Gori Investment Limited v Apostolic Faith Church & another (Environment & Land Case E004 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 5198 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A landowner who alleges fraud but cannot prove a clear paper trail of ownership will lose even with a title certificate, as this Kakamega case shows.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether Kakamega/Municipality/Block II/42 and Kakamega Municipality Block 2/42 refer to the same parcel
- 2.If so, who between the Plaintiff and the First Defendant has a valid title to the parcel
- 3.Whether the reliefs sought should issue
Key legal issues
#Whether the two parcel descriptions refer to one parcel
They are one and the same parcel
The two certificate-of-lease numbers differ only in 'Block II' versus 'Block 2'. The Land Registrar testified the registry uses 'II' or '2' interchangeably, and both parties' cases were premised on a single parcel over which the First Defendant was in occupation and accused of trespass. The court was therefore satisfied the descriptions refer to one parcel on the ground.
Who holds a valid title to the parcel
The First Defendant holds the valid title; the Plaintiff's title is invalid
The First Defendant produced its letter of allotment and banker's cheque, its register was original, and the Director Land Administration - standing as lessor - affirmed it as legal owner. The Plaintiff produced only two letters, no sale agreement, transfer form, allotment letter to its vendor, proof of stamp duty or payment, and failed to explain the reconstruction of its register. Its fraud allegations were unproved.
Standard of proof for fraud
Fraud must be strictly pleaded and proved to a standard higher than balance of probabilities
Relying on Kuria Kiarie and John Mbogua Getao, the court restated that allegations of fraud are serious, may carry penal consequences, and must be specifically pleaded with particulars and proved to a standard higher than the ordinary civil standard but lower than beyond reasonable doubt; fraud cannot simply be inferred from the facts.
Validity of the First Defendant's counterclaim
The defence and counterclaim was valid and its prayers granted
The Plaintiff argued the First Defendant lacked a valid counterclaim. The court found the prayers were clear, the Plaintiff knew the case it faced and had opportunity to respond, and the wide power to do substantive justice required ending the double-title situation in line with the First Defendant's prayers.
Legal principles established
#- Fraud must be specifically pleaded and proved to a standard higher than a balance of probabilities but below the criminal standard
- A certificate of title is prima facie evidence of proprietorship but may be nullified for fraud or illegal, unprocedural or corrupt acquisition
- A party alleging double registration/rival titles must establish the root of its own title, including the circumstances of reconstruction of its register
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiff's suit is dismissed
- 2.A declaration that the First Defendant is the rightful and legal proprietor of the parcel of land known as Kakamega Municipality Block 2/42
- 3.Cancellation of the Plaintiff's certificate of lease in respect of Kakamega/Municipality/Block II/42 and/or Kakamega Municipality Block 2/42
- 4.The Plaintiff shall bear the Defendants' costs of the suit
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 over disputes relating to title to land
Relief refused
#Prohibitory injunction restraining the First Defendant from dealing with Title No. Kakamega/Municipality/Block 11/42
Plaintiff failed to prove fraud and its title was found invalid
Order directing the 2nd Defendant to cancel the First Defendant's Certificate of Lease dated 8th July 2007 and close the register
First Defendant established valid title; it is the Plaintiff's title that was cancelled
General damages and interest thereon
Suit dismissed, Plaintiff not entitled to the reliefs sought
Costs
The Plaintiff shall bear the Defendants' costs of the suit.
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 is hereby made that the First Defendant is the rightful and legal proprietor of the parcel of land known as Kakamega Municipality Block 2/42.
The Plaintifi's certificate of lease in respect of the parcel of land known as Kakamega/ Municipality/Block II/42 and/or Kakamega Municipality Block 2/42 is hereby cancelled.
The Plaintifi shall bear the Defendants' costs of the suit.
In view of foregoing, I find that the Plaintifi has failed to prove its allegations of fraud to the required standard.
Section 26 of the Land Registration Act obligates the Court to accept the registered proprietor's certificate of title as prima facie evidence of proprietorship unless the provisos under Section 26 (1) (a) or (b) are established.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment spells the Plaintiff's vendor inconsistently within the same record
Inconsistency in the date of the First Defendant's banker's cheque between testimony and submissions
Plaint's prayer refers to a Certificate of Lease dated 8th July 2007 while the First Defendant's certificate of lease is elsewhere described as dated and issued on 8th February 2007
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gori Investment Limited v Apostolic Faith Church & another (Environment & Land Case E004 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 5198 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Plaint dated 22nd February 2022 (ELC suit). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5198/eng@2025-07-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.