Nyakundi v Wangalwa & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E044 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 539 (KLR) (4 February 2026) (Judgment)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KITALE ELC NO. E044 OF 2024 NYAMOITA NYAKUNDI-------------------------------------------- PLAINTIFF VERSUS PHILIP LAMECH WANGALWA----------------------------1ST DEFENDANT ZACHARIA O. NYAKUNDI--------------------------------2ND DEFENDANT SETTLEMENT FUND TRUSTEE TRANS NZOIA------------------------------------------------- 3RD DEFENDANT DIRECTOR, LAND ADJUDICATION & SETTLEMENT--------------------------------------------------- 4TH DEFENDANT HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL-----------------------------5TH DEFENDANT JUDGMENT 1. Through a plaint dated 3/12/2024, the plaintiff seeks: (a) An order cancelling the transfer of Plot No. 26 Kapomboi Settlement Scheme into the name of the 2nd defendant on ground that it was done by fraudulent means. JUDGMENT: KITALE ELC NO. E044 OF 2024 – D.O.D. – 04/02/2026 1 (b) An order directing the 3rd and 4th defendants to receive the loan balance, if any, from the plaintiff and have the land, the subject matter herein, transferred into her name. 2. The plaintiff contends that on 21/5/1991, she entered into a sale agreement to purchase 10 acres in Plot No. 286 at Kshs.130,000/= from the 1st defendant, then allottee of the plot, which she paid in full, with the 2nd defendant as a witness. 3. The plaintiff avers that in the meantime, the 1st and 2nd defendants were authorised to be caretakers of the land after handing over a copy of the sale agreement to the Settlement Fund Trustees' office in Kitale, while awaiting the vendor to obtain Land Control Board consent and approval. While aware of the foregoing, the plaintiff avers that instead of processing the transfers to her name, the 1st - 4th defendants secretly and fraudulently caused Plot No. 286 to be transferred to the 2nd defendant. 4. The 1st defendant did not file any pleadings despite service of summons by substituted service. The 2nd defendant opposed the suit through a statement of defence dated 9/2/2025. The 2nd defendant admitted that the initial allottee lawfully and procedurally transferred his interest to him and his brother. JUDGMENT: KITALE ELC NO. E044 OF 2024 – D.O.D. – 04/02/2026 2 5. The 2nd defendant averred that monies used to purchase Plot No. 286 Kapomboi Settlement Scheme were proceed of a sale of ancestral land in Kisii, out of which, the 10 acres were purchased by the plaintiff, as a trustee of the family with an understanding that the suit land would be shared between the 2nd defendant and his brother, as the rest of their brothers shared other parcels of land bought out of the above proceeds in Twiga Farm, Liyavo Farm and Namanjalala land, who took vacant possession of their shares wherein they reside to date. 6. Again, the 2nd defendant avers that the plaintiff, alongside him, was in attendance at the Land Control Board meeting, leading to the subdivision and transfer, and hence denied the alleged fraud in the transfer. Therefore, the 2nd defendant avers that the plaintiff has, all along, been aware of the foregoing transaction and occupation of the subject properties. 7. The 2nd defendant averred that the rest of his siblings had sold their respective shares of the subject properties, and the plaintiff is misleading the court. The 2nd defendant avers that he is the one who cleared the Settlement Fund Trustees' loan, stamp JUDGMENT: KITALE ELC NO. E044 OF 2024 – D.O.D. – 04/02/2026 3 duty, and registration fees to obtain the title, and not the plaintiff, as alleged or at all. 8. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th defendants opposed the suit through a statement of defence dated 13/6/2025. It is averred that the 2nd defendant was originally allocated Plot No. 286, measuring 10 acres, in Kapomboi Settlement Scheme, which was paid for partially by the plaintiff, who later on 3/7/1991 sought and obtained a Land Control Board consent to transfer the same to the 2nd defendant. 9. The 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants deny being parties to the sale agreement between the 1st and 2nd defendants. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th defendants aver that the land was transferred to the 2nd defendant, and it still belongs to the Settlement Fund Trustees until it is fully discharged upon payment. 10. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th defendants deny responsibility for overseeing and or approving land sales or transfers; otherwise, the body mandated to do so is the Land Control Board, which is not part of the 2nd and 3rd defendants. 11. Further, the 3rd, 4th, and 5th defendants deny the alleged fraud; otherwise, the 3rd and 4th defendants only followed the laid-down procedures after the Land Control Board consent was issued with the JUDGMENT: KITALE ELC NO. E044 OF 2024 – D.O.D. – 04/02/2026 4 concurrence of the original allottee and the 2nd defendant. 12. At the trial, Nyamoita Nyakundi testified as PW1. She adopted a witness statement dated 3/12/2024 as her evidence-in-chief. PW1 told the court that on 21/5/1991, she entered into a sale agreement with the 1st defendant, the original allottee of Plot No. 286 Kapomboi Settlement Scheme, to purchase 10 acres of the land at Kshs.130,000/=, which she paid in full and in the presence of her son, the 2nd defendant. 13. PW1 said that out of Kshs.130,000/=, Kshs.30,000/= was paid directly to the Settlement Fund Trustees, as the outstanding loan balance, while Kshs.87,000/= was paid to the vendor’s advocates to be released as soon as the Land Control Board consent was granted and the transfer effected. 14. PW1 said that, unknown to her, the defendants conspired and fraudulently transferred the land to the 2nd defendant, who had never purchased the land. PW1 said that the Land Control Board consent dated 21/5/1991 was supposed to be under her name and not the 2nd defendant; otherwise, such entries of his name are fraudulent. 15. Further, PW1 said that the transfer of land between the 1st and 2nd defendants is fraudulent, it lacks a JUDGMENT: KITALE ELC NO. E044 OF 2024 – D.O.D. – 04/02/2026 5 signed certificate of consent from the manager of the Settlement Fund Trustees, and further is irregular due to the outstanding loan balance of Kshs. 216,735.86. 16. PW1 said that she has been giving her son the 2nd defendant's money to pay to the Settlement Fund Trustees to have the land transferred to her, only for him to conspire with the 1st, 3rd, and 4th defendant to transfer the land to him. PW1 asked the court to nullify the said transfer as fraudulent and allow her to offset the outstanding loan, if any, with the Settlement Fund Trustees, to have the land transferred to her name as per the sale agreement dated 21/5/1991. 17. PW1 relied on a copy of the sale agreement dated 21/5/1991, receipt for Kshs.13,000/=, letters of consent dated 4/7/1991 and 21/2/1994, transfer dated 21/10/2008, demand letters dated 26/9/2007, 4/3/2924, 11/9/2024, and 5/12/2004, Settlement Fund Trustees letter dated 12/9/2024 and a loan statement printed on 22/9/2024 as P. Exhibits No. (1) - (11) respectively. 18. PW1 told the court that the 2nd defendant was her third born son among her 6 sons, who other than being a witness to the sale agreement was to assist JUDGMENT: KITALE ELC NO. E044 OF 2024 – D.O.D. – 04/02/2026 6 her in the transaction being elderly and illiterate, only for as a custodian of her documents to turn around and defraud her of her land. 19. Equally, PW1 confirmed owning other parcels of land in Goseta, Riambu, and Namanjalala, where some of her sons are in occupation. PW1 admitted to attending the Land Control Board meeting. PW1 denied giving the 2nd defendant six acres out of the land. PW1 said that she was challenging the Land Control Board consent, which is not reflective of the truth, more so when the 2nd defendant was the custodian of all her transaction documents. 20. PW1 said that the 2nd defendant has failed to produce the said documents before the court, or any other documents to indicate how he acquired the land from the 1st defendant. PW1 insisted that the alleged transfer of the land between the 1st and 2nd defendants was done behind her back. 21. Zacharia Obiri Nyakundi testified as DW1. He relied on a witness statement dated 19/1/2025 as his evidence-in-chief. DW1 told the court that he was the firstborn son of the plaintiff. 22. DW1 told the court that after his father died in 1986, the plaintiff disposed of their ancestral land in Kisii and used the proceeds to purchase a 12-acre piece JUDGMENT: KITALE ELC NO. E044 OF 2024 – D.O.D. – 04/02/2026 7 of land, which she later on disposed of to buy the suit land, Plot No. 309 Twiga Farm, 2 acres of land at Namanjalala, and 2 acres in Liyavo Settlement Scheme. 23. DW1 said that the plaintiff bought the suit land as a trustee for the family, and that the monies which were used to do so came out of his personal account No. 3911508 held at Barclays Bank Ltd, Kitale Branch. DW1 said that the family had mutually agreed that the suit land be shared between himself and his brother Joseph Oyori Nyakundi, while his other siblings would acquire Liyavo Farm and Namanjalala parcels of land, which to date they are in possession. 24. DW1 said that following the purchase of the suit land, he accompanied the plaintiff to the Land Control Board meeting where the 1st defendant transferred the land to him. DW1 said that the plaintiff has all along been aware of his occupation of the land and the state of affairs of all the named parcels of land being party to the disposal of some portion of the parcel to third parties by his brother. DW1 denied receiving any monies from the plaintiff to offset the Settlement Fund Trustees' loan. JUDGMENT: KITALE ELC NO. E044 OF 2024 – D.O.D. – 04/02/2026 8 25. Further, DW1 relied on a sale agreement dated 21/5/1991, bank statement for the period 16/2/1991 to 9/5/1991, Land Control Board consent, minutes from Saboti Kwanza Land Control Board, receipts from Settlement Fund Trustees dated 20/1/2007, 12/11/2020, 25/3/1982, and 215/1991, Kenya Revenue Authority stamp duty payment slip dated 27/2/2009, and a sale agreement dated 1/10/2013 as D. Exhibits No. (1) - (10). 26. DW1 said that the suit land was given to him and his brother Joseph by their parents, who had sold the Goseta Farm, which had been acquired through proceeds obtained after the ancestral land was sold. DW1 said that the plaintiff lives on land belonging to the late Jackson Muranga. DW1 denied that he chased the plaintiff from the suit land; otherwise, her intention is to claim the land, to compensate his brother, who has already disposed of their parcels of land. 27. DW1 admitted that he had no sale agreement to show that he obtained the land from the 1st defendant, save for the one bearing the plaintiff’s name as the purchaser (P. Exhibit No. (1)). DW1 admitted that he was the one who filled out the JUDGMENT: KITALE ELC NO. E044 OF 2024 – D.O.D. – 04/02/2026 9 application for Land Control Board consent, (D. Exhibit No. (3). Again, DW1 admitted that the Settlement Fund Trustees' statement of account did not reflect any payments for the loan that he may have made to offset the loan. 28. DW1 told the court that he was the one keeping custody of the original sale agreement. DW1 said that D. Exhibit No. (5) was accurately filled and signed by the relevant parties. DW1 said that the land was yet to be registered under his name. 29. Joseph Nyakundi testified as DW2. He relied on a witness statement dated 9/2/2025 as his evidence- in-chief. DW2 confirmed that both he and the 2nd defendant were in occupation of 4 acres and 6 acres of the suit land. DW2 confirmed that the suit land was jointly acquired by the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant before their mother, PW1, shared it out among them. 30. DW2 said that he had no evidence that the suit land was acquired out of proceeds generated by the sale of the family's ancestral land. DW2 denied that the two were mere licensees on the land courtesy of PW1. Equally, DW2 denied that there were outstanding loan arrears over the suit land owed to the Settlement Fund Trustees. JUDGMENT: KITALE ELC NO. E044 OF 2024 – D.O.D. – 04/02/2026 10 31. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th defendants did not attend court to offer any evidence in support of the statement of defence dated 13/6/2025. 32. At the close of the defence, parties were directed to put in written submissions by 15/12/2025. The plaintiff relies on written submissions dated 8/12/2025. It is submitted that from P. Exhibit No. (1), the plaintiff had no outstanding balance of the purchase price and was only awaiting the 1st defendant to transfer the 10 acres to her. 33. The plaintiff submits that no evidence was tendered by the 2nd defendant, that the suit land was acquired through proceeds derived from the sale of paternal ancestral land in Kisii, including a sale agreement for the alleged land in the Goseta area. The plaintiff submits that the 2nd defendant was merely out to defraud her of her land; otherwise, he has not produced any sale agreement. It is not clear how he transferred the land; the purported consent to transfer originating from the 3rd defendant is incomplete, undated, and not signed by the estate manager, making it null and void. 34. The plaintiff submits that the 2nd defendant failed to produce any receipt showing payment of the outstanding Settlement Fund Trustees loan of Kshs. JUDGMENT: KITALE ELC NO. E044 OF 2024 – D.O.D. – 04/02/2026 11 216,000/= as of 30/6/2024; otherwise, the alleged Kshs.13,000/= is not captured in the loan statement. 35. The court is urged to nullify the transaction between the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants and to proceed to direct the 3rd defendant to allow the plaintiff to clear any lawful loan arrears and have the suit land transferred to her. 36. The 2nd defendant relies on written submissions dated 9/12/2025 and submits that he repaid the loan from the Settlement Fund Trustees with his own money and also paid for the stamp duty, and is therefore entitled to discharge. The 2nd defendant submits that the suit is bad in law for violating the Limitation of Actions Act, since the cause of action arose in 1991 and is thus statute-barred under Section 4 of the Limitation of Actions Act. 37. Reliance is placed on Arthi Highway Developers Limited -vs- West End Butchery Limited & 6 others (2015) eKLR, that the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence to prove her allegations of fraud against the 2nd defendant. 38. The issues calling for my determination are: (1) If the plaintiff has proved fraud against the 1st and 2nd defendants. JUDGMENT: KITALE ELC NO. E044 OF 2024 – D.O.D. – 04/02/2026 12 (2) If the 3rd and 4th defendants were party to the alleged fraud. (3) If the 2nd defendant has proved any trust against the plaintiff. (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought. (5) What is the order as to costs? 39. It is trite law that parties are bound by their pleadings and issues for the court’s determination arise out of the pleadings, with no room for the court to determine unpleaded issues, or where evidence has not been led on them. See Stephen Mutinda Mule -vs- I ndependent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (2013) eKLR and Raila Odinga -vs- Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & Others [2013] eKLR. 40. The primary issue raised in the plaint dated 3/12/2024 is that the plaintiff entered into a sale agreement dated 21/5/1991, to purchase 10 acres in Plot No. 286, Kapomboi Settlement Scheme, for Kshs. 130,000/=, from the allottee, which sale agreement was witnessed by the son, the 1st defendant. 41. The plaintiff pleaded that she solely paid the consideration, including monies to the Settlement Fund Trustees and entrusted to her son, the 2nd JUDGMENT: KITALE ELC NO. E044 OF 2024 – D.O.D. – 04/02/2026 13 defendant, to handle the transaction on her behalf, only to later on establish that the 1st and 2nd defendant colluded with the 3rd and 4th defendants to put the owner as the 2nd defendant. 42. The plaintiff pleaded and testified that the alleged transfer into the names of the 2nd defendant was fraudulent and should be declared null and void, based on the exhibits before the court. 43. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th defendants in the statement of defence dated 13/6/2025, admit knowledge of the plaintiff’s request for consent from the Land Control Board to transfer the land to the 2nd defendant, which was issued on 3/7/1991; they were never parties to the sale agreement between the 1st and 2nd defendants. 44. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th defendants averred that despite the issuance of the consent, the land still belongs to the Settlement Fund Trustees until the outstanding loan is cleared. On the other hand, the 2nd defendant averred that monies used to purchase the plot were proceeds from the disposal of ancestral land in Kisii District, following the death of his father, making the suit land a family land, where the plaintiff acted as a trustee, with the understanding that the 2nd defendant would be entitled to a share of 6 acres and JUDGMENT: KITALE ELC NO. E044 OF 2024 – D.O.D. – 04/02/2026 14 his brother 4 acres, since the rest of the siblings had obtained their shares in other parcels of land bought out of the same proceeds. 45. In Dina Management Ltd -vs- County Government of Mombasa & Others [2023] KESC 30 [KLR], the court affirmed Munyu Maina -vs- Hiram Gathiha Maina [2013] eKLR, that where a proprietor’s root title is under challenge, it is not enough to dangle the instrument of title as proof of ownership; otherwise, a party must go beyond the instrument and prove that the acquisition was legal formal, and free of any encumbrances, including interests which would not be noted in the register. 46. In Kemboi -vs- Macharia & Others, Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2020 KECA 1665 [KLR] (21 s t October 2025) (Judgment), the court said one cannot give what one does not have, and that the fact that the appellant may have paid consideration and received a certificate of title did not cure the fundamental invalidity at the root of his claim. 47. The court held that since both the appellant and his predecessor in title had no right or interest over the suit property, what happened was an attempt to defraud the 1st respondent. The court affirmed the principle that a certificate of title cannot cure an JUDGMENT: KITALE ELC NO. E044 OF 2024 – D.O.D. – 04/02/2026 15 unlawful allocation process, as it is an end product, and where the process is tainted, whether through procedural irregularity, fraud, or irregularity, then the resultant title is void. The court said that no right can flow from nothing; a nullity at inception remains a nullity, no matter how many hands it passes through. 48. In this suit, the plaintiff bases her rights on the sale agreement dated 21/5/1991. The vendor and purchaser are indicated as the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant appears as a witness to the sale agreement. The 2nd defendant also relies on the sale agreement, which he has produced as D. Exhibit No. (1). 49. D. Exhibit No. (4) is what the plaintiff says she gave the 2nd defendant to pay on account of the loan arrears as per the sale agreement. The 2nd defendant wants the court to rely on D. Exhibit No. (2) as the source of the monies to pay for the land. The exhibit is not certified or authenticated. The holders of the account were not called to confirm that the monies came from the proceeds of the sale of the alleged ancestral or family land. 50. The alleged particulars of the customary or constructive trust were not pleaded as required in law. Trust is a matter of fact. Evidence must be led to JUDGMENT: KITALE ELC NO. E044 OF 2024 – D.O.D. – 04/02/2026 16 establish a trust. A court of law cannot infer trust. The ingredients of customary trust as set in Isaack M'inanga Kiebia -vs- Isaaya Theuri M'Lintari & another [2018] KESC 22 (KLR), must be met. The burden was on the 2nd defendant to specifically plead and prove all elements of trust. 51. In the County Government of Meru -vs- Mukuchia & Others Civil Appeal No. 218 of 2019 [2025] KECA 2289 [KLR] (10 th December 2025) (Judgment), the court in D.T. Moi -vs- Stephen Muriithi [2014] KECA 642 [KLR], affirmed the principle that submissions are not evidence and that substantial or material deviation from the pleadings in the closing submissions cannot give rise to a remedy. The court cited Bates & Others -vs- Post Office Ltd [2019] EWHC 3408 [QB] on the difficulty and impropriety of making factual assertions in closing submissions. 52. In this suit, the plaintiff has denied any intention to create a trust in favour of either the 2nd defendant or DW2. In Kinuthia Wainaina -vs- Kiarie Wangugi & another [2022] KEELC 13336 (KLR ), the court held that the essential is the nature of the holding of the land and the intention of the parties. The 2nd defendant has not produced a separate agreement, JUDGMENT: KITALE ELC NO. E044 OF 2024 – D.O.D. – 04/02/2026 17 family minutes, or resolution where the issue of the trusteeship was discussed, agreed upon, and action taken to implement it. 53. The next issue is whether the plaintiff has proved fraud on the part of the 1st and 2nd defendants. Privity of contract was not pleaded by the 2nd defendant, with respect to how he acquired the rights from the 1st defendant, in light of his having been a witness to P. Exhibit No. (1) and D. Exhibit No. (1). How the 2nd defendant changed roles to become the owner is what the plaintiff wants the court to determine 54. Fraud is defined under Black’s Law Dictionary, 14th Edition, as misrepresentation or concealment of facts to mislead one to act to his detriment. The plaintiff has testified and produced documents to show that she bought the 10 acres from the 1st defendant, and entrusted the 2nd defendant to deal with the 1st defendant, as well as the Settlement Fund Trustees, to register the suit land under her name. The plaintiff terms the exhibits used by the 2nd defendant to replace her name as the purchaser, fraudulent or misleading. 55. In Jovet (K) Ltd -vs- Bavaria N.V., Supreme Court Petition No. E039 of 2024, the court held that the privity of contract limits contractual rights JUDGMENT: KITALE ELC NO. E044 OF 2024 – D.O.D. – 04/02/2026 18 and obligations to the parties directly involved in the agreement. The court held that demonstrating a direct working relationship did not necessarily imply an agency relationship by analogy. The court said that an agency relationship often requires a principal to authorise an agent to act on its behalf, creating a legal authority or delegation of power. The 1st defendant has not termed the sale agreement between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant as ambiguous, illegal, unconscionable, or against public policy. 56. The 2nd defendant and DW2 were not described in the sale agreement as the beneficial owners of the suit land. Evidence that the plaintiff, soon after the sale agreement, relinquished her interest in the land and authorised both the 1st, 3rd, and 4th defendants to deal with the 1st defendant as the resultant owner of the land is lacking. 57. Nothing could have been easier on the part of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants to summon the plaintiff to confirm that she had authorised the 2nd defendant to become the sole owner of the land. Again, a letter of allotment in a settlement scheme does not confer ownership or transferable interest in land, unless it is perfected by fulfilling the specific conditions in the JUDGMENT: KITALE ELC NO. E044 OF 2024 – D.O.D. – 04/02/2026 19 offer letter. See Kimechwa -vs- County Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer Trans Nzoia [2025] KEELC 1042 [KLR] (5 th March 2025) (Judgment). 58. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th defendants in the statement of defence have admitted that the land remains owned by the Settlement Fund Trustees until the outstanding loan is cleared. In Koringura & Another -vs- Simatwa [2025] KEELC 1055 [KLR] (15 th October 2025) (Judgment) , the court cited Torino Enterprises Ltd -vs- Hon. Attorney General Petition No. 5 (E006) of 2022, that an act of registration is what confers a transferable title to the registered proprietor and not a possessor of an allotment letter. Further, the court cited Botwa Farm Co. Ltd -vs- Settlement Fund Trustees & Another [2019] eKLR, that a land sale agreement between the seller and the purchaser, where the former had not completed paying a mortgage with the Settlement Fund Trustees, had no contractual impact. 59. In this suit, the plaintiff had brought to the attention of the Settlement Fund Trustees that she was purchasing the land from the original allottee. Her exhibits and the statement of defence by the 3rd, 4th, JUDGMENT: KITALE ELC NO. E044 OF 2024 – D.O.D. – 04/02/2026 20 and 5th defendants admit those facts. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th defendants are yet to repossess or re-allocate the land or withdraw the offer on account of the outstanding loan arrears. 60. In Mwinyihaji -vs- Mwebeyu & Another [2025] KECA 868 [KL]R (23 rd May 2025) (Judgment) , the court held that parties are bound by their pleadings and any evidence produced by the parties which is not supportive of or is at variance with what is stated in the pleadings must be disregarded. 61. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th defendants have not tendered evidence to sustain their statement of defence or dislodge the evidence by the plaintiff that she lawfully bought the land and paid the outstanding loan arrears, hence the reason she sought a Land Control Board consent, which was issued on 4/7/1991, though in the wrong name. P. Exhibit No. (3) was not perfected by the Settlement Fund Trustees. 62. Lapse of time for the allotment letter has not been pleaded by the 3rd, 4th, and 5th defendants. The 1st, 3rd, and 4th defendants have not termed the plaintiff a trespasser to the land. 63. As to the reliefs sought, the jurisdiction of the remedy of specific performance is discretionary. It is JUDGMENT: KITALE ELC NO. E044 OF 2024 – D.O.D. – 04/02/2026 21 based on the existence of a valid and enforceable contract. It will not be ordered if the contract suffers from some defects or illegality, or mistake, making it incapable of enforceability. 64. The sale agreement before the court has all components of a valid contract. See Nelson Kivuvani -vs- Yuda Komora & Another, Nairobi HCC No 956 of 1991. In RTS Flexible Systems Limited -vs- Molkerei Alois Müller GmbH [2010] UKSC 14, the court said that whether there is a binding contract between the parties depends on an objective appraisal of their words and conduct. In Wandemi Developers Ltd -vs- Ndegwa Civil Appeal 217 of 2019 [2025] KECA 431 [KLR] (7 th March 2025) (Judgment), the court emphasized that when a contract is clear and unambiguous, it must be interpreted as written. 65. I think the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought. The purported transfer of the land to the 2nd defendant by the 1st defendant based on P. Exhibits No. (2), (3), (4), and (5), as conceded by the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th defendants, are not valid or have not been effected. JUDGMENT: KITALE ELC NO. E044 OF 2024 – D.O.D. – 04/02/2026 22 66. Therefore, the court directs that the plaintiff engage the 3rd and 4th defendants to perfect the charge within 45 days from the date hereof. 67. There will be no order as to costs 68. Orders accordingly. Judgment dated, signed, and delivered via Microsoft Teams/Open Court at Kitale on this 4th day of February 2026. In the presence of: Court Assistant - Dennis Plaintiff - present 1st defendant - present Lichuma for the 2nd defendant Miss Ruto for Kaosa for plaintiff- present No appearance for the 3rd -5th defendant HON. C.K. NZILI JUDGE, ELC KITALE. JUDGMENT: KITALE ELC NO. E044 OF 2024 – D.O.D. – 04/02/2026 23