Court Sides With Eliud Kipchoge and Three Athletes in 200-Acre Eldoret Land Dispute

The High Court in Eldoret has dismissed a long running land dispute connected to Eiud Kipchoge and other four, closing a case that has been before the courts for more than a decade.

In the case Kimosop v Sugut & 4 others, the court ruled that the plaintiff Joyce Kimosop failed to prove that a large parcel of land in Eldoret constituted matrimonial property capable of invalidating its sale.

The dispute centered on LR No. 8638/26 South East of Eldoret Municipality, a 200-acre agricultural property that the plaintiff said she jointly acquired with her husband, Daniel Kipngetich Komen, during their marriage.

According to Kimosop, the land was acquired through joint effort including loans and later developed into a farming and dairy operation. She testified that although the land was registered in her husband’s name, it was held in trust for both of them as matrimonial property.

The plaintiff further claimed that the entire 200-acre parcel was sold in 2011 for about KSh 10 million to four buyers without her knowledge or consent. She argued that the sale violated her spousal rights and asked the court to nullify the transaction or alternatively declare that she was entitled to half of the property.

However, the High Court found that the plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence showing that she made a substantial financial contribution toward acquiring the land. The court also noted that the property was registered solely in the husband’s name and that the buyers obtained the land through legitimate transactions.

Justice R. N. Nyakundi ruled that the plaintiff failed to prove fraud, lack of consent, or illegality in the 2011 transaction. As a result, the titles issued to the purchasers remain valid.

The court also clarified that under Kenyan law, property acquired during marriage is not automatically shared equally between spouses. Ownership and entitlement must instead be determined based on proven monetary or non monetary contribution.

The suit was dismissed, with each party ordered to bear their own legal costs.