Case ID:168872

In re Estate of Kapelingorok Ariangatom

(Represented by Samuel P. Kapelingorok & another v Chepayos Kemerinyang & another [2021] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Land Case 68 of 2020

Parties:

In re Estate of Kapelingorok Ariangatom (Represented by Samuel P. Kapelingorok & Christopher K. Ariangatom v Chepayos Kemerinyang & Chepkopegh Group Ranch

Date Delivered:

04 Jan 2021

Case Class:

Civil

Court:

Environment and Land Court at Kitale

Case Action:

Ruling

Judge(s):

Francis Mwangi Njoroge

Citation:

In re Estate of Kapelingorok Ariangatom

(Represented by Samuel P. Kapelingorok & another v Chepayos Kemerinyang & another [2021] eKLR

Court Division:

Environment and Land

County:

Trans Nzoia

Case Outcome:

Application allowed

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 AND LAND COURT AT KITALE

LAND CASE NO. 68 OF 2020

ESTATE OF THE LATE

KAPELINGOROK ARIANGATOM

(Represented by

SAMUEL P. KAPELINGOROK

and

CHRISTOPHER K. ARIANGATOM............................................PLAINTIFFS

VERSUS

CHEPAYOS KEMERINYANG................................................1

ST

DEFENDANT

CHEPKOPEGH GROUP RANCH......................................2

ND

DEFENDANT

RULING

1. The application dated

4/11/2020

and filed in court on

5/11/2020

has been bought under

Section 3 & 3A

and

63(e)

and

Section 13(7) (a)

of the

Environment and Land Act 2011

. The plaintiffs/applicants seek the following orders:-

(a)…spent

(b)

…spent

(c)

That upon

inter partes

hearing and determination of the application herein, this Honourable Court be pleased to confirm the order on the preservation of the

status quo

, while pending the hearing and determination of the pending suit.

(d)

That costs be provided.

2. The application is supported by the affidavit of

Samuel P. Kapelingorok

sworn on

4/11/2020.

The grounds upon which the application is made are that the late Kapelingorok is

member no 9

in the

Chepkopegh Group Ranch

; that his land was demarcated in the year

1968

and he and his family occupied it; that he accommodated his younger brother named

Kemerinyang Ariangatom

on a temporary basis in

1981

as the latter sought land within the group ranch; that Kemerinyang vacated the land in

1990

and moved to his own land and never subsequently claimed any land from Kapelingorok up to the time of the latter’s demise; that however the 1

st

respondent laid a claim against Kapelingorok’s estate on the allegation that her late husband was entitled to land from that estate which claim the management of the Group Ranch dismissed; that however later the Kipkomo Council Of Elders on appeal ordered that the land be shared equally between the two families yet it had no jurisdiction to make such an order. It is also alleged that a set of proceedings dated

25/5/1998

ordering the land to be shared equally is forged and that the 1

st

defendant left the suit land in

1991

and has not been in occupation thereof since. It is stated that there has been an attempt to enforce the decision to share the land equally.

3. The 1

st

defendant filed a replying affidavit sworn on

30/11/2020

. She depones that she is Kemerinyang’s widow; that her husband is

member no 40

in the group ranch; that the portions of land belonging to her late husband and the plaintiff’s father are distinct; that her husband got registered as a member while on that portion; that her family only moved out of the suit land after her husband bought

4 acres

elsewhere and he was buried on the 4-acre portion while the earlier portion remained vacant; that the Executive Committee of the Group Ranch decided that the land be shared out equally between the two brothers’ families; that the plaintiff never appealed that decision but came up with another purported decision which was found to be a forgery on investigation; that the subdivision being undertaken is not of the plaintiff’s land but of a parcel adjacent to it and thus should not be halted.

4. The 2

nd

defendant filed a replying affidavit sworn on

7/12/2020

by its chairman certifying that the deceased brothers were its members. He further stated that a visit to the disputed site showed that there were two distinct portions on the ground.

5. In reply to the 1

st

defendant’s replying affidavit the applicants filed further affidavit sworn on

4/12/2020

challenging the grant issued to the 1

st

respondent as incapable of operating retrospectively and reiterating in substance much of what he had stated before in his first affidavit. He maintained that his father had single handedly cleared the suit land.

Submissions

6. The plaintiffs filed their written submissions on

7/12/2020

. The defendants filed their submissions on

15/12/2020

.

Determination

7. Owing to the great controversy raised by the parties in this matter at this interlocutory stage, I find that there is no possibility of establishing the truth of the matters alleged by the parties and that a substantive hearing of the suit is necessary in order to determine the issues arising. In the meantime it would be necessary to preserve the subject matter of the suit as it is at the present.

8. For the above reasons I grant

prayer no 3

of the application dated

4/11/2020

. The costs of the application shall be in the cause.

9. The parties shall comply with the

Order 11

of the

Civil Procedure Rules

and this suit shall be mentioned on the

25

th

February 2020

to confirm compliance.

It is so ordered.

Dated, signed and delivered at Kitale via electronic mail on this 4

th

day of January, 2021.

MWANGI NJOROGE

JUDGE, ELC, KITALE.