page 4 of 14

c) However, the 2nd Respondent did admit being aware of the Judgement pronounced on the 08.07.2022 which did nullify and/or declare their ownership document unlawful. d) Nevertheless, the 1st to 3rd Respondents were not satisfied by the said Judgement pronounced on the 08.07.2022 and did file a Notice of Appeal thereof. e) The 2nd Respondent did inform the Court that the Appeal before the Court of Appeal is yet to be heard and determined. f) The 2nd Respondent did plead that in view of the fact that the 1st to 3rd Respondents were in occupation and possession of the suit property, then the said status quo should remain in force until the Appeal is heard and determined. In addition to the foregoing, the 2nd Respondent did also disclose that there have been attempts to discuss and find an amicable settlement of the suit between the Applicant and the 1st to 3rd Respondents herein. g) h) As such, the 2nd Respondent did seek this Court to hold the proceedings in abeyance awaiting the outcome of the out of court discussions which are ongoing. i) In essence, the 2nd Respondent did oppose the Orders sought in the present Application. 6. The 4th to 7th Respondents despite service of the present Application did not file any response thereto. 7. The Replying Affidavit sworn by the 2 nd Respondent was duly served on the Applicant. ELC.930 of 2012 RULING 5

page 5 of 14

8. However, there was no Further and/or Supplementary Affidavit filed by the Applicant to rebut any facts pleaded by the 1st to 3rd Respondents. 9. The Court did then direct that the present Application would be canvassed by way of written submissions. 10. In compliance, the Applicant did file her submissions dated 14.04.2026 while on the other hand, by the time of writing this Ruling, the 1st to 3rd Respondents had not filed any submissions in opposition of the present Application. 11. The Court has carefully perused the present Application, the Response thereto and the submissions by the Applicant and identifies the issues for determination as follows:ISSUE NO.1- DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE ANY PROPROETORY RIGHTS AND/OR ORDERS TO OCCUPY AND/OR USE THE SUIT PROPERTY HEREIN? ISSUE NO.2- DO THE 1ST TO 3RD RESPONDENTS HEREIN HAVE ANY LEGAL BASIS TO CONTINUE OCCUPYING AND/OR USING THE SUIT PROPERTY? ISSUE NO.3- IS THE PRESENT APPLICATION MERITED? ISSUE No. 4: WHO BEARS THE COSTS OF THE PRESENT APPLICATION? ELC.930 of 2012 RULING 6

page 6 of 14

12. Having identified the above issues for determination, the Court will now proceed to discuss them as hereinbelow; ISSUE NO.1- DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE ANY PROPRIETORY RIGHTS AND/OR ORDERS TO OCCUPY AND/OR USE THE SUIT PROPERTY HEREIN? 13. The first issue for determination in the present Application is whether or not the Applicant has any rights over the suit property herein. 14. According to the Applicant, the suit property herein had a dispute regarding the legitimate and lawful owner of the same. 15. The dispute as regards the legitimate and lawful owner of the suit property herein was the subject of the hearing in this file and the Judgement was pronounced on the 08.07.2022. 16. In the Judgement pronounced on the 08.07.2022, the legitimate and lawful owner of the suit property was declared to be the Applicant herein and the ownership documents held by the 1st to 3rd Respondents issued by the 4th Respondent (deceased) were declared null and void. 17. The Applicant did plead and submit that since the Judgement was pronounced on the 08.07.2022, there has been no stay of execution orders issued by either this Court and/or the Appellate Court to prohibit the implementation of the Judgement pronounced on 08.07.2022. 18. In other words, the Applicant did submit that she was entitled to enjoy the fruits of her judgement pronounced on the ELC.930 of 2012 RULING 7

page 7 of 14

08.07.2022 including and not limited to possession and use of the same. 19. Unfortunately, the Applicant did plead and submit that the 1 st to 3rd Respondents have refused to yield vacant possession and/or use of the suit property since 08.07.2022 when the Judgement was read and continue to unlawful occupy the same. 20. It was therefore the Applicant’s submission that the orders sought in the present Application be granted in the interest of justice and ensure that the Orders granted in the Judgement of 08.07.2022 are fully complied with. 21. The 1st to 3rd Respondents in their Replying Affidavit did admit the existence of the ownership dispute as alleged by the Applicant. 22. Further to the forgoing, the 1st to 3rd Respondents did confirm that a Judgement was pronounced on the 08.07.2022 regarding the ownership dispute of the suit property which was in favour of the Applicant. 23. The 1st to 3rd Respondents did reiterate their dissatisfaction with the said Judgement pronounced on the 08.07.2022 and further indicated that they had filed a Notice of Appeal before the Appellate Court. 24. However, so far, the Appeal had not been heard and/or determined. 25. Consequently, the 1st to 3rd Respondents did seek that they be allowed to continue occupying and/or using the suit property pending the hearing and determination of their Appeal before the Appellate Court. ELC.930 of 2012 RULING 8

page 8 of 14

26. The Court has indeed perused the Court file which is now on its third Volume and has carefully read the Judgement pronounced on the 08.07.2022. 27. In the Judgement pronounced on 08.07.2022, the main issue was the legitimacy of the ownership documents relating to the suit property held by the Applicant against those held by the 1st to 3rd Respondents. 28. Upon hearing all the parties herein, it was found that the ownership documents held by the 1 st to 3rd Respondents and issued to them by the 4th Respondent (now deceased) were null and void. 29. The Court did specifically declare in Prayer No. 1 and 4 that the suit property herein was the asset of the Applicant. 30. In other words, the ownership and/or proprietary rights over the suit property as provided under Section 24 and 25 of the Land Registration Act, No.3 of 2012 should be enjoyed by the Applicant. 31. In essence, any ownership rights and/or privileges appertaining to the suit property should be enjoyed by the Applicant and not the 1st to 3rd Respondents herein. ISSUE NO.2- DO THE 1ST TO 3RD RESPONDENTS HEREIN HAVE ANY OCCUPYING LEGAL BASIS AND/OR TO USING CONTINUE THE SUIT PROPERTY? 32. The second issue for determination is whether or not the 1 st to 3rd Respondents have any lawful and/or legitimate reason to be in occupation and use of the suit property. ELC.930 of 2012 RULING 9

page 9 of 14

33. The 1st to 3rd Respondents do acknowledge the Judgement pronounced on the 08.07.2022 by this Court. 34. The 1st to 3rd Respondents further did admit that in the Judgement pronounced on the 08.07.2022, the Applicant was duly declared the lawful and legitimate owner of the suit property. 35. However, the 1st to 3rd Respondents did plead that there is a pending Appeal before the Appellate Court which is yet to be determined. 36. As such, the 1st to 3rd Respondents did seek that they be allowed to continue occupying and/or using the suit property pending the determination of the said Appeal. 37. Further to the foregoing, the 1st to 3rd Respondents did inform the Court that there were negotiations between the parties which would comprise the dispute before the Court. 38. It is true that on the 12.07.2022, the 1st to 3rd Respondents did file a Notice of Appeal against the Judgement pronounced on the 08.07.2022. 39. However, the 1st to 3rd Respondents did not obtain any Stay of Execution of the Judgement pronounced on the 08.07.2022 either from this Court and/or the Appellate Court. 40. In other words, the Judgement pronounced on the 08.07.2022 is operation and must be complied with unless otherwise ordered. 41. As such, this Court is of the considered view and finding that the 1st to 3rd Respondents herein have no legal and/or ELC.930 of 2012 RULING 10

page 10 of 14

legitimate reason as to why they should be in occupation and/or use of the suit property herein. 42. If indeed there are any negotiations between the Applicant and the 1st to 3rd Defendants, then such negotiations are outside the scope and/or mandate of this Court as a Judgement was already rendered on the dispute before it. ISSUE NO.3- IS THE PRESENT APPLICATION MERITED? 43. The third issue is whether or not the present Application is merited or not and whether the prayers sought therein should be granted or not. 44. Based on the findings made in Issue No.1 and 2, it is clear that the suit property herein belongs to the Applicant herein based on the Judgement pronounced on the 08.07.2022. 45. As earlier stated, Section 24 and 25 of the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012 provides that the lawful registered owner is entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to the said parcel of land of which he or she is declared the lawful registered owner. 46. The suit property herein having been declared to be the property of the Applicant, then it goes without saying that she is the person entitled to enjoy the rights and/or privileges pertaining to the same. 47. As such, the present Application is merited and the Orders sought therein should be granted to give effect to the provisions of Section 24 and 25 of the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012 as to the rights and privileges enjoyable by the Applicant. ELC.930 of 2012 RULING 11

page 11 of 14

ISSUE No. 4: WHO BEARS THE COSTS OF THE PRESENT APPLICATION? 48. As regards costs, the rule of the thumb is that they follow the event. 49. The Applicant in the present Application has been successful in prosecuting the same and is awarded costs payable by the 1st to 3rd Respondents. CONCLUSION 50. In conclusion, the Court hereby makes the following Orders in determination of the present Application; A. THE NOTICE OF MOTION APPLICATION DATED 12.06.2025 IS MERITED AND THEREFORE ALLOWED. B. AN ORDER BE AND IS HEREBY GRANTED DIRECTING RHODA MASIT, ESTHER CHERUIYOT AND WINNIE KIBISACH WHO ARE THE TRUSTEES OF MOSOP MARICHOR GROUP OF CHEPKORIO THE 1ST, 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS HEREIN TO YIELD VACANT POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS LR.NO.ELDORET MUNICIPALITY BLOCK 7/150 TO THE APPLICANT HEREIN LORNAH JEBIWOTT KIPLAGAT WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS RULING. C. IN THE EVENT OF A DEFAULT IN COMPLYING WITH ORDER NO. B HEREINABOVE BY RHODA MASIT, ESTHER CHERUIYOT AND WINNIE KIBISACH WHO ARE THE TRUSTEES OF MOSOP MARICHOR GROUP OF CHEPKORIO THE 1ST, 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS ELC.930 of 2012 RULING 12

page 12 of 14

HEREIN, AN EVICTION ORDER WILL AUTOMATICALLY ISSUE AGAINST THEM IN FAVOUR OF THE APPLICANT. D. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT, ELDORET BE AND IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO ENSURE ISSUANCE OF THE SAID EVICTION ORDER UPON LAPSE OF THE SIXTY DAYS PERIOD PROVIDED IN ORDER NO. B HEREINABOVE. E. THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF ELDORET POLICE STATION OR ANY OTHER POLICE STATION WITHIN WHICH THIS PROPERTY KNOWN AS LR.NO.ELDORET MUNICIPALITY BLOCK 7/150 IS LOCATED IS DIRECTED TO PROVIDE THE APPROPRIATE SECURITY TO THE APPOINTED COURT BAILIFF DURING THE ENFORCEMENT OF THESE ORDERS. F. THE COSTS OF THE PRESENT APPLICATION WILL BE PAID BY RHODA MASIT, ESTHER CHERUIYOT AND WINNIE KIBISACH WHO ARE THE TRUSTEES OF MOSOP MARICHOR GROUP OF CHEPKORIO TO THE APPLICANT HEREIN. DATED, SIGNED & DELIVERED Virtually at ELDORET ELC this 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026. EMMANUEL.M. WASHE JUDGE IN THE PRESENCE OF: ELC.930 of 2012 RULING 13

page 13 of 14

Court Assistant: Mr. Brian Counsel for the Applicant: Mr. Kiprotich Counsel for the 1st - 3rd Respondents: Ms. Ledisha (N/A) Counsel for the 4th - 7th Respondents: N/A ELC.930 of 2012 RULING 14

page 14 of 14