Kazungu Masha Birya v Stephen Ben Ngumbao Katana & 3 others [2020] KEELC 1034 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Malindi cancelled a family's land title because they couldn't prove they bought it, restoring it to the original owner's estate.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Identity of the suit property
Kilifi/Mtondia/169 is the same parcel as Kilifi/Mtondia/170 allocated to the Plaintiff's father in 1968; the number changed following a 2007 ground verification exercise
The court found no difficulty concluding the two parcel numbers referred to one and the same thing. The Defendants' own pleading explained that after a 2007 ground status exercise it was established they occupied Plot No. 169 instead of 170, and the title issued in 1996 was cancelled and replaced with one for Plot 169 on 17th April 2007. PW5 the Land Registrar confirmed the Green Card alteration. The court thus rejected the Defendants' argument that the parcels were separate and distinct.
Whether the Defendants lawfully acquired the suit property
The Defendants failed to prove either the alleged re-allocation after default or the purchase of trees; their defence and Counterclaim had no evidentiary support
Nothing was produced to show the Plaintiff's father was in default of loan repayments or that the Settlement Funds Trustee demanded re-possession or communicated re-allocation. The alleged written agreement for the tree purchase was neither produced nor witnessed by any witness. No evidence supported the alleged custom that buying trees conferred ownership of land. The Discharge of Charge was in the father's name and collected by the Defendants' brother without authority. The transfer to the Defendants was irregular since no title had ever been issued to the transferor.
Compliance with Section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act
There was no evidence that the statutory writing requirement for dispositions of land was adhered to prior to the transfer
The court invoked Section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act, which requires any disposition of land to be in writing, signed by both parties in the presence of independent witnesses. The Defendants admitted only the purchase of trees for Kshs 600/- and conceded the written agreement could not be traced. The court held the statutory requirement was not shown to have been met before the transfer of the suit property into the Defendants' names, undermining the legality of the transaction.
Standard of proof applicable
The Plaintiff's case was proved on a balance of probabilities, the civil standard applicable to the claim
Having discredited the Defendants' two theories of acquisition and found the transfer irregular and unexplained, the court was satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the suit property belonged to the Plaintiff's father and that the Plaintiff's suit had merit. The Counterclaim, dependent on the Defendants proving ownership, was accordingly dismissed with the Plaintiff's suit succeeding in its principal reliefs.
Legal principles established
#- Any disposition of land or transaction involving land must be reduced into writing and signed by both parties in the presence of independent witnesses under Section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act
- A party alleging fraud or an irregular acquisition of title must adduce evidence to support it; mere assertion is insufficient, and a transfer of title before any title had been issued to the transferor is irregular
Court orders
#- 1.An order directing the 4th Defendant Land Registrar Kilifi to cancel the title deed issued to the Defendants and register the same in the name of the Plaintiff's deceased father
- 2.An order of eviction requiring the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants to vacate the suit property Kilifi/Mtondia/169 within 90 days
- 3.An order of permanent injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants, their servants, agents, employees or anybody acting through them from selling, leasing, cultivating, transferring, letting and or subletting or in any other manner dealing with the property known as Kilifi/Mtondia/169
- 4.The Plaintiff awarded both the costs of the suit and of the Counterclaim
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over disputes relating to title to land (Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution), not expressly cited in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kazungu Masha Birya v Stephen Ben Ngumbao Katana & 3 others [2020] KEELC 1034 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment (Plaint dated 16th April 2014, as amended 8th October 2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/1034/eng@2020-10-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.