Eldoret court stops EPRA boss Daniel Kiptoo from developing disputed family land

The High Court in Eldoret has issued an injunction restraining the Director General of the Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority (EPRA), Daniel Kiptoo, from developing a parcel of family land at the center of a succession dispute in Uasin Gishu County.

In his ruling, Justice Reuben Nyakundi granted the injunction in favour of Kiptoo’s half-sister, Loise Jerop, pending the proper administration and distribution of the estate of their late father, Barnabas Bargoria.

The court barred Kiptoo from establishing or continuing the construction of a petrol station, greenhouses, a water bank, or any other commercial infrastructure on the land until all beneficiaries reach a consensus.

The contested property, Kiplombe/Kuinet Block 2 (Rotich and Birech) 21, measures 22.29 hectares and is located along the Eldoret–Ziwa highway in Kuinet.

Justice Nyakundi further directed the administrators of the multi-billion-shilling estate to expedite the confirmation of the Grant of Letters of Administration. To ensure compliance, the orders were to be served on the Officer Commanding Station (OCS) Soy Police Station, the area chief, and the Deputy Registrar of the High Court in Eldoret.

The case stems from an application filed by Jerop, who accused her stepbrother of undertaking multi-million-shilling projects on the land without the knowledge or consent of the other beneficiaries. She argued that Kiptoo’s actions amounted to intermeddling with the estate and risked wasting the property to the detriment of the family.

In her submissions, Jerop told the court that the land is still registered under their late father’s name and that no agreement had been reached regarding its use.

Kiptoo, however, dismissed the allegations, arguing that his sister had failed to provide evidence of the projects she claimed he was undertaking. He maintained that granting the injunction without proof would be unjust.

Justice Nyakundi, while allowing Jerop’s application, noted that the applicant stood to suffer irreparable loss if the developments continued. He observed that further construction could result in permanent alterations to the property that cannot be adequately compensated through monetary means.