Waiti v Githunguri Constituency Ranching & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E191 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 985 (KLR)

d. Cost of this suit. e. Such other relief that this Honorable Court may deem fit to grant. 2. Despite having been served by substituted service vide The Standard Newspaper dated 10/04/2025, the 2nd Defendant did not file any response and neither did the 3rd Defendant. Only the 1st Defendant filed a Statement of Defence dated 23/05/2025 and they were in support of the Plaintifi’s case. 3. They stated that the 2nd Defendant’s documents were all manufactured and acquired illegally or obtained fraudulently hence any registration was void ab initio and any title to the land in favour of the 2nd Defendant is a nullity in law. Since the process of titling is done by the Company on the strength of documents availed and there were documents brought forth by the 2nd Defendant. 4. According to the 1st Defendant there was fraud by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants which has been particularized at paragraph 9 of the Statement of Defence. Therefore the 1st Defendant prays that the suit land do revert to the Plaintifi and the case against them be dismissed with costs to be paid by the 2nd Defendant. 5. The Court gave directions on hearing of the matter on 2/12/2025 at 11:00a.m and only the Plaintifi testified as PW1. The 1st Defendant stated that they are in support of the Plaintifi’s case and they will support them. Plaintifi ’s Case 6. The Plaintifi Karen Wambui Waiti, testified as PW1 and adopted her witness statement dated 12/11/2024 as her evidence in chief and her List of Documents of even date with 26 documents. 7. It was her testimony that she knows the 1st Defendant. She testified that she went to transfer her husband’s land to herself upon his demise on 01/08/2020. That the land belongs to Wallace Muiruri who was her father-in-law the father to her deceased husband. 8. She told the Court that her mother-in-law took out Letters of Administration and when she died in 2006 the children took out Letters of Administration and they shared the land among themselves. So, when her husband passed on after taking out Letters of Administration for her husband’s Estate she decided to seek to have the suit property transferred to her as elaborated at page 22 of the trial bundle. 9. That all this time the suit property was not titled by the records at Githunguri Ranching Company. And when she visited their ofices with Letters of Administration, she was given a Certificate from the 1st Defendant’s ofice. According to her, her husband even before his death had a Certificate to the land as evidenced by the document at page 21. 10. She testified that she paid for transfer as shown at page 23-25 and she was given a Certificate which she had produced at page 26 which is in her name. Plus, a Clearance Certificate produced at page 47. 11. However, she told the Court that when she went to the Land Registry, she found the land was registered in the name of the 2nd Defendant as per letter produced at page 33 and the search produced at page 34. Her only prayer is that the Court gives her back her land. 12. Upon cross-examination by Counsel for the 1st Defendant Mr. Kanyi, she testified that she went to the ofices of the 1st Defendant who recognized her and that is why they gave her the Clearance Certificate but that they told her that they did not know the 2nd Defendant. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/985/eng@2026-02-23 2

page 2 of 5

13. With that the Plaintifi closed her case and the Court issued directions on filing of submissions. The Plaintifi filed her submissions dated 30/12/2025 which I have considered in writing this decision. Plaintifi ’s Submissions 14. The Plaintifi submissions outline the Plaintifi's legal argument for the recovery of a property that was allegedly registered in the name of the 2nd Defendant erroneously or illegally by the 3rd Defendant. In paragraph of the Plaint the Plaintifi has alleged fraud. 15. According to the Plaintifi, she submits that the suit is largely undefended. The 1st Defendant who originally managed the property supports the Plaintifi’s case and chose not to call evidence. Further she submits that the 2nd Defendant the current registered owner failed to respond despite being served via substituted service. Yet the 3rd Defendant which is the Land Registrar of Ruiru, entered an appearance but filed no Defense. 16. In her submissions she acknowledges that even in an undefended suit, they must still prove their case on a balance of probabilities as the Court stated in the case of Imanyara v Attorney General Civil Appeal 98 of 2014) [2016] KECA 557 (KLR) (19 May 2016). 17. It is her case and she submits that she provided extensive documentation Exhibits 1-26 to trace the legal devolution of the property over several decades lending credence to the Root of Title which supports the Chain of Ownership. In the case at hand, she submits that the original owners are Wallace Muiruri (alias Munyingi Ng’ang’a) who upon death the property was passed to his wife, Penina Wairimu. 18. The second devolution of the suit property is when it passed to her son, James Waiti Muiruri, the Plaintifi’s late husband. And the final devolution is when the Plaintifi acquired the property through Succession Cause No. E346 of 2022 in Kiambu. 19. She has submitted that to support the formalization process she perfected the title by paying required fees to the 1st Defendant and received a Certificate of Ownership. 20. Further she submits that the 1st Defendant had instructed the 3rd Defendant, the Registrar to formally register the property in the Plaintifi’s name. But the Plaintifi discovered that the 3rd Defendant had instead registered the property in the name of the 2nd Defendant. That the 1st Defendant is now assisting the Plaintifi in recovering the title. 21. She has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dina Management Limited v County Government of Mombasa & 5 Others (2023) eKLR, citing the "Dina Management" Principle and she argues that merely dangling a title deed is not enough. The Dina Management principle established by the Supreme Court states that when a title is challenged, the holder must prove the legality of the root of that title. That an innocent purchaser for value cannot claim protection if the original title was obtained illegally or through irregular processes. The Principe mandates thorough due diligence, requiring buyers to verify the entire chain of title, not just rely on the register. 22. According to the Plaintifi, since the 2nd and 3rd Defendants ofiered no evidence, the Plaintifi’s detailed history of the property remains uncontroverted and should be accepted by the Court. 23. Thus, the Plaintifi sums her submissions by requesting the Court to find that she has proved her case on a balance of probabilities and asks for all prayers in the Plaint to be granted, including costs of the suit. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/985/eng@2026-02-23 3

page 3 of 5

Analysis and Final Disposition 24. The Plaintifi in the instant suit seeks to recover land that she inherited through a series of legal successions following the deaths of her father-in-law Wallace Muiruri, her mother-in-law Penina Wairimu and her husband James Waiti Muiruri. While the 1st Defendant recognizes the Plaintifi as the legitimate owner and issued her a Certificate of Ownership and Clearance, the 3rd Defendant registered the land in the name of the 2nd Defendant in 2019. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants did not defend the suit, while the 1st Defendant supports the Plaintifi, alleging that the 2nd Defendant's documents are fraudulent. 25. I have read and considered all the pleadings and the issues that commend themselves for determination are: a. Whether the Plaintifi has established a valid "Root of Title" to the suit property. b. Whether the registration of the suit property in the name of the 2nd Defendant was fraudulent, illegal, or void ab initio. c. Whether the Plaintifi is entitled to the orders of cancellation of title, specific performance, and permanent injunction. 26. Under Kenyan Law, particularly the principle established in Dina Management Ltd v County Government of Mombasa [supra], a party cannot rely solely on a title deed if the process of acquiring that title is challenged. They must prove the probity of the process. 27. The Plaintifi has provided a seamless documentary chain (Exhibits 1-26) tracing ownership from the original allottee to herself through Kiambu Chief Magistrate Succession Cause No. E346 of 2022. The 1st Defendant, who holds the primary records of allotment for this block, corroborated this history. I find that the Plaintifi has successfully proved a legitimate root of title. 28. The 1st Defendant testified that the 2nd Defendant is a stranger to their records and that any documents used to secure registration were manufactured. In Munyu Maina -vs- Hiram Gathiha Maina (2013) eKLR the Court of Appeal held that when a title is challenged, the holder must go beyond the instrument and prove the legality of the acquisition. 29. The 2nd Defendant, despite being served via substituted service in The Standard Newspaper, chose not to enter appearance or file a Defense. In the absence of a rebuttal, and considering the 1st Defendant’s admission of fraud in the registration process, this Court finds the 2nd Defendant’s title to be a nullity. Section 26 of the Land Registration Act allows for the impeachment of a title if it was acquired through fraud or misrepresentation. 30. It is my considered view that the Plaintifi has met the standard of proof on a balance of probabilities. The evidence shows that the 3rd Defendant acted contrary to the 1st Defendant’s records and the Plaintifi’s established succession rights. Final Determination 31. Judgment is hereby entered for the Plaintifi against the Defendants as follows: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/985/eng@2026-02-23 4

page 4 of 5

a. An order is hereby issued directing the 3rd Defendant to cancel the Title to suit property RUIRU/KIU BLOCK 2 (GITHUNGURI)/2467 issued to the 2nd Defendant on 23/09/2019. b. The 1st and 3rd Defendants are ordered to take all necessary steps to register the suit property in the exclusive name of the Plaintifi - Karen Wambui Waiti within 30 days. In default, the Deputy Registrar of this Court is authorized to execute all necessary transfer documents. c. A permanent injunction is issued restraining the 2nd Defendant by himself, his agents, or servants from trespassing, occupying or interfering with the Plaintifi’s quiet enjoyment of the property. d. The costs of this suit shall be borne by the 2nd Defendant. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT THIKA VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS ON THIS 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 …………………… MOGENI J JUDGE In the presence of:………………………………………..………….for Plaintifi ………………………………………..………….for 1st Defendant ………………………………………..………….for 2nd Defendant ………………………………………..………….for 3rd Defendant Melita………………………………….............. Court Assistant …………………… MOGENI J JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/985/eng@2026-02-23 5

page 5 of 5