keelc-2026-05697

BEEN EXTINGUISHED BY VIRTUE OF THE DOCTRINE OF ADVERSE POSSESSION. C. THAT THE APPLICANT BE REGISTERED AS THE PROPRIETOR OF THE SUIT LAND IN PLACE OF THE RESPONDENTS. D. THAT THE 1ST, 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENTS DO EXECUTE THE REQUISITE INSTRUMENTS OF TRANSFER OF TITLE OF THE SUIT LAND TO THE APPLICANT AND IN DEFAULT THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DO EXECUTE THE SAME. E. THAT COSTS OF THIS SUIT BE PROVIDED FOR. 2. The facts in support of the prayers sought in the present OS as pleaded in the Supporting Affidavit therein as are follows;i. The property known as LR.NO. PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1 (EATEC)/917 (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”) is registered in the names of the 1 st, 3rd and 4th Respondents. ii. On or about 21.10.2004, the Applicant herein did purchase a portion of 0.1 Hectares of the suit property from the 2nd Respondent herein through an Agreement For Sale dated 21.10.2004 at a value of Kenya Shillings Two Hundred Thousand Only (KShs.200,000/-). iii. Thereafter, the Applicant did enter into a second Agreement For Sale dated 15.07.2005 for a portion of 0.1 Hectares on the suit property with ABRAHAM NYONGESA MATAYO for a consideration of Kenya Shillings Two Hundred Thousand (KShs.200,000/-). iv. The Agreement For Sale dated 15.07.2005 was executed with the Consent of the 2nd Respondent who had ELCLOS E020 of 2025 RULING 2

page 2 of 34

purchased the same from the 1st Respondent and sold it to the person known as ABRAHAM NYONGESA MATAYO. v. Subsequently, the suit property herein was sub-divided and the two portions contained in the Agreements For Sale dated 21.10.2004 and 15.07.2005 measuring approximately 0.2023 Hectares are registered as LR.NO.PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1 (EATEC)/ 10475. vi. The Applicant did further plead that upon payment of the purchase price based on the Agreements For Sale dated 21.10.2004 and 15.07.2005, he did take possession and use of the two portions which he had acquired in the year 2004 and 2005 and has been in occupation of the same up to date. vii. The Applicant therefore did plead that the 1 st, 3rd and 4th Respondents, ownership of the property known as LR.NO.PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1 (EATEC)/10475 had been extinguished by the doctrine of adverse possession and the same should be registered in the name of the Applicant. 3. The present OS was duly served on the 1st to the 4th Respondents herein. 4. The 1st Respondent did oppose the present OS through a Replying Affidavit dated 21.07.2025. 5. The facts pleaded by the 1st Respondent in opposition of the present OS were as follows; i) The 1st Respondent did deny the knowledge and/or existence of the two Agreements For Sale dated 21.10.2004 between the 2nd Respondent and the Applicant and/or the second Agreement For Sale dated 15.07.2005 between one ABRAHAM NYONGESA MATAYO and the Applicant relating to a portion of 0.2 Hectares on the suit property currently registered as LR.NO. PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1 (EATEC)/10475. ELCLOS E020 of 2025 RULING 3

page 3 of 34

ii) The 1st Respondent did further plead that if indeed the two Agreements For Sale dated 21.10.2004 and 15.07.2005 did exist, then there was no privy of Contract between the Applicant and herself over any portion of land in the suit property herein. iii) The 1st Respondent did state that if the Applicant was on any portion measuring 0.2 Hectares on the suit property, then such an occupation and/or use of the same was unlawful and illegal hence amounts to trespass. iv) The 1st Respondent in conclusion did plead that the present OS was incompetent, frivolous and devoid of merit. 6. The 2nd Respondent did respond to the present OS through a Replying Affidavit dated 05.11.2025. 7. In the Replying Affidavit dated 05.11.2025 by the 2nd Respondent, the following facts were pleaded; i. First and foremost, the 2nd Respondent did plead that the 1st Respondent herein had sold to him a portion of land measuring 0.2 Hectares from the suit property herein. ii. After the purchase of the 0.2 Hectares from the 1 st Respondent, the 2nd Respondent did sub-divide the same into two portions measuring 0.1 Hectares each. iii. The first portion of 0.1 Hectares was then sold off to one ABRAHAM NYONGESA MATAYO through the Agreement For Sale dated 21.02.2004 at a consideration of Kenya Shillings One Hundred and Fifty Thousand (KShs.150,000/-) which payment was made in full. iv. Thereafter, the person known as ABRAHA NYONGESA MATAYO did again sale the portion measuring 0.1 Hectares on the 15.07.2005 to the Applicant herein for a ELCLOS E020 of 2025 RULING 4

page 4 of 34

consideration of Kenya Shillings Two Hundred Thousand (KShs.200,000/) which payment was made in full. v. As regard the second portion of 0.1 Hectare which was still in the ownership of the 2nd Respondent, the same was also bought by the Applicant herein on the 21.10.2004 at a consideration of Kenya Shillings Two Hundred Thousand (KShs.200,000/-) which sum was fully settled. vi. The 2nd Respondent did confirm that the portion measuring 0.2 Hectares which he had purchased from the 1st Respondent within the suit property is what is now registered as LR.NO.PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1 (EATEC)/10475. vii. Further to the foregoing, the 2nd Respondent did plead that the Applicant herein had been in occupation and use of the portion registered as LR.NO.PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1 (EATEC)/10475 since the years 2004 and 2005 when he did purchase the same. viii. The 2nd Respondent did confirm that the 2nd Respondent was the lawful owner of the portion registered as LR.NO.PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1 (EATEC)/10475 measuring 0.2 Hectares from the original suit property. ix. The 2nd Respondent did therefore plead that the present OS was merited and should be allowed. 8. The 3rd and 4th Respondents herein did not file any Replying Affidavits in response to the present OS. 9. The Applicant herein did not file any Further Affidavits in response to the 1st and 2nd Respondents Replying Affidavits filed before the Court. 10. Consequently, the pleadings did close and the matter was set down for hearing. ELCLOS E020 of 2025 RULING 5

page 5 of 34

APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE TESTIMONIES & DOCUMENTARY 11. The Applicant herein did testify as the first witness and was marked as PW 1. 12. The Applicant did inform the Court that he is a resident of Uasin Gishu but was currently working in Qatar. 13. The Applicant did testify that he would rely on the Supporting Affidavit sworn on the 20.06.2025 in support of the present OS as his evidence in chief. 14. In support of his evidence in chief, the Applicant did produce the following documents; PW 1 EXHIBIT 1 -A Copy of an Agreement for Sale dated 21.10.2004 between the Applicant and the 2nd Respondent. PW 1 EXHIBIT 2-A Copy of an Agreement for Sale dated 15.07.2005 between the Applicant and Abraham Nyongesa Matayo. PW1 EXHIBIT 3- A Copy of an Agreement for Sale dated 21.02.2004 between the 2nd Respondent and Abraham Nyongesa Matayo. PW1 EXHIBIT 4-A Copy of a Mutation Form for Subdivision of Block 1 (EATEC)/917. PW1 EXHIBIT 5– A Copy of Official Search of Block 1 (EATEC)/10475 dated 24.09.2009. 15. The Applicant did state that he is the lawful owner of a portion measuring 0.2 Hectares currently registered as LR.NO.PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1 (EATEC)/10475 in the names of the 1st , 3rd and 4th Respondents. ELCLOS E020 of 2025 RULING 6

page 6 of 34

16. The Applicant did aver that the portion of 0.2 Hectares registered as LR.NO.PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1 (EATEC)/10475 emanated from a portion of 0.2 Hectares of the suit property which had been purchased by the 2 nd Respondent from the 1st Respondent herein before the subdivision of the same. 17. The Applicant did plead that the portion of 0.2 Hectares which was purchased from the 1st Respondent was sub-divided into two equal portions which were sold separately to him through two Agreements For sale dated 21.10.2004 and 15.07.2005 by the 2nd Respondent and one ABRAHAM NYONGESA MATAYO. 18. Based on the two Agreement For Sale dated 21.10.2004 and 15.07.2005, the Applicant herein did take physical possession and use of the same and has continued to enjoy the same up to the date of filing the present OS. 19. The Applicant therefore did plead that the 1 st, 3rd and 4th Respondents’ registration of the portion measuring 0.2 Hectares on the suit property registered on the 26.10.2001 had been extinguished by the doctrine of adverse possession and the portion registered as LR.NO.PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1 (EATEC)/10475 should be registered in the name of the Applicant herein. 20. On cross-examination by Counsel for the 1 st and 3rd Respondent, the Applicant did admit that he never did any transaction with the 1st and 3rd Respondent herein. 21. Nevertheless, based on the Register of the suit property, the 1st, 3rd and 4th Respondents were the registered owners of the same in the year 2001. 22. The Applicant did confirm that he did not have the Agreement For Sale between the 1st Respondent and the 2nd Respondent for a portion of 0.2 Hectares within the suit property. ELCLOS E020 of 2025 RULING 7

page 7 of 34

23. The Applicant did aver that at the time of purchase, the presentation by the 2nd Respondent was that he was the lawful owner of a portion measuring 0.2 Hectares on the suit property having purchased the same from the 1 st Respondent. 24. Nevertheless, the Applicant did reiterate that he had been in occupation and use of the portion measuring 0.2 Hectares within the suit property since the year 2004 and 2005 when he purchased the same from the 2 nd Respondent and one ABRAHAM NYONGESA MATAYO. 25. On cross-examination by Counsel for the 2 nd respondent, the Applicant did confirm that the Agreement For Sale produced as PW 1 EXHIBIT 1 was between himself and the 2 nd Respondent over a portion measuring 0.1 Hectares on the suit property at a consideration of Kenya Shillings Two Hundred Thousand (KShs.200,000/-) which was paid in full. 26. As regards the Agreement For Sale produced as PW 1 EXHIBIT 2, the Applicant did confirm that the same was for the second portion of 0.1 Hectares that was owned by one ABRAHAM NYONGESA MATAYO which was purchased at Kenya Shillings Two Hundred Thousand (KShs.200,000/-) which was paid in full. 27. Lastly, the Applicant did aver that the Agreement For Sale produced as PW 1 EXHIBIT 3 was between the 2 nd Respondent and one ABRAHAM NYONGESA MATAYO for a portion of 0.1 Hectares within the portion of 0.2 Hectares purchased from the 1st Respondent who was even a witness in the said Agreement For Sale. 28. The Applicant did aver that the presence of the 1 st Respondent’s signature in the Agreement For Sale dated 21.02.2004 between the 2nd Respondent and one ABRAHAM NYONGESA MATAYO did demonstrate her recognition of the 2nd Respondent as the legal and legitimate owner of the portion measuring 0.2 Hectares on the suit property now ELCLOS E020 of 2025 RULING 8

page 8 of 34

registered as (EATEC)/10475. LR.NO.PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1 29. The Applicant did further insist that upon purchase of the two portions of land within the suit property from the 2 nd Respondent and ABRAHAM NYONGESA MATAYO, he did take possession and use of the same and is still in occupation and use of the same even at the time of filing the present OS. 30. On cross-examination by Counsel for the 4 th Respondent, the Applicant did testify that he had been in occupation of the portion measuring 0.2 Hectares on the suit property since the years 2004 and 2005 without any interruption. 31. The Applicant did inform the Court that he had never met the 4th Respondent and he does not live on the portion of 0.2 Hectares of the suit property which he is in occupation of. 32. The Applicant did state that he had no Agreement For Sale with the 4th Respondent and had never been sued on the basis of the allegation that he is a trespasser on the suit property. 33. In re-examination, the Applicant did confirm that at the time of purchase of the two portions measuring 0.2 Hectares within the suit property, he was shown the boundaries and did undertake an inspection of the same. 34. At the end of the re-examination, PW1 was duly discharged from the witness box. 35. The Applicant’s second witness was one BERNARD WEKESA SIMIYU who was marked as PW 2. 36. PW 2 did introduce himself as a resident of Uasin Gishu County and is engaged in ICT business. ELCLOS E020 of 2025 RULING 9

page 9 of 34

37. PW 2 did inform the Court that he had sworn an Affidavit dated 10.02.2026 of which he did adopt as his evidence in chief. 38. PW 2 did testify that he was a brother-in-law to the Applicant and had been left on the portion of land measuring 0.2 Hectares on the suit property as a care taker of the same. 39. PW 2 did aver that the Applicant’s occupation of the 0.2 Hectares on the suit property was over Eighteen (18) years and during this time, the Applicant had first and foremost erected a fence around it and been cultivating the same and had even developed some temporary structures thereon. 40. PW 2 did state that during his period of stay on the portion measuring 0.2 Hectares on the suit property, there had never been any interruption and/or claim by the 1 st to 4th Respondents herein. 41. PW 2 then did produce the following documents in support of his testimony in chief; PW 2 EXHIBIT 1 - Copy of ID No. 9998329 in the name of PW2. PW2 EXHIBIT 2 (a & b) – Photos of the perimeter fence, gate and a house thereof and crops. 42. On cross-examination by counsel for the 1st and 3rd Respondents, PW 2 did reiterate that he was a brother-in-law to the Applicant herein. 43. PW 2 did state that to his knowledge, the portion measuring 0.2 Hectares did belong to the Applicant but could not tell from whom he had purchased the same. 44. On being referred to PW 1 EXHIBIT 1, PW 2 did point out that the Agreement For Sale dated 21.10.2004 was in relation to a ELCLOS E020 of 2025 RULING 10

page 10 of 34

portion measuring 0.1 Hectares on the suit property which was being sold by the 2nd Respondent to the Applicant herein. 45. PW 2 did confirm that in the Agreement for Sale dated 21.10.2004, the 1st Respondent was not a witness on the same. 46. As regards PW 1 EXHIBIT 2, PW 2 did confirm that the same was an Agreement For Sale between the Applicant and one ABRAHAM NYONGESA MATAYO over another portion measuring 0.1 Hectares on the suit property. 47. PW 2 did deny the allegation that he had attended a meeting with the 1st Respondent at Comfy Hotel over the portion of land measuring 0.2 Hectares on the suit property owned by the Applicant. 48. PW 2 did confirm that the portion occupied by the Applicant was 0.2 Hectares which is around half an Acre but could not tell the registered number of the said portion. 49. On cross-examination by Counsel for the 2 nd Respondent, PW 2 did reiterate that the portion measuring 0.2 Hectares on the suit property was in occupation and use by the Applicant since the year 2007. 50. PW 2 did insist that since the Applicant did take possession and use of the portion measuring 0.2 Hectares, the 1 st ,3rd and 4th Respondents herein had never interrupted the said occupation and/or use up to the time of filing the present OS. 51. PW 2 did confirm that upon the Applicant taking possession of the 0.2 Hectares on the suit property, he did erect a fence on the same, erected a temporary structure to rear chicken and has been cultivating on the same ever since. ELCLOS E020 of 2025 RULING 11

page 11 of 34

52. PW 2 did deny any allegations and/or knowledge of any criminal proceedings instituted by any of the Respondents against the Applicant or himself. 53. On cross-examination by Counsel for the 4 th respondent, PW 2 did admit that he was not familiar with the 4 th Respondent. 54. PW 2 did confirm that the temporary structure on the portion measuring 0.2 Hectares within the suit property claimed by the Applicant was built by him in the year 2013 after the perimeter fence had been completed. 55. PW 2 did insist that during his occupation and use of the 0.2 Hectares on the suit property, there had never been any interruptions and/or harassment from anyone including the 1 st to 4th Respondents. 56. On re-examination, PW 2 did state that he had not been privy to the Agreements For Sale executed by the Applicant and did not know the people that were involved therein. 57. PW 2 did conclude his re-examination with the testimony that the Applicant was the one currently in occupation and use of the suit property up to the time of filing the present OS. 58. At the end of the re-examination, PW2 was discharged from the witness box and the Applicant did close his case thereafter. 1ST AND 3RD RESPONDENT’S DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TESTIMONIES & 59. The 1st witness was the 1st Respondent herein who was marked as DW 1. ELCLOS E020 of 2025 RULING 12

page 12 of 34

60. The 1st Respondent introduced herself as a resident of Uasin Gishu and a former employee of EATEC. 61. The 1st Respondent did confirm to be familiar with the 2 nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents herein but not the Applicant. 62. The 1st Respondent did inform the Court that she had prepared and executed two documents namely the Replying Affidavit dated 21.07.2025 and the Witness Statement dated 10.02.2026 of which she did adopt the same as her testimony in chief. 63. The 1st Respondent did produce the following documents in support of her evidence in Chief; DW 1 EXHIBIT 1- A Copy of an Agreement for Sale dated 23.10.2001 between the 1st Respondent and the 2nd Respondent over a portion of 0.2 Hectares property at a consideration Shillings Two Hundred on the of and suit Kenya Twenty Thousand (KShs.220,000/-). DW 1 EXHIBIT 2- A Copy of a Bank slip for Kenya Shillings One Hundred Thousand (KShs.100,000/-) DW 1 EXHIBIT 3- A Copy of a Demand Letter dated 26.11.2021 from the 1st Respondent to the 2nd Respondent. ELCLOS E020 of 2025 RULING 13

page 13 of 34

64. The 1st Respondent did confirm that there was an Agreement For Sale dated 23.10.2001 with the 2 nd Respondent for the purchase of 0.2 Hectares of the suit property at a consideration of Kenya Shillings Two Hundred and Twenty Thousand (KShs.220,000/-). 65. Upon execution of the Agreement For Sale dated 23.10.2001, the 2nd Respondent did pay a sum of Kenya Shillings One Hundred Thousand (KShs.100,000/-) to the 1 st Respondent leaving a balance of Kenya Shillings One Hundred and Twenty Thousand (KShs.120,000/-) which was to be cleared within Six Months from the date of execution. 66. Unfortunately, the 2nd Respondent has failed and/or refused to clear the balance of Kenya Shillings One Hundred and Twenty Thousand (KShs.120,000/-) up to date. 67. The 1st Respondent did state that the failure to process the title of the 0.2 Hectares in the name of the 2 nd Respondent was due to the breach of contract based on the Agreement For Sale dated 23.10.2001. 68. The 1st Respondent did confirm being aware that the 2 nd Respondent had sold a portion of 0.1 Hectares to the person known as ABRAHAM NYONGESA MATAYO but was not aware that the second portion of 0.1 Hectares had also been sold to the Applicant herein. 69. The 1st Respondent did testify that indeed the 2 nd Respondent had been given possession of the 0.2 Hectares on the suit property but any subsequent sale thereafter by the 2 nd Respondent was to be with the consent of the 1 st Respondent. ELCLOS E020 of 2025 RULING 14

page 14 of 34

70. The 1st Respondent did state that the two Agreements For Sale dated 21.10.2004 and 15.07.2005 were executed without her knowledge and/or consent to the Applicant herein. 71. The 1st Respondent did inform the Court that around the year 2016, there was a meeting held at Comfy Hotel in Eldoret with a view of reaching an amicable settlement but the 2 nd Respondent failed to attend. 72. According to the 1st Respondent, she did not have any objection to transfer the portion measuring 0.2 Hectares within the suit property now registered as LR.NO.PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1 (EATEC)/917 to the Applicant herein as long as the 2 nd Respondent had cleared his obligations based on the Agreement For Sale dated 23.10.2001. 73. The 1st Respondent did confirm that a Demand Letter dated 26.11.2021 was issued to the 2 nd Respondent but there was no response thereof. 74. In concluding her examination in chief, the 1 st Respondent did urge the Court to direct the 2nd Respondent to clear the balance under the Agreement For Sale dated 23.10.2001 with interest and she would facilitate the transfer of the portion measuring 0.2 Hectares occupied by the Applicant herein. 75. On cross-examination by Counsel for the 2 nd respondent, the 1st Respondent did confirm that an Agreement For Sale dated 23.10.2001 was executed with the 2nd Respondent. 76. The 1st Respondent did further admit that based on the Agreement For Sale dated 23.10.2001, the 2 nd Respondent was given permission and/or consent to occupy and use the portion measuring 0.2 Hectares on the suit property. ELCLOS E020 of 2025 RULING 15

page 15 of 34

77. The 1st Respondent did aver that the balance of Kenya Shillings One Hundred and Twenty Thousand (KShs.120,000/-) was to be cleared within Six Months from the date of execution but the mode of payment was not specified. 78. Be that as it may, the 1st Respondent did reiterate that the 2 nd Respondent has never cleared the sum of Kenya Shillings One Hundred and Twenty Thousand (KShs.120,000) based on the Agreement For Sale dated 23.10.2001. 79. On being referred to PW 1 EXHIBIT 3, the 1st Respondent did confirm that she was a signatory to the Agreement For Sale dated 21.02.2004 between the 2nd Respondent and ABRAHAM NYONGESA MATAYO. 80. The 1st Respondent did aver that at the time of consenting to the Agreement For Sale dated 21.02.2004, the 2nd Respondent had undertaken to clear the balance of the Agreement For Sale dated 24.10.2001 on receipt of the purchase price but once again failed to do so. 81. The 1st Respondent did disclose to the Court that sometime in the year 2022, she had filed a case against the 2 nd Respondent for the balance of the purchase price contained in the Agreement For Sale dated 24.10.2001 but the same was struck out due to principle of limitation of time. 82. The 1st Respondent did inform the Court that currently, the suit property was registered in the names of the 1 st Respondent, 3rd Respondent and the 4th Respondent although the Applicant was in occupation of the same. ELCLOS E020 of 2025 RULING 16

page 16 of 34

83. The 1st Respondent did testify that she had never instituted any proceedings to evict the Applicant herein from the portion measuring 0.2 Hectares on the suit property. 84. On cross-examination by Counsel for the 4 th Respondent, the 1st Respondent did confirm that the 4 th Respondent is one of the registered owners. 85. The 1st Respondent did state that in the Agreement For Sale dated 21.02.2004, she was not the Vendor but only a witness. 86. The 1st Respondent did admit that she did not inform the 3 rd and 4th Respondents about the existence of the Agreement For Sale dated 21.02.2004. 87. The 1st Respondent did aver that the portion of 0.2 Hectares which had been sold to the 2nd Respondent has been fenced and there are structures therein although she could not positively indicate whose they were. 88. The 1st Respondent did inform the Court that the Agreement For Sale dated 23.10.2001 with the 2nd Respondent had never been rescinded by either herself and/or the 2nd Respondent. 89. On cross-examination by Counsel for the Applicant, the 1 st Respondent did confirm witnessing the Agreement For Sale dated 21.02.2004. 90. On re-examination, the 1st Respondent did reiterate that the balance of Kenya Shillings One Hundred and Twenty Thousand (KShs.120,000/-) from the 2nd Respondent was to be paid within Six (6) months from the date of execution but has never been settled. ELCLOS E020 of 2025 RULING 17

page 17 of 34

91. In conclusion, the 1st Respondent was of the view that the 2 nd Respondent and/or any other person on the said portion was in occupation of the same on the basis of her consent to the 2nd Respondent. 92. At the end this Re-examination, the 1st Respondent was discharged and the 1st and 3rd Respondents did close their case thereafter. 2ND RESPONDENT’S TESTIMONY & DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 93. The first witness to be called was the 2 nd Respondent who was marked as DW 2. 94. The 2nd Respondent did inform the Court that he had prepared a Replying Affidavit dated 05.11.2025 of which she did adopt the same as his evidence in chief. 95. In support of his evidence in Chief, the 2 nd Respondent did produce the following document; DW 2 EXHIBIT 1- A COPY OF AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 24.06.2025 SWORN BY ABRAHAM NYONGESA MATAYO. 96. The 2nd Respondent did admit that a Agreement For Sale dated 23.10.2001 was executed with the 1 st Respondent over a portion of 0.2 Hectares within the suit property for a consideration of Kenya Shillings Two Hundred and Twenty Thousand (KShs.220,000/-). 97. On execution of the Agreement For Sale dated 23.10.2001, a sum of Kenya Shillings One Hundred Thousand ELCLOS E020 of 2025 RULING 18

page 18 of 34

(KShs.100,000/-) was paid to the 1 st Respondent in cash and the balance of Kenya Shillings One Hundred and Twenty Thousand (KShs.120,000/-) was deposited in a Standard Bank account. 98. In essence, the 2nd Respondent did deny owing the 1 st Respondent any monies under the Agreement For Sale dated 23.10.2001. 99. The 2nd Respondent did further admit selling a portion of 0.1 Hectares out of the 0.2 Hectares to ABRAHAM NYONGESA MATAYO and the other 0.1 Hectares to the Applicant herein. 100. The 2nd Respondent did inform the Court that the Applicant herein had been in occupation of the portion measuring 0.2 Hectares since the year 2004 when he handed over occupation of the same. 101. On cross-examination by counsel for the 1 st and 3rd Respondents, the 2nd Respondent did clarify that the sum of Kenya Shillings Two Hundred and Twenty Thousand (KShs.220,000/-) had been settled through three instalments which were One Hundred Thousand (KShs.100,000/-) on execution of the Agreement For Sale in cash. 102. The 2nd Respondent did concede that there was proof of the Kenya Shillings One Hundred Thousand (KShs.100,000/-) made at the 1st Respondent’s bank and/or the Kenya Shillings Twenty Thousand (KShs.20,000/-) made in cash. 103. He admitted that during both sales, to Abraham and the applicant respectively, he did not have the title to the suit property. 104. In other words, the 2nd Respondent did admit that he had no proof that the full purchase price had been paid to the 1 st Respondent based on the Agreement dated 23.10.2001. ELCLOS E020 of 2025 RULING 19

page 19 of 34

105. The 2nd Respondent did testify that the Agreement For Sale with the Applicant was without the knowledge of the Applicant herein. 106. The 2nd Respondent did aver that since he completed paying for the portion of 02. Hectares, the 1 st Respondent had never handed him the ownership documents and he had also never sued the 1st Respondent for the same. 107. On cross-examination by Counsel for the 4th Respondent, the 2nd Respondent did state that he could not tell who the registered owners of the suit property were. 108. Consequently, the 2nd Respondent only came to learn about the 4th Respondent’s registration as the owner of the suit property upon being served with the present suit. 109. The 2nd Respondent did contend that by the 1 st Respondent witnessing the Agreement For Sale dated 21.02.2004, she had confirmed that the full purchase price of the original 0.2 Hectares had been paid. 110. On cross-examination by counsel for the Applicant, the 2 nd Respondent did agree that he was granted possession and use of the portion measuring 0.2 Hectares within the suit property based on the Agreement For Sale dated 24.10.2001 with the 1st Respondent. 111. The 2nd Respondent did aver that the 1st Respondent did not object to him selling the portion to third parties thereafter. 112. The 2nd Respondent did therefore inform the Court that he did not have any interest in the portion measuring 0.2 Hectares within the suit property registered in the names of the 1st , 3rd and 4th Respondents. ELCLOS E020 of 2025 RULING 20

page 20 of 34

113. In any event, the portion of 0.2 Hectares within the suit property had been demarcated, fenced and was in occupation of the Applicant herein. 114. On re-examination, the 2nd Respondent did confirm that the full purchase price under the Agreement dated 24.10.2001 with the 1st Respondent had been fully settled. 115. The 2nd Respondent did reiterate that he had sold his portion of 0.1 Hectares to the Applicant herein and the other portion of 0.1 Hectares to ABRAHAM NYONGESA MATAYO hence had no interest whatsoever in the suit property. 116. At the end of the re-examination, the 2 nd Respondent was discharged and his case closed thereafter. 4TH RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE TESTIMONY & DOCUMENTARY 117. The first witness was the 4th Respondent who was marked as DW 3. 118. The 4th Respondent did introduce himself as a resident of Uasin Gishu. 119. The 4th Respondent then did inform the Court that he had prepared and filed a Replying Affidavit dated 14.11.2025 of which he did adopt the same as his evidence in chief. 120. The 4th Respondent did testify that he was indeed one of the Registered owners of the suit property but had no interest in the same. 121. There was no cross-examination by the Applicants, the 1 st and 3rd Respondents as well as the 2nd Respondent. ELCLOS E020 of 2025 RULING 21

page 21 of 34

122. Consequently, the 4th Respondent was discharged from the witness box and thereafter, his case was closed. 3RD RESPONDENT’S TESTIMONY & DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 123. The first witness was the 3 rd Respondent who was marked DW 4. 124. The 3rd Respondent did confirm to the Court that he had filed a Replying Affidavit dated 10.09.2025 and a witness statement dated 10.02.2026 of which he did adopt both as his evidence in chief. 125. On cross-examination by Counsel for the 2nd Respondent, the 3rd Respondent did testify that he had no interest in the suit property herein. 126. There was no cross-examination by the Applicant, the 1 st Respondent and the 4th Respondent and the 3rd Respondent was discharged from the witness box and his case closed thereafter. 127. At the end of this hearing, the Court did direct parties to file their final submissions. 128. The Applicant did file his submissions dated 01.04.2026, the 1st and 3rd Respondents did their Joint Submissions dated 15.04.2026 while the 4th Respondent did file his final submissions dated 02.06.2026. 129. The Court has carefully considered the pleadings herein, the testimonies of the parties and the documentary evidence adduced before it and finds the following issues for determination; - ELCLOS E020 of 2025 RULING 22

page 22 of 34

ISSUE NO. 1 - WHETHER THE APPLICANT HAS SUFFICIENTLY PROVED THE ELEMENTS OF ADVERSE POSSESSION? ISSUE NO. 2 - WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS ENTITLED TO THE RELIEFS SOUGHT? ISSUE NO. 3 - WHO SHALL BEAR THE COSTS OF THE ORIGINATING SUMMONS? 130. Having identified the above issues for determination, I will now proceed to discuss the same as hereunder; ISSUE NO. 1 - WHETHER THE APPLICANT HAS SUFFICIENTLY PROVED THE ELEMENTS OF ADVERSE POSSESSION? 131. To begin with, the doctrine of Adverse possession is founded in Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act, as read with Section 28 (H) of the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012 and Order 37 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. 132. The Courts in Kenya have in determination of claims emanating from adverse possession settled a number of ingredients that a Claimant would be required to satisfy if the same is to be granted. 133. The ingredients for a claim of adverse possession can broadly be named as (a) the date of entry into the claimed property, (b) the nature of occupation of the property being claimed, (c) period of the occupation on the claimed property and (d) whether the occupation has been peaceful for a period of twelve years immediately preceding the filing of the claim of adverse possession. ELCLOS E020 of 2025 RULING 23

page 23 of 34

134. Based on the four above ingredients, the Court will now proceed to evaluate the Applicant’s claim for adverse possession against the 1st to 4th Respondents herein. INGREDIENT NO.1- THE DATE OF ENTRY INTO THE PROPERY CLAIMED? 135. The first ingredient is what is the nature of entry that was undertaken by the Applicant herein against the 1 st to 4th Respondents. 136. According to the Applicant, the entry into the portion measuring 0.2 Hectares on the suit property owned by the 1st, 3rd and 4th Respondents was in the years 2004 and 2005. 137. The Applicant did plead and produce two Agreements For Sale dated 21.10.2004 and 15.07.2005 with the 2nd Respondent and one ABRAHAM NYONGESA MATAYO both totalling to 0.2 Hectares within the suit property. 138. PW 2 as well as the 2 nd Respondent did confirm that the Applicant herein did gain possession and occupation of the suit property in the year 2004 and 2005. 139. Nevertheless, the Applicant did clarify that his claim was strictly for the portion measuring 0.2 Hectares within the suit property which upon subdivision was titled as L.R.NO. PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1 (EATEC)/10475. 140. The Applicant in fact to demonstrate the existence of the 0.2 Hectares as LR.NO.PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1(EATEC)/10475 did produce the relevant Official Search dated 10.06.2025. 141. The 1st Respondent on the other hand did admit that upon execution of the Agreement For Sale dated 23.10.2001, the 2nd Respondent was granted possession and use of the ELCLOS E020 of 2025 RULING 24

page 24 of 34

portion measuring 0.2 Hectares now registered LR.NO.PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1 (EATEC)/10475. as 142. The 3rd and 4th Respondent in their testimonies did plead that they had no interest in the portion measuring 0.2 Hectares within the suit property now registered as LR.NO.PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1 (EATEC)/10475. 143. In essence, this Court hereby makes a finding that the Applicant herein did enter into the portion measuring 0.2 Hectares within the suit property currently registered as LR.NO.PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1 (EATEC)/10475 between the years of 2004 and 2005. INGREDIENT BWHAT WAS THE NATURE OF OCCUPATION ON THE PROPERTY BEING CLAIMED? 144. The second ingredient is the nature of the occupation that is being enjoyed by the Applicant on the property being claimed. 145. It is settled law that the nature of occupation by a claimant must be one that is open, notorious and/or is adverse to the interests of the registered owner. 146. Based on the finding in Ingredient No.1, this Court is satisfied that indeed the Applicant did enter the portion measuring 0.2 Hectares within the suit property that is now registered as LR.NO.PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1 (EATEC)/10475. 147. The Applicant did testify which testimony was corroborated by the testimonies of PW 2 and the 2 nd Respondent to the effect that his occupation is one which is open, notorious and/or adverse to the interests of the registered owners. 148. The 1st Respondent did not dispute the Applicant’s possession of the portion measuring 0.2 Hectares within the ELCLOS E020 of 2025 RULING 25

page 25 of 34

suit property currently registered as LR.NO.PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1 (EATEC)/10475. 149. However, the 1st Respondent did testify that the portion measuring 0.2 Hectares within the suit property had been purchased by the 2nd Respondent and was given consent to occupy the same pending completion of the terms and conditions provided in the Agreement For Sale dated 23.10.2001. 150. The 1st Respondent did further testify that the Agreement For Sale dated 23.10.2001 had never been completed by the 2 nd Respondent up to date. 151. Further to the foregoing, the 1st Respondent stated that the Agreement For Sale dated 23.10.2001 was still binding on the Applicant and the 2nd Respondent as the same had not been rescinded by the parties therein. 152. The first aspect of this issue therefore is to confirm the validity of the Agreement For Sale dated 23.10.2001 between the 1st Respondent and the 2nd Respondent and secondly, whether the occupation of the 2nd Respondent and Applicants is adverse to the 1 st Respondent, 3rd Respondent and/or the 4th Respondents who are the registered owners of the same. 153. As to the first aspect, it is clear that the suit property herein was registered in the name of the 1 st , 3rd and 4th Respondents on the 01.02.2002. 154. The Registration of the suit property was under the Registered Land Act, Cap 300 (now Repealed) which was dealing with Agricultural land. 155. Section 6(1) of the Land Control Act, Cap 302 as read with Section 8 makes it mandatory for any Agreement For Sale of any Agricultural Land to be sanctioned by a Consent from ELCLOS E020 of 2025 RULING 26

page 26 of 34

the Land Control Board within Six (6) months from the making of the said Agreement For Sale. 156. In other words, the Agreement For Sale dated 23.10.2001 between the 1st Respondent and the 2nd Respondent was required to be sanctioned with a consent to Sale from the relevant Land Control Board within six months which was by the 23.04.2002. 157. During the hearing of the parties herein, it was clear that the Agreement For Sale dated 24.10.2001 was not sanctioned by way of a Consent to Sale from the relevant Land Control Board within Six (6) months from the date of making the same. 158. The net-effect of this omission and/or failure to comply with the provisions of Section 6 (1) and 8 of the Land Control Act, Cap 302 by the parties is that the Agreement For Sale dated 24.10.2001 became void in law. 159. Even if the absence of Land Control Board the Consent to Sale sanctioning the Agreement For Sale dated 24.10.2001 was to be held that it did not void the Transaction, the Court also takes notice that the terms of that Agreement For Sale had not been completed by the 2nd Defendant within the Six (6) months provided under the Agreement For Sale dated 24.10.2001. 160. In other words, the parties to the Agreement For Sale dated 24.10.2001 had under the Law of Contract and the Limitation of Actions Act, a period of Six (6) years to enforce their rights based on this Agreement For Sale. 161. The consent to occupy the portion of 0.2023 Hectares on the suit property issued by the 1 st Respondent could only survive during the period of the contract and at the very least within the period of Six (6) years when the parties had legal rights to enforce the Agreement For Sale dated 24.10.2001. ELCLOS E020 of 2025 RULING 27

page 27 of 34

162. Clearly therefore, once the parties were statutorily barred from enforcing their rights under the Agreement For Sale dated 24.10.2001 by the provisions of the Law of Contract and the Limitation of Actions Act, then the consent of the 1 st Respondent to the 2nd Respondent or any other subsequent occupier could not survive beyond the limitation of six years as provided in the Limitation of Actions Act. 163. In essence, this Court hereby makes a finding that the consent by the 1st Respondent to the 2nd Respondent and any other occupier beyond the year 2007, on the 0.2 Hectares within the suit property now registered as LR.NO.PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1 (EATEC)/10475 was open, notorious and/or adverse to the 1st, 3rd and 4th Respondent’s registration of the same. INGREDIENT NO.3-PERIOD OF PROPERTY BEING CLAIMED? OCCUPATION OF THE 164. The third ingredient is the period of which the Applicant herein has been in occupation and use of the property being claimed. 165. According to the pleadings and testimonies of the Applicant, PW 2 and the 2nd Respondent, the occupation by the Applicant herein began in the year 2004 and 2005. 166. The Applicant and the PW 2 did further confirm that they are still in occupation of the portion measuring 0.2 Hectares within the suit property that is titled as LR.NO.PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1 (EATEC)/10475 up to the time of hearing the present OS. 167. The Applicant did confirm that the portion measuring 0.2 Hectares within the suit property being claimed had been fenced off and inside, PW 2 had been cultivating seasonal crops as well as rearing chicken. ELCLOS E020 of 2025 RULING 28

page 28 of 34

168. The 1st Respondent did admit that indeed the portion measuring 0.2 Hectares within the suit property had been fenced off and was in occupation of someone else that she could not identify. 169. The 2nd Respondent was categorical that portion measuring 0.2 Hectares within the suit property was not in his possession but that of the Applicant herein since the year 2004. 170. The 3rd and 4th Respondents in their testimony did confirm that the portion on 0.2 Hectares within the suit property was not of any interest to them and could not say who is in occupation of the same. 171. Based on the above testimonies, it is clear that the Applicant herein took possession of the entire 0.2 Hectares within the suit property through the two Agreements For Sale dated 21.10.2004 and 15.07.2005 in the years 2004 and 2005. 172. In other words, the Applicant herein has been in occupation and use of the portion measuring 0.2 Hectares within the suit property for a period of over 20 years prior to instituting the present OS. INGREDIENT NO.4- WHETHER THE OCCUPATION HAS BEEN PEACEFUL FOR A PERIOD OF TWELVE YEARS. 173. The last ingredient is whether the occupation of the Applicant has been peaceful for over twelve (12) years prior to institution of the present OS. 174. Based on the finding in Ingredient No. 3 hereinabove, this Court did make a finding that the Applicant’s occupation on the portion measuring 0.2 Hectares within the suit property was for over a period of twenty (20) years. 175. In this ingredient, the Court is to verify whether during this period, there was any actions by the registered owners who ELCLOS E020 of 2025 RULING 29

page 29 of 34

are the 1st, 3rd and 4th Respondents that would interrupt and/or interfere with the peaceful occupation of the Applicant herein. 176. The Applicant and PW 2 did plead and testify that the registered owners of the portion measuring 0.2 Hectares within the suit property have never interfered and/or objected to their occupation on the suit property. 177. The 1st Respondent during her testimony did also admit that she is aware there is someone on the portion measuring 0.2 Hectares within the suit property but had never instituted any proceedings against the said person and/or interfered with his/her occupation of the same. 178. Clearly, based on these testimonies, the Applicant herein has been enjoying peaceful occupation for a period of over twenty (20) years prior to the institution of the present OS without any interference and/or objection from the 1 st, 3rd and 4th Respondents. 179. In conclusion, this Court hereby makes a finding that based on the determinations in Ingredients 1,2,3 and 4, the Applicant herein has been successful in satisfying all the four ingredients of required in a claim of adverse possession and therefore is entitled to the same. ISSUE NO. 2 - WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS ENTITLED TO THE RELIEFS SOUGHT? 180. The second issue is whether or not the Applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought in the present OS. ELCLOS E020 of 2025 RULING 30

page 30 of 34

181. The Court in its finding in Issue No.1 was satisfied that the Applicant has met the relevant ingredients to grant his claim for adverse possession. 182. As such, this Court hereby makes a finding that the Applicant’s claim of adverse possession herein is merited and the reliefs sought in the present OS should be granted. ISSUE NO. 3 - WHO SHALL BEAR THE COSTS OF THE ORIGINATING SUMMONS? 183. On the issue of costs, it is settled law that costs usually follow the event. 184. However, in the present OS, the Court is of the considered view that each party should bear its own costs. 185. The reason for this direction is that it was clear during the hearing that the 2nd Respondent herein who was the first person to purchase the portion measuring 0.2 Hectares from the 1st Respondent did not complete the full purchase price. 186. In other words, although the 1st Respondent in good faith did await the 2nd Respondent to clear the balance of the purchase price, the 2nd Respondent did take advantage of her patience and disposed of the portion measuring 0.2 Hectares to third parties without the consent of the 1 st Respondent. 187. It would therefore be unfair and unjust to again condemn the 1st Respondents with the costs of the present OS having already lost both the portion of land measuring 0.2 Hectares within the suit property to the Applicant and the sum of Kenya Shillings One Hundred and Twenty Thousand (KShs.120,000/-) to the 2nd Respondent. ELCLOS E020 of 2025 RULING 31

page 31 of 34

CONCLUSION 188. In conclusion, the Court hereby makes the following Orders in determination of the present OS herein; A. THE ORIGINATING SUMMONS DATED 20.06.2025 BE AND IS HEREBY ALLOWED. B. THE OWNERSHIP & REGISTRATION OF THE 1ST, 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENTS AS THE LAWFUL AND REGISTERED OWNERS OF THE PORTION OF LAND MEASURING 0.2023 HECTARES WITHIN THE SUIT PROPERTY NOW REGISTERED AS LR.NO.PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1 (EATEC)/10475 BE AND IS HEREBY EXTINGUISHED BY THE DOCTRINE OF ADVERSE POSSESSION. C. THE LAWFUL OWNER OF THE PORTION OF LAND MEASURING 0.2023 HECTARES WITHIN THE SUIT PROPERTY NOW REGISTERED AS LR.NO.PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1 (EATEC)/10475 IS THE APPLICANT DENNIS OTIENO AGOT HENCEFORTH. D. THE COUNTY LAND REGISTRAR, UASIN GISHU BE AND IS HEREBY DIRECTED AND/OR ORDERED TO REGISTER THE APPLICANT HEREIN DENNIS OTIENO AGOT AS THE LAWFUL OWNER OF THE PORTION OF LAND MEASURING 0.2023 HECTARES WITHIN THE SUIT PROPERTY NOW REGISTERED AS LR.NO.PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1 (EATEC)/10475. E. THAT THE 1ST, 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENTS ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO PREPARE AND SIGN ALL THE ELCLOS E020 of 2025 RULING 32

page 32 of 34

RELEVANT TRANSFER DOCUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE APPLICANT DENNIS OTIENO AGOT OVER THE PORTION OF LAND MEASURING 0.2023 HECTARES WITHIN THE SUIT PROPERTY NOW REGISTERED AS LR.NO.PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1 (EATEC)/10475 WITHIN FORTY-FIVE (45) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS JUDGEMENT. F. IN THE EVENT OF A DEFAULT BY THE 1 ST, 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENTS TO COMPLY WITH ORDER NO.E HEREINABOVE, THE DEPUTY LAND REGISTRAR, ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT ELDORET IS ORDERED AND/OR DIRECTED TO EXECUTE ALL THE RELEVANT TRANSFER DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST, 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE APPLICANT DENNIS OTIENO AGOT OVER THE PORTION OF LAND MEASURING 0.2023 HECTARES WITHIN THE SUIT PROPERTY NOW REGISTERED AS LR.NO.PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1 (EATEC)/10475 UPON THE EXPIRY OF THE FORTY FIVE (45) DAYS PERIOD PROVIDED HEREINABOVE. G. EACH PARTY WILL BEAR ITS OWN COSTS. DATED, SIGNED & DELIVERED Virtually at ELDORET ELC this 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026. EMMANUEL.M. WASHE JUDGE IN THE PRESENCE OF: Court Assistant: Mr. Brian Counsel for the Applicant: Mr. Buluma (N/A) Counsel for the 1st & 3rd Respondent: ELCLOS E020 of 2025 Ms. Nafula RULING 33

page 33 of 34

Counsel for the 2nd Respondent: Mr. Mwinano (N/A) Counsel for the 4th Respondent: Akweyu ELCLOS E020 of 2025 RULING 34

page 34 of 34