George Muiruri & Another v Paul Kagunda Njenga & 7 Others

UNAITAS SACCO SOCIETY…………..……….8TH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 1) The Plaintiffs first brought this suit to Court vide a Plaint dated 18/02/2010 against four Defendants but pursuant to leave granted on 25/03/2025, the Plaintiffs filed a Further Amended Plaint seeking the following orders: i. The 1st Plaintiff be declared the legal owner of Plot No. Ting’ang’a/Cianda Block 1/218 and Plot No. Ting’ang’a/Cianda Block 1/2073 and the title issued to the 7th Defendant be cancelled and transferred to the 1st Plaintiff. ii. The 2nd Plaintiff be declared the legal owner of Plot No. Ting’ang’a/Cianda Block 1/214, Plot No. Ting’ang’a/Cianda Block 1/2097. iii. That the Honourable Court to order the 1st, 2nd and the 3rd Defendants to transfer the said plots to the 1st and 2nd Plaintiff respectively. iv. That the Honourable Court do give orders directing the 4th Defendant to rectify the register in respect of the Membership Number 433 to the 1st Plaintiff and Membership Number 434 to the 2nd Plaintiff. v. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants do pay the Plaintiffs special and general damages. ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 2|Page

page 2 of 65

vi. 1st, The 2nd and 3rd and 7th Defendants by themselves, their agents or their servants be permanently and are hereby restrained from trespassing into the suit land and/or entering and remaining there. vii. There be such further or other relief as the Court deems fit and just in the circumstances of the case. viii. Interest accrued. ix. Costs ix (a) A declaration that the title deed to the 3 rd Defendant for Land Title Ting’ang’a/Cianda Block 1/218 is invalid ineffectual, null and void ab nitio and incapable of conferring any proprietary 5th Defendant, rights; (b) An order directing the District Land Registrar to rectify the Register by cancelling the 7th Defendant as the proprietor of Land Title Ting’ang’a/Cianda Block 1/218. (c ) An order directing the 5th Defendant, District Land Registrar to rectify the Register by amending the same to have the 1st Plaintiff as the absolute proprietor of Land Title Ting’ang’a/Cianda Block 1/218. ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 3|Page

page 3 of 65

(d) A declaration that the alleged registration of the 3rd Defendant as the owner of the suit property was illegal, null and void ab initio. (e ) The land Registrar Kiambu be ordered to effect all cautions & restrictions applied on all the following plots TING’ANGA/CIANDA BLOCK 1/218, 214, 2073, 2097, 1028, 1030, 661 & 47. Summary of the Plaintiffs’ Case 2) The 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs contend that their late father, John Njenga Karumbi, purchased shares for them in Kanunga Farmers’ Co-operative Society Ltd in 1975, allocating them Membership Numbers 433 and 434 respectively. Following their father's death in 1994, Jane Wanjiru Njenga (the second wife) allegedly filed for administration claiming to be the sole beneficiary. The Plaintiffs assert that she fraudulently falsified society and land records using forged documents, a fake police abstract claiming lost share certificates, and unauthorized alterations to disinherit the Plaintiffs and transfer the resulting land parcels (Plots Ting’ang’a/Cianda Block 1/218, 2073, 214, and 2097) into the names of her own children and nominees. 3) The Plaintiffs further allege that despite placing cautions and restrictions at the Kiambu Land Registry to protect their interests during ongoing litigation, the Land Registrar and key Defendants ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 bypassed these encumbrances. Plot 4|Page

page 4 of 65

Ting’ang’a/Cianda Block 1/218 was successively transferred to third parties being the 6th and 7th Defendants and subsequently charged to financial institutions, including Unaitas Sacco Society Limited, the 8th Defendant. The Plaintiffs maintain that all these transactions, transfers, and charges were executed illegally, unprocedurally, and in bad faith while the suit was pending, resulting in severe financial loss, degradation of the suit land, and total disinheritance. Particulars of Fraud, Misrepresentation, and Illegality i. Issuing Title Ting’ang’a/Cianda Block 1/218 to Daniel Muiruri Njenga (3rd Defendant) without the 1st Plaintiff’s knowledge or consent. ii. Transferring the suit property by the 3 rd Defendant to subsequent buyers, including Elias Kamau Kamonderu on 15/03/2012 and later to Samuel Wageche Kanyi (7th Defendant) on 03/04/2017, despite the land being active subject matter in Court. iii. Executing land transfers while valid cautions dated 13/10/2009 and 04/11/2009 and formal restrictions were pending and active at the land registry. iv. The Land Registrar (Kiambu) failing in official duties by ignoring, delaying, and omitting to effect the lodged cautions and restrictions on titles Ting’ang’a/Cianda Block 1/47, 214, 218, 1028, 1030, 2073, and 2097. ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 5|Page

page 5 of 65

v. Changing the Plaintiffs' names on official records and replacing them with those of the Defendants without minutes or legal authority including adding the initial "D" to insert Daniel Muiruri Njenga, who was not born when the membership was created in 1975. vi. Altering Membership No. 434 from James Karanja Njenga to Paul Kagunda Njenga and transferring share certificates/membership to a minor, Muiruri Njenga with the 2nd Defendant as nominee. vii. Making false entries and misrepresentations regarding official land and society records. viii. Uttering lies and presenting documents to the Registrar false, fraudulent of Titles and the Directors of Kanunga Farmers’ Co-operative Society Ltd. ix. Procuring first titles for Plots Ting’ang’a/Cianda Block 1/218, 2073, 214, and 2097 through forgery and misrepresentation, given the Defendants were never genuine members of the society. x. Transferring property acquired through unprocedural means to the 6th Defendant, thereby prejudicing the 1st Plaintiff's rights. xi. Creating illegal charges over the land including to Unaitas Sacco Society Limited during the pendency of the suit to defeat the Plaintiffs' lawful pursuits. ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 6|Page

page 6 of 65

xii. Causing disinheritance, loss of earnings from crops, loss of land use, and physical degradation of the suit property through fraudulent actions. 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants Statement of Defence 4) In response, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants filed a joint defence and join issue with the Plaintiffs on the Further Amended Plaint, admitting only the description of the parties, the Court's jurisdiction, and that the deceased, John Njenga Karumbi, originally purchased shares in Kanunga Farmers’ Co-operative Society Limited under Membership Numbers 433 and 434 for his eldest sons in 1975. However, they vehemently deny all allegations of fraud, forgery, illegality, and misrepresentation. They assert that the deceased married Rahab Nyambura Njenga who is mother to the 2nd Defendant in 1989 under Kikuyu Customary Law as his third wife, and clarify that around 1989, the deceased lawfully exercised his rights to withdraw the shares from the Plaintiffs and reallocate Membership No. 433 to the 3 rd Defendant and Membership No. 434 to the 1st Defendant. 5) The Defendants maintain that all subsequent transfers, including the 1st Defendant’s 1998 transfer of Membership No. 434 to Jeremiah Muiruri Njenga resulting in Plot Ting'ang'a/Cianda Block 1/2097, were procedural, lawful, and validly executed. They contend that their respective titles for Plots Ting'ang'a/Cianda Block 1/214, 1/2097, 1/218, and 1/2073 were indefeasibly acquired and enjoy statutory ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 7|Page

page 7 of 65

protection, whereas the Plaintiffs have never possessed title deeds, share certificates, or physical occupation of the suit properties. Consequently, the Defendants submit that the suit fails to disclose a cause of action, that any claim rooted in fraud is statute-barred, and pray that the Plaintiffs' suit be dismissed with costs. 6) On 1/07/2025 the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants filed a joint further Statement of Defence and stated that the contents of paragraphs 7 and 8 of the further Amended Plaint are admitted, save that the said shares were transferred to the 1st and 3rd Defendants by the late John Njenga Karumbi (deceased). The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants deny the contents of paragraphs 7A, 7B, and 7C of the Further Amended Plaint and put the Plaintiffs to strict proof of the contents of the said paragraphs, and the Plaintiffs are further put to strict proof of the alleged intentions by the 3rd Defendant as pleaded at paragraph 7C (ii) of the Further Amended Plaint. 7) The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants admit the contents of paragraph 9 of the further Amended Plaint, save to add that Mzee John Njenga Karumbi (deceased) had a third family with Rahab Nyambura Njenga, the late 2 nd Defendant, whom he married in 1989 under Kikuyu Customary Law and with whom he had two children, namely Jeremiah Muiruri Njenga and Esther Njeri Njenga. Esther Njeri Njenga is the administratrix of the Estate of the late Rahab Nyambura Karanja and the substitution for the 2nd Defendant herein. ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 8|Page

page 8 of 65

8) The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants deny the contents of paragraphs 10, 11, and 12 of the Further Amended Plaint and put the Plaintiffs to strict proof thereof. 9) The contents of paragraphs 13, 14, 15, 16, 16A, 17, 18, and 18A (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), (o), (p)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), and (v) of the further further Amended Plaint are denied in toto, and the Defendants put the Plaintiffs to strict proof thereof. In further response to the said paragraphs, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants aver that the late John Njenga Karumbi was a shareholder of Kanunga Farmers’ Co-operative Society, the 4 th Defendant herein, whose sole purpose was to buy large tracts of land which were later sold to its members depending on the number of shares a member had. In 1975, the late John Njenga Karumbi purchased shares in the 4 th Defendant in the names of his eldest sons (the Plaintiffs), who were allocated membership numbers 433 and 434 respectively. 10) Around 1989, the late John Njenga Karumbi withdrew the said shares from the Plaintiffs and transferred them to the 1st and 3rd Defendants at the time. By the said transfer, the 1st Defendant was allocated membership number 434, which carried two parcels of land, namely Ting'ang'a/Cianda Block 1/214 and Ting'ang'a/Cianda Block 1/2097, while the 3rd Defendant was allocated membership number 433, which carried Ting'ang'a/Cianda Block 1/218 and Ting'ang'a/Cianda Block 1/2073. In 1998, the 1st Defendant carried out a further ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 9|Page

page 9 of 65

change in membership number 434 and transferred his shares to Jeremiah Muiruri Njenga (then a minor), a son of the late Rahab Nyambura Karanja (2nd Defendant), which produced Ting'ang'a/Cianda Block 1/2097. 11) The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants lawfully obtained the Title Deeds for the aforesaid parcels of land, and upon registration of the properties in their respective names thereto, they were conferred indefeasible rights of ownership which are protected by law. The Plaintiffs have never held any share certificates nor Title Deeds in their names in relation to the disputed properties to verify ownership as alleged, and they are put to strict proof thereof. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs have neither ever lived on, occupied, nor carried out any developments on the subject parcels of land. 12) The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants deny in toto the contents and particulars of fraud, misrepresentation, and illegality as pleaded at paragraphs 18A, 19, and 20 of the further Amended Plaint and put the Plaintiffs to strict proof thereof. Without prejudice to the foregoing, 1 st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants aver that the further Amended Plaint does not disclose a cause of action against them, and the claim against them in so far as it is founded on fraud is timebarred. 13) Reasons wherefore, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants pray that the Plaintiffs' suit be dismissed with costs. 8th Defendant’s Statement of Defence ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 10 | P a g e

page 10 of 65

14) The 8th Defendant’s Defence dated 22/04/2024 denies acquiring ownership of the property in response to claims that it irregularly acquired Title No. Ting’ang’a/Cianda Block 1/218. In its defence the 8th Defendant is clarifying that its sole interest was a legal charge registered in its favour by the 7th Defendant as security for a loan facility. It maintains that the registration of this legal charge was conducted lawfully and procedurally, and asserts that it had no notice of any defect in the 7th Defendant's title at the time of the encumbrance. 15) Furthermore, the 8th Defendant contends that its interest in the suit property has completely determined, as the loan facility secured by the land has since been fully settled. Consequently, it submits that the suit discloses no reasonable cause of action against it and seeks to be struck out as an unnecessary party, particularly given that no specific reliefs are sought against it in the Further Amended Plaint. It therefore prays for the Plaintiffs' suit against it to be dismissed with costs. 16) In response, vide a reply to the 8th Defendant’s Defence, the 1st Plaintiff, suing on his own behalf and with authority from the 2nd Plaintiff, joins issue with the 8 th Defendant on its Statement of Defence dated 22/04/ 2024, maintaining that the 8th Defendant was duly served with the suit papers and that all transactions involving Title No. Ting'ang'a/Cianda Block 1/218 were executed during the ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 11 | P a g e

page 11 of 65

pendency of this litigation to defeat the ends of justice. The 1st Plaintiff contends that the subject title was initially registered through fraud and mistake in the name of the 3 rd Defendant, who was never a shareholder in Kanunga Farmers’ Co-operative Society Limited, as confirmed by an affidavit on record. 17) Upon discovering the illegal registration, the Plaintiffs promptly lodged cautions and restrictions at the Kiambu Land Registry to protect their rights over the suit land and related parcels, rendering any subsequent encumbrance or deal with the property unlawful under Section 143 of the repealed Registered Land Act as read with Section 107 of the Land Registration Act, 2012. 18) Furthermore, the 1st Plaintiff asserts that the 7th and 8th Defendants acted in collusion to delay the administration of justice by failing to candidly disclose to the Court that the loan facility had been fully settled and the charge discharged, despite the 8th Defendant having been formally enjoined pursuant to Court orders issued on 23/05/2023. The 1st Plaintiff avers that the 8th Defendant unlawfully traded and generated profit using a contested title that has been the subject of active Court proceedings since 23/02/2010, and contends that both the 7th and 8th Defendants should be held individually and severally liable for the resulting delay, anxiety, and trauma caused to the Plaintiffs. Consequently, the 1st Plaintiff prays that the 8th Defendant’s defence be ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 12 | P a g e

page 12 of 65

dismissed as a sham and that the Court rectifies entry number 3 in the green card by declaring it null, void, and invalid. 19) Apart from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 8th Defendants no other Defendant filed Statements of Defence despite having been served by both the Plaintiffs and Counsels for the 1 st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants on diverse dates with the pre-trial directions and hearing dates. Plaintiffs’ Evidence 20) . The Plaintiff’s case was heard on 23/05/2023 where the 1st Plaintiff George Muriruri Njenga testified as PW1. In his testimony he relied on the Amended Plaint dated 13/12/2029 and he produced his witness statement dated 1/04/2015 and further statement dated 13/12/2019 as his evidence in chief. He produced documents listed in the list of documents dated 13/12/2019 on page 11 of the trial bundle numbers 1-36 from pages 17-66. 21) It was his testimony that he is a shareholder No. 433 and that he was a minor as already indicated in the members register but that the share certificate is in his name but he was not issued with title. According to his evidence, the Affidavit of Njoroge Gaki Kiarie stated that the transfers initiated were fraudulent. 22) According to PW1, the minutes of the 4 th Defendant one had to surrender the original certificate to a new buyer and so the minutes support transfer of the land to a third party. ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 13 | P a g e

page 13 of 65

However, he stated that he was not notified about the report of loss of share certificates Nos. 432, 433 and 434. That whereas he filed a caution the same was not recorded and therefore not reflected on the green card that has been produced at page 19 dated 19/03/2018 and even the caution filed by his sister was also not recorded. That as a matter of fact, the restitution was lodged six months earlier. 23) Upon cross-examination by Counsel Khayesi for the 1 st to 3rd Defendants, he told the Court that the share certificate was issues to Muiruri Njenga who is a minor and that the list produced at page 27 of the bundle came from the 3 rd Defendant. Further that the witness statement of Njoroge G Kiaries filed on 30/09/2014 allude to the fact that the shares were registered in the name of Muiruri although there are no documents produced to support the registration of the same. 24) He further told the Court that he had not presented a share certificate in his name for certificate number 433 in Court. That the parcels he is claiming are 218 and 2073 and that he does not have titles for the two parcels. Further that he has never been issued with share certificate for 433. He testified that he does not live on the land. According to him, Jane Wanjiru tampered with the records but that he was not sure if she was an official. That for any changes to happen it is the officials of the 3rd Defendant who had to initiate them. 25) He testified that it is his name that is registered on the share register and that George is not entered on the register. ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 14 | P a g e

page 14 of 65

The shares were registered in his names Muiruri Njenga and that he does not bear the name John. He told the Court that he reported the loss of the title at the police station. He stated that he had not sued the estate of Jane Wanjiru Njenga although she was the custodian of the family properties. 26) As per minute 258/98 Jane Wanjiru transferred a share to the first Plaintiff but this share is not subject of the current suit. That she was the step mother to the 1 st Plaintiff and that she omitted the children of the 1 st Plaintiff’s family from the shareholding despite being the administrator of the father’s estate as indicated at page 54. 27) The witness indicated that the purpose of filing the petition as shown at page 34 and paragraph six was for compensation following an accident in which John Njenga died on 12/11/1994. 28) Upon being cross-examined by Counsel Wanda for the 7th Defendant the 1st Plaintiff testified that he had disclosed that there were activities on parcel 218. That he filed this suit in 2010 and also filed a caution as shown at page 46 of the trial bundle on 13/10/2009. However, the caution was not registered on the green card and that he discovered later that it was not registered although he does not blame the 7 th Defendant for non-registration of the caution. He told the Court that he has not met the 6th and the 7th Defendants. ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 15 | P a g e

page 15 of 65

29) It is his testimony that the transfer took place at the pendency of the current suit. He also stated that he was aware that the land is charged to Cooperative Bank but that he was not aware that the property is also charged to UNAITAS. He stated that farming is ongoing on parcel 218 and that although he tried to seek injunction in 2010 he did not get it. 30) At the conclusion of his testimony on reexamination by Counsel Ondiek he confirmed that the name Muiruri Njenga (minor) on the certificate refers to his names but that the names of Muiruri Njenga (minor) on the share certificated issued on 3/10/1998 refer to his step brother, the son of Rahab who is his step mother. Further that at page 27 the document was obtained from the third Defendant it is signed on 21st of July 1999 by the chairman Secretary and Treasurer. However, at page 22 the replying affidavit sworn by Njoroge Gitau which was sworn on oath on 13/05/2010 does confirm that the transaction was fraudulent. 31) He further testified that at page 21 the name in the register of the 3rd Defendant is his name it was registered on the 7/09/1975 as Muiruri John Njenga and that the name John was canceled it is tampered with. That he was later baptized as George. Additionally, Jane Wanjiru was the custodian of family documents and she was the second wife of his father. 32) At Page 40 entry number 58/98which is a transfer of 1154 is not subject of dispute in this suit. It does not relate ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 16 | P a g e

page 16 of 65

to share #433. It was a mutual agreement. Share number 433 was the share for the Plaintiff from the beginning. 33) It is his testimony that paragraph 7 at page 55 he is not listed as one of the dependents and that none of his sisters nor brothers are included in the list of disclosed dependants. That the 7th Respondent purchased the land by sheer number 433 in plot number 218 that entry number eight as shown at page 19 is the 7th Defendant’s name that title was issued on the 3/04/2017 in the name of the 7th Defendant. 34) The 1st Plaintiff testified that although he applied for an injunction in 2010, he states that the Court advised him that the matter instead should be listed for being heard expeditiously. It is his testimony that it is not his mistake that the hearing has taken over 10 years. It is his word that they registered a caution as shown at page 36 but that it is not his duty to register a caution and that it was the Registrar who should have registered the said caution. 35) He stated that he did not know that the land was charged to the Cooperative Bank. For the 1st Plaintiff he testified that he only wanted to recover his property plot number 218 arising from share number 433 which share was registered in his name in 1975 when he was only a minor. The second property that he is seeking to recover is parcel number 2073 as shown at page 37 and it is registered in the name of the 3rd Defendant. ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 17 | P a g e

page 17 of 65

36) The second witness to testify is James Karanja Nenga who is PW2 he stated that he is a driver and he adopted his witness statement dated 1/05/2015. He testified that share number 434 shown at page 21 registered in the name of the 1st Defendant was his share. That it was registered in his name in 1975 when he was a minor. The said share has not been transferred to a 3rd party. That at page 40 of the trial bundle there is a documented process of transferring shares in the company and that the procedure was not followed. 37) He corroborated the 1st Plaintiff’s evidence that at page 17 the share certificate is in the name of Muiruri Njenga (minor) who is the son of Rahab Nyambura. According to him at page 26 of the bundle, the share certificate number 434 got lost but he was not aware about the loss. That his name does not appear on page 27 and that he had lodged a caution when he noticed that the land had been grabbed as shown at page 28. He told the Court that the letter dated 17/10/2011 at page 29 states that Jane Wanjiru intended to disinherit the houses/wives of his father. He testified that he did not get any property from his mother. And that he was seeking plot number 2097 of share certificate number 433. 38) On further cross examination by Ms Khayesi he stated that John Njenga is his father and that in 1975 he was 4 years old and his father died in 1994. According to him Jane Wanjiru and Njenga altered the records in 2006 as shown at paragraphs 15, 16 and 17. However he never reported any ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 18 | P a g e

page 18 of 65

fraud to the 4th Defendant – Kanunga Farmers. Further, he testified that he does not have any certificate in his name since the share certificate shown at page 17 being number 434 is in the name of Muiruri Njenga who is a minor and also, he does not have a title for parcel 2097. And that he does not live on the land and he does not have a grant awarding the land to him and neither has he filed his complaint against Jane Wanjiru Njenga. 39) According to PW2, the cancellation is not dated as can be seen at page 21. His father died in 1994 and the cancellation would not have been done during the lifetime of his father. That parcels 218 and 2097 do not belong to him. On the evidence about fraud, he stated that he has no evidence to show that the land was transferred fraudulently. 40) When cross-examined further by Counsel Wanda, he denied knowing the 7th Defendant and stated that he has never met him and also, he denied being aware that parcel 218 is occupied by the 7 th Defendant and that activities are going on the land. Since he has never been to plot 218 and he stated that he has no complaint concerning plot 218. 41) On re-examination he testified that John Njenga was his father and that plot 434 mentioned at page 21 was registered in his name, Karanja John Njenga as he was a minor. That at page 29 it is documented that they complained to the authorities about the fraudulent transfer by his step mother. The share at page 17 is shown to be ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 19 | P a g e

page 19 of 65

registered in the name of a minor. It is dated 3/10/1998 and the titles were obtained through fraud. Share 434 belonged to him and it was transferred without his consent and knowledge. 42) He testified being familiar with the signatures of the officials of the 4th Defendant. Also, at page 34 paragraph 7 he stated that they indicated that his father was survived by the children of three (3) wives but his stepmother Jane Wanjiru only included her children on the records and excluded others. She took everything including compensation monies arising from the road accident. 43) He stated that the 1st Defendant is the son of Jane Wanjiru Njenga to whom she transferred the share when he was 3 years old then. He would up his testimony by stating that he seeks to have plot 2097 of share 434. 44) At this point by consent the parties to the suit agreed to have UNAITAS SACCO Society Ltd to be enjoined as a necessary party as the 8th Defendant and further hearing scheduled for 21/10/2023 and the Plaintiff directed to serve the new enjoined party with all pleadings. When the hearing resumed on 21/10/2023, the Plaintiff’s counsel had to recall PW1 the 1st Plaintiff to restated the amendments with respect to joinder of the 8th Defendant. 45) He testified that he caused the amendment of the plaint with joinder of the 8th Defendant and at page 19 of the Plaintiff’s trial bundle entry no. 3 on the green card he ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 20 | P a g e

page 20 of 65

pointed out that the suit property is charged to the 8 th Defendant and this was done while the suit was pending in this Honorable Court. 46) On cross-examination by Ms Khayesi he denied having been given Kesh 2.7 million disbursed by the 8 th Defendant and that the title was issued to the 3 rd Defendant since his name is not registered on the title. 47) At the same time PW1 was cross-examined by the Liquidator – Sospeter Mbugua and he testified that his plot was given to the 2nd Defendant yet he was not a shareholder. There was no transfer secured by the 3 rd Defendant. He testified that the share was registered in PW1’s name in 1975 when he was nine years old. The transfer to the 3 rd Defendant was done without any notice. 48) When cross-examined by Ms Ndundu Counsel for the 5 th Defendant, He stated that as per the register on page 19 his name does not appear anywhere. That before entry number three which is a charge the registered owner as at 2017 was the 6th Defendant. That whereas he paid for the caution shown on page 46 of the trial bundle the clerk at the Lands Office still asked him to pay again. 49) It is his case that as shown at page 28 of the trial bundle he lodged the application dated 4/11/2009. That although the caution was not registered and the document is not stamped that he has a receipt for the caution. Also, at page 11 there is a caution that PW 1 lodged at the Land ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 21 | P a g e

page 21 of 65

Registry. The caution does not have a presentation booking number by the land registry and neither is the receipt number indicated on the caution. At page 19 entry number seven on the green card show parcel number 218. When guided to this entry he stated that it is the removal of restriction on 17/1/2018 through the letter written by the DCI reference number ND/16/11 but that he is not aware what necessitated the writing of this letter by DCI. 50) In the end during re-examination, He stated that his name does not appear on the green card and that the title was registered fraudulently to the 6th Defendant. According to him he was 42 years in 2009 but he was not notified of the entries made in 2009. That there were no minutes showing surrender of the share certificate and he was not notified of the transfer of the Share Number 433 by the 3 rd Defendant. It is his case that the entire transaction was fraudulent it was done after the death of his parents. He stated that it is true that his name does not appear on the green card because he was not notified of the transfer of shares by the 3rd Defendant. Although he lodged the caution, he states that it was not his duty to ensure that the document is stamped but the caution was not registered yet restrictions by the DCI were registered 6 months after he had presented the caution. 51) At the same time, he stated that the letter by the DCI was not copied to him he was not someone that by the DCI ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 22 | P a g e

page 22 of 65

with regards to the land. It was his prayer that he seeks the assistance of the Court to recover his land which was registered in his name in 1975 when he was a minor. With that the Plaintiffs closed their case. 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants’ Evidence. 52) DW1 Paul Kagunda Njenga testified as the 1 st Defendant stating that he lives in Kiambu and that he is a businessman. He adopted his witness statement dated 15/03/2015 as his evidence in chief and he produced the documents on pages 13 of the 1st to 3rd Defendants trial bundle and pages 15 to 27. He clarified that the shares were transferred in 1984 and not in 1989 as indicated in his witness statement. He testified that the Plaintiffs are his elder brothers and they are his step brothers and their father is one John Njenga. He stated that his father bought shares from Kanunga farmers and transferred the shares in 1984. However, it was his case that he does not know how his father changed the ownership of shares since he was only four years. 53) He testified that in 1989 he visited the offices of Kanuma farmers to check if he had been registered as a member and he got titled from Kanunga Farmers. When he was cross-examined by the liquidator Mr Sospeter he testified that he cannot recall if they attended the land control board to change the shares. Further when crossexamined by Ms Ndundu on processing of titles he stated ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 23 | P a g e

page 23 of 65

that he did not process the titles. That the titles were posted by Kanunga farmers. 54) Upon further cross examination by Mr Wanda he stated that he did not know the 7th Defendant and that he has never dealt with him with respect to parcel 218. 55) When Mr Ondieki cross examined him, he testified that his father died in 1994 and that the transfer was effected in 1984 and he was only 4 years old. When Mr Ondieki pointed out the letter at page 24 of the trial bundle, the witness stated that the said letter is undated and it indicates that the he wrote the letter as a minor but that in 1998 he was 18 years old although he had indicated that he was a minor in the authored letter. 56) He further testified that he had stated at paragraph 5 of the witness statement that the share certificate number 434 belonged to the 1st Plaintiff. He however informed the Court that he did not inform the 1st Plaintiff that the share was being transferred and neither did he inform the 2 nd Plaintiff. Further he stated that he had no letter showing that he notified both Plaintiffs of the change in ownership of shares. He told the Court that the 2nd Plaintiff was the registered member number 434 and that he did not know if he was notified of the change of ownership of the shares. 57) It is his testimony that he got his name in the registry of Kanunga as a member. That he visited Kanunga Farmers prior to 1988 although he cannot remember the exact date ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 24 | P a g e

page 24 of 65

or year that he visited the company. At paragraph 6 of his witness statement, he states that his uncle informed him that the Plaintiffs were given other properties. This was after his mother died his uncle George Itibe informed him about this although he did not indicate this in his witness statement. 58) It is his testimony that he wrote to Kanunga Farmers asking them to transfer share number 434 although he does not have any letter by his father instructing Kanunga to change the shares to his name. The old share certificate number 434 was not surrendered. The same had been stolen according to him although he was a minor. He indicated that he had no minutes from Kanunga Farmers transferring the shares to his name. And that he did not have new share certificate in his name. That the share certificate number 434 was in the name of the 2 nd Plaintiff and it was changed to his name. According to him his father had the liberty to decide who to change the share certificate to and that there was no fraud in the acquisition of the shares. Further he indicated that he was not a party to the transfer of the shares. 59) He indicated that he instructed the officials of Kanunga to transfer his shares to Jeremiah Muiruri Njenga but that he did not notify the Plaintiffs of this change. He stated that he was not aware of the lodging of any caution and that he did not indicate anything on a caution. He stated that he did not ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 25 | P a g e

page 25 of 65

have documents to show that Kanunga farmers handed the titles to him. That the changes in the shares were done by his father and Kanunga Farmers and he was not involved. 60) Upon re-examination he confirmed that share number 434 was registered in the name of the 2 nd Plaintiff and he got to know after the death of his mother after being informed by his Uncle George Itibe. It was his testimony that he did not notify the 2nd Plaintiff because he did not participate in the changes of shareholding from 2 nd Plaintiff to his name. In 1988 he testified to have written a letter to Kanunga although he had no records of change of shares from the 2 nd Plaintiff to himself, he reiterated that he was only four years in 1984. In addition, he stated that he did not know if the old share certificates were surrendered at all he also stated that he did not state anything about a caution in his witness statement. And therefore, that he was not aware of any illegality on the change of shares. But all he did was to go before the Committee of Kanunga who effected the changes. 61) The Court adjourned on 2/10/2023 and fixed the matter for further defence hearing on 7/12/2023. The Court was only able to convene on 24/04/2024 and Ms Khayesi Counsel for the 2nd Defendant informed Court that the 2nd Defendant had passed away on 19/03/2024 and she was waiting formal substitution. The hearing was taken out. ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 26 | P a g e

page 26 of 65

62) I took over this matter from my sister Justice Grace Kemei on 28/01/2025 at the point of substitution of the 2 nd Defendant. The Defence hearing proceeded on 21/01/2026. 63) Upon substitution DW2 – Esther Njeri Njenga testified as DW2. She stated that she stays in Murang’a and that she was a sales lady. She testified that she was the child of the second Defendant deceased although she had written her witness statement which she had opted as her evidence in chief and the additional bundle of documents which she adopted dated April 2025 and also the list filed in 2015 as her exhibits 64) On cross examination by Counsel for the 5 th Defendant, Ms Nyawira she stated that she knows that Rahab who is her mother came to ownership of the suit property after her father passed on. That the 1st and 2nd Defendants are her step brothers. On further cross-examination by Mr Juma she stated that in respect of Muranga/Cianda Block 1/218 the property was registered in the name of Daniel Muiruri. That at no point was the property registered in the names of the Plaintiffs. 65) While being cross examined by Mr Ondieki she testified that for member number 434 initially it was John Njenga Karubi. That when plots were registered, she was not there and that share number 434 was not registered in the name of James Karanja. She testified that she had no knowledge who transferred the plot and that she does not know how the ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 27 | P a g e

page 27 of 65

plot was transferred since she never went to Kanunga farmers. According to her she only knew what she was told by her mother and that she was not aware that her father registered the plot in the 1 st and 2nd Plaintiffs names who are her step brothers. 66) According to DW2 the name in share plot number 1153 reads Muiruri Njenga as shown in the defense trial bundle dated 10/03/2015 at page 5. The nominee for share number 434 was John Njenga Karubi and that she does not know if it was changed at Kanunga farmers since she does not know the procedure for changing shares from one nominee to another. She testified having joined this case in 2025 and not having knowledge of what happened at Kanunga farmers. According to her, her mother said she was given the plot by Paul Kagunda and she stood in for her minor who is Jeremiah Muiruri. That at page 16 of the trial bundle dated 10/03/2015 there is a letter written to Kanunga farmers where Paul was transferring a share in 1988 but she stated that she does not know he had no share to transfer. 67) Upon reexamination by Ms Khayesi she told the Court that she was not present when Paul wrote the letter at page 16 when the transfer was being sought. The title for Ting’ang’a/Cianda/Block 1/2097 came to be in her mother’s name when, according to her the mother went to Kanunga Farmers with Paul Kagunda together with Jane Wanjiru her co-wife whereupon Paul Kagunda was given an extra share ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 28 | P a g e

page 28 of 65

and after consultation with her mother he decided to have it registered in the name of the DW2’s little brother Jeremiah Muiruri who was a minor then. The title for this share is at page 10 of the Defendant’s trial bundle dated 10/03/2015. 68) DW3 - Daniel Muiruri Njenga testified and stated that he lives in Nyandarua and that he was a dairy farmer. He adopted his witness statement written in 2015 as his evidence in chief and he produced a list of exhibits. On cross examination by Mr Ondieki he stated that the Plaintiffs were the initial registered shareholders but that his father changed the shareholding in 1984. He however stated that he did not know if George Muiruri Njenga was consulted on the changes since he was 18 years old then. 69) Share Certificate number 433 was initially registered in the name of George Muiruri Njenga and number 434 was registered in the name of James Njenga Karanja. That at paragraph five of his witness statement he stated that his dad withdrew the share certificates for the 1 st and 2nd Plaintiffs but he has no minutes or any document to support these claims. The share certificate issued in his name being number 434 has not been attached and that he does not know the date in November 1984 when transfer happened. He claimed that since he is not the one who did the transfer, he did not have the initial certificates surrendered. He also denied knowing how much was paid or if the Plaintiffs witnessed the transfer at all. ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 29 | P a g e

page 29 of 65

70) It was his case that in 1984 the registered owners of plot 433 was George Muiruri Njenga and plot 434 was owned by James Karanja Njenga. That the two plots were transferred to him but he has no transfer documents. He also testified not knowing in 1984 if the shares were in his father’s name having stated at paragraph 4 of his witness statement that they were not in his name he stated that he is the one who sold plot 433 to Kamunde which he sold during the pendency of this case when this matter was in Court. 71) He testified that he made a mistake of selling the suit property during the pendency of the suit since his mother died and he needed to complete his studies in South Africa and his young brother was in class 8. He told the Court that he was invited to ballot by Kanunga Farmers and Ting’ng’a/Cianda Block 218 and 203 were processed from certificate number 433 and it was belonging to George Mururi Njenga from which Kanunga Framers issued a title that had been transferred to him from Kanunga. He stated that he did not have minutes but he had the green card. He testified that when the transfer was effected there was no caution on the suit property. He also stated that he never informed the Court that the land was sold and that when he transferred the land, he informed the 6th Defendant. 72) On further cross examination he testified that at page 21 item No. 3 from the Trial Bundle show item no. 3 for 2 nd ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 30 | P a g e

page 30 of 65

Column shows the name of Muiruri John Njenga as the one registered for plot no. 433 and he was his father. That there is a cancellation where John is removed then they are left with the name of Muiruri Njenga and that this is DW 3 and so the register for Kanunga shows the name of DW 3. That the transfer in 1984 is not captured on any record. It was his case that he was given by Kanunga Farmers the title for Plot 218, and that he never went to the Land Registry. 73) When Mr Wanda cross-examined him, he testified that he had a sale agreement between himself and the 6 th Defendant but that there was no clause about a case pending. The loan he obtained was from a shylock who later sold the plot. On cross-examination by Mr Juma he told the Court that he is the original registered plot own of Ting’ang’a Cianda Block 218 and at the time of selling the said plot there was no Court order and no restriction. 74) Mr Sospeter Mbugua, the Liquidator also cross- examined him and he reiterated that he was registered as a shareholder and member number 433 in 1984. That he did not have any share certificate since it was surrendered to Kanunga and neither did he have any minutes. According to him, Mr Njoroge who was chairman had stated that John Njenga Muiruri is the one who purchased the shares. 75) In the end when re-examined by his Counsel he testified that he John Njenga Karubi went to Kanunga Farmers and he nominated George Muiruri and James ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 31 | P a g e

page 31 of 65

Karanja (Plaintiffs) as shareholders. That at a certain point the said John Njenga Karubi changed the nominees to DW3’s name and his brothers’ and so Kanunga gave them share certificates for number 433. That since the 1 st share certificate had one plot, they had to ballot for the 2 nd plot which he did for share number 2073 which is a plot and he already had plot 218 which was from share number 433.That he collected title for 218 at Kanunga and it is in his name. 76) According to his testimony his dad died in 1984 when he was young and so the information he has testified about he was getting from 3rd parties and so there may be contradictions in the statements. He avers that plot 2073 is in his name and that when he sold plot 218 there was no order stopping the sale. He stated that he would not know where the registered for 1984 is and that the land was sold around 2011 or 2012 thereabout. With that the 1 st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants closed their case. 4th and 5th Defendants’ Evidence 77) The 4th Defendant – the Liquidator chose to close their case since he chose to give no evidence nor to call any witness. 78) At the same time the 5th Defendant through its Counsel Ms Nyawira also stated that they will not be calling any witness and therefore they closed the 5th Defendant’s case. 7th Defendant’s Evidence ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 32 | P a g e

page 32 of 65

79) The matter resumed hearing on 27/04/2026 when the 7th Defendant testified as DW4 – Samuel Wageche Kanyi. He testified that he lived along Kenya Road Murram Estate and that he was a software developer and he adopted his witness statement dated 15/04/2020 which is at page 7-10 of the Defendant’s trial bundle. He also produced for adoption the list of documents of even date. 80) On cross-examination by Counsel for the Plaintiffs he stated that he purchased the parcel of land in January 2017 having done a search but he testified not having been aware that there was a suit in Court before purchasing the suit property. He also stated that he never saw a caution registered on the land. That the caution produced at page 1919 of the Plaintiffs’ bundle was not reflected on the search document. 81) He testified that from the green card at page 184 whereas there was a caution as shown at page 191 but the restriction was not entered in 2009 and for him, he did not know why it was not entered on record in 2009. He also stated that he did not know who made the mistake. 82) It was his testimony before the Court that he was not a member of Kanunga Farmers and he had no share certificate since he bought a quarter of an acre (1/4) from Joseph Kamonderu who however is not a witness in Court. He stated that he could see the register at page 135 of the Plaintiff’s bundle the name of Muiruri for parcel 433 showing the owner ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 33 | P a g e

page 33 of 65

as Muiruri but he cannot comment on this since he is not a member of Kanunga Farmers. According to him he bought his land from Kamonderu and he never had any transfer of shares nor does he have a share certificate because he bought the land as registered. 83) He averred that he cannot confirm the origin of the suit property being from Asia certificate. And reiterated that he is not a member of Kanunga Farmers and that he could not confirm when he bought the suit property that there was a caution. 84) On cross-examination he told the Court that he does not know who Lucy Njeri was and that he had never seen the receipt produced at page 194 of the trial bundle. He also stated that he was not informed about a caution having been registered and that their due diligence did not show any caution as shown at page 193 therefore he stated that he could not confirm that there is a discrepancy on registration of caution. According to him, he purchased the suit property in 2017 and that his entry for purchase was made in March 2017 and title was transferred to him in the same month of March and so he stated that he does not know why the caution was not registered. 85) Not being a member of Kanunga farmers he stated that he cannot confirm the registration or share certificate number because he bought the parcel from Elias Kamonderu and he does not know whether he was a shareholder or not. ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 34 | P a g e

page 34 of 65

Ting’ng’a Cianda Block 1/218 is the suit property that he bought. 86) On further cross examination he stated that before he was enjoined to this suit, he had not interacted with the 1 st to 3rd Defendants. That the suit property being referred to is the one that he is farming on and that he took a loan which he has already cleared to enable him purchase the suit property from the 6th Defendant. From the green card which is produced at page 184 ownership was by Daniel Muiruri Njenga then the second person to own the property on 15/03/2012 is Elias Kamau Kamonderu. According to him he did as such that showed there was a charge on the land owned by Elias to cooperative bank. So cooperative bank stated that he had to pay off the amount or which had to discharge the charge. 87) When cross examined by Mr Chimei Counsel for the 8 th Defendant he stated that the registered owner of the suit property that he purchased was Elias. That by the time he approached UNITAS who then granted him a loan to buy the suit property, Elias signed the discharge. And that he took the loan and he has finished paying but that he has not collected the title and it is still charged. He testified not having any claim against UNITAS, the 8 th Defendant. With that the 7th Defendant closed their case. 8th Defendant’s Evidence ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 35 | P a g e

page 35 of 65

88) DW5 – Harriet Kemunto Nyamboke testified as the 8 th Defendant. He told the Court that he is the Senior Legal Officer to the 8th Defendant. She adopted her witness statement dated 22/04/2024 as her evidence in chief and produced as her exhibits a bundle of documents of even date. 89) On cross-examination she testified that she was not aware when the suit property was registered. She stated that she learnt that there was an ongoing case when they were requested to be enjoined in the suit. Therefore, when the title changed hands, the case was already subsisting. She testified that she was conversant with SACCO societies that they have certificate of shareholding or certificate of membership. Therefore, this means that all members should be aware of entry and exit of members. At paragraph 7of their statement of defense she stated that they have not stated that they were aware of any restriction according to them they did due diligence through a search and they requested for valuation report of the suit property. She testified not knowing Kamonderu at all. 90) On further cross-examination she stated that in their statement of defense at paragraph 5 she had indicated that the property had no defects because their due diligence did not show names of the Plaintiffs. That they financed the 7 th Defendant for Kesh. 3 million in 2017 which he has cleared and they never interacted with the 1 st to 3rd Defendants. ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 36 | P a g e

page 36 of 65

Further she stated that they granted a loan to the 7 th Defendant and they did due diligence on the suit property by conducting an official search which showed that the 6 th Defendant was the registered proprietor. 91) It is her testimony that the search done by them showed no caution other than existing charge to cooperative bank and they also obtained a valuation report dated 14/02/2024 which never mentioned any fraud. There was no actual notice of adverse claim since if there was an adverse claim, they could not have advanced the loan. According to her she has seen the claim by the Plaintiff on the issue of fraud and collusion but she denies there having been fraud or collusion on the part of the 8 th Defendant. According to her they did provide clean financing. 92) She stated that the 8th Defendant has no claim on interest to the title in this matter. The High Court decision over this property did not involve the 8 th Defendant and they were not aware of the case No. 77 of 2010 they have no idea what was determined with that the 8th Defendant closed their case. 93) Parties were directed to file their written submissions. The Plaintiffs filed their submissions dated 25/05/2026, the 1st to 3rd Defendants filed their submissions dated 23/07/2026, the 5th Defendant filed their submissions dated 3/06/2026 and the 8th Defendant filed their submissions dated 24/07/2026. It is appreciated that Counsels for each ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 37 | P a g e

page 37 of 65

party put a lot of effort in researching and interrogating the relevant authorities concerning the issues pertaining to their cases and the Court recognizes this effort by the counsels. A summary of the submissions is captured herebelow. This being a 2017 matter which has gone through several hands of judges and judicial officers it is appreciated that we now come to the conclusion of this matter nine solid years since it was first initiated in our Courts. I also thank all parties for their patience and condole with those parties who lost a loved one in the cause of this journey. Plaintiff’s written submissions 94) According the Plaintiffs, they submit that they are the absolute and rightful owners of suit properties Title Nos. Ting'ang'a/Cianda Block 1/218, 1/2073, 1/214, and 1/2097, having been registered as shareholders No. 433 and 434 of Kanunga Farmers’ Co-operative Society Ltd in 1975 while still minors. They contend that their late father, John Njenga Karumbi, was merely a nominee holding membership No. 432 and thus lacked the legal capacity to transfer their proprietary rights under the bedrock principle of nemo dat quod non habet. 95) Relying on Article 40(6) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act, the Plaintiffs assert that the registration of the titles in the names of the Defendants was vitiated by fraud involving a false police abstract, non-compliance with statutory transfer ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 38 | P a g e

page 38 of 65

procedures, and altered society registers. To fortify these submissions, the Plaintiffs rely on Elijah Makeri Nyangw'ra v Stephen Mungai Njuguna & Another (2013) eKLR, Macfoy v United Africa Co. Ltd [1961] 3 All ER 1169, the Supreme Court decision in Dina Management Limited v County Government of Mombasa & 5 Others (2023) KESC 30 (KLR), and the Court of Appeal Judgment in Samuel Kamere v Lands Registrar, Kajiado (2015) eKLR. 96) In their submissions they argue that subsequent transactions carried out over the suit properties, including transfers to third parties and a charge of Kshs 2,700,000/created in favor of Unaitas Sacco Society Limited on 3/04/2017, are null and void ab initio under the doctrine of lis pendens. Citing the decision in Naftali Ogega Obwoge v John O. Ogega & 2 Others (2008) eKLR, they contend that encumbrances created during active litigation cannot prejudice their rights, and that the financial institution acted at its own peril. The Plaintiffs also impugn the conduct of the Land Registrar, Kiambu, for misfeasance, gross negligence, and selective administration contrary to Articles 27 and 47(1) of the Constitution, Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act 2015, and Section 71 of the Land Registration Act. They highlight that the Land Registrar unlawfully failed to register their cautions lodged in 2009 while expeditiously processing dealings for the Defendants, thus facilitating the ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 39 | P a g e

page 39 of 65

illegal encumbrance of the land. In support of penalizing the State officer in damages, the Plaintiffs cite Arthi Highway Developers Limited v West End Butchery Limited & 6 Others (2015) eKLR and Karanja Mbugua & Another v Attorney General & 2 Others (2018) eKLR. 97) They sum up their submissions by asserting that the Defendants bound themselves through formal admissions in their witness statements dated 10/03/2015, where they acknowledged that the Plaintiffs were the bona fide registered shareholders back in 1975. Invoking Section 58 of the Evidence Act (Cap 80), the Plaintiffs submit that facts admitted need not be proved and that formal pleadings bind the maker, as settled in Pioneer General Assurance Society Ltd v Kamunye (1969) EA 54 and Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi v Mwangi Stephen Muriithi & Another (2014) eKLR. Consequently, the Plaintiffs pray for declarations of sole ownership, the cancellation of all fraudulent titles, orders compelling the rectification of the land register, compensation from the financial institution's profits, general damages against the Land Registrar, and the full costs of the suit. 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants Submissions 98) For the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants, they submit that the Plaintiffs have failed to discharge the heightened standard of proof required to impeach registered titles on grounds of fraud and illegality under Section 26(1) of the Land ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 40 | P a g e

page 40 of 65

Registration Act. Emphasizing that a certificate of title constitutes prima facie evidence of absolute and indefeasible ownership under Sections 24 and 25 of the same Act, the Defendants contend that allegations of fraud must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved to a standard higher than a mere balance of probabilities. 99) To support these statutory principles, the Defendants cite the locus classicus Vijay Morjaria v Nansingh Madhusingh Darbar & Another (2000) eKLR, alongside Arthi Highway Developers Limited v West End Butchery Limited & 6 Others (2015) eKLR, Gichinga Kibutha v Caroline Nduku (2018) eKLR, and the Court of Appeal decision in Administrators of the Estate of Letoire ole Ntirori (Deceased) & 9 Others v Mwangi & 25 Others (2025) KECA 1585 (KLR). They argue that the Plaintiffs' assertions regarding a fraudulent scheme orchestrated by the late Jane Wanjiru Njenga allegedly utilizing a false police abstract, a limited grant ad colligenda bona, and tampered society records remain completely unproven, lacking forensic examiner reports, handwriting analyses, or criminal findings. 100) They further contend that the Plaintiffs never held any registered title deeds, share certificates, or instruments of ownership over Title Nos. Ting'ang'a/Cianda Block 1/218, 1/214, 1/2073, and 1/2097, as the Green Cards conclusively confirm that the Defendants were recorded as the first ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 41 | P a g e

page 41 of 65

registered proprietors upon subdivision by Kanunga Farmers’ Co-operative Society Ltd. They argue that the doctrine of nemo dat quod non habet cannot be deployed by the Plaintiffs to manufacture a proprietary right they never held in the first instance, citing Daniel Kiprugut Maiywa v Rebecca Chepkurgat Maina (2019) KEELC 842 (KLR). Instead, the Defendants assert that their late father, Mzee John Njenga Karumbi, who initially registered membership numbers 433 and 434 in his young sons' names as a nominee in 1975, retained the authority during his lifetime to redirect and reallocate those memberships to his second house, having already settled the Plaintiffs elsewhere. 101) Meeting the judicial threshold laid down in Munyu Maina v Hiram Gathiha Maina (2013) eKLR, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants submit that they have successfully demonstrated a clear and legitimate root of title extending far beyond the bare registration instruments. They rely on the official minutes of the 4th Defendant Society dated 16/03/1998, which confirm the reallocation of shares, as well as the 1st Defendant's written transfer of part of membership number 434 to Jeremiah Muiruri Njenga (a minor held in trust by the late Rahab Nyambura Karanja) which yielded Title No. 1/2097. The Defendants maintain that the 3 rd Defendant similarly acquired Title Nos. 1/218 and 1/2073 through lawful balloting organized directly by the Society, which processed the titles ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 with the Land Registrar without individual 42 | P a g e

page 42 of 65

shareholder manipulation. Furthermore, they assert that the Plaintiffs' reliance on conflicting affidavits by the former society chairman, Njoroge Gatua Kiarie, provides contradictory hearsay that cannot displace lawful entries on the land register. 102) They sum up their submissions by distinguishing the authorities relied upon by the Plaintiffs, asserting that their acknowledgment of the 1975 historical starting point does not constitute a formal admission of subsisting ownership as mischaracterized under Pioneer General Assurance Society Ltd v Kamunye (1969) EA 54 and Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi v Mwangi Stephen Muriithi & another (2014) eKLR. They distinguish Elijah Makeri Nyangw'ra v Stephen Mungai Njuguna & another (2013) eKLR, pointing out that unlike in Nyangw'ra, where forged powers of attorney and passports were forensically established, no document in the present suit has been proven forged. Reaffirming the principles in Samuel Kamere v Lands Registrar, Kajiado (2015) eKLR, the Defendants submit that their titles derive from a lawful process initiated by the original shareholder and executed by the Society. Having held undisturbed registered titles for decades while the Plaintiffs maintained an unexplainable silence until 2010, the Defendants pray that the Plaintiffs' suit be dismissed with costs. 5th Defendant’s Submissions ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 43 | P a g e

page 43 of 65

103) The Land Registrar who is the 5 th Defendant did not call any witness but they submit that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish any cause of action or prove allegations of fraud against the office in the registration of Title Nos. Ting’ang’a/Cianda Block 1/214, 1/218, 1/2073, and 1/2097 in favor of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants. The 5th Defendant contends that its statutory role was strictly limited to effecting registration upon the formal presentation of documents by the 4th Defendant, Kanunga Farmers’ Cooperative Society Ltd. As the allocating entity, the 4 th Defendant possessed the authentic records and allottee details, and the 5th Defendant acted regularly and lawfully on those records without participating in any fraudulent scheme. 104) To displace the Plaintiffs' claim, the 5 th Defendant asserts that the burden lay squarely on the Plaintiffs to demonstrate the legitimate root of their alleged title beyond mere assertions. Citing the seminal Court of Appeal decision in Munyu Maina v Hiram Gathiha Maina (Supra), the 5th Defendant submits that a party challenging or asserting title must go beyond the bare instrument to prove a clean, legal, and unencumbered root of acquisition. This principle is further reinforced by James Njoroge Gitau v Lucy Chepkurui Kimutai (2018) eKLR, where the Environment and Land Court emphasized that ownership originating from a land-buying company or society must be corroborated by ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 44 | P a g e

page 44 of 65

the official confirmation member letters register, from the share certificates, or issuing entity. 5 th The Defendant points out that the Plaintiffs produced no share certificates, no confirmation letters from the 4 th Defendant, and were entirely absent from the 4 th Defendant's official member register for Plot Nos. 433 and 434. 105) Consequently, the 5th Defendant relies on Sections 24 and 26 of the Land Registration Act, maintaining that the registration of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants as absolute proprietors vested in them indefeasible title. Pursuant to Section 26(1) of the Act, a certificate of title serves as prima facie evidence of absolute ownership and can only be impeached where fraud, misrepresentation, illegality, or corrupt acquisition is strictly proved. Having demonstrated that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants established a valid origin of title from the allocating society without any proved procedural irregularity or fraud by the Land Registrar, the 5 th Defendant submits that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to the declarations, cancellation of titles, or rectification of the register sought, and prays that the suit against the 5 th Defendant be dismissed with costs. 8th Defendant’s Submissions 106) The 8th Defendant (the chargee financial institution) submits that the Plaintiffs’ Further Amended Plaint dated ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 45 | P a g e

page 45 of 65

13/06/2025 discloses no reasonable cause of action against it, as defined in D.T. Dobie & Company (Kenya) Ltd v Muchina (1982) KLR 1 and restated in Kurgat & Another v Boit (2024) KEHC 7798 (KLR). The 8th Defendant contends that the suit is a family land dispute over cooperative shares and allocations stemming from the estate of the late John Njenga Karumbi, in which the 8 th Defendant had no participation, knowledge, or involvement. Having conducted standard statutory searches that confirmed a clean title registered under Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act, 2012, the 8th Defendant extended a commercial loan facility to the 7th Defendant in good faith as a bona fide chargee without notice of any underlying fraud, caution, or defect in root title. 107) Emphasizing that fraud must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved to a heightened standard above a balance of probabilities, the 8 th Defendant cites Railal Gordhanbhai Patel v Lalji Makanji (1957) EA 314, Vijay Morjaria v Nansingh Madhusingh Darbar & another (2000) eKLR, and Arthi Highway Developers Limited v West End Butchery Limited & 6 others (Supra). Reaffirming this standard, the 8th Defendant relies on the Supreme Court decision in Fanikiwa Limited & 3 others v Sirikwa Squatters Group & 17 others (2023) KESC 105 (KLR) alongside Steyn v Ruscone (2025) KEHC 6196 (KLR) to argue that fraudulent conduct cannot be inferred or ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 46 | P a g e

page 46 of 65

established by association. Furthermore, addressing the Plaintiffs' invocation of the doctrine of lis pendens, the 8th Defendant submits that lis pendens does not render an encumbrance void ab initio, but merely subjects it to the ultimate outcome of the suit, which remains unproven against the lender. 108) The 8th Defendant maintains that no live controversy or enforceable relief survives against it following the full settlement of the loan facility and the formal execution and registration of the Discharge of Charge. Citing the Supreme Court authority on mootness in Institute for Social Accountability & Another v National Assembly & 3 Others (2022) KESC 39 (KLR), the 8th Defendant submits that Courts do not adjudicate academic questions where no subsisting legal or equitable interest remains in dispute. Consequently, the attempt to drag a bona fide chargee into a historical succession conflict amounts to misjoinder, and the 8th Defendant prays that the suit against it be dismissed with costs. Issues for Determination 109) This matter first entered the doors of this Court by way of a Plaint dated 18/02/2010, and has since travelled sixteen years, several amendments, two changes of the presiding Bench and the death of at least two of the original parties before finally standing for Judgment. Counsel on all sides are commended for the diligence with which they have kept the ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 47 | P a g e

page 47 of 65

record alive across that span, adducing evidence, crossexamining at length and filing full written submissions notwithstanding the fading of memory that a dispute of this nature inevitably visits upon lay witnesses recalling events of 1975, 1984 and 1989. 110) The Court further acknowledges, with sympathy, the family members and litigants who did not live to see this matter to its conclusion, and extends its appreciation to all who have exercised patience while the wheels of justice, however slowly, turned toward finality. 111) Having carefully considered the further Amended Plaint dated 13/06/2025, the several Statements of Defence, the oral testimony of the seven witnesses who took the stand, the documentary exhibits produced by each side and the rival written submissions, the Court is satisfied that the following issues arise for determination: i. Whether the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs held a subsisting proprietary interest in Membership Numbers 433 and 434 of the 4th Defendant capable of being defeated only through proof that a lawful subsequent divestment occurred; ii. Whether the 1st and 3rd Defendants have established that the said memberships, and the consequent titles to Ting'ang'a/Cianda Block 1/214, 1/218, 1/2073 and 1/2097, were lawfully and procedurally acquired; ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 48 | P a g e

page 48 of 65

iii. Whether the Plaintiffs' claim is barred by the Limitation of Actions Act; iv. Whether the dealings executed on Title No. 1/218 in favour of the 6th and 7th Defendants, and the charge registered in favour of the 8th Defendant, during the pendency of this suit are affected by the doctrine of lis pendens; Whether the 7th and 8th Defendants are entitled to v. shelter as bona fide purchaser and chargee respectively for value without notice; Whether the 5th Defendant is liable for failing to vi. register the Plaintiffs' cautions and restrictions; and vii. 112) Finally what reliefs, if any, the parties are entitled to. The starting point for the first two issues, which are best treated together, is Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act, which provides that a certificate of title is prima facie evidence that the person named as proprietor is the absolute and indefeasible owner, displaceable only on proof that the title was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation to which the proprietor was party, or that it was acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme. The Court of Appeal captured the weight this carries in Embakasi Commissioner Properties of Lands Limited & another & another [2019] v eKLR, describing a registered proprietor's entitlement as that of "the absolute and indefeasible owner thereof". ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 49 | P a g e

page 49 of 65

113) Yet indefeasibility under the current regime is deliberately qualified rather than conclusive, a point the Supreme Court itself revisited in Harcharan Singh Sehmi & Another v Tarabana Company Limited & 5 Others [2025] KESC 21 (KLR), and affirmed that a Certificate of Title is not absolute or conclusive proof of ownership, noting that under the legal framework it serves merely as initial proof subject to inquiry, holding that a title is only prima facie evidence of ownership and remains open to scrutiny of the legality of the process that produced it. The Supreme Court stated that: “...under Land Registration Act, a certificate of title was to be regarded by Courts as prima facie evidence that the person named therein was the absolute and indefeasible owner of the land. It was therefore no longer possible for a title holder to erect the certificate of title as a barrier to an inquiry into its legality or otherwise.” 114) Halsbury's Laws of England, in the volumes dealing with registered land, describes the register as intended to function as a mirror of subsisting rights, complete and accurate; but a mirror, however finely made, will still show a crack where the underlying transaction was itself flawed, and it is precisely that crack the Plaintiffs invite this Court to examine. ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 50 | P a g e

page 50 of 65

115) It bears emphasis that fraud, properly so called, is a serious matter. Black's Law Dictionary describes it, at its core, as a knowing misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact intended to induce another to part with a right to their detriment, and Kenyan Courts have for decades treated an allegation of it as quasi-criminal in character, demanding a correspondingly serious standard of proof. In Emfil Ltd v Registrar of Titles Mombasa & 2 Others [2014] eKLR, the Court of Appeal held that; “Allegations of fraud are allegations of a serious nature normally required to be strictly pleaded and proved on a higher standard than the ordinary standard of balance of probabilities.” requiring proof above the ordinary civil standard, a principle this Court respectfully adopts. 116) Measured against that yardstick, the particulars of dishonesty pleaded and canvassed through PW1 and PW2, principally the claim of a falsified police abstract and tampered society minutes at the hand of the late Jane Wanjiru Njenga, do not rise to the required height. Neither Plaintiff produced a forensic document examiner's report, neither reported the alleged tampering to the 4th Defendant's officials at the material time, PW2 candidly conceded he had no evidence the land was transferred fraudulently, and the affidavit of the former chairman Njoroge Gatua Kiarie, on ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 51 | P a g e

page 51 of 65

which the Plaintiffs place great reliance, was never tested by its maker in these proceedings. 117) Lord Denning's celebrated warning in Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702, that "fraud unravels everything", and vitiates all Judgments, contracts, and transactions once proved, though it must be distinctly pleaded and proved. This warning by Lord Denning remains sound law precisely because it presupposes that fraud has first been distinctly proved; it is not a passport to relief where fraud has merely been alleged. To that narrow extent, the Plaintiffs' case built on dishonesty in the strict sense fails. 118) That, however, does not end the matter, because the plaint expressly pleads illegality and want of due process as distinct grounds alongside fraud, and because a certificate of title is not a magic wand that forecloses inquiry into its root once that root is properly put in issue. It is common ground, admitted on the pleadings and confirmed by DW1 and DW3 themselves, that Membership Numbers 433 and 434 were originally purchased and registered in the names of the 1 st and 2nd Plaintiffs in 1975 by their late father. 119) In the case [2025] KEELC 273 (KLR) of it Karenju was v observed Kamau that "the shareholding was critical as it was the basis of allocation of land", underscoring that the membership number, and not the identity of whoever later held the ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 52 | P a g e

page 52 of 65

physical certificate, anchors entitlement to the resultant parcel. Once that clean 1975 starting point stood admitted, the burden of proving a lawful subsequent divestment of it passed to whoever asserted that divestment; as the Court of Appeal held in Anne Wambui Ndiritu v Joseph Kiprono Ropkoi & Another [2005] 1 EA 334, the legal burden of proof "lies upon the party who invokes the aid of the law" to make out the affirmative it advances. It is the 1 st and 3rd Defendants, not the Plaintiffs, who invoke that aid here, asserting that their father lawfully withdrew the two memberships from his elder sons around 1984 and redirected them within his third house. 120) As stated in Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th Edition, Vol. 44(1)), a valid transfer of property or proprietary interest requires the clear, free consent of the legal owner, executed through recognized legal mechanisms; an administrative authority or cooperative management cannot unilaterally divest a person of their acquired rights without statutory or contractual authorization. 121) Measured against that burden, the Defendants' case does not hold. Neither DW1 nor DW3 could produce a single minute of the 4th Defendant Society recording any change to the register of shareholders, a written instruction from the late father authorising the change, or any Land Control Board consent, notwithstanding that the resulting parcels are agricultural land squarely within that Board's remit. DW3 ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 53 | P a g e

page 53 of 65

said plainly that he had "no minutes or any document to support" the claimed withdrawal, and that the 1984 transfer "is not captured on any record." 122) More tellingly, DW1 conceded under cross-examination that he was barely four years old in 1984, that he has no personal knowledge of how or why the shareholding was altered, and that what he knows of the transaction was relayed to him years later, after his mother's death, by an uncle who was never called to testify. A reallocation of such consequence, disinheriting two adult sons of their father's earliest provision for them, cannot rest on the uncorroborated, secondhand recollection of a witness who was an infant at the material time and who candidly disclaims any first-hand knowledge of the very event he asks the Court to accept. 123) A close examination of the evidence reveals that the deceased originally purchased shares in 1975 under Membership Numbers 433 and 434 specifically in the names of his eldest sons, the Plaintiffs herein. The 1 st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants asserted in their defense that the deceased lawfully withdrew these shares in 1984 or 1989 and reallocated them to his younger children. However, the testimony of DW1 exposed fatal inconsistencies in this defense. DW1 admitted under cross-examination that he was a minor aged barely four years in 1984 and had no knowledge ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 of how his father allegedly changed the 54 | P a g e

page 54 of 65

ownership of the shares. Crucially, no minutes of the 4 th Defendant Co-operative Society, no formal share transfer instruments signed by the original holders, and no surrender documentation were produced to substantiate a lawful change of membership. 124) Instead, the evidence points to deliberate alterations of the share register after the death of the father in 1994, spearheaded by the late Jane Wanjiru Njenga to the total exclusion of the Plaintiffs' house. 125) Section 26(1)(b) of the Land Registration Act does not require proof of dishonesty before a title can be disturbed; it is enough that the title was acquired unprocedurally, and a reallocation unsupported by any society minute, consent or contemporaneous document, and attested to only by hearsay, is unprocedural in the plainest sense of that word. The Supreme Court's own caution in Sehmi v Tarabana (Supra), that indefeasibility does not shield a title whose issuing process cannot itself be shown to be regular, applies here. 126) The Supreme Court of Kenya in Dina Management Limited v. County Government of Mombasa & 5 Others (Petition 8 (E010) of 2021) [2023] KESC 30 (KLR) settled the law on titles derived through irregular allocations. The Apex Court affirmed that the statutory protection of indefeasibility of title under Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act is only available to a proprietor whose ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 55 | P a g e

page 55 of 65

initial acquisition was legal, regular, and unblemished. Where the root of title is anchored on illegality or administrative corruption, the title cannot stand. 127) The insertion of names of minors, the unilateral alteration of membership numbers without statutory authority, and the reliance on fake police abstracts to claim lost share certificates constitute classic badges of fraud. The 1st and 3rd Defendants could not pass clean title to themselves or subsequent parties because their very claim to the cooperative shares was void ab initio. 128) This principle was articulated by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Gibbs v. Messer [1891] A.C. 248, where Lord Watson held that the protection of statutory registration does not extend to a party relying on a forged or void instrument. Furthermore, as the Court of Appeal for England and Wales famously held in MacFoy v. United Africa Co. Ltd [1961] 3 All ER 1169 a landmark authority consistently adopted across common law jurisdictions; "If an act is a nullity, it is in law a nullity, not merely voidable... You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse." 129) Because the initial allocation of plots Ting’ang’a/Cianda Block 1/218, 2073, 214, and 2097 to the Defendants was founded on altered share records, all titles emanating therefrom are tainted and incapable of standing. ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 56 | P a g e

page 56 of 65

130) The Court accordingly finds that the 1 st and 3rd Defendants have failed to establish a lawful root of title displacing the Plaintiffs' 1975 membership, and that Membership Numbers 433 and 434 remained, in truth, vested in the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs at all material times, entitling them to the parcels that flowed from those numbers, namely Ting'ang'a/Cianda Block 1/2073 and 1/218 in respect of the 1st Plaintiff, and 1/214 and 1/2097 in respect of the 2nd Plaintiff. 131) Turning to limitation, the Defendants' plea that the claim is time-barred does not hold. Section 26 of the Limitation of Actions Act postpones the running of time, in a case founded on fraud or where the right of action has been concealed, until discovery or reasonable discoverability. The Plaintiffs were never notified of the alleged 1984 reallocation, and their evidence, principally that of PW1, places actual discovery of the altered register at around 2009, immediately followed by the lodging of cautions and the filing of this suit within the year. That sequence accords with the approach in Justus Tureti Obara v Peter Koipetai Nengisoi [2014] eKLR, and finds an echo in comparative jurisprudence; the English Court of Appeal in Allison & another v Horner [2014] EWCA Civ 117 held that "knowledge of a fraud in a more general sense is enough" to start time running, which if anything favours the Plaintiffs' position that they moved promptly once they had ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 57 | P a g e

page 57 of 65

that general knowledge. The limitation defence accordingly fails. 132) The next issue concerns the transactions executed on Title No. 1/218 during the pendency of this suit, first to the 6th Defendant in 2012 and then to the 7 th Defendant in 2017, the 3rd Defendant himself candidly admitting the sale to the 6th Defendant took place "during the pendency of this case." 133) Turning to the issue regarding the non-registration of cautions and the status of third-party acquisitions, the record reveals that the Plaintiffs lodged cautions dated 13/10/2009 and 04/11/2009 at the Kiambu Land Registry, presenting official receipts of payment. Regrettably, the District Land Registrar failed or omitted to enter these encumbrances on the green card. During the pendency of this suit instituted in 2010, Plot Ting’ang’a/Cianda Block 1/218 was transferred to the 6th Defendant, then to the 7th Defendant, and subsequently charged to the 8th Defendant. The 7th and 8th Defendants seek refuge under the doctrine of bona fide purchaser for value without notice. 134) This defense must fail on two distinct legal grounds. 135) First, under the doctrine of lis pendens, any dealing with subject property during the active pendency of litigation cannot operate to defeat the rights of litigants or bind the Court. The Supreme Court of India in Dev Raj Dogra & Ors v. Gian Chand & Ors (1981 AIR 981) reiterated that the principle of lis pendens prevents parties to a suit from ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 58 | P a g e

page 58 of 65

transferring property under dispute so as to affect the rights of any opponent. 136) Second, a party cannot claim protection as a bona fide purchaser where the root of title is completely illegal and void. In Eunice Grace Njoki Karanja v. Charles Karathe Kiarie & 2 Others [2020] eKLR, the High Court held that administrative default or negligence by the Land Registrar in failing to note a restriction on the register cannot validate an otherwise fraudulent title, nor can it confer legitimate ownership upon a third party. 137) Similarly, the High Court of Uganda in Katende v. Harjee [1998-2000] HCB 67 affirmed that to enjoy the status of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, a person must hold a clean legal title free from fraud; where the vendor’s title is a total nullity, the purchaser acquires zero legal estate nemo dat quod non habet. 138) The 3rd Defendant had no valid proprietary right to pass to the 6th Defendant, and consequently, the 7th Defendant acquired nothing. The 8th Defendant Sacco, having conceded that its charge facility has been fully settled and discharged, no longer holds any subsisting encumbrance over the land. The failure of the Land Registrar to record the caution does not validate an illegal transfer, as administrative default by registry officials cannot confer legal rights upon parties deriving title from an illegality. ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 59 | P a g e

page 59 of 65

139) A land registry that permits such delay in entering a protective instrument fall short of the standard the public is entitled to expect of that office, and this Court, in line with the reasoning in Wambui v Mwangi & Others [2021] KECA 144 (KLR), accepts that a party deprived of protection by reason of registry misfeasance is not without recourse against the state. That lapse is now shown to have had real consequence, since a properly registered caution would likely have alerted the 6th Defendant’s purchaser, the 7th Defendant, to the pending dispute before he committed to the transaction. Even so, the present suit does not join the Attorney General, who is the necessary party to any claim in damages arising from the acts or omissions of a public officer in an official capacity. The Court accordingly records the finding of administrative fault without making an award of damages in these proceedings, and does so without prejudice to any properly constituted claim the Plaintiffs may bring in that regard. 140) Upon a meticulous analysis of the entire record, the testimonies of the witnesses, and the applicable law, this Court finds that the Plaintiffs have proved their case on a balance of probabilities as against the 1 st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants. The Court finds that the cooperative shares under Membership Numbers 433 and 434 lawfully belonged to the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs respectively, and the subsequent ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 alterations, transfers, and title issuances 60 | P a g e

page 60 of 65

executed under the instigation of Jane Wanjiru Njenga and the Defendants were fraudulent, illegal, null, and void. 141) To give complete, practical, and effective resolution to this long-standing dispute, the Court issues the following final orders: i) It is hereby declared that the 1 st Plaintiff, George Muiruri Njenga is the absolute, lawful owner of Plot No. Ting’ang’a/Cianda Block 1/218 and Plot No. Ting’ang’a/Cianda Block 1/2073. ii) It is hereby declared that the 2 nd Plaintiff James Karanja Njenga is the absolute, lawful owner of Plot No. Ting’ang’a/Cianda Block 1/214 and Plot No. Ting’ang’a/Cianda Block 1/2097. iii) A declaration is hereby issued that the initial allocation, registration, and issuance of title deeds for Land Titles Ting’ang’a/Cianda Block 1/218 and 1/2073 in the name of the 3 rd Defendant Daniel Muiruri Njenga, and Land Titles Ting’ang’a/Cianda Block 1/214 and 1/2097 in the names of the 1st Defendant and Jeremiah Muiruri Njenga, were illegal, null, and void ab initio. iv) An order is hereby issued directing the 5 th Defendant, the District Land Registrar Kiambu, to forthwith rectify the land registers by cancelling all existing titles, entries, and registrations in respect of: ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 61 | P a g e

page 61 of 65

a) Land Title Ting’ang’a/Cianda Block 1/218 currently registered in the name of the 7 th Defendant Samuel Wageche Kanyi or any Block 1/2073 subsequent transferees; b) Land Title Ting’ang’a/Cianda registered in the name of the 3rd Defendant; c) Land Title Ting’ang’a/Cianda Block 1/214 registered in the name of the 1 st Defendant; and d) Land Title Ting’ang’a/Cianda Block 1/2097 registered in the name of Jeremiah Muiruri Njenga/2nd Defendant. v) The 5th Defendant, the District Land Registrar Kiambu, is ordered and directed to register and issue fresh Title Deeds for: a) Plots Ting’ang’a/Cianda Block 1/218 and Ting’ang’a/Cianda Block 1/2073 in the sole name of the 1st Plaintiff (George Muiruri Njenga); and b) Plots Ting’ang’a/Cianda Block 1/214 and Ting’ang’a/Cianda Block 1/2097 in the sole name of the 2nd Plaintiff (James Karanja Njenga). vi) The 4th operative Defendant, Society Kanunga Limited (or Farmers’ its Co- statutory liquidator), is directed to rectify its official share ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 62 | P a g e

page 62 of 65

register to reflect Membership Number 433 in the name of the 1st Plaintiff and Membership Number 434 in the name of the 2nd Plaintiff. vii) An order of permanent injunction is hereby issued restraining the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 7th Defendants, by themselves, their agents, servants, family members, or anyone claiming through them, from trespassing into, entering, occupying, constructing upon, charging, selling, or in any other manner interfering with Plots Ting’ang’a/Cianda Block 1/218, 2073, 214, and 2097. viii) 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 7th Defendants shall yield up vacant possession of Plots Ting’ang’a/Cianda Block 1/218, 2073, 214, and 2097 to the Plaintiffs within sixty (60) days from the date of this Judgment, failing which an order of eviction shall issue automatically. ix) The 8th Defendant, Unaitas Sacco Society Limited having confirmed full settlement of the loan facility, entry number 3 creating a legal charge on the green card for Plot Ting’ang’a/Cianda Block 1/218 is hereby formally cancelled and expunged from the register. x) The 8th Defendant's Ting'ang'a/Cianda ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 Block 1/218 charge having over been 63 | P a g e

page 63 of 65

lawfully registered and thereafter fully discharged, no live cause of action subsists against the 8th Defendant, and it is struck out as a party to this suit. xi) The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants shall jointly and severally bear the costs of this suit to the Plaintiffs. The 5th, 6th, 7th and 8 Defendants shall bear their own costs. xii) The Court records its finding that the 5 th Defendant's delay in registering the Plaintiffs' 2009 caution and restriction fell short of the standard of diligence required of that office, but makes no order for damages against the 5 th Defendant, the Attorney General not having been joined as a necessary party; this is without prejudice to any properly constituted claim the Plaintiffs may separately bring. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT THIKA VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS ON THIS 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026. …………….……… MOGENI J JUDGE In the presence of:ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 64 | P a g e

page 64 of 65

Mr. Ondieki for 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs Ms. Khayeri for 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants 4th Defendant – Absent Ms. Nyawira for the 5th Defendant 6th Defendant – Absent Mr. Ian Wanda for the 7th Defendant Mr. Chimei for the 8th Defendant Mr. Melita - Court Assistant ………….………… MOGENI J JUDGE ELC NO. 480 OF 2017 65 | P a g e

page 65 of 65