Men s Conference chairman turns life over to Christ May 7th 2021 at 12:30:00 GMT +0300
At 87, Mzee Jackson Kibor has strode his world like a colossus for many years to earn the title of de facto chairman of ‘Men’s Conference’. And for his no nonsense approach to life, he is admired and hated in equal measure.
The polygamist divorced his second and third wives in succession, sued his sons for trespass, failed in an attempt to shoot at his son and destroyed clamps after his luxury SUV was chained by county askaris.
The old politician has, at different times, spent time in police cells for tribal incitement, fitted his car with spikes after the police confiscated his firearm and demanded DNA tests on his five sons.
Clad in white suit and white shirt, the 87-year-old was immersed in the water with the help of the clergy.
Mzee Kibor, who is known in the social media circles as ‘The Men’s conference chairman’, confessed that was old enough and decided to dump the ‘unholy life’ for a peaceful life in Christ.
“Praise Jehovah, when I decided to go to Church I was told that one has to be baptized to be saved. I have made this bold decision to be baptized because life is precious. Everyone needs to be ready since nobody knows the hour or the time,” said a jovial Mr Kibor, moments after he was baptized.
Court rules in favour of Jackson Kibor in 1,250 acre land suit
Jackson Kibor [Photo: Peter Ochieng]
The Environment and Lands Court has ruled in favour of Eldoret businessman Jackson Kibor in a protracted dispute, pitting his sons and his former employees over a 1,250-acre farm in Soy, Uasin Gishu County. The court dismissed three applications filed by Kibor’s sons and the employees seeking to stop the execution of a ruling delivered on May 6 pending appeal.
The sons - Elkanah Kipleting and Ezekiel Kipng’etich - and Kibor’s daughter-in-law Michelle Chebet wanted the court s intervention pending the hearing of their appeal. Justice Antony Ombwayo had in May ruled that Kibor was the legal owner of the disputed land, but his sons moved to challenge the ruling in the Court of Appeal.