Kedoki & another v Nchoe (Environment and Land Appeal E004 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 687 (KLR)

INTRODUCTION

The Environment and Land Court at Narok was confronted with a familiar but legally complex question: when two parties claim the same parcel of land, whose documents carry the day? At the heart of the dispute was Plot No 455 at Ntulele Trading Centre, with one party relying on a historical letter of allotment and long occupation, and the other on later payment receipts issued by the County Government. The appeal in Kedoki & another v Nchoe (Environment and Land Appeal E004 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 687 (KLR)required the court to revisit foundational principles on burden of proof, validity of allotments, and the evidential weight of official records in determining ownership.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

At the trial before the Chief Magistrate’s Court, the Plaintiff (the respondent in the appeal), Stephen Lapiyion Ole Nchoe, claimed that Plot No 455 had been allocated to him on 8^th January 2013 by the Narok County Government. He relied primarily on: a receipt for survey and showing fees dated 8^th January 2013; a receipt dated 20^th November 2014 for plot rent covering 2009 to 2014; and testimony from a clerical officer at the Narok County Government who referred to a ledger indicating the plot belonged to the Plaintiff

The Defendants, Kiokong Kedoki and Raphael Alex Kedoki (the appellants), contested the claim. The 1^st Defendant (1^st appellant in the appeal) asserted that he had been allocated the same plot in 1991 by the defunct Narok County Council. He produced: a letter of allotment dated 5^th October 2002 referencing allocation from 1991; receipts for payment of rent and rates; and evidence of occupation and developments on the land

The trial court allowed the Plaintiff’s case, declared him the rightful owner, and ordered eviction of the Defendants. On appeal, the Environment and Land Court reconsidered the entire record.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

1. Whether the Respondent had proved ownership of Plot No 455 on a balance of probabilities.
2. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the Appellants’ allotment letter and receipts.
3. Whether there was sufficient proof of forfeiture of the 1^st Appellant’s allotment.
4. Who should bear the costs of the appeal and the trial.

ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUES

1. Whether the Respondent had proved ownership of Plot No 455 on a balance of probabilities.

The appellate court reaffirmed the principle under section 107 of the Evidence Act that the burden of proof rests on the party who alleges. The Respondent relied heavily on two receipts. However, both receipts were initially issued in the name “Raiyian Nchoe” and later altered to reflect “Stephen Lapiyion Ole Nchoe.” The person whose name appeared originally was not called as a witness. The court invoked the principle in Bukenya v Republic [1972] EA 548 that failure to call a crucial witness may lead to an adverse inference. Further, the ledger allegedly confirming ownership was never produced in evidence.

The court found that without production of the primary record, the testimony referring to it remained unsubstantiated. The appellate court concluded that the Respondent did not discharge the burden of proof.

• Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the Appellants’ allotment letter and receipts

The 1^st Appellant produced a letter of allotment dated 5^th October 2002 issued by the defunct Narok County Council. There was no evidence from the County Government disputing the authenticity of that allotment. The trial court had doubted certain receipts due to inconsistencies in institutional timelines. However, the appellate court found that no witness from the County accounts department was called to disprove the payments made by the 1st Appellant.

The court emphasized that the evidential burden never shifted to the Appellants because the Respondent had not established a prima facie case strong enough to displace the allotment. The appellate court therefore held that the trial court erred in dismissing the Appellants’ documentary evidence without sufficient rebuttal.

• Whether there was sufficient proof of forfeiture of the 1^st Appellant’s allotment.

A central question was whether the 1st Appellant’s allotment had reverted to the County due to non compliance with conditions. While allotment letters may contain conditions whose breach may result in reversion, the court held that there must be evidence of actual forfeiture. No minutes, cancellation notice, or formal repossession evidence was produced.

The court reasoned that automatic reversion cannot be presumed without proof of formal action by the allocating authority. In the absence of evidence showing forfeiture and reallocation, the Respondent’s alleged allocation in 2013 lacked legal foundation.

4. Costs

Under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, costs follow the event unless the court directs otherwise. Having allowed the appeal, the court awarded costs of both the appeal and the trial to the Appellants.

Holding

The Environment and Land Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court’s judgment and barred the Respondent from evicting the Appellants from Plot No 455 Ntulele Trading Centre.

Key Takeaways

1. Receipts alone do not establish ownership without clear linkage to lawful allocation.
2. Altered documents invite strict scrutiny, especially where the original beneficiary is not called to testify.
3. An allotment does not automatically lapse in silence. Evidence of formal forfeiture is required.
4. The burden of proof remains with the plaintiff throughout, and weaknesses in the defence do not cure gaps in the plaintiff’s case.

This case is a sharp reminder that in land disputes, documentary precision is decisive. Where two claims collide, the court will not speculate. It will demand proof.