Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission v Karamoh Impex & Transport Limited & 8 others

2. Pursuant to its mandate, the Plainti approached the court vide plaint dated the 07.12.2021 and wherein same sought diverse reliefs as against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants, who were previously, the only defendants. Subsequently, the plaint under reference was amended culminating into amended plaint dated the 18.06.2024. 3. The reliefs sought vide the amended plaint are: a. A declaration that the allocation of land reference number 7918/736 measuring 8.1 Hectares to the 1st Defendant and the subsequent issuance of the lease and certicate of lease was irregular, fraudulent and illegal and consequently null and void. b. An order for rectication of the register by cancellation of the certicate of lease issued to the 1st Defendant over land reference number L. R. 7918/736 measuring 8.100 Hectares. c. An order compelling the National Land Commission to issue an allotment letter in favour of the Cabinet Secretary, National Treasury in trust for Isiolo G K Prison over the piece of land reserved under development plan number 117/75/1 of 1996 d. In the alternative, an order be issued directing the Chief Land Registrar, to issue a lease and caused the registration of the Land Parcel Reference number L R 7918/736 in the name of the cabinet secretary, National treasury as proprietor of lease from the Government of Kenya, in trust for Isiolo Government of Kenya [ G K - Prison. e. An order of permanent injunction against the 1st Defendant its agents, servants or assigns restraining them from entering into, occupying, leasing, transferring, charging, tasking possession, or in any other manner howsoever from dealing with land parcel reference number L R 7918 measuring 8.100 Hectares. f. A declaration that land reference number 7918/736 measuring 8.1. Hectares is public land set aside by Isiolo GK Prison. g. Costs of the suit. 4. The Plainti’s claim is premised on various assertions. The assertions are: The suit property, namely; LR No. 7918/736, formed part of the land reserved for the Isiolo G K Prison; the land was reserved vide Development plan number 117/75/1; the development plan has never been superseded; the land in question was equally reserved vide gazettement; the reservation of the prison land has never been revoked/rescinded; the prison has been in continuous occupation of the land; the land was illegally allocated to the 1st defendant; the allocation of the land to the 1st Defendant was irregular and illegal; the commissioner of land had no capacity to allocate alienated Government Land; and the 1st Defendant acquired no rights to and in respect of the suit property. 5. Additionally, it has been posited thus: The Part Development Plan in favor of the 1st Defendant is irregular and illegal; the Part Development Plan was not legally approved; the Plaintis title is vitiated by fraud and illegality; the entire process leading to the issuance of the certicate of lease to the 1st defendant, is fraught with illegalities; the suit land forms part of the prison land; and the 1st Defendant title ought to be invalidated. 6. The 1st Defendant duly entered appearance and led a statement of defence dated the 03.02.2022 and wherein the 1st Defendant denied the claims by the Plainti. In addition, the 1st Defendant posited thus: The suit property was lawfully allocated to the 1st defendant; the land was part of unalienated Government Land; the commissioner of land had the authority to allocate the land; the 1st Defendant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6063/eng@2026-09-17 2

page 2 of 25

was duly issued with a letter of allotment, the 1st Defendant duly accepted the terms of the allotment; thereafter the 1st Defendant was issued with the requisite certicate of title. 7. In addition, the 1st Defendant has stated thus: The land in question did not form part of prison land; the Isiolo G K Prison was never in occupation of the suit property; the 1st Defendant was the one in lawful occupation and the 1st Defendant is entitled to exclusive possession and occupation of the suit property. 8. The 3rd Defendant duly entered appearance and led a statement of defence. The statement of defence is dated the 05.01.2022. The 3rd Defendant has denied the assertions by the Plainti. In addition, the 3rd Defendant asserted thus: The 1st Defendant presented a letter of allotment; the 1st Defendant also presented a Part Development Plan; the 3rd Defendant undertook survey; the survey plan was duly submitted to the director of survey vide letter dated 27.02.2014; the director of survey duly approved the survey plans. To this end, the 3rd Defendant has denied that same was involved in any fraudulent survey of the suit property. 9. The 4th Defendant duly entered appearance and led a statement of defence. The 4th Defendant denied the assertions of fraud in the preparation of the Part Development Plan in favour of the 1st defendant. Crucially, the 4th Defendant denied being the author of the letter dated the 20.02.2024. In short, the 4th Defendant intimated that same shall invite the Plainti to strict proof. 10. The 6th Defendant [land registrar who registered the lease in favor of the 1st defendant] denied the assertions contained in the body of the amended plaint. In particular the 6th Defendant contended that by virtue of his oce [ land registration oce] same is not tasked with the mandate to audit the work of the commissioner of land [now defunct]; the directorate of physical planning; or the directorate of survey. In addition, the 6th Defendant posited that the lease instrument which was submitted for registration was duly and properly executed and that there was no illegality apparent on the face thereof. 11. The 2nd Interested Party entered appearance and led a defence. The 2nd interested party contended that what constitute[s] the suit property was duly allocated to the 2nd interested party. Moreover, the 2nd interested party posited that it is its member[s] who have been in occupation of the suit property. 12. The 3rd Interested Party [the County Government of Isiolo] entered appearance and led a defence. Essentially, the 3rd interested party contended that what constitutes the suit property, is public land belonging to the county government. 13. The Plainti’s case is premised on the evidence of 10 witnesses. The witnesses are: Leonard Odhiambo; Rure Ochieng; Cheruyoit Kimutai Mathew; Philip Munyoko Mengi; Michael Mukeria ; Ibrahim Hassan Chako : James Nyaga Kithinji; Stephen Yego; Evalyn Anyango Odipo and Timothy Waiywa Mwangi. The witnesses testied as PW1 to PW10, respectively. 14. It was the testimony of Leonard Odhiambo [PW1] that same is an employee of Kenya Prison Service. In addition, the witness averred that he is a surveyor by profession. Moreover, the witness asserted that same is conversant with the facts of the case. The witness added that the recorded a witness statement dated the 15.01.2015 and which witness statement the witness sought to adopt and rely on. The witness statement was thereafter adopted and constituted as the evidence in chief of the witness. 15. It was the further testimony of the witness that the Plainti led a list and bundle of documents [supplementary list and bundle of documents] dated the 21.06.2026. The witness sought to rely on the document. In particular, the witness referenced the gazette notice; and the Part Development Plan number 117/75/1. Thereafter, the said documents were marked for identication as PMF1 1 and 2 respectively. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6063/eng@2026-09-17 3

page 3 of 25

16. On cross examination by learned counsel for the First defendant, the witness averred that same has identied a copy of the gazette notice, relating to the suit land. The gazette notice was indicated to have been published in 1977. In addition, the witness averred that the gazette notice relates to the suit land. 17. While still under cross examination, the witness testied that the gazette notice relates to the buildings erected on the land. In particular, the witness conceded that it is the building that was being gazetted as third class prison. In addition, the witness testied that the prison land traverses the main Isiolo Marsabit Highway. The witness asserted that one part of the land houses the prison quarters, while the other part comprises of the prison farm. 18. It was the further testimony of the witness that the complaint before the Court touches on and concerns the irregular allocation of the prison land. To this end, the witness testied that the land currently registered in the name of the 1st Defendant falls within the map constituting the prison land. 19. The witness further testied that same has availed to the court a copy of the map relating to the entire of Isiolo town and which map same has placed before the court. The witness asserted that the map in question covers the entire of the prison land. 20. Referred to the plaint, the witness averred that the suit property, which is being claimed by the 1st Defendant is LR No. 7918/736. However, the witness conceded that the prison land has never been surveyed. 21. On cross examination by learned counsel for the 3rd Defendant, the witness averred that before a licensed surveyor can undertake surveying, such a surveyor must have assorted documents. The witness averred that the documents include; a copy of the letter of allotment and the approved Part Development Plan. Furthermore, the witness averred that the party development plan that created the prison land has never been superseded. 22. It was the further testimony of the witness that he visited the 3rd defendant’s oce and the 3rd Defendant showed unto him [witness] the documents which the 3rd Defendant had in his custody. The witness added that the 3rd Defendant also wrote a letter to the director of survey. 23. On cross examination by the learned counsel for the 4th defendant, the witness averred that the land in dispute is currently occupied by various people. However, the witness intimated that he is not able to conrm the exact number of the people who have interfered with the land belonging to the prison. 24. Upon being referred to his witness statement, the witness averred that the has referenced various development plan[s]. The witness averred that the various development plan[s] were prepared by the physical planning. The witness claried that the 4th development was not the director of physical planning. In addition, the witness posited that the 4th Defendant’s name is not contained at the foot of the Part Development Plan. 25. On cross examination the learned counsel for the 6th Defendant, the witness testied that same was tasked with the assignment of obtaining various documents from the ministry of land. However, the witness admitted that in the course of his assignment, he did not obtain a copy of the lease instruments, which gave rise to the certicate of lease. In addition, the witness averred that he did not interact with the 6th defendant. 26. While still under cross examination, the witness averred that a land registration ocer, does not engage him/herself in the process of survey; the process of preparation of the Part Development Plan, or in the process of allotment of land. In particular, the witness averred that the land registration ocer only deals with the land registration. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6063/eng@2026-09-17 4

page 4 of 25

27. The second witness who testied on behalf of the Plainti was Rure Ochieng. The same testied as PW2. 28. It was the testimony of the witness that same is a surveyor by profession. The witness added that he is conversant with the facts of the case. Moreover, the witness posited that he has recorded a witness statement dated the 08.06.2019 and which witness statement the witness sought to adopt as his evidence in chief. Thereafter, the witness statement was duly adopted and constituted as evidence in chief of the witness. 29. On cross examination by learned counsel for the 1st Defendant, the witness averred that the land in question was reserved for prison. However, when pressed further the witness admitted that he did not have any document to show that the land in question was reserved for prison. 30. On cross examination by learned counsel for the 1ST Defendant, the witness averred that he is a surveyor by profession. In addition, the witness testied that as a surveyor, same would require a letter of allotment and a Part Development Plan to undertake survey. The witness added that same came across the survey plan and that the survey plan was authenticated. Besides, it was the testimony of the witness that authentication of the survey plan is done by the director of the survey. 31. On cross examination by learned counsel for the 4th Defendant, the witness testied that the suit property was reserved for prison. The witness averred that the reservation was done by the development plan. 32. Upon being referred to the development plan number ISL/117/2006 /01, the witness averred that the said development plan is before the court. Furthermore, the witness stated that the development plan is genuine. 33. On cross examination for the 6th defendants, the witness testied that the property before the court arose from the lager parcel, namely; 79/18. Nevertheless, the witness claried that the suit property is LR No. 79/18/736. Moreover, the witness admitted that a land registration ocer does not involve him/herself in the process of preparation of a Part Development Plan; allocation of land or survey of land. 34. The third witness who testied on behalf of the Plainti was Cheruyoit Kimutai Mathew. The witness testied as PW3. 35. It was the testimony of the witness that same is a physical planner. The witness added that currently, he [witness] is stationed at Isiolo. The witness further averred that same recorded a witness statement dated 27.08.2018. Thereafter, the witness sought to adopt the witness statement as his evidence in chief. Suce it to state that the witness statement was duly adopted and constituted as the evidence in chief of the witness. 36. On cross examination by learned counsel for the 1st defendant, the witness testied that the development plan serves the purpose of reserving land. The witness asserted that development plan number 117/75/1 was used to reserve the prison land. 37. However, while still under cross examination, the witness testied that he does not know how the land was allocated to the prison. The witness admitted that where land is reserved for a particular, purpose, the purpose can be changed. In particular, the witness testied that there are laws that govern/regulate change of user. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6063/eng@2026-09-17 5

page 5 of 25

38. Regarding development plan number ISL/117/2006/01, the witness averred that the same was prepared and signed by the department of physical planning. Moreover, the witness averred that the current plan superseded the previous one. 39. On cross examination by the learned counsel for the 3rd defendant, the witness testied that a surveyor would ordinarily require a letter of allotment and a Part Development Plan as authority to undertake survey. The witness added that survey exercise can even proceed where the Part Development Plan has not been approved. 40. On cross examination by learned counsel for the 4th defendant, the witness testied that the Part Development Plan before the court does not have the reference number. Besides, the witness averred that the Part Development Plan does not have the approval number. Moreover, it was the testimony of the witness that where the Part Development Plan does not have the approval number and the reference number, then a surveyor cannot proceed to undertake survey. 41. While under cross examination, the witness testied that the Part Development Plan relating to the allotment of the suit property, was obtaining at the records of the physical planning. In addition, the witness stated that the letter at page 49 of the Plaintis bundle of documents conrm that the plan attached to the letter was authentic. 42. On cross examination for the 6th Defendant, the witness averred that the Part Development Plan comes earlier; then the letter of allotment and the lease instruments. The witness averred that a land registrar is never involved in the process of preparing a Part Development Plan or a survey plan. 43. The 4th witness who testied on behalf of the Plainti was Philip Munyoki Mengi. He testied as PW4. 44. It was the testimony of the witness that he is land registrar. The witness averred that currently he is stationed at Garisa. In addition, the witness posited that previously he was stationed at Isiolo. Moreover, the witness averred that he has recorded a witness statement and which statement the witness sought to adopt and rely on. Suce it to state that the witness statement was duly adopted and constituted as the evidence in chief. 45. On cross examination by learned counsel for the 1st defendant, the witness averred that the land registrar is at liberty to register a lease agreement with accordance with the law. The witness claried that a land registrar does not engage him /herself with the issuance of the letter of allotment or preparation of Part Development Plan. Furthermore, a witness averred that a land registrar does not audit/ review the process of allotment of land. 46. The next witness who testied on behalf of the Plainti was Michael Mukeria. Same testied as PW5. 47. It was the testimony of the witness that same works with the directorate of survey. In addition, the witness averred that he recorded a witness statement dated the 15.08.2018. Thereafter, the witness sought to adopt and rely on the contents of the witness statement. Suce it to state that the witness statement was duly adopted as the evidence in chief of the witness. 48. Additionally, the witness referenced various documents, including documents number 23, 33, 35 and 32 and which documents the witness sought to produce as exhibit[s]. There being on objection to the production of the document, same were duly produced as exhibits P23, 32, 33 and 35, respectively. 49. On cross examination by learned counsel for the 4th defendant, the witness averred that he is currently the deputy director of survey. However, the witness claried that at the time when he signed the letter dated 11.02.2014, same was acting senior director of survey. The witness added that the letter was written on behalf of the letter of survey. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6063/eng@2026-09-17 6

page 6 of 25

50. Regarding the document at page 26 of the Plainti’s list and bundle of document, the witness averred that same is a Part Development Plan. The witness added that the said Part Development Plan was duly signed by the director of physical planning. Besides, the witness intimated that the Part Development Plan in question could be used for purposes of undertaking survey. 51. It was the further testimony of the witness that the Part Development Plan in question, is the same one that was forwarded to the directorate of survey from the department of physical planning. In addition, the witness averred that the survey documents obtaining at the survey’s oces were forwarded for verication and same were duly veried and approved by National Land Commission . 52. On cross examination by learned counsel for the 4th defendant, the witness testied that same is a surveyor by profession. However, the witness claried that he is not a licensed surveyor. In addition, the witness testied that he is a qualied land surveyor. 53. The witness further testied that same has referred to various documents in the body of his statements. In particular, the witness averred that he has referenced the letter of allotment. It was the further testimony of the witness that the letter of allotment was sent/forwarded to National Land Commission [NLC] for verication. 54. It was the further testimony of the witness that the letter that forwarded the various documents to National Land Commission was written on behalf of the director of survey. Moreover, the witness averred that National Land Commission undertook the verication exercise and reverted vide the letter at page[s] 47 and 48 of the Plainti’s bundle of documents. 55. Regarding the document at page 26, of the Plainti’s bundle of documents, the witness averred that the document is the Part Development Plan. In addition, the witness posited that the Part Development Plan was duly signed. Besides, the witness testied that the Part Development Plan in question, is the one that same received from the directorate of physical planning. The witness added that the Part Development Plan could be relied upon for purposes of undertaking survey in respect of the suit plot. 56. On cross examination by learned counsel for the 1st defendant, the witness averred that same is the one who was tasked to undertake investigations relating to the suit property. The witness claried that the letter mandating him [witness] was written by Mr. Jumba, on behalf of the director of survey. The witness also averred that the same received a letter from National Land Commission which conrmed the authenticity of the letter of allotment and the Part Development Plan. 57. While still under cross examination by learned counsel for the 1st defendant, the witness averred that the authenticity of the Part Development Plan and the letter of allotment, were conrmed by National Land Commission and the directorate of survey. Moreover, the witness averred that the director of survey also received the survey plan and the deed plan. 58. On cross examination by learned counsel for the 3rd defendant, the witness testied that a licensed surveyor is authorized to conduct survey on the basis of letter of allotment. Besides, the witness averred that the various documents that were relied upon in respect of the survey process were subjected to verication. In particular, the witness conrmed that the documents were veried and conrmed to be correct. 59. On cross examination by the learned counsel for the 6th defendant, the witness testied that the documentation relating to the allotment; survey and registration of the suit property in the name of the 1st Defendant were all conrmed to be authentic. The witness added that a deed plan was indeed prepared and authenticated. Furthermore, the witness added that the land registrar who acted on the deed plan and thereafter registered the lease, acted properly and in accordance with the law. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6063/eng@2026-09-17 7

page 7 of 25

60. The next witness who testied on behalf of the Plainti was Ibrahim Hassan Shako. The witness testied as PW6. 61. It was the evidence of the witness that same was the in charge of G K Prison – Isiolo between the year 2009 to 2018. In addition, the witness averred that the same is therefore familiar with the facts of the case. The witness averred that same has since recorded and led a witness statement. The witness referenced the statement dated the 13.12.2017. Thereafter, the witness sought to adopt and rely on the witness statement as his evidence in chief. Suce it to state, the witness statement was duly adopted and constituted as the evidence in Chief of the witness. 62. On cross examination by learned counsel for the 4th Defendant, the witness testied that the contents of his witness statement are correct. In addition, the witness posited that same has referenced some case in his statement. Nevertheless, the witness averred that he does not recall the details of the case and the status of the said case. 63. The next witness who testied on behalf of the Plainti was James Nyaga Kithinji. Same testied as PW7. 64. It was the testimony of the witness that same is a qualied and registered valuer. In addition, the witness averred that same is also an employee of the Plainti [Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission]. Besides, the witness averred that same is conversant with the facts of the case. To this end, the witness posited that same has since recorded and led a witness statement. The witness referenced the statement dated the 15.08.2023 and which statement the witness sought to adopt as his evidence in chief. Thereafter, the witness statement was adopted as the evidence in chief of the witness. 65. The witness also adverted to a valuation report relating to the suit property. The witness pointed out that same undertook the valuation exercise in the year 2018. Thereafter, the witness sought to produce the valuation report [the certicate] dated the 10.08.2018 as an exhibit. There being no objection to the production of the valuation certicate, same was produced and marked as exhibit P46 on behalf of the Plainti. 66. The next witness who testied on behalf of the Plainti is Stephen Yego. The witness testied as PW8. 67. It was the testimony of the witness that same is a forensic document examiner. The witness added that same has been a document examiner for more than 16 years. In addition, the witness averred that same recorded a witness statement in respect of the subject matter. To this end, the witness referenced the statement dated the 18.08.2023 and thereafter sought to adopt the statement as his evidence in chief. Suce it to state that the witness statement was indeed adopted as the evidence in chief. 68. Additionally, the witness adverted to the document at pages 90 to 122 of the Plaintis further list and bundle of documents; and which document the witness pointed out to be the document examination report dated the 20.03.2024. Thereafter, the witness sought to tender and produce the report as an exhibit before the court. There being no objection to the production of the report, same was produced and admitted as exhibit P47 on behalf of the Plainti. 69. On cross examination by learned counsel for the 4th defendant, the witness averred that same was availed samples of specimen signature[s] of the 4th defendant. The witness added that the specimen signatures were taken on the 16.01.2019. It was the further testimony of the witness that specimen signatures were taken to him after a duration of ve years. 70. While still under cross examination, the witness testied that the concept to timelines is important in the examination of specimen signature[s]. In particular, the witness testied that there are points in https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6063/eng@2026-09-17 8

page 8 of 25

time, when the writing of a particular writer is established and certain inherent characteristics will exist throughout the writer’s life. 71. The witness further testied that same examined the samples of specimen signatures of the 4th Defendant and compared same against the questioned signature and thereafter returned a nding that the signature [questioned signature] belonged to the 4th defendant. 72. On cross examination by learned counsel for the 6th defendant, the witness averred that the specimen signature[s] were forwarded to him vide an exhibit memo form. In addition, the witness averred that the exhibit memo form was forwarded to him by the investigating ocer. 73. The next witness who testied on behalf of the Plainti was Evelyne Anyango Odipo. Same testied as PW9. 74. It was the testimony of the witness that same is familiar with the subject matter. In particular, the witness testied that same was the investigating ocer in respect of the matter. Moreover, the witness averred that same has since recorded and led a witness statement dated the 07.12.2021. To this end, the witness sought to adopt and indeed adopted the witness statement as her evidence in chief. 75. Furthermore, the witness referenced the supplementary list and bundle of documents dated the 21.06.2024 and thereafter sought to produce the documents thereunder as exhibits. There being no objection, the documents were tendered and produced as exhibits P1 to P92, respectively. 76. It was the further testimony of the witness that same is also aware that the Plainti led an amended plaint dated the 21.06.2024. To this end, the witness sought to adopt the amended plaint and the verifying adavit thereto. Besides, the witness invited the court to grant the reliefs sought at the foot of the amended plaint. 77. On cross examination by learned counsel for the 4th defendant, the witness averred that same recorded the witness statement of the 4th defendant. In particular, the witness stated that the 4th Defendant indicated that same [4th defendant] was knowledgeable of the existence of the letter dated 20.02.2014. In addition, the witness averred that the 4th Defendant also indicated that the 4th Defendant does not reference the Part Development Plan number as required. 78. While still under cross examination, the witness testied that the 4th Defendant denied the signature at the foot of the letter dated 20.02.2014. Moreover, the witness testied that 4th Defendant also posited that the letter in question had not been marked for his attention. 79. It was the further testimony of the witness that the 4th Defendant also indicated that the Part Development Plan was a forgery. The witness posited that the 4th Defendant gave reasons as to why same [4th defendant] believed that the Part Development Plan was a forgery. In particular, the witness averred that the 4th Defendant adverted to the absence of a certicate in accordance with the Physical Planning Act. 80. While still under cross examination, the witness testied that the letters at pages 62 and 63 of the Plaintis supplementary list and bundle of documents are letters addressed to the CEO /Secretary of the Plainti. The witness averred that the contents of the letter conrmed that the PDP in question was / fake. Nevertheless, the witness conceded that same did not record any witness statement from Augustine Masinde. 81. On cross examination by the learned counsel for the 1st defendant, the witness testied that the intended Allottee of public land is never involved in the preparation of a Part Development Plan. In https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6063/eng@2026-09-17 9

page 9 of 25

particular, the witness averred that the allotment of land involves the preparation of Part Development Plan and thereafter, the issuance of a letter of allotment. 82. It was the further testimony of the witness that the letter of allotment, which was issued in favour of the 1st Defendant was duly paid for. The witness averred that same has since availed copies of the payment receipts. It was stated that the payment receipts, were procured and obtained from the land department. Moreover, the witness testied that the letter of allotment was not marked as a forgery. In particular, the witness averred that the letter of allotment was conrmed to be authentic and lawful by National Land Commission . The witness referenced the letter dated 19.02.2014. 83. Additionally, the witness averred that same has spoken about particulars of fraud. The witness added that the fraud alluded to relates to the development plans. Nevertheless, the witness admitted that same does not have any evidence of fraud and involvement of the 1st Defendant in the preparation of the development plans. In any event, it was the testimony of the witness that the development plans were duly approved. Besides, the witness added that the development plan has a certicate at the foot of the plan. 84. It was the further testimony of the witness that same obtained the Part Development Plan, development plans; and the various documents from the department of lands. The witness claried that she did not obtain the impugned documents from the 1st defendant. Moreover, the witness testied that the documents were obtained from the ocial records of the ministry of lands. 85. On cross examination by learned counsel for the 3rd defendant, the witness averred that the letter of allotment was conrmed to be genuine. Regarding the letter at pages 49 and 50 of the Plainti’s supplementary bundle of documents, the witness averred that the letter in question emanated from the director of physical planning. However, the witness averred that she determined that the letter of allotment was a forgery. 86. While still under cross examination, the witness testied that the survey by the 3rd Defendant was under taken in the year 2014. The witness admitted that the Part Development Plan which was used to ground the survey was genuine. Further, and in addition, the witness conceded that the 3rd Defendant undertook survey and thereafter the survey plans, were escalated to the director of survey. Moreover, the witness averred that the survey plans and the consequential survey documents were duly approved by the director of survey. 87. On cross examination by learned counsel for the 6th defendant, the witness averred that the 6th Defendant was is a land registrar. The witness averred that the 6th Defendant was only responsible for the issuance of the certicate of lease. In addition, the witness posited that the 6th Defendant was never involved in the preparation and issuance of the Part Development Plan; the survey plan; or the deed plans. In particular, the witness conceded that the work of the 6th Defendant comes at the tail end of the process. 88. It was the further testimony of the witness that even though the 6th Defendant has been sued, same [witness] has not faulted the 6th Defendant for any wrong doing. The witness added that she has not indicated in her evidence that the 6th Defendant knew or had reason to know/believe that there was something irregular or illegal, with the lease instruments. 89. In addition, the witness testied that the 6th Defendant acted in accordance with the provisions of the law. Nevertheless, the witness averred that she formed an opinion that the actions of the 6th Defendant were ultra vires. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6063/eng@2026-09-17 10

page 10 of 25

90. The next witness who testied on behalf of the Plainti was Timothy Waywa Mwangi. Same testied as PW10. 91. It was the testimony of the witness that same is the deputy director of the physical planning. The witness added that same has also recorded two sets of witness statements. In addition, the witness referenced the statement dated the 25.07.2023 and the 04.06.2024. Thereafter the witness sought to adopt the two sets of statements as his evidence in chief. Suce it to state that the witness statement[s] were duly adopted as the evidence in chief of the witness. 92. It was the further testimony of the witness that by virtue of his oce, same is conversant with the facts of this matter. Regarding, document number 3 at the foot of the Plainti’s supplementary bundle of documents, the witness averred that the document is the development plan number 117/75/1. The witness claried that the development plan relates to Zone 9 [1]. In addition, the witness posited that the zone refers to prison farm. 93. On cross examination by the learned counsel for the 4th defendant, the witness testied that same was familiar with the 4th defendant. The witness claried that the 4th Defendant is also a registered and qualied planner. Moreover, the witness asserted that the 4th Defendant was previously his [witness] colleague. 94. It was the further testimony of the witness that when the investigations pertaining to the matter in respect of the prison farm was being conducted the 4th Defendant was not present. The witness added that the Plainti [EACC] recorded his statement as pertains to the status of the development plan number 117/75/1 and the Part Development Plan pertaining to the suit plot. 95. In addition, the witness averred that the department of Physical Planning generated a letter dated the 30.08.2018 – Reference number PDP /6/26/IV/12. Besides, the witness averred that the Part Development Plan relating to the suit property was not authentic. Moreover, the witness averred that the Part Development Plan did not form part of the record of the department of Physical Planning. 96. While still under cross examination, the witness testied that the Part Development Plan did not have the departmental reference number. Regarding, the letter referenced PDP/8/XXII/107, the witness averred that the said letter was a forgery. 97. It was the further testimony of the witness that the department of Physical Planning had generated other letters, which showed that the letter by the 4th Defendant was forgery. 98. On cross examination by learned counsel for the 1st Defendant, the witness testied that what constitutes the prison farm underwent change of user and same was converted into industrial area. The witness added that the change of user was under taken in 2006. 99. Regarding the document as page 27 of the list and bundle of documents, the witness averred that the document is a letter of allotment relating to plot A Isiolo. The witness added that the plot which was being allocated was an industrial plot. Furthermore, it was the testimony of the Defendant that the 1st Defendant accepted the terms of the letter of allotment. 100. While still under cross- examination, the witness testied that by the time the letter of allotment was being issued to the 1st defendant, the land in question had already been converted and reserved for industrial purposes. 101. Regarding the documents at page 48 of the Plainti’s supplementary Bundle of documents, the witness averred that the document is a letter from the National Land Commission. In particular, the https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6063/eng@2026-09-17 11

page 11 of 25

witness averred that the letter conrmed that the letter of allotment in favor of the 1st Defendant is genuine. 102. Regarding the document at page 62 of the Plainti supplementary list of documents, the witness averred that the document is a letter by the physical planning. In addition, the witness testied that the letter in question was written to the secretary /CEO of the Plainti [EACC]. Besides, the witness claried that the director of physical of planning conrmed that the re-zoning of the suit plot/area was legitimate. 103. Regarding the document at page 26 of the Plainti’s supplementary bundle of document, the witness averred that the document is a copy of the Part Development Plan issued in 1998. In addition, the witness averred that it is the said Part Development Plan, which gave rise to the suit plot. 104. Regarding the letter of allotment in favor of the 1st defendant, the witness averred that the same does not have a reference number for an approved development plan. Besides, the witness posited that the acceptance letter was issued on the 27.01.2009. 105. On cross examination by learned counsel for the 6th defendant, the witness averred that the 6th Defendant is a land registration ocer. The witness added that the 6th Defendant is never involved in the preparation of development plans or Part Development Plans. It was the further testimony of the witness that the 6th Defendant is also never involved in issuance of letters of allotment or survey exercise. 106. It was the further testimony of the witness that the 6th Defendant is only tasked with the registration of the lease and the issuance of the resultant certicate. The witness claried that the lease at page 37 of the Plainti’s bundle of documents, was duly executed by the chief land registrar. In addition, the witness averred that the 6th Defendant would not know of any defect in the preparation of the Part Development Plan unless the director of planning wrote to him. 107. Be that as it may, the witness claried that the director of physical planning, did not write to the 6th defendant, either to cancel the title or to ax any restriction against the title. 108. With the foregoing testimony, the Plainti’s case was closed. 109. The 1st Defendant case is premised on the evidence of one witness. The witness is Abdullahi Maalim. The witness testied as DW2. 110. It was the testimony of the witness that same is a director of the 1st Defendant. In addition, the witness averred that he has since recorded a witness statement dated the 03.02.2022. The witness thereafter, sought to adopt and rely on the evidence as his evidence in chief. Suce it to state that the witness statement was duly adopted as the evidence in chief of the witness. 111. Additionally, the witness referenced the list and bundle of documents dated the 23.03.2022, containing 7 documents. The witness thereafter sought to adopt and produce the documents as exhibits before the court. There being no objection to the production of the document, same were duly produced and admitted as exhibits D1 to D7, respectively on behalf of the 1st Defendant. 112. The witness also adverted to the statement of defence dated the 03.02.2022. The witness sought to adopt and rely on the contents of the statement of defence. In particular, the witness sought to have the Plainti’s case to be dismissed. Moreover, the witness posited that the claims by the Plainti are false and misleading. 113. On cross examination by the learned counsel for the 3rd defendant, the witness averred that the survey exercise was undertaken by the 3rd defendant. However, the witness claried that he [witness] did not https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6063/eng@2026-09-17 12

page 12 of 25

know the surveyor who undertook the survey work. In addition, the witness stated that the survey exercise was undertaken prior to the issuance of the certicate of lease. 114. While still under cross examination, the witness testied that his company [the 1st Defendant] applied to be allocated land in the year 1998. The witness added that thereafter, the commissioner of lands generated and issued a letter of allotment. Moreover, the witness posited that the 1st Defendant accepted the terms of the letter of allotment and paid the stamp premium. 115. It was the further testimony of the witness that upon compliance with the terms of the letter of allotment, the land in question was surveyed by a surveyor assigned by the Director of Survey. In particular, the witness added that the survey was undertaken on the basis of an approved Part Development Plan. In addition, the witness posited that the survey exercise was authorized by the commissioner of lands. 116. On cross examination by learned counsel for the 6th defendant, the witness averred that he [witness] has never encountered /met the 6th defendant. Furthermore, it was the testimony of the witness that same has no claims as against the 6th Defendant. 117. On cross examination by learned counsel for the 2nd Interested party, the witness averred that the land in question was duly allocated to the 1st Defendant vide letter of allotment dated the 25.11.1999. The witness claried that same is not aware whether the suit property had been allocated to the 2nd interested party vide letter of allotment issued on the 12.04.1994. 118. On cross examination by learned counsel for the 3rd interested party, the witness averred that same was not aware whether the land in question had been surveyed in 1976. In addition, the witness testied that the allocation of the suit land was undertaken by the commissioner of lands. 119. While still under cross examination, the witness posited that same duly complied with the terms of the letter of allotment. In particular, the witness averred that the 1st Defendant accepted the terms of the letter of allotment. Further, the witness added that the stand premium was duly paid. Besides, the witness posited that the timelines for the payment were duly extended. 120. On cross examination by the learned counsel for the Plainti, the witness averred that the 1st Defendant duly applied to be allocated the suit plot. In addition, the witness testied that same has produced before the court copies of the application for allotment. 121. However, when pressed further, the witness averred that same has not produced a copy of the application letter to the commissioner of lands. Be that as it may, the witness reiterated that the 1st Defendant made an application to the commissioner of lands. 122. It was the further testimony of the witness that the 1st Defendant did not make any application to the county council of Isiolo. Moreover, the witness averred that the letter of allotment which was issued in favour of the 1st Defendant does not reference the designated county council. The witness also admitted that the letter of allotment does not contain/indicate the plan number on the face thereof. 123. While still under cross examination, the witness averred that before the land was allocated to the 1st defendant, a Part Development Plan was duly prepared, checked and approved. The witness claried that the 1st Defendant did not know of whether the land in question had been allocated to or reserved in favour of the prison. 124. It was the further testimony of the witness that the certicate of lease in favor of the 1st Defendant was lawfully issued. In particular, the witness averred that all the processes were complied with. The witness denied the assertions that the certicate of lease was irregularly issued. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6063/eng@2026-09-17 13

page 13 of 25

125. Regarding occupation of the suit property, the witness testied that the 1st Defendant took possession and remained in occupation of the suit property from the year 1999. However, the witness testied that the 1st Defendant was evicted from the suit property in the year 2022 by the County Government of Isiolo [3rd Interested Party]. 126. The 4th defendant’s case is premised on the evidence of one witness. The witness is Patrick Bitengo Achoki. The witness testied as DW1. 127. It was the testimony of the witness that same is currently the director of Physical Planning – County Government of Kisii. Besides, the witness testied that he is also a qualied and registered planner. In addition, the witness averred that same has since recorded and led a witness statement dated the 04.10.2024. The witness thereafter sought to adopt and rely on the witness statement as his evidence in chief. Thereafter the witness statement was duly admitted and constituted as his evidence in Chief. 128. On cross examination by learned counsel for the 1st defendant, the witness averred that he is not a document examiner. Regarding the document at page 95 of the Plainti’s supplementary list and bundle of documents, the witness averred that the document in question is a copy of the forensic document examination report. The witness added that the document examiner has indicated that the signature at the foot of the impugned letter were authored by the same person. 129. It was the further testimony of the witness that the ndings by the document examiner indicate that the impugned signature belongs to him [witness]. 130. On cross examination by the learned counsel for the 3rd interested party, the witness averred that according to him, the letters in question [letters referred to in the document examiner’s report] are forgeries. The witness added that he has stated as much in his witness statement. 131. On cross examination by the learned counsel for the Plainti, the witness testied that same duly recorded a witness statement with the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission [EACC]. The witness claried that same disowned the letters reference number PDP/8/XX11/105. Further, the witness averred that his specimen signatures were taken by the Ethic and Anti -Corruption Commission. 132. It was the further testimony of the witness that same has seen a copy of the forensic document examiner’s report. In addition, the witness averred that according to the report, it is indicated that impugned letters were signed by him. In any event, the witness conceded that he has not tendered any document examiner’s report to contradict the one produced by the Plainti. 133. The 6th Defendant’s case is anchored on the evidence of one witness, namely Peter Mburu. Same testied as DW3. 134. It was the testimony of the witness that same is a land registrar, currently attached to the ministry of lands at Nairobi. In addition, the witness averred that same is also an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya. Moreover, the witness averred that the same recorded a witness statement pertaining to and concerning the subject matter. To this end, the witness referenced the statement dated the 17.04.2025 and thereafter sought to adopt the same as his evidence in chief. The witness statement was duly adopted and constituted as the evidence in chief of the witness. 135. Additionally, the witness adverted to the statement of defence dated the 09.09.2024; and which statement of defence the witness sought to adopt as part of his defence. The witness claried that same only undertook the registration of the lease, which had been duly prepared by the Chief Land Registrar and which was duly attested in accordance with the law. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6063/eng@2026-09-17 14

page 14 of 25

136. It was the further testimony of the witness that the registration of the lease and the issuance of the certicate of lease, are part of the duties of a land registrar. In this case, the witness asserted that same acted in accordance with the law. 137. On cross examination by learned counsel for the 3rd defendant, the witness averred that he undertook the registration of the lease in accordance with the obtaining provisions of the law. In particular, the witness asserted that prior to undertaking the registration of the lease, same was satised as to the validity and propriety thereof. 138. On cross examination by learned counsel for the Plainti, the witness averred that prior to undertaking registration of a lease, the land registrar must ascertain the existence of a Part Development Plan; a letter of allotment; a survey plan; deed plan; and a lease instruments, which must be duly executed. Furthermore, the witness averred that a land registrar is not authorized to audit/review the work of other professionals including the director of physical planning; the director of survey; or the commissioner of lands. 139. On cross examination by learned counsel for the 1st Defendant, the witness averred that same did not interact with or meet the directors or any of the directors of the 1st defendant. The witness reiterated that the registration of the lease was undertaken lawfully and within the scope of its mandate. 140. The 3rd Defendant did not tender any evidence. Notably, learned counsel for the 3rd Defendant sought to adopt the pleadings that were led by the defendant. To this end, the court made an order adopting the statement of defence dated the 25.01.2022, as part of the record. For good measure, the court claried that the statement of defence merely constitute[s] a pleading and not evidence. 141. The 2nd and 3rd interested parties did not call any evidence. For good measure, it suces to observe that the case for the named parties, was closed without any evidence being tendered. 142. The 1st interested party [National Land Commission ], neither entered appearance nor led any pleadings. The suit as against the 1st interested party proceeded on the basis of formal proof. 143. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the advocates for the parties sought time to le and exchange written submissions. To this end, the court proceeded to and issued directions pertaining to the ling and exchange of the written submissions. The directions were the Plainti shall le and serve written submissions within 14 days from the date of the directions; the Defendant shall le and serve written submissions within 14 days from the date of service by the Plainti; and the Plainti shall be at liberty to le and serve rejoinder submissions [if any] within 7 days from the date of service. 144. The Plainti led written submissions dated the 16.07.2026 and wherein the Plainti has highlighted various issues. The issues include: Whether the letter of allotment dated 25.11.1999 issued by the 2nd Defendant was lawful or otherwise; whether the conditions in the letter of allotment dated 25.11.1999 were met; whether the suit property was previously trust land and which fell within the jurisdiction of the 3rd interested party; and whether the 1st Defendant acquired lawful rights over the suit property. 145. The 1st Defendant led written submissions dated the 27.07.2026. The 1st Defendant has highlighted three [3] key issues. The issues are: Whether the land was available for allocation; whether the allocation to the 1st Defendant was fraudulent; and whether the reliefs sought are merited or otherwise. 146. The 3rd Defendant led written submissions dated the 23.07.2026. The 3rd Defendant has highlighted four [4] key issues. The issues are: Whether the Plainti has proved the allegation of fraud and illegality against the third defendant; Whether the Plainti has proved that the 3rd Defendant knowingly participated in any unlawful allocation or alienation of public land; whether the Plainti https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6063/eng@2026-09-17 15

page 15 of 25

has discharged the burden of proof imposed by the law; and whether the suit against the 3rd Defendant ought to be dismissed. 147. The 4th Defendant led written submissions dated 29.07.2026; and wherein same has highlighted four issues. The issues are: Whether the Plainti has discharged the burden of proving the allegation of fraud, malfeasance as against the fourth defendant; whether the Plainti has proved that the fourth Defendant authored the letter dated 20.02.2014; whether the Plainti has established any legal basis for imposing personal liability upon the 4th defendant; and whether the Plainti is entitled to any relief as against the 4th defendant. 148. The 6th Defendant led written submissions and wherein same has highlighted three [3] key issues. The issues are: Whether the Plainti has proved that the suit land was reserved for prison; whether the Plainti has proved its case against the 4th defendants; and What reliefs ought to be granted. 149. Having reviewed the pleadings led by and on behalf of the parties; the evidence tendered [both oral and documentary]; and upon considering the submissions on record, three [3] key issues emerge for determination. The issues are: Whether the suit property formed part and parcel of land which had been reserved for Isiolo G K Prison or otherwise; whether the allocation of the suit property to the 1st Defendant was lawful; and Whether the 1st Defendant acquired lawful rights thereto; and what appropriate reliefs [if any] ought to issue. 150. Regarding the rst issue, namely; whether the suit plot formed part and parcel of land that had been reserved for Isiolo G K Prison or otherwise, it is important to underscore that the burden of proving, or establishing the assertion, fell on the shoulders the Plainti. To this end, it behooved the Plainti to place before the court evidence, demonstrating that what comprises of the suit property, indeed stood alienated on the basis of reservation. 151. It is common ground that where land, which was previously Government Land under the Government Land Act, Chapter 280, Laws of Kenya, had been reserved for a particular purpose, then such land, ceased to be unalienated Government Land. Simply put, Government Land under the Government Land Act [now repealed] could be alienated on the basis of reservation. 152. The question that does arise is what constitute[s] alienation vide reservation? The reservation can take three dierent aspects. Reservation can be by way of duly prepared and approved Part Development Plan in respect of the designated land, showing the purpose for which it has been reserved. Reservation vide Part Development Plan is highlighted by section 3 of the Physical Planning act, chapter 286, laws of Kenya [now repealed]. The legal implication of alienation of land vide reservation was highlighted in the case of Kipsirgoi Investments Limited v Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission Civil Appeal No. 228 of 2010 [unreported] 153. In the case of Board of Trustees, National Social Security v Keiyo Teachers Co-operative Savings and Credit Society & 6 others [2026] KECA 327 (KLR), the Court of Appeal stated thus: “ Decided cases are in agreement that once land is gazetted as public land, it falls under a separate category of land that has already been alienated for a specic public use. (See Mungania & 3 Others vs. County Government of Meru & 6 Others (Petition E010 of 2024) (2025) KEELC 3299 (KLR) (23 April 2025) (Judgment). Once land is gazetted for a specic purpose or use, it is reserved for that purpose only and therefore, it is not available for general, private or alternative use. Public land is gazetted for a particular use enjoys a high level of legal protection, therefore, it is not available for re-alienation or sub-division or allotment. In https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6063/eng@2026-09-17 16

page 16 of 25

contrast, un-alienated public land is essentially public land that has not yet been committed for a specic lease or allotment.” 154. What was previously Government Land under the Government Land Act, could also stand alienated on the basis of assignment for use by the government or a public utility. This position was elaborated in the case of Frann Investment Limited v Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission & 6 others [2024] KECA 714 (KLR). 155. The Plainti contended that what was allocated to and in favor of the 1st Defendant was land that had already been alienated by way of reservation. To underpin this assertion, the Plainti tendered three key documents. The documents include: copy of gazette notice number 77 [exhibit p1]; copy of development plan number 117/75/1 exhibit P2; and copy of certied development plan number 117/2006/1 [exhibit P5]. These are the documents which were relied upon by the Plainti to buttress the assertion that the suit land was not available for alienation. 156. I wish to point out that gazette notice number 77 [exhibit P1] only references buildings that were gazetted and designated as prison. The gazette notice does not reference what is called “Prison Farm”, which is the portion that is purported to have birthed the suit property. To my mind, a reading of exhibit P1 does not help the Plainti’s case. 157. It is important to point out that contents of the said gazette notice were pointed out to PW1 and the Witness [ PW1] stated thus: “ I have produced a copy of the gazette notice. The gazette notice was published in 1977. The gazette notice relates to the suit land. The gazette notice relates to a building erected. It is the building that was being gazetted as a third class prison.” 158. It was the further testimony of PW1 that what is stated to be the prison land is traversed by the main road to Marsabit. However, the witness added that one part of the land is what houses the prison quarters and the other portion relates to the prison farm. Nevertheless, pw1 insisted that the gazette notice [exhibit P1] suces to demonstrate that same includes [sic] prison farm. 159. I hold the humble view, that the gazette notice does not relate to the land where the suit property is situate. In particular, the gazette notice is explicit and only relates to the buildings. The contents of the gazette notice [exhibit P1] cannot be expanded by way of oral evidence or at all. Section 97 of the Evidence Act Chapter 80 Laws of Kenya excludes extrinsic evidence while interpreting a deed or written memorandum. 160. The other documents that has been relied upon is the Development Plan number 117/75/1 [exhibit P2]. The document itself shows that same was proposed new Prison Farm. However, there is no gain saying that the document does not show who prepared it; whether it was subjected to approval; and whether it was approved. Suce it to state that the document, on the face of it, is plain. The document is clearly devoid of probative value. 161. Finally, the Plainti relied on development plan number 117/2006/1 [exhibit P5]. The said development plan was admitted by PW3, to have superseded development plan number 117/75/1, which is said to have reserved the proposed land for prison farm. PW3 further stated that the new development plan converted the area comprising suit for industrial use. 162. The sum total of the evidence that was tendered by and on behalf of the Plainti did not show that the suit property fell within the portion of land, which had either been reserved on the basis of any Part Development Plan or was under the occupation or use by the prison. It was not enough for the https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6063/eng@2026-09-17 17

page 17 of 25

Plainti to merely make assertions and throw documents on the face of the court under the pretext of proving reservation of the land. 163. I had pointed out elsewhere herein before that the burden of proof lay on the Plainti. The burden could only be discharged on the basis of cogent, and credible evidence. This is the import of Sections 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act Chapter 80 Laws of Kenya. 164. The need to prove that the land in question had been reserved for public use was highlighted in the case of County Government of Kakamega & another v Sila & another [2026] KECA 344 (KLR). 165. The court stated thus: “ The appellants were required to establish to the required standard of proof that the suit property was “unalienated” Government Landor that it had been set aside for a particular public purpose at the time the 2010 Constitution was promulgated or that the process leading to the allotment of the suit property by the 1st appellant’s predecessor in title was fraudulent or unprocedural. The appellant failed to discharge this burden that was placed on them. From the evidence placed before the trial court, it was clear that the process which the lease in respect of the suit property was alienated was legal. The 1st appellant’s predecessor in title had the requisite legal mandate to alienate and allot land within its jurisdiction for private ownership and development. Other than making unsubstantiated allegations of fraud, the appellants placed no evidence before the trial court that the initial allotment to the rst allottee was fraudulent or illegal.” 166. My answer to issue number One [1] is to the eect that the Plainti herein did not discharge the burden of proving that what comprises of the suit property was alienated Government Land; or that same was under the use; or occupation of GK Prison Isiolo. 167. Turning to the second issue, I wish to point out that the 1st Defendant tendered evidence through its director namely; Abudalahii Maalim. Same testied as DW2. In addition, the witness tendered assorted documents which were marked as exhibit D1 to D7 on behalf of the 1st defendant. The witness thereafter elaborated the process culminating to the registration of the suit property in the name of the 1st defendant. 168. I wish to highlight that the documentation that under pin the allotment of the suit property to and in favor of the 1st Defendant were admittedly forwarded to National Land Commission for verication and authentication. PW5 [Micheal Mukeria] and PW 9 Evalyn Anyango Odipo conrmed as much. 169. PW9 [Evalyn Anyango Odipo] while under cross examination by learned counsel for the 1st Defendant stated thus: “ I am aware that there is a letter from National Land Commission conrming that the letter of allotment in favor of the 1st Defendant is lawful. The letter from National Land Commission is dated 19.02.2014. The author of the letter recorded a witness statement and conrmed the authenticity of the letters of allotment.” 170. The question that comes to the fore is whose position is credible. On one hand, the Plainti is contending that the documentation underpinning the allotment in favor of the 1st Defendant are fraudulent and illegal, while the National Land Commission [the body chargeable with land administration], says that the documentation are legal. Suce it to state that the Plainti herein cannot impeach the decision of National Land Commission. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6063/eng@2026-09-17 18

page 18 of 25

171. Further, and in any event, one wonders why the Plainti chose to exclude the witness from National Land Commission who authored the letter dated 19.02.2014 and who reportedly recorded a witness statement with the Plainti. 172. The other aspect that merits consideration is the legal implication[s] of the payments of the standard premium outside the 30 days. This is one of the aspects and issue[s] that has been highlighted and relied upon by the Plainti to impeach the 1st Defendant title. I wish to state that the position taken by National Land Commission , in my humble view, insulates the 1st defendant. 173. Furthermore, I do wish to posit that having taken the Witness Statement of the Witness from the National Land Commission; and having obtained the Letter dated the 19.02.2014 from the said Commission, the Plainti was obliged to bring forth that Witness, even if the evidence of same would have been adverse. Suce it to state that the Plainti herein was intent on procuring the truth as pertains to the status of the Plot in question. The Plainti was therefore enjoined to place before the Court all the facts and the evidence within her custody, without [sic] concealment. It was immaterial, even if the evidence, would have been adverse. 174. I do wish to state that the withholding of the evidence of the Witness from National Land Commission by the Plainti herein, ought and must be taken to mean that the evidence of the said Witness, would have been adverse. [See the holding of the Court in the case of Stanley Mombo Amuti versus Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission [2019] eKLR]. 175. The Plainti herein also chose to impugn the legality of the process leading to the Certicate of Lease in favour of the Plainti, on the basis of the failure to pay the Stand premium [sic] within the 30Day period. In answer to this assertion, it is important to highlight that the Stand premium and the statutory levies, were duly paid; received; and acknowledged by the Government. Suce it to state the receipts, which are testament to the payments, were duly tendered before the Court. 176. Towards this end, it apposite to reference the decision in the case of Cabin Crew Investments Limited v Kenya Medical Training College & 4 others [2020] KECA 868 (KLR). The Court of Appeal addressed its legal mind to the implication[s] attendant to payment of standard premium outside the statutory 30 days. 177. The court stated thus: “ On the second issue, the elephant in the room is whether the suit property was available for alienation when the same was allocated to the appellant. As stated earlier, it is common ground that the 1st respondent was allocated the suit property and was supposed to comply with the terms stipulated in the letter of oer. The 1st respondent accepted the oer and paid the required monies albeit outside the thirty days stipulated in the letter of oer. Having done so, responsibility to process and issue the title documents rested with the 3rd respondent. Although the acceptance and payment of the premium was done outside the stipulated time, the 3rd respondent accepted the money and issued a receipt for the same and never informed the 1st respondent that the oer had been withdrawn or had lapsed. In the circumstances, the Commissioner of Lands could not purport to deem the suit property as unalienated and purport to allocate the same to another party.” 178. I am aware that that sanctity of the Certicate of Title, or lease cannot be deployed to insulate an illegality. However, in respect of the instant matter, there is no gainsaying that the documentation in favour of the First Defendant, including; The Part Development Plan; the Survey Plan; the Letter of https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6063/eng@2026-09-17 19

page 19 of 25

allotment; and the Lease, were submitted for verication to National Land Commission; and same were conrmed to be authenticate. 179. Though the decision[s] and nding[s] of National Land Commission are not strictly binding on the court, it is equally, important to point out, that the Court cannot disregard such nding[s], without a proper basis. Regarding this case, no basis exists to warrant taking such a course. 180. Arising from the foregoing, and coupled with the holding of the Court of Appeal in the Cabin Crew case [supra], I am minded to and do hereby return a nding that the allocation of the Suit Property in favour of the First Defendant, was lawful and legitimate. In short, the First Defendant’s Title, does not lend itself to cancellation. 181. Next is the issue of the appropriate relief[s], which ought to be granted. The Plainti herein sought various and diverse reliefs. It is important to interrogate the reliefs; and to discern, if at all, same merit to be granted. 182. Given the nature of the reliefs that were sought, I beg to address same sequentially. Firstly, the Plainti sought a declaration that the allocation of the suit property; and the subsequent, registration of same in the name of the First Defendant, was irregular; illegal; and unlawful. Suce it to state that the crux of the said assertion, was because it was contended that what constitutes the suit property, had already been alienated vide reservation in favour of GK Prison-Isiolo. 183. However, I wish to state that while dealing with issue number one hereinbefore, I interrogated the question, and found that no evidence of such reservation was tendered. A court of Law acts on the basis of evidence; and not mere assertions. [See the case of CMC Motor Aviation Limited versus Crusair Limited [1987] KLR 103; James Muniu Mucheru versus National Bank of Kenya Limited [2019] eklr; and Dr. Samson Gwer and 5 Others versus Kenya Medical Research Institute [2020] eklr, respectively]. 184. Secondly, the Plainti has sought an order for cancellation of the Register; and the Certicate of Lease in favour of the First Defendant. I do acknowledge that this court is seized of the mandate to do so vide the provision[s] of section 26 and 80 of the Land Registration Act, 2012 [2016]. However, the exercise of such power, is dependent on proof of fraud; misrepresentation; illegality; un-procedurality; or corrupt practice. 185. Be that as it may, there is no gainsaying that any claimant, who seeks to impugn a Certicate of Title, or Lease on the basis of such assertion[s], bears the burden of proof. In respect of the instant case, various allegations, were raised. However, I am afraid that no credible evidence was tendered. It is not lost on me that proof of fraud; forgery; and illegality, required plausible evidence. No such evidence was tendered, taking into account the Evidence of PW1; PW3; PW5; and PW9, respectively. 186. The third relief which has been sought by and on behalf of the Plainti, relates to the issuance of an Order compelling National Land Commission to [sic] issue a Letter of allotment in favour of the Cabinet Secretary, National Treasury, in trust for Isiolo GK- Prisons. What I hear the Plainti to be saying is that this Court can proceed to compel National Land Commission, which is one of the Chapter Fifteen Commissions, to perform its work/ function[s], in a particular manner. 187. I am not sure whether such kind of an Order can issue; or be issued against the National Land Commission [NLC], bearing in mind the import and tenor of Articles 67[2] and 249[2] of the Constitution, 2010. What I mean is that the commission cannot be commanded to issue a Letter of allotment, to and in favour of a particular person. 188. In any event, it bears repeating that the Commission [ National Land Commission] generated a Letter dated 19.02.2014; and wherein the Commission indicated that the allotment in favour of the First https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6063/eng@2026-09-17 20

page 20 of 25

Defendant was lawful. The said decision of the Commission remains in situ. The same has not been quashed. In the circumstance[s], and bearing in mind what I have already said above, I nd that the said prayer, is not tenable. 189. The other prayer, which has been sought is an Order to direct the Chief Land Registrar, to issue a Lease and cause the same to be registered in favour of the Cabinet Secretary, National Treasury, in trust for the GK Prisons- Isiolo. It is common knowledge that the mandate to administer and manage Public Land, vests in the National Land Commission; and not the Chief Land Registrar. This position was highlighted and armed by the Supreme Court in the case of In the Matter of National Land Commission [2015] eKL, at paragraphs 222-226 thereof. 190. It is also important to reference the decision in the case of Cordison International (K) Limited V Chairman National Land Commission & 44 Others [2019] KECA 830 (KLR). The Court of Appeal stated thus: “ It is important that we start by distinguishing between “alienation” and “allocation” of land. Section 2 of the Lands Act denes “alienation of land” as the sale or other disposal of the rights to land; while “allocation of land” means the legal process of granting rights to public land. 30. Article 67 of the Constitution that establishes the National Land Commission gives it power to, inter alia, manage public land on behalf of the national and county governments. The suit land is public land as dened under Article 62(1) (a) of the Constitution and therefore vests in and is held by the County Government of Lamu in trust for the people resident in the County. Article 62 (2) of the Constitution provides that the land shall be administered on behalf of the County residents by the National Land Commission . Section 5 (1)(a) of the National Land Commission Act is also explicit that one of the functions of the National Land Commission is to manage public land on behalf of the national and county governments. Under section 5(2) of the Act the Commission may, “on behalf of, and with the consent of the national and county governments, alienate public land.” 31. Section 12 of the Land Act grants the Commission authority to allocate public land on behalf of the national or county governments and section 14 of the Act species the steps that the Commission ought to take before it undertakes any such allocation. The Commission has to issue, publish or send a notice of action to the public and interested parties, at least thirty days before oering for allocation a tract or tracts of land. 191. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and having found that the allocation was lawful, there is no way that I can proceed and direct [sic] alienation of what is already private Land. 192. I now wish to turn to prayer of Permanent Injunction, to restrain the First Defendant, its agents, servants, or assigns from interfering with the suit property. Insofar as the First Defendant remains the registered Owner of the Suit property, same is vested with the lawful rights and privilege[s] thereto. In this regard, the court cannot proceed to restrain the registered owner of the Land, of what is undeniably his/her[s]. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6063/eng@2026-09-17 21

page 21 of 25

193. Finally, I wish to comment on the prayer seeking the amendment of the Development Plan Number SL/117/2006/01. Suce it to state that the Plainti did not implead the Ministry of Land. Further, no evidence was led to demonstrate that the said Development Plan, was not prepared in accordance with the Law. If anything, PW1 [Cheruyoit Kimutai Mathew] and PW10 [Timothy Waiywa Mwangi] testied that the said Development Plan, was lawfully prepared and subjected the lawful process[s]. 194. In addition, it is worthy recalling that PW10, testied and asserted that development plan number 117/75/1 was amended. The witnesses added that the amendment of the plan was undertaken in the year 2006. 195. For coherence, PW10 stated thus: “ The prison farm was subsequently converted to industrial in 2006. I do conrm that a plan was developed in 2006. There have been no other development plans in the year 2006. I conrm that the land in question remains industrial as of today.” 196. Moreover, the witness further testied thus: “ upon being referred to page 62 of the Plainti’s supplementary bundle of documents, the witness averred that the document by the director of Physical Planning and addressed to the secretary/CEO of Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission. The director of Physical Planning is indeed conrming that the re-zoning is legitimate” 197. What I hear PW10 [Deputy Director of Physical Planning] to be saying is to eect that plan number 117/75/1, which was underpinning the Plainti’s claim was lawfully superseded. In addition, the witness asserts that a new development plan was prepared and approved. The new development plan was approved in 2006. Thereafter, the usage of the area wherein the suit plot is located was converted to industrial. 198. Furthermore, PW10 has asserted that the director of Physical Planning indeed conrmed and acknowledges that the re-zoning was lawfully undertaken. Consequently, I am unable to impeach the duly approved development plan number 117/75/1/2006, which conrmed and underpins the change of user. Summary of ndings: 199. In the course of addressing the issues that were raised by the parties, the court has arrived at certain ndings. The ndings have been distilled from the totality of the evidence on record and the applicable law. It is therefore apposite to provide a summary of the ndings. 200. The ndings are: a. What constitutes the suit property was not alienated Government Land. b. The land in question was not preserved on the basis for an approved Part Development Plan. c. The gazette notice number 177 did not relate to the suit land. d. The gazette notice number 177 related to the buildings which were converted /constituted as third class prison. e. The Isiolo G. K Prison was not in occupation of what constitutes the suit property. f. The development plan number 117/75/1 did not relate to the suit property. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6063/eng@2026-09-17 22

page 22 of 25

g. The suit property was unalienated Government Land. h. The suit property was available for alienation. i. The suit property was lawfully alienated vide letter of allotment in favor of the 1st defendant. j. The letter of allotment was genuine and authentic. k. The letter of allotment was duly accompanied by an approved Part Development Plan. l. The Part Development Plan was genuine and authentic. m. The survey plan and the deed plan were duly approved and authenticated by the director of survey. n. The lease instrument was duly drawn and properly executed; and attested. o. The registration of the lease and the issuance of the certicate of lease were lawful p. The Plainti has not proved its claims. q. The suit property lawfully belongs to the 1st defendant. Conclusion: 201. Flowing from the foregoing, it must have become apparent that the prayer[s], or reliefs sought by the Plainti, over and in respect of the suit Parcel of Land are not legally tenable. The Plainti herein did not tender, or adduce credible evidence, inter-alia; evidence of reservation of the Suit property vide duly approved part Development [PDP]; or by way of occupation/ use of the suit property. In any event, there is no gainsaying that what constitutes the suit property, was admittedly, separate from ‘the Prison’’ which was the subject of the Gazzette. 202. Absent evidence, like it was observed in the case of County Government of Kakamega and Others versus Sila [Supra], the claim that the suit Land was [sic] alienated Government Land, dissipates into thin air. 203. Furthermore, it worth recalling that the Plainti had averred that the allocation of the suit Property, was illegal, fraudulent, and irregular. However, the evidence of Everlyn Anyango Odipo [PW9], conrmed the position of National Land Commission . Simply said, the position of the Commission [NLC] was to the eect that the allocation, was lawful. 204. Additionally, I wish to state that whenever a Plainti sues a party, in this case the Defendants, it behooves the Plainti to prove the assertion[s] against each and every Defendant. In this case, it was the duty of the Plainti to show the Court, why same had sued the 3rd Defendant, who is a licensed Surveyor; and whose role in the subject matter, was only to undertake survey, on the basis of duly approved PDP; and the Letter of allotment. Moreover, the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5, all conrmed an approved PDP and Letter of allotment, constitutes lawful authority to undertake survey. 205. Other than the foregoing, it is common ground that the Survey Plan; and the Deed Plan[s], arising from the Survey exercise by the Third Defendant, were duly approved and authenticated by the Director of Survey. However, the approval and authentication by the Director of Survey, were not challenged. 206. Regarding the Fourth Defendant, I wish to state and observe that the same was impleaded on the basis of some Letters, which indicated that the PDP was lawful. Nevertheless, the authenticity of the PDP was not impugned. The PDP was conrmed to have formed part of the Ocial records of the https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6063/eng@2026-09-17 23

page 23 of 25

Director of Physical Planning; and was one of the Document[s] that was reviewed by National Land Commission. 207. Then there was the suit as against the Sixth Defendant. The same was/ is a Land Registrar, and whose only sin, was undertaking his statutory duty in accordance with the Land Registration Act, 2012. I am at pains to understand the basis of the suit/ claims as against the Sixth Defendant. Moreover, the evidence on record, including that of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW5, PW9, and PW10, all conrmed that the Land Registrar, does not review the work of other professionals, including; the Director of Physical Planning; the Director of Survey; or the Commissioner of Lands [now defunct], now National Land Commission. 208. To my mind, the joinder of the Sixth Defendant herein, was not well-thought out. Be that as it may, I nd no basis for his joinder. The suit as against same, was misconceived; and still-borne. 209. From the foregoing, the bottom line is that the suit is bereft of merits. It is a sure candidate for dismissal. 210. To my mind, the registration in favour of the First Defendant was lawful. The First Defendant is therefore the lawful owner of the Land and thus entitled to the benet[s] of the Suit Property in accordance with the provisions of Sections 24 and 25 of the Land Registration Act, 2012 [2016]. 211. Finally, I have agonized over the question of costs. The Law is that costs follow the events. However, courts retain and have a discretion in awarding costs, subject to the existence of a good cause; or sucient reason. See the provisions of Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, Chapter 21, Laws of Kenya. 212. I have taken note of the fact that the Plainti is a Public and Constitutional body. In addition, it is important to point out that the suit was brought in Public Interest. In this regard, the order that commends itself to me is that each party shall bear own cost[s]. Final Orders: 213. 214. Pulling the threads together, the Final Orders that commend themselves to the court are: i. The Suit be and is hereby Dismissed. ii. Each Party shall bear own costs of the Suit. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU ON 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 OGUTTU MBOYA; FCIArb; CPM [MTI-EA]. JUDGE. In the presence of: Court Assistant: Zakayo . Mr. Munene for the Plainti Mr. A K Mwangi and Ali Ahmed for the 1st Defendant Mr. Ndegwa for the 3rd Defendant Mr. Musota for the 4th Defendant Mr. Ng’an’ga Mbugua for the 6th Defendant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6063/eng@2026-09-17 24

page 24 of 25

N/a for the 2nd defendant. N/a for the 5th Defendant N/a for the Interested Parties. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6063/eng@2026-09-17 25

page 25 of 25