New twist in Sh100m land case as Marathoner Eliud Kipchoge, others reject evidence
Counties
By
Lynn Kolongei
| Mar 26, 2025
The hearing of a Sh100 million prime property pitting former 3,000 metres World record holder Daniel Komen and his wife Joyce Kimosop Komen at the High Court sitting in Eldoret has taken a new twist.
This was after Komen produced four more documents in addition to eight which she wants the court to admit as part of her evidence in the case against her husband and the athletes including marathon star Eliud Kipchoge, Beijing Olympics gold medalist Birmin Kipruto and two businessmen Felex Lagat and Peter Lagat.
Justice Reuben Nyakundi adjourned the matter to Friday when he will rule on whether or not to accept the new evidence produced by Komen, who is a senior lecturer at Moi University.
Justice Nyakundi’s action came after the defendants in the case led by Kipchoge objected to her move to produce additional documents against them.
READ MORE
Tribunal orders KRA to refund firm Sh96.2 million
State edges KPC out of cooking gas plant deal for Nigerian firm
Money market funds book record returns on high interest rates
How connected technology, AI can help cut healthcare costs
How an education policy can safeguard your child's future
Sacco non-remittances grows as more firms face turbulence
Regional trade bloc bets on SMEs to ward off Chinese leather imports
Smelling opportunities beyond political and economic noise
KAA fetes best operators in aviation
Inflation rises to 3.6 percent in March amid higher food prices
The contested documents include sale agreements, folio register, search and consent to transfer documents.
“I will have to step you down to allow me to make a ruling on whether to admit or reject the additional documents you have presented in court relating to this case,” stated the Judge.
Komen through her lawyer Patrick Kibii wants the court to declare null and void the sale agreement for the prime 200-acre agricultural land located in Eldoret between her husband, Kipchoge and Kipruto.
She insisted that the suit property was matrimonial property that her husband sold off illegally without her consent.
While objecting to the presentation of additional documents by Komen’s wife, the defendants through their lawyer Joshua Ogongo argued she was neither a party nor witness during the signing of the sale agreements.
They stated that Komen’s name does not appear in any of the transaction documents they entered into with her husband as they asked the Judge not to admit them as part of her documentary evidence in the case.
But in her rejoinder, Komen told the court that the objectors were out to delay the hearing and determination of the case by rejecting her documents.