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

judgment for the Plaintiff as against the Defendant as prayed in the Plaint in terms of prayers No (a) and (b) with costs. 3. The Appellant herein as the Defendant was dissatisfied with the said Judgment of the trial court, and vide Memo of Appeal dated 21st November 2024, filed the instant Appeal and urged the court to allow the Appeal, and set aside the Judgment of the trial court dated 29th October 2024, together with the consequential decree, and review the same. 4. The Appeal was opposed by the Respondent herein, and the said Appeal was canvassed by way of written submissions. After considering the Memo of Appeal, the Record of Appeal, and after re-evaluation and re-consideration of the available evidence, and the rival written submissions together with the cited authorities, this court in its Judgment of 5th March 2026, held that as provided by Section 78(1)(d) of the Civil Procedure Act, it suspended the Judgment of the trial court dated 29th October 2024, and directed the Narok County Physical Planning officer and County surveyor to visit the disputed plots and prepare a Ground Report, and pick out the exact positions of Plots No 109 and 113, and confirm which plot was indeed changed to plot No 236. 5. The court had thus called for additional evidence to assist it effectively determine the Appeal, while relying on Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, for the end of justice to be done. NAROK- ELCLA NO.E014 OF 2024 FURTHER DIRECTIONS ON JUDGMENT Page 2 of 4

page 2 of 4

6. In compliance thereto, Levin Kimeu, a Senior Physical Planner filed a Ground Report dated 12th March 2026, wherein he indicated that Plot No 109 falls in Land parcel No 234, whereas Plot No 113, Narok Township falls on land parcel No 236, as per the Development Plan. 7. Upon cross examination by both counsels for the Appellant and Respondent, the Physical Planner Levin Kimeu confirmed that Plot No LR 113, Narok Township is the same as Plot No LR 236, Block 4, while Plot No LR 109, was Plot No LR 234.Block 4, in Narok Township. He was also able to identify both plots on the ground, and he stated that the two plots were two distinct plots. 8. The Physical Planner also confirmed that the owner of Plot No 236, Block 4, which was also LR No 113, Narok Township, was rightful on his Plot as per the Development plan. 9. 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, Consequently, this court finds no reasons to set aside and/or overturn the Judgment of the trial court delivered on 29th October 2024, and all the consequential orders emanating therefrom. 10. For the above reasons, this court in its appellate Jurisdiction upholds the Judgment of the trial court dated 29th October NAROK- ELCLA NO.E014 OF 2024 FURTHER DIRECTIONS ON JUDGMENT Page 3 of 4

page 3 of 4

2024, and proceeds to dismiss the instant Appeal vide the Memo of Appeal dated 21st November 2024, with costs to the Respondent herein. 11. For avoidance of doubt, 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. It is so directed, Dated, Signed and delivered Virtually this 6 th day of August 2026. L. Gacheru Judge. 06/08/2026 Delivered online in the presence of Boniface Maluki Court Assistant No appearance for Appellant Mr. Okinyi for Respondent L. Gacheru Judge 06/08/2026 NAROK- ELCLA NO.E014 OF 2024 FURTHER DIRECTIONS ON JUDGMENT Page 4 of 4

page 4 of 4