Kipkalya Kones family's bitter court battle leaves 116-acre tea farm to waste

Belgut MP Nelson Koech and his wife Chepkirui Kones are at the centre of a court case over the land of the late Cabinet Minister Kipkalya Kones (inset). [File, Standard]

A vicious family feud over a 116-acre tea farm in Kericho has exposed claims of armed evictions, political interference and a legal battle that has left the tea crop to rot as the parties fight in court.

According to court documents filed at the Kericho Environment and Land Court, Wilson Kiplangat Kones is seeking to be declared the owner of the land, part of LRNo 9932/3, through adverse possession.

 In his supporting affidavit, he claims to have occupied and used the land for years, planted tea and kept livestock there.

His opponents are Sambut Tea Ltd, which claims ownership of the land, and Pauline Cherono Kones, the widow and administrator of the estate of the late Cabinet Minister Kipkalya Kones.

In his court papers, Wilson says he was evicted from the farm on April 26, 2024, by men he claims were sent by the defendants, with the help of Belgut MP Nelson Koech and another senior Kericho politician.

According to his affidavit, he reported the incident at Brooke Police Post under OB No 12/26/4/24.

He claims police officers accompanied him to the farm and an agreement was reached that the men would spend the night and leave the following day.

However, at 7.30pm, his farm manager called to say they had been chased away by goons allegedly hired by the defendants.

The next day, Wilson says he found his livestock being driven towards Brooke and with one cow injured. He reported the incident at Londiani Police Station under OB No 13/27/4/2024.

According to the court papers, Wilson says he left behind his personal belongings, his workers’ personal effects, farm tools and equipment.

Poor maintenance

He claims he has demonstrated that he planted tea bushes on the disputed piece of land, a fact he says the respondents have admitted.

He argues that the tea bushes are going to waste and could suffer further losses due to poor maintenance before the case is heard and determined. In his affidavit, Wilson says the tea bushes need to be plucked and maintained by a qualified farm manager, adding that their current condition is wanting.

He wants the court to review status quo orders issued on September 26, which barred cultivation or harvesting on the land. He argues that continued enforcement of the orders will cause irreversible damage to the tea bushes and result in economic losses.

In his submissions, Wilson argues that the court failed to consider the unique nature of the tea bushes, which require continuous maintenance and harvesting to preserve their economic value.

He also wants the court to allow him and his employees to enter the farm to collect his belongings and tools. Further, he seeks an order that the proceeds from the sale of green leaf tea, less the cost of plucking, weeding, transport and fertiliser, be deposited in court or in a joint interest-earning account of counsel held by the parties’ lawyers.

He argues in his affidavit that neither party would be prejudiced if the proceeds were deposited in court, adding that once the case is concluded, the party declared the owner would access the money.

However, Pauline has dismissed his claims. In a replying affidavit sworn on March 3, she says Wilson was never a permanent occupant of the land.

She describes him as a caretaker of her late husband’s share and a licensee who was allowed to keep livestock alongside their own. She says the land measures 125 acres, divided equally among four shareholders of Sambut Tea Ltd.

She denies that Wilson had any farm tools on the land, arguing that he used their equipment. She also claims that when he was removed from the farm in 2021, he left nothing behind.

Pauline argues that Wilson’s application is an attempt to appeal an earlier decision through the back door after losing the previous round.

She argues that Wilson should have filed an appeal instead of asking the same court to review its decision.

She describes the application as a mischievous attempt to reopen applications dated March 20 and April 29 for fresh hearing and determination.

The former Bomet East MP also argues in the court documents that Wilson relied on the wrong provisions of the law and failed to attach the orders he wants reviewed, rendering his application defective.

She says the failure to invoke the correct legal provisions is not a mere procedural technicality that can be cured under Article 159 of the Constitution.

Burdening court

She further argues that the court is functus officio and that Wilson is burdening it with an application seeking to revisit issues that could have been addressed in the earlier ruling.

According to her replying affidavit, Wilson has not demonstrated an error apparent on the face of the record or the discovery of new evidence. She maintains that he knew there were tea bushes on the disputed land when he filed the suit. Sambut Tea Ltd, in its grounds of opposition, says the application lacks merit and is intended to delay the case. It wants the application dismissed with costs.

The company argues that the status quo orders serve the critical purpose of preserving the existing state of affairs and preventing either party from taking action that could prejudice the outcome of the case.

It warns that allowing Wilson to take possession of the land could lead to changes in the property’s status and affect the rights of the parties involved. In a ruling delivered on October 30 last year, Justice L.A. Omolio agreed that the application lacked merit.

She noted that Wilson had relied on the wrong provisions of the law but chose to overlook the error in the interest of substantive justice. She cited previous decisions in which courts held that invoking the wrong law does not necessarily doom an otherwise meritorious application.

However, she found that Wilson had failed to demonstrate that the court had made a mistake or that new evidence had emerged. She said his argument that the court had failed to consider the special nature of tea bushes was not grounds for review but for appeal.

A party who believes the court should have reached a different conclusion, she held, should file an appeal rather than seek a review.

Deeper tensions

On Wilson’s request to collect his personal belongings and tools, the judge said he had not demonstrated that any such items remained on the farm. She noted that court orders cannot be issued in a vacuum and that good cause must first be established

She also noted that Wilson had sought orders against a party that was not part of the case. The court, she said, could not issue orders against people who were not parties to the suit and had therefore not been given a hearing.

The court dismissed the application with costs.

The main case, in which Wilson claims ownership of the land through adverse possession, is still pending. A warrant of arrest was issued against Wilson on October 1, 2026. The tea bushes remain unplucked and the family remains divided.

The dispute has also exposed deeper tensions within the Kones family. Wilson’s adverse possession claim, set out in his Originating Summons, is based on years of occupation, which Pauline disputes.

Her claim that he was merely a caretaker and licensee who was removed in 2021 raises questions about what happened on the farm and when

The political dimension has not been lost on observers. Kericho politician Chepkirui Kones features prominently in Wilson Kiplangat Kones’s supporting affidavit, where he alleges that she was among the individuals who accompanied the armed men who stormed the farm on 26 April.

According to the court papers, Wilson claims that Chepkirui and Kevin Kones were present when his employees were harassed and chased away, and he links her to the broader scheme allegedly orchestrated by the defendants with the assistance of the Belgut Member of Parliament and another prominent Kericho County politician.

 Pauline has denied wrongdoing in her replying affidavit, but the allegations have added another layer of tension to an already deeply personal family dispute.

For now, the land remains in limbo. Cultivation and harvesting are barred, and the status quo orders issued on September 26, 2024, remain in force.