Onduso (Suing as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Maeri Onduso, Deceased) v Karani (Environment & Land Case 443 of 2017) [2018] KEELC 4882 (KLR)

The court found it undisputed that the plaintiff's husband was allocated the land through adjudication and that the defendant's husband successfully lodged an objection which was allowed. Section 29 of the Land Adjudication Act provides an elaborate procedure for a person aggrieved by the determination of an objection, namely an appeal to the Minister within 60 days. The plaintiff did not controvert DW2's evidence that the objection was heard and allowed, and did not pursue the appeal. Consequently the statutory bar under the Act applied.

Fraud is an allegation that must be specifically pleaded and proved. The court held that the plaintiff did not state the specifics of the alleged fraud, who the actors or perpetrators were, either in the pleadings or in testimony. DW2, the Land Adjudication Officer, confirmed that the objection lodged by the defendant's husband was allowed and the plaintiff's husband's name cancelled. The plaintiff did not fault this evidence. The court therefore concluded that the registration of the defendant's husband as owner was lawful.

Having found that the suit was barred under the Land Adjudication Act and that fraud was not proved, the court held that the plaintiff had not discharged the burden of proof. All three reliefs — revocation of title, eviction and permanent injunction — were predicated on proof of fraudulent acquisition of the title, which failed. The suit was accordingly dismissed with costs to the defendant.