Fundi v Kaverenge & another (Civil Suit 212 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 4294 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Mombasa court ruled that the earlier of two title deeds to the same plot wins, dismissing the later owner's claim.
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 suit instituted by the Plaintiff herein has any merit whatsoever
- 2.Who is the lawful owner of the suit property known as Mombasa/MN/Block 1/519
- 3.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the orders sought in the Plaint
- 4.Who bears the costs of the suit
Key legal issues
#Which of the two competing titles over Mombasa/MN/Block 1/519 should prevail
The 1st Defendant's title dated 4th November, 2014 was first in time and prevails; the Plaintiff's 2016 title was obtained by fraud or registry mistake
Both parties held certificates over the same parcel. The Plaintiff relied on a sale agreement dated 25th March 2002 which related to Plot No. 1416/Mikindani, not the suit land. The 1st Defendant derived her title from a sub-lease from the Municipal Council of Mombasa. Applying the first-in-time principle and the requirement to trace root of title, the earlier title was upheld and the Plaintiff's later certificate was found unsound.
Whether the Plaintiff proved fraud so as to displace the 1st Defendant's registered title
No; the Plaintiff failed to prove any particulars of fraud against the 1st Defendant and did not prove the 2nd Defendant's involvement
Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act protects registered title except on proof of fraud or misrepresentation, or acquisition illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme. The Plaintiff's evidence was described as sensational statements of no probative value, and he called no evidence showing how the 2nd Defendant was involved in the alleged collusion.
Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to the declaration, injunction and rectification sought
No; having failed to prove his case on a balance of probabilities, the Plaintiff was not entitled to the prayers in the Plaint
Rectification under Section 80(1) of the Land Registration Act requires proof that a registration was obtained, made or omitted by fraud or mistake. The court found the Plaintiff had not discharged this burden, so the declaration and injunction could not issue and instead the register was to be amended in the 1st Defendant's favour.
Legal principles established
#- In a case of two competing titles over the same land, the first in time prevails
- A registered proprietor whose root of title is under challenge must go beyond the title instrument and prove the legality of acquisition
- The court may order rectification of the register where a registration was obtained by fraud or mistake
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the Defendants as the Plaintiff failed to prove his case in respect to the Plaint dated 3rd November, 2020, with costs to the 1st and 2nd Defendants
- 2.Order that the Land Registrar amend the Land Register by having the Certificate of Lease dated 4th November, 2014 in the name of the 1st Defendant as the absolute and legally registered owner of the suit land LR Mombasa/MN/Block/519 inserted accordingly
- 3.Costs of the suit awarded to the 1st and 2nd Defendants
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under the Environment & Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2011
Relief refused
#Declaration that the Plaintiff is the rightful owner of land known as Mombasa/MN/Block 1/519
Plaintiff failed to prove his case on a balance of probabilities; his sale agreement related to a different plot
Injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from dealing with the suit property
Not entitled to the prayers sought, having not proved the claim
Order directing the 2nd Defendant to rectify the title by removing the 1st Defendant's name
No proof of fraud or mistake vitiating the 1st Defendant's earlier title; the Plaintiff's own title appeared fraudulently or mistakenly obtained
Costs
Costs of the suit awarded to the 1st and 2nd Defendants
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.
That Judgment be and is hereby entered in favour of the Defendants as the Plaintiff has failed to prove his case in respect to the Plaint dated 3rd November, 2020 filed on 9th November, 2020 with costs to the 1st and 2nd Defendants.
That an order made that the Land Registrar to have the Land Register amended according by having the Certificate of Lease dated 4th November, 2014 in the names of the 1st Defendants being the absolute and legally registered owner to the suit land
it is trite law that when there are two competing titles, the first in time will prevail
No party should take it for granted that simply because they have a title deed or Certificate of Lease, then they have a right over the property.
Balancing the two competing titles, it is my view that the 1st Defendant holds good title to the suit property.
Issues in the judgment
#Prayer (c) in the Amended Plaint inconsistently refers to two parcel numbers for the same relief
The disposition paragraph (a) awards costs but paragraph (c) repeats the costs order, duplicating it
Issue (c) in the framing is identical to issue (b)'s subject matter; the court's analysis treats entitlement to orders under Issue B without a separate analysis under the framed second issue wording
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Fundi v Kaverenge & another (Civil Suit 212 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 4294 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Amended Plaint dated 3rd November, 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4294/eng@2025-05-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.