1. Soko ya Zamani, otherwise known as the Mwatate Old Market, is an informal settlement lying within Mwatate Sub-County in Taita Taveta County. It is an old settlement. The evidence in this case establishes that families have lived and traded there since before independence, holding their plots by occupation and by the recognition of their neighbours rather than by any document of title.
2. In or about the year 2023 the County Government of Taita Taveta, the 4th Defendant, engaged Geodev (K) Limited, the 1st Defendant, to carry out physical planning, topographical survey and cadastral mapping of the settlement under the Second Kenya Informal Settlements Improvement Project, commonly called KISIP II, implemented in collaboration with the National Government through the Ministry responsible for lands. The declared object of the exercise was to regularise informal tenure, to lay out roads and public utilities, and ultimately to deliver titles to the occupants. That is, on any view, a laudable public purpose.
3. The Plaintiffs are residents of Soko ya Zamani. Their complaint is that in the course of that exercise their names were removed from the records of the settlement, that plots which they and their families had occupied for decades were subdivided, reduced or reallocated to persons unknown to them, and that the machinery established to hear and resolve grievances of precisely that character failed, neglected or refused to determine their complaints before the exercise moved on.
4. The proceedings were commenced by a Plaint dated and filed on 26th November 2024. As originally framed the suit was directed against four Defendants, namely Geodev (K) Limited, the Taita Taveta Physical Planning and Land Adjudication Office, the Mwatate Land Settlement and Dispute Resolution Committee, and the County Government of Taita Taveta. The 5th to 10th Defendants, being the persons alleged to have been the beneficiaries of the impugned allocations, were subsequently joined as parties on the application of the 1st Defendant.
5. The 1st Defendant is a limited liability company incorporated under the Companies Act which was engaged as consultant to undertake the planning and mapping exercise. The 2nd Defendant is the office charged with physical planning and land adjudication functions in the County. The 3rd Defendant is the committee constituted for the purpose of hearing and resolving disputes arising in the course of the exercise. The 4th Defendant is the county government within whose area the settlement lies and under whose authority the exercise was undertaken.
6. The 5th to 8th Defendants are retired senior officers of the Kenya Defence Forces. The 9th Defendant is a former public officer. Each of them is said to have been allotted a plot within the settlement by the defunct County Council of Taita Taveta in the early 1990s. The 10th Defendant is a businessman resident at Mwatate who claims to have purchased an interest in Plot No. 177 in the year 2014.
7. Following the joinder, the matter was referred to court-annexed mediation. That process bore partial fruit. A Partial Settlement Agreement was recorded on 10th March 2025 in Mediation No. VOI/MED/001 of 2025 resolving the claims of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 9th Plaintiffs in relation to Plots Nos. 15, 41, 27, 76 and 77. The residue of the dispute, being the claims relating to Plots Nos. 177, 185, 186, 78 and 79, could not be settled and proceeded to full hearing.
8. The 1st, 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 10th Defendants filed defences. The 10th Defendant also filed a Counterclaim. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants, though served, neither entered appearance nor filed any defence. The 5th and 9th Defendants, notwithstanding that they had sought and obtained joinder as parties, filed no defence, called no evidence and made no submissions.
The partial mediation settlement agreement of 10th March 2025
9. Before turning to the respective cases of the parties it is convenient to record the terms of the Partial Settlement Agreement of 10th March 2025, since it disposes of a substantial part of the suit and narrows what remains. The parties agreed as follows.
10. First, that Rose Mbala Kinusa, the 3rd Plaintiff, is the sole true owner of Plot No. 41, and that she is to sign the beacon certificate upon which her title will issue. Secondly, that Mwende Mbuvi Ndiwa, the 2nd Plaintiff, is the sole true owner of Plot No. 15; that her plot is to be given an additional 27 square metres; that the road complained of is to be reduced from nine metres to seven metres by taking one metre from either side; and that re-beaconing of the reduced road is to be undertaken by the Physical Planning Office together with the 1st Defendant and the assigned surveyor.
11. Thirdly, that Johnson Morris Mwasi, the 4th Plaintiff, is the sole true owner of Plot No. 27; that three metres are to be added to his plot so that his house is not touched or destroyed by the road; and that the County Government is, through intergovernmental collaboration with the National Government, to resolve on his behalf the question of the beacon within the school compound. Fourthly, that Plots Nos. 76 and 77, having been set aside by the County Government as plots for public utility, are to be assigned to the community of Soko ya Zamani to decide how they are to be utilised, with Mr. Othiniel Mwakio, the 9th Plaintiff, taking responsibility for sensitising the community through public participation.
12. The agreement was executed by the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 9th Plaintiffs, by Mr. Kevin Ngigi, Senior Physical Planner, and by Mr. Evance Otieno, Project Planning Officer, and was signed and sealed by the Mediator. No party has impeached it. It follows that the claims of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 9th Plaintiffs in respect of Plots Nos. 15, 41, 27, 76 and 77 are settled and that what remained for hearing were the claims relating to Plots Nos. 177, 185 and 186, and the residual claim of the 9th Plaintiff to Plots Nos. 78 and 79.
The plaintiffs’ case and evidence
(i) The pleadings
13. By paragraph 14 of the Plaint the Plaintiffs aver that at all material times they are the bona fide and beneficial owners of the parcels known as Plot Numbers 177, 15, 41, 27, 185, 186, 76, 77, 78 and 79, all situate at Soko ya Zamani within the Mwatate Old Market Settlement in Taita Taveta County.
14. The 1st Plaintiff avers that during the exercise his plot was at the initial stage given the number 177, formerly Plot No. R285 (24), and his name was entered into the records of the 1st and 2nd Defendants as representing the family of his late father, Ibrahim Chome Suleiman. He avers that he later discovered that the parcel had been subdivided without his knowledge or consent and a portion issued to the 10th Defendant.
15. The 2nd Plaintiff, who claims Plot No. 15, and the 4th Plaintiff, who claims Plot No. 27, aver that roads which did not appear on the initial map were created through their plots, thereby reducing them, without compensation and without any offer to rectify the map. The 3rd Plaintiff, who claims Plot No. 41, avers that she was informed that her plot had been sold to unknown persons by unknown sellers, and that the identity of those persons was withheld from her.
16. The 5th and 6th Plaintiffs aver that they are the owners of Plot No. 185 but that their names were removed from the records and the plot issued to a stranger without their knowledge, permission or consent. The 7th Plaintiff makes a like complaint in respect of Plot No. 186. The 8th Plaintiff is the elder brother of the 5th, 6th and 7th Plaintiffs and represents the interest of the family of the late Mohamed Badi alias Mwalimu Shilingi in both parcels.
17. The 9th Plaintiff avers that land which had been set aside for public utility was subdivided into four plots numbered 76, 77, 78 and 79 and given to unknown persons.
18. Common to all the Plaintiffs are the averments in paragraphs 24 to 28 of the Plaint. The Plaintiffs plead that despite taking their complaints to the 3rd Defendant, which was constituted by the 1st and 2nd Defendants for the very purpose of hearing and resolving disputes, that committee failed, neglected or refused to determine them; that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants resolved to ignore the complaints and to proceed regardless; and that the new map will cause some 176 families to be displaced or to lose their plots without compensation, some of them having lived in the area for more than fifty years.
19. On the strength of those averments the Plaintiffs seek a mandatory injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants from continuing with the process until all disputes have been resolved; orders compelling the 1st to 4th Defendants to resolve all land and settlement related disputes before proceeding; orders compelling them to rectify the map or in the alternative to compensate the affected persons where new roads have been created; an order directing the Officer Commanding Mwatate Police Station to ensure that the orders of the Court are maintained; costs and interest; and any other relief the Court may deem fit to grant.
(ii) The reply and defence to counterclaim
20. By their Reply dated 24th February 2026 the Plaintiffs join issue with the 10th Defendant and plead that the documents upon which he relies are forged and that the 1st to 4th Defendants assisted him in making them. Six particulars of forgery are pleaded: that the sale agreement produced by the 10th Defendant, that produced by the 1st Defendant, and that used on the joinder application differ from one another; that the sealing transaction agreement is undated and discloses no purpose; that the transfer document bears two different dates on the same page together with a private telephone number and a different identity on its second page; that the rates payment request and the payment receipt bear different plot descriptions; that the Property Rates Payment Request of 9th February 2026 differs in content from that held by the 1st Plaintiff dated 15th January 2026; and that the payment receipts bear dates which have been back-dated.
21. By their Written Statement of Defence to the Counterclaim the Plaintiffs deny each allegation of fact and law in the Counterclaim and pray that it be dismissed with costs.
(iii) The Plaintiffs’ evidence
22. The Plaintiffs called twelve witnesses. Ten testified on 23rd March 2026 and two on 11th June 2026. All of them adopted their written statements dated 31st March 2025 as their evidence in chief.
23. PW1, Afizi Nyambu Ibrahim , is the 1st Plaintiff. He testified that he is the son of the late Ibrahim Chome Suleiman and Mwanakombo Chari, and produced his bundle of documents dated 16th March 2026 as PExhibit 1 “A”. He said the Plaintiffs are the owners of the plots and are in occupation. In cross-examination he confirmed that the 1st Defendant came on the ground in April 2024; that he testifies in respect of Plot No. 177 only and cannot comment on the other plots; that no document bears his own name and he is before the Court on behalf of the family; that Feisal K. Ibrahim and Abushiri Mwanyasi Chome are his brothers; that he attended the mediation but was not satisfied with the process; and that the family never sold the plot and he was not involved in any sale. He said the County officials never called him to resolve the dispute.
24. PW2, Bahati Mohamed Baya , is the 6th Plaintiff. He testified that his names in respect of Plots Nos. 185 and 186 were removed from the register without explanation, and that the family had supplied all the documents required of them by the 1st Defendant. In cross-examination he said the land belonged to his father, Mohamed Badi; that he holds no document in his own name; that he knows the persons who received the plots; and that the issue was discussed at the meeting of 11th December 2024, adding that had there been an agreement the Plaintiffs would not have come to court.
25. PW3, Saumu Makumbo Ibrahim , is a daughter of the late Ibrahim Chome Suleiman. She testified that her plot is No. 177, that Peter Kamau had constructed on the family plot, and that the family wants it back. In cross-examination she said her father died in 2006; that the family had allowed Feisal and Abushiri to manage the property so that they could obtain some income; and that the family has evidence that Mr. Kamau was paying rent to them. She said she had never asked her brothers whether they had sold the property.
26. PW4, Juma Ashim Mohamed , is the 5th Plaintiff. He testified that his plot is number 185 only; that he is a son of Mohamed Badi; that the plot belonged to his father; and that his name was removed from the register. In cross-examination he conceded that he has no document showing that his name was in the register and that he does not know who removed it or what name replaced it.
27. PW5, Stanley Gilbert Mwasi , a man of 76 years, testified in respect of Plots Nos. 185 and 186. He said the plots belong to the children of the late Mohamed Badi, who used to stay and work there. In cross-examination he said he never attended any meeting concerning the plots and that the information he had was passed on to him.
28. PW6, Suleiman Musa Kimani , likewise testified that Plots Nos. 185 and 186 belong to the late Mohamed Badi. He conceded that he holds no documents and that he is not a member of the family.
29. PW7, Mzee Badi Mohamed , is the 8th Plaintiff and a son of the late Mohamed Badi. His evidence was the fullest of the family witnesses. He said the plots as now numbered were created by the 1st Defendant, which was introduced to the residents by the village elder; that the family supplied the details requested of them and their details were entered on the map; that nobody else laid claim to the plots at that stage; and that at a later meeting the family discovered that their names were missing and had been replaced by the names of other persons, which is why they came to court. In cross-examination he said his father came to the property in 1947 and was on the land when the County Council came in 1972, though his father’s name was not among those then registered; that he did not sign any beacon certificate; and that there are three semi-permanent houses on the land. Cross-examined by counsel for the 4th Defendant he said the family met the County on 11th December 2024; that the family had filed the complaint; that the matter was taken to the Grievance Redress Committee and recommendations were made, the minutes of 11th December 2024 directing that Plot No. 185 was to go back to the family, but that the County refused to implement those resolutions; that the family did not agree during the mediation; that they had complained as far as the Governor; and that the County Committee declined to hear them and told them to go to court.
30. PW8, Juma Mwakanyanga Kichocho , testified that Mohamed Badi was the owner of the plots, that he used to live there, repair bicycles at the place and serve as an Imam. He said the elders would know the initial owners because no documents were issued in those days. He is not a member of the family and has attended no meeting with the County.
31. PW9, Ali Badi Mohamed , is the 7th Plaintiff. He testified that he has been on the plot since birth and that Plot No. 186 was reduced and a portion given to someone else. In cross-examination he said his father died in 1988 when he was about two years old; that the family never saw their father sell the land to anyone; that the family holds no documents; and that had the land been sold there ought to have been records. He said he attended meetings to resolve the dispute but no agreement was reached, and blamed the County Government for failing to assist.
32. PW10, Mwanakombo Chari Chome , is the widow of the late Ibrahim Chome Suleiman. She testified that the land belonged to her late husband and that Peter Kamau is presently using it. She said she found a person on the land who told her he had come there through someone and was paying rent. Cross-examined by the Court she said the land has always been hers, that she had her first-born son before independence and was already tilling the land at that time.
33. PW11, Mwamkonu William Mwanyasi , retired in 2016 as Chief of Mwatate Location. His evidence is of particular importance and I set it out with some care. He said he knows the Plaintiffs very well and has known them for many years; that of the Defendants he knows only Peter Njuguna. He said Mzee Ibrahim was a businessman at Mwatate who used to buy plots for use, and that when he grew old he gave two plots to his sons: one plot measuring 100 by 50 at the old market to Afizi, Abushiri and Feisal, and another at Mwatate A to Suleiman, the younger brother, and one of their sisters. He said the family later met because Feisal and Abushiri were selling the family plot without the consent of the family; that he was invited to attend but was prevented by other commitments; that the meeting was held in 2014; and that the outcome was that nobody was allowed to sell the property and that everyone was to collect the rent from his own room. He said Abushiri and Feisal came to his office and told him that Kamau wanted to rent the property at the old market, and that he referred them to the larger family; that he later heard that the property had been sold; and that members of the family came to him.
34. Cross-examined by the 1st Plaintiff, PW11 said that only the rooms were given for the purpose of collecting rent, that the signature appearing on the document of 21st July 2014 is his, and that the plot belongs to Ibrahim Suleiman, the father of the 1st Plaintiff. Cross-examined by Mr. Okadia, he confirmed that the signature of 21st July 2014 is his signature and is genuine; that he did not attend the meeting but confirmed the resolution; and that Mr. Peter Kamau had an agreement with Feisal and Abushiri.
35. PW12, Abushiri Mwanyasi Kombe , is one of the two men from whom the 10th Defendant says he bought the parcel. He was summoned by the Court on its own motion. He testified that Afizi is his brother, that he is the fifth born, and that his father was Ibrahim Suleiman. He said in terms: “I had rented the house to Kamau. We never did any agreement. It was only in 2014. There was no witness. He paid me Kshs. 105,000/=. I am not aware how much Feisal was given. We did not have any authority to rent or lease to Peter Kamau.” He said Peter still manages the property. Cross-examined by the 1st Plaintiff he said he never signed any document to rent the property and that the 1st Plaintiff had never threatened him or his family. Cross-examined by Mr. Okadia he said Mr. Kamau gave them money for use as consideration, that one room fetches about Kshs. 3,500 per month, that Mr. Kamau is currently collecting the rent, and that nothing has been received beyond the sum paid in 2014.
The defence, counterclaim and defence evidence
(i) The 10th Defendant defence and counterclaim
36. By his Statement of Defence and Counterclaim dated 19th February 2026 the 10th Defendant denies that the Plaintiffs are the lawful proprietors of the parcel claimed by the 1st Plaintiff. He pleads that the parcel numbered 180, arising out of Plot No. 177, was allocated to him on account of a valid transfer of interest from two of the 1st Plaintiff’s brothers, Feisal K. Ibrahim and Abushiri Mwanyasi Chome. He pleads that the agreement was concluded in 2014, that he paid the accumulated rates arrears, lodged the requisite documents and took possession, and that he has since paid rates and rents to the 4th Defendant as and when called upon.
37. The agreement is pleaded to have been reduced into writing in a document titled “Mkataba wa Biashara, Uuzaji wa Plot”, and to have been confirmed before the Chief of Mwatate Location, Mwamkonu W. Mwanyasi, by a document titled “Uthibitisho wa Mkataba na Makubaliano” dated 21st July 2014, which the 10th Defendant says was witnessed by the 1st Plaintiff himself, described therein as Kaka wa Wauuzaji. He pleads that in 2016 the 4th Defendant acknowledged and processed the change of ownership by a Transfer of Town or Market Plot executed by the then County Chief Officer for Lands and Mining.
38. By his Counterclaim the 10th Defendant seeks a declaration that he is the lawful proprietor and allottee of the parcel numbered 180 arising out of Plot No. 177; an order cancelling any allotment in the Plaintiffs’ favour over that parcel; an order directing the 4th Defendant to rectify its records accordingly; a permanent injunction; general damages for violation of his property and environmental rights; and costs.
(ii) The 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants
39. The 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants plead that each of them was allotted a plot within the Mwatate settlement by the defunct County Council of Taita Taveta in recognition of long service in the armed forces of the Republic, that each paid the requisite allotment fees, and that the parcels now numbered 185 and 186, or parcels derived from them, are the parcels so allotted.
(iii) The 1st and 4th Defendants
40. The 1st Defendant pleads that it was engaged as a technical consultant only; that its mandate was confined to planning, survey and mapping; that it took no part in the identification of beneficiaries save to record the names supplied to it by the 4th Defendant and the community; and that the disputes complained of predate its engagement. The 4th Defendant pleads that it acted throughout within its constitutional and statutory planning mandate, that the Plaintiffs hold no registered title capable of impeaching a lawful planning process, and that the suit is premature for non-exhaustion of the grievance redress machinery established under the project.
(iv) The Defence evidence
41. The Defence called six witnesses. Five testified on 24th March 2026 and one on 11th June 2026.
42. DW1, Evance Otieno , is an Environmental and Planning Officer employed by the 1st Defendant and was the Project Officer for the assignment. He testified that the 1st Defendant was contracted in connection with a Ministry of Lands project and began work in 2024; that the major task was mapping to facilitate the issuance of titles; that the company acted on information given to it by the community, the National Government and the County Government; and that the Grievance Redress Committee was instituted to address emerging issues. He said the 1st Defendant was informed of the issues concerning the names only in July 2024, had not interacted with those names earlier, and attended no dispute resolution meeting, although the minutes were shared with it. He said the minutes showed that Plot No. 185 was to be subdivided to cater for the claimants and that the allotment letters were also shared.
43. In cross-examination DW1 said the 1st Defendant was contacted by the Kenya Informal Settlements Improvement Project; that it could not override any decision of the Mwatate Dispute Resolution Committee; that the Settlement Committee is constituted by the County Project Team, in which the 1st Defendant had no role; that there was a dispute over Plot No. 177 between Mr. Afizi and Mr. Peter Kamau; that the sale agreement was made in 2014, long before the 1st Defendant came into the picture in 2024; and that due diligence was done, a Registry Index Map procured, sensitisation carried out and about three participatory meetings held. Critically, he said: “The Committee resolved that Plot 177 to remain as disputed between Afizi and Kamau. No individual has been allocated the same. Nobody has been dispossessed.”
44. Cross-examined by the 1st Plaintiff, DW1 said that the information on ownership came from the Committee; that the 1st Defendant considered the documents because they came from the County; that it could not comment on variances in the dates, which were a matter for the maker; that the Grievance Redress Committee was responsible for scrutinising documents while the 1st Defendant merely received the resolutions; that it would be an issue if a document differed from what had been provided; that the agreement he had seen related to Plot No. R5285-24B11; and that the Grievance Redress Committee minutes referred to Plot No. 177 as belonging to one Bakari Kalema. In re-examination he maintained that the 1st Defendant’s assignment ran from 2023, that the documents in question dated from 2014 to 2016 and as far back as 1982, and that the 1st Defendant did not allocate plots.
45. DW2, Major General (Rtd) Harold Tangai Mwakio , is the 6th Defendant. He testified that he served in the military for 35 years and is before the Court in respect of Plots Nos. 185 and 187, which he said were allocated to him by the Government. He said an attempt was made in 2024 to resolve the dispute out of court; that several persons attended and the Plaintiffs were present; that it was agreed that the original plot be subdivided; that beacons were placed in the presence of the Plaintiffs; and that a beacon certificate was signed. In cross-examination he said the resolution was to subdivide Plot No. 186 into four portions; that his letter of allotment, signed by the County Clerk, bore Plot No. 2, Zone 3, which he said translated to part of Plot No. 186; that he did not attend the meeting of 30th September 2024 but sent a representative; that he has never taken possession or occupation on account of the dispute and there are no developments on the plot; and that the Court should disregard the resolution of September 2024 because the Plaintiffs had reneged on it. Cross-examined by the 8th Plaintiff he said: “My plot is No. 185. I know there is someone else claiming the same. That is Mshindo and Mwamburi. I have not developed that plot since 1992. My plot is 279. It is no longer 185. I am not from Mwatate. I do not know the area well.” He said he had asked the County to come and do beaconing in 2011 but received no response.
46. DW3, Major (Rtd) Calist D. Mwamburi , is the 7th Defendant. He testified that his plot number is 185, that he is a retired Major of the Kenya Air Force, and that he acquired the land lawfully. He said he did not attend the verification meeting himself but sent his son, who is also a serving officer; that he had contracted a person to fence the plot but that person was chased away; and that the dispute was not resolved because the matter had already gone to court. In cross-examination he said the defunct County Council of Taita Taveta registered his interest but that he had not produced that evidence in Court; that there was an allotment letter; that after the resolution he was allocated a different number emanating from Plot No. 185; that there are no developments on the plot save a worn-out building which was not there at the time of allocation; and that he seeks no orders against the County Government. Cross-examined by the 8th Plaintiff he said Plots Nos. 185 and 186 were together before the subdivision, measuring 50 by 100, and that he does not know the Mwatate “4B” area. In re-examination he said he was not the person who carried out the subdivision, was given no document confirming that beacons had been placed, and did not verify the numbers at the County.
47. DW4, Lieutenant Colonel (Rtd) Joel Gabriel Mshindo, OGW , is the 8th Defendant. He testified that he served in the Kenya Air Force and was allocated Plot No. 186 in 1992, paid the allotment fees, and had no difficulty with the plot until later. He said the dispute was determined at a meeting at which Mzee Badi was present; that he was told he should surrender Plot No. 186 so that it could go to Mzee Badi and the family, and that he and the others would have Plot No. 185 after subdivision; that it was made clear the subdivided plot would be of a different size though in the same location; and that the resolution was to be binding. In cross-examination he said he attended the June and July 2024 meetings; that the meetings were open and transparent and the compromise was a sacrifice for the benefit of all; that he attended the beaconing with General Tangai and Mzee Badi; that there were no constructions at the time of allocation though there is now a dilapidated structure; that he had tried to fence Plot No. 186 but there was a scuffle; and that his land rates receipts relate to Plot No. 277, which he described as a division from Plots Nos. 185 and 186. Cross-examined by the 8th Plaintiff he said his plot was initially 186 and is now 277, and that he signed a beacon certificate.
48. DW5, Peter Kamau Njuguna , is the 10th Defendant. He was sworn in Kiswahili. He testified that he has lived at Mwatate for about twenty years and bought the plot in 2014 from three brothers, Abushiri, Feisal and Afizi, though it was Abushiri and Feisal who sold it to him. He said they told him the plot belonged to them, having been given to them by their father; that the price was agreed and the parties went to the Chief, who told them to bring witnesses; that he paid the purchase price in two instalments; that he was shown his plot; that he began developing it in 2016 and it now carries residential houses occupied by rent-paying tenants; and that in 2016 the parties went to the County Government offices and the plot was changed into his name. He said the plot was initially number 177.
49. In cross-examination by counsel for the 4th Defendant, DW5 made the following significant concessions: “The plot is in my name. The other portion is on the name of the 1st Plaintiff. Plot 177 has two portions. But the process has not been finalised. I know that the entire portion is not mine.” He added: “I pray that I be given my number or in the alternative the Plaintiff to refund my expenses in developing the plot. I have no pro
[...truncated]
2. In or about the year 2023 the County Government of Taita Taveta, the 4th Defendant, engaged Geodev (K) Limited, the 1st Defendant, to carry out physical planning, topographical survey and cadastral mapping of the settlement under the Second Kenya Informal Settlements Improvement Project, commonly called KISIP II, implemented in collaboration with the National Government through the Ministry responsible for lands. The declared object of the exercise was to regularise informal tenure, to lay out roads and public utilities, and ultimately to deliver titles to the occupants. That is, on any view, a laudable public purpose.
3. The Plaintiffs are residents of Soko ya Zamani. Their complaint is that in the course of that exercise their names were removed from the records of the settlement, that plots which they and their families had occupied for decades were subdivided, reduced or reallocated to persons unknown to them, and that the machinery established to hear and resolve grievances of precisely that character failed, neglected or refused to determine their complaints before the exercise moved on.
4. The proceedings were commenced by a Plaint dated and filed on 26th November 2024. As originally framed the suit was directed against four Defendants, namely Geodev (K) Limited, the Taita Taveta Physical Planning and Land Adjudication Office, the Mwatate Land Settlement and Dispute Resolution Committee, and the County Government of Taita Taveta. The 5th to 10th Defendants, being the persons alleged to have been the beneficiaries of the impugned allocations, were subsequently joined as parties on the application of the 1st Defendant.
5. The 1st Defendant is a limited liability company incorporated under the Companies Act which was engaged as consultant to undertake the planning and mapping exercise. The 2nd Defendant is the office charged with physical planning and land adjudication functions in the County. The 3rd Defendant is the committee constituted for the purpose of hearing and resolving disputes arising in the course of the exercise. The 4th Defendant is the county government within whose area the settlement lies and under whose authority the exercise was undertaken.
6. The 5th to 8th Defendants are retired senior officers of the Kenya Defence Forces. The 9th Defendant is a former public officer. Each of them is said to have been allotted a plot within the settlement by the defunct County Council of Taita Taveta in the early 1990s. The 10th Defendant is a businessman resident at Mwatate who claims to have purchased an interest in Plot No. 177 in the year 2014.
7. Following the joinder, the matter was referred to court-annexed mediation. That process bore partial fruit. A Partial Settlement Agreement was recorded on 10th March 2025 in Mediation No. VOI/MED/001 of 2025 resolving the claims of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 9th Plaintiffs in relation to Plots Nos. 15, 41, 27, 76 and 77. The residue of the dispute, being the claims relating to Plots Nos. 177, 185, 186, 78 and 79, could not be settled and proceeded to full hearing.
8. The 1st, 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 10th Defendants filed defences. The 10th Defendant also filed a Counterclaim. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants, though served, neither entered appearance nor filed any defence. The 5th and 9th Defendants, notwithstanding that they had sought and obtained joinder as parties, filed no defence, called no evidence and made no submissions.
The partial mediation settlement agreement of 10th March 2025
9. Before turning to the respective cases of the parties it is convenient to record the terms of the Partial Settlement Agreement of 10th March 2025, since it disposes of a substantial part of the suit and narrows what remains. The parties agreed as follows.
10. First, that Rose Mbala Kinusa, the 3rd Plaintiff, is the sole true owner of Plot No. 41, and that she is to sign the beacon certificate upon which her title will issue. Secondly, that Mwende Mbuvi Ndiwa, the 2nd Plaintiff, is the sole true owner of Plot No. 15; that her plot is to be given an additional 27 square metres; that the road complained of is to be reduced from nine metres to seven metres by taking one metre from either side; and that re-beaconing of the reduced road is to be undertaken by the Physical Planning Office together with the 1st Defendant and the assigned surveyor.
11. Thirdly, that Johnson Morris Mwasi, the 4th Plaintiff, is the sole true owner of Plot No. 27; that three metres are to be added to his plot so that his house is not touched or destroyed by the road; and that the County Government is, through intergovernmental collaboration with the National Government, to resolve on his behalf the question of the beacon within the school compound. Fourthly, that Plots Nos. 76 and 77, having been set aside by the County Government as plots for public utility, are to be assigned to the community of Soko ya Zamani to decide how they are to be utilised, with Mr. Othiniel Mwakio, the 9th Plaintiff, taking responsibility for sensitising the community through public participation.
12. The agreement was executed by the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 9th Plaintiffs, by Mr. Kevin Ngigi, Senior Physical Planner, and by Mr. Evance Otieno, Project Planning Officer, and was signed and sealed by the Mediator. No party has impeached it. It follows that the claims of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 9th Plaintiffs in respect of Plots Nos. 15, 41, 27, 76 and 77 are settled and that what remained for hearing were the claims relating to Plots Nos. 177, 185 and 186, and the residual claim of the 9th Plaintiff to Plots Nos. 78 and 79.
The plaintiffs’ case and evidence
(i) The pleadings
13. By paragraph 14 of the Plaint the Plaintiffs aver that at all material times they are the bona fide and beneficial owners of the parcels known as Plot Numbers 177, 15, 41, 27, 185, 186, 76, 77, 78 and 79, all situate at Soko ya Zamani within the Mwatate Old Market Settlement in Taita Taveta County.
14. The 1st Plaintiff avers that during the exercise his plot was at the initial stage given the number 177, formerly Plot No. R285 (24), and his name was entered into the records of the 1st and 2nd Defendants as representing the family of his late father, Ibrahim Chome Suleiman. He avers that he later discovered that the parcel had been subdivided without his knowledge or consent and a portion issued to the 10th Defendant.
15. The 2nd Plaintiff, who claims Plot No. 15, and the 4th Plaintiff, who claims Plot No. 27, aver that roads which did not appear on the initial map were created through their plots, thereby reducing them, without compensation and without any offer to rectify the map. The 3rd Plaintiff, who claims Plot No. 41, avers that she was informed that her plot had been sold to unknown persons by unknown sellers, and that the identity of those persons was withheld from her.
16. The 5th and 6th Plaintiffs aver that they are the owners of Plot No. 185 but that their names were removed from the records and the plot issued to a stranger without their knowledge, permission or consent. The 7th Plaintiff makes a like complaint in respect of Plot No. 186. The 8th Plaintiff is the elder brother of the 5th, 6th and 7th Plaintiffs and represents the interest of the family of the late Mohamed Badi alias Mwalimu Shilingi in both parcels.
17. The 9th Plaintiff avers that land which had been set aside for public utility was subdivided into four plots numbered 76, 77, 78 and 79 and given to unknown persons.
18. Common to all the Plaintiffs are the averments in paragraphs 24 to 28 of the Plaint. The Plaintiffs plead that despite taking their complaints to the 3rd Defendant, which was constituted by the 1st and 2nd Defendants for the very purpose of hearing and resolving disputes, that committee failed, neglected or refused to determine them; that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants resolved to ignore the complaints and to proceed regardless; and that the new map will cause some 176 families to be displaced or to lose their plots without compensation, some of them having lived in the area for more than fifty years.
19. On the strength of those averments the Plaintiffs seek a mandatory injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants from continuing with the process until all disputes have been resolved; orders compelling the 1st to 4th Defendants to resolve all land and settlement related disputes before proceeding; orders compelling them to rectify the map or in the alternative to compensate the affected persons where new roads have been created; an order directing the Officer Commanding Mwatate Police Station to ensure that the orders of the Court are maintained; costs and interest; and any other relief the Court may deem fit to grant.
(ii) The reply and defence to counterclaim
20. By their Reply dated 24th February 2026 the Plaintiffs join issue with the 10th Defendant and plead that the documents upon which he relies are forged and that the 1st to 4th Defendants assisted him in making them. Six particulars of forgery are pleaded: that the sale agreement produced by the 10th Defendant, that produced by the 1st Defendant, and that used on the joinder application differ from one another; that the sealing transaction agreement is undated and discloses no purpose; that the transfer document bears two different dates on the same page together with a private telephone number and a different identity on its second page; that the rates payment request and the payment receipt bear different plot descriptions; that the Property Rates Payment Request of 9th February 2026 differs in content from that held by the 1st Plaintiff dated 15th January 2026; and that the payment receipts bear dates which have been back-dated.
21. By their Written Statement of Defence to the Counterclaim the Plaintiffs deny each allegation of fact and law in the Counterclaim and pray that it be dismissed with costs.
(iii) The Plaintiffs’ evidence
22. The Plaintiffs called twelve witnesses. Ten testified on 23rd March 2026 and two on 11th June 2026. All of them adopted their written statements dated 31st March 2025 as their evidence in chief.
23. PW1, Afizi Nyambu Ibrahim , is the 1st Plaintiff. He testified that he is the son of the late Ibrahim Chome Suleiman and Mwanakombo Chari, and produced his bundle of documents dated 16th March 2026 as PExhibit 1 “A”. He said the Plaintiffs are the owners of the plots and are in occupation. In cross-examination he confirmed that the 1st Defendant came on the ground in April 2024; that he testifies in respect of Plot No. 177 only and cannot comment on the other plots; that no document bears his own name and he is before the Court on behalf of the family; that Feisal K. Ibrahim and Abushiri Mwanyasi Chome are his brothers; that he attended the mediation but was not satisfied with the process; and that the family never sold the plot and he was not involved in any sale. He said the County officials never called him to resolve the dispute.
24. PW2, Bahati Mohamed Baya , is the 6th Plaintiff. He testified that his names in respect of Plots Nos. 185 and 186 were removed from the register without explanation, and that the family had supplied all the documents required of them by the 1st Defendant. In cross-examination he said the land belonged to his father, Mohamed Badi; that he holds no document in his own name; that he knows the persons who received the plots; and that the issue was discussed at the meeting of 11th December 2024, adding that had there been an agreement the Plaintiffs would not have come to court.
25. PW3, Saumu Makumbo Ibrahim , is a daughter of the late Ibrahim Chome Suleiman. She testified that her plot is No. 177, that Peter Kamau had constructed on the family plot, and that the family wants it back. In cross-examination she said her father died in 2006; that the family had allowed Feisal and Abushiri to manage the property so that they could obtain some income; and that the family has evidence that Mr. Kamau was paying rent to them. She said she had never asked her brothers whether they had sold the property.
26. PW4, Juma Ashim Mohamed , is the 5th Plaintiff. He testified that his plot is number 185 only; that he is a son of Mohamed Badi; that the plot belonged to his father; and that his name was removed from the register. In cross-examination he conceded that he has no document showing that his name was in the register and that he does not know who removed it or what name replaced it.
27. PW5, Stanley Gilbert Mwasi , a man of 76 years, testified in respect of Plots Nos. 185 and 186. He said the plots belong to the children of the late Mohamed Badi, who used to stay and work there. In cross-examination he said he never attended any meeting concerning the plots and that the information he had was passed on to him.
28. PW6, Suleiman Musa Kimani , likewise testified that Plots Nos. 185 and 186 belong to the late Mohamed Badi. He conceded that he holds no documents and that he is not a member of the family.
29. PW7, Mzee Badi Mohamed , is the 8th Plaintiff and a son of the late Mohamed Badi. His evidence was the fullest of the family witnesses. He said the plots as now numbered were created by the 1st Defendant, which was introduced to the residents by the village elder; that the family supplied the details requested of them and their details were entered on the map; that nobody else laid claim to the plots at that stage; and that at a later meeting the family discovered that their names were missing and had been replaced by the names of other persons, which is why they came to court. In cross-examination he said his father came to the property in 1947 and was on the land when the County Council came in 1972, though his father’s name was not among those then registered; that he did not sign any beacon certificate; and that there are three semi-permanent houses on the land. Cross-examined by counsel for the 4th Defendant he said the family met the County on 11th December 2024; that the family had filed the complaint; that the matter was taken to the Grievance Redress Committee and recommendations were made, the minutes of 11th December 2024 directing that Plot No. 185 was to go back to the family, but that the County refused to implement those resolutions; that the family did not agree during the mediation; that they had complained as far as the Governor; and that the County Committee declined to hear them and told them to go to court.
30. PW8, Juma Mwakanyanga Kichocho , testified that Mohamed Badi was the owner of the plots, that he used to live there, repair bicycles at the place and serve as an Imam. He said the elders would know the initial owners because no documents were issued in those days. He is not a member of the family and has attended no meeting with the County.
31. PW9, Ali Badi Mohamed , is the 7th Plaintiff. He testified that he has been on the plot since birth and that Plot No. 186 was reduced and a portion given to someone else. In cross-examination he said his father died in 1988 when he was about two years old; that the family never saw their father sell the land to anyone; that the family holds no documents; and that had the land been sold there ought to have been records. He said he attended meetings to resolve the dispute but no agreement was reached, and blamed the County Government for failing to assist.
32. PW10, Mwanakombo Chari Chome , is the widow of the late Ibrahim Chome Suleiman. She testified that the land belonged to her late husband and that Peter Kamau is presently using it. She said she found a person on the land who told her he had come there through someone and was paying rent. Cross-examined by the Court she said the land has always been hers, that she had her first-born son before independence and was already tilling the land at that time.
33. PW11, Mwamkonu William Mwanyasi , retired in 2016 as Chief of Mwatate Location. His evidence is of particular importance and I set it out with some care. He said he knows the Plaintiffs very well and has known them for many years; that of the Defendants he knows only Peter Njuguna. He said Mzee Ibrahim was a businessman at Mwatate who used to buy plots for use, and that when he grew old he gave two plots to his sons: one plot measuring 100 by 50 at the old market to Afizi, Abushiri and Feisal, and another at Mwatate A to Suleiman, the younger brother, and one of their sisters. He said the family later met because Feisal and Abushiri were selling the family plot without the consent of the family; that he was invited to attend but was prevented by other commitments; that the meeting was held in 2014; and that the outcome was that nobody was allowed to sell the property and that everyone was to collect the rent from his own room. He said Abushiri and Feisal came to his office and told him that Kamau wanted to rent the property at the old market, and that he referred them to the larger family; that he later heard that the property had been sold; and that members of the family came to him.
34. Cross-examined by the 1st Plaintiff, PW11 said that only the rooms were given for the purpose of collecting rent, that the signature appearing on the document of 21st July 2014 is his, and that the plot belongs to Ibrahim Suleiman, the father of the 1st Plaintiff. Cross-examined by Mr. Okadia, he confirmed that the signature of 21st July 2014 is his signature and is genuine; that he did not attend the meeting but confirmed the resolution; and that Mr. Peter Kamau had an agreement with Feisal and Abushiri.
35. PW12, Abushiri Mwanyasi Kombe , is one of the two men from whom the 10th Defendant says he bought the parcel. He was summoned by the Court on its own motion. He testified that Afizi is his brother, that he is the fifth born, and that his father was Ibrahim Suleiman. He said in terms: “I had rented the house to Kamau. We never did any agreement. It was only in 2014. There was no witness. He paid me Kshs. 105,000/=. I am not aware how much Feisal was given. We did not have any authority to rent or lease to Peter Kamau.” He said Peter still manages the property. Cross-examined by the 1st Plaintiff he said he never signed any document to rent the property and that the 1st Plaintiff had never threatened him or his family. Cross-examined by Mr. Okadia he said Mr. Kamau gave them money for use as consideration, that one room fetches about Kshs. 3,500 per month, that Mr. Kamau is currently collecting the rent, and that nothing has been received beyond the sum paid in 2014.
The defence, counterclaim and defence evidence
(i) The 10th Defendant defence and counterclaim
36. By his Statement of Defence and Counterclaim dated 19th February 2026 the 10th Defendant denies that the Plaintiffs are the lawful proprietors of the parcel claimed by the 1st Plaintiff. He pleads that the parcel numbered 180, arising out of Plot No. 177, was allocated to him on account of a valid transfer of interest from two of the 1st Plaintiff’s brothers, Feisal K. Ibrahim and Abushiri Mwanyasi Chome. He pleads that the agreement was concluded in 2014, that he paid the accumulated rates arrears, lodged the requisite documents and took possession, and that he has since paid rates and rents to the 4th Defendant as and when called upon.
37. The agreement is pleaded to have been reduced into writing in a document titled “Mkataba wa Biashara, Uuzaji wa Plot”, and to have been confirmed before the Chief of Mwatate Location, Mwamkonu W. Mwanyasi, by a document titled “Uthibitisho wa Mkataba na Makubaliano” dated 21st July 2014, which the 10th Defendant says was witnessed by the 1st Plaintiff himself, described therein as Kaka wa Wauuzaji. He pleads that in 2016 the 4th Defendant acknowledged and processed the change of ownership by a Transfer of Town or Market Plot executed by the then County Chief Officer for Lands and Mining.
38. By his Counterclaim the 10th Defendant seeks a declaration that he is the lawful proprietor and allottee of the parcel numbered 180 arising out of Plot No. 177; an order cancelling any allotment in the Plaintiffs’ favour over that parcel; an order directing the 4th Defendant to rectify its records accordingly; a permanent injunction; general damages for violation of his property and environmental rights; and costs.
(ii) The 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants
39. The 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants plead that each of them was allotted a plot within the Mwatate settlement by the defunct County Council of Taita Taveta in recognition of long service in the armed forces of the Republic, that each paid the requisite allotment fees, and that the parcels now numbered 185 and 186, or parcels derived from them, are the parcels so allotted.
(iii) The 1st and 4th Defendants
40. The 1st Defendant pleads that it was engaged as a technical consultant only; that its mandate was confined to planning, survey and mapping; that it took no part in the identification of beneficiaries save to record the names supplied to it by the 4th Defendant and the community; and that the disputes complained of predate its engagement. The 4th Defendant pleads that it acted throughout within its constitutional and statutory planning mandate, that the Plaintiffs hold no registered title capable of impeaching a lawful planning process, and that the suit is premature for non-exhaustion of the grievance redress machinery established under the project.
(iv) The Defence evidence
41. The Defence called six witnesses. Five testified on 24th March 2026 and one on 11th June 2026.
42. DW1, Evance Otieno , is an Environmental and Planning Officer employed by the 1st Defendant and was the Project Officer for the assignment. He testified that the 1st Defendant was contracted in connection with a Ministry of Lands project and began work in 2024; that the major task was mapping to facilitate the issuance of titles; that the company acted on information given to it by the community, the National Government and the County Government; and that the Grievance Redress Committee was instituted to address emerging issues. He said the 1st Defendant was informed of the issues concerning the names only in July 2024, had not interacted with those names earlier, and attended no dispute resolution meeting, although the minutes were shared with it. He said the minutes showed that Plot No. 185 was to be subdivided to cater for the claimants and that the allotment letters were also shared.
43. In cross-examination DW1 said the 1st Defendant was contacted by the Kenya Informal Settlements Improvement Project; that it could not override any decision of the Mwatate Dispute Resolution Committee; that the Settlement Committee is constituted by the County Project Team, in which the 1st Defendant had no role; that there was a dispute over Plot No. 177 between Mr. Afizi and Mr. Peter Kamau; that the sale agreement was made in 2014, long before the 1st Defendant came into the picture in 2024; and that due diligence was done, a Registry Index Map procured, sensitisation carried out and about three participatory meetings held. Critically, he said: “The Committee resolved that Plot 177 to remain as disputed between Afizi and Kamau. No individual has been allocated the same. Nobody has been dispossessed.”
44. Cross-examined by the 1st Plaintiff, DW1 said that the information on ownership came from the Committee; that the 1st Defendant considered the documents because they came from the County; that it could not comment on variances in the dates, which were a matter for the maker; that the Grievance Redress Committee was responsible for scrutinising documents while the 1st Defendant merely received the resolutions; that it would be an issue if a document differed from what had been provided; that the agreement he had seen related to Plot No. R5285-24B11; and that the Grievance Redress Committee minutes referred to Plot No. 177 as belonging to one Bakari Kalema. In re-examination he maintained that the 1st Defendant’s assignment ran from 2023, that the documents in question dated from 2014 to 2016 and as far back as 1982, and that the 1st Defendant did not allocate plots.
45. DW2, Major General (Rtd) Harold Tangai Mwakio , is the 6th Defendant. He testified that he served in the military for 35 years and is before the Court in respect of Plots Nos. 185 and 187, which he said were allocated to him by the Government. He said an attempt was made in 2024 to resolve the dispute out of court; that several persons attended and the Plaintiffs were present; that it was agreed that the original plot be subdivided; that beacons were placed in the presence of the Plaintiffs; and that a beacon certificate was signed. In cross-examination he said the resolution was to subdivide Plot No. 186 into four portions; that his letter of allotment, signed by the County Clerk, bore Plot No. 2, Zone 3, which he said translated to part of Plot No. 186; that he did not attend the meeting of 30th September 2024 but sent a representative; that he has never taken possession or occupation on account of the dispute and there are no developments on the plot; and that the Court should disregard the resolution of September 2024 because the Plaintiffs had reneged on it. Cross-examined by the 8th Plaintiff he said: “My plot is No. 185. I know there is someone else claiming the same. That is Mshindo and Mwamburi. I have not developed that plot since 1992. My plot is 279. It is no longer 185. I am not from Mwatate. I do not know the area well.” He said he had asked the County to come and do beaconing in 2011 but received no response.
46. DW3, Major (Rtd) Calist D. Mwamburi , is the 7th Defendant. He testified that his plot number is 185, that he is a retired Major of the Kenya Air Force, and that he acquired the land lawfully. He said he did not attend the verification meeting himself but sent his son, who is also a serving officer; that he had contracted a person to fence the plot but that person was chased away; and that the dispute was not resolved because the matter had already gone to court. In cross-examination he said the defunct County Council of Taita Taveta registered his interest but that he had not produced that evidence in Court; that there was an allotment letter; that after the resolution he was allocated a different number emanating from Plot No. 185; that there are no developments on the plot save a worn-out building which was not there at the time of allocation; and that he seeks no orders against the County Government. Cross-examined by the 8th Plaintiff he said Plots Nos. 185 and 186 were together before the subdivision, measuring 50 by 100, and that he does not know the Mwatate “4B” area. In re-examination he said he was not the person who carried out the subdivision, was given no document confirming that beacons had been placed, and did not verify the numbers at the County.
47. DW4, Lieutenant Colonel (Rtd) Joel Gabriel Mshindo, OGW , is the 8th Defendant. He testified that he served in the Kenya Air Force and was allocated Plot No. 186 in 1992, paid the allotment fees, and had no difficulty with the plot until later. He said the dispute was determined at a meeting at which Mzee Badi was present; that he was told he should surrender Plot No. 186 so that it could go to Mzee Badi and the family, and that he and the others would have Plot No. 185 after subdivision; that it was made clear the subdivided plot would be of a different size though in the same location; and that the resolution was to be binding. In cross-examination he said he attended the June and July 2024 meetings; that the meetings were open and transparent and the compromise was a sacrifice for the benefit of all; that he attended the beaconing with General Tangai and Mzee Badi; that there were no constructions at the time of allocation though there is now a dilapidated structure; that he had tried to fence Plot No. 186 but there was a scuffle; and that his land rates receipts relate to Plot No. 277, which he described as a division from Plots Nos. 185 and 186. Cross-examined by the 8th Plaintiff he said his plot was initially 186 and is now 277, and that he signed a beacon certificate.
48. DW5, Peter Kamau Njuguna , is the 10th Defendant. He was sworn in Kiswahili. He testified that he has lived at Mwatate for about twenty years and bought the plot in 2014 from three brothers, Abushiri, Feisal and Afizi, though it was Abushiri and Feisal who sold it to him. He said they told him the plot belonged to them, having been given to them by their father; that the price was agreed and the parties went to the Chief, who told them to bring witnesses; that he paid the purchase price in two instalments; that he was shown his plot; that he began developing it in 2016 and it now carries residential houses occupied by rent-paying tenants; and that in 2016 the parties went to the County Government offices and the plot was changed into his name. He said the plot was initially number 177.
49. In cross-examination by counsel for the 4th Defendant, DW5 made the following significant concessions: “The plot is in my name. The other portion is on the name of the 1st Plaintiff. Plot 177 has two portions. But the process has not been finalised. I know that the entire portion is not mine.” He added: “I pray that I be given my number or in the alternative the Plaintiff to refund my expenses in developing the plot. I have no pro
[...truncated]