Simba Hills Farm / Kanyesore Toloita:A History of Land, Settlement and Dispute in Moiben

By William Kiptoo

The history of Simba Hills Farm, known locally as Kanyesore Toloita, is a story of land, labour, aspiration and a dispute that has endured for more than half a century. What began in the late 1960s as an effort by farm workers to acquire land eventually developed into a complicated struggle involving competing claims over the size of the land purchased, payment of the purchase price, control of a farm company, and, ultimately, ownership and registration of the property.

At the centre of the story is L.R. No. 8304, situated in the Moiben area of what is now Uasin Gishu County. The property was described in subsequent court proceedings as measuring approximately 1,680 acres. Its history is preserved partly in court records and government documents, but also in the memories of the people who lived and worked on the farm and in the settlement that grew around it.

The legal record is extensive, but it does not tell the whole story. It records competing claims and judicial findings; the community's history also requires us to understand the people behind those claims—the farm workers who hoped to become landowners, the families who settled on the land, and the generations whose lives became connected to Kanyesore Toloita.

The beginnings: workers and the farm

The origins of Simba Hills Farm lie in the relationship between the farm's registered owners and its employees. One of the principal owners was Sultan Hasham Lalji, who later became the central figure in the long-running dispute. According to evidence he gave many years later, an arrangement was reached in 1969 concerning the sale of land to some of his employees. His account was that the proposed transaction involved 400 acres for KSh 600,000.

The employees' understanding of the arrangement was different. They regarded the discussions as the beginning of an effort through which they could collectively acquire land and establish a more permanent stake in the farm. This difference in recollection and interpretation would eventually become one of the foundations of the litigation.

What is clear is that the idea of acquiring land collectively did not end with the 1969 discussions. Instead, it developed into a more organised effort.

The formation of Simba Hills Farm Limited

On 28 April 1970, Simba Hills Farm Limited was incorporated. The formation of the company marked an important transition. The people who had been negotiating as individuals or as employees were now organised as a corporate entity through which they could pursue the acquisition of the farm.

Among the original directors identified in the later court proceedings were Kiprono Arap Koskei, Kipsondin Arap Kuto, Kimeto Arap Rotich and Kipyego Arap Sigilai.

The company began mobilising contributions from its members and negotiating with the registered owners. For the members, the company represented a vehicle through which a group of people could pool their resources in the hope of acquiring land that would provide them and their families with a permanent home and livelihood.

This collective aspiration is important to understanding the later conflict. The people involved were not simply shareholders waiting for a commercial investment to mature. They were people whose expectations were tied to the land itself.

The question of 400, 840 or 1,680 acres

One of the most persistent questions in the history of Simba Hills Farm is the amount of land that was actually the subject of the proposed transaction. Lalji's later evidence referred to the original 1969 arrangement as involving 400 acres. Subsequent correspondence referred to a proposed purchase of 840 acres. Simba Hills Farm eventually claimed that its agreement covered the entire 1,680-acre property.

The difference is substantial. The difference between 840 and 1,680 acres represented half of the entire property. According to evidence recorded in the later court proceedings, correspondence from Simba Hills' advocates in the late 1970s referred to the acquisition of 840 acres. The subsequent Land Control Board process, however, became associated with the larger figure of 1,680 acres. This discrepancy became one of the most contentious issues between the parties.

Lalji maintained that he had not authorised a transaction transferring the entire 1,680 acres. His position was that the intended transaction concerned a smaller portion of the property. Simba Hills Farm disputed this account and maintained that its claim to the larger property was legitimate.

The original Land Control Board records would be particularly valuable in resolving the historical question because they could show exactly what application was presented, what the Board considered, who was present, and what consent was actually granted.

The 1979 Land Control Board controversy

The transaction came before the Uasin Gishu Land Control Board in April 1979. The Board's involvement became particularly important because agricultural land transactions in Kenya required the relevant statutory consent.

The subsequent litigation raised questions about the manner in which the application was presented and the role played by advocates in the process.

Lalji alleged that the consent obtained through the Land Control Board process went beyond what he had authorised. His lawyers subsequently protested the transaction and maintained that the intended purchase involved only 840 acres.

These allegations later became part of the court proceedings.

It is important, however, to distinguish an allegation from an established fact. The existence of the disagreement is documented; describing the process itself as fraudulent would require evidence beyond the competing assertions contained in the litigation.

The 1979 Land Control Board records therefore remain one of the most important missing pieces in the historical reconstruction of Simba Hills.

The purchase price

Another major dispute concerned money. Simba Hills Farm's position was that the agreed purchase price was KSh 1.2 million. The company maintained that KSh 200,000 was paid in September 1977 and that the remaining KSh 1 million was subsequently paid. The question of payment became particularly significant because possession of the property and the alleged payments were later used by Simba Hills to support its claim that the transaction had been substantially completed.

There is an important piece of documentary evidence from 1993. On 17 November 1993, Birech & Company Advocates wrote to Lalji on behalf of Simba Hills Farm. The letter referred to the purchase price of KSh 1.2 million, acknowledged the earlier payment and enclosed a banker's cheque for KSh 1 million, asking that the title documents be released so that the transfer could be completed.

The correspondence shows that Simba Hills continued to assert, more than two decades after the company's incorporation, that it had a right to the property based on the earlier transaction. Lalji did not accept the payment. The question of whether the purchase price had been fully paid remained contested for years.

When the Environment and Land Court eventually considered the matter in 2020, it found that the original purchase price had not been fully paid and ordered Simba Hills to pay KSh 1 million plus interest.

The emergence of Kanyesore Toloita

While the legal dispute was developing, the land was also becoming a place of settlement and community life. The name Kanyesore Toloita appears in local historical accounts as another name for, or a locality associated with, Simba Hills Farm. This name matters because the legal documents describe the property primarily through its survey and title number—L.R. No. 8304—whereas the people who lived there experienced it as a community and a landscape.

The settlement developed its own institutions and social life. Toloita Primary School, for example, became part of the community's history. For the residents, the land was where families lived, children grew up, farms were cultivated and relationships were formed.

The company begins to divide

By the 1990s, the struggle over Simba Hills Farm was no longer simply between the company and the original landowners. There was also a serious disagreement within Simba Hills Farm Limited itself. Different groups claimed authority to represent the company. There were competing accounts concerning the company's directors, members' contributions and the handling of funds raised for the purchase of the farm.

One group alleged that the earlier leadership had failed to account properly for members' money. The opposing side disputed those allegations and challenged the legitimacy of the newer leadership. Company records became contested. At the centre of the dispute were individuals including James Kimosbei Tuwei, Isaac Chepsiror and Sylvester Biwott, who came to be associated with the rival faction.

The conflict eventually entered the courts, where questions concerning the company's directors and authority became intertwined with the larger land dispute. The result was an unusual situation: the company that had been created to acquire the land was itself divided over who had the authority to act in its name.

The 1997 agreement

The internal division produced perhaps the most remarkable episode in the history of Simba Hills Farm. On 5 August 1997, a new agreement was entered into concerning the 1,680-acre property. The proposed purchase price was now KSh 35 million—far above the KSh 1.2 million associated with the earlier transaction. The agreement required a 10 percent deposit of KSh 3.5 million, with the balance to be paid over a period of years.

According to the evidence presented later, the initial KSh 3.5 million was paid, but the remaining amount was not fully paid. The existence of this second agreement created an extraordinary historical contradiction. One faction of Simba Hills maintained that the farm had already been purchased decades earlier.

Another group negotiated a new purchase of the same land.The 2020 court judgment ultimately treated the 1997 transaction as invalid because the earlier agreement had already given Simba Hills Farm rights in the property.

But the historical significance of the 1997 agreement goes beyond the court's legal conclusion. It reveals how deeply divided the company had become and how uncertain the status of the land remained in the eyes of the people involved.

The beginning of the major court battle

In 2006, Simba Hills Farm Limited brought a major case before the High Court in Eldoret. The defendants included Sultan Hasham Lalji, other registered proprietors and members of the competing Simba Hills faction.

The case therefore brought together the different strands of the dispute: the original landowners; the farm company; competing company directors; the disputed purchase agreements; and the question of who was entitled to control the land. The litigation continued for many years.

In the early proceedings, the court also considered the position of an advocate who had previously represented Simba Hills Farm and was later involved on the opposing side. The court found sufficient concern about a potential conflict of interest to prevent him from continuing to act in the matter.

The procedural history illustrates how complicated the dispute had become.

The 2007 corporate struggle

The following year, the High Court considered issues surrounding the authority of individuals claiming to be directors of Simba Hills Farm. The competing sides relied on company records, including documents filed with the Registrar of Companies. One side challenged the authenticity and legitimacy of some of the records showing changes in directorship. The other side relied on those records to demonstrate its authority.

The court did not finally resolve every aspect of the corporate dispute at that interlocutory stage. The significance for the historical record is clear, however: the ownership dispute could not be separated from the question of who legitimately controlled Simba Hills Farm Limited.

The case moves through the courts

The original case did not proceed quickly. It was transferred between courts and eventually became Environment and Land Court Case No. 71 of 2017 at Eldoret. By then, the dispute had already lasted more than four decades.

Many of the people who had been involved in the original transaction were aging or had died. A new generation had grown up on or around the land. Yet the question of ownership remained unresolved.

This is one of the defining characteristics of the Simba Hills story: a transaction that began in the era immediately after independence continued into the twenty-first century.

The 2020 Environment and Land Court judgment

On 4 March 2020, Justice Milicent A. Odeny delivered judgment in the Environment and Land Court. The court found in favour of Simba Hills Farm Limited on the central claim.

Among other orders, the court: permanently restrained the defendants from interfering with the property; ordered the relevant registered proprietors to transfer the title to Simba Hills Farm Limited; dismissed Lalji's counterclaim; and ordered Simba Hills Farm to pay KSh 1 million plus interest in relation to the unpaid balance of the original purchase price.

The judgment was significant because it gave judicial recognition to Simba Hills Farm's claim arising from the earlier transaction and its possession of the property.

But it did not end the story.

The Court of Appeal

Lalji challenged the judgment before the Court of Appeal. The appeal raised questions concerning the acreage involved, the validity and effect of the earlier agreements, the 1997 transaction and the orders concerning transfer of the land. The Court of Appeal proceedings resulted in orders intended to preserve the position of the property pending the appeal.

This is important in understanding the present historical record.

The 2020 Environment and Land Court judgment should therefore be described as a major judicial decision in the dispute, not simply as the final end of the ownership question.

The title controversy of 2023–2024

The dispute subsequently moved into another phase involving the registration and title documents for L.R. No. 8304. A Kenya Gazette notice of December 2023 referred to the property and the issuance of a provisional certificate of title involving Simba Hills Farm Limited. 

In 2024, Ashif Lalji, acting under power of attorney for Sultan Hasham Lalji, brought proceedings concerning the Chief Land Registrar and other government officials as well as Simba Hills Farm. The proceedings challenged actions relating to the provisional certificate and the administration of the title.

On 4 November 2024, the Environment and Land Court granted interim protection concerning the provisional certificate and further administrative dealings with the property.

The significance of these proceedings is that the land question remained active decades after the original transaction and even after the 2020 Environment and Land Court judgment.

The people behind the dispute

The legal documents contain names, agreements, acreage figures and court orders. But behind these documents were people.

There were the farm workers who believed that collective ownership could give them a permanent stake in the land. There were the original directors who established Simba Hills Farm Limited. There were members who contributed money. There were families who settled on the land. There were people who participated in the competing factions within the company. There were the registered landowners who maintained that the land had not been lawfully transferred as claimed. And there were generations of children who grew up knowing the place not as L.R. No. 8304, but as Kanyesore Toloita or Simba Hills.

For many of these people, the dispute was not an abstract legal matter. It concerned homes, farms, inheritance, investment and the future of their families.

A story of land and aspiration

Seen from a distance, Simba Hills Farm may appear to be another prolonged Kenyan land dispute. Seen from within the history of the people involved, it represents something broader.

The formation of Simba Hills Farm Limited came at a time when land ownership was an important aspiration for African workers who had spent years working on farms owned by others.

The creation of a company through which workers could pool their money represented an attempt to move from being employees on someone else's land to owners of land themselves.

That aspiration helps explain why the dispute became so enduring.

For the members of Simba Hills, the land represented security, dignity and the possibility of establishing a permanent community. At the same time, the registered owners continued to assert their legal rights over the property and disputed the extent and completion of the proposed sale.

Between these competing understandings of ownership, the community of Kanyesore Toloita developed.

What remains unresolved

The documentary record raises several questions that deserve further investigation.

What precisely was agreed in 1969?

Why did the acreage apparently move from 400 acres to 840 acres and eventually to 1,680 acres?

What exactly did the Land Control Board approve in 1979?

Who was present when the consent was considered?

What happened to the money collected from members?

Was the KSh 1 million payment in 1982 actually completed, and what evidence exists?

Why did Simba Hills' advocates tender another KSh 1 million in 1993?

Why did the parties enter into the KSh 35 million agreement in 1997?

Who were the legitimate directors of Simba Hills Farm during the various stages of the dispute?

And, perhaps most importantly, what happened to the ordinary members and families who had invested their money and lives in the land?

These questions cannot all be answered by the judgments alone.

They require company records, Land Control Board records, title documents, correspondence, financial records and, equally importantly, the memories of people who lived through the events.

Conclusion

The story of Simba Hills Farm/Kanyesore Toloita is ultimately a story about the complicated meaning of land ownership in Kenya.

It began with a proposed transaction between a farm owner and his employees in the late 1960s. It continued with the incorporation of Simba Hills Farm Limited in 1970 and the collective effort to acquire land. It became entangled in disagreements over acreage, payment and the Land Control Board process. It was then complicated further by a struggle within the company itself, culminating in a second agreement in 1997.

The dispute eventually entered the courts, where it continued through successive proceedings for many years. The 2020 Environment and Land Court judgment represented a significant victory for Simba Hills Farm, but subsequent appellate and land-registration proceedings demonstrate that the legal history did not simply end there.

Yet the most enduring part of the story may not be found in the court files.

It lies in the people who knew the land as Kanyesore Toloita.

They knew its fields, paths, homes and institutions. They remember the people who worked there, the families who settled there and the hopes that accompanied the attempt to acquire the land. Their memories provide a dimension that legal records cannot fully capture.

For that reason, the history of Simba Hills Farm should ultimately be preserved in two complementary forms: the documentary history of L.R. No. 8304 and the human history of Kanyesore Toloita.

Together, they tell the story of a community born out of an ambitious attempt by farm workers to become landowners—and of a land question that has survived for more than half a century.