JUDGMENT
1. Vide his Petition dated 24 th March 2021, the Petitioner Paul Letim Saiyuah through his Advocates Messrs Tobiko, Njoroge and Co. Advocates sued the County Government of Narok, the National Land Commission, the Land Registrar Narok and the Board of Management of Karda Primary School; and sought as against the Respondents, the following reliefs;
(a) A declaration that the Respondents breached and/or infringed and violated the Petitioners fundamental right to fair administrative action and the freedom to protection of right to property.
(b) A declaration that the 1 st Respondent holds a portion of the parcel of land measuring approximately Eight decimal nine five (8.95) Hectares compromised in L.R No. Transmara/Olontare 37 in trust for the Petitioner.
(c) An order of permanent injunction restraining the Respondents either by themselves, agents, servants and/or anyone claiming under the said Respondents from entering upon, trespassing onto, taking possession, building on or in any other way interfering with the Petitioners right over the suit land.
(d) A mandatory injunction do issue to compel the Respondents by themselves, their servants or agents or otherwise howsoever and unconditionally release and handover the possession and ownership of the portion of parcel No. Transmara/Oloontare/37 measuring approximately Eight decimal nine five (8.95) Hectares to the Petitioner herein.
(e) A mandatory injunction do issue to compel the Respondents by themselves, their servants or agents or otherwise howsoever to release to the Petitioner, the original tile deed for parcel of land measuring approximately Eight decima nine five (8.95) Hectares compromised in plot No. Transmara/Oloontare/37 and a duly executed transfer form with all necessary documents for the transfer of title in favour of the Petitioner.
(f) In the alternative an order directing the Deputy Registrar to sign the transfer documents in the event that the 1 st Respondent fails to surrender the original title and duly signed transfer documents.
(g) Costs of the Petition.
The Petition
2. It is averred that; -
i. The Petitioner was a member of the Oloontare Adjudication Section, in which members were allocated parcels of land. Then the demarcation officer illegally and wrongly allocated himself parcel of land No. 37 thereof through his son (a minor) one Humprey Mwole Egosagwa which led to objection proceedings No. 40/1988 which resulted to the land to revert to the school and the Petitioner.
ii. That there was a common intention arrangement or understanding actually reached between the Petitioner and the 4 th Respondent as well as Residents of Karda Oloontare Adjudication Section that being his customary land the Petitioner was to be allocated a portion of parcel known as Transmara/Oloontare/37 and be issued with title thereafter.
iii. Each party had been utilising their portion at the time of demarcation in 1988.
iv. Ruling on the arrangement the Petitioner has been living on the portion of land since 1988 having built structures and farms thereon.
v. That the objection proceedings were altered so as to give the entire parcel to the school measuring about 20 acres. The judgment of the objection proceedings was not made public until after the lapse of 60 days hence the Petitioner did not Appeal to the Minister.
vi. As a result of the skewed objection proceedings the 3 rd Respondent registered the 1 st Respondent as sole proprietor for the entire Transmara/Oloontare/37 in Trust for the 4 th Respondent.
vii. That all registered land is subject to overriding interests not noted in the register and the registration of 1 st Respondent could not be used to defeat any right that existed prior to the creation and registration of this title. Tracing is an equitable remedy and equity shall trace the suit property for ends of justice to be served.
viii. All registered land is subject to overriding interests, without being noted in the register as per section 28 of the Land Registration Act 2012, and that the suit property is thus held in Trust for the Petitioner and having been in occupation since 1970’s a constructive trust was thus created.
3. It is further averred that by virtue of actions of the Respondents the Petitioner stands to suffer irreparable loss and damage.
4. The Petition is founded on the following constitutional provisions Article 1, 2, 3, 4(2), 10, 19(1), 19(3)(a), 20(2), 20(4), 21(1), 22, 23, 24, 25, 27(1), 232, 258, 259(1), while the statutory foundation of the petition includes section 28 of Land Registration.
5. The Petitioner pleaded violations of constitution and statutes in that the Respondents actions violated Articles 1, 2, 3, 10, 19(1)(G) and 20(2).
6. On Article 27, the Petitioner pleaded that there was a violation of the said Article by the Respondents who discriminated against the Kaptuiei Maasai to deny them their pre-emptive rights under the law to re-acquire the sheep and goat land for use strictly as a community conservancy.
7. Article 47, Article 73, Article 73(2) (b) and (d) Article 129; as well as Section 28 of Land Registration Act; and the provisions of Administrative Action Act (2015).
8. In support of the Petition the Petitioner deponed a supporting affidavit in which he reiterated the averments of the Petition as his deposition and annexed a copy of the title deed of Transmara/Oloontare/37, a certificate of official search for the parcel, objection proceedings No. 40/1988, copy of a letter dated 23.02.2006 and a list of signatories, letter dated 12.10.2011, letter dated 12.04.2016, letter dated 14.04.2016 letter dated 23.06.2016, letter dated 24.03.2017, copy of official search dated 02.05.2017, letter dated 13 th October 2017, letter dated 21.03.2018.
9. On the strength of the above the Petitioner sought for orders set out at paragraph 1 of this judgment.
Respondents’ case
1 st Respondent’s case
10. The 1 st Respondents filed a Replying affidavit deponed by Elizabeth Lolchoki who was described as the County Secretary, in respect of an interlocutory application by way of Notice of Motion dated 22 nd of July 2021.
11. The 2 nd Respondent filed a Response to the Petition vide the Response to the Petition vide the Replying affidavit of Susan Kidemi, the county coordinator of NLC, Narok county. She deposed generally on the constitutional and statutory Roles of NLC; and deposed specifically on the issues in controversy hereon as follows.
i. That Kadra/Oloontare Adjudication Section underwent Land Adjudication procedures under Cap 284 Laws of Kenya, and process finalised and registered in 1997. Land rights were determined and both private and public land allocated.
ii. The petitioner filed an objection being Objection No. 40/1988 between himself and Mr. Humphrey Mwole Egosagwa which objection was determined on 14.09.1988 in favour of Narok county council and reserved for Karda primary school; following which an adjudication record (AR) was prepared in favour of Karda primary school for parcels 37 and 40, and hence the same was public land.
iii. No appeal to the Minister was filed in respect of the decision of the Land Adjudication officer in respect of the objection proceedings until in 2016, May when the 2 nd Respondent office in Narok wrote to the NLC chairperson.
iv. The NLC chair referred matter to the coordinates office so as to liaise with the 1 st Respondent and other public officials to resolve the whole issue; whereafter the petitioner was ordered to vacate the suit parcel, which he had now laid claim to a portion thereof, and vacated suit parcel in 2021.
v. That the petitioner had been allocated another parcel being plot 120 in the same scheme, hence the petitioner had no reasonable cause of action and the petition ought to be dismissed with costs as it was frivolous baseless and lacked merit.
12. In support of the depositions above, the deponent annexed copies of the following documents. Objection proceedings No. 40/1988 in respect of plot No. 37, a copy of the demarcation Book, a copy of green card for parcel No. 51 in Transmara/Oloontare.
13. There was initial consensus that the matter would proceed by way of written submissions however on 26.05.2022, this court (E. Washe J.) directed the matter to proceed by way of viva vole evidence. The petition proceeded party before E. Washe J, and proceedings were typed and directions taken for it to proceed from where it had reached.
Petitioner’s Evidence
14. The Petitioner Mr. Paul Letim Saiyuah, testified in support of his petition as P.W.1. It was his testimony while adopting his affidavit dated 24.03.2021 as part of his evidence in chief that; he was denied his rights of ownership of the suit property known as Transmara/Oloontare/37 in which he has lived on since 1985 and during the adjudication done in 1986 and 1987.
15. At time of adjudication the parcel was allocated to a 8-year-old son of the Adjudication officer which necessitated him to file objection proceedings. The objection was allowed but suit property was registered in favour of 4 th Respondent. The objection filed was personal in nature due to his occupation and not for purposes of the school which was not in existence on the ground. The school did not file any objection that he convened the meeting with area chief and elders and they endorsed that he be granted 50 acres out of the 70 acres of Karda primary school. At demarcation he was allocated 20 acres and the school processed the whole title, hence his rights to own the 20 acres. The witness produced the following documents in support of his petition.
P.Exhibit 1 (a) and (b) – Copy of title deed of L.R No. Transmara/Oloontare/37 and copy of search dated 02.05.2017
P.Exhibit 2 – Copy of objection proceedings of No. 40 of 1988.
P.Exhibit 3 – Letter from the Transmara District Land Registrar dated 23.02.2006.
P.Exhibit 4 – Letter dated 12.10.2011 to Lands Dispute Tribunal.
P.Exhibit 5 – Letter from Petitioner to Chairman NLC dated 12.04.2016.
P.Exhibit 7 (a) and (b) – letter from Land Registrar to NLC dated 23.06.2016 together with the application for consent.
P.Exhibit 8 - letter from NLC to the County Coordinator NLC (Narok) dated 24.03.2017.
P.Exhibit 9 – letter dated 26.04.2017 from Karda primary school to the Coordinator NLC Narok County, including a search dated 2 nd May 2017 and certificate of Registration of title and sketch map.
P.Exhibit 10 - A letter dated 13.10.2017 from NLC Coordinator Narok to Karda primary school.
P.Exhibit 11 ` - Letter dated 19.03.2018 for DCC Transmara to NLC.
P.Exhibit 12 - Letter dated 21.03.2018 from Coordinator NLC (Narok) to Karda school Petitioner and Paul Ole Saiyuah.
P.Exhibit 13 – Letter from DCC Transmara to headteacher Karda primary school.
P.Exhibit 14 - photograph of suit properties mfi.16 marked for identification surveyors Report dated 15.02.2021.
16. The witness further stated that his rights had been denied in respect of Transmara/Oloontare/37 where he had been since 1985 and throughout the adjudication process in 1986 and 1987; where the property was allocated to a 8-year-old son of the Land Adjudication officer; whereafter he raised an objection through the Land Adjudication Committee. He learnt that he had won the objection by which time the land had been registered to 1 st Respondent for purposes of the 24 th Respondent.
17. The Objection he had filed was personal in nature and not for the purpose of the school which was not in existence on the ground or anywhere.
18. The 4 th Respondent had been allocated plot No. 40 for its use. The witness stated that he called community elders so that he could be compensated with 50 acres and the school be given 20 acres. He had been demarcated about 20 acres which he accepted and lived thereon but was prohibited by an order of court to access the suit land after harvesting his crops.
19. On cross-examination by Advocates for 1 st and 4 th Respondents, the witness stated that he began his occupation in 1985, and in 1988 he was already in occupation, he had built a house, fenced the same, planted trees and sisal so as to demarcate the boundary P.Exhibit 15 is the house he had constructed in 1984. The witness confirmed that the trees on the photographs that he had planted the trees, during his occupation, and the sisal he had planted. The witness stated that he took part in objection proceedings but was not aware of the outcome as the outcome was not communicated to him, hence the 60 days Appeal period lapsed.
20. The objection proceedings awarded the parcel to him, yet the proceedings and decision did not award the suit property to HIM. the objection proceedings were not factual as the witness was not raising the objection of behalf of the school.
21. The witness stated that he raised the issue of allocation of 2o acres to himself with the committee.
22. On further cross-examination on behalf of the 2 nd Respondent, the witness denied voluntarily moving out of the suit property and that the school had taken possession of suit land.
23. He stated that he had obtained proceedings in 2023, when he learnt of the misrepresentation.
24. On cross-examination on behalf of the 3 rd Respondent, the witness stated that he never acquired parcel No. 37, yet he was living thereon, as this was community land and parcel No. 37 was created during adjudication when he took the objection the school was not there.
25. On cross-examination, by the 1 st and 4 th Respondent, PW2 stated that the petitioner has been in occupation since 2004, and that he had relied upon maps from the subcounty surveyor which maps were not attached.
26. During his visit, he did not call the 4 th Respondent or the 1 st Respondent, which he described as an oversight. He stated that it was also strange that the petitioner did not mention the shopping centre.
27. On further cross-examination, the witness stated that he could not view the satellite images as the technology was not advanced, the witness did not attach an official search of the suit property, yet he was aware that the property was registered in the name of the 1 st Respondent and he conceded that his entry on the suit property was without the consent of the owner.
28. On further cross-examination by Mr. Nderitu for the 3 rd Respondent, The witness stated that he did not have a CR 12 for his company and did not remember the date of his visit. He had seen three land uses of suit property, he did not measure the boundaries occupied.
29. On re-examination the witness stated that he lived on parcel No. 37 until 2022. He indicated that he had filed the objection on his own behalf, there were no verbal instruction nor letter of instruction to show that he was acting on behalf of the community. He was a member of the adjudication section hence he was to be allocated land. the objection proceedings were altered, and Ruling delivered without his knowledge, and only learnt of the outcome in 2003. The title was issued when the land had a dispute and, in the meeting, there was no representative of the 1 st and 2 nd Respondent.
30. P.W.2, Charles Lwanga a licenced surveyor testified, he produced a report dated 15.02.2021 as P.Exhibit 16 which he had prepared at the request of the petitioner. In the said report the parcel has 3 land uses
Portion A – 8.21 Ha, petitioner had planted sugarcane.
Portion B – Kanda 11.71 Ha
Portion C – Shopping 11.71 Ha
The said parcels had been properly demarcated, and it historical view of usage was from 2004 by the petitioner, he could not tell whether the trees planted by the petition in 2004 could be seen.
31. On re-examination, he stated that the survey was a spatial survey as opposed to a subdivision survey. There was no need to have an official search in a spatial survey. They were sisal plants between the portion A and B.
32. P.W.3, Muindi Ole Sire, testified and stated interalia ; that the petitioner was his neighbour who was allocated the suit property as he was a resident of the Area, and that the suit property involved two parcels. First parcel was demarcated to the school while 2 nd parcel was demarcated to the son of the adjudication officer leading to an objection by the petitioner and the parcel was then registered in the name of the school as opposed to the petitioner, and the community passed a resolution to allocate the petitioner a portion of the 2 nd parcel which had been allocated to the school.
33. After the resolution which was made in the presence of about 50 people including the chief and representatives of the school, the petitioner took possession, until he was evicted, the title is in the name of the 1 st Respondent.
34. On cross-examination by the Advocate for 1 st and 4 th Respondent, the witness indicated that the names he has were given to him; that the petitioner was allocated the property during adjudication. The witness did not have the adjudication record or area list to confirm the same. The witness stated that the petitioner had won the objection proceedings but the property allocated to the school. That a baraza comprised of chief and Assistant chief and school representative and members of the community was called but the chief and Assistant chief did not sign the minutes, while the school representative Mr. Daniel Mointet signed the same, as a village elder. There were no lands official, the witness could not remember the acreage. The witness confirmed writing a witness statement but denied the signature on the statement.
35. The witness confirmed that his name is Muindi Ole Sire also known as Paul Sire, the witness did not have any evidence that the Petitioner has been in occupation or lives on ancestral land, the witness did not know where the petitioner was allocated. The witness stated that during the objection proceedings, the petitioner was claiming on his own rights and not for the school.
36. On cross-examination by Advocate for the 2 nd Respondent the witness stated that he was 63 years old, though he could not remember when the baraza was held but he was present in the 2006 Baraza. In reference to P.Exhibit 2, he stated that it was him who filed the objection; and the ruling of the Objection proceeding were in favour of the 4 th Respondent and not the petitioner.
37. The witness stated that he had not filed an Appeal against the decision of the objection proceedings; and the understanding was the understanding was that the petitioner had won hence there was no need to Appeal. He confirmed that the petitioner had been evicted.
38. On further cross-examination by the Advocate for the 3 rd Respondent the witness stated that his name was Muindi Ole Sire and the statement and signature were his. He confirmed that the petitioner was his neighbour.
39. That his resident was his ancestral home, namely Transmara/Sikawa/198 and 1999. The suit property and his home were not far away. The witness stated that he met the petitioner on the suit property which has been developed with 2 houses. The petitioner was denied registration and filed the objections.
RESPONDENTS EVIDENCE
4 th Respondent case (D.W.1)
40. Sambu Ole Lenkurriny appeared before this Honourable Court as D.W.1, he was sworn and testified in Kiswahili. In his statement, he noted that he’s a resident of Oloontare in Karda Location and a Board member of the 4 th Respondent.
41. D.W.1 chose to adopt his witness statement dated 01.09.2024 as part of his statement.
42. D.W.1 testified that the 4 th Respondent is the registered owner of LR. Transmara/Oloontare/37 and that during the Adjudication Section, the Adjudication Record was recorded in the name of an official from the lands department. To which the community objected and the Adjudication Record was amended and the said name of the official removed. The Adjudication record was then recorded in the name of the 1 st Respondent.
43. To support his evidence, D.W.1 presented the following documents;
DW1- Exhibit 1- Certified proceedings of Objection No. 40/1988 before Land Adjudication Office in respect of Plot No. 37 within Oloontare Adjudication Section.
DW1 - Exhibit 2 - Copy of Official Search of LR. Transmara/ Oloontare/37 dated 02.05.2017.
DW1 - Exhibit 3 -Copy of letter dated 18.09.2017 from area chief Oloontare location to the petitioner.
DW1 - Exhibit 4 - Copy of the certificate of Registration of the 4 th Defendant dated 26.02.2014.
DW1 - Exhibit 5 - Copy of a letter dated 14.03.2018 from area chief Oloontare addressed to Sony Sugar Company on behalf of 4 th Defendant.
DW1 - Exhibit 6 - Copy of letter dated 02.03.2012 addressed to the Area Chief from ACC Keiyan Division.
DW1 - Exhibit 7 - Copy of letter dated 21.21.03.2018 from the 2 nd Respondent to the 4 th Respondent and Petitioner.
DW1- Exhibit 8 - Copy of letter dated 13.10.2017 from 2 nd Respondent to the 4 th Respondent.
DW1 -Exhibit 9 - Copy of letter dated 26.02.2018 from 4 th Respondent to DCC.
DW1 -Exhibit 10- Copy of letter dated 20.09.2018 from 4 th Respondent to CC Narok.
DW1- Exhibit 11 - Copy of letter dated 13.07.2018 from 4 th Respondent to 2 nd Respondent.
DW1 -P Exhibit 12 - Certified copy of Spadial Development Plan by the District Surveyor Transmara for 1 st Defendant.
DW1 - Exhibit 13 - Minutes of the 4th Defendant to the dispute of L.R Transmara/Oloontare/37 against the petition.
44. The witness also testified that during the Objection, the Petitioner was to represent the 4th Respondent and community and not himself. Further, the Petitioner was not in occupation of the suit property and the witness was not aware of the Petitioner’s reason for vacating.
45. When shown P.Exhibit 5, the witness claimed not to know the house pictured.
46. During cross-examination by the 1 st Respondent, the witness referred to P.Exhibit 2 that the objection was on behalf of the 4 th Respondent and the outcome was in favour of the 4 th Respondent.
47. The witness also maintained that the petitioner was never recorded as the owner of the land referring to Petition Exhibit 3, a letter dated 23.02.2006. The witness was also aware of the meeting and the resolution therein but that no member of the 4th Respondent attended this meeting. Further, if the agenda was the ownership of the land recorded to the school, then a representative should have attended the meeting.
48. The witness also testified that the 3 rd Respondent had never communicated to the 4 th Respondent regarding the sub-division of the school property and was not aware that the suit property was in dispute with the 2 nd Respondent. The witness also averred that he has not seen any determination from the 2 nd Respondent and Transmara/Oloontare/37 still belongs to the 4 th Respondent.
49. On cross-examination by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, the witness stated that he was born in 1966 within Karda area of Oloontare Location and was a minor during the Adjudication. Further, that the Petitioner has land within Karda which he uses but doesn’t live there.
50. The witness averred that he was not aware of any resolution that a portion of Transmara/Oloontare/37 should be hived off and allocated to the petitioner.
51. When referred to P.Exhibit 2, the witness stated that the objection was lodged by the community and the petitioner was one of them. The reason for the objection was that the land was to be used for a school. The determination was that the land belonged to the school and no portion was granted to the petitioner.
52. The witness further stated that the petitioner was not in occupation of the suit property in 1988 and was not a resident of Oloontare/37 and that he owns property away from Oloontare/37.
53. The witness further averred that the school has been developed and there’s a portion of Oloontare/37 that’s not in use because of this petition where the school used to farm sugar cane.
54. The witness also testified that the petitioner had earlier complained that he wants half of the school land and in his opinion, the petitioner wants to grab the disputed portion.
55. The witness also stated that he’s aware of the 2 nd Respondent, however, he’s uncertain whether the 2 nd Respondent visited the disputed land. Further, he has not seen the 3 rd Respondent of the District Surveyor.
56. The witness also states that the 4 th Respondent cannot subdivide the title in favour of the Petitioner and the title is in the name of the 1 st Respondent. Also, that he has not had a meeting with the 3 rd Respondent.
57. On cross-examination by the Petitioner, the witness confirmed that he’s a BOM member of the 4 th Respondent, elected 1 year ago but previously acted in the BOM about 7 years ago and served for 2 years and his current role in the BOM is a member.
58. The witness testified that he was a member of Oloontare Adjudication Committee, the petitioner was not a member of the 4th Defendant and did not have children in the 4th Respondent. That the petitioner filed the objection on behalf of the community and on his own volition.
59. The witness further testified on cross-examination by the Petitioner that the land belongs to the government, the community protects the land and it is the government who should object if the Adjudication Record was not proper.
60. The witness testified that he did not attend the objection proceedings, cannot tell how the objections were undertaken or the parties, or if the Land Adjudication Officer is the one that determined the Objection.
61. When referred to P.Exhibit 3, the witness stated that he did not know the participants, but the author was a village elder.
62. When referred to P.Exhibit 2, the witness stated that he was not in the meeting, the committee members of the 4 th Respondent were absent, and he cannot tell who they were and whether they attended.
63. The witness also testified that he was born in Karda and lives within 1KM. That the Petitioner has never lived in Oloontare/37 and is older than the witness.
64. When referred to DW1 Exhibit 3, the witness testified that the petitioner used to cultivate but not reside in the disputed land.
65. Referring to DW1 Exhibit 5, the witness stated that the Petitioner was still cultivating but not ready.
66. Referring to DW1 Exhibit 6, the witness testified that the letter was to stop the Petitioner from use of the land.
67. Referring to DW1 Exhibit 9, the witness testified that the petitioner was using the land but not residing. Further, that the petitioner has been farming on the disputed land for about 3 sessions and the witness can’t state the actual date the petitioner started using the land.
68. Referring to DW1 Exhibit 13, the witness testified that he cannot tell when it was written as he was not in the 4 th Respondent’s BOM.
69. The witness also testified that he has never attended a case before the DC or NLC and can’t tell what was dismissed therein.
70. Referring to Petitioner Exhibit 15, the witness testified that he did not know the owner of the land, that every letter to the 4 th Respondent is received by the head teacher and only he can tell if it was received or not.
71. Referring to DWI Exhibit 2, the witness testified that the title was issued on 29.09.2015 which is 7 years ago.
72. When referring to DW1 Exhibit 4, the witness testified that the 4 th Respondent was registered on 26.02.2014.
73. Closing the cross-examination, the witness testified that he was a Board Management Member in 2014 and the 4 th Respondent had not been registered in 1988.
74. During re-examination, the witness referring to Petitioner’s Exhibit 3 testified that the list of attendants was not properly signed but he was not in attendance.
75. The witness also reiterated that he has not seen any minutes from the 4th Respondent accepting to hive off the 4th Respondent’s land.
76. The witness also testified that they have not seen any letter authorizing the assistant chief to testify in this matter.
77. Referring to DW1 Exhibit 1- the witness reiterated that he cannot tell the reason why the petitioner objected but the determination was in favour of the 4th Respondent.
78. Finally, in closing his testimony, the witness noted that there is no resolution that has been requested by the Petitioner and refused.
1 st Respondent’s Evidence
79. Moses Naitole Magiro appeared before the court as D.W.2 and was duly sworn in. He stated that he is the ward administrator of Keyian ward where he also lives and is appearing in court on behalf of the County Government.
80. As a witness, DW2 chose to adopt his witness statement dated 24.09.2022 as part of his evidence in chief.
81. DW2 testified that the school has a title deed held by the County government titled Transmara/Oloontare/37 and sought to produce the following documents as evidence;
DW2- Exhibit 13 - Copy of the Title deed for Transmara/Oloontare/37.
DW2 - Exhibit 14 - Copy of the Official Search for Transmara/Oloontare/37
82. The witness testified that during demarcation of the area, one surveyor named Javan allocated the parcel of land to his son, Humphrey and when this came to the fore, one community member namely Paul Saiyua, the Petitioner herein, filed an objection before the committee and it was ruled in favour of the school. This determination reserved the parcel to Karda Primary School and the name of Humphrey was deleted.
83. The witness testified that the judgment did not mention the parcel of land being allocated to the Petitioner and no appeal was filed against the decision.
84. The witness produced the following documents to be marked for identification stating that there’s no portion in the judgment that entitles the petitioner to a
[...truncated]
1. Vide his Petition dated 24 th March 2021, the Petitioner Paul Letim Saiyuah through his Advocates Messrs Tobiko, Njoroge and Co. Advocates sued the County Government of Narok, the National Land Commission, the Land Registrar Narok and the Board of Management of Karda Primary School; and sought as against the Respondents, the following reliefs;
(a) A declaration that the Respondents breached and/or infringed and violated the Petitioners fundamental right to fair administrative action and the freedom to protection of right to property.
(b) A declaration that the 1 st Respondent holds a portion of the parcel of land measuring approximately Eight decimal nine five (8.95) Hectares compromised in L.R No. Transmara/Olontare 37 in trust for the Petitioner.
(c) An order of permanent injunction restraining the Respondents either by themselves, agents, servants and/or anyone claiming under the said Respondents from entering upon, trespassing onto, taking possession, building on or in any other way interfering with the Petitioners right over the suit land.
(d) A mandatory injunction do issue to compel the Respondents by themselves, their servants or agents or otherwise howsoever and unconditionally release and handover the possession and ownership of the portion of parcel No. Transmara/Oloontare/37 measuring approximately Eight decimal nine five (8.95) Hectares to the Petitioner herein.
(e) A mandatory injunction do issue to compel the Respondents by themselves, their servants or agents or otherwise howsoever to release to the Petitioner, the original tile deed for parcel of land measuring approximately Eight decima nine five (8.95) Hectares compromised in plot No. Transmara/Oloontare/37 and a duly executed transfer form with all necessary documents for the transfer of title in favour of the Petitioner.
(f) In the alternative an order directing the Deputy Registrar to sign the transfer documents in the event that the 1 st Respondent fails to surrender the original title and duly signed transfer documents.
(g) Costs of the Petition.
The Petition
2. It is averred that; -
i. The Petitioner was a member of the Oloontare Adjudication Section, in which members were allocated parcels of land. Then the demarcation officer illegally and wrongly allocated himself parcel of land No. 37 thereof through his son (a minor) one Humprey Mwole Egosagwa which led to objection proceedings No. 40/1988 which resulted to the land to revert to the school and the Petitioner.
ii. That there was a common intention arrangement or understanding actually reached between the Petitioner and the 4 th Respondent as well as Residents of Karda Oloontare Adjudication Section that being his customary land the Petitioner was to be allocated a portion of parcel known as Transmara/Oloontare/37 and be issued with title thereafter.
iii. Each party had been utilising their portion at the time of demarcation in 1988.
iv. Ruling on the arrangement the Petitioner has been living on the portion of land since 1988 having built structures and farms thereon.
v. That the objection proceedings were altered so as to give the entire parcel to the school measuring about 20 acres. The judgment of the objection proceedings was not made public until after the lapse of 60 days hence the Petitioner did not Appeal to the Minister.
vi. As a result of the skewed objection proceedings the 3 rd Respondent registered the 1 st Respondent as sole proprietor for the entire Transmara/Oloontare/37 in Trust for the 4 th Respondent.
vii. That all registered land is subject to overriding interests not noted in the register and the registration of 1 st Respondent could not be used to defeat any right that existed prior to the creation and registration of this title. Tracing is an equitable remedy and equity shall trace the suit property for ends of justice to be served.
viii. All registered land is subject to overriding interests, without being noted in the register as per section 28 of the Land Registration Act 2012, and that the suit property is thus held in Trust for the Petitioner and having been in occupation since 1970’s a constructive trust was thus created.
3. It is further averred that by virtue of actions of the Respondents the Petitioner stands to suffer irreparable loss and damage.
4. The Petition is founded on the following constitutional provisions Article 1, 2, 3, 4(2), 10, 19(1), 19(3)(a), 20(2), 20(4), 21(1), 22, 23, 24, 25, 27(1), 232, 258, 259(1), while the statutory foundation of the petition includes section 28 of Land Registration.
5. The Petitioner pleaded violations of constitution and statutes in that the Respondents actions violated Articles 1, 2, 3, 10, 19(1)(G) and 20(2).
6. On Article 27, the Petitioner pleaded that there was a violation of the said Article by the Respondents who discriminated against the Kaptuiei Maasai to deny them their pre-emptive rights under the law to re-acquire the sheep and goat land for use strictly as a community conservancy.
7. Article 47, Article 73, Article 73(2) (b) and (d) Article 129; as well as Section 28 of Land Registration Act; and the provisions of Administrative Action Act (2015).
8. In support of the Petition the Petitioner deponed a supporting affidavit in which he reiterated the averments of the Petition as his deposition and annexed a copy of the title deed of Transmara/Oloontare/37, a certificate of official search for the parcel, objection proceedings No. 40/1988, copy of a letter dated 23.02.2006 and a list of signatories, letter dated 12.10.2011, letter dated 12.04.2016, letter dated 14.04.2016 letter dated 23.06.2016, letter dated 24.03.2017, copy of official search dated 02.05.2017, letter dated 13 th October 2017, letter dated 21.03.2018.
9. On the strength of the above the Petitioner sought for orders set out at paragraph 1 of this judgment.
Respondents’ case
1 st Respondent’s case
10. The 1 st Respondents filed a Replying affidavit deponed by Elizabeth Lolchoki who was described as the County Secretary, in respect of an interlocutory application by way of Notice of Motion dated 22 nd of July 2021.
11. The 2 nd Respondent filed a Response to the Petition vide the Response to the Petition vide the Replying affidavit of Susan Kidemi, the county coordinator of NLC, Narok county. She deposed generally on the constitutional and statutory Roles of NLC; and deposed specifically on the issues in controversy hereon as follows.
i. That Kadra/Oloontare Adjudication Section underwent Land Adjudication procedures under Cap 284 Laws of Kenya, and process finalised and registered in 1997. Land rights were determined and both private and public land allocated.
ii. The petitioner filed an objection being Objection No. 40/1988 between himself and Mr. Humphrey Mwole Egosagwa which objection was determined on 14.09.1988 in favour of Narok county council and reserved for Karda primary school; following which an adjudication record (AR) was prepared in favour of Karda primary school for parcels 37 and 40, and hence the same was public land.
iii. No appeal to the Minister was filed in respect of the decision of the Land Adjudication officer in respect of the objection proceedings until in 2016, May when the 2 nd Respondent office in Narok wrote to the NLC chairperson.
iv. The NLC chair referred matter to the coordinates office so as to liaise with the 1 st Respondent and other public officials to resolve the whole issue; whereafter the petitioner was ordered to vacate the suit parcel, which he had now laid claim to a portion thereof, and vacated suit parcel in 2021.
v. That the petitioner had been allocated another parcel being plot 120 in the same scheme, hence the petitioner had no reasonable cause of action and the petition ought to be dismissed with costs as it was frivolous baseless and lacked merit.
12. In support of the depositions above, the deponent annexed copies of the following documents. Objection proceedings No. 40/1988 in respect of plot No. 37, a copy of the demarcation Book, a copy of green card for parcel No. 51 in Transmara/Oloontare.
13. There was initial consensus that the matter would proceed by way of written submissions however on 26.05.2022, this court (E. Washe J.) directed the matter to proceed by way of viva vole evidence. The petition proceeded party before E. Washe J, and proceedings were typed and directions taken for it to proceed from where it had reached.
Petitioner’s Evidence
14. The Petitioner Mr. Paul Letim Saiyuah, testified in support of his petition as P.W.1. It was his testimony while adopting his affidavit dated 24.03.2021 as part of his evidence in chief that; he was denied his rights of ownership of the suit property known as Transmara/Oloontare/37 in which he has lived on since 1985 and during the adjudication done in 1986 and 1987.
15. At time of adjudication the parcel was allocated to a 8-year-old son of the Adjudication officer which necessitated him to file objection proceedings. The objection was allowed but suit property was registered in favour of 4 th Respondent. The objection filed was personal in nature due to his occupation and not for purposes of the school which was not in existence on the ground. The school did not file any objection that he convened the meeting with area chief and elders and they endorsed that he be granted 50 acres out of the 70 acres of Karda primary school. At demarcation he was allocated 20 acres and the school processed the whole title, hence his rights to own the 20 acres. The witness produced the following documents in support of his petition.
P.Exhibit 1 (a) and (b) – Copy of title deed of L.R No. Transmara/Oloontare/37 and copy of search dated 02.05.2017
P.Exhibit 2 – Copy of objection proceedings of No. 40 of 1988.
P.Exhibit 3 – Letter from the Transmara District Land Registrar dated 23.02.2006.
P.Exhibit 4 – Letter dated 12.10.2011 to Lands Dispute Tribunal.
P.Exhibit 5 – Letter from Petitioner to Chairman NLC dated 12.04.2016.
P.Exhibit 7 (a) and (b) – letter from Land Registrar to NLC dated 23.06.2016 together with the application for consent.
P.Exhibit 8 - letter from NLC to the County Coordinator NLC (Narok) dated 24.03.2017.
P.Exhibit 9 – letter dated 26.04.2017 from Karda primary school to the Coordinator NLC Narok County, including a search dated 2 nd May 2017 and certificate of Registration of title and sketch map.
P.Exhibit 10 - A letter dated 13.10.2017 from NLC Coordinator Narok to Karda primary school.
P.Exhibit 11 ` - Letter dated 19.03.2018 for DCC Transmara to NLC.
P.Exhibit 12 - Letter dated 21.03.2018 from Coordinator NLC (Narok) to Karda school Petitioner and Paul Ole Saiyuah.
P.Exhibit 13 – Letter from DCC Transmara to headteacher Karda primary school.
P.Exhibit 14 - photograph of suit properties mfi.16 marked for identification surveyors Report dated 15.02.2021.
16. The witness further stated that his rights had been denied in respect of Transmara/Oloontare/37 where he had been since 1985 and throughout the adjudication process in 1986 and 1987; where the property was allocated to a 8-year-old son of the Land Adjudication officer; whereafter he raised an objection through the Land Adjudication Committee. He learnt that he had won the objection by which time the land had been registered to 1 st Respondent for purposes of the 24 th Respondent.
17. The Objection he had filed was personal in nature and not for the purpose of the school which was not in existence on the ground or anywhere.
18. The 4 th Respondent had been allocated plot No. 40 for its use. The witness stated that he called community elders so that he could be compensated with 50 acres and the school be given 20 acres. He had been demarcated about 20 acres which he accepted and lived thereon but was prohibited by an order of court to access the suit land after harvesting his crops.
19. On cross-examination by Advocates for 1 st and 4 th Respondents, the witness stated that he began his occupation in 1985, and in 1988 he was already in occupation, he had built a house, fenced the same, planted trees and sisal so as to demarcate the boundary P.Exhibit 15 is the house he had constructed in 1984. The witness confirmed that the trees on the photographs that he had planted the trees, during his occupation, and the sisal he had planted. The witness stated that he took part in objection proceedings but was not aware of the outcome as the outcome was not communicated to him, hence the 60 days Appeal period lapsed.
20. The objection proceedings awarded the parcel to him, yet the proceedings and decision did not award the suit property to HIM. the objection proceedings were not factual as the witness was not raising the objection of behalf of the school.
21. The witness stated that he raised the issue of allocation of 2o acres to himself with the committee.
22. On further cross-examination on behalf of the 2 nd Respondent, the witness denied voluntarily moving out of the suit property and that the school had taken possession of suit land.
23. He stated that he had obtained proceedings in 2023, when he learnt of the misrepresentation.
24. On cross-examination on behalf of the 3 rd Respondent, the witness stated that he never acquired parcel No. 37, yet he was living thereon, as this was community land and parcel No. 37 was created during adjudication when he took the objection the school was not there.
25. On cross-examination, by the 1 st and 4 th Respondent, PW2 stated that the petitioner has been in occupation since 2004, and that he had relied upon maps from the subcounty surveyor which maps were not attached.
26. During his visit, he did not call the 4 th Respondent or the 1 st Respondent, which he described as an oversight. He stated that it was also strange that the petitioner did not mention the shopping centre.
27. On further cross-examination, the witness stated that he could not view the satellite images as the technology was not advanced, the witness did not attach an official search of the suit property, yet he was aware that the property was registered in the name of the 1 st Respondent and he conceded that his entry on the suit property was without the consent of the owner.
28. On further cross-examination by Mr. Nderitu for the 3 rd Respondent, The witness stated that he did not have a CR 12 for his company and did not remember the date of his visit. He had seen three land uses of suit property, he did not measure the boundaries occupied.
29. On re-examination the witness stated that he lived on parcel No. 37 until 2022. He indicated that he had filed the objection on his own behalf, there were no verbal instruction nor letter of instruction to show that he was acting on behalf of the community. He was a member of the adjudication section hence he was to be allocated land. the objection proceedings were altered, and Ruling delivered without his knowledge, and only learnt of the outcome in 2003. The title was issued when the land had a dispute and, in the meeting, there was no representative of the 1 st and 2 nd Respondent.
30. P.W.2, Charles Lwanga a licenced surveyor testified, he produced a report dated 15.02.2021 as P.Exhibit 16 which he had prepared at the request of the petitioner. In the said report the parcel has 3 land uses
Portion A – 8.21 Ha, petitioner had planted sugarcane.
Portion B – Kanda 11.71 Ha
Portion C – Shopping 11.71 Ha
The said parcels had been properly demarcated, and it historical view of usage was from 2004 by the petitioner, he could not tell whether the trees planted by the petition in 2004 could be seen.
31. On re-examination, he stated that the survey was a spatial survey as opposed to a subdivision survey. There was no need to have an official search in a spatial survey. They were sisal plants between the portion A and B.
32. P.W.3, Muindi Ole Sire, testified and stated interalia ; that the petitioner was his neighbour who was allocated the suit property as he was a resident of the Area, and that the suit property involved two parcels. First parcel was demarcated to the school while 2 nd parcel was demarcated to the son of the adjudication officer leading to an objection by the petitioner and the parcel was then registered in the name of the school as opposed to the petitioner, and the community passed a resolution to allocate the petitioner a portion of the 2 nd parcel which had been allocated to the school.
33. After the resolution which was made in the presence of about 50 people including the chief and representatives of the school, the petitioner took possession, until he was evicted, the title is in the name of the 1 st Respondent.
34. On cross-examination by the Advocate for 1 st and 4 th Respondent, the witness indicated that the names he has were given to him; that the petitioner was allocated the property during adjudication. The witness did not have the adjudication record or area list to confirm the same. The witness stated that the petitioner had won the objection proceedings but the property allocated to the school. That a baraza comprised of chief and Assistant chief and school representative and members of the community was called but the chief and Assistant chief did not sign the minutes, while the school representative Mr. Daniel Mointet signed the same, as a village elder. There were no lands official, the witness could not remember the acreage. The witness confirmed writing a witness statement but denied the signature on the statement.
35. The witness confirmed that his name is Muindi Ole Sire also known as Paul Sire, the witness did not have any evidence that the Petitioner has been in occupation or lives on ancestral land, the witness did not know where the petitioner was allocated. The witness stated that during the objection proceedings, the petitioner was claiming on his own rights and not for the school.
36. On cross-examination by Advocate for the 2 nd Respondent the witness stated that he was 63 years old, though he could not remember when the baraza was held but he was present in the 2006 Baraza. In reference to P.Exhibit 2, he stated that it was him who filed the objection; and the ruling of the Objection proceeding were in favour of the 4 th Respondent and not the petitioner.
37. The witness stated that he had not filed an Appeal against the decision of the objection proceedings; and the understanding was the understanding was that the petitioner had won hence there was no need to Appeal. He confirmed that the petitioner had been evicted.
38. On further cross-examination by the Advocate for the 3 rd Respondent the witness stated that his name was Muindi Ole Sire and the statement and signature were his. He confirmed that the petitioner was his neighbour.
39. That his resident was his ancestral home, namely Transmara/Sikawa/198 and 1999. The suit property and his home were not far away. The witness stated that he met the petitioner on the suit property which has been developed with 2 houses. The petitioner was denied registration and filed the objections.
RESPONDENTS EVIDENCE
4 th Respondent case (D.W.1)
40. Sambu Ole Lenkurriny appeared before this Honourable Court as D.W.1, he was sworn and testified in Kiswahili. In his statement, he noted that he’s a resident of Oloontare in Karda Location and a Board member of the 4 th Respondent.
41. D.W.1 chose to adopt his witness statement dated 01.09.2024 as part of his statement.
42. D.W.1 testified that the 4 th Respondent is the registered owner of LR. Transmara/Oloontare/37 and that during the Adjudication Section, the Adjudication Record was recorded in the name of an official from the lands department. To which the community objected and the Adjudication Record was amended and the said name of the official removed. The Adjudication record was then recorded in the name of the 1 st Respondent.
43. To support his evidence, D.W.1 presented the following documents;
DW1- Exhibit 1- Certified proceedings of Objection No. 40/1988 before Land Adjudication Office in respect of Plot No. 37 within Oloontare Adjudication Section.
DW1 - Exhibit 2 - Copy of Official Search of LR. Transmara/ Oloontare/37 dated 02.05.2017.
DW1 - Exhibit 3 -Copy of letter dated 18.09.2017 from area chief Oloontare location to the petitioner.
DW1 - Exhibit 4 - Copy of the certificate of Registration of the 4 th Defendant dated 26.02.2014.
DW1 - Exhibit 5 - Copy of a letter dated 14.03.2018 from area chief Oloontare addressed to Sony Sugar Company on behalf of 4 th Defendant.
DW1 - Exhibit 6 - Copy of letter dated 02.03.2012 addressed to the Area Chief from ACC Keiyan Division.
DW1 - Exhibit 7 - Copy of letter dated 21.21.03.2018 from the 2 nd Respondent to the 4 th Respondent and Petitioner.
DW1- Exhibit 8 - Copy of letter dated 13.10.2017 from 2 nd Respondent to the 4 th Respondent.
DW1 -Exhibit 9 - Copy of letter dated 26.02.2018 from 4 th Respondent to DCC.
DW1 -Exhibit 10- Copy of letter dated 20.09.2018 from 4 th Respondent to CC Narok.
DW1- Exhibit 11 - Copy of letter dated 13.07.2018 from 4 th Respondent to 2 nd Respondent.
DW1 -P Exhibit 12 - Certified copy of Spadial Development Plan by the District Surveyor Transmara for 1 st Defendant.
DW1 - Exhibit 13 - Minutes of the 4th Defendant to the dispute of L.R Transmara/Oloontare/37 against the petition.
44. The witness also testified that during the Objection, the Petitioner was to represent the 4th Respondent and community and not himself. Further, the Petitioner was not in occupation of the suit property and the witness was not aware of the Petitioner’s reason for vacating.
45. When shown P.Exhibit 5, the witness claimed not to know the house pictured.
46. During cross-examination by the 1 st Respondent, the witness referred to P.Exhibit 2 that the objection was on behalf of the 4 th Respondent and the outcome was in favour of the 4 th Respondent.
47. The witness also maintained that the petitioner was never recorded as the owner of the land referring to Petition Exhibit 3, a letter dated 23.02.2006. The witness was also aware of the meeting and the resolution therein but that no member of the 4th Respondent attended this meeting. Further, if the agenda was the ownership of the land recorded to the school, then a representative should have attended the meeting.
48. The witness also testified that the 3 rd Respondent had never communicated to the 4 th Respondent regarding the sub-division of the school property and was not aware that the suit property was in dispute with the 2 nd Respondent. The witness also averred that he has not seen any determination from the 2 nd Respondent and Transmara/Oloontare/37 still belongs to the 4 th Respondent.
49. On cross-examination by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, the witness stated that he was born in 1966 within Karda area of Oloontare Location and was a minor during the Adjudication. Further, that the Petitioner has land within Karda which he uses but doesn’t live there.
50. The witness averred that he was not aware of any resolution that a portion of Transmara/Oloontare/37 should be hived off and allocated to the petitioner.
51. When referred to P.Exhibit 2, the witness stated that the objection was lodged by the community and the petitioner was one of them. The reason for the objection was that the land was to be used for a school. The determination was that the land belonged to the school and no portion was granted to the petitioner.
52. The witness further stated that the petitioner was not in occupation of the suit property in 1988 and was not a resident of Oloontare/37 and that he owns property away from Oloontare/37.
53. The witness further averred that the school has been developed and there’s a portion of Oloontare/37 that’s not in use because of this petition where the school used to farm sugar cane.
54. The witness also testified that the petitioner had earlier complained that he wants half of the school land and in his opinion, the petitioner wants to grab the disputed portion.
55. The witness also stated that he’s aware of the 2 nd Respondent, however, he’s uncertain whether the 2 nd Respondent visited the disputed land. Further, he has not seen the 3 rd Respondent of the District Surveyor.
56. The witness also states that the 4 th Respondent cannot subdivide the title in favour of the Petitioner and the title is in the name of the 1 st Respondent. Also, that he has not had a meeting with the 3 rd Respondent.
57. On cross-examination by the Petitioner, the witness confirmed that he’s a BOM member of the 4 th Respondent, elected 1 year ago but previously acted in the BOM about 7 years ago and served for 2 years and his current role in the BOM is a member.
58. The witness testified that he was a member of Oloontare Adjudication Committee, the petitioner was not a member of the 4th Defendant and did not have children in the 4th Respondent. That the petitioner filed the objection on behalf of the community and on his own volition.
59. The witness further testified on cross-examination by the Petitioner that the land belongs to the government, the community protects the land and it is the government who should object if the Adjudication Record was not proper.
60. The witness testified that he did not attend the objection proceedings, cannot tell how the objections were undertaken or the parties, or if the Land Adjudication Officer is the one that determined the Objection.
61. When referred to P.Exhibit 3, the witness stated that he did not know the participants, but the author was a village elder.
62. When referred to P.Exhibit 2, the witness stated that he was not in the meeting, the committee members of the 4 th Respondent were absent, and he cannot tell who they were and whether they attended.
63. The witness also testified that he was born in Karda and lives within 1KM. That the Petitioner has never lived in Oloontare/37 and is older than the witness.
64. When referred to DW1 Exhibit 3, the witness testified that the petitioner used to cultivate but not reside in the disputed land.
65. Referring to DW1 Exhibit 5, the witness stated that the Petitioner was still cultivating but not ready.
66. Referring to DW1 Exhibit 6, the witness testified that the letter was to stop the Petitioner from use of the land.
67. Referring to DW1 Exhibit 9, the witness testified that the petitioner was using the land but not residing. Further, that the petitioner has been farming on the disputed land for about 3 sessions and the witness can’t state the actual date the petitioner started using the land.
68. Referring to DW1 Exhibit 13, the witness testified that he cannot tell when it was written as he was not in the 4 th Respondent’s BOM.
69. The witness also testified that he has never attended a case before the DC or NLC and can’t tell what was dismissed therein.
70. Referring to Petitioner Exhibit 15, the witness testified that he did not know the owner of the land, that every letter to the 4 th Respondent is received by the head teacher and only he can tell if it was received or not.
71. Referring to DWI Exhibit 2, the witness testified that the title was issued on 29.09.2015 which is 7 years ago.
72. When referring to DW1 Exhibit 4, the witness testified that the 4 th Respondent was registered on 26.02.2014.
73. Closing the cross-examination, the witness testified that he was a Board Management Member in 2014 and the 4 th Respondent had not been registered in 1988.
74. During re-examination, the witness referring to Petitioner’s Exhibit 3 testified that the list of attendants was not properly signed but he was not in attendance.
75. The witness also reiterated that he has not seen any minutes from the 4th Respondent accepting to hive off the 4th Respondent’s land.
76. The witness also testified that they have not seen any letter authorizing the assistant chief to testify in this matter.
77. Referring to DW1 Exhibit 1- the witness reiterated that he cannot tell the reason why the petitioner objected but the determination was in favour of the 4th Respondent.
78. Finally, in closing his testimony, the witness noted that there is no resolution that has been requested by the Petitioner and refused.
1 st Respondent’s Evidence
79. Moses Naitole Magiro appeared before the court as D.W.2 and was duly sworn in. He stated that he is the ward administrator of Keyian ward where he also lives and is appearing in court on behalf of the County Government.
80. As a witness, DW2 chose to adopt his witness statement dated 24.09.2022 as part of his evidence in chief.
81. DW2 testified that the school has a title deed held by the County government titled Transmara/Oloontare/37 and sought to produce the following documents as evidence;
DW2- Exhibit 13 - Copy of the Title deed for Transmara/Oloontare/37.
DW2 - Exhibit 14 - Copy of the Official Search for Transmara/Oloontare/37
82. The witness testified that during demarcation of the area, one surveyor named Javan allocated the parcel of land to his son, Humphrey and when this came to the fore, one community member namely Paul Saiyua, the Petitioner herein, filed an objection before the committee and it was ruled in favour of the school. This determination reserved the parcel to Karda Primary School and the name of Humphrey was deleted.
83. The witness testified that the judgment did not mention the parcel of land being allocated to the Petitioner and no appeal was filed against the decision.
84. The witness produced the following documents to be marked for identification stating that there’s no portion in the judgment that entitles the petitioner to a
[...truncated]