Ali v Raso & another (Environment & Land Case 83 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 2909 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court cancelled a fraudulent title over Diani land and restored the original owner, proving that an authentic, traceable title beats a disputed one.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Who between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant is the lawful registered owner of the suit property?
- 2.Are the reliefs sought available?
- 3.Who should bear the costs of the suit and counterclaim?
Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff or the 1st defendant holds the lawful title to Kwale/Diani 183
The plaintiff is the lawful registered proprietor; the 1st defendant's title is tainted by fraud and irregularities and is null and void
Both parties had to defend their titles. The plaintiff traced her root through documented transfers culminating in a certificate of outright purchase to Khadija and a title authenticated by the land registrar, who confirmed it tallied with the register. The 1st defendant's title bore an altered date, contradictory registration and presentation dates, irregular franking, and the land registrar could not confirm its authenticity. The 1st defendant never testified, and adverse inferences were drawn.
Whether the plaintiff's title was void because she is a foreigner holding freehold land
The titles became leasehold interests of 99 years; foreigners are not barred from owning land
The court held that the constitutional transitional provisions automatically converted freehold titles held by non-citizens into 99-year leaseholds, and the Constitution does not prohibit foreign ownership of land; the plaintiff still held her original authentic title.
Whether the 2nd defendant's notice of claim against co-defendant in the counterclaim could stand
It could not be sustained in view of the finding in favour of the plaintiff
Having found the plaintiff to be the lawful proprietor and the 1st defendant's title fraudulent, there was no basis for the registrar's third-party claim against the plaintiff in the counterclaim.
Whether the register should be rectified and permanent injunction granted
Yes - rectification under section 80 of the Land Registration Act was ordered and a permanent injunction issued
Since the 1st defendant's registration was obtained by fraud and irregularity, the statutory exceptions to indefeasibility were engaged, justifying cancellation of the entries, restoration of the plaintiff as proprietor and a permanent injunction defining the parties' rights after full hearing.
Legal principles established
#- Where a registered proprietor's root of title is under challenge, the holder must go beyond the title instrument and prove the legality of the acquisition
- When faced with competing titles over the same land, the court must investigate from the root and uphold the title that conforms to procedure and traces its root without a break
- A title may be impeached under section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act on grounds of fraud or where acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme
- The Constitution converts freehold interests into leasehold but does not bar foreigners from owning land in Kenya
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the plaintiff's title deed for Kwale/Diani 183 issued on 7th May 2002 is valid
- 2.A declaration that the title deed issued to the 1st defendant for Kwale/Diani 183 is null and void
- 3.An order directing the 2nd defendant to cancel the entries in favour of the 1st defendant and rectify the register by entering the plaintiff as lawful proprietor
- 4.An order directing the 2nd defendant to remove the 1st defendant's name from the register and replace it with the plaintiff's name
- 5.A permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's proprietary rights over Kwale/Diani 183
- 6.Vacant possession of the suit property to be handed over from the 1st defendant to the plaintiff
- 7.The 1st defendant's counterclaim dismissed with no orders as to costs
- 8.The orders on rectification and vacant possession to be implemented within 60 days of judgment
- 9.The plaintiff's original title held by the court to be released to her after the 60-day period
- 10.Each party to bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction under the Environment and Land Court Act over disputes relating to title to land
Relief refused
#Damages for trespass
No proposals or basis for assessment were led before the court
General damages in the 1st defendant's counterclaim
Counterclaim dismissed as the 1st defendant's title was not proved to be lawfully acquired
Costs
Each party shall bear their 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.
A declaration that the plaintifis title deed issued for the property known as Kwale/Diani 183 issued on the 7th May 2002 is valid
A declaration that the title deed issued to the 1st defendant for the property known as Kwale/ Diani 183 is null and void
The 1st defendants counterclaim is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
While the costs ordinarily follow the event the court in its discretion and in the circumstances of the case makes an order that each party shall bear their own costs.
It is the finding of this court that the Plaintifi is the lawful registered proprietor of the suit property.
the title that is to be upheld is that which conformed to procedure and can properly trace its root without a break in the chain
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment alternately describes the 1st defendant as 'Khadija Bakari Haraka' holding a Power of Attorney for 'Amina Nkulola Raso', though the defence describes the 1st defendant as having acquired the land on 10/03/1992 and DW1's mother's title is in the name of Amina Nkulola Raso - the relationship between the two names is not fully explained
Pleadings dated inconsistently - the Notice of Claim Against Co-Defendant is described as dated 5/06/2023 when filed but addressed as dated 5/7/2023 in the analysis
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ali v Raso & another (Environment & Land Case 83 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 2909 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kwale ELC suit of 2021 (Plaint dated 22nd March 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/2909/eng@2025-03-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.