Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the extract ( merits judgment after Further Amended Plaint dated 4th December 2017)· [2018] KEELC 1578 (KLR)

Nkwengo Consolata Mission Church (Suing thro’ the Catholic Diocese of Meru Registered Trustees) v Registered Trustees of the Presbetyrian Foundation & 5 others [2018] KEELC 1578 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
3 October 2018
2,832 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court cancelled a land title obtained while an appeal over the same land was pending, ruling the transfer fraudulent and returning one acre to the Catholic parish.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an exparte-heard first-instance land suit at Chuka in which the plaintiff, a Catholic parish acting through the Registered Trustees of the Catholic Diocese of Meru, claimed a one-acre portion of Land Parcel No. Karingani/Gitareni/929 allegedly allocated to it by the then Tharaka Nithi County Council (later County Council of Meru South). The plaintiff's case traced a chain of litigation: an allocation in 1997, judgment in Meru CMCC No. 753 of 1999, a preliminary objection and ruling in Chuka PMCC No. 5 of 2002, and the plaintiff's successful appeal in Meru HCCA No. 65 of 2002, decided in its favour on 28th June 2007. While that appeal was pending, the parcel was transferred and registered in the name of the 1st defendant, the Registered Trustee of the Presbyterian Foundation, with a title issued on 15th June 2005. PW1, the parish Lands Committee chairman, testified and produced 25 exhibits including the green card, allocation minutes and the leave order of Hon. J. A. Emukule, J permitting suit out of time against the Attorney General. The court framed a single principal issue - whether the plaintiff was entitled to the orders sought - and found the registration during the pendency of the appeal fraudulent, implicating the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th defendants. On a balance of probabilities the plaintiff's case was proved. The court declared the transfer null and void, cancelled the 1st defendant's title, ordered rectification of the register, resurvey and demarcation of one acre to the plaintiff, empowered the Deputy Registrar to execute documents in default, and awarded costs and interest. The judgment contains notable internal inconsistencies in defendant numbering, parcel number and dates.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiff proved fraud in the transfer and registration of the suit parcel to the 1st defendant

Holding

The court found the transfer during the pendency of the plaintiff's appeal was fraudulent and unlawful, hence null and void

Reasoning

The plaintiff had obtained judgment in its favour (Meru HCCA No. 65 of 2002/2007) awarding it one acre. While that appeal was pending, the defendants caused the entire parcel to be registered in the name of the 1st defendant, depriving the plaintiff of the fruits of its judgment. The court treated this timing as proof of fraud on a balance of probabilities and attributed participation to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th defendants.

p. 5
02

Whether the plaintiff was entitled to cancellation of the 1st defendant's title, rectification of the register, resurvey and transfer of one acre

Holding

Yes - the court granted all the substantive prayers in the plaint, including cancellation of title, rectification of entries Nos. 1-5, resurvey, demarcation and transfer of one acre to the plaintiff

Reasoning

Having found fraud, the court granted declarations, cancellation of the title issued on 15th June 2005, rectification of the register (entry No. 1 to read Tharaka County Council/County Government of Tharaka Nithi), resurvey and demarcation of the one acre, and empowered the Deputy Registrar to execute documents if the defendants defaulted.

p. 5
03

Whether the suit against the Attorney General and statutory bodies was barred by limitation

Holding

No - leave to file suit out of time had been properly granted, defeating the limitation objection raised in cross-examination

Reasoning

Counsel for the 1st and 2nd defendants cross-examined PW1 on the suit having been filed over three years after the alleged fraud. PW1 rebutted this by producing the court order of the Hon. J. A. Emukule, J granting leave to file suit out of time against the Attorney General, the Commissioner of Lands and the Chief Land Registrar.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Registration of land in the name of a third party during the pendency of litigation over that land, to defeat a judgment already obtained, is fraudulent conduct
  • A plaintiff asserting fraud against a title discharges the burden on a balance of probabilities where the fraudulent conduct and the participants are identified

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declaration that a one-acre portion of L.R. No. Karingani/Gitareni/929 (the judgment also writes 729) is rightly the property of the plaintiff and not available for issuance of title to any other party
  2. 2.Declaration that the purported transfer and registration of the parcel into the names of the 1st defendant was fraudulent, unlawful and null and void
  3. 3.Cancellation of the title deed issued to the 1st defendant on or about 15th June 2005
  4. 4.Rectification of the register in respect of entry No. 1 to read Tharaka County Council or the County Government of Tharaka Nithi instead of Meru County Council
  5. 5.Rectification of the register in respect of entries Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 dated 20.5.2002, 27.5.2005, 4.6.2005 and 15.6.2005
  6. 6.Order directing the 4th and 5th defendants to resurvey the parcel and demarcate one acre to the plaintiff with a title issued to the plaintiff forthwith
  7. 7.1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th defendants ordered to sign all documents to effect subdivision and transfer, and in default the Deputy Registrar empowered to execute them
  8. 8.Costs to the plaintiff against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 6th defendants with interest at court rates from the date of judgment

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Registered Land Act / land registration law (evidenced by green card and rectification of register orders - statute not expressly named in the extract)Not expressly named

Cases cited (5)

  • Meru CMCC No. 753 of 1999 (Nkwengo Nursery School & Nkwengo Primary School v plaintiff and County Council of Meru South)
  • Chuka PMCC No. 5 of 2002
  • Meru HCC Appeal No. 65 of 2002
  • Chuka PMCC No. 39 of 2007
  • Meru HCC Misc. Application No. 21 of 2008
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil suit on land title and rectification of register under the land registration statutes; leave to sue statutory bodies out of time previously granted in Meru HCC Misc. Application No. 21 of 2008

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nkwengo Consolata Mission Church (Suing thro’ the Catholic Diocese of Meru Registered Trustees) v Registered Trustees of the Presbetyrian Foundation & 5 others [2018] KEELC 1578 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the extract ( merits judgment after Further Amended Plaint dated 4th December 2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/1578/eng@2018-10-03

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