Muriithi v Makena & another (Environment and Land Appeal E035 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 6936 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed that alleging fraud in a land transfer isn't enough—you must prove it with strong, specific evidence or lose.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the appellant has proved that the suit land was transferred to the respondents fraudulently
- 2.Whether the decision of the learned trial magistrate was against the weight of the evidence adduced
- 3.Whether the appeal is merited
- 4.Who will bear the costs of the appeal?
Key legal issues
#Whether the appellant proved fraud in the transfer of LR No. Abothuguchi/Kariene/4346 to the respondents
The appellant failed to prove fraud to the required standard; the suit was rightly dismissed at trial.
Although fraud was specifically pleaded, the appellant did not report the alleged fraud to investigative agencies, did not join the Land Registrar or the Land Control Board, and did not produce transfer documents to disprove his signature. It was the appellant himself who signed documents at offices and shared out his land. Fraud must be distinctly alleged and distinctly proved; it cannot simply be inferred from the facts.
Whether the trial magistrate's decision was against the weight of the evidence
The trial magistrate was justified; the findings were sound and well founded.
Having reviewed and considered all the evidence and material placed before the court, the judge found no reason to interfere with the trial court's conclusions, which were supported by the evidence, including the appellant's own admissions about signing documents and distributing his land among his children.
Indefeasibility of title under the Land Registration Act and grounds for impeaching title
A certificate of title is prima facie evidence of absolute ownership but may be challenged on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation to which the proprietor is a party, or where acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme.
Sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Land Registration Act, 2012 vest absolute ownership in the registered proprietor, subject to challenge for fraud or misrepresentation to which the proprietor is proved to be a party, or where the title was acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme.
Legal principles established
#- A claim based on fraud must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved to a standard higher than a mere balance of probabilities, though not beyond reasonable doubt.
- On a first appeal, the court is obliged to re-evaluate, re-assess and re-analyse the evidence afresh and reach its own conclusions.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.Each party bears its own costs
- 3.It is so ordered
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Githongo Senior Principal Magistrate's Court
- ELC case no. 4 of 2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the judgment and decree of Githongo SPMC ELC case no. 4 of 2020
Relief refused
#Appeal allowed with costs here and in the court below; setting aside of the trial court's judgment and decree and transfer of the suit land and subdivisions to the appellant
The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving fraud to the higher-than-ordinary civil standard
Costs
Owing to the relationship of the parties who are close relatives, each party to bear its own costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In the result, it is my finding that the appellant's appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed.
Owing to the relationship of the parties who are close relatives, I make an order that each party bears its own costs.
It is an established principle of law that a claim based on fraud must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.
In cases where fraud is alleged, it is not enough to simply infer fraud from the facts as the appellant wants the court to do in this case.
this being a first appeal, I am obliged to evaluate, re-assess and re-analyse the evidence on record to determine whether the conclusions reached by the leaned trial magistrate were justified on the basis of the evidence presented and the law.
Issues in the judgment
#The trial magistrate is referred to with both male and female pronouns in the same judgment
Judgment recites that it was delivered on 24th October 2024 but parties' written submissions are dated August and September 2024; the heading of the record inconsistently describes the matter by the lower court case number rather than an appeal number
Numbering of witness evidence is garbled in the transcription: '2 was Rose Kanyore Mbaabu' and '3 was Dominic Nkamani Chabari' appear without the P.W prefix
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Nganga & another v Sangrajka & 10 others (Environment and Land Case 30 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 6644 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 6644 (KLR)2 Oct 2025
- Daudi v Mitei & another (Environment & Land Case 24 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 4586 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 4586 (KLR)19 Jun 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muriithi v Makena & another (Environment and Land Appeal E035 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 6936 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Githongo SPMC ELC case no. 4 of 2020 (Appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6936/eng@2024-10-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.