RIVAL PLEADINGS
Pacifica Moraa Kenyaga, (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) came to this court via a plaint amended on the 19th March 2020. The Plaintiff via her Amended Plaint states that she is a member of Barina Self Help Group also known as Barina Squatters Self Help Group Land Project. She further states that the above group was registered for the sole purpose of purchasing land known as LR. NO. 11384, LR 5700 & LR. 10332 altogether measuring 4,803 acres. In purchasing her share, she says that she fulfilled all conditions by paying Kshs.153,000/= to the group account. An acre was being purchased for Kshs.25,500/=. That her payment was equivalent to 6 acres. After the above payment, the plaintiff says that she was allocated parcel NO. 329 which she took possession of in the year, 2005.
In the said Plaint she states that she deposited the purchase price in the group's Bank Account NO. 0152092365900. That in spite of the above payments, the Defendants are trying to evict her from her parcel of land unlawfully. That the Defendants orchestrated the filing of Criminal Case NO. 2067 OF 2012 at Nakuru Chief Magistrates Court to intimidate her. That the Defendants re-surveyed her land and gave it a new number being NO. 252 hence parcel NO. 329 is also known as parcel NO. 252.
The Plaintiff’s Claims as per the Amended Plaint is for:-
i. A permanent injunction restraining the Defendants by themselves, with their servants, Agents and or any other persons claiming under them from entering, taking up, trespassing, alienating, cultivating, occupying and or interfering with the Plaintiff’s in any way whatsoever with all the parcel of land known as plot, No.329 also known as Plot No. 252 measuring approximately 6acres.
ii. Declaration that all parcel of land known as Plot No.329 now known as Plot No.252 measuring approximately 6acres has been purchased by the Plaintiff herein legitimately hence it is her property and the 2nd – 6th Defendants be ordered to issue the Plaintiff with a Title Deed.
iii. Costs of this suit.
The 1st defendant filed defence stating that he is the owner of 4 acres which he was allocated by Barina Squatters Self Help Group by virtue of his membership in said group and by virtue of a ballot card in his possession which he picked when members were balloting for their respective parcels of land. The 1st Defendant also filed a copy of his share certificate plus all the receipts of monies he paid to Barina Squatters Self Help Group in lieu of the 4 acres he was allocated. In the counter claim, the 1st defendant prays for an injunction restraining the plaintiff from trespassing cultivating erecting structures and or entering on plot no 252 ol Rongai within Nakuru County. Moreover, a declaration that plot number 252 is owned by the 1st defendant. Ultimately, he prays for costs of the suit and counter-claim plus interest.
The import of the 2nd, 3rd and 5th defendants defence is that though the plaintiff is a member of Barisa Squatters Self Help Group (hereinafter referred to as BSSHG) she was never entitled to or was ever allocated the suit land plot no. 252, or plot no 329, or in deed any other six of four acre parcel of land as alleged. The defendants aver that the plaintiff is a member of BSSHG and as such member, was still entitled to one acre parcel of land at (BSSHG) land LR No. 11384 LR No 5700 and LR no. 10332 situate in Rongai but only after she completes payment for the said one acre land. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of allegations of any larger land entitlement that one acre. The defendants contend that the plaintiff only paid a sum of Kshs.37,000. She never paid Kshs153.,000 as alleged in the plaint. An alleged payment of Kshs113,000 exhibited among the plaintiff document herein is fake and is not money paid by the plaintiff to BSSHG.
That the amount payable by all members of the BSSHG for one share equivalent to one acre of land is equivalent to Kshs40,000 hence the plaintiff has not even paid for one share. The plaintiff never went to ballot for or to get allocation for the said one acre of land the plaintiff was never allocated the said parcel. The land was never resurveyed as alleged as plot no 252 and 329 are not the same. The defendant contends that the aforesaid BSSHG land was surveyed for the first time in 2009. That the said purchase of land by the said BSSHG from standard chartered bank was completed in the year 2008. There is no way that the plaintiff could have been allocated the said parcel land no 329 in the year 2005.
The defendants contend that following the survey of land starting 2009, Plot No 329 and plot no 252 were surveyed and numbered as two very different and distinct parcels of land. There has never been any resurvey of the said parcels as alleged by the plaintiff. The defendants contents that the plaintiff has since the year 2012 unlawfully and without any color of right or justification trespassed and encroached on plot no 252 together with portions of other neighboring plots. The plaintiff is cultivating other person’s parcels of land amounting to eight acres including plot no 252 that belongs to Jackson Memba Ong’ayo. That he has put up structures on 252 illegally and that BSSHG is different from Barisa squatters self help group land project. The defendants further contents that this suit is bad in law, fatally defective, incompetent and unsustainable for joinder of the 2nd to 5th defendants and non-joinder of correct parties.
The plaintiff’s claim is incompetent and unsustainable, null and void ab initio for lack of mandatory consent of the land control board. The plaint does not disclose any reasonable or triable cause of action against the 2nd 3rd and 5th defendants. The defendants pray that the entire suit be dismissed with costs.
EVIDENCE ON RECORD
The Plaintiff, Pacifica Moraa Kenyaga testified that she is a peasant farmer and used to live in Kisii County until 2004. In the year 2002 or thereabouts she heard that a parcel of land was being sold at Nakuru. Since she did not have any land for herself she became interested. She was told that the land measured approximately 4,803 acres. They came together as a group and elected their representatives to represent them and defend their interests. She traveled from Kisii to Nakuru and they were shown the land. Many other people also became interested. They were told to register as members of Barina Squatters Self Help Group which she did. They elected their representatives to negotiate the purchase price and other related issues. The parcel of land was being sold by Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. The purchase price collectively was agreed at kshs. 85,000,000/=. They were many people interested and the purchase price was enormous, it was agreed that every member was free to purchase any amount of land depending on his or her ability. It was agreed that the purchase price per acre was fixed at kshs. 25,500/= all inclusive. She decided to purchase 6 acres. The purchase price was agreed to be paid by installments. For 6 acres she was required to pay kshs. 153,000/= all inclusive. It was a condition that the purchase price was to be deposited at Standard Chartered Bank Account of Barina Squatters Self Help Group No.0152092365900 and she paid as follows:
Date. 03/7/002 kshs. 12, 000/=
Date. 20/3/003 kshs. 25, 000/=
Date. 04/10/006 kshs. 113, 000/=
Date 16/3/2011 Kshs. 7, 900/=
Total kshs. 157,900/=
After payment she was issued with copies of deposit slips which she presented to the 2-5 defendants who claim to be their officials. Upon payments a surveyor was instructed to survey the land and they were allocated their individual plots in the year 2005. She was allocated and shown plot No. 329. Immediately took possession of land and commenced development. She is still in occupation to date.
The plaintiff laments that on or about May 2012 the 1st defendant emerged from nowhere and started claiming her land. He is not even a member of Barina Squatters Self Help Group.
The defendants took her to Menengai Police Station and she was charged with trespass. She denied the charges and the case is still pending for hearing before the Chief Magistrate Court in Nakuru. When she appeared before the Magistrate, she denied the charge and requested for a copy of the charge sheet and witness statements. She noted from the Criminal case they are alleging that she has not paid for the 6 acres which assertion is not true.
Each time she attended Court for hearing the defendants have kept on threatening her on unspecified consequences should she refuse to vacate the land. That on 17th April 2013 when she was cultivating and weeding, the defendants together with their hired goons attacked her together with her husband and badly assaulted them. In a nutshell she states that she is the owner of land parcel NO. 329 at Barina.
On being asked as to why she claims to have two ballot cards, one for land 329 and the other for land No.252? She told the Court that land parcel NO. 329 and land parcel NO.252 is one and the same. On receipts as to why her receipts were totaling to Kshs.37,000/=, she stated that the other receipt had been forgotten at home.
The plaintiff called a second witness one Mr Bill Kipsetim who happens to be an employee of Kenya Standard Bank Limited. The Standard Bank employee produced a Bank Statement for account number 0152092365900. The account is for Marina Squatters Self Help Group Land Project. The employee stated that indeed kshs.113,000/= is on the statement of Barina but he told the Court that he could not tell who deposited the money in that account. Moreover, that the account did not have the land project. The witness did not have the deposit slips.
DW1, Tobias Osano states together with Simon Kuria Ndungu are Trustees Barina Squatters Self Help Group- Registered Trustees (BSSHG- RG), a duly incorporated juristic entity which is the registered owner of the parent suit land herein, being L.R No. 11384, L.R No. 5700 & L.R No. 10332, totaling about 4800 acres. Despite BSSHG-RG being a body corporate capable of suing and being sued, and of holding property in its own name, they, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants herein were unnecessarily sued in their individual capacities in this Suit, which pertains to affairs of BSSHG- RG. The Plaintiff herein, Pacifica Moraa Kenyaga is a member of Barina Squatters Self-Help Group (BSSHG), and as such member, was and still is entitled to one (1) acre parcel of land, but only after she completes payment for the said one acre land.
The Plaintiff only paid to BSSHG a sum of Ksh. 37,000/= for land allocation. She never paid Ksh. 153,000/= as alleged in the Plaint. An alleged payment/bank slip for Ksh.113,000/= exhibited among the Plaintiff’s documents herein is fake, and is not money paid by the Plaintiff to BSSHG.
The amount of money payable by all members of BSSHG for one (1) share, equivalent to one (1) acre of land, was Ksh. 40,000/=. The Plaintiff hence did not, and to date she has never, fully paid-up even for her one (1) share/acre. Once the Plaintiff completes payment for her one (1) share/acre, she shall be issued with a Share Certificate, and will be allocated her one (1) acre land. As of now, the Plaintiff is not entitled to any land at all. Furthermore, the Plaintiff never went to ballot for or to get allocation for, her said one (1) acre parcel of land. In the premises, to date she has never been allocated, nor has she ever been shown the one (1) acre parcel land, though the same is still available for her once she completes payment for the same.
The Plaintiff has never been allocated, shown, or settled on plot No. 329 in 2005 or at all, or that the said land was later re-surveyed and re-numbered as plot No. 252. It is not true that plot No. 329 and plot No. 252 are the same parcel of land, or that either the said plot No. 329 or plot No. 252 measures approximately six (6) acres each, or that either of the said parcels is or has ever been the property of the Plaintiff.
The aforesaid BSSHG-RG land was only surveyed for the very first and only time, from around the year 2009. The purchase of the said land by BSSHG from Standard Chartered Bank was only completed in 2008. There is hence no way the Plaintiff could have been allocated or settled on any such plot No. 329 or at all in 2005, as alleged in the Plaint.
The witness states that following the survey of the land starting 2009, Plot No. 329, and Plot No. 252, were surveyed and numbered as two very different and distinct parcels of land. The two have never been the same parcel. And there has never been any re-survey of the said parcels or any other parcel of land at the BSSHG-RG land, as alleged by the Plaintiff.
Further, that the Plaintiff has since the year 2012, unlawfully and without any colour of right or justification trespassed and encroached onto land Plot No. 252, together with portions of other neighboring plots. In all, the Plaintiff has trespassed into and is cultivating approximately eight (8) acres of land allocated to and belonging to other members of BSSHG. The aforesaid Plot No. 252 measures about four (4) acres. It lawfully belongs to Jackson Memba Ongayo, the 1st Defendant herein, he having fully paid for and been allocated the said plot No. 252 by BSSHG.
The Plaintiff has since the year 2016, while this matter was still in Court, proceeded to unlawfully put up some structures on the said Plot No. 252 belonging to Jackson Memba the 1st Defendant herein. The Plaintiff is a trespasser on the said land, and she should be evicted therefrom. She should also be restrained by injunction from entering, remaining on, or interfering with the said land. She should also compensate the 1st Defendant for trespass on to his land.
Contrary to the Plaintiff’s allegation “Barina Squatters Self-Help Group” is not one and the same entity as “Barina Squatters Self-Help Group Land Project”. “Barina Squatters Self-Help Group Land Project”, is in fact a different entity, with a separate and distinct Registration and different Officials from Barina Squatters Self-Help Group (BSSHG). The “Land Project” was in fact a splinter group from BSSHG.
Sometimes back, the Plaintiff was properly and justifiably charged with criminal trespass upon the suit land Plot No. 252, in Nakuru Chief Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. 2067 of 2012; Republic -vs- Pacifica Moraa. She was however acquitted of the offence, not on merit, but on a technicality regarding a defect in the Charge Sheet. The Charge Sheet had not quoted the specific Act of Parliament under which the Plaintiff had been charged. Her acquittal therefore does not and did not mean that she did not trespass onto the suit land. In or around 2008, owing to complaints by various warring and splinter factions from BSSHG, a Probe Committee was formed by the Government to look into all the complaints regarding allotment of land at BSSHG. The Committee comprised of the Provincial Administration, Security Agencies, Ministry of Social Services, representatives of all the warring factions/groups, and Officials of BSSHG.
The probe committee required all persons who were claiming any land from or were claiming to have paid any money to BSSHG to submit their receipts or banking slips for verification by the Probe Committee. At the conclusion of the exercise, the Probe Committee came up with a comprehensive Report/Register of all the genuine members of BSSHG, and their respective payments to BSSHG, and their respective entitlement of land/acreages at BSSHG. That is the Register that was used by BSSHG to allocate land to its members. The Plaintiff duly attended and presented her documents to the said Probe Committee. The only receipts she presented to the Committee were the two bank slips for Ksh. 12,000/= and Ksh. 27,000/=, totaling Ksh. 37,000/=. That indeed, was the only money she had paid to BSSHG. She never presented the now alleged purported payment of Ksh. 113,000/=, no doubt for the reason that there never was any such payment. That purported additional payment of Ksh. 113,000/= is not genuine, and is a latter concocted and fraudulent afterthought by the Plaintiff. The only other payment made by the Plaintiff to BSSHG was Ksh. 7,900/= made towards survey fees for one (1) acre land. All members of BSSHG were required to pay Ksh. 7,900/= survey fee for one (1) acre of land. Anyone who had more than one (1) acre was to pay an extra Ksh. 300/= for each additional acre. The Plaintiff only paid Ksh. 7,900/= for one (1) acre, because that was all she claimed. Her claim herein for six (6) acres is an afterthought meant only to defraud BSSHG.
DW3, Jackson Memba Ongayo , who is the 1st defendant in the matter states that he is the owner of land parcel NO.252 in Rongai Sub-County. He told the Court that he is a member of Barina Squatters Self Help Group. He paid for his share of 4 acres to the group. In his evidence he tender to the Court the following documents:-
i. Barina Squatters Self Help Group voting card of plot number 252
ii. Barina Squatters Self Help Group Share Certificate
iii. All payment receipts totaling to about Kshs.167,450/=
The payments were for the 4 acre shares at Barina Squatters Self Help Group parcel of land which he was eventually allotted in ballot card number 252 which is also to be the number of the land which belongs to him. Before allotment a probe Committee was constituted to vet genuine members, the amount of money each person paid and the acreage each person is entitled to according to that person's payment. The probe Committee which included members of the provincial Administration came up with a list where the 1st Defendant is included and the amount he paid and the number of acres he is entitled to being 4 acres. After vetting by the Committee there was balloting in various categories depending on the number acreage. The 1st Defendant balloted in the 4 acres category and he was allotted land parcel number 252 which he took possession of and started his farming activities in the year, 2009, till 2012, when the plaintiff invaded the 1st Defendant's land, ploughed it and planted her crops without the permission of the 1st Defendant.
The 1st Defendant told the Court that at the time of the said invasion he was in Eldoret. He was called by a neighbor who informed him about the said invasion. The first Defendant in turn called the 2nd Defendant to visit the said land and see what was happening. The 2nd Defendant indeed visited the land and found the plaintiff had tilled the land and she was planting her crops with her husband. The 2nd Defendant on asking the plaintiff why she is ploughing and planting on the 1st Defendant's land, the plaintiff became violent which made the 2nd Defendant to report the matter to the area chief.
Thereafter the 1st Defendant arrived from Eldoret. He visited the land and indeed confirmed that his land had been tilled and planted by the plaintiff. He contacted the area chief. The area chief told him that he had tried to stop the plaintiff from ploughing and planting on land number 252 but the plaintiff had become adamant and that she had refused to stop ploughing and planting. This prompted the 1st Defendant to report the plaintiff to Menengai Police Station.
Upon reporting to the Police, the plaintiff was arrested and taken to Menengai Police Station. At the Police Station, the plaintiff pleaded with the Police that she had stopped ploughing and planting on the 1st Defendant's land and she asked for forgiveness. She was forgiven and released. But the following day the plaintiff went back to the land parcel number 252 and continued with her illegal activities. The 1st Defendant went back to report to the Police again. The Police arrested the plaintiff and she was charged in Court but the Court released and/or discharged on a technicality because she had been charged on a wrong provision of law. Upon release the plaintiff filed this case to injuct the 1st Defendant entering and use of his land. The plaintiff now has built her temporary structures and lives on the land taking advantage of the Courts status quo order.
On the day of balloting the plaintiff was not present. The 1st Defendant, JACKSON MEMBA ONGAYO balloted on the day of balloting and he picked ballot NO. 252 which was the number of his land and he was shown his land which measures 4 acres. HE took possession of his land. The ballots were prepared into categories as to the number of shares.
PLAINTIFFS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
The plaintiff submits that the acts complained of were perpetuated by the 1st to 5th Defendants in their personal capacities. They are purporting to be acting on behalf of the 6th Defendant who in a body corporate. The 1st to 3rd Defendants are describing themself as trustees. They cannot run away from their liabilities no matter how hard they will want to mislead this honourable court. The dispute herein is about land purchased by individuals as a Self Help Group. The members are only given an allotment letter and or allocated land as per the shareholding. There is no agreement for sale in such transactions. The Submissions that the Plaintiff should have produced a sale Agreement is based on ignorance of the law.
All the Defendants are not denying that the Plaintiff is a member, nor are they denying that she did contribute for her shareholding the scenario here is the purported trustees are either reselling the land twice or they are trying to dispose genuine members and allocate other people for selfish ends.
The plantiff submits that the money the Plaintiff is Claiming to have paid were directly deposited into the Groups Account at Standard Chartered Bank where all the members are reflected in the Groups Account. No evidence for the contrary have been placed before court. The 1st Defendants evidence is contradicting meant to defeat justice.
The plaintiff submits that the defendant produced a purported share Certificates which had no date when issued and conspicuously left out exhibit 2 as per statement by defence reading named as BARINA SQUATTERS SELF HELP GROUP LAND PROJECT (B.S.S.H. L.P) issued on 23rd November 2006.
The plaintiff submits that the Defendants have not produced the official members Register or the map to show the settlement of all the members. This is a requirement in law. From the a foregoing it is only fair and just that the court grants the prayers as prayed in the Amended Plaint
1ST DEFENDANTS SUBMISSIONS
The 1st defendant has identified the following issues that arise from the parties pleadings facts and evidence thus:-
a) Does land parcel number 329 and parcel number 252 do exist being subdivisions from the amalgamation of land parcels numbers LR.5700, LR.10332 and land parcel number 11384 owned by Barina Squatters Self Help Group?
b) Who owns land parcel number 329 and land parcel number 252. How was the ownership acquired?
c) Who occupies land parcels number 329 and 252. Is the occupation legal?
d) Is Barina Squatters Self Help Group and Barina Squatters Self Help Group Land Project legal entities?
On the 1st issue, the 1st defendant submits that the plaintiff and the Defendants are in agreement that land parcels number 329 and 252 exist on the ground as subdivisions except that the plaintiff testified that land parcel number 329 and 252 is one parcel. The plaintiff testified that number 329 was the old number while number 252 is the new number. A plan and/or a sub-divisional plan was produced in evidence and from the sub-divisional it was clear that land parcel number 329 and 252 are different parcels which are far apart.
The plaintiff in her evidence produced two copies of ballot cards for 329 and 252 and insisted that the two cards refer to the same land. It was clear from the evidence of the Defendant that ballot cards number 329 and 252 refer to different portions of land. It is the submission of the 1st Defendant that the plaintiff's intention was to mislead the Court and put more confusion to the dispute. It is clear from the plaintiff's evidence that she does not know where her land is located.
On the 2nd issue, the 1st defendant submits that it was clear from the evidence of 1st Defendant that he had during the balloting of members been allocated land parcel number 252. His ballot was number 252 which was similar to the land which he was allotted. Immediately after balloting he was shown his land. He started occupying the land in the year, 2009. He was doing farming on the said land till the year, 2012, when he was dislodged by the plaintiff.
It was clear from the evidence of the 2nd Defendant that the plaintiff did not participate in balloting when the same was being done. She has not paid Kshs.3,000/= balance for her land. She has never approached the Trustees of Barina Squatters Self Help Group to be shown where her portion land as a member of Barina Squatters Self Help Group. The plaintiff is illegally occupying the 1st Defendant's land.
It is the submissions of the 1st Defendant that the plaintiff is a trespasser to land parcel number 252 which belongs to the 1st Defendant. Hence the plaintiff should be declared a trespasser on land parcel number 252 and be ordered to vacate forthwith.
Barina Squatters Self Help Group officials and/or trustees has a process of how a person becomes a member of the group. The members who belonged to the other groups were integrated to Barina Self Help Group and were paying there monies to Standard Chartered Bank to an account belonging to Barina Squatters Self Help Group so that they get a piece of land equivalent to the amount each member paid.
It is the submission of the 1st Defendant that he paid money to Barina Squatters Self Help Group Bank account and the receipts of the said payments were produced in Court as his evidence. He paid money equivalent to 4 acres of land; and that is the same land into which the plaintiff has trespassed into. The 2nd Defendant who is one of the trustees of Barina Squatters Self Help Group did not state who owns land parcel number 329. He told the Court that it belongs to another person, who is not the plaintiff.
On the 3rd Issue, the 1st defendant submits that the ownership of land parcel number 252 has been established by the evidence of the 1st and 2nd Defendants. The plaintiff has enjoyed the benefits of land parcel number 252 since the year, 2012. Her filing of this suit is like a shield to assist her continue her trespass to on the said parcel and indeed she has been able to stay on the said land since the year, 2012 to date.
On the 4th Issue, the 1st defendant submits that the Honourable Court should take judicial notice that Barina Squatters Self Help Group as trustees and a duly incorporated Trust. Barina Squatters Self Help Group Land Project is not a legal entity. It cannot sue nor be sued. It is the Submission of the 1st Defendant that he proved his case that he is the owner of land parcel number 252 Rongai. Hence the plaintiff should be ordered to vacate the said land. She should be ordered to demolish her structures on the said land and also be retrained from trespassing into and/or interfering with the said land.
Under Sections 107 of the evidence Act it is stated that:-
i. "Whoever desires any Court to give Judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those exist".
ii. "When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person".
Section 109 of the evidence Act states that "The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on the person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person".
Under Section 112 of the evidence Act it is stated that "in Civil Proceedings, when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any party to those proceedings, the burden of proving or disproving that fact is upon him".
Taking into account Sections 107, 109 and 112 of the Evidence Act, it is the submission of the 1st Defendant that:-
a) The plaintiff was unable to prove that she is entitled to 6 acres of land being a share/subdivision of land from the larger land belonging to Barina Squatters Self Help Group at Rongai in Nakuru County;
b) The plaintiff was unable to prove that she paid for the requisite price of Kshs.40,000/= per acre to entitle her to 6 acres, instead she proved that she paid only Kshs.37,000/= which is insufficient to entitle her to even an acre at the said group's land. Hence her assertion that she had paid for six acres is not true.
c) The plaintiffs claim that she was given/allotted land and that she was given two ballot cards viz 329 and 252 is not correct as two ballot cards cannot be given to the plaintiff for one share and/or one piece of land. Therefore, it is the Submission of the 1st Defendant that the two ballot cards held and/or tendered in Court by the plaintiff as her evidence is a creation of the plaintiff. Further, the 2nd Defendant who isa trustees have never shown and/or given any ballot card to the plaintiff, hence the ballot cards held by the plaintiff are a forgery and they should be treated a such.
d) The evidence by the plaintiff of a Banking slip of Kshs.113,000/= was denied by the Defendants. Even the Bank official who appeared as the plaintiff's witness was unable to explain to the Court that the plaintiff had deposit of Kshs.113,000/= to the account of Barina Squatters Self Help Group. Hence the plaintiff testimony that she had a banking ship of Kshs.113,000/= was not correct and/or anything the plaintiff called a banking slip of the said amount was manufactured by the plaintiff and should not be relied by the Court.
e) The burden of proof was on the plaintiff to proof that she has a right to land on parcel number 252. She was unable to proof that the said land belongs to her, first by prov
[...truncated]
Pacifica Moraa Kenyaga, (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) came to this court via a plaint amended on the 19th March 2020. The Plaintiff via her Amended Plaint states that she is a member of Barina Self Help Group also known as Barina Squatters Self Help Group Land Project. She further states that the above group was registered for the sole purpose of purchasing land known as LR. NO. 11384, LR 5700 & LR. 10332 altogether measuring 4,803 acres. In purchasing her share, she says that she fulfilled all conditions by paying Kshs.153,000/= to the group account. An acre was being purchased for Kshs.25,500/=. That her payment was equivalent to 6 acres. After the above payment, the plaintiff says that she was allocated parcel NO. 329 which she took possession of in the year, 2005.
In the said Plaint she states that she deposited the purchase price in the group's Bank Account NO. 0152092365900. That in spite of the above payments, the Defendants are trying to evict her from her parcel of land unlawfully. That the Defendants orchestrated the filing of Criminal Case NO. 2067 OF 2012 at Nakuru Chief Magistrates Court to intimidate her. That the Defendants re-surveyed her land and gave it a new number being NO. 252 hence parcel NO. 329 is also known as parcel NO. 252.
The Plaintiff’s Claims as per the Amended Plaint is for:-
i. A permanent injunction restraining the Defendants by themselves, with their servants, Agents and or any other persons claiming under them from entering, taking up, trespassing, alienating, cultivating, occupying and or interfering with the Plaintiff’s in any way whatsoever with all the parcel of land known as plot, No.329 also known as Plot No. 252 measuring approximately 6acres.
ii. Declaration that all parcel of land known as Plot No.329 now known as Plot No.252 measuring approximately 6acres has been purchased by the Plaintiff herein legitimately hence it is her property and the 2nd – 6th Defendants be ordered to issue the Plaintiff with a Title Deed.
iii. Costs of this suit.
The 1st defendant filed defence stating that he is the owner of 4 acres which he was allocated by Barina Squatters Self Help Group by virtue of his membership in said group and by virtue of a ballot card in his possession which he picked when members were balloting for their respective parcels of land. The 1st Defendant also filed a copy of his share certificate plus all the receipts of monies he paid to Barina Squatters Self Help Group in lieu of the 4 acres he was allocated. In the counter claim, the 1st defendant prays for an injunction restraining the plaintiff from trespassing cultivating erecting structures and or entering on plot no 252 ol Rongai within Nakuru County. Moreover, a declaration that plot number 252 is owned by the 1st defendant. Ultimately, he prays for costs of the suit and counter-claim plus interest.
The import of the 2nd, 3rd and 5th defendants defence is that though the plaintiff is a member of Barisa Squatters Self Help Group (hereinafter referred to as BSSHG) she was never entitled to or was ever allocated the suit land plot no. 252, or plot no 329, or in deed any other six of four acre parcel of land as alleged. The defendants aver that the plaintiff is a member of BSSHG and as such member, was still entitled to one acre parcel of land at (BSSHG) land LR No. 11384 LR No 5700 and LR no. 10332 situate in Rongai but only after she completes payment for the said one acre land. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of allegations of any larger land entitlement that one acre. The defendants contend that the plaintiff only paid a sum of Kshs.37,000. She never paid Kshs153.,000 as alleged in the plaint. An alleged payment of Kshs113,000 exhibited among the plaintiff document herein is fake and is not money paid by the plaintiff to BSSHG.
That the amount payable by all members of the BSSHG for one share equivalent to one acre of land is equivalent to Kshs40,000 hence the plaintiff has not even paid for one share. The plaintiff never went to ballot for or to get allocation for the said one acre of land the plaintiff was never allocated the said parcel. The land was never resurveyed as alleged as plot no 252 and 329 are not the same. The defendant contends that the aforesaid BSSHG land was surveyed for the first time in 2009. That the said purchase of land by the said BSSHG from standard chartered bank was completed in the year 2008. There is no way that the plaintiff could have been allocated the said parcel land no 329 in the year 2005.
The defendants contend that following the survey of land starting 2009, Plot No 329 and plot no 252 were surveyed and numbered as two very different and distinct parcels of land. There has never been any resurvey of the said parcels as alleged by the plaintiff. The defendants contents that the plaintiff has since the year 2012 unlawfully and without any color of right or justification trespassed and encroached on plot no 252 together with portions of other neighboring plots. The plaintiff is cultivating other person’s parcels of land amounting to eight acres including plot no 252 that belongs to Jackson Memba Ong’ayo. That he has put up structures on 252 illegally and that BSSHG is different from Barisa squatters self help group land project. The defendants further contents that this suit is bad in law, fatally defective, incompetent and unsustainable for joinder of the 2nd to 5th defendants and non-joinder of correct parties.
The plaintiff’s claim is incompetent and unsustainable, null and void ab initio for lack of mandatory consent of the land control board. The plaint does not disclose any reasonable or triable cause of action against the 2nd 3rd and 5th defendants. The defendants pray that the entire suit be dismissed with costs.
EVIDENCE ON RECORD
The Plaintiff, Pacifica Moraa Kenyaga testified that she is a peasant farmer and used to live in Kisii County until 2004. In the year 2002 or thereabouts she heard that a parcel of land was being sold at Nakuru. Since she did not have any land for herself she became interested. She was told that the land measured approximately 4,803 acres. They came together as a group and elected their representatives to represent them and defend their interests. She traveled from Kisii to Nakuru and they were shown the land. Many other people also became interested. They were told to register as members of Barina Squatters Self Help Group which she did. They elected their representatives to negotiate the purchase price and other related issues. The parcel of land was being sold by Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. The purchase price collectively was agreed at kshs. 85,000,000/=. They were many people interested and the purchase price was enormous, it was agreed that every member was free to purchase any amount of land depending on his or her ability. It was agreed that the purchase price per acre was fixed at kshs. 25,500/= all inclusive. She decided to purchase 6 acres. The purchase price was agreed to be paid by installments. For 6 acres she was required to pay kshs. 153,000/= all inclusive. It was a condition that the purchase price was to be deposited at Standard Chartered Bank Account of Barina Squatters Self Help Group No.0152092365900 and she paid as follows:
Date. 03/7/002 kshs. 12, 000/=
Date. 20/3/003 kshs. 25, 000/=
Date. 04/10/006 kshs. 113, 000/=
Date 16/3/2011 Kshs. 7, 900/=
Total kshs. 157,900/=
After payment she was issued with copies of deposit slips which she presented to the 2-5 defendants who claim to be their officials. Upon payments a surveyor was instructed to survey the land and they were allocated their individual plots in the year 2005. She was allocated and shown plot No. 329. Immediately took possession of land and commenced development. She is still in occupation to date.
The plaintiff laments that on or about May 2012 the 1st defendant emerged from nowhere and started claiming her land. He is not even a member of Barina Squatters Self Help Group.
The defendants took her to Menengai Police Station and she was charged with trespass. She denied the charges and the case is still pending for hearing before the Chief Magistrate Court in Nakuru. When she appeared before the Magistrate, she denied the charge and requested for a copy of the charge sheet and witness statements. She noted from the Criminal case they are alleging that she has not paid for the 6 acres which assertion is not true.
Each time she attended Court for hearing the defendants have kept on threatening her on unspecified consequences should she refuse to vacate the land. That on 17th April 2013 when she was cultivating and weeding, the defendants together with their hired goons attacked her together with her husband and badly assaulted them. In a nutshell she states that she is the owner of land parcel NO. 329 at Barina.
On being asked as to why she claims to have two ballot cards, one for land 329 and the other for land No.252? She told the Court that land parcel NO. 329 and land parcel NO.252 is one and the same. On receipts as to why her receipts were totaling to Kshs.37,000/=, she stated that the other receipt had been forgotten at home.
The plaintiff called a second witness one Mr Bill Kipsetim who happens to be an employee of Kenya Standard Bank Limited. The Standard Bank employee produced a Bank Statement for account number 0152092365900. The account is for Marina Squatters Self Help Group Land Project. The employee stated that indeed kshs.113,000/= is on the statement of Barina but he told the Court that he could not tell who deposited the money in that account. Moreover, that the account did not have the land project. The witness did not have the deposit slips.
DW1, Tobias Osano states together with Simon Kuria Ndungu are Trustees Barina Squatters Self Help Group- Registered Trustees (BSSHG- RG), a duly incorporated juristic entity which is the registered owner of the parent suit land herein, being L.R No. 11384, L.R No. 5700 & L.R No. 10332, totaling about 4800 acres. Despite BSSHG-RG being a body corporate capable of suing and being sued, and of holding property in its own name, they, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants herein were unnecessarily sued in their individual capacities in this Suit, which pertains to affairs of BSSHG- RG. The Plaintiff herein, Pacifica Moraa Kenyaga is a member of Barina Squatters Self-Help Group (BSSHG), and as such member, was and still is entitled to one (1) acre parcel of land, but only after she completes payment for the said one acre land.
The Plaintiff only paid to BSSHG a sum of Ksh. 37,000/= for land allocation. She never paid Ksh. 153,000/= as alleged in the Plaint. An alleged payment/bank slip for Ksh.113,000/= exhibited among the Plaintiff’s documents herein is fake, and is not money paid by the Plaintiff to BSSHG.
The amount of money payable by all members of BSSHG for one (1) share, equivalent to one (1) acre of land, was Ksh. 40,000/=. The Plaintiff hence did not, and to date she has never, fully paid-up even for her one (1) share/acre. Once the Plaintiff completes payment for her one (1) share/acre, she shall be issued with a Share Certificate, and will be allocated her one (1) acre land. As of now, the Plaintiff is not entitled to any land at all. Furthermore, the Plaintiff never went to ballot for or to get allocation for, her said one (1) acre parcel of land. In the premises, to date she has never been allocated, nor has she ever been shown the one (1) acre parcel land, though the same is still available for her once she completes payment for the same.
The Plaintiff has never been allocated, shown, or settled on plot No. 329 in 2005 or at all, or that the said land was later re-surveyed and re-numbered as plot No. 252. It is not true that plot No. 329 and plot No. 252 are the same parcel of land, or that either the said plot No. 329 or plot No. 252 measures approximately six (6) acres each, or that either of the said parcels is or has ever been the property of the Plaintiff.
The aforesaid BSSHG-RG land was only surveyed for the very first and only time, from around the year 2009. The purchase of the said land by BSSHG from Standard Chartered Bank was only completed in 2008. There is hence no way the Plaintiff could have been allocated or settled on any such plot No. 329 or at all in 2005, as alleged in the Plaint.
The witness states that following the survey of the land starting 2009, Plot No. 329, and Plot No. 252, were surveyed and numbered as two very different and distinct parcels of land. The two have never been the same parcel. And there has never been any re-survey of the said parcels or any other parcel of land at the BSSHG-RG land, as alleged by the Plaintiff.
Further, that the Plaintiff has since the year 2012, unlawfully and without any colour of right or justification trespassed and encroached onto land Plot No. 252, together with portions of other neighboring plots. In all, the Plaintiff has trespassed into and is cultivating approximately eight (8) acres of land allocated to and belonging to other members of BSSHG. The aforesaid Plot No. 252 measures about four (4) acres. It lawfully belongs to Jackson Memba Ongayo, the 1st Defendant herein, he having fully paid for and been allocated the said plot No. 252 by BSSHG.
The Plaintiff has since the year 2016, while this matter was still in Court, proceeded to unlawfully put up some structures on the said Plot No. 252 belonging to Jackson Memba the 1st Defendant herein. The Plaintiff is a trespasser on the said land, and she should be evicted therefrom. She should also be restrained by injunction from entering, remaining on, or interfering with the said land. She should also compensate the 1st Defendant for trespass on to his land.
Contrary to the Plaintiff’s allegation “Barina Squatters Self-Help Group” is not one and the same entity as “Barina Squatters Self-Help Group Land Project”. “Barina Squatters Self-Help Group Land Project”, is in fact a different entity, with a separate and distinct Registration and different Officials from Barina Squatters Self-Help Group (BSSHG). The “Land Project” was in fact a splinter group from BSSHG.
Sometimes back, the Plaintiff was properly and justifiably charged with criminal trespass upon the suit land Plot No. 252, in Nakuru Chief Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. 2067 of 2012; Republic -vs- Pacifica Moraa. She was however acquitted of the offence, not on merit, but on a technicality regarding a defect in the Charge Sheet. The Charge Sheet had not quoted the specific Act of Parliament under which the Plaintiff had been charged. Her acquittal therefore does not and did not mean that she did not trespass onto the suit land. In or around 2008, owing to complaints by various warring and splinter factions from BSSHG, a Probe Committee was formed by the Government to look into all the complaints regarding allotment of land at BSSHG. The Committee comprised of the Provincial Administration, Security Agencies, Ministry of Social Services, representatives of all the warring factions/groups, and Officials of BSSHG.
The probe committee required all persons who were claiming any land from or were claiming to have paid any money to BSSHG to submit their receipts or banking slips for verification by the Probe Committee. At the conclusion of the exercise, the Probe Committee came up with a comprehensive Report/Register of all the genuine members of BSSHG, and their respective payments to BSSHG, and their respective entitlement of land/acreages at BSSHG. That is the Register that was used by BSSHG to allocate land to its members. The Plaintiff duly attended and presented her documents to the said Probe Committee. The only receipts she presented to the Committee were the two bank slips for Ksh. 12,000/= and Ksh. 27,000/=, totaling Ksh. 37,000/=. That indeed, was the only money she had paid to BSSHG. She never presented the now alleged purported payment of Ksh. 113,000/=, no doubt for the reason that there never was any such payment. That purported additional payment of Ksh. 113,000/= is not genuine, and is a latter concocted and fraudulent afterthought by the Plaintiff. The only other payment made by the Plaintiff to BSSHG was Ksh. 7,900/= made towards survey fees for one (1) acre land. All members of BSSHG were required to pay Ksh. 7,900/= survey fee for one (1) acre of land. Anyone who had more than one (1) acre was to pay an extra Ksh. 300/= for each additional acre. The Plaintiff only paid Ksh. 7,900/= for one (1) acre, because that was all she claimed. Her claim herein for six (6) acres is an afterthought meant only to defraud BSSHG.
DW3, Jackson Memba Ongayo , who is the 1st defendant in the matter states that he is the owner of land parcel NO.252 in Rongai Sub-County. He told the Court that he is a member of Barina Squatters Self Help Group. He paid for his share of 4 acres to the group. In his evidence he tender to the Court the following documents:-
i. Barina Squatters Self Help Group voting card of plot number 252
ii. Barina Squatters Self Help Group Share Certificate
iii. All payment receipts totaling to about Kshs.167,450/=
The payments were for the 4 acre shares at Barina Squatters Self Help Group parcel of land which he was eventually allotted in ballot card number 252 which is also to be the number of the land which belongs to him. Before allotment a probe Committee was constituted to vet genuine members, the amount of money each person paid and the acreage each person is entitled to according to that person's payment. The probe Committee which included members of the provincial Administration came up with a list where the 1st Defendant is included and the amount he paid and the number of acres he is entitled to being 4 acres. After vetting by the Committee there was balloting in various categories depending on the number acreage. The 1st Defendant balloted in the 4 acres category and he was allotted land parcel number 252 which he took possession of and started his farming activities in the year, 2009, till 2012, when the plaintiff invaded the 1st Defendant's land, ploughed it and planted her crops without the permission of the 1st Defendant.
The 1st Defendant told the Court that at the time of the said invasion he was in Eldoret. He was called by a neighbor who informed him about the said invasion. The first Defendant in turn called the 2nd Defendant to visit the said land and see what was happening. The 2nd Defendant indeed visited the land and found the plaintiff had tilled the land and she was planting her crops with her husband. The 2nd Defendant on asking the plaintiff why she is ploughing and planting on the 1st Defendant's land, the plaintiff became violent which made the 2nd Defendant to report the matter to the area chief.
Thereafter the 1st Defendant arrived from Eldoret. He visited the land and indeed confirmed that his land had been tilled and planted by the plaintiff. He contacted the area chief. The area chief told him that he had tried to stop the plaintiff from ploughing and planting on land number 252 but the plaintiff had become adamant and that she had refused to stop ploughing and planting. This prompted the 1st Defendant to report the plaintiff to Menengai Police Station.
Upon reporting to the Police, the plaintiff was arrested and taken to Menengai Police Station. At the Police Station, the plaintiff pleaded with the Police that she had stopped ploughing and planting on the 1st Defendant's land and she asked for forgiveness. She was forgiven and released. But the following day the plaintiff went back to the land parcel number 252 and continued with her illegal activities. The 1st Defendant went back to report to the Police again. The Police arrested the plaintiff and she was charged in Court but the Court released and/or discharged on a technicality because she had been charged on a wrong provision of law. Upon release the plaintiff filed this case to injuct the 1st Defendant entering and use of his land. The plaintiff now has built her temporary structures and lives on the land taking advantage of the Courts status quo order.
On the day of balloting the plaintiff was not present. The 1st Defendant, JACKSON MEMBA ONGAYO balloted on the day of balloting and he picked ballot NO. 252 which was the number of his land and he was shown his land which measures 4 acres. HE took possession of his land. The ballots were prepared into categories as to the number of shares.
PLAINTIFFS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
The plaintiff submits that the acts complained of were perpetuated by the 1st to 5th Defendants in their personal capacities. They are purporting to be acting on behalf of the 6th Defendant who in a body corporate. The 1st to 3rd Defendants are describing themself as trustees. They cannot run away from their liabilities no matter how hard they will want to mislead this honourable court. The dispute herein is about land purchased by individuals as a Self Help Group. The members are only given an allotment letter and or allocated land as per the shareholding. There is no agreement for sale in such transactions. The Submissions that the Plaintiff should have produced a sale Agreement is based on ignorance of the law.
All the Defendants are not denying that the Plaintiff is a member, nor are they denying that she did contribute for her shareholding the scenario here is the purported trustees are either reselling the land twice or they are trying to dispose genuine members and allocate other people for selfish ends.
The plantiff submits that the money the Plaintiff is Claiming to have paid were directly deposited into the Groups Account at Standard Chartered Bank where all the members are reflected in the Groups Account. No evidence for the contrary have been placed before court. The 1st Defendants evidence is contradicting meant to defeat justice.
The plaintiff submits that the defendant produced a purported share Certificates which had no date when issued and conspicuously left out exhibit 2 as per statement by defence reading named as BARINA SQUATTERS SELF HELP GROUP LAND PROJECT (B.S.S.H. L.P) issued on 23rd November 2006.
The plaintiff submits that the Defendants have not produced the official members Register or the map to show the settlement of all the members. This is a requirement in law. From the a foregoing it is only fair and just that the court grants the prayers as prayed in the Amended Plaint
1ST DEFENDANTS SUBMISSIONS
The 1st defendant has identified the following issues that arise from the parties pleadings facts and evidence thus:-
a) Does land parcel number 329 and parcel number 252 do exist being subdivisions from the amalgamation of land parcels numbers LR.5700, LR.10332 and land parcel number 11384 owned by Barina Squatters Self Help Group?
b) Who owns land parcel number 329 and land parcel number 252. How was the ownership acquired?
c) Who occupies land parcels number 329 and 252. Is the occupation legal?
d) Is Barina Squatters Self Help Group and Barina Squatters Self Help Group Land Project legal entities?
On the 1st issue, the 1st defendant submits that the plaintiff and the Defendants are in agreement that land parcels number 329 and 252 exist on the ground as subdivisions except that the plaintiff testified that land parcel number 329 and 252 is one parcel. The plaintiff testified that number 329 was the old number while number 252 is the new number. A plan and/or a sub-divisional plan was produced in evidence and from the sub-divisional it was clear that land parcel number 329 and 252 are different parcels which are far apart.
The plaintiff in her evidence produced two copies of ballot cards for 329 and 252 and insisted that the two cards refer to the same land. It was clear from the evidence of the Defendant that ballot cards number 329 and 252 refer to different portions of land. It is the submission of the 1st Defendant that the plaintiff's intention was to mislead the Court and put more confusion to the dispute. It is clear from the plaintiff's evidence that she does not know where her land is located.
On the 2nd issue, the 1st defendant submits that it was clear from the evidence of 1st Defendant that he had during the balloting of members been allocated land parcel number 252. His ballot was number 252 which was similar to the land which he was allotted. Immediately after balloting he was shown his land. He started occupying the land in the year, 2009. He was doing farming on the said land till the year, 2012, when he was dislodged by the plaintiff.
It was clear from the evidence of the 2nd Defendant that the plaintiff did not participate in balloting when the same was being done. She has not paid Kshs.3,000/= balance for her land. She has never approached the Trustees of Barina Squatters Self Help Group to be shown where her portion land as a member of Barina Squatters Self Help Group. The plaintiff is illegally occupying the 1st Defendant's land.
It is the submissions of the 1st Defendant that the plaintiff is a trespasser to land parcel number 252 which belongs to the 1st Defendant. Hence the plaintiff should be declared a trespasser on land parcel number 252 and be ordered to vacate forthwith.
Barina Squatters Self Help Group officials and/or trustees has a process of how a person becomes a member of the group. The members who belonged to the other groups were integrated to Barina Self Help Group and were paying there monies to Standard Chartered Bank to an account belonging to Barina Squatters Self Help Group so that they get a piece of land equivalent to the amount each member paid.
It is the submission of the 1st Defendant that he paid money to Barina Squatters Self Help Group Bank account and the receipts of the said payments were produced in Court as his evidence. He paid money equivalent to 4 acres of land; and that is the same land into which the plaintiff has trespassed into. The 2nd Defendant who is one of the trustees of Barina Squatters Self Help Group did not state who owns land parcel number 329. He told the Court that it belongs to another person, who is not the plaintiff.
On the 3rd Issue, the 1st defendant submits that the ownership of land parcel number 252 has been established by the evidence of the 1st and 2nd Defendants. The plaintiff has enjoyed the benefits of land parcel number 252 since the year, 2012. Her filing of this suit is like a shield to assist her continue her trespass to on the said parcel and indeed she has been able to stay on the said land since the year, 2012 to date.
On the 4th Issue, the 1st defendant submits that the Honourable Court should take judicial notice that Barina Squatters Self Help Group as trustees and a duly incorporated Trust. Barina Squatters Self Help Group Land Project is not a legal entity. It cannot sue nor be sued. It is the Submission of the 1st Defendant that he proved his case that he is the owner of land parcel number 252 Rongai. Hence the plaintiff should be ordered to vacate the said land. She should be ordered to demolish her structures on the said land and also be retrained from trespassing into and/or interfering with the said land.
Under Sections 107 of the evidence Act it is stated that:-
i. "Whoever desires any Court to give Judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those exist".
ii. "When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person".
Section 109 of the evidence Act states that "The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on the person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person".
Under Section 112 of the evidence Act it is stated that "in Civil Proceedings, when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any party to those proceedings, the burden of proving or disproving that fact is upon him".
Taking into account Sections 107, 109 and 112 of the Evidence Act, it is the submission of the 1st Defendant that:-
a) The plaintiff was unable to prove that she is entitled to 6 acres of land being a share/subdivision of land from the larger land belonging to Barina Squatters Self Help Group at Rongai in Nakuru County;
b) The plaintiff was unable to prove that she paid for the requisite price of Kshs.40,000/= per acre to entitle her to 6 acres, instead she proved that she paid only Kshs.37,000/= which is insufficient to entitle her to even an acre at the said group's land. Hence her assertion that she had paid for six acres is not true.
c) The plaintiffs claim that she was given/allotted land and that she was given two ballot cards viz 329 and 252 is not correct as two ballot cards cannot be given to the plaintiff for one share and/or one piece of land. Therefore, it is the Submission of the 1st Defendant that the two ballot cards held and/or tendered in Court by the plaintiff as her evidence is a creation of the plaintiff. Further, the 2nd Defendant who isa trustees have never shown and/or given any ballot card to the plaintiff, hence the ballot cards held by the plaintiff are a forgery and they should be treated a such.
d) The evidence by the plaintiff of a Banking slip of Kshs.113,000/= was denied by the Defendants. Even the Bank official who appeared as the plaintiff's witness was unable to explain to the Court that the plaintiff had deposit of Kshs.113,000/= to the account of Barina Squatters Self Help Group. Hence the plaintiff testimony that she had a banking ship of Kshs.113,000/= was not correct and/or anything the plaintiff called a banking slip of the said amount was manufactured by the plaintiff and should not be relied by the Court.
e) The burden of proof was on the plaintiff to proof that she has a right to land on parcel number 252. She was unable to proof that the said land belongs to her, first by prov
[...truncated]