Muranga v Rimisitu Investment Company Limited & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 4 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 430 (KLR)

No. Kajiado/Kitengela/4427 (measuring 15 acres), was transferred to the Plaintifi and he fenced and occupied in 1993. 4. The Plaintifi's complaint arises from events discovered in April 2019. The Plaintifi claims that the 1st Defendant fraudulently caused the original title (L.R. No. Kajiado/Kitengela/2491) to be gazetted as lost via a notice dated 25th March 2013, despite the land having been subdivided and sold decades prior to that date. 5. The 1st Defendant used this "lost title" status to generate a new title. A new survey was then conducted using the provisional title issue to replace the allegedly lost title, producing new title numbers 91789, 91790, 91791, 91792, 91793, and 91794 via a mutation dated 23rd August 2016. The new title No. 91794 overlaps entirely with the Plaintifi’s existing title L.R. No. Kajiado/Kitengela/4427. 6. Consequently, the Plaintifi prays for judgment against the Defendants jointly and severally for: 7. a. Cancellation of the Gazette Notice dated 25th March 2013 regarding title no. L.R. No. Kajiado/Kitengela/2491 and an order re-instating all records at both the survey ofice and land registry as they were before the notice. b. An order cancelling title no. 91794, which overlaps with the Plaintifi’s L.R. No. Kajiado/ Kitengela/4427. c. Cancellation of subsequent title numbers (91789, 91790, 91791, 91792, 91793, and 91794) derived from the alleged fraudulent process. d. Costs of the suit. The matter proceeded to hearing as an undefended suit as against the 1st and 3rd Defendants, the Plaintifi having withdrawn the claim against the 2nd Defendant. Analysis of Evidence Plaintifi ’s Evidence 8. At the hearing of the suit, the Plaintifi, Charles Kamau Muranga, testified as PW1. He relied on his Plaint dated 20th January 2021 and adopted his witness statement—filed on 21st January 2021 (and appearing at page 5 of the trial bundle)—as his evidence-in-chief. 9. In support of his claim, PW1 produced a bundle of documents listed in the Plaintifi’s List of Documents filed alongside the Plaint. The Court admitted the documents, marking them as Exhibits PE 1 - PE 23 respectively. 10. The Plaintifi reafirmed his ownership of the suit property. He produced the original title deed for L.R. No. Kajiado/Kitengela/4427 to demonstrate his proprietary interest. 11. The crux of his testimony was that Title No. 91794, purportedly held by the 1st Defendant, unlawfully overlaps with his rightful parcel, L.R. No. Kajiado/Kitengela/4427. He testified that the subsequent title was procured unlawfully and prayed for the orders sought in the Plaint, specifically the cancellation of the overlapping title and the rectification of the register. 12. There being no appearance by the Defendants to cross-examine the witness, the Plaintifi closed his case. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/430/eng@2026-01-29 2

page 2 of 6

Analysis of Submissions 13. The Plaintifi filed written submissions drawn by the firm of S. Ogeto Ongori & Co. Advocates. The submissions reiterate the Plaintifi’s claim for the cancellation/nullification of the Gazette Notice dated 25th March 2013 and the resultant Title No. Kajiado/Kitengela/91794 (referred to as 91784 in the submissions’ header) on the grounds of fraud. 14. Counsel for the Plaintifi submitted that the Plaintifi is the registered absolute owner of L.R. No. Kajiado/Kitengela/4427, comprising 15 acres, having acquired it from the 1st Defendant following a subdivision of the mother title L.R. No. Kajiado/Kitengela/2491. 15. Counsel submitted that the 1st Defendant’s actions amounted to a "fraudulent scheme". Specifically, it was submitted that the mother title (Title No. 2491) had ceased to exist upon its original subdivision into titles 4426, 4427, 4428, 4429, and 4474. Therefore, the 1st Defendant’s act of gazetting Title No. 2491 as "lost" via the Gazette Notice dated 25th March 2013 was a material misrepresentation to the Land Registrar. Relying on the fraudulent Gazette Notice, the 1st Defendant caused Title No. 2491 to be "re-issued" and subsequently subdivided it again in August 2016 to create six new titles: Nos. 91789 to 91794. Counsel submitted that the new Title No. 91794 physically overlaps with the Plaintifi’s existing Title No. 4427, rendering the former a nullity. 16. On the law, Counsel relied on Section 26 of the Land Registration Act, arguing that while a certificate of title is prima facie evidence of ownership, it is subject to challenge where fraud or a corrupt scheme is proved. To buttress this argument, Counsel cited the decision in Alice Chemutai Too vs. Nickson Kipkurui Korir & 2 Others [2015] eKLR (ELC No. 51 of 2014). In that case, the Court held that a title procured by fraud (where the vendor was deceased and no succession had occurred) was a nullity and could not enjoy the protection of the law, notwithstanding the interests of a charger (bank). Counsel urged this Court to apply the same principle, noting that the 1st Defendant’s title was acquired through an "illegal process" of reviving a defunct title. 17. Finally, Counsel submitted that since the Defendants were served and entered appearance but failed to file a defence, the Plaintifi’s evidence remains uncontroverted, and the Court was urged to grant the orders sought in the Plaint to rectify the register. Issues for Determination 18. Having carefully analyzed the pleadings and the submissions on record, I find that the following issues arise for determination. I. Whether the Plaintifi is the lawful and absolute proprietor of the land parcel known as L.R. No. Kajiado/Kitengela/4427. II. Whether the 1st Defendant procured Title No. Kajiado/Kitengela/91794 and the subsequent subdivisions (Nos. 91789 – 91793) through fraud, misrepresentation, or an illegal process. III. Whether the Plaintifi is entitled to the orders as sought in the plaint. Analysis and Determination 19. I have carefully considered the Plaint, the oral testimony of the Plaintifi (PW1), the documentary exhibits on record (PE 1 – PE 23), and the written submissions filed by Counsel for the Plaintifi. 20. The suit proceeded undefended as the Defendants, despite entering appearance, failed to file a defence or participate in the hearing. Consequently, the Plaintifi’s evidence stands uncontroverted. As held in https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/430/eng@2026-01-29 3

page 3 of 6

Shaneebal Limited vs County Government of Machakos (2018) eKLR, where a matter is undefended, the Court is still under a duty to interrogate the evidence tendered to ensure the standard of proof is met. 21. I will now proceed to determine the four issues as framed. A. Whether the Plaintifi is the lawful and absolute proprietor of the land parcel known as L.R. No. Kajiado/Kitengela/4427. 22. The Plaintifi’s claim is founded on a sale agreement dated 3rd March 1985 and a subsequent transfer of land. In his testimony, the Plaintifi produced the original Title Deed for L.R. No. Kajiado/ Kitengela/4427 (Exhibit PE-22) issued to him on 23rd November 1998. 23. Section 26 (1) of the Land Registration Act, 2012 provides that: “ The certificate of title issued by the Registrar upon registration... shall be taken by all courts as prima facie evidence that the person named as proprietor of the land is the absolute and indefeasible owner..." 24. The Plaintifi demonstrated the root of his title, explaining that the mother title, L.R. No. Kajiado/ Kitengela/2491, was subdivided to create his parcel of land L.R. No. Kajiado/Kitengela/4427. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the Plaintifi’s title was acquired unprocedurally. 25. Accordingly, I find that the Plaintifi is the lawful and absolute proprietor of L.R. No. Kajiado/ Kitengela/4427. B. Whether the 1st Defendant procured Title No. Kajiado/Kitengela/91794 and the subsequent subdivisions through fraud, misrepresentation, or an illegal process. 26. The Plaintifi alleges that the 1st Defendant, Isaac Tumpes Ntayia, fraudulently caused the former mother title (Title No. 2491) to be gazetted as lost to generate new titles. 27. From the evidence, Title No. 2491 had already been subdivided and closed as far back as the 1990s to create various parcels, including the Plaintifi’s parcel No. 4427. A title that has been closed upon subdivision ceases to exist. 28. However, the 1st Defendant procured a Gazette Notice No. 3438 dated 25th March 2013 (Exhibit PE-19), purporting that the Title Deed for L.R. No. Kajiado/Kitengela/2491 was lost. This was a material misrepresentation of facts. The title was not lost; it had ceased to exist after the land had been subdivided and transferred. The notice premised on misrepresentation was a nullity and of no consequence. Any action founded on the said notice is null and void. 29. As tacitly put by Lord Denning in the case of Denning in Macfoy v. United Africa Co. Ltd [1961] 3 All E.R. 1169: “ If an act is void, then it is in law a nullity. It is not only bad, but incurably bad. There is no need for an order of the court to set it aside. It is automatically null and void without more ado, though it is sometimes convenient to have the court declare it to be so. And every proceeding which is founded on it is also bad and incurably bad. You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse.” 30. By purporting to resurrect a "dead" title file to generate a provisional title and subsequently subdividing it to create L.R. No. Kajiado/Kitengela/91789 to 91794, the 1st Defendant engaged in a fraudulent https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/430/eng@2026-01-29 4

page 4 of 6

scheme. The act itself of issuing a fake notice of lost title, subsequently generating a provisional title and purporting to create other titles out of the provisional title was null and void and all subsequent actions must meet the same fate. Every proceeding which is founded on it is also bad and incurably bad. 31. Section 26(1)(b) of the Land Registration Act allows a title to be challenged where it is proved that it was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation or through a corrupt scheme. 32. I find and hold that the process leading to the creation of Title No. 91794 beginning with the issuance of the notice regarding the purported loss of Title No. L.R. No. Kajiado/Kitengela/2491 and the subsequent creation of its sister titles was tainted with fraud and illegality. It is a nullity ab initio. C. Whether the Plaintifi is entitled to the orders as sought in the Plaint. 33. The Plaintifi testified that upon conducting a search and verification, he discovered that the new title created by the 1st Defendant, specifically L.R. No. Kajiado/Kitengela/91794, sits on the exact geographical location as his parcel, L.R. No. Kajiado/Kitengela/4427. 34. Since the mother title (2491) was the parent to the Plaintifi’s title (4427), any attempt to revive the parent title and subdivide it again without reference to the existing subdivisions inevitably results in a double allocation or overlap. 35. As the Plaintifi’s title was issued in 1998, prior to the 1st Defendant’s new titles issued around 2016, the Plaintifi’s title enjoys priority in time and law. 36. Having established that the Plaintifi is the rightful owner of the suit land and that the 1st Defendant’s title was procured through fraud and misrepresentation or through a corrupt scheme, it follows that the impeached titles cannot stand. 37. Equity and the law demand that the register be rectified to refiect the true position on the ground. The Plaintifi has successfully proved his case on a balance of probabilities. 38. Accordingly, the Plaintifi is entitled to the prayers sought, including the cancellation of the fraudulent Gazette Notice and the resultant titles. 39. In the end, I find and hold that the Plaintifi has proved his case on a balance of probabilities. Consequently, Judgment is hereby entered for the Plaintifi against the 1st and 3rd Defendants jointly and severally in the following terms: a. A Declaration be and is hereby issued that the Plaintifi, Charles Kamau Muranga, is the lawful and absolute proprietor of all that land parcel known as L.R. No. Kajiado/Kitengela/4427. b. An Order be and is hereby issued declaring that the issuance of the Gazette Notice No. 3438 dated 25th March 2013 regarding the purported loss of Title No. L.R. No. Kajiado/ Kitengela/2491 was fraudulent, null and void and the 3rd Defendant (Land Registrar, Kajiado) is directed to revoke the Gazette Notice No. 3438 dated 25th March 2013 regarding the purported loss of Title No. L.R. No. Kajiado/Kitengela/2491. c. An Order be and is hereby issued cancelling Title No. Kajiado/Kitengela/91794 and all its derivative subdivisions (including but not limited to Title Nos. 91789, 91790, 91791, 91792, and 91793) which unlawfully overlap with the Plaintifi’s parcel L.R. No. Kajiado/ Kitengela/4427, and the Land Register be rectified accordingly. d. The Plaintifi is awarded the costs of this suit, to be borne by the 1st Defendant. It is so ordered. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/430/eng@2026-01-29 5

page 5 of 6

DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KAJIADO VIRTUALLY THIS 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026. M.D. MWANGI JUDGE In the virtual presence of: Mr. Ogeto for the Plaintifi N/A by the Defendants Court Assistant: Mpoye https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/430/eng@2026-01-29 6

page 6 of 6