SIC Investment Co-operative Society Limited (Formerly Safaricom Investment Co - operative Society Limited) v Ramadhanjao & 12 others (Environment and Land Case E077 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7245 (KLR)

Sections 24, 25 and 26(1) of the Land Registration Act render a certificate of title conclusive prima facie evidence of ownership, challengeable only for fraud, mistake or omission. The Defendants alleged non-completion of the sale but gave no details, nor did they show rescission or refund. The registered proprietor therefore showed an apparently infringed legal right per the Mrao definition, while the Defendants held no title to the suit property.

The Plaintiff demonstrated actual interference: beaconing was interrupted, the boundary fence destroyed, and the property subjected to sand harvesting that diminished its value through environmental degradation. The court accepted that no monetary award could restore the land to its original form, relying on the Mosioma holding that damages cannot substitute for a crystallised right protectable by injunction.

The court reasoned that preservation of the property pending full interrogation of the documents and chronology of title posed a lower risk of injustice than refusal. Triable issues existed as to completion of the sale, but the registered proprietor would suffer greater loss if the property were alienated or wasted in the interim; maintaining the status quo favoured the Plaintiff.

The Defendants relied on Kadhi's Court decisions revoking the title and vesting it in the heirs. The court declined to pronounce itself on the Kadhi's jurisdiction at the interlocutory stage, holding that the question requires pleadings and full trial, while noting that the Defendants retain recourse to challenge the legality of the revocation process.