Pati Limited & 2 others v Eunice Nduta Wanyoike & 3 others [2016] KEELC 303 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court

14 November 2016

OAO. A. Angote

715 words in judgment

View original judgment Read on Kenya Law Watch case

AI-assisted case brief

·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

The Environment and Land Court ordered a fraudster's forged land record removed, restoring a Kilifi family company as the rightful registered owner.

What this practically means

Executive summary

In a plaint dated 9th May 2016, the Plaintiffs claimed to be the registered owners of parcel Kilifi/Kijipwa 199, having purchased it from the original allotees. They averred that in 2015 the 1st Defendant, in collaboration with the 2nd Defendant, fraudulently removed the green card for the suit property and replaced it with a forged one showing the 1st Defendant as registered proprietor, and sought rectification of the register. The 1st Defendant, though served, did not enter appearance or file a defence; the 2nd to 4th Defendants filed a joint defence denying the allegations but adduced no evidence. PW1, an advocate, testified that the 1st Defendant impersonated one Rosemary Wangui in a 2016 attempt to sell land using a forged title, which was exposed at the land registry; PW2 and PW3 described the purchase of the property and the discovery of the substituted green card; PW4 (Rosemary Wangui Schiffer) confirmed selling her share to the 1st Plaintiff in 1996. The Plaintiffs produced a Title Deed issued in their names on 15th April 1998 and a green card showing the 1993 transfer. Finding the evidence uncontroverted, the court held that the Plaintiffs are the registered proprietors, that the 1st Defendant is a fraudster, and that the Plaintiffs' case was proved on a balance of probabilities. The Plaint was allowed as prayed, with an order compelling rectification of the register. The judgment does not record a costs order.

Key legal issues

Fraudulent substitution of the green card and entitlement to rectification of the register

Holding

The court found that the Plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of the suit land and that the 1st Defendant fraudulently replaced the green card; the Plaint was allowed as prayed.

Reasoning

The Plaintiffs testified through their advocates and witnesses that they purchased the suit property from original allotees, obtained consents and transfers in the 1990s, and held a Title Deed issued in their names on 15th April 1998. The 1st Defendant, though served, filed no defence and the 2nd to 4th Defendants adduced no evidence to controvert the fraud allegations. PW1's testimony that the 1st Defendant impersonated Rosemary Wangui in a forged transaction corroborated her status as a persistent fraudster. On the uncontroverted evidence the court found the Plaintiffs' case proved on a balance of probabilities.

p. 2

Legal principles established

A party alleging forgery of a register entry who produces the authentic title documents and whose evidence is uncontroverted will, on a balance of probabilities, be entitled to rectification of the register.

Court orders

1.The Plaint dated 9th May, 2016 is allowed as prayed
2.An order compelling the Defendants to rectify the register by removing the forged green card and replacing it with the green card showing the Plaintiffs as the registered proprietors of the suit land

Jurisdiction invoked: Original civil jurisdiction over a land dispute concerning parcel Kilifi/Kijipwa 199; specific enabling provision not cited in the judgment

Key timeline

Practical implications

Frequently asked questions

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Pati Limited & 2 others v Eunice Nduta Wanyoike & 3 others [2016] KEELC 303 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2016/303/eng@2016-11-14

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.