B.

THE 5th , 6th and 7th Defendants’ case

6. The 5th, 6th and 7th defendants filed a statement of defense dated 30-6- 2010 in which
they contended that from the record. Land parcel LR Eldoret Municipality Block 7/150
was allocated to the Mosop Women’s Group way back in 1981. It was also contended
that the group was represented by the 2nd and 3rd defendants.

7. Vide a duly executed and stamped lease which was forwarded on 9-3-2005, the said
parcel of land was registered in the 2nd and 3rd defendants as trustees of the Women’s
Group and then issued with certificate of lease.

8. It is the 5th , 6th and 7th defendant’s contention that later it was realized that a third party.
Donata Amani Limited had been registered as proprietor of the suit parcel. however
there were no record to support its title and this prompted the land registrar to summon
the director of Donata Amani Limited. They did not turn up
9. The 5th ,6th and 7th defendants further contended that although the plaintiff was alleging
to have been issued with a certificate of lease from the Land Registry. There were no title
creating instrument in the custody of land registrar. In particularly there was no transfer
of lease, no record in the presentation book as required by section 6 (1) (d) of the
registered Land Act or evidence of payment of stamp duty.
10. The 5th ,6th and 7th defendants further denied ever issuing the register (white card) or the
searches in respect of suit land to the plaintiff’s and they disputed signatures appended
on the said instruments. It was further stated that the plaintiff was not and has never been
a rate payer neither did he pay the rate before transfer.
11. Finally, the 5th , 6th and 7th defendants the validity of the plaintiff’s certificate of lease and
contended that the plaintiff’s title was never issued by the Land registry. Acted absolutely
in good faith, above board, pursuant to the statute, within its scope and jurisdiction hence
title issued to the 2nd and 3rd defendants was valid and legal.
C. Issue for Determination
12. Your Lordship, this suit interrogates the question whether courts should always protect
any title to land or whether the court should look beyond the title to establish how it was
 acquired. We say so because the plaintiff and the 2nd and 3rd defendants are waving
defendants over Eldoret Municipality Block 7/150. Each is claiming that their title was
valid and should enjoy the protection of the law.
13. We therefore propose the following as issue for your determination:
a. Did parties herein comply due process in acquiring their irrespective titles?
b. Whether doctrine of double allocation is applicable – first title always prevails.
c. Is plaintiff a bonafide purchaser?

Did parties herein comply with due process in acquiring their respective titles?

14. Your Lordship, plaintiff and 2nd and 3rd defendants claim to be leasehold proprietors of a
parcel of land described as Eldoret Municipality Block 7/150. They hold what they
believe to be genuine certificate of leases issued by the land registry in respect of the suit
land. Therefore, under section 26 of the Land registration Act. 2012 and relying on the
concept of Indefeasibility of title they are seeking the court’s protection as they claim to
have acquired their respective titles lawfully.
15. The matter of procedure of acquiring title is so important that is was revisited by the
Court of appeal in Henry Muthee Kathurima – versus Commissioner of Lands & another
(2015) eKLR in which the Judge held as follows:
On our part, we find no good reasons to fault the trial court’s finding that the appellant
unlawfully acquired title to the suit property. The appellant’s certificate of lease is under
challenge; the procedure that the appellant followed that led him to be registered as proprietor of
the appellant followed that led him to be registered as proprietor of the suit property, which is a
public utility land, is a fact within the peculiar and special knowledge of the appellant. The
respondent’s case is that the procedure for alienating the suit property as a public land was not
followed: under the provisions of section 112 of the Evidence Act. It is incumbent upon the
appellant to demonstrate the procedure he followed to get public land registered in his
name……….. He had to demonstrate that provisions of the Government Land Act were followed
in alienating the suit property and the subsequent registration in his name…… Further. It is our
view that Governments title to an un- alienated public land stems from the concept of radical
title or eminent domain. Based on radical title, the government has superior title to all un –
alienated public land…….
16. Therefore, it is the duty of this court to review and evaluate the evidence on record to
ascertain that the due process was followed in acquiring the titles under challenge. It is
under legal obligation to lead evidence that concisely demonstrates how the title was
acquired lest the title is declared a nullity.

17. In Henry Muthee Kathurima – versus – Commissioner of Lands & another, the Court of
Appeal faulted the indefeasibility of title under section 26 of the land registration Act.
2012 (equivalent of section 143 of the repealed registered land Act) to the extent that
section 26 cannot be invoked to defeat the spirit and intent of Article 40(6) of the
Constitution. In cancelling the appellant’s title. The Court held:
We have considered the provisions of section 26 of the Land registration Act of the provisions of
Article 40(6) of the Constitution. Guided by the provisions of article 40(6) of the Constitution, we
hold that the concept of Indefeasibility or conclusive nature of title is inapplicable to the extent
the title to the property was unlawfully acquired.

18. You’re Lordship, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate how she acquired her title. The
Origin of her certificate of lease is suspicious to the extent that she did not explain how
the land registry could issue such a title in the absence of a lease. She did not call
evidence from the land registry to dispel the suspicion or prove the intention of the
Government.
19. According to the plaintiff, she purchased the suit land from Donata Amani Limited who
was said to have purchased it from one Dinus Simon Mbunya. Neither Donata Amani
Limited nor Dinus Mbunya were called to testify on how they acquired their title in view
of the evidence of the Land Registrar that there were no records to support the plaintiff’s
title or titles previously held by Dinus Mbunya and Donata Amani Limited.

20. Firstly, the plaintiff did not lead evidence to show that the suit property was leased to
Dinus Mbunya. No letter of allotment or lease instrument was tendered in evidence. In
the premises, the plaintiff did not prove that the said Dinus Mbunya had any good title to
pass to Donata Amani Limited. The Land registrar who is custodian of Land records was
categorical that she did not have records to support title held by Donato Amani Limited
 or Dinus Mbunya. We submit that the plaintiff failed to prove that Dinus Mbunya had
good title to pass to Donata Amani Limited.

21. Second, the plaintiff also failed to prove that she purchased a good title from Donata
Amani Limited. To start with, the plaintiff failed to prove that Donata Amani Limited
was an existent entity or that it had capacity to own property. Moreover, she failed to
provide a sale agreement between Donata Amani Limited and Dinus Mbunya. Finally,
the plaintiff failed to prove that there was a transfer of lease between Donata AMani
Limited and Dinus Mbunya or that the transfer was lodged for registration or that it was
ever registered at Lands Office upon which a certificate of lease could be issued.

22. The evidence of Registrar that the title held by Donata Amani Limited was not supported
by her records remained uncontroverted even on cross –examination. The Registrar was
categorical that it was on that premise that she had summoned the directors of Donata
Amani Limited to shed light on the circumstances under which its title was acquired. It is
on record that Donata Amani limited neither heeded to the said invitation nor provided
justification under which its title to the suit property.

23. Thirdly, you are confronted with a title whose source and circumstances of acquisition is
being queried by custodian of land records in Uasin Gishu County. The plaintiff did not
offer any plausible explanation of how Donata Amani Limited invited donate Amnai
limited to lay a basis or origin of the title that he transferred to Doanta Amani Limited.

24. Your Lordship, what the plaintiff has done to wave her certificate of lease and invite you
to uphold it. The various queries surrounding its origin and basis notwithstanding, In a
nutshell, the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit property was allocated to Dinus
Mbunya. Secondly, she failed to prove that the said Dinus Mbunya transferred the suit
property to Donata Amani Limited. Finally, the plaintiff failed to prove that Donata
Amani Limited actually transferred the suit land to the plaintiff. On contrary, the Land
registrar testified that she did not have records to support the plaintiff’s title and thaht the
presentation books in her custody did not have entries in favour of the plaintiff or any of
 her predecessors in title. We submit that the plaintiff failed to prove that she holds a valid
and lawful title and this court should uphold it.

25. On their part, it is not in dispute that the 2nd and 3rd defendants were allocated the suit
property and that they complied with the conditions of allocation including acceptance
and payments of stand premium, albeit out of the time limited in the letter of allotment.
Nonetheless, the allocation was ratified when the Commissioner of Lands accepted the
payments and the Chief land Registrar forwarded a lease in their favour for registration at
Eldoret registry.

26. The witness who testified on behalf of defendants elaborated. In extensor, how the 2nd
and 3rd defendants applied for allocation of the suit property: that they were then allocated
the suit property through a Women’s Group ; that they paid for the said registered in
their favour and certificate of lease issued. In particular, DW3 elaborated with
documentary evidence how payments were effected and how the lease was issued and
subsequently registered in favour of the Women Group.

27. This evidence was corroborated by the land registrar who confirmed that from her
records, the only title was duly, lawfully and procedurally registered was the one that was
issued to the 2nd and 3rd defendants. The land registrar produced all records including the
presentation books which showed the root of the 2nd and 3rd defendant’s title to the suit
property. . She also availed a Lease duly executed, franked and was forwarded for
registration. She further produced evidence to show that the Lease was received by her
office and was dully registered. Unfortunately, the plaintiff laid no such evidence.

28. The Court Appeal quoted in Munyu Maina – versus – Hiram Gathiha Maina, Civil
Appeal number 239 of 2009 held as follows :
We state that when a registered proprietor’s root of title is under challenge: it is not sufficient to
dangle the instrument of title as proof of ownership. It is this instrument of title that it is in
challenge and the registered proprietor must go beyond the instrument and prove the legality of
how he acquired the title and show that the acquisition was legal, formal and free from any
encumbrances including any and all interests which would not be noted in the register.
(Emphasis Added)
29. In Sammy Mwangangi & 10 Others – versus- Commissioner of Lands & 3 others (2018)
Eklr the Court of Appeal expressed itself as follows:
47. It is thus our considered view that the respondents have successfully shown how they
acquired their title by produce all the documents that must be in place a Grant could be issued
and registered in their favour.
48. the 3rd and the 4th respondent have sufficient evidence to prove that they acquired the suit
property lawfully. Indeed, we agree with the learned judge that no evidence was called by the
appellants to show the 3rd and 4th respondents acquired the titles unlawfully to enable this court
order for their cancellation.
50. having found that the respondents were allocated the suit property lawfully, their titles cannot
be impeached. In view of the fact that the appellants failed to prove the allegations of fraud in the
acquisition of the title, consequently they failed to prove their case on a balance of probabilities.
For all the foregoing reasons,. Having re – evaluated the evidence before us, we are not
persuaded that the learned Judge erred in arriving at the conclusion she made. The judgment
now impugned was now based on sound law and evidence, and the same cannot be impeached.
(Emphasis added)

30. Applying the test, the court of Appeal in Richard Kipkemei Limo – versus- Hassan
Kipkemboi Ngeny & 4 others (2019) eKLR rightly observed as follows:
48. In the instant appeal, the evidence on record as led by the 1st respondent
demonstrates the procedure that he followed that led to his being registered as the
proprietor of the suit property. In procedure that he followed that led to his being
registered as the proprietor of the suit property. In recap, the evidence is that the 1st
respondent by letter dated 28th April 1982 applied to the President of republic for
allocation of the suit property; by letter dated 13th August 1982, he was notified by the
Commissioner of Lands that the Government had approved his application for allocation
of the property; by letter dated 27th January 1983. The commissioner of Lands forwarded
to him a letter of allotment; the 1st respondent paid the requisite stand premium which
was stipulated; subsequently a certificate of lease was issued to the 1st respondent.
49. Conversely , the appellant led evidence to show how he came to registered as
proprietor of the suit property. The evidence led by the appellant is that he purchased the
property from one Richard Ngumbao Mweni. We have determined that the said Richard
Ngumbao Mweni had no legal capacity to transfer of lease suit property to the appellant.

50. On record, there is evidence that the suit property had been registered in the name of Rhoda
Chelagat Kandie. The certificate of lease issued in favour of Rhoda Chelangat Kandie over suit
properly was in 2004. Conversely, the certificate of lease issued to the 1 st respondent was in
2012. However, the 1st respondent applied for allotment of the suit property way back in 1982.
His application allotment of the suit property was approved in 1983. In the case of Dr. Joseph
Arap Ngok v Justice Moijo Ole Keiwa & 5 others (1997) eKLR this Court held that “ it is trite
law that (title to) landed property can only cvome into existence after issuance of letter of
allotment, meeting the conditions stated and actual issuance thereafter of title documents
pursuant to provision in the Cat under which the property is held.
51. Persuasively, in Mike Maina Kamau – v- Attorney general (2017) eKLR. The High Court
correctly expressed that ‘given that history and root of this title can be traced. The court finds
and holds that the plaintiff herein holds a good title to suit property which has not been cancelled
and /or revoked.
52. In the instant appeal, we have examined the record. There is no evidence indicating the
procedure that was followed that led to Rhoda Chelanga kandie being entered in the register as
proprietor of the suit property. As correctly observed by the trial court, there was no evidence
that Rhoda Chelengat Kandie applied for allocation of the suit land or that the application was
approved or a letter of allotment was issued in her favour. All that is on record is certificate of
lease in the name of Rhoda Chelangat Kandie and subsequently transfer to the appellant.

61. This court has often times stated that when a certificate of title is under challenge, the root of
title must be proved. The lawfulness of the acquisition of title must be demonstrated to oust the
provisions of Article 40(6) of the Constitution, in the instant matter, the appellant never led
convincing evidence to establish the root of his title. We thus find that trial court did not err in
finding that the certificate of title held by the appellant was null and void.
62. It is settled law that in a action for declaration to land, a claimant must succeed on the
strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defense. However, where the defendant ‘s case
supports that of claimant and contains evidence on which the claimant may rely, the claimant is
entitled to rely on and make use of such evidence. In the instant matter, it was incumbent upon
the appellant to lead evidence to prove his case. The sale agreement upon which the appellant
rests his claim refers to Rhoda Chelengat Kandie as the registered proprietor of the suit
 property. From the word go, the appellant knew or ought to have known that the validity of his
title to the suit property is grounded on the validity of the certificate of title held by Rhoda
Chelengat Kandie. If the certificate of lease held by Rhoda Chelengat Kandie is invalid. It would
follow that the appellant’s certificate would be invalid. In this matter it was incumbent upon the
appellant to lead the evidence establishing the root of the title of Rhoda Chelengat Kandie. This
he failed to do the consequences that there is no evidence on record establishing the precudarl
validity and lawfulness through which Rhoda Chelangat kandie acquired her certificate of title.
For reason, we find that the Judge did not err in annulling the certificate of lease in the name of
Rhoda Chelengat Kandie. Likewise, the Judge did not err in failing to make an order reverting
the title back to Rhoda Chelengat Kandie (Emphasis)s

31. In the upshot, it is our humble submissions that the plaintiff did not in any way prove. On
a balance of probabilities, that she acquired her title lawfully and procedurally. By failing
to summon either Dinus Ambunya or Donata Amani Limited when she knew or ought to
have known that lawfulness of her part. The plaintiff cannot wave in the face of court the
very certificate of lease that is under scrutiny and then expect the court to uphold it
without further interrogation of the circumstances under which it was issued. We urge
you to reject the plaintiff’s invitation.

32. It is on record that Land registrar had already put out a caveat (which plaintiff was privy
to) that the title held by Dinus Ambunya and Donata Amnai Limited were tainted with
suspicion and some irregularity. We submit that this was a compelling justification for
the plaintiff to exercise her responsibility and summon the two predecessors in title to
shed light on the circumstances under which they acquired title to the suit property,
secondly, it was incumbent upon her to demonstrate that she acted bonafide and that her
title should not be vitiated by Shenanigans of the predecessors in title. She laid no
evidence and called no competent witness to prove the roof of her title. The plaintiff slept
on her right and deserves to bear the consequences of indolent litigants.

33. In Funzi development Limited & 2 Others – versus – County Council of Kwale & 2
Others (2014) eKLR Hon. Maraga JA (as he then was) held that in the case of allocated
land, a registered proprietor acquires an absolute and indefeasible title if and only if the
 allocation was legal, proper and regular. A court of law cannot , on the basis of
indefeasibility of title, sanction an illegality or give its seal of approval to an illegally or
irregular obtained title.

34. In republic – versus- Land registrar Kilifi & Another ex parte Daniel Ricci (2013) eKLR
the court held that a title deed is an end to end product of process. For a title deed to be
protected by Article 40(1) of the constitution, the holder of the title deed has to establish
that he followed the laid down procedures in acquiring it.

35. Your Lordship, it is not in dispute that the History and root of the 2nd and 3rd defendants’
title can be traced. Their title is traceable to a letter of allotment and lease instrument. We
submit that the 2nd and 3rd defendants demonstrated. On a balance of probabilities, how
they acquired their title to the suit property. We dare add that the rood and genesis of
their title was properly be explained by evidence. Thus their title is well founded in law
and ought to receive protection under Article 40(1) of the Constitution.

Whether doctrine of double allocation is applicable – first title always

36. The plaintiff contended that her title to the suit property should take precedence as it was
issued first in time. The plaintiff stated that she was registered as the proprietor of the suit
property with a certificate of lease on 30- 10- 2003. She contended that. The 2nd and 3rd
defendants were issued with a letter of allotment on 1-5-1981 but were only registered as
proprietors of the suit property on 12-4-2005. It is therefore the plaintiff’s contention that
her title should take precedence over the 2nd and 3rd defendant’s since hers came out first
in time.
37. Our humble submission is that the doctrine of double allocation does not apply in the
circumstances of this case. It is trite law that double allocation arises in the circumstance
where two or more titles were lawfully and procedurally issued over the same parcel of
land to different parties. Ordinarily double allocation arises out of error, mistake or
misrepresentation. The evidence tendered must lead to one definite conclusion: that the
titles were issued bonafide, lawfully and procedurally. It is then that the equitable maxim
of ‘the first in time shall prevail’ may be invoked.
38. In Gilway Investment Limited – versus- Tajmal Limited & 3 Others (2006) eKLR Hon.
Isaac Lenaola J. (as he then was) confronted with two genuine titles had this to say
46. like equity keeps teaching the first in time prevails so that in the event such as this one where by a
mistake that admitted, the Commissioner of Lands issues two titles inn respect of the same parcel of land,
then if both are apparently and on the face of them, issued regularly and procedurally without fraud save
for the mistake, then the first in time must prevail. It must prevail because without cancellation of the
original title, it retains its sanctity. The Gitwany title fits this description and in fact up to the end of this
case the 3rd party has not sought to cancel it!
47. My answer above does not solve the puzzle however, What then happens to the second title issued
apparently procedurally but subsequent to an earlier valid title? Again my view is that the answer lies in
23.(1) aforesaid whereas the first title cannot be challenged, the second one can be challenged because
whereas it exists and even if procedurally issued, or so it appears, it is not absolute nor indefeasible and is
relegated to a level of legal disability and the remedy for party holding it if aggrieved, lies elsewhere I will
shortly address.

39. Firstly, no evidence was led to show that the plaintiff’s title was issued lawfully and or
procedurally. The land Registrar stated that the roof of the plaintiff’s title is suspicious
hence irregular. The Land registrar confirmed that she even summoned one Donatas
Amani Limited to shed light on the circumstances of acquisition. Instead of honouring the
summon, Donatas Amani Limited purported to sell and transfer to plaintiff an already
impugned title. What plaintiff received was a title that had no foundation.

40. Secondly, besides the unexplained root of her title, the Land registrar testified that she did
not have records to show how the plaintiff’s title was issued. The Land registrar stated
that there was no transfer of lease form and consent from Commissioner of Lands: the
transaction was never captured in the presentation book and the certificate of lease
predated the sale of land agreement. These are serious anomalies that. More often than
not, would vitiate the notion of bonafide acquisition of title.

41. Finally, no evidence was led by the plaintiff or any other witness that the 2nd and 3rd
defendant’s title was issued by error, mistake or misrepresentation. On the Contrary, the
evidence on record demonstrates the government’s clear intention in respect of suit
property: to allocate and issue title thereto to the 2nd and 3rd defendants.
42. We submit that because of this tainted and unexplained origin, the plaintiff’s title was not
acquired lawfully and procedurally. It follows that from the onset. It was incorrect for the
plaintiff to invoke the maxim of equity hat the first in time shall prevail

43. In Hubert L. Martin & 2 Others – versus Margeret J. Kamr & 5 Others (2016) eKLR
Hon. Munyao rightly observed and held as follows:-
A court when faced with case of two or more titles over the same land has to make investigation
so that it can be discovered which of the two titles should be upheld. This investigation must start
at the roof of the title and follow all processes and procedures that brought forth two titles at
hand. It follows that the title that is to be upheld is that which conformed to procedure and can
properly trace its root without a break in the chain. The parties to such litigation must always
bear in mind that their title is under scrutiny and they need to demonstrate how they got their title
starting with its root. No party should take it for granted that simply because they have a title
deed or certificate of lease, then they have a right over the property. The other party also has a
similar document and there is therefore no advantage in hinging one’s case solely on the title
document that they hold. Every party must show that their title has a good foundation and passed
properly to the current title holder.

44. We urge you to find that double allocation could not apply in the circumstances herein :

Is plaintiff as a bonafide purchaser?

45. Your Lordship, the plaintfiff claimed that she was a bonafide purchaser for value without
notice of the defect in title. She placed reliance on the Torren Land System under sections
27,28, and 39 of the Registered Land Act. Accordingly, she invited the Court to find that
she did not have to inquire the root of the title before purchasing the land.

46. We submit that this is further from the truth, The duty of innocent purchaser for value
without notice is a principle that traverses through our legal system. Indeed, the Court of
Appeal in Suleiman Rahemtulla Omar & another – versus- Musa hersi fahize & 5 others
(2014) eKLR held that the appellant was not a bonafide purchaser for value witout notice
as he had failed to carry out sufficient due diligence before entering into the land
purchase transaction. His title was therefore cancelled.
47. In Joseph Muriithi – Versus – Mary Wanjiru Njuguna & another (2018) eKLR the Court
of Appeal dealt with the issue of a bonafide purchaser for value without notice as
follows:
49: In this matter, the 2nd respondent does not hold a certificate of title (lease) secondly, the vendor’s title
was not valid a sit had been fraudently obtained. Thirdly as at March 1997 when she purported to purchase
the suit property from the 1st respondent, the city Council as the head lessor did not give any consent to the
transaction. The lease hold property could not be sold without written consent of the City Council. A
purchaser who does not hold a title to property and who did not exercise due diligence in acquiring a
registered property cannot be described as a bon fide purchaser or innocent purchaser.

48. The plaintiff does not merit to be described as an innocent purchaser for value without
notice. The plaintiff stated that she did not conduct any historical search. She also stated
that she did not know how her title was issued or whether the requisite payments were
made as her cousin (PW1) and her lawyer (PW4) were in full control of the process.
However, PW4 and PW1 did not offer any assistance as they blatantly stated that only the
Land Registrar could explain how the title plaintiff’s title was issued. They also gave
very conflicting statements thereby making their testimonies unbelievable.

49. To further compound the plaintiff’s predicament. It was admitted that the plaintiff’s title
pre – dated the sale of land agreement she had with Donata Amani Limited and the rate
clearance certificate. This is unbelievable; secondly, neither the plaintiff nor any of her
witnesses led any evidence to show that she procured Commissioner of Land’s consent to
transfer. In fact, several of her completion documents were contradicting or misusing
hence the registrar could not own them.

50. We submit that the absence of the consent from Commissioner of Lands as well as clear
records showing how the transaction was completed, the plaintiff’s title is void ab initio
for all intent and purposes. The plaintiff was too casual in the transaction, as if he was
buying potatoes at Eldoret market Centre, hence she cannot therefore enjoy the privileges
of a bonafide purchaser.
 Disposition

51. The upshot of the above demonstration is that the plaintiff miserably failed to prove her
case on balance of probabilities. The plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs sought.

52. As for damages sought, it is a non starter since damages must flow from legitimate
damage. The plaintiff failed to show that she acquired legitimate title. She therefore
stands to suffer no legitimate damage, if her title was to be cancelled.

53. For the reasons already advance hereinabove, the state is not able to guarantee the
legitimacy of the palintiff’s title. Therefore, in the event of cancellation, the state cannot
be compelled to indemnity the plaintiff as her title was without any iota legitimacy.

54. We so submit.

DATED at ELDORET this ………………….. day of ………………………2021

M.W Odongo (Mr. ) HSC

Senior Sate Counsel

For and on behalf of

The Hon. Attorney General

Drawn and filed by:

The Hon. Attorney general,
Attorney General Chambers,
K.V.D.A Plaza 9th Floor
P.O.Box 4042
ELDORET
To be served upon:
Katwa & kemboi & Co.
Advocates.
5th Floor, Transnational; Plaza,
Mama Ngina street,
P.O.Box 6566 – 0100.
NAIROBI

Ledisha J.K Kittony Advocates,

FMD (Lima) Ltd
Between Standard and KCB Bank
Kenyatta Street,
P.O. Box 5521 – 30100.
ELDORET