Mark Too / Sirikwa Farm Dispute (Kapseret)

 By William Kiptoo

The Mark Too / Sirikwa Farm dispute in Kapseret, Uasin Gishu County, is one of the largest and most legally consequential land cases in the region. It involves an estimated 24,000 to 25,000 acres of land situated near Eldoret International Airport and extending into surrounding settlement and peri urban zones of Kapseret. The dispute has shaped land politics in Eldoret for decades because it brings together questions of historical occupation, formal title ownership, subdivision practices, and the limits of court intervention in resolving large scale land conflicts.

The origins of the dispute lie in competing historical narratives about how the land was acquired and transferred. One narrative, advanced by the Sirikwa Squatters Group, is that the land was originally part of ancestral or community occupied territory that was later alienated for settlement or private use. According to this view, families had long standing attachment to the land and were entitled to allocation or recognition as legitimate occupants. Over time, they argue, the land changed hands through processes they consider irregular or exclusionary, leaving them displaced from what they believe is rightful settlement land.

The opposing narrative is presented by the estate and successors associated with the late Mark Too and other registered interests. This position holds that the land was lawfully acquired through formal legal processes, including purchase and registration under Kenyan land law. From this perspective, ownership is grounded in valid title deeds and documented transactions, which were recognized by land registration authorities. The estate maintains that subsequent subdivision and transfer of portions of the land created legally binding rights for various purchasers and institutions.

The dispute escalated into formal litigation in the High Court around 2012. The Sirikwa Squatters Group challenged ownership claims, arguing that the land had been improperly transferred and that their historical occupation rights had been ignored. The High Court initially issued rulings that favored the squatters, including decisions that questioned the validity of some titles held by private owners. These early rulings created significant uncertainty across the entire land block and affected thousands of derived parcels.

However, the case moved through the appellate system, where higher courts reassessed the legal basis of ownership. The Court of Appeal upheld key aspects of the squatters’ claims at one stage, reinforcing the idea that historical occupation and irregular allocation could not be ignored. The dispute ultimately reached the Supreme Court, which overturned earlier decisions and reaffirmed the principle that registered ownership under Kenyan land law carries decisive legal weight unless fraud is proven to a high standard. The Supreme Court ruling restored the validity of registered titles associated with the Mark Too estate and other lawful owners.

This legal outcome effectively settled the question of formal ownership in favor of registered title holders. However, it did not resolve the broader social and practical tensions on the ground. One of the most complex features of the Sirikwa Farm area is the level of subdivision that has taken place over time. The original large farm has been fragmented into thousands of smaller parcels through successive sales, inheritance divisions, and secondary transfers. Some parcels are individually owned, others are held as collateral by financial institutions, and others are part of ongoing commercial transactions. This fragmentation makes physical enforcement of court rulings extremely complex.

The dispute is also shaped by the presence of long term occupants who identify as squatters or historical settlers. Many of these households have lived on portions of the land for years or decades. Their claims are rooted not only in legal arguments but also in lived occupation and community history. For them, the restoration of registered titles to private owners represents a loss of access to land they have depended on for settlement and livelihood.

At the same time, registered owners and purchasers argue that legal certainty is essential for land governance and investment. They emphasize that title registration provides the foundation for land transactions, credit access, and development planning. From this perspective, undermining registered ownership would destabilize the entire land administration system.

The case therefore reflects a deeper structural tension in Kenyan land governance between occupation based claims and registration based rights. It also exposes the long term consequences of large scale land conversion, where a single expansive farm becomes a mosaic of competing interests over time. Once subdivided, such land becomes difficult to administer uniformly, especially when multiple generations of transactions and inheritances are involved.

The proximity of the land to key infrastructure such as Eldoret International Airport and major transport corridors further increases its strategic and economic importance. As land values rose over time, the stakes of ownership disputes also increased, intensifying legal and social contestation.

In conclusion, the Mark Too / Sirikwa Farm dispute is not only a question of who owns land in Kapseret. It is a case that illustrates how historical occupation, formal titling, subdivision practices, and judicial processes interact in complex ways. Although the Supreme Court has provided legal clarity on ownership, the broader social and historical tensions remain part of the landscape. The case stands as one of the clearest examples in Uasin Gishu of how land law, history, and human settlement patterns intersect to produce long lasting and deeply layered conflict.