The Kiplombe Nine Farms Land Dispute: A History of Land, Settlement, Conflict and the Search for Resolution

 By William Kiptoo

Introduction

The Kiplombe Nine Farms land dispute in Uasin Gishu County is one of the more enduring and consequential land conflicts in the Eldoret area. At its centre is a large tract of land in and around Kiplombe and Chebarus, adjoining important Kenya Defence Forces installations, including Moi Barracks, the Kenya Ordnance Factories Corporation and the KDF Recruits Training School. For decades, the land has been claimed by civilian residents and by the military, creating a conflict in which questions of ownership, occupation, public land, settlement, government acquisition and national security have become deeply intertwined.

The dispute has been described by government officials and local leaders as having lasted approximately 48 years. By the early 2020s, more than a thousand households were reported to be living on the contested land, while parliamentary records stated that the nine farms involved in the principal court case were inhabited by more than 19,000 people. The contested area has commonly been estimated at about 5,339 acres.

The dispute became especially serious when disagreements over boundaries and military activities on the land developed into physical confrontations. In December 2021, two residents were shot dead during a confrontation at Chebarus Primary School, with several others injured. The Independent Policing Oversight Authority investigated the incident. Two years later, in November 2023, another confrontation in the wider Kamagut area resulted in the deaths of five young men. By March 2024, the national government announced a negotiated approach under which approximately 5,000 acres would be allocated to the communities, while the KDF would retain its designated land and military installations.

The announcement represented the most significant attempt to settle the dispute. Yet the history of Kiplombe shows why a government announcement alone cannot erase decades of competing claims. The story is also one of communities who believed they had acquired and occupied land legitimately, a military institution concerned with the security of its installations, government decisions that changed over time, and an unresolved question of how historical claims can be reconciled with present-day legal ownership.

The Land and the Nine Farms

The name “Kiplombe Nine Farms” derives from the farms whose representatives became plaintiffs in the principal Environment and Land Court case. The case filed in Eldoret was Environment and Land Case No. 78 of 2019, Kiplombe Farm & 8 Others v Kenya Defence Forces & 5 Others.

The nine plaintiffs named in the court record were Kiplombe Farm, Kapkeben Farm, Kanetik Farm, Songoliet Farm, Emdin Farm, Tigitio Farm, Jemeli Farm, Kapng’etuny Farm and Buheba Farm. The defendants included the Kenya Defence Forces, the Attorney General, the National Land Commission, the County Land Registrar of Uasin Gishu, the Chief Land Registrar and the Director of Surveys.

The court record gives an important description of the residents' case. The plaintiffs stated that they represented more than 19,000 residents of the nine farms and that their occupation of the land extended back to the 1970s. They claimed that the land had at one point been compulsorily acquired by the government but that approximately 5,339 acres were subsequently reverted to the residents following a directive attributed to former President Daniel arap Moi.

The dispute therefore cannot be understood simply as a contemporary disagreement between the military and people who recently settled on government land. The residents presented their claim as a historical one, rooted in acquisition, occupation and government decisions made over several decades.

At the same time, the government's position has been fundamentally different. In March 2024, Defence Cabinet Secretary Aden Duale stated that the disputed Kiplombe land was public land titled under the KDF. The government therefore approached the matter from the perspective that the military had a lawful interest in the land while acknowledging the need to resolve the longstanding occupation and competing community claims.

This tension between historical occupation and formal state ownership lies at the heart of the Kiplombe dispute.

The Origins of the Conflict

The historical origins of the dispute are not presented in exactly the same way by all parties. Residents have traced their occupation to the 1960s and 1970s and have maintained that their parents acquired portions of the farms from earlier landowners. Contemporary accounts reported that residents said they had bought the land from a colonial-era farmer in the mid-1960s. Other accounts place the beginning of the KDF-related dispute around 1978.

These accounts should be treated as claims forming part of the historical narrative rather than as independently established findings of fact. What is clear is that civilian occupation predates the most recent confrontations by several decades and that the relationship between the residents and the military was not always openly hostile.

Residents interviewed during the height of the dispute described themselves and the military as neighbours for many years. They recalled periods when the two communities lived alongside one another, interacted socially and even cooperated on matters of security and everyday life. The deterioration of this relationship was therefore experienced locally as a gradual transformation from coexistence to confrontation.

The problem intensified as the military installations expanded or sought to secure their boundaries and as residents became increasingly concerned that land they regarded as their homes and farms was being incorporated into military-controlled territory.

The military, for its part, had legitimate security concerns surrounding facilities such as the Kenya Ordnance Factories Corporation and the Recruits Training School. The government subsequently described the contested area as public land under KDF title and warned against unauthorized occupation and the activities of people purporting to sell or transfer the land.

Thus, the dispute developed around two competing understandings of legitimacy. Residents emphasized historical acquisition, occupation and promises of settlement. The state emphasized formal ownership, military security and the protection of public installations.

The Promise of Titles and the Failure to Resolve the Dispute

One of the recurring themes in the Kiplombe story is the expectation that the residents would eventually receive formal title deeds.

According to residents, a significant moment occurred in 1999 when the late President Daniel arap Moi directed that residents be issued with title deeds. The residents stated that the then District Commissioner asked them to provide their details, and that in 2000 they were directed to settle on the farms. These claims became part of the historical justification advanced by residents when the conflict intensified.

The significance of these alleged government assurances was considerable. For families who had lived on the land for decades, the expectation of title was understood as confirmation that their occupation would eventually be formalized. Yet the promised documentation did not resolve the underlying question of ownership.

The result was a form of prolonged uncertainty in which residents occupied and developed the land without enjoying the security associated with undisputed title. The state, meanwhile, retained its position regarding the military's ownership and security interests.

Such uncertainty is particularly dangerous in areas where land is both a source of livelihood and a foundation of family identity. Over time, generations can grow up on land whose legal status remains contested. Homes are constructed, farms are cultivated, schools and other community institutions emerge, and graves become part of the landscape. The longer such a situation continues, the harder it becomes to resolve without creating new grievances.

The National Land Commission and the Emergence of Formal Legal Conflict

The conflict eventually moved increasingly into formal legal and administrative processes.

The National Land Commission became involved because of the competing claims surrounding the land and the question of public ownership. Parliamentary records later referred to several disputes involving land around the military installations, demonstrating that Kiplombe was part of a broader set of controversies involving land occupied or claimed by the Ministry of Defence and neighbouring communities.

The Kiplombe Nine Farms case was filed in the Environment and Land Court at Eldoret in 2019. The nine farms claimed the contested parcels and challenged the state's position. The parcels identified in the court proceedings were LR Nos. 8406/2, 9578, 11040, 8406/3, 8936, 889/2/2, 8406/5, 8406/1 and 8406/6, with a combined area of approximately 5,339 acres.

The case is important because it demonstrates that the conflict was not merely a political dispute or an informal confrontation between villagers and soldiers. It had become a matter formally before the courts, with the National Land Commission and senior land-registration officials among the parties.

The residents' position included the assertion that government had compulsorily acquired the land and that a portion was subsequently returned or reverted to them following the alleged directive of President Moi. Their application further maintained that there were interim orders requiring the parties to preserve the status quo.

The legal proceedings were therefore taking place against a background in which both sides believed that their position had a legal foundation.

The December 2021 Confrontation at Chebarus

The most dramatic escalation came on Christmas Day, 25 December 2021.

According to contemporary reports, KDF personnel accompanied by police officers and surveyors entered the Chebarus area as part of an exercise involving the disputed land. Residents resisted the exercise. The immediate disagreement concerned surveying and the placement of beacons, but beneath it lay the much larger question of who had authority over the land.

The confrontation centred on Chebarus Primary School, which stands on the disputed land. According to the police account reported at the time, residents surrounded the officers and prevented them from leaving the school compound. Reinforcements were subsequently brought in from Moi Barracks. Police used tear gas, while gunfire was reported during the effort to disperse the crowd.

Two residents, Joel Kibet Keter and Eliud Menjo, were killed. Several others were injured. Contemporary reporting identified gunshot wounds among the injured, while vehicles associated with the Kenya Ordnance Factory were also reported to have been damaged.

The precise sequence of events and responsibility for individual acts became matters requiring investigation. It is therefore important not to present allegations made by either side as judicially established facts.

The deaths nevertheless transformed the dispute. What had for years been a land and boundary disagreement had now become a matter involving loss of life.

The IPOA Investigation and the Community's Demands

The Independent Policing Oversight Authority began investigating the December 2021 shootings. IPOA investigators visited the disputed Kiplombe Nine Farms area in the days following the confrontation and began collecting evidence.

Local political leaders called for a comprehensive investigation and raised questions about the use of police and military personnel during the incident. They also called for compensation for the families of those killed and injured and for accountability for anyone found responsible.

The incident generated considerable concern because the community maintained that the military had entered an area whose legal status was already before the Environment and Land Court. Residents and local leaders argued that the parties should have maintained the status quo pending determination of the case.

There was also a more intimate consequence of the dispute. Beginning around 2020, residents reported difficulties in burying deceased relatives on the contested land because the military regarded portions of the area as part of its security buffer. Some families reportedly had to conduct burials before dawn to avoid confrontation. The issue became especially painful because burial is an important cultural and social practice among the local communities.

This dimension of the dispute reveals how land conflicts extend beyond property and economics. When families are prevented from burying their dead where they have traditionally lived, the dispute reaches into questions of belonging, dignity, identity and ancestral connection.

The Court Proceedings

The Environment and Land Court case remained an important legal avenue for resolving the competing claims.

In December 2021, following the confrontation, the plaintiffs sought an injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing, encroaching, surveying, fixing beacons, digging trenches, ploughing, processing title deeds or otherwise interfering with the disputed parcels pending the hearing and determination of the case. The application identified the nine parcels comprising approximately 5,339 acres.

The plaintiffs' application stated that they represented more than 19,000 residents whose occupation extended from the 1970s. They argued that government acquisition had subsequently been followed by reversion of the land to residents under the directive attributed to President Moi. They further alleged that the December 2021 military operation violated the existing status quo and that the confrontation resulted in the deaths and injuries of civilians.

The court record is especially valuable because it preserves the competing historical narratives in a formal setting. It does not, however, amount to a final judicial finding that every element of the residents' historical account was correct.

This distinction matters. A historical account of the dispute should distinguish between allegations, claims, government positions, documentary evidence and judicial findings. The existence of a claim in court is evidence that the claim was formally advanced; it is not itself proof that the claim was ultimately established.

The Question of the "Nine" Farms

There is some confusion in public accounts about the number of farms involved.

The formal 2019 Environment and Land Court case identifies nine plaintiffs: Kiplombe, Kapkeben, Kanetik, Songoliet, Emdin, Tigitio, Jemeli, Kapng’etuny and Buheba farms.

However, a 2019 media report referred to eleven Kiplombe farms with an interest in the military land and listed Kiplombe Farm Limited, Kanetic Farm, Kapng'etuny Farm, Bhemba, Kapkeben, Emdin, Cheplasgei, Tikito, Kapsamoo, Songoliet and Lewa Downs Farm Limited.

This difference may reflect the distinction between the broader collection of farms and interests in the area and the nine entities that became plaintiffs in the 2019 court proceedings. It is therefore safer to use “Kiplombe Nine Farms” when referring specifically to the litigation and the associated community movement, while recognizing that the wider historical dispute involved a somewhat broader set of land interests.

The Wider Dispute Around Kamagut

The Kiplombe dispute cannot be separated completely from developments in Kamagut and Buheba.

In parliamentary proceedings in March 2024, the government described the nine farms in the ELC case as land that had subsequently become associated with the Kamagut and Buheba Settlement Schemes. Parliament was told that more than 19,000 people were living in these settlement areas. The plaintiffs alleged that the State had failed to provide commensurate compensation or alternative land.

This made the issue considerably larger than a dispute involving a few individual landowners. The future of thousands of residents had become linked to the outcome of the conflict.

It also explains why the question could not be resolved simply by removing residents from the land. By the time the dispute had reached its most violent stage, a settled community had developed around the contested territory. Any solution had to address both the legal interests of the state and the social reality of the people living there.

The 2023 Violence

The conflict again became deadly in November 2023.

Five young men were killed during clashes in the Kamagut area. The deaths generated renewed public pressure on the government to resolve the underlying land dispute. An autopsy reported by Citizen Digital found that the five victims died from blunt-force trauma resulting in internal bleeding.

The 2023 deaths were particularly significant because they demonstrated that the conflict had not been extinguished by the 2021 killings, the court proceedings or political intervention.

By March 2024, Citizen Digital reported that the broader 48-year dispute had been associated with eight deaths: five in the November 2023 confrontation and three residents killed in the 2021 violence. Contemporary reports of the Christmas Day 2021 confrontation specifically documented the deaths of Joel Kibet Keter and Eliud Menjo. The difference in reporting suggests that the wider death toll may include another 2021 death associated with the broader conflict rather than the specific Christmas Day shooting.

For purposes of a historical record, it is therefore preferable to say that at least eight deaths were publicly associated with the wider Kiplombe-Kamagut land conflict by March 2024, while distinguishing the documented incidents rather than presenting a single figure as if there were no discrepancy in the records.

The Government's Intervention in 2023–2024

The national government intensified its efforts to resolve the conflict after the renewed violence.

In March 2023, Defence Cabinet Secretary Aden Duale established a process involving the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Lands, Uasin Gishu County Government and the National Land Commission. The stated objective was to resolve the dispute involving more than 5,000 acres occupied by KDF and claimed by local residents. More than 1,000 families were reported to be claiming ownership of portions of the Kiplombe Nine Farms.

The intervention represented a shift from allowing the conflict to remain primarily within the courts and local political arena toward a negotiated administrative and political settlement.

The National Land Commission also became involved in discussions around alternative dispute resolution. Its leadership indicated that ADR could be used to address conflicts involving public land.

This was significant because the dispute had become too complex to be resolved through one institution acting alone. Land registration, historical acquisition, settlement, military security, community rights and compensation all required consideration.

The March 2024 Settlement Proposal

The most important breakthrough came on 28 March 2024, when Defence Cabinet Secretary Aden Duale visited the area with officials from the Ministry of Lands, National Land Commission, KDF and Uasin Gishu County Government.

The government announced that approximately 5,000 acres would be allocated to local residents, with the intention of issuing title deeds after surveying and processing the land. Duale stated that the government wanted the communities and KDF to live as neighbours and that the contentious parcels had been mapped. Lands Principal Secretary Nixon Korir indicated that survey officials would be sent to the ground.

The government also made clear that the settlement was not an abandonment of its claim to public land. Duale maintained that the disputed land was public land titled under the KDF while simultaneously acknowledging the need to allocate portions to the communities. He warned against individuals or cartels allegedly using false documents to sell land within the disputed area.

The proposed settlement therefore represented a compromise. The state would retain the land required for military purposes, while residents would receive a substantial portion of the contested territory and, crucially, the security of formal title.

Citizen Digital reported that title deeds were expected to be ready by June 2024 and that the parties regarded the agreement as bringing the 48-year conflict toward an end.

What the Settlement Meant

The March 2024 agreement was important because it recognized a reality that had become increasingly difficult to ignore: the dispute could not be resolved sustainably through force or through an indefinite continuation of litigation.

For the residents, the prospect of title deeds represented security after decades of uncertainty. Land title would potentially provide families with legal recognition, economic security and the ability to invest in their homes and farms without the continuing fear that the military might reclaim the land.

For the KDF, a negotiated settlement offered the possibility of clearly defined boundaries around its installations and a reduction in the recurrent confrontations with surrounding communities.

For the government, resolving the dispute created an opportunity to demonstrate that historical land conflicts involving state institutions could be addressed through negotiation, surveying, adjudication and formal documentation rather than repeated confrontation.

The agreement also carried a broader lesson for land governance in Kenya. Where government institutions and communities have conflicting understandings of ownership, unresolved ambiguity can persist for generations. By the time violence erupts, the underlying dispute is rarely simply about a boundary. It is about history, livelihood, dignity and competing understandings of justice.

The Limits of Calling the Dispute "Resolved"

Although the March 2024 agreement was widely described as ending the 48-year land dispute, caution is necessary in describing the matter as completely resolved.

The government announced a process for surveying and allocating approximately 5,000 acres and issuing titles. The announcement itself was not equivalent to the completion of land adjudication, survey, subdivision and registration.

The parliamentary record from March 2024 is particularly instructive. It stated that although the Ministry of Defence considered itself the lawful owner and occupier of the land, ownership remained contested and was subject to active litigation involving several parties. The record specifically identified the Kiplombe Farm and nine other farms case and noted that the plaintiffs claimed the nine parcels that had become the Kamagut and Buheba Settlement Schemes.

Consequently, the real measure of the success of the 2024 settlement would be the completion of the promised technical and legal processes: establishment of agreed boundaries, survey of the land to be surrendered or allocated, identification of beneficiaries, settlement of outstanding legal claims, issuance of title deeds and protection of the remaining military installations.

Until those processes are fully documented, the March 2024 agreement should be described as a major negotiated settlement framework rather than simply the final legal determination of every historical ownership question.

Land, Memory and Community

The Kiplombe dispute illustrates the powerful relationship between land and memory in Kenya.

For families who have occupied the farms for generations, the land is not simply an economic asset. It is where homes were built, children grew up, farms were cultivated and relatives were buried. The controversy over burials during the height of the conflict demonstrated how deeply questions of land ownership had become connected to personal and communal identity.

For the military, the land carries a different significance. It surrounds installations associated with national defence, weapons production and military training. Security considerations therefore cannot simply be dismissed as an excuse for land acquisition.

The challenge is to recognize both realities without allowing either to erase the other.

A military installation requires secure boundaries and protection. Communities require secure tenure and protection from arbitrary displacement. The state has an obligation to safeguard national security, but it also has an obligation to administer land fairly and transparently. Where historical government decisions have contributed to uncertainty, the government also carries responsibility for finding a durable remedy.

The Human Cost

The greatest cost of the Kiplombe dispute has been borne by ordinary residents.

People living in the contested area endured years of uncertainty over whether their homes and farms would remain theirs. They faced the anxiety of boundary demarcation, the possibility of displacement and repeated confrontations with security personnel. Some families experienced the deaths of relatives during clashes, while others lived with injuries, damaged property and fear.

The 2021 confrontation was particularly painful because it occurred on Christmas Day. Joel Kibet Keter and Eliud Menjo were killed, while other residents were injured. Their deaths brought national attention to a dispute that had previously received comparatively little public attention.

The later deaths in Kamagut in 2023 demonstrated that the lessons of 2021 had not been sufficient to prevent renewed violence.

The human cost reinforces the central lesson of the Kiplombe story: unresolved land disputes do not remain static. They accumulate grievances. Each generation inherits not only the land question but also the memories of previous confrontations.

A Conflict That Became a Question of Governance

The Kiplombe Nine Farms dispute ultimately became a test of Kenya's land-governance institutions.

The National Land Commission had a role in addressing historical land grievances and public land. The Ministry of Lands had responsibility for surveying, registration and titling. The Ministry of Defence had responsibility for military land and national security. The courts had responsibility for determining legal disputes. The county government and local political leadership had responsibility for representing and engaging the affected population.

When these institutions operate separately, land disputes can remain unresolved for decades. When they coordinate, there is at least a possibility of addressing the underlying causes.

The March 2024 intervention was therefore significant not simply because of the acreage proposed for allocation but because it brought the principal institutions together. The Defence CS, Lands PS, National Land Commission, KDF leadership and Uasin Gishu County Government participated in the consultative process.

The government's embrace of alternative dispute resolution was also noteworthy. The National Land Commission indicated that ADR could provide a means of addressing public-land conflicts without relying exclusively on prolonged litigation.

The Historical Significance of Kiplombe

The Kiplombe Nine Farms dispute belongs to the wider history of Kenya's unresolved land questions.

Across the country, land conflicts have often emerged from overlapping systems of ownership and authority. Colonial land policies transformed earlier systems of landholding. Independence introduced new settlement schemes and land redistribution initiatives. Government institutions subsequently acquired land for public purposes, including defence. Individuals and communities sometimes occupied or acquired land through formal or informal arrangements whose legal status later became disputed.

Kiplombe reflects this broader history.

Its distinctive feature is the proximity of civilian settlement to important military facilities. That proximity created a particularly sensitive environment in which a boundary dispute could quickly become a national-security concern.

Yet the history also demonstrates the danger of leaving such disputes unresolved. What may initially appear to be an administrative disagreement can become a source of deep community resentment when people believe that government promises have not been honoured.

Conclusion

The Kiplombe Nine Farms land dispute is a story of land, government, military security, settlement and memory. Its roots extend back decades, and its consequences have reached far beyond the legal question of who holds title to approximately 5,339 acres.

The nine farms at the centre of the 2019 Environment and Land Court case were Kiplombe, Kapkeben, Kanetik, Songoliet, Emdin, Tigitio, Jemeli, Kapng’etuny and Buheba. Their residents claimed a historical connection to the land extending back to the 1960s and 1970s and relied on a history of government actions and alleged promises concerning their eventual settlement and titling. The government and KDF, meanwhile, maintained that the land was public land held under the military and that the security of important defence installations had to be protected.

The failure to reconcile those positions over many years transformed a land dispute into a conflict between a civilian community and one of the country's most powerful institutions. The confrontations of 2021 and 2023 demonstrated the devastating consequences of that failure.

The March 2024 agreement offered a fundamentally different path. Instead of allowing the dispute to continue through confrontation and litigation alone, the government proposed a negotiated division of the land, with approximately 5,000 acres to be allocated to the communities and the remaining military interests protected. The commitment to survey the land and issue title deeds provided the possibility of finally converting decades of uncertainty into legally recognized tenure.

The enduring significance of Kiplombe will therefore depend on what followed the announcement. If the survey, allocation and titling processes were completed transparently and fairly, the settlement could become an important example of how a seemingly intractable land conflict can be transformed through negotiation and institutional cooperation. If the promises remained incomplete, however, the underlying grievances could persist.

The history of Kiplombe ultimately points to a simple but profound lesson. Land disputes that are allowed to remain unresolved for generations rarely become easier with time. They become more deeply embedded in people's lives. Homes are built, families grow, memories accumulate and identities become attached to particular places. By the time the dispute reaches violence, the cost of delay has already become enormous.

For Kiplombe, the real resolution therefore lies beyond an announcement of an agreement. It lies in the creation of a clear, documented and accepted land settlement in which the community's legitimate interests, the security needs of the KDF and the authority of the Kenyan state can coexist within clearly defined boundaries. Only then can the long history of uncertainty surrounding the Kiplombe Nine Farms finally give way to lasting peace.

Sources and Documentary Basis

The principal legal source for the identity of the nine farms and the residents' claims is Kiplombe Farm & 8 Others v Kenya Defence Forces & 5 Others, Environment & Land Case No. 78 of 2019, decided in the Environment and Land Court at Eldoret. The court record identifies the nine plaintiffs and records the claim concerning approximately 5,339 acres and the historical occupation and alleged government reversion of the land.

The National Assembly Hansard of 21 March 2024 provides an important government record of the dispute. It records the government's position on ownership while acknowledging that the ownership of the contested area remained subject to litigation and identifies the Kiplombe case among the active disputes.

The Kenya News Agency report of 28 March 2024 records the government's March 2024 consultative intervention, including the participation of the Ministry of Lands, National Land Commission, Ministry of Defence, KDF and Uasin Gishu County Government and the proposal to survey and allocate land to the communities.

Citizen Digital's 28 March 2024 report documents the proposed 5,000-acre allocation and the government's description of the agreement as an attempt to end the 48-year dispute. It also records the deaths associated with the 2021 and 2023 confrontations.

Contemporary reporting by The Standard and The Star provides additional documentation of the December 2021 confrontation at Chebarus, the deaths and injuries, the residents' historical claims, the involvement of surveyors and the subsequent IPOA investigation.

Taken together, these sources provide a documentary foundation for understanding the Kiplombe Nine Farms dispute while preserving the distinction between established records, official positions and claims made by the parties themselves.