Court orders GSU, police to vacate disputed Moi family land in Eldoret

A GSU officer at a property belonging to former President Moi’s family near Eldoret State Lodge on October 18, 2026. [Peter Ochieng, Standard]

The Environment and Land Court in Eldoret has ordered police officers and General Service Unit (GSU) personnel occupying a prime property belonging to the family of former President Daniel arap Moi near Eldoret State Lodge to vacate the land.

Justice Charles Ondieki issued a temporary mandatory injunction directing the officers and other occupants to leave the disputed property pending the hearing and determination of a petition filed by Willowdale Investment Limited.

The court also ordered that the status quo prevailing before the alleged invasion be maintained and barred police and GSU units from accessing the property.

The judge directed the Inspector General of Police to enforce the orders.

Willowdale Investment Limited, through lawyer Gordon Ogola, moved to court seeking protection of the property, naming the Interior Cabinet Secretary, Inspector General of Police, Lands Cabinet Secretary, Chief Land Registrar, Eldoret Land Registrar, National Land Commission and Attorney General as respondents.

In his ruling, Justice Ondieki said the company had demonstrated a legitimate proprietary interest in the disputed property through documentary evidence, including a certified copy of its certificate of lease.

The land belonging to the family of the late President Daniel Moi near Eldoret State Lodge. [Courtesy]

The judge noted that the applicant's (Willowdale Investment Limited) affidavit evidence had not been controverted by the respondents.

The court found that Willowdale had established a prima facie case warranting interim protection of the property as the main petition is heard.

The judge observed that granting a temporary mandatory injunction required a higher threshold than merely establishing a prima facie case.

He ruled that the company had met this requirement, noting that the evidence suggested the respondents had attempted to steal a match from the applicant, a circumstance he considered special enough to justify the orders.

The court further found that granting the orders was in the public interest, paving the way for the temporary protection of the disputed property.