When Competing Land Claims Collide: The Evidential Weight of Allotment Letters and Receipts - A Case Review of Kedoki & another v Nchoe (Environment and Land Appeal E004 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 687 (KLR)

Introduction

In Kedoki & another v Nchoe, the Environment and Land Court at Narok revisited a recurring issue in Kenyan land litigation: where two parties claim the same unregistered plot, which documents prove ownership?

The dispute concerned Plot No. 455 at Ntulele Trading Centre. One claimant relied on recent county-issued payment receipts and a ledger entry; the other relied on an earlier letter of allotment, long possession, and rent payments. The appellate court was called upon to determine whether the trial court properly evaluated the evidence and applied the burden of proof.

The decision provides important clarification on the evidential value of allotment letters, receipts, altered documents, and alleged forfeiture of allocated plots.

Factual Background

At the trial before the Chief Magistrate’s Court, the plaintiff (Stephen Lapiyion Ole Nchoe) asserted that Plot No. 455 had been allocated to him by the Narok County Government on 8 January 2013. He relied on:

• A receipt for survey and beacon showing fees dated 8 January 2013;
• A receipt dated 20 November 2014 for plot rent covering 2009–2014;
• Oral testimony from a county clerical officer who referred to a ledger indicating the plot was registered in his name.

The defendants (Kiokong Kedoki and Raphael Alex Kedoki) disputed this claim. The 1st Defendant maintained that he had been allocated the same plot in 1991 by the defunct Narok County Council. He produced:

• A letter of allotment dated 5 October 2002 referencing the 1991 allocation;
• Receipts for rent and rates;
• Evidence of occupation and developments on the land.

The trial court found in favour of the plaintiff, declared him the lawful owner, and ordered eviction of the defendants. The defendants appealed.

Issues for Determination

The Environment and Land Court addressed four central questions:

1. Whether the respondent had proved ownership on a balance of probabilities;
2. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the appellants’ allotment letter and receipts;
3. Whether there was sufficient evidence of forfeiture of the 1st appellant’s allotment;
4. Who should bear costs.

Analysis

1. Burden of Proof and Evidential Gaps

The court reaffirmed Section 107 of the Evidence Act, which places the legal burden on the party who asserts a fact.

The respondent’s case rested heavily on two receipts. However:

• Both were initially issued in the name “Raiyian Nchoe”;
• The name was subsequently altered to “Stephen Lapiyion Ole Nchoe”;
• The person whose name originally appeared was not called as a witness.

The court invoked the principle in Bukenya v Republic, which permits a court to draw an adverse inference where a party fails to call a crucial witness without explanation.

Additionally, although a county ledger was referenced in oral testimony, it was never produced in evidence. The appellate court held that secondary references to a document cannot substitute production of the primary record.

The court concluded that the respondent had failed to discharge the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities.

2. Evidential Weight of the Allotment Letter

The 1st appellant produced a letter of allotment dated 5 October 2002 issued by the defunct Narok County Council. There was no direct evidence from the County Government disputing its authenticity.

While the trial court questioned certain receipts due to institutional transitions between the County Council and County Government, the appellate court observed that:

• No accounts officer was called to refute the payments;
• No official record was produced to invalidate the allotment.

The court emphasized that the evidential burden does not shift merely because the defence produces documents. It shifts only after the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case strong enough to displace the defence.

Since the respondent’s evidence was weak and unsubstantiated, the allotment letter stood unrebutted.

3. Alleged Forfeiture of Allotment

A critical issue was whether the 1st appellant’s allotment had lapsed or reverted to the County due to non-compliance with conditions.

The court acknowledged that allotment letters often contain conditions whose breach may trigger reversion. However, forfeiture is not automatic.

There must be evidence of:

• A formal cancellation notice;
• Minutes authorizing repossession;
• Documentary proof of re-entry or reallocation.

No such evidence was produced.

The court held that reversion cannot be presumed in silence. In the absence of proof of lawful cancellation and reallocation, the 2013 purported allocation lacked legal foundation.

4. Costs

Under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, costs follow the event unless the court orders otherwise.

Having allowed the appeal, the court awarded costs of both the appeal and the trial to the appellants.

Holding

The Environment and Land Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court’s judgment, and barred the respondent from evicting the appellants from Plot No. 455, Ntulele Trading Centre.

Key Legal Principles Emerging

1. Receipts Alone Do Not Prove Ownership
   Payment receipts must be clearly linked to a lawful allocation. Without proof of allocation, receipts merely show payment — not title.
2. Altered Documents Attract Heightened Scrutiny
   Where a document is amended and the original beneficiary is not called to testify, courts may draw adverse inferences.
3. Primary Records Must Be Produced
   Oral reference to official records (such as ledgers) is insufficient unless the document itself is produced.
4. Allotment Does Not Lapse Automatically
   Forfeiture requires proof of formal action by the allocating authority.
5. The Burden of Proof Remains Constant
   Weaknesses in the defence do not cure deficiencies in the plaintiff’s case.

Conclusion

The decision in Kedoki & another v Nchoe reinforces a fundamental principle of Kenyan land law: courts decide land disputes on evidence, not assumption.

Where competing claims arise, documentary integrity is decisive. Receipts must be traceable. Allotments must be authentic. Forfeiture must be proved. And the burden of proof remains with the claimant throughout.

In an era where informal and semi-formal allocations continue to generate disputes, this judgment stands as a clear reminder — in land matters, precision is paramount and proof is everything.

This article is intended for public legal awareness and does not constitute legal advice.

Can Microfinance Institutions Charge and Auction Property in Kenya? - A Concise Legal Overview for Practitioners and Financial Sector Stakeholders

Introduction

The growth of microfinance lending in Kenya has led to increased reliance on property — particularly land and buildings — as collateral for loan facilities. A recurring legal question is whether microfinance institutions (MFIs) may lawfully charge and auction property upon borrower default.

The short answer is yes, but only subject to strict statutory compliance. This article provides a structured overview of the governing legal framework, key procedural requirements, and leading judicial principles.

1. Legal Authority to Charge Property

Under the Land Act, a charge is defined as an interest in land securing the payment of money or the performance of an obligation. The Act recognizes both formal and informal charges.

A valid formal charge over land must:

• Be in writing;
• Be executed and properly attested;
• Be registered under the Land Registration Act.

Registration is essential. An unregistered charge is ineffective against third parties and generally unenforceable as a statutory security.

For movable assets (e.g., livestock, machinery, vehicles), security interests are governed by the Movable Property Security Rights Act.

Microfinance institutions operating under the Microfinance Act — particularly deposit-taking MFIs regulated by the Central Bank of Kenya — are permitted to take security, including charges over land, provided they comply with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.

2. Statutory Preconditions to Sale

The power of sale does not arise automatically upon default. It is governed primarily by Sections 90, 96, and 97 of the Land Act.

(a) Section 90 – Three-Month Statutory Notice

Where a borrower defaults, the chargee must issue a written notice:

• Specifying the nature and extent of the default;
• Stating the amount required to remedy the default;
• Giving the borrower at least three (3) months to rectify the breach;
• Informing the borrower of the consequences of non-compliance.

Failure to issue a valid Section 90 notice renders subsequent enforcement unlawful.

(b) Section 96 – Notice to Sell

If default persists after the expiry of the Section 90 notice, the chargee must issue a further 40-day notice of intention to sell before proceeding with sale.

Courts have consistently held that strict compliance with these notice provisions is mandatory.

3. Duty of Care and Valuation

Section 97 of the Land Act imposes a statutory duty of care on the chargee to obtain the best price reasonably obtainable at the time of sale.

Before exercising the power of sale, the lender must:

• Obtain a professional valuation (including forced sale value);
• Ensure the property is not sold at a gross undervalue.

In Omingo v Rafiki Microfinance Bank Limited & Another, the High Court emphasized that failure to comply with valuation requirements may amount to breach of statutory duty, exposing the lender to legal challenge.

4. Licensing and Regulatory Considerations

Deposit-taking MFIs must be licensed under the Microfinance Act and regulated by the Central Bank of Kenya. Questions have arisen in litigation where lenders conduct mortgage-like activities without appropriate regulatory authorization.

While Kenyan courts have not categorically invalidated all such charges, improper licensing may expose institutions to regulatory sanctions and enforcement challenges.

5. Borrower Protections

(a) Equity of Redemption

A borrower retains the right to redeem the property by paying the outstanding debt at any time before completion of sale. This equitable principle is reinforced by Article 40 of the Constitution of Kenya.

(b) Spousal Consent

Where the charged property constitutes matrimonial property, written spousal consent is required under the Land Registration Act and the Matrimonial Property Act. Absence of consent may invalidate the charge.

(c) Injunctive Relief

The High Court has frequently granted injunctions restraining sale where statutory notices are defective or procedural safeguards are ignored. Courts, however, are reluctant to interfere where default is admitted and the statutory process has been properly followed.

6. Judicial Approach

The Kenyan judiciary — including the High Court of Kenya and Court of Appeal of Kenya — has consistently emphasized:

• Strict adherence to statutory notice requirements;
• Protection of the borrower’s equity of redemption;
• Observance of the lender’s statutory duty of care;
• Procedural fairness in enforcement.

The courts view the statutory power of sale as a serious remedy that must be exercised within the confines of the law.

Conclusion

Microfinance institutions in Kenya are legally permitted to charge and auction property pledged as collateral. However, enforcement is strictly regulated.

To lawfully exercise the power of sale, an MFI must:

1. Ensure the charge is validly created and registered;
2. Serve compliant statutory notices under Sections 90 and 96 of the Land Act;
3. Obtain proper valuation and comply with Section 97 duty of care;
4. Respect constitutional and matrimonial property protections.

Non-compliance may result in injunctions, damages, nullification of sale, and regulatory consequences.

In Kenya’s expanding credit landscape, the enforceability of microfinance securities ultimately depends not on the existence of default alone, but on rigorous adherence to statutory procedure and judicially enforced standards of fairness.

This article is intended for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.

 

Legal Brief: Replacement of a Lost Title Deed in Kenya

Overview

A title deed is the primary legal instrument evidencing ownership of land in Kenya. Its loss, destruction, or misplacement exposes a proprietor to significant legal and commercial risk, including fraud, unlawful transfers, and challenges to ownership. Kenyan law provides a structured mechanism for the replacement of a lost title deed under the Land Registration Act, 2012, but the process is deliberately rigorous to safeguard the integrity of the land registration system.

This brief outlines the legal procedure, statutory requirements, timelines, and key precautions that clients should observe when seeking a replacement title.

Immediate Steps Upon Loss

Upon discovering the loss of a title deed, the registered proprietor should act without delay.

The loss must first be reported to the police, and a police abstract or Occurrence Book (OB) reference obtained. This serves as official evidence of the loss and is a mandatory requirement for any application to the Land Registry.

At the earliest opportunity, the proprietor is also advised to register a caution or restriction against the title at the Land Registry to prevent any fraudulent or unauthorized dealings while the replacement process is ongoing.

Verification of Ownership

An official land search should be conducted at the relevant Land Registry or via the e-Citizen platform. This confirms:

• The identity of the registered owner
• The parcel details
• The existence of any encumbrances such as charges, cautions, or leases

This step is critical in ensuring that the replacement application is based on accurate and current registry records.

Statutory Declaration

The registered proprietor must swear a statutory declaration (affidavit) before a Commissioner for Oaths or an advocate. The affidavit must clearly set out:

• The circumstances under which the title was lost or destroyed
• Confirmation of ownership
• An assurance that the title has not been sold, charged, or otherwise encumbered

Clients should note that false declarations amount to perjury and may result in criminal liability.

Application to the Land Registrar

The formal application for replacement is made using Form LRA 12, submitted to the Land Registry together with:

• Police abstract
• Statutory declaration
• Official land search
• Certified copies of identification documents and KRA PIN
• Passport-size photographs
• Any additional documents requested by the Registrar

For corporate or institutional owners, further documentation such as a board resolution and company registration certificates is typically required.

Public Notice and Objection Period

Once the application is accepted, the Land Registrar issues a public notice in the Kenya Gazette and usually a national newspaper, notifying the public of the lost title.
The law provides a minimum objection period of sixty (60) days, during which any person with a legitimate interest in the land may lodge an objection.

This stage is a key safeguard against fraudulent replacement and ensures transparency in land administration.

Issuance of the Replacement Title

If no objection is raised, or if any objections are resolved in favour of the applicant, the Registrar proceeds to issue a replacement title deed and updates the land register accordingly.

Should the original title deed later be recovered, the law requires that it be surrendered to the Land Registrar, as holding two titles over the same parcel is unlawful.

Timelines and Practical Considerations

In practice, the replacement process may take three to six months, largely due to the mandatory notice and objection period. Costs vary depending on the nature and location of the land, as well as advertising and registry fees.

Clients are strongly advised to seek legal assistance where:

• The land is of high value
• There are existing disputes or encumbrances
• The title is held jointly or through a corporate entity

Conclusion

While the loss of a title deed is unsettling, Kenyan law provides a clear and lawful path to replacement. Prompt action, strict compliance with statutory requirements, and appropriate legal guidance are essential to protect ownership rights and avoid future complications.

This process, though procedural, ultimately serves to preserve the integrity, security, and reliability of Kenya’s land registration system.

Succession Process: A focus on Intestate Succession

What Is Succession?

Succession is the legal process through which the property, assets, and liabilities of a deceased person are transferred to their rightful beneficiaries. Kenyan law recognizes two types of succession: testate succession and intestate succession.

Testate succession occurs where a person dies having made a valid will, which takes effect upon death.
Intestate succession arises where a person dies without a will, where the will is declared invalid by a court, or where the will does not dispose of all the deceased’s assets and liabilities.

This article focuses on intestate succession and explains how the law provides for the deceased’s beneficiaries in such circumstances.

Intestate Succession in Kenya

Inheritance under intestacy is governed by the Law of Succession Act. The law sets out the persons entitled to petition the court for Letters of Administration and to benefit from the deceased’s estate, in the following order of priority:

1. The surviving spouse and children
2. If there are no children: the deceased’s father
3. If the father is deceased: the mother
4. If both parents are deceased: the siblings
5. If siblings are deceased: the children of the siblings
6. If none: half-siblings
7. Any other blood relatives

Where the deceased leaves no known relatives, the net estate devolves to the Government of Kenya’s Consolidated Fund.

Polygamous Families

Where the deceased was polygamous, the estate is distributed among the houses according to the number of children in each house, with the surviving spouse in each house counted as an additional unit.

For example, a house with one wife and four children is considered to have five units, and distribution is done proportionately based on the number of units per house.

Commencing the Intestate Succession Process

To begin the process of administering an intestate estate, a beneficiary must petition the court for a Grant of Letters of Administration.

These letters give the administrators legal authority to manage the estate. Any person who deals with a deceased person’s property without such a grant commits the offence of intermeddling, which is punishable by law. Administrators have a legal duty to safeguard the interests of all beneficiaries.

Documents Required

To apply for a Grant of Letters of Administration, the following documents are required:

• A letter from the area Chief listing all beneficiaries, their ages, and their relationship to the deceased
• A certified copy of the deceased’s death certificate
• Copies of national IDs of the petitioners
• Copies of IDs of all beneficiaries

The law allows between two (2) and four (4) persons to apply as administrators. Once all beneficiaries consent and sign the necessary documents, the application is filed in court and filing fees assessed.

Gazettement

After filing and payment of fees, the petition is published in the Kenya Gazette for a period of thirty (30) days. This publication serves to:

• Notify the public of the application
• Allow any interested party to raise objections
• Enable omitted beneficiaries to apply for inclusion

Grant of Letters of Administration

If no objection is raised within the gazettement period, the court issues a Grant of Letters of Administration. This grant is issued for six (6) months, during which the administrators are expected to:

• Identify and secure the deceased’s assets
• Ascertain liabilities
• Agree on the mode of distribution with all beneficiaries

At this stage, administrators do not have authority to distribute the estate.

Where beneficiaries fail to agree on distribution, the matter may be referred to the Public Trustee for distribution in accordance with Section 40 of the Law of Succession Act.

Confirmation of Grant and Distribution

After the lapse of six months, the administrators must apply for confirmation of the grant. Upon confirmation, the administrators acquire legal authority to distribute the estate.

The law requires administrators to complete the administration of the estate within six (6) months after confirmation, unless the court extends the time. Administrators must also file with the court:

• A full and accurate inventory of the deceased’s assets and liabilities
• A complete account of how the estate has been administered

Conclusion

Intestate succession is a structured legal process intended to protect beneficiaries and ensure orderly transfer of property. While the procedure may appear lengthy, compliance with the law is essential to avoid disputes, criminal liability, or invalid distribution. Beneficiaries are encouraged to seek legal guidance to ensure the process is conducted lawfully and efficiently.

 

Author’s Note: This article is intended for academic discussion and does not constitute legal advice.

What is adverse possession?

 
Adverse possession refers to a situation where a person who is not the legal owner of land occupies it openly, continuously, and exclusively, without the consent of the valid owner, and after a statutory period (12 years in Kenya), may acquire legal ownership of that land.

Subsequently, adverse possession allows an individual to claim legal ownership of land through continuous and exclusive occupation for twelve years or more, without permission from the registered owner.

A person claiming adverse possession must, in addition to showing continuous and uninterrupted occupation beyond 12 years, prove non-permissive or non-consensual, actual, open, notorious, exclusive, and adverse use/occupation of the land in question for an uninterrupted period of 12 years as espoused in the Latin maxim, nec vi nec clam nec precario which means “ No force, no secrecy, no permission”. The occupation must be as of right, open, and without the owner’s consent.

The doctrine seeks to strike a balance between promoting certainty in land tenure and penalising landowners who “sleep on their rights” in a bid to promote equitable use of finite land resources.

Legal Foundation of Adverse Possession in Kenya
The principal legal provision for adverse possession is anchored in Sections 7 and Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act, which provide as follows:

Section 7: “An action may not be brought by any person to recover the land after the end of twelve years from the date on which the right of action accrued to him or, if it first accrued to some person through whom he claims, to that person.”
Section 38(1): “Where a person claims to have become entitled by adverse possession to land registered under any of the Acts cited in section 37, he may apply to the High Court for an order that he be registered as the proprietor of the land in place of the registered proprietor.”
The Land Registration Act, of 2012, further governs the procedural registration aspects once a successful claim is established. Please note that while adverse possession overrides title, registration processes must still be completed to perfect ownership.

Essential Elements to Prove Adverse Possession
For one to succeed in a claim of adverse possession, the claimant must prove the following key elements cumulatively and strictly: –

Actual Possession
The claimant must physically occupy the land. Activities such as building, farming, fencing, or residing on the property constitute actual possession.
Continuous and Uninterrupted Possession
The claimant must have occupied the land continuously for at least 12 years, without interruption by the true owner.
If the landowner takes action to evict the possessor within this period, the time is interrupted.
The possession must be continuous. It must not be broken for any temporary purpose by any endeavours to interrupt it or by any recurrent consideration
Open and Notorious Possession
The possession must be open, visible, and notorious, such that the true owner is aware (or ought reasonably to be aware) that someone else is occupying their land.
Exclusive Possession
The claimant must possess the land exclusively, to the exclusion of the true owner and the public at large. Shared use weakens the claim.
Non-Permissive and Non-Consensual and Peaceful Possession
The occupation must be without the owner’s permission, license, or consent.
The occupation must be peaceful, not acquired or maintained through force, fraud, or threats.
Nec vi, nec clam, nec precario — meaning “no force, no secrecy, no permission”
Intention to Possess (Animus Possidendi)
The claimant must show an intention to possess the land as their own. Acts such as fencing, building, cultivating, or renting out the property may demonstrate such intention.
The owner must have been dispossessed or discontinued possession voluntarily, allowing the claimant to take over.