Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2019] KEELC 4775 (KLR)

Hillary Kibet Melly v Irene Jerono [2019] KEELC 4775 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
24 January 2019
3,707 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~15 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's land registries trump long occupation: a registered buyer with a clean title will evict someone who bought earlier without Land Control Board consent.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff sued the defendant seeking a declaration that he is the sole registered owner of PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1(EATEC) 9331 (approx. 0.06 ha), eviction, a permanent injunction, and lifting of a restriction and caution registered against the title. He pleaded he purchased the parcel from Ambrose Kipyego Tuigong on 17.9.2012 for Kshs.345,000 and obtained title on 3.10.2012. The defendant admitted his registration but alleged the title was fraudulently acquired, asserting she herself had bought the land from James Kiprono Sum on 13.2.2006 for Kshs.70,000 (paying Kshs.55,000), took possession, and had occupied it since; she also raised non-joinder of the plaintiff's vendor. The plaintiff called Tuigong and Sum, who traced the chain of transactions from Everlyne Lelei and David Mburu Wakaba to Sum, then Tuigong, then the plaintiff. The defendant testified she had occupied the land since 2006 and that Sum was charged with selling her property to a third party. The court found the register was opened on subdivision of Plot 208, the parcel passed to Tuigong and then to the plaintiff, and that there was no evidence of fraud, illegality or corruption on the plaintiff's part. The defendant's parcel was not clearly defined and her transaction with Sum was a nullity for want of Land Control Board consent under section 6 of the Land Control Act. A constructive trust could not be raised against the plaintiff as an innocent purchaser for value without notice. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff: declaration of sole ownership, eviction on 45 days' notice, permanent injunction, lifting of the restriction and caution, and costs to the plaintiff.

Key legal issues

#
01

Indefeasibility of the plaintiff's registered title

Holding

The plaintiff's registered title is absolute and indefeasible as there was no proof of fraud, misrepresentation, illegality or corruption

Reasoning

The court traced the register: Plot 208 was subdivided and the resulting parcel 9331 registered to Ambrose Kipyego Tuygong, then transferred to the plaintiff who obtained a title deed after Land Control Board consent, stamp duty and registration. The defendant alleged fraud in the defence but adduced no evidence of fraud or illegality on the plaintiff's part. Sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Land Registration Act vested absolute ownership in the plaintiff free from unregistered claims.

p. 4
02

Validity of the defendant's prior agreement with James K. Sum

Holding

The defendant's pre-subdivision purchase from Sum was a nullity for want of Land Control Board consent, and the parcel she bought was not clearly defined

Reasoning

The defendant bought Plot 10 (temporary), 1/8 acre of parcel 208, before subdivision, for Kshs.70,000 and took possession in 2006. However, the parcel bought was not clearly defined and it was not established that Plot 10 became parcel 9331. Sum never complied with the agreement, and no Land Control Board consent was obtained for the transaction, which under section 6 of the Land Control Act rendered it a nullity.

p. 4
03

Whether a constructive trust could be raised against the plaintiff

Holding

The doctrine of constructive trust could not apply against the plaintiff, an innocent purchaser for value without notice

Reasoning

Although the defendant had been in occupation since 2006, the plaintiff purchased from the registered owner for value, paid the full consideration of Kshs.345,000, obtained Land Control Board consent, and received title without knowledge of the defendant's dealings. Equity will not impose a constructive trust on a bona fide purchaser without notice of wrongdoing, so the defendant's occupation could not defeat the plaintiff's registered interest.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Registration of a person as proprietor of land vests in that person absolute ownership under section 24 of the Land Registration Act
  • A certificate of title is prima facie evidence of absolute and indefeasible ownership, challengeable only on fraud/misrepresentation to which the proprietor is party, or where the title was acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme (section 26)
  • A sale of agricultural land without Land Control Board consent is a nullity under section 6 of the Land Control Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declaration that the plaintiff is the sole registered owner of all that parcel of land measuring approximately 0.06 hectares known as PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1(EATEC) 9331
  2. 2.Order that the defendants vacate the plaintiff's parcel of land known as PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1(EATEC) 9331 upon being given 45 days' notice
  3. 3.Permanent injunction restraining the defendant, her servants or agents from encroaching, constructing, wasting, disposing, alienating and/or trespassing onto the plaintiff's parcel of land known as PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1(EATEC) 9331
  4. 4.Order directing and compelling the Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu County to cause to be lifted the restriction and caution registered against the register title of land parcel PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1(EATEC) 9331 forthwith
  5. 5.Costs to the plaintiff

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Registration ActSections 24, 25, 26, 28
  • Land Control ActSection 6
Jurisdiction invoked
First-instance claim under the Land Registration Act and Land Control Act; specific provision not stated

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Hillary Kibet Melly v Irene Jerono [2019] KEELC 4775 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/4775/eng@2019-01-24

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