'1. This matter proceeded by way of formal proof.
2. The plaintiffs sued the defendants, claiming in their plaint dated January 24, 2025, and through subsequent court evidence that a dispute was handled by the Land Disputes Tribunal, known as Claim No. LND/KAL/3/2008 Kayafungu, which was registered in court on February 23, 2009, as Land Dispute Case No. 6 of 2009 (Thomas Kalingo Kadzeha vs. Charo Fondo, Kazungu Kaleja Fondo, and Safari Kaleja Fondo, also known as Robert Safari Fondo). They requested a stay of execution pending appeal, including a consent stay, which has been ineffective since 2009.
3. In 2008, the plaintiff''s family had a dispute with the 2nd defendant''s family over a boundary issue, and the case was referred to a Land Disputes Tribunal in Claim No. LND/KAL/3/2008 at Kayafungo. The plaintiff''s family was represented by Thomas Kalingo Kadzeha (deceased), while the 2nd defendant''s family was represented by Charo Fondo (deceased) and others. The award issued on January 23, 2009, favored the members of the plaintiff''s clan.
4. When Mwanda/Mbalamweni was declared an adjudication section, the family of the Ngala Mose Clan had a dispute during the Committee Stage between William Kenga''s family, also known as William Ketty (deceased), which included the 1st and 2nd defendants, and Thomas Kalingo Kadzeha (deceased), representing the Ngala Mose Clan, in which the Clan succeeded. However, the Committee ruled that William Kenga''s family be spared the area designated for homestead, grasslands, and a small section for cultivation on humanitarian grounds. After subdivision and assigning a new number, 2916, the area was designated as No. 2916 Mwanda MbaIamweni was to be subdivided into three parts.
5. The areas for homesteads, graveyards, and cultivation were then shown on map sheet No. 22 for Mwanda/Mbalamweni as follows:
a) Burial sites (Makaburi), Plot no. 3683;
b) Homestead, 3684;
c) Cultivation area, 3685.
6. The family group of Thomas Kalingo Kadzeha and the Clan of Ngala Mose remained with the other parcels on the map sheet marked by 3687, 4163, 4276, and various other parcels on the eastern part of Map Sheet No. 220 of Mwanda/Mbalamweni Adjudication Section.
7. The 1st and 2nd defendants’ family then conspired with the Land Adjudication Office and created many parcels, contrary to what the Committee directed. Instead, they encroached on the area of Thomas Kalingo Kadzeha’s family and, by extension, Ngala Mose, by taking Plot Numbers: 400, 4276, and 4277, which they registered in the names of so-called sellers together with defendants 3-4, and 5 to hide the traces and disenfranchise the Ngala Mose Clan.
8. At the close of the plaintiff’s case, I received written submissions from learned counsel for the plaintiff, Mr.Gichana.
9. Arising from the materials and submissions, the issue I frame is whether the plaintiffs have proved a case on a balance of probabilities to merit the orders sought in the plaint, and who should bear costs.
10. Mr. Gichana believes that because the defendants failed to appear and defend the case, the evidence on record remains uncontested, and judgment should be entered for the plaintiffs against the defendants accordingly. See Board of Trustees Meru Diocese Kirimara Parish v Dores Wanja Bore [2020] eKLR.
11. If I understand the essence of the plaintiff''s case, without delving into what the Land Disputes Tribunal found, we are dealing with a matter involving an adjudication section and the implementation of the Committee''s award.
12. The plaintiffs allege that there was a collision with the Land Adjudication Officer to create new plots, contrary to the committee award.
13. From the evidence tendered, I could not trace the collusion. I was unable to determine what the committee awarded, nor could I locate the subsequent implementation matrix. Minus this, I was left at a loss and could tell how the new titles were created.
14. No evidence was presented from the Land Adjudication and Settlement to support the anomalies the plaintiffs are discussing, nor was that office sued to shed light on the alleged anomalies.
15. Besides, the adjudication process ended in 2010, and the plaintiffs did not explain why it took so long to approach the court for a remedy.
16. Besides, the plaintiffs seem to approach this court to revise what the adjudication process had accomplished, which is not the court''s province.
17. The plaintiffs’ suit is hereby dismissed.
Dated, signed, and delivered virtually at Malindi on this 22nd day of October, 2025.
E. K. MAKORI
JUDGE
In the presence of
Mr. Gichana for the Plaintiffs
Happy: Court Assistant
'
2. The plaintiffs sued the defendants, claiming in their plaint dated January 24, 2025, and through subsequent court evidence that a dispute was handled by the Land Disputes Tribunal, known as Claim No. LND/KAL/3/2008 Kayafungu, which was registered in court on February 23, 2009, as Land Dispute Case No. 6 of 2009 (Thomas Kalingo Kadzeha vs. Charo Fondo, Kazungu Kaleja Fondo, and Safari Kaleja Fondo, also known as Robert Safari Fondo). They requested a stay of execution pending appeal, including a consent stay, which has been ineffective since 2009.
3. In 2008, the plaintiff''s family had a dispute with the 2nd defendant''s family over a boundary issue, and the case was referred to a Land Disputes Tribunal in Claim No. LND/KAL/3/2008 at Kayafungo. The plaintiff''s family was represented by Thomas Kalingo Kadzeha (deceased), while the 2nd defendant''s family was represented by Charo Fondo (deceased) and others. The award issued on January 23, 2009, favored the members of the plaintiff''s clan.
4. When Mwanda/Mbalamweni was declared an adjudication section, the family of the Ngala Mose Clan had a dispute during the Committee Stage between William Kenga''s family, also known as William Ketty (deceased), which included the 1st and 2nd defendants, and Thomas Kalingo Kadzeha (deceased), representing the Ngala Mose Clan, in which the Clan succeeded. However, the Committee ruled that William Kenga''s family be spared the area designated for homestead, grasslands, and a small section for cultivation on humanitarian grounds. After subdivision and assigning a new number, 2916, the area was designated as No. 2916 Mwanda MbaIamweni was to be subdivided into three parts.
5. The areas for homesteads, graveyards, and cultivation were then shown on map sheet No. 22 for Mwanda/Mbalamweni as follows:
a) Burial sites (Makaburi), Plot no. 3683;
b) Homestead, 3684;
c) Cultivation area, 3685.
6. The family group of Thomas Kalingo Kadzeha and the Clan of Ngala Mose remained with the other parcels on the map sheet marked by 3687, 4163, 4276, and various other parcels on the eastern part of Map Sheet No. 220 of Mwanda/Mbalamweni Adjudication Section.
7. The 1st and 2nd defendants’ family then conspired with the Land Adjudication Office and created many parcels, contrary to what the Committee directed. Instead, they encroached on the area of Thomas Kalingo Kadzeha’s family and, by extension, Ngala Mose, by taking Plot Numbers: 400, 4276, and 4277, which they registered in the names of so-called sellers together with defendants 3-4, and 5 to hide the traces and disenfranchise the Ngala Mose Clan.
8. At the close of the plaintiff’s case, I received written submissions from learned counsel for the plaintiff, Mr.Gichana.
9. Arising from the materials and submissions, the issue I frame is whether the plaintiffs have proved a case on a balance of probabilities to merit the orders sought in the plaint, and who should bear costs.
10. Mr. Gichana believes that because the defendants failed to appear and defend the case, the evidence on record remains uncontested, and judgment should be entered for the plaintiffs against the defendants accordingly. See Board of Trustees Meru Diocese Kirimara Parish v Dores Wanja Bore [2020] eKLR.
11. If I understand the essence of the plaintiff''s case, without delving into what the Land Disputes Tribunal found, we are dealing with a matter involving an adjudication section and the implementation of the Committee''s award.
12. The plaintiffs allege that there was a collision with the Land Adjudication Officer to create new plots, contrary to the committee award.
13. From the evidence tendered, I could not trace the collusion. I was unable to determine what the committee awarded, nor could I locate the subsequent implementation matrix. Minus this, I was left at a loss and could tell how the new titles were created.
14. No evidence was presented from the Land Adjudication and Settlement to support the anomalies the plaintiffs are discussing, nor was that office sued to shed light on the alleged anomalies.
15. Besides, the adjudication process ended in 2010, and the plaintiffs did not explain why it took so long to approach the court for a remedy.
16. Besides, the plaintiffs seem to approach this court to revise what the adjudication process had accomplished, which is not the court''s province.
17. The plaintiffs’ suit is hereby dismissed.
Dated, signed, and delivered virtually at Malindi on this 22nd day of October, 2025.
E. K. MAKORI
JUDGE
In the presence of
Mr. Gichana for the Plaintiffs
Happy: Court Assistant
'