Case ID:167702

Ethics and Anti - Corruption Commission v Wilson Gachanja & 5 others [2020] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Environment and Land Case 46 of 2010

Parties:

Ethics and Anti - Corruption Commission v Wilson Gachanja, William Kipserem Busienei, Industrial & Commercial Development Corporation, Arthur Mbulika Usagi, Elizabeth Wanjiru Usagi & Joyce Kanaga Andembe

Date Delivered:

27 Oct 2020

Case Class:

Civil

Court:

Environment and Land Court at Kitale

Case Action:

Judgment

Judge(s):

Francis Mwangi Njoroge

Citation:

Ethics and Anti - Corruption Commission v Wilson Gachanja & 5 others [2020] eKLR

Court Division:

Environment and Land

County:

Trans Nzoia

Case Outcome:

Judgment entered for the plaintiff’s against the defendants

Disclaimer:

The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT AT KITALE

ELC NO. 46 OF 2010

ETHICS AND ANTI -

CORRUPTION COMMISSION.................................PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

WILSON GACHANJA.....................................1

ST

DEFENDANT

WILLIAM KIPSEREM BUSIENEI...............2

ND

DEFENDANT

INDUSTRIAL & COMMERCIAL

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION..............3

RD

DEFENDANT

DR. ARTHUR MBULIKA USAGI.................4

TH

DEFENDANT

ELIZABETH WANJIRU USAGI...................5

TH

DEFENDANT

JOYCE KANAGA ANDEMBE

......................6

TH

DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1.

This is a very old matter dating back to almost

10 years

ago. The plaintiff’s claim in this matter revolves around a parcel of land that was allegedly reserved for the

Kenya National Library Services (KNLS)

by way of a

Part Development Plan

(

P.D.P

) way back in the year

1989

. Subsequently, the same land was allegedly allocated to the 2

nd

defendant vide letters of allotment dated

3/10/1995

. The 2

nd

defendant had the land subdivided into

8 parcels

and purported to charge some of them to the 3

rd

defendant and also sell some to the 4

th

and 5

th

defendants. The 6

th

defendant purchased her parcel in dispute from the 4

th

and 5

th

defendants.

2.

Subsequently, KNLS appear to have woken up from their inaction and attempted to obtain title to the suit land whereupon they discovered that it had been allocated to the 2

nd

defendant who had even gone ahead and subdivided the same into the several portions referred to. In the course of their pursuit of registration and obtainance of the land in KNLS’s name, various government officers swung into action and the subdivisions created by the 2

nd

defendant were cancelled and consolidated into one parcel which was assigned the number

LR No. Kitale Municipality Block 6/300

measuring

0.443 Ha

and a Certificate of Lease issued on

1/8/2011

in favour of KNLS. The Registry Index Map was also amended to reflect the consolidation.

3.

That was not all. In the year

2010

, the Registrar of Titles had also swung into action and issued a Gazette Notice No.

15582

of

26/11/2010

nullifying the titles issued to the 2

nd

defendant in respect of title to plots Nos.

LR No. 2116/1145, IR No. 61520

and

LR No. 2116/1150, IR No. 61523

which had been created upon subdivision.

4.

Further the plaintiff herein lodged proceedings in

Kitale HCCC No. 44 of 2010

and

Kitale HCCC No. 45 of 2010

where this court has by perusal of the original file records confirmed that the end result were orders in favour of the plaintiff therein. It is worth of note that the final orders in the above suits have never been challenged to date.

5.

In light of the foregoing, it may appear to a keen observer that the instant suit would have the effect of formalizing the development on the ground arising from a continued tussle between the parties which led to the consolidation of the subdivisions into one parcel of land known as

Kitale Municipality Block 6/300

and the issuance of title in favour of KNLS.

THE PLEADINGS

The Plaint

6.

The plaintiff filed a plaint on

20/5/2010

against the

1

st

, 2

nd

and

3

rd

defendants and later filed an amended plaint dated

13

th

May, 2019

bringing on board the

4

th

, 5

th

and

6

th

defendants as the purported transferees of land subject of this suit. Against the defendants jointly and severally, the plaintiff seeks the following orders:

(i)

A declaration that the Kenya National Library Service is the lawful holder of the leasehold interest in respect to land parcel number Kitale Municipality/Block VI/300 measuring 0.443 Ha for the remainder of the term of 99 years from 1/4/1996 pursuant to the Certificate of Lease issued on 1

st

August 2011.

(ii)

A declaration that the Grants made to the 2

nd

Defendant on or about 31

st

December 1994 and registered on 19

th

January 1994 in respect to L.R No. 2116/1144. 2116/1148 and 2116/1149 were made in excess of the statutory powers of the 1

st

Defendant are thus null and

void ab initio

.

(iii)

A declaration that the purported charge of L.R 2116/1143 and 2116/1144 in favour of the 3

rd

defendant be cancelled.

(iv)

A declaration that the charges registered against Nos. L.R 2116/1143 and 2116/1144 in favour of the 3

rd

defendant are for all intents and purposes null and void ab initio.

(v)

An order to rectify the register by cancellation of the Grants and Certificates of title in respect of L.R No. 2116/43, L.R. No. 2116/1144. LR No. 2116/1148 (KITALE MUNICIPALITY BLOCK 6/82) and L.R. No. 2116/1149 (KITALE MUNICIPALITY BLOCK 6/80) made to the 2

nd

Defendant and all entries made subsequent thereto.

(vi)

An order for a permanent injunction against the defendants to restrain them by themselves, their agents or assigns from trespassing upon, transferring, leasing auctioning, offering for sale, wasting and/or dealing in any manner with L.R No. 2116/43, L.R. No. 2116/1144. LR NO. 2116/1148 (KITALE MUNICIPALITY BLOCK 6/82) and L.R. No. 2116/1149 (KITALE MUNICIPALITY BLOCK 6/80).

(vii)

Any other relief this court deems fit and just to grant.

(viii) Costs of the suit and interest.

7.

In the amended plaint dated

13/5/2019

the plaintiff alleged that at all material times

LR. Nos. 2116/1143, 2116/1144, 2116/1148, 2116/1149

were part of government land alienated and reserved for use by KNLS a public body established under the

Kenya National Library Act Cap 225

and were thus not available for alienation. However on or about

31/12/1993

the 1

st

defendant purported to issue the 2

nd

defendant a grant of leases over the said suit properties for a term of

99 years

with effect from

1/2/1992

. Thereafter in

1995

the 2

nd

defendant purported to charge some of the plots to the 3

rd

defendant and transfer others to 4

th

and 5

th

defendants. The 4

th

and 5

th

defendants also transferred one of the plots purchased from the 2

nd

defendant to the 6

th

defendant. The plaintiff avers that since the suit properties were not available for alienation the issuance of leases to the 2

nd

defendant and creation of charges in favour of the 3

rd

defendant was fraudulent, illegal, null and void. The particular of fraud and illegality are elaborately set out in the plaint forming the basis of the prayers set above.

The Defence

8.

The 2

nd

defendant filed his defence on

12/2/2019

where he denied all the allegations leveled against him in the plaint and averred that he was lawfully given a lease to the suit properties by the 1

st

defendant and that the Kenya National Library Service Board encroached on the suit property.

9.

The 4

th

, 5

th

and 6

th

defendants filed a joint statement of defence dated

25

th

June 2019

. They pleaded

inter alia

that they have never had proprietary interest in

LR. No. 2116/1143 IR 61522 (Kitale Municipality Block 6/85)

(hereinafter also “

Plot No. 85

”) and

LR No. 2116/1144 IR 61517

(

Kitale Municipality Block 6/86

) (hereinafter also “

Plot No. 86

”);

10.

In the defence it is also stated that the 4

th

defendant purchased

L.R No. 2116/1149

(

Kitale Municipality Block 6/80

(hereinafter also “

Plot No. 80

”) for value and without notice of defect in title in or about the year

1999

from the 2

nd

defendant who was then the registered owner of the same; that the 4

th

defendant later transferred the said parcel of land it for value and in good faith to the 6

th

defendant who is the registered owner to date; it is denied that that

LR. No. 2116/1149 (Kitale Municipality Block 6/80)

was at all material times relevant to this suit government land alienated and reserved for use by the Kenya National Library Service.

11.

The defendants also state that the 5

th

defendant purchased

LR. No. 2116/1148 (Kitale Municipality Block 6/82)

(hereinafter also “

Plot No. 82

”) for value, in good faith and without notice of defect in title in or about the year

1999

from the 2

nd

defendant who was then the registered owner and who transferred the said parcel of land to her on

4/2/1999

. It is stated that the 5

th

defendant is the registered owner of the said parcel of land to date;

12.

The 4

th

, 5

th

and 6

th

defendants aver that

LR. No. 2116/1149 (Kitale Municipality Block 6/80)

and

LR No. 2116/1148 (Kitale Municipality Block 6/82)

having been allotted to the 2

nd

defendant on or about

31/12/1993

became private lands and were not available for allotment to the Kenya National Library Service on or about

2/4/1996

and that the alleged allotment of the said private parcels of lands to the Kenya National Library Service was illegal.

13.

The

4

th

, 5

th

and

6

th

defendants

urged the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim against them with costs.

The Plaintiff’s Evidence

14.

PW1

Gordon Odeka Ochieng

, a Senior Assistant Director, Land Administration at the Ministry of Lands adopted his witness statement filed in court on

11/9/2017

and stated that vide a

Part Development Plan

(PDP)

dated

20/6/1989

and signed by the Commissioner of Lands on

10/6/1991

, the suit land was approved for allocation as a proposed site for library. He stated that the Kenya National Library Services then made payment for the land and an official receipt was issued on

16/4/1996

. He stated that parcels No.

1143-1150

were as a result of subdivision of an unsurveyed plot which had been irregularly allocated to the 2

nd

defendant by the 1

st

defendant.

15.

On cross-examination, he explained the process by which land can be allocated to include identification, planning, preparation of PDP, approval of PDP, issue of letter of allotment and survey. He stated that he had not come across any PDP that created plots

1143

and

1144

.

16.

PW2. Emmanuel Mutange

, County Land surveyor, Trans Nzoia County, stated that upon receiving a request from the plaintiff for beacon re-establishment, he used a survey map which he produced as

P. Exhibit 4

and the Registry Index Map

(P. Exhibit 5)

which established that only three beacons existed in the land out of the six in respect of the original land that had been reserved for the library.

17.

On cross-examination he stated that

LR. Nos. 2116/1143, 2116/1144, 2116/1145, 2116/1146, 2116/1147, 2116/1148, 2116/1149

and

2116/1150

fall within the boundaries of parcel

No. Kitale Municipality Block 6/300

.

18.

PW3, Kebaso Wycliffe

, a Government Surveyor stated that as per the letter dated

10/2/1998

, the Commissioner of Lands instructed the Director of Survey to combine land parcels

No. LR

No. 80-87

(which had been one whole parcel before being transformed into

1143-1150)

to create land for Kitale library. He further stated that the combination was based on

F.R 230/146

which was an earlier survey plan within the records at the Director of Surveys Office and that the combination was done in a file

No. 54729

within the details of the combination within another survey plan

FR 464/140

which now shows the appearance and shape of the land in its post-combination stage. He stated that he prepared the survey plan

No.

464/140

. He further stated that as per the letter dated

1/9/2008

the Director of Survey wrote to the former Commissioner of Lands to confirm that titles to the sub-plots had been cancelled to pave way for the preparation of the final Registry Index Map for the library land. He stated that a response came in on

26/1/2011

confirming that the listed parcels of land had their titles cancelled. It was his testimony that pursuant to that confirmation, the Registry Index Map was done showing parcel

No. 300

had been approved by the Director of Survey for the Library land. He produced the letter of approval as

P. Exhibit 11

.

PW3

maintained that once a compilation amalgamated the parcels, the old parcels cease to exist once the new parcels came into existence. In a nutshell, the original parcel of land which had been allegedly reserved for a library was subdivided by the 2

nd

defendant and later the subdivisions were consolidated to revert it to its previous status.

19.

PW4

was one

Richard Rono

who identified himself as an employee of Kenya Library Services and based in Eldoret. He stated that the Kenya National Library services is the current owner of parcel

No. Kitale Municipality

Block 6/300

the same having been reserved for it in

1989

by the Ministry of Local Government and the Department of Physical Planning under

P.D.P No.

KTL/1089/17

(P. Exhibit 2.)

He stated that the Commissioner of Land approved the reservation as evidenced by

P. Exhibit 2

and an allotment letter dated

2/4/1996

was issued to Kenya National Library Services. KNLS accepted the allotment by paying

Kshs. 6044/-

on

16/4/1996

. Subsequently a survey was conducted on the said plot and a lease certificate issued to KNLS. The certified copy of the certificate of lease was produced as

P. Exhibit 16

.) The land was approximately

0.953 Ha

.

20.

PW4

maintained that sometime in

2010

when the KNLS wanted to obtain a title for the suit land, they discovered that the land had been encroached on. KNLS then went to court vide

Kitale HCCC No. 44/2010

and obtained orders nullifying plots referred to as

LR Nos. 2116/1145

and

2116/1150. KNLS

also went to court in

Kitale HCCC No. 45/2010

and obtained orders nullifying plots referred to as

LR Nos. 2116/1146

and

2116/1147

.

21.

PW5, Richard Kipkosgey Kilimo

an investigator at the Ethics and Anti-corruption Authority (EACC) in his testimony stated that from their investigation the suit parcels of land which had been reserved for Kenya National Library Services (KNLS) had been allocated to the 2

nd

defendant and that the 2

nd

defendant had been issued with grants for the parcels

Nos.

1143-1150

. It was his evidence that he conducted a search on the suit lands and established that the 2

nd

defendant had transferred

LR

No. 1148

and

1149

to the 5

th

and 6

th

defendants respectively while the other four parcels had their ownership cancelled by a court decree and that as a result Kenya National Library Services was given allotment letters after the said titles were revoked vide Gazette Notice

No. 15582

. He stated that vide survey plan

No. FR 464/140

, the title that amalgamated the

8

parcels of land that comprised

Kitale Municipality

Block 6/300

was issued to the Kenya National Library Services.

The Defendants’ Evidence

22.

DW1, Zephaniah Kiprop Rono

the Assistant Investment manager of the 3

rd

defendant. He adopted his witness statement filed in court on

25/11/2019

as his evidence-in-chief. It was his evidence that in

1995

, the 2

nd

defendant applied to the 3

rd

defendant for a loan facility and provided titles for

LR.

No. 2116/1143

and

LR. No.

2116/1144

as security. He further stated that the said titles were charged in favour of the 3

rd

defendant for

Kshs. 300,000

which he defaulted in repaying and that the 3

rd

defendant exercised its statutory power of sale and auctioned the said properties in order to realize its security. He stated that the 3

rd

defendant has no further interest in the said properties. He stated that the 3

rd

defendant had conducted a search at the lands office and for that reason it had no doubts about the title documents.

23.

DW2

was the

6

th

defendant

who stated that she is the current registered proprietor of

LR.

No. 2116/1149

. She stated that she purchased the suit land from the 4

th

defendant. She stated that she has a title to the land and that at the time of purchase she was not aware that the suit land had been reserved for a public purpose.

24.

DW3

is the

5

th

defendant

herein and she adopted her witness statement as her evidence-in-chief. She maintained that she bought the suit land in issue,

2116/1148

from the 2

nd

defendant and a certificate of lease was issued in her favour. She stated that she was not aware that the suit land was reserved for Kenya National Library Services at the time of purchase. She stated that she was not aware of any fraud as the 2

nd

defendant had a document that was duly registered.

25.

DW4

who is the

4

th

defendant

adopted his witness statement dated

14/10/2019

. He stated that he bought the land known as

2116/1149

from the

2

nd

defendant then later on sold it to the

6

th

defendant and that at the time he bought the suit land there was no indication that the same belonged to Kenya National Library Services. He maintained that he never participated in any fraud.

26.

The

2

nd

defendant

testified as

DW5

and stated that he visited the Physical Planning Office in Kitale and he examined the map and found a plot that bordered the library that was free. He further stated that he applied to National Planning and was given the plot. He produced the allotment letter as

D. Exhibit 6

and stated that he paid

Kshs. 90,000/=

. He stated that after his request for subdivision was approved, he sub-divided the suit land and applied for registration of the sub-plots where titles were issues as

LR Nos.

2116/1143, 2116/1148, 2116/1147, 2116/1145, 2116/1149, 2116/1146, 2116/1144

and

2116/1150

. He stated that he charged

LR Nos.

1143

and

1144

to the 3

rd

defendant and sold

LR Nos.

1148

and

1149

to the 4

th

and 5

th

defendants. On cross-examination, he admitted to knowing that there was a plot for a ‘proposed’ library as evidenced by

D. Exhibit 5.

27.

The 1

st

defendant did not tender any evidence.

DETERMINATION

28.

After the hearing of evidence, the court invited counsel for the parties to file written submissions but only counsel for the plaintiff and the 1

st

defendant did so. I have gone through the pleadings, evidence and submissions and in this court’s view, the issues for determination by the court in this case are as follows:

(i) Whether the suit land was legally allocated to the 2

nd

defendant by the 1

st

defendant;

(ii) Whether the 2

nd

defendant could pass a good title over the suit property to the 4

th

, 5

th

defendants and by extension the 6

th

defendant;

(iii) Whether the purported charges over L.R 2116/1143 and 2116/1144 in favour of the 3rd defendant should be cancelled;

(iv) What are the orders as to costs?

29.

The issues are discussed as hereunder.

(i)

Whether the suit land was legally allocated to the 2

nd

defendant by the 1

st

defendant

30.

On the first issue as to whether the suit land was legally allocated to the 2

nd

defendant by the 1

st

defendant.

Section 2

of the

Government Lands Act

(Repealed), defines “

unalienated land

” as follows:

““

Unalienated Government land

” means Government land which is not for the time being leased to any other person, or in respect of which the Commissioner has not issued any letter of allotment”.

31.

PW1, PW3

and

PW4

provided evidence in terms of the Registry Index Map and the PDP which showed that the suit land was reserved sometimes in

1989

for a public body, the Kenya National Library Services.

32.

The 2

nd

defendant submitted that the suit property was available for allocation and submitted that it is the KNLS that encroached on his land. While giving evidence, the 2

nd

defendant admitted that he visited the Physical Planning Office in Kitale and he examined the map and found a plot that bordered the library that was free and that is how he secured ownership to the suit land.

33.

PW1, PW3, PW4

and

PW5

led elaborate evidence with documents to prove that the suit parcel of land had been reserved for Kenya National Library services before allocation to the 2

nd

defendant and that therefore it was not available for alienation.

34.

Section 3

of the

Government Lands Act

vests the power to alienate unalienated Government land in the President. As rightfully submitted by the plaintiff, the power to alienate is delegated to the Commissioner of Lands in limited circumstances for educational, charitable, sports and other purposes.

35.

In the case of

James Joram Nyaga & Another -vs- Attorney General & Another [2007] eKLR

the court observed:

“The above section clearly limits the power of the Commissioner to executing leases or, conveyances on behalf of the President and the proviso to the section specifically limits the power to alienate unalienated land to the President. We find and hold that the Commissioner of Lands had no authority to alienate the disputed plot to the Applicants as he purported to do vide the letter of 18

th

December, 1997. That was the preserve of the President. It follows that the Commissioner of Lands could not have made any grant under the Government Lands Act Cap. 280 Laws of Kenya nor could he pass any registrable title under the Registration of Titles Act Cap. 281 of the Laws of Kenya.”

36.

The undisputable fact in this suit is that vide a part development plan prepared on

20/6/1989

a plot of land was reserved for a public purpose, namely for use by the Kenya National Library Services. That PDP was produced as

P. Exhibit 2.

The letter of allotment issued to the KNLS much later was on the strength of that PDP. In this court’s view, the land in question as mapped out in the

1989 PDP

and committed for a public use and was not available for allocation to the 2

nd

defendant. Also, the issuance of a letter of allotment was just a part of the whole process of obtaining title for the KNLS land. No intervening action for the purpose of purporting to allocate it to the 2

nd

defendant could have any effect of divesting the KNLS of the interest, though yet unregistered, that it had acquired in the land.

37.

From the expert evidence given by the Surveyors in the instant suit, there is no doubt that Parcels Nos.

1143, 1144, 1148

and

1149

formed part of the land reserved for KNLS in

1989

through the PDP labelled

P. Exhibit 2

. The plaintiff has also adduced evidence that no PDP was found to have been used to allocate the land to the 2

nd

defendant or to subdivide the suit land into smaller parcels. The absence of a PDP prepared in the defendant’s favour extremely prejudices his case. It is clear that whatever came out of his endeavours to be allocated land could not therefore defeat the interest conferred on the KNLS by the

1989

reservation through the

PDP

labelled

P. Exhibit 2

. Having been so reserved that land was no longer available for allocation to any other person as it was already alienated. In the instant case there was no circumstance that empowered the 1

st

defendant to alienate the suit property to the 2

nd

defendant.

38.

The upshot of the foregoing is that this court is of the view that the suit land was illegally allocated to the 2

nd

defendant. The 1

st

defendant therefore had no authority to alienate the suit land to the 2

nd

defendant.

(ii)

Whether the 2

nd

defendant could pass a good title over the suit property to the 4

th

, 5

th

defendants and by extension the 6

th

defendant

39.

The general rule is that no person can pass a better title to another than what he has. It is embodied in the Latin maxim

“nemo dat quod non habet.”

40.

The 4

th

, 5

th

and 6

th

defendants are claiming the suit property on the strength of transfer of the same to them by the 2

nd

defendant for valuable consideration.

41.

Having found as above that the allocation of the suit land to the 2

nd

defendant was irregular and illegal, it therefore follows that the subsequent transfer of the suit lands to the 4

th

, 5

th

and 6

th

defendants is null and

void

ab initio

as the original land had been unprocedurally and fraudulently obtained and as such did not confer good title to the 4

th

, 5

th

and 6

th

defendants.

42.

In a nutshell those titles are not protected under

Article 40 (6)

of the

Constitution

and

Section 26 (1)

of the

Land Registration Act No. 3 of 2012

as the land had been irregularly and illegally acquired by the 2

nd

defendant.

(iii)

Whether the purported charges over L.R 2116/1143 and 2116/1144 in favour of the 3

rd

defendant should be cancelled

.

43.

The 3

rd

defendant has already adduced oral evidence that it has no interest in the plots known as

L.R 2116/1143

and

2116/1144

. However this court has found in this suit that the allocation of the land to the 2

nd

defendant is irregular and illegal as the same had been committed for a public purpose and therefore the 2

nd

defendant had no right or interest to charge to the 3

rd

defendant

ab initio

. I therefore find that the said charges should be cancelled.

(iii)

What orders should then issue

?

44.

The upshot of the foregoing is that the plaintiff has proved its case against the defendants on a balance of probability and I hereby enter final judgment in this suit in the plaintiff’s favour against the defendants jointly and severally and I issue the following orders :-

(i)

An order of permanent injunction against the defendants to restrain them by themselves, their agents or assigns from trespassing upon, transferring, leasing auctioning, offering for sale, wasting and/or dealing in any manner with L.R No. 2116/43, L.R. No. 2116/1144. LR NO. 2116/1148 (KITALE MUNICIPALITY BLOCK 6/82) and L.R. No. 2116/1149 (KITALE MUNICIPALITY BLOCK 6/80).

(ii)

An order of declaration declaring that the Grants made to the 2

nd

Defendant on or about 31

st

December 1993 and registered on 19

th

January 1994 in respect of L.R. No. 2116/1143, L.R No. 2116/1144, 2116/1148 and 2116/1149 were made in excess of the statutory powers of the 1

st

Defendant are thus null and void

ab initio

.

(iii)

A declaration that the charges registered against Nos. L.R 2116/1143 and 2116/1144 in favour of the 3

rd

defendant are for all intents and purposes null and void

ab initio.

(iv)

An order that the purported charges over L.R 2116/1143 and 2116/1144 in favour of the 3

rd

defendant are hereby cancelled.

(v)

An order that the Land Register shall be rectified by way of cancellation of the Grants and Certificates of title in respect of L.R No. 2116/43, L.R. No. 2116/1144. LR No. 2116/1148 (also referred to as KITALE MUNICIPALITY BLOCK 6/82) and L.R. No. 2116/1149 (also referred to as KITALE MUNICIPALITY BLOCK 6/80) made in favour of the 2

nd

Defendant and all entries made subsequent thereto.

(vi)

A declaration that the Kenya National Library Service is the lawful holder of the leasehold interest in respect of land parcel number Kitale Municipality/Block 6/300 measuring 0.443 Ha for the remainder of the term of 99 years from 1/4/1996 pursuant to the Certificate of Lease issued on 1

st

August 2011.

(vii)

The 2

nd

defendant alone shall bear the Costs of this suit.

It is so ordered.

Dated, signed

and

delivered

at

Kitale via electronic mail

on this

27

th

day

of

October, 2020.

MWANGI NJOROGE

JUDGE, ELC, KITALE.