Nandwa v Kuya & another (Environment and Land Appeal E028 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1617 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court cancelled a land buyer's title because the property was first transferred by someone who had died 13 years earlier, so the seller had nothing valid to sell.
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 trial court was right in concluding that the appellant obtained registration of the suit property through fraud / unlawfully
Key legal issues
#Whether the appellant's title, though regularly registered, could stand where the root of the transfer chain was unlawful
The appeal was dismissed; the trial court's impeachment of the appellant's title was upheld because the deceased had died 13 years before the first transfer and no succession had occurred
The court re-evaluated the evidence as a first appellate court. It found undisputed that the registered proprietor died in 1994 and that the property was transferred to the 1st defendant in 2007 with no evidence of any legal representative effecting the transfer. Applying section 26 of the Land Registration Act, Article 40(6) of the Constitution and nemo dat quod non habet, the 2nd respondent had no title to pass, so the appellant's acquisition was unlawful and could not be protected even if he acted in good faith.
Whether the appellant was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice entitled to protection
No; indefeasibility under section 26 does not protect a purchaser whose transferor's acquisition was itself unlawful or unprocedural
Relying on Dina Management Ltd, the court held that a valid title must arise from a lawful and procedural process, and that a title obtained unlawfully is invalid even if the registered owner obtained it in good faith. The appellant's due diligence and full payment could not cure the underlying illegality in the chain of title.
Legal principles established
#- Under Article 40(6) of the Constitution and section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act, an innocent purchaser of property initially unlawfully acquired has no legal protection
- A person cannot pass a better title than he holds (nemo dat quod non habet)
- A registered proprietor whose root of title is challenged must prove the legality of the acquisition beyond the title instrument
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent
- 2.It is so ordered
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Principal Magistrate's Court, Kakamega
- Kakamega CM ELC Case No. 28 of 2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the magistrates' court in land matters
Relief refused
#Setting aside of the judgment and decree of Hon. J.R. Ndururi delivered on 16.05.2024
The appellant failed to demonstrate that the transfer from the deceased to the 2nd respondent was lawful; nemo dat quod non habet applied
Costs
Appeal dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent
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 premises, I find no merit in this appeal, which I hereby dismiss with costs to the 1st respondent.
In view of the provisions of Article 40 (6) of the Constitution of Kenya as read with section 26 (1) of the Land Registration Act, an innocent purchaser of property that was sols and or transferred to them by a person who had initially unlawfully acquired it, has no legal protection under the law.
On the basis of the doctrine of nemo dat quod non habet, which means that a person cannot pass a better title than what he holds, the 2nd respondent had no good title to pass to the appellant.
It is that instrument of title that is challenged and the registered proprietor must go beyond the instrument to prove the legality of how he acquired the title
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment is internally inconsistent about who sold to the appellant: the memorandum of appeal and pleadings record a sale by the 1st defendant (Elijah Mukara Anjoni), but ground (b) of the memorandum and the appellant's submissions refer to the appellant buying from the '2nd respondent'
The judgment gives conflicting dates for when the appellant obtained his title deed - DW1 testified the new title issued on 19th January 2023, while the trial court's findings record the 2nd defendant's registration as 19th November 2018
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nandwa v Kuya & another (Environment and Land Appeal E028 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1617 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Kakamega ELC Appeal (from Kakamega CM ELC Case No. 28 of 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1617/eng@2026-03-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.