Korwa v Pusikwang & 4 others (Environment and Land Case 61 of 2018) [2025] KEELC 7916 (KLR)

No. 41 and placing it on Sheet No. 40, particularly on the ground currently occupied by the deceased plaintifi under Sheet No. 40, which was its original position. d. An order directing the Land Registrar, West Pokot County, to issue a new title deed No. 490 in the deceased plaintifi’s name as per the acreage currently occupied by him on the ground, according to the County Surveyor’s findings as to the acreage occupied by each on title deed No. West Pokot/Chepareria/558, and for the court also to direct the Land Registrar, West Pokot, to recall and cancel Title No. West Pokot/Chepareria/558 and issue a new title deed measuring 62 acres as forming part of the title No. 558 in the name of the deceased plaintifi, as he has been occupying and using for many years. 2. The plaintifi contended that the 1st defendant is a son of the original plaintifi’s deceased brother, known as Kalomongin Pusikwang Merkor, who, together with the original plaintifi’s families in the early 1950s, settled on land now known as West Pokot/Chepareria/558 measuring approximately 47.01 Ha. 3. The plaintifi averred that during the land adjudication process in the 1974 or thereabout, the land committee members visited the land occupied by the two brothers now deceased, and clearly marked the boundary between them to which the original plaintifi was demarcated parcel No. 490, while his late brother was demarcated through the consent of their late father, parcel No. 558, according to the land adjudication records at the time as per the ground location, being the upper part, while the 1st defendant’s late father was occupying the lower part. 4. The plaintifi averred that the two suit parcels of land are distinct and separated by a boundary with clear physical features that have been maintained to date. He maintained that all the initial owners of the land parcels had lived peacefully without any interferences until they, together with their wives, passed on and their remains were interred in their separate but distinct portions of land, the 1st defendant's residence being about a kilometer away from the common boundary. 5. The plaintifi averred that at all material times since the demarcation process ended in 1974, parcels No. 489, 490 and 491 have been neighbours and are supposed to fall in Sheet No. 40 on the survey map, and at no time has the deceased plaintifi occupied land which is allegedly indicated as parcel No. 490 on Sheet No. 41 on the survey map, otherwise his actual occupation has always been on the lower side of the suit land since 1950s. He insisted that title No. 490, on Sheet No. 41, has been under the use and occupation of the occupant of parcel No. 435 on the same sheet since time immemorial, separated by a permanent feature, namely, River Chepinyiny, with land parcel No. 558. 6. The initial plaintifi averred that while the foregoing has been the known facts, in January 2018, he visited the lands ofice in Kapenguria to check the status of his land title, only to be told that parcel No. 490 does not exist on the ground, where he has been occupying todate, otherwise from the land records, his parcel No. 490, was sharing a common boundary with parcel No. 435 and parcel No. 558. 7. The plaintifi averred that the original plaintifi was further told that parcel No. 490 measured 12 acres instead of the 60 acres he had been occupying, under parcel No. 558. 8. The plaintifi averred that the original plaintifi also discovered that the 1st defendant had gone ahead and taken the entire title deed for land No. West Pokot/Chepareria/558 without his knowledge. Upon approaching the 1st defendant and informing him of the status at the land ofice concerning the two parcels of land, the plaintifi averred that the 1st defendant told the original plaintifi that the issue could amicably be resolved, hence went to the area chief, who summoned the parties in the presence of village elders to look into the issues, who visited the site and found the boundary marks intact, as were placed during the demarcation exercise in 1974, including a barbed wire fence, https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7916/eng@2025-11-12 2

page 2 of 17

9. The plaintifi averred that after the site visit, the 1st defendant wrote to the original plaintifi a demand letter, giving him 30 days to move out of his land, hence this suit. 10. The plaintifi averred that during the process of mapping in the area, and compiling a list for the title deeds, the 1st and 3rd defendants fraudulently conspired to shift title deed No. 490 from its ground location that he currently occupies on Sheet No. 40 into Sheet No. 41, hence, giving room for the 1st defendant to be registered as the owner of title deed No. 558, currently occupied by the plaintifi. 11. The plaintifi averred that the 1st defendant knew the correct occupant and owner of the suit land but did not include it while he was secretly processing and acquiring the title to the land, as if he were the sole owner. 12. The plaintifi averred that the 3rd defendant failed to follow the boundary marks placed on the two parcels of land in 1974, interfered with the sequence of the numbering on the ground, and instead shifted parcel No. 490 from Sheet No. 40, where it is supposed to be, to Sheet No. 41, hence giving the 1st defendant room to extend his acreage for title No. 558 to include the ground where title No. 490 is supposed to be and which he has, since time-immemorial been occupying. 13. As a consequence of the 1st and 3rd defendants’ fraudulent acts, the plaintifi averred that the deceased plaintifi has been misplaced from his original position on the ground which has occasioned him to sufier great financial loss. 14. The 1st defendant opposed the suit through a statement of defence dated 13/9/2018, terming the suit brought by the initial plaintifi as misconceived and bad in law. While conceding that he was a nephew of the initial plaintifi, the 1st defendant insisted that his late father had his own land presently comprised of title No. West Pokot/Chepareria/483, while the plaintifi's present land is comprised of title No. West Pokot/Chepareria/490, while the 1st defendant's own land is presently comprised of title No. West Pokot/Chepareria/558, which three parcels of land located separately, approximately three kilometers from each other. 15. The 1st defendant averred that when the adjudication records were prepared, he was recorded as the owner of parcel No. 558, the plaintifi as the owner of parcel No. 490, and the 1st defendant’s father as the owner of parcel No. 483. 16. Further, the 1st defendant averred that the adjudication process set in place under the Land Adjudication Act Cap 284, as regards the Adjudication Section in question, was followed to the letter and at no time did the plaintifi lay any claim on parcel No. 558, until the adjudication register was prepared without anyone including the plaintifi lodging any objection, until the adjudication register was finalized and forwarded to the Chief Land Registrar for registration, hence the plaintifi is estopped from challenging the register at this point. 17. The 1st defendant averred that his father had only one son, being him, for whom he came to live with, upon whose death in 1997, he was buried on his land, namely parcel No. 558, which has solely been under his utilization. 18. The 1st defendant averred that the plaintifi moved and settled in difierent places within the adjudication section, but while still cultivating in parcel No. 490, and that finally, with the permission of the 1st defendant he settled on the latter’s land, cultivated part of the same as a family member but still went on cultivating on his own parcel No. 490, otherwise the 1st defendant was registered as the proprietor of title No. West Pokot/Chepareria/558, with efiect from 1/7/1998. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7916/eng@2025-11-12 3

page 3 of 17

19. The 1st defendant averred that subsequently, three sons of the plaintifi namely Moses Korwa, Samson Korwa and Martin Korwa moved out of his land No. 558, and settled on their father’s land in parcel No. 490, while around 2004, the plaintifi’s wife committed suicide and with his permission she was buried therein, whereby the initial plaintifi demolished his home, moved out of parcel No. 558 and went to live with his son Moses Korawa in Naivasha. 20. The 1st defendant averred that due to the 2008 tribal clashes, the initial plaintifi and his son, Moses Korwa, the current plaintifi, came back to parcel No. 490 and subsequently settled in his son’s land in Kapengurai, while some of his children remained in parcel No. 490. 21. Again, the 1st defendant averred that from the foregoing, the plaintifi moved out of parcel No. 558 in 2004 or thereabouts, and has never returned to the said land, hence the alleged claim based on adverse possession is not only premature but misconceived, for he was a mere licensee on his land. Further, the 1st defendant averred that one of the sons of the plaintifi by the name William Korwa was still on his land, and legal measures are underway to evict him. 22. The 1st defendant averred that it was not possible for three difierent parcels of land, No. 483, 490, and 558, which are located in difierent places, to be on the same sheet number No. 40, where parcel No. 558 is placed on the map. 23. The 1st defendant denied that the plaintifi and his sons have been occupying any part of parcel No. 558 since 2004; otherwise, the claim is made in bad faith. 24. The 1st defendant reiterated that the three parcels of land allocated above have at all times been located in difierent places as per the adjudication record and register, to which no objection was ever made by the plaintifi; otherwise, the plaintifi’s family and that of the 1st defendant have been occupying parcels No. 490 and 483, respectively. 25. The 1st defendant averred that he was not in any way involved and had never colluded with the 3rd defendant or anybody else in the adjudication process, or even in the compiling of the list for the title deed, as alleged or at all. The 1st defendant denied that parcel No. 490 has ever been shifted from Sheet No. 40 to Sheet No. 41 as alleged or at all. 26. Equally, the 1st defendant averred that to the extent that the plaintifi’s claim is based on adverse possession, then it means that the plaintifi acknowledges that he has a good title to parcel No. 558; hence, the claim based on fraud to be entitled to the cancellation of the said title is contradictory, otherwise the two causes of action cannot be pleaded together. 27. The 1st defendant termed the plaintifi’s reliefs sought on the amended amended plaint as legally untenable, as they are a backdoor attempt to alter, or change a finalized adjudication register contrary to the provisions of the Land Adjudication Act. The 1st defendant termed the claim based on adverse possession as bad in law. 28. The 2nd – 5th defendants opposed the suit by a statement of defence dated 23/2/2023. The defendants denied the contents of paragraphs 8A, 10A, 11A, 12A, 13A, 18, and 19 of the amended plaint. 29. The plaintifi through reply to defence by the defendants dated 26/9/2018 and 31/10/2023, insisted that his family has been staying on the lower part of parcel No. 558 since time immemorial which position was afirmed in the boundaries erected in 1974 during the adjudication process, where also parcel No. 490 should be situated, otherwise the Sheet No. 41 has misplaced it, for it is supposed to share a common boundary namely a river with parcel No. 558. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7916/eng@2025-11-12 4

page 4 of 17

30. The plaintifi maintained that the numbering of the three parcels of land as per the adjudication records for parcels No. 489, 490 and 491, but as per Sheet Map No. 40, the parcel sequence is 489, 558 and then 490, which does agree with the adjudication records, otherwise it is not possible for parcel No. 558 to come between parcel No. 489 and 490, which would have been refiected in the adjudication records. 31. The plaintifi averred that during the adjudication process, he was allocated parcel No. 558, which has a distinct boundary with the 1st defendant, where they have lived for over 50 years. 32. Further, the plaintifi averred, however, that he would have not have complained during the adjudication process for he knew that parcel No. 490 shared a common boundary with what is now called parcel No. 558 at the middle, as it was shown to him by the land adjudication ofice in 1974, only for the said parcel after many years to appear misplaced from the records as existing in map Sheet No. 41 for a difierent locality from the ground location, where he has been occupying. 33. The plaintifi averred that he had been notified of the said facts of shifting or misplacement, and he would have complained about the irregularities on time. The plaintifi termed the developments as secretly or fraudulently efiected by the 1st and 2nd defendants, when the ground status of occupation has never changed, since time immemorial, based on the known boundary of the upper and lower parts, where he has been occupying and utilizing almost half of what now turns to be parcel No. 558. 34. The plaintifi averred that he has been in darkness about the registration of parcel No. 558 in favour of the 1st defendant and its alleged location on the ground as if replacing his parcel No. 490 until 2018, otherwise, from 1998 when the 1st defendant became the registered owner, he never for 12 years bothered to inform him that his parcel No. 490 had been shifted from its ground locality under his occupation since 1990s, hence the doctrine of adverse possession is applicable. 35. The plaintifi averred that the misplacement of parcel No. 490 from Sheet Map 40 discloses an element of fraud or error on the part of the 1st and 2nd defendants, as parcel Nos. 489 and 558 seem to be on Sheet Map No. 40, while parcel No. 490 is on Sheet No. 41, instead of Sheet No. 40, where the plaintifi has been occupying, and not on plot No. 490 on Sheet No. 41. 36. The plaintifi averred that his son has been a beneficiary of the land for many years and insists that his family has been occupying it since 1950, on the ground that nearly half of what is now parcel No. 558. 37. As regards the defence by the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th defendants, the plaintifi’s reply to the defence is that the 5th defendant's own agent, the County Surveyor, has already made a report confirming that both he and the 1st defendant live on parcel No. West Pokot/Chepareria/558, separated by a barbed wire; none of his family members live on parcel No. 490, that the mapping of parcel No. West Pokot/ Chepareria/490 is not in conformity with the ground position on the map, that the 1st defendant occupies approximately 65 acres, while the plaintifi occupies about 62.8 acres, of parcel No. West Pokot/Chepareria/558, that instead of parcel No. West Pokot/Chepareria/490 and 558 sharing a common boundary on the ground, the position on the ground is that one Daniel Takei, the owner of West Pokot/Chepareria/1435, is the one on the southeastern side, contrary to the map. 38. The plaintifi averred that the facts raised in paragraph 7 by the 2nd – 5th defendants were not within his knowledge; they were not part of the proceedings between him and the 1st defendant. 39. The plaintifi averred that the defence that the area index map and the adjudication record are at variance with the ground position was a clear indication that a mistake was committed during the mapping process. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7916/eng@2025-11-12 5

page 5 of 17

40. At the trial, Martin Lokite Korwa testified as PW1. He relied on a witness statement dated 1/2/2021. His testimony was that the initial plaintifi was Kaboyi Merkor, his late father, and now represented the estate as per the limited grant, while the 1st defendant is a son of his uncle and brother to his father, one Kalomongin Pusikwang Merkor. 41. PW1 said that the two brothers, as early as 1950, settled on the suit land before the adjudication process started in the area in 1974, whereby a common boundary was erected to separate the two parcels on both lower and upper parts, with his father being demarcated owner of parcel No. 558, while the 1st defendant’s father was given parcel No. 490. 42. PW1 said that the two families have been staying peacefully and uninterrupted in their respective positions on the ground until title deeds were issued to them, only for a discovery to be made in January 2018 at the lands ofice, and later, the report of a government survey dated 7/6/2019 about the misplacement of parcel No. 490. 43. PW1 said that after visiting the land ofice, he was shocked to be told that his acreage is approximately 12 acres, parcel No. 490 had been shifted from the ground occupation and was now across the river, currently occupied by Daniel Tukei, owner of parcel No. 435 and that parcel No. 558 was now approximately 47 Ha, covering his entire lower part of the land, contrary to the ground position and occupation since 1950s. 44. PW1 said that all these discoveries were confirmed by the government survey that the titles to these parcels, positioning, and the locality do not tally with the position on the ground and the immense developments made by him. 45. PW1 said that after all these, he approached the 1st defendant on the way forward, who initially told him that they could resolve the matter amicably, and they held a family meeting in the presence of elders and the area chief, later revisited the boundary, and confirmed that it was intact since 1974. 46. PW1 said that after the foregoing confirmation, he was served with a demand letter by the 1st defendant to vacate the portion he has been occupying as if it is parcel No. 490 on the lower side now registered as parcel No. 558 and more across to where his parcel No. 490 ought to be as per the Sheet No. 40, across the river, which apparent is occupied by David Tukei as parcel No. 435. 47. PW1 urged the court to find that the title held by the 1st defendant has become extinguished by virtue of prescription. 48. PW1 relied on a copy of the limited grant ad litem dated 12/10/2020, certificate of oficial search for title No. West Pokot/Chepareria/558, adjudication records for Chepareria area, survey index map, photographs showing his homestead, chief’s letter dated 10/4/2018, proceedings for the meeting held at the chief’s ofice on 24/4/2018, elders resolution dated 2/5/2018, burial permit dated 19/10/1993, as P. Exhibit No. 1, 2(a) and (b) 3, 4 (a) and (b), 5(a) - (l) 10, PMFI -5(b) (Showing the occupation as of 1950 - 1976), and the current homestead since 2000 todate (P. Exhibit. No. 5(a) (l) – (10). 49. PW1 said that his late father made the discoveries in 2018 from the report of the land register when he went to collect his title deed, and was referred to the survey ofice for further clarification. 50. PW1 said that it was at the survey ofice that he was given the survey map (RIM) Sheet Nos. 41 and 40 showing the locality of parcel No. 490, which confirmed the anomalies P. Exhibit No. 4(a) and (b). 51. PW1 also relied on the chief’s letter and minutes PMFI - 7 and 8. PW1 said that the 1st defendant participated in all the burials of his late father and mother in 1993 and 2004 as per P. Exhibit. No. 9(a) https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7916/eng@2025-11-12 6

page 6 of 17

and (b) burial permit, the subject land, knew all along about their occupation of the lower side of what is now parcel No. 558. 52. PW1 said that he has never been evicted from the land and that they had never lived where parcel No. 490 is alleged to be situated across the river or stayed on the current locality without permission from the 1st defendant. 53. PW1 said that he was born in 1969 but only left parcel No. 558 after he got married in 1999 to live on parcel No. 1407. PW1 said that he went to school in Ortum High School between 1986 -1989 after his formative primary school in Chetombai Primary School between 1978 and 1985. 54. PW1 contended that his late father died on 30/5/2020 and was buried on parcel No. 1407 as per P. Exhibit No. 5(a) (10). PW1 said that his brother William Korwa was the one currently living on parcel No. 558. 55. PW1 said that the demand letter dated 2/7/2018 to vacate the land was served after this suit was filed. PW1 said that P. Exhibit No. 5(a) (10) are developments belonging to him and his relatives on the suit land. 56. Following directions under Order 18 Rule 81(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, PW1 was crossexamined further on 22/9/2025. He told the court that his late father was not buried on the suit land due to the court order, though he had a homestead there as shown in the photographs. PW1 said that he was not an adult during the adjudication process. 57. PW1 said that the common grandfather of the 1st defendant passed on in 1947, before the adjudication process started. PW1 said that the barbed wire separating the two parcels of land has been in existence since 1974. PW1 said that though they discovered the fraud or mistake in 2018, no report was made to the police for investigation regarding the misplacement of his plot by the surveyor across the river, and for the 1st defendant’s land to encroach on their current land. 58. PW1 said that even the 1st defendant’s late father and uncle did not know about the misplacement until he passed on or until 2018, otherwise they would have been sued for trespass. PW1 said that the owner of parcel No. 435 was not a party to this suit but a witness. 59. Mathias Langat Chespar testified as PW2. He confirmed that he is the area chief, the dispute between the plaintifi and the 1st defendant was brought to his attention as the area chief, Senetwo, as per P. Exhibit. Nos. 7 and 8. 60. PW2 confirmed that the two families had lived together and peacefully since the demarcation process took place in early 1974. Further, PW2 confirmed the existence of the common boundary between the two late brothers as per the ground location and occupation, and developments therein until the dispute arose in 2018. PW1 confirmed visiting the suit parcels of land and ascertaining the said developments and the common boundary in the presence of village elders and the parties herein. 61. PW2 said that the adjudication records, survey map, and the title deeds to the two parcels of land did not tally with what was the ground position since the adjudication process was started and completed. 62. Daniel Tukei testified as PW3. He confirmed that he was the owner of parcel No. 435. Further, based on his witness statement dated 1/2/2021, PW3 confirmed that the plaintifi and the 1st defendant have been his neighbours since demarcation of their three parcels of land in 1974, sharing a common boundary, until the dispute arose in 2018 in relation to misplacement of parcel No. 490 from its ground location alleged showing that parcel No. 490 is supposed to be where his parcel No. 435 is situated. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7916/eng@2025-11-12 7

page 7 of 17

63. PW3 confirmed attending a meeting called by PW2 to resolve the issue where village elders were able to locate the common boundary of the 1st defendant's land and that of the plaintifi since the demarcation time in 1974, and where each of the two families has been occupying and living peacefully. 64. Pkite Lokorinyang testified as PW4. Relying on his witness statement dated 1/2/2025, he associated himself with the evidence of PW1 - 3. 65. Lomuke Psikwang testified as DW1. He relied on a witness statement dated 6/12/2019 as his evidence in chief. His testimony was that his late father, Kalomongin, died in 1997. DW1 told the court that he was the owner of title No. West Pokot/Chepareria/558, while the plaintifi owns title No. West Pokot/ Chepareria/490, and his late father was the owner of title No. West Pokot/Chepareria/483, which are located in difierent positions. 66. DW1 told the court that the three parcels of land during the demarcation process were never shared or divided between him and the plaintifi, and if there was such a claim, the plaintifi should have followed the processes of objecting at the adjudication stage as per Cap 284. 67. DW1 said that up to the finalization of the adjudication register, no objection was filed by the plaintifi; hence, he is estopped from challenging the registration of his title to the land. DW1 said that the initial plaintifi who is his uncle had moved and settled in difierent places within the adjudication section, but remained cultivating on his own parcel No. 490, as and within his permission due to a close family relationship, he was alleged to settle on the suit land together with his family until DW1 became the registered owner of parcel No. 558 on 1/7/1998. 68. DW1 told the court that three of the plaintifi’s sons, namely Moses Korwa, Samson Korwa, and Martin Korwa, had moved out of his land and settled on parcel No. 490, to which, when the initial plaintifi’s wife committed suicide, he permitted his wife to bury her on the suit land. 69. DW1 said that his late uncle thereafter demolished his structures on the land and went to live in Naivasha with his son PW1. DW1 said that his late uncle lived in Naivasha until the 2008 postelection clashes arose, came back to the land and moved out again, never to come back, leaving his son Wilson Korwa, who currently occupies approximately 10 acres of the suit land, where he has erected a homestead. 70. DW1 told the court that the occupation of Martin Korwa on the land was out of his permission, which he has since withdrawn the licence. DW1 said that in 2018, the plaintifi mobilized some village elders, claiming entitlement to the suit land, who had no jurisdiction to handle the dispute, yet they purported to award the plaintifi part of his land by also erecting a barbed wire fence on the land, without his consent or approval. 71. DW1 termed the claim for adverse possession as misconceived because the plaintifi has never been in occupation of the land. 72. DW1 denied the alleged fraud or conspiracy with the 2nd defendant to shift parcel No. 490 to another position; otherwise, he obtained title to the land regularly, as was the case with the plaintifi’s parcel No. 490, and since the death of his father, the owner of parcel No. 483. 73. DW1 relied on a title for West Pokot/Chepareria/558 as D. Exhibit. No. 1, adjudication records for parcel No. 490 as D. Exhibit. No. 2, adjudication records for parcel No. 558 as D. Exhibit. No. 3, oficial search dated 23/10/2019 as D. Exhibit No. 4, an oficial search dated 23/10/2019 as D. Exhibit No. 5, surveyor’s report dated 20/10/2019 (DMFI-6), photographs as D. Exhibit. No. 7(a), (b), (c), https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7916/eng@2025-11-12 8

page 8 of 17

(d), (e), and (f), RIM for parcels No. 490 and 558 as D. Exhibit. No. 8(a) and (b), chief’s letter dated 10/4/2018 as D. Exhibit. No. 9 and a demand notice dated 2/7/2018 as D. Exhibit. No. 10. 74. In cross-examination, DW1 told the court that he was born on 1/1/1958 and became the registered owner of the parcel No. 558 during the adjudication process. He admitted that he was the one who permitted the late Kaboyi to enter into the suit land. DW1 said that as of 1974, he was 14 years old, hence he had no ID card. He denied that the existing boundary between the two parcels of land was erected in 1974 during the adjudication process. 75. DW1 admitted to acquiring a title deed over the subject land in 1998. As to why he has not evicted the plaintifi from the land, DW1 said that though the plaintifi's houses are on the lower part of the suit land where some of their relatives were buried, he did not notify the Land Registrar that part of his land had illegal occupants. 76. DW1 confirmed that a land surveyor divided the land as per the surveyor’s report he had produced before the court dated 20/10/2019, but failed to fix the boundary. DW1 admitted that William Korwa, a brother of the plaintifi, was occupying the disputed land and had approximately four houses erected therein, one of which belongs to the plaintifi. DW1 insisted that as of 1974, he had the legal capacity to become a demarcated owner of the suit land. 77. DW1 acknowledged that he occupies the upper part while the plaintifi occupies the lower part of parcel No. 558, whose boundary is a live sisal plant fence. DW1 said that according to him, the land for Mzee Kaboyi should be across the river; otherwise, as a mere licensee, whose licence he had terminated, making them forceful occupants on his land, following the notice to vacate the land. 78. Again, DW1 admitted that the plaintifi had erected illegal houses and a barbed wire fence on the disputed land slightly before the area chief and the surveyors visited the land. DW1 said that William Korwa was occupying approximately 6 acres of his land. 79. Simiyu Edmunds David Wekesa testified as DW2. He told the court that in 2019, the defendant instructed him to visit the parcels No. 558 and 490, after which he prepared a report dated 20/10/2019. DW2 told the court that his findings were that parcel No. 558, based on the RIM Sheet Map No. 40 (produced as D. Exhibit No. (6), falls apart from parcel No. 490, which is on Survey Map Sheet No. 41. 80. In cross-examination, DW2 told the court that his credentials were not attached to his report and that he was not a licensed surveyor. DW2 confirmed that there was a barbed wire fence separating the upper and the lower side of the parcel No. 558. DW2 confirmed that the photos of his had no certificate of electronic production, now were the parameters were met, and keys were indicated in his report. 81. Immanuel Mtage, a government surveyor, testified as DW3. He told the court that he relied on a report dated 20/10/2019 produced as D. Exhibit No. 6 in which, after a site visit, it was established that the plaintifi occupies approximately 62.8 acres of parcel No. 558 on the lower side, which is both under cultivation, grazing and has some houses or buildings. 82. DW3 said that he observed that there was also a homestead on the upper side, separated by a barbed wire fence whose age he did not estimate. DW3 said that he relied on both the PIDs done by the Survey of Kenya in 1997, as well as the adjudication records for both parcels Nos. 490 and 558. 83. DW3 said that on the ground, there is also a seasonal river bordering the two parcels of land on the southeastern side, as per the RIM. DW3 said that parcel No. 435 is situated across the river, but on the ground, it is not identifiable. 84. DW3 said that the plaintifi was occupying almost half the size of the ground, which is supposed to be parcel No. 558 on the map and not parcel No. 490.DW3 confirmed that what is on the record does https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7916/eng@2025-11-12 9

page 9 of 17

not tally with what is on the ground occupation or positions; otherwise, Daniel Tukei, the owner of parcel No. 435, occupies what ideally should be parcel No. 490, while the plaintifi occupies half of parcel No. 558 as if it is parcel No. 490. 85. DW3 therefore said that the adjudication record and the ground position do not conform; otherwise, both the plaintifi and the 1st defendant are occupying parcel No. 558 on the ground. 86. At the loss of the defence case, parties were directed to put in written submissions. The plaintifi relies on written submissions dated 22/10/2025. After rehearsing the pleadings and evidence tendered by PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4, DW1, DW2 and DW3, the plaintifi isolated four issues for determination namely, if the plaintifi or the 1st defendant have a common boundary, if he was a licensee of the 1st defendant, if there was fraud during the mapping and the registration of title to parcel No. 558, if his family has ever stayed on parcel No. 490 and if the plaintifi is entitled to adverse possession on the 62.8 acres belonging to the 1st defendant under Section 28 of the Land Registration Act. 87. The plaintifi submitted that his evidence has been consistent on uninterrupted use, occupation, possession, and developments on the suit land since the 1970s to date, on the lower side of what is now parcel No. 558, until discoveries made in January 2018 that his parcel No. 490 had been misplaced during the adjudication process. 88. On fraud, the plaintifi submits that it was not possible for the 1st defendant at the age of 14 years to be adjudicated as the owner of parcel No. 558. The plaintifi submits that there are also other procedural irregularities on plot No. 490, akin to fraud or concealment of material facts until 1998, when the anomalies were detected. 89. The plaintifi submits that, notwithstanding the aforesaid anomalies, the 1st defendant never evicted him from the land, hence has acquired a prescriptive right guided by the case of Agnes Nyang’anyi Omwamba v Samuel Bosire Nyaruna Kitale ELC No. 8 of 2021 (OS). 90. The 1st defendant relies on written submissions dated 24/10/2025, isolating 7 issues for the court’s determination. 91. On impeachment of title on account of fraud, the 1st defendant submits that he became the registered owner on 1/7/1998 of parcel No. West Pokot/Chepareria/558, alongside the plaintifi’s title No. West Pokot/Chepareria/490 as per the copies of oficial search certificates produced without any objection by the plaintifi under the elaborate dispute resolution provision of the Land Adjudication Act under Sections 13-26 thereof. 92. The 1st defendant submits that once the adjudication process is finalised and the adjudication record forwarded to the Chief Land Registrar for registration and issuance of titles, the process cannot be reopened or the register rectified under Section 143(1) of the repealed Registered Land Act Cap 300. Reliance is placed on Noah Onyango Amwayo v Syvanus O. Otumba & Another, Civil Appeal No. 332 of 2010 [2013] KECA 76 [KLR], Hannah Wangui Ithebu & Another v Joel Ngugi Magu & Others, Nairobi HCCA No. 86 of 1999 [2005] KEHC 2882 [KLR], Ambale v Masolia [1975] eKLR, and Mbogo Ochola v Joseph Gor Obet, Nairobi HCCA No. 253 of 2002. 93. On fraud, the 1st defendant submits that though paragraph No. 18 of the amended plaint listed the particulars of fraud, the burden of proof was not discharged at the hearing by calling any of the witnesses who participated in the adjudication process, and the show rival information that there was superimposition and or interference with the demarcation records, and at what stage. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7916/eng@2025-11-12 10

page 10 of 17

94. The 1st defendant submitted that fraud must be pleaded and proved what was missing in this matter, going by the evidence of DW3, to the required standard as held in Vijay Morjaria v Nansingh Madhusingh Darbar & another [2000] eKLR. 95. The 1st defendant submitted that the cause of action, based on adverse possession and fraud, cannot be sought together, as held in Kimoi Ruto & Another v Samuel K. Keitany & Others, Eldoret ELC No. 378 of 2012[2024] eKLR and Alfeen Mehdi Mohammed v Basil Feroz Mohamed & 223 Others [2016] eKLR. 96. As to the ingredients of adverse possession, the 1st defendant submitted that the 1st defendant has pleaded and proved permissive entry and being close relatives, there is a rebuttable presumption that consent was given as held in Alfeen Mehdi Mohammed (supra), which presumption the plaintifi has not rebutted. Reliance is also placed on Rodgers Mwamboje v Douglas Mwamboje (supra) and Samuel Kihamba v Mary Mbaisi [2015] eKLR. 97. As to when the time for adverse possession begins to run, the 1st defendant submitted that registration of the title to parcel No. West Pokot/Chepareria/558 arose on 1/7/1998, hence the 12 years lapsed on 30/6/2010. 98. It is submitted that evidence was tendered that the initial plaintifi moved out in 2004 to Naivasha, and as per the ruling delivered on 15/11/2018, the initial plaintifi was not on the land but William Korwa, hence the 12 years with efiect from 2004 had not elapsed on and of the initial plaintifi. 99. The court has carefully gone through the pleadings, evidence tendered by the parties, and the written submissions. The issues calling for the court’s determination are: 1. If the plaintifi has proved continuous, open, and uninterrupted occupation of land Title No. West Pokot/Chepareria/558 to be entitled to adverse possession. 2. If there was a mistake, error, or fraud on the part of the 2nd and 3rd defendants in mapping and registering on the adjudication or survey records, regarding the location of parcel No. West Pokot/Chepareria/558 and 490. 3. If the 1st defendant was party to the mistake, error, or fraud in the alleged shifting, mapping, and or registration of parcels No. West Pokot/Chepareria/558 and 490. 4. Whether the plaintifi was aware of and or had objected to the aforementioned mistake, error, or fraud during the adjudication process and or registration of title. 5. If the plaintifi is entitled to the reliefs sought. 6. What is the order as to costs? 100. The plaintifi brings this suit as the legal representative of the estate of his father Kaboyi Merkor (deceased), who was the initial plaintifi in this matter before he passed on, as per the plaint dated 28/6/2019, and the demarcation, later registered owner of Title No. West Pokot/Chepareria/490, which on the ground is now covered as part of title No. West Pokot/Chepareria/558, registered in the name of the 1st defendant. 101. The plaintifi moved to this court following an oficial search certificate issued on 16/1/2018, showing that the 1st defendant's title No. West Pokot/Chepareria/558 issued on 1/12/1998 was measuring 47.01 Ha, while his title No. West Pokot/Chepareria/490 is 12 acres only, and was in a difierent sheet map, yet on the ground, it is 62.2 acres and shares a common boundary with the 1st defendant’s parcel of land. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7916/eng@2025-11-12 11

page 11 of 17

102. The plaintifi averred that the 1st defendant, following the discoveries and preliminary attempts to amicably resolve the issue, issued him a demand letter dated 2/7/2018. 103. Following an application dated 12/2/2019, which the 1st defendant had opposed, the court granted an order dated 10/5/2019, for the County Surveyor to visit the two parcels of land and to ascertain the occupants, physical marks and boundaries, acreages for each as occupied by the two parties and to confirm whether the mapping of the two title deeds agreed with the adjudication records as far as the ground position is concerned. In compliance with the order, DW3 visited the locus in quo on 6/6/2019 and prepared D. Exhibit No. 11. 104. DW2, a private surveyor, on the other hand, relies on a survey report dated 20/10/2019 produced as D. Exhibit No. 6. He confirmed that the lower part is 64 acres while the upper part is 62 acres. The report indicates that there are two homesteads on parcel No. 558 occupied by the plaintifi and the 1st defendant, respectively. According to DW2, the two parcels of land are approximately 1.1km apart and fall under separate and distinct RIM sheet maps. 105. In the demand letter dated 2/8/2018, the 1st defendant termed a son of the initial plaintifi a licensee on title No. West Pokot/Chepareria/558, occupying 10 acres. He admitted that the alleged land dispute was brought to his attention in April 2018, when village elders were summoned to handle the dispute, who found in favour of the plaintifi. 106. The 1st defendant termed the said attempts to re-establish the boundary as illegal. The 1st defendant termed the acts of the chief as amounting to trespass. In the amended plaint dated 16/8/2018, the plaintifi introduced the 2nd – 5th defendants to the suit, initially based on fraud or mistake to plead that the boundary to the two parcels of land was set on the ground in 1974 by the 2nd defendant and he remained therein todate and further that the occupation of the two parcels of land by the plaintifi and the 1st defendant’s late parents had remained the same on the ground since 1950s, hence the entries to the adjudication and survey records as to the position of the three parcels of land was not in tandem with the reality on the ground. It is at this point that the plaintifi introduced the relief based on adverse possession that he had been occupying the land since 1974, part of title No. West Pokot/ Chepareria/558 belongs to the 1st defendant. 107. The plaintifi pleaded the particulars of adverse possession under paragraphs 8A, 9A, 10A, 11A, 12A, 13A, 14, 15, 16, and 17 of the amended plaint dated 16/8/2019 and asked for reliefs No. (B), (C) and (D) to align the ground locality with the survey and registration records. 108. The 1st defendant responded to the amended plaint through a defence dated 13/9/2018, admitting that William Korwa was the only one on the land and not the initial plaintifi or their families. Equally, he termed the claim based on adverse possession as improperly filed. 109. It is trite law that parties are bound by their pleadings, and issues for the court’s determination fiow from the pleadings. In General & Another v Hussein & Others Civil Appeal No. 100(Eldoret No. 32 of 2018 [2025] KECA 1022 [KLR] (5th June 2025) (Judgment), the court said that the law of evidence revolves around two cardinal things: facts and proof, which, when combined, form evidence. 110. The court held that under Section 3(2) and (3) of the Evidence Act, facts are proved when considering all matters before it, a court believes them to exist, or their existence is so probable that a court ought to act on the supposition that they exist. 111. In Barmasai v Rono & Others Civil Appeal E068 OF 2023 [2025] KECA 1489 [KLR] (19th September 2025) (Judgment), the court underscored the vital role a RIM as a crucial cadastral instrument used https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7916/eng@2025-11-12 12

page 12 of 17

in land registration plays to visually represent the location and the boundaries of land parcels, as the oficial record maintained by the Survey of Kenya. 112. The court said that, unlike a title deed, which certifies ownership, a RIM provides the geographical context, mapping out the physical existence and the precise location of a property in relation to its surroundings. The court said that a RIM is a comprehensive tool that complements other ownership documents like title deeds and green cards, ofiering a detailed layout of land parcels, their shapes, and their boundaries as held in Kitonga & Another v Nzioka [2024] KEELC 1667 [KLR]. 113. A cause of action is defined as the acts on the part of the defendant that give rise to a complaint on the part of the plaintifi. See D.T. Dobie & Company (Kenya) Limited v Joseph Mbaria Muchina & another [1980] KECA 3 (KLR). What the plaintifi simply initially pleaded is that he went to ascertain the status of his title deed for land on the ground measuring 62.2 acres bordering his relative’s land since the 1950s, or the adjudication time in 1974 114. The plaintifi averred that he was shocked to be told that the locality of his land is elsewhere across the river, as per the RIM, map, and was 12 acres in size as opposed to 62.2 acres, and where he was actually occupying was part of the 1st defendant’s title No. West Pokot/Chepareria/558. The plaintifi says that the County Surveyor's report dated 1/6/2019 has confirmed the errors or anomalies that the 1st defendant was not even aware of; otherwise, he could have evicted him from the land since 1998, when he acquired the title. 115. In Wandaka & 2 Others v Mwangi Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2019 [2025] KECA 83 [KLR] (24th January 2025) (Judgment), the court said that under Sections 7 and 26 of the Limitation of Actions Act, where a party pleads fraud, time starts to run from the time the fraud is discovered. 116. In this suit, the plaintifi pleaded that he discovered the fraud in January 2018, when he visited the land ofice to enquire about his title, and that is also when the 1st defendant was notified of the status of the two parcels of land. Fraud is defined as the concealment or misrepresentation of material facts to lead one to act to the detriment of another. See Black’s Law Dictionary, 10th Edition. 117. In this suit, the burden of proof was on the plaintifi to prove that there were errors, mistakes, or irregularities in both the locality, size, and the mapping of his parcel of land vis-à-vis that of the 1st defendant. 118. Sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act bestow the power to verify and ascertain boundaries on the Land Surveyor and Land Registrar. In this suit, DW3 confirmed that he visited the two parcels of land and ascertained that the RIM did not conform to the ground position of the two parcels of land. The irregularities are clear from D. Exhibit No. 11 as well as D. Exhibit No. 16. 119. The two survey reports are in agreement that both the plaintifi and the 1st defendant occupy title No. West Pokot/Chepareria/558 on separate sides and have permanent developments therein. The findings by DW3 have not been challenged by the 1st defendant under Section 79 of the Land Registration Act. The 2nd - 5th defendants have also admitted the existence of the said errors. 120. The whole purpose of pleadings is to bring the parties to an issue and to prevent its enlargement to diminish the expenses and delay, especially the number of testimonies to be called on either side at the hearing. See Thorp v Holdsworth [1886] 3 CH. D. 637. 121. In Mberia v Mbui Civil Appeal 102 of 2020 [2025] KECA 954 [KLR] (9th May 2025) (Judgment), the facts as pleaded by the parties pointed to the issue of whether each of their portions of land lay adjacent to each other. The suit had been filed after the Land Registrar’s verdict resolving the boundary dispute. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7916/eng@2025-11-12 13

page 13 of 17

122. The trial court had made a finding that the Land Registrar’s verdict could not be disregarded and therefore dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal upheld the verdict. 123. Expert evidence is governed by Section 48 of the Evidence Act. In Mbuthi & Another v Mweti ELC Appeal No. 20 of 2022 [2022] KEELC 12 [KLR] (28th April 2022) (Judgment), the court cited Kagina v Kagina & Another [2016] eKLR that the duty of an expert is to provide independent assistance to the court. Expert evidence as held in Stephen Kanini Wangondu v The Ark Ltd [2016] eKLR, can only be challenged by another expert. DW2 had no credentials to show that he was a licensed surveyor under the Surveys Act. The quality of his testimony in terms of the statutory and internal consistency taken in relation to all other available evidence is wanting. His report did not adhere to the Survey Regulations 1994 and the Survey Act Cap 299. The law is that only a licensed surveyor can undertake such survey works to be competent to testify in that profession before a court of law. 124. The 1st defendant has attacked the plaintifi’s suit as an attempt to reopen an adjudication register, many years after the adjudication section was published, registered, and title deeds issued, yet he had an opportunity but did not utilize the same to object to the demarcation under Sections 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 of the Land Adjudication Act Cap 284 Laws of Kenya. 125. The law is that, once title deeds are issued for land after adjudication, the suit land automatically becomes titled land. Any disputes after that fall outside the purview of the Land Adjudication Act and are governed under the Land Registration Act. See David Muriithi & Others v Kengen Ltd [2020] eKLR and Chrispus Chengo Masha & Others v Daniel Ricii [2017] eKLR. 126. What the plaintifi is simply seeking before the court, based on the surveyor’s report, is that errors exist such that there is a mismatch between the acreage, locality, and the placement of his title No. West Pokot/Chepareria/490 and 483. The errors or mistakes, according to the plaintifi, are not only glaring but self-evident. A court of law cannot aid a party to benefit from a mistake or illegality. This is simply what the 1st defendant in his statement of defence is asking the court to do by ignoring the preexisting circumstances from 1974 to the present, as far as the ground location of each portion of the three parcels of land is concerned. 127. In Frank Logistics Limited v Golden Lion Real Estate Company & 6 Others [2025] KECA 1471 (KLR), the court cited Kiruga v Kiruga [1988] KLR 348, that proof as a legal concept is discoverable either by logic or analysis, and is a conclusion that a tribunal draws on any given set of facts or evidence. 128. In this suit, there is evidence that has not been challenged by the 1st defendant of the existence of mistakes or contradictions in the survey and the registration records, vis-à-vis ground locality. The Hon. Attorney General has pleaded and admitted those facts. The ground position of the beacons and the correct boundaries between the two parcels of land have been clarified by the County Surveyor's report. It is recommended that the alignment of the ground with the land records be undertaken to correct those errors. 129. Section 79 of the Land Registration Act allows for the amendment of the RIM where the title deed acreage difiers from its ground locality. Section 80 grants the court powers to order the rectification of the register by way of cancellation or amendment where any registration was obtained or made through mistake. See Kibuchi v Githinji ELC Appeal 620 of 2021 [2924] KEELC 6229 KLR. The court finds the plaintifi has proved that there was a mistake in the registration and the Mapping of the two parcels of land that requires an alignment. 130. As regards adverse possession, this is a concept where an intruder moves into the land of another who omits or neglects to take remedial action for a period of 12 years, following which his title becomes https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7916/eng@2025-11-12 14

page 14 of 17

extinguished under Section 38 (1) of the Limitation of Actions Act. A party to be entitled to adverse possession must prove open, actual, hostile, continuous, and uninterrupted possession for a period of 12 years, with the knowledge of the true owner. See Mtana Lewa v Kahindi Mwangandi [2005] eKLR. 131. Two concepts must be proved, namely, dispossession of the land and or discontinuation of the possession of the land, as held in Wambugu v Njuguna [1983] KLR 173, by an act inconsistent with the true owner's enjoyment of the soil for which purpose he intended to use the land. 132. In Mwalimu & Others v Halal & Another [2025] KECA 1166 [KLR] (4th July 2025), the court said that there must be more than just mere occupation of the land. A permissive occupation does not amount to adverse possession. The court went on to say that a person cannot claim adverse possession while simultaneously disputing the validity of the registered title; otherwise, the two causes of action are not mutually exclusive and cannot co-exist in the same cause. 133. A claimant for adverse possession must also prove non-permissive or non-consensual, actual, notorious, exclusive, and adverse use of the land for a period of 12 years. Adverse possession must also be with the knowledge of the true owner. In M’Ririka & Others v Muthoni, Civil Appeal 253 of 2019 [2025] KECA 951 [KLR] (4th April 2024) (Judgment), the court cited Peter Kamau Njau v Emmanuel Charo Tinga [2016] eKLR and Ndolo v Kitutu & Others, Civil Appeal No. 394 of 2018 [2022] KECA 1289 [KLR] (18th November 2022) (Judgment), that the physical act of exclusive possession and use of the land must be accompanied by animus possidendi to hold as owner to the exclusion of the actual owner. 134. As to the nature of adverse possession in Samuel Kihamba v Mary Mbaisi [2015] eKLR, the court said that the claimant must prove and demonstrate that occupation was without a license or permission of the true owner, with the intention to own the land. Assertion of title by the true owner or efiective entry, breaking the running of time, as held in Richard Wafwafwa Songoi v Ben Munifwa Songoi [2020] eKLR. 135. Again, the identification of the land in possession of an intruder is not only an important consideration, but is an integral part of the process of proving adverse possession, as held in Wilson Kazungu Katana & 101 others v Salim Abdalla Bakshwein & another [2015] eKLR. In Mbasa v Mbasa & Another, Civil Appeal No. E034 of 2021 [2025] KECA 1420 [KLR] (31st July 2025) (Judgment), the court said that a claim based on customary trust and one based on adverse possession are mutually exclusive. 136. In Njami v Njami Civil Appeal 34 of 2018 [2025] KECA 492 [KLR] (14th March 2025) (judgment), the court said that adverse possession is question of fact or law, established through cogent and credible evidence by proving on what date one came into possession, nature of the possession, knowledge of the possession by the other party, length of possession and if the possession was open and undisturbed. 137. In Gichomo v Kiiru Civil Appeal 109 of 2021 [2025] KECA 124 KLR (7th February 2025) (Judgment), the court cited Thika Garage Road Developers Ltd v Mwangi & 4 Others [2023] KECA 269 [KLR], the court said by building structures, farming and even harvesting sand on the suit land without obtaining permission from the appellant manifested animus possidendi, a clear mind and intention of dealing with the suit land as if it was exclusive theirs and in a manner that was in clear confiict with the appellant’s right. 138. In Maruti v Maruti ELC No. E002 of 2024 [2025] KEELC 6179 [KLR] (24th September 2025) (Judgement), the court cited Rodgers Mwamboje v Douglas Mwamboje (supra) and Mbui v Maranya [1993] KLR 726, on a rebuttable presumption of consent, among close relatives based on the spirit https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7916/eng@2025-11-12 15

page 15 of 17

of the African milk of generosity and kindness in allowing relatives to live on one’s parcel of land, and turning out to claim adverse possession. 139. Having in mind the foregoing case law, the question is whether the plaintifi has proved adverse possession. First and foremost, the plaintifi cannot rely on the two causes of action for as held by the Court of Appeal, the two are mutually exclusive. Secondly, adverse possession runs with the land, which is registered. The suit land became registered in 1998 in favour of the 1st defendant. 140. The plaintifi has testified that he did not know until 2018 that he was occupying land belonging to the 1st defendant and not his own, title No. West Pokot/Chepareria/558. Animus possidendi is a condition precedent. Knowledge by the true owner that the land was occupied by the plaintifi since 1998 was not parcel No. 490, but his own parcel is equally missing. 141. In Samwel Nyakenogo v Samwel Orucho Onyaru [2010] KECA 307 (KLR), the court said that the land must have a known owner, who has lost it by either dispossession of it or having discontinued possession of it. Time could not therefore start running in the plaintifi’s favour until he knew the land was his as of it due to registration and not out of adversity. Equally, both the plaintifi and the 1st defendant only came to know about the status of the two parcels of land in January 2018. So by the time the plaintifi filed the suit, 12 years had not lapsed. 142. Furthermore, both the plaintifi and the 1st defendant are first cousins. Close relatives, as held in Mbui v Maranya [1993] eKLR, where there was permissive entry by or with love of the owner, cannot amount to adverse possession. Grounds of charity, and where there is such a close relationship, courts have been slow to declare the existence of adverse possession, since the African way of living has always been dependent on one another for mutual survival and progress. 143. In Mwamboje v Mwamboje (supra), the court said that the burden of proof that the consent or permission was not given will be on the person claiming the relative's land by virtue of adverse possession. 144. The plaintifi failed to file an originating summons under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which is the known procedure of seeking adverse possession. See Kariuki v Mica, Civil Appeal No. 196 of 2018 [2025] KECA 31 [KLR] (17th July 2025) (Judgment). Consequently, my finding is that the plaintifi has only succeeded on account of mistakes or irregularities in the registration, mapping, and placement of the suit parcels of land, to align with their ground locality. 145. The upshot is prayers B1, C, and D are granted as;(B1) An order directing the Land Registrar, West Pokot, to cancel the 1st defendant’s title deed for West Pokot/Chepareria/558 and issue two separate titles, one capturing the deceased plaintifi’s acreage and the other capturing the 1st defendant’s acreage (C) An order directing the County Surveyor, West Pokot, to amend Sheet Nos. 40 and 41 Chepareria Adjudication Section by removing the ground for Title No. 490 from Sheet Map No. 41 and placing it on Sheet No. 40, particularly on the ground currently occupied by the deceased plaintifi under Sheet No. 40, which was its original position. (D) An order directing the Land Registrar, West Pokot County, to issue a new title deed No. 490 in the deceased plaintifi’s name as per the acreage currently occupied by him on the ground, according to the County Surveyor’s findings as to the acreage occupied by each on title deed No. West Pokot/Chepareria/558, and the Land Registrar, West Pokot, to recall and cancel Title No. West Pokot/Chepareria/558 and issue a new title deed measuring 62 acres as forming part of the title No. 558 in the name of the deceased plaintifi, as he has been occupying. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7916/eng@2025-11-12 16

page 16 of 17

146. Each party is to meet its own costs. 147. Orders accordingly. JUDGMENT DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS/OPEN COURT AT KITALE ON THIS 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025. HON. C.K. NZILI JUDGE, ELC KITALE. In the Presence of: Court Assistant – Dennis Parties present Mr. Kiarie for the plaintifi present Ayieko and Kaosa for the 1st defendant present No appearance for the Attorney General https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7916/eng@2025-11-12 17

page 17 of 17