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.