Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC Appeal No E014 of 2024

Samate v Sempele (Environment and Land Appeal E014 of 2024) (6 August 2026) (Directions) [2026] KEELC 5297 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
6 August 2026
LGL. Gacheru
845 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Narok dismissed a landowner's appeal, confirming that Plot 113 and Plot 236 are the same plot.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling gives further directions following the Environment and Land Court at Narok's judgment of 5th March 2026 in an appeal by David Ole Samate against a judgment of Hon. H.M. Nyaberi (CM) in Narok Civil Case No 177 of 2017. The Respondent, as plaintiff in the trial court, had sought a declaration that he was the bona fide registered owner of Plot No Narok Township/113 Block 4, changed to Plot No 236, and that the Defendant's claim was fraudulent, null and void. The trial court found for the plaintiff and entered judgment in terms of prayers (a) and (b) with costs. On appeal, the ELC, invoking Section 78(1)(d) of the Civil Procedure Act, suspended the trial court judgment and directed the Narok County Physical Planning Officer and County Surveyor to prepare a Ground Report identifying the exact positions of Plots 109 and 113 and confirming which was changed to Plot 236. Senior Physical Planner Levin Kimeu filed a report dated 12th March 2026 and, in cross-examination, confirmed that Plot LR 113 Narok Township is the same as Plot LR 236 Block 4, that Plot 109 is Plot 234 Block 4, and that the owner of Plot 236 was rightful per the Development Plan. The court held there was no doubt the Respondent owns Plot 113 Block 4 and that the trial court correctly found in his favour. It upheld the trial court's judgment, dismissed the appeal with costs to the Respondent, and vacated the order suspending the trial court judgment, which remains in force.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether Plot No 113 Block 4, Narok Township is the same plot as Plot No 236, Narok Township, and whether the Respondent is the bona fide owner of that plot
  2. 2.Whether the trial court's judgment of 29th October 2024 should be set aside or upheld

Key legal issues

#
01

Identity of the disputed plots

Holding

Plot No 113 Block 4, Narok Township is one and the same as Plot LR No 236, and Plot No 109 is Plot No 234 Block 4; the plots are distinct

Reasoning

The court had, on 5th March 2026, suspended the trial court judgment and called for additional evidence under Section 78(1)(d) of the Civil Procedure Act. Levin Kimeu, a Senior Physical Planner, filed a Ground Report dated 12th March 2026 and, upon cross-examination by both counsel, confirmed from the Development Plan that Plot 113 corresponds to parcel 236 and Plot 109 to parcel 234, and that the owner of Plot 236 Block 4 was rightful on his plot.

p. 3
02

Whether the trial court's judgment should stand

Holding

The trial court correctly found in favour of the Respondent; the appeal is dismissed and the judgment upheld

Reasoning

On the basis of the Ground Report and the Planner's testimony, the court concluded there was no doubt the Respondent owns Plot 113 Block 4 (changed to LR 236), meaning the trial court's findings were correct. It therefore declined to set aside or overturn the judgment and consequential orders, upheld the judgment in its appellate jurisdiction, dismissed the appeal with costs, and vacated the interim suspension order.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A first appellate court may call for additional evidence under Section 78(1)(d) of the Civil Procedure Act, and upon re-evaluation of that evidence may affirm the trial court's judgment

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Appeal is dismissed with costs to the Respondent
  2. 2.The order of 5th March 2026 suspending the trial court's judgment of 29th October 2024 is vacated and/or discharged
  3. 3.The judgment of the trial court dated 29th October 2024 remains in force

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

LG
majority

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court at Narok
Narok Civil Case No 177 of 2017
Jurisdiction invoked
Appellate jurisdiction under Sections 78(1)(d), 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act

Relief refused

#

Appeal to set aside the trial court judgment and decree of 29th October 2024 and review the same

The Ground Report confirmed the trial court's finding that Plot No 113 is the same as Plot No 236 and that the Respondent owns it

p. 3

Costs

Costs of the Appeal to the Respondent

Quotable passages

#

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

With the above Ground Report, there is no doubt that the Respondent herein is the owner of Plot No 113 Block 4, in Narok Township, which was changed to LR NO 236, and the trial court correctly found in favor of the Plaintiff (Respondent) herein
p. 3Ownership and identity of Plot 113/Plot 236
this court in its appellate Jurisdiction upholds the Judgment of the trial court dated 29th October 2024, and proceeds to dismiss the instant Appeal vide the Memo of Appeal dated 21st November 2024, with costs to the Respondent herein.
p. 3Final orders - dismissal of appeal
the order of the court issued on 5th March 2026, suspending the Judgment of the trial Court dated 29th October 2024, is hereby vacated and/or discharged. The said Judgment remains in force.
p. 4Vacating of suspension order; trial judgment remains in force

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The preamble refers to the Respondent's suit as both 'Narok EMELC NO 117 OF 2017' and 'Narok Civil Case No 177 of 2017' in the appeal's title reference

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Samate v Sempele (Environment and Land Appeal E014 of 2024)  (6 August 2026) (Directions) [2026] KEELC 5297 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Appeal No E014 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5297/eng@2026-08-06

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.