Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC No. 225 of 2011 (consolidated with ELC No. 277 of 2010)· [2021] KEELC 2638 (KLR)

Ubora Housing Co-operative Society Ltd v Trippel Two Properties Limited & 5 others; Angut Muumbi Munyao & another (on his behalf & on behalf of 82 others (Interested parties) [2021] KEELC 2638 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
16 June 2021
7,321 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~29 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled that only a title with a clean, traceable history survives, dismissing every competing claim as based on forged documents.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This consolidated first-instance dispute concerned LR No. 337/1631 (about 10 acres) in Mavoko, Machakos County, claimed by three parties: Ubora Housing Co-operative Society (under a 2009 transfer from Jena Agencies Ltd), Misori Construction Company (grant IR 72197 of 1998), and Trippel Two Properties Ltd (allotment 2011, grant IR 130163). The Society sued for injunction, declarations of trespass, cancellation of the defendants' titles and rectification of the register, alternatively protection as an innocent purchaser. Misori, who had earlier sued the Society in ELC 277 of 2010, counterclaimed for validation of its title, demolition of the interested parties' buildings and vacant possession. Two interested parties, purchasers of portions from the Society, sought injunctions and damages. Investigating the root of each title, the court found the Jena title fraudulent: Jena was allegedly allotted and registered as owner before its incorporation in 1998, its grant number belonged to unrelated amalgamated plots, and its deed plan, searches and supporting letters were forged, with the underlying criminal proceedings in Kiambu confirming the forgeries. Misori's grant number likewise belonged to a Nakuru plot and its title had been expunged. Only Trippel Two's title, following lawful allocation and payment after the land fell vacant, existed in the Lands Office records. The Society failed to establish due diligence, its search being itself forged, and its conduct suggested collusion with Jena's directors. All claims, the counterclaim and the ELC 277 of 2010 suit were dismissed with costs, and the court declared Trippel Two the lawful owner.

Key legal issues

#
01

Which of the three competing titles is genuine

Holding

Only Trippel Two's title was genuine; the titles held by Jena (transferred to the Society) and Misori were forgeries

Reasoning

Jena was allotted and registered as owner of the land before its incorporation, which is legally impossible. The grant numbers relied on by Jena and Misori belonged to unrelated properties, the deed plan did not exist at Survey of Kenya, lands officials denied the registrations and searches, and the forged documents were expunged from the Lands Office file. Only Trippel Two's title emanated from the Lands Office after lawful allocation and payment.

p. 6
02

Whether the Society was an innocent purchaser for value without notice

Holding

It was not; it failed to prove due diligence and its conduct suggested collusion with the fraudulent vendors

Reasoning

The Society's search was itself a forged document whose purported author denied issuing it. Despite a CID letter raising doubts before the sale, the Society proceeded to purchase, and even allocated plots to the directors of Jena who had sold it the land for Kshs.45,000,000. The court drew the inference that Society officials were in the picture regarding the fraud.

p. 8
03

Whether Asanyo trespassed

Holding

No; he acted on behalf of Trippel Two, the lawful registered owner

Reasoning

Asanyo went to the land with police and supervised demolition, but a person is only a trespasser where he has no interest recognizable in law. Since Trippel Two held the genuine title, Asanyo acting for it could not be a trespasser, and the Society and interested parties, holding under forged titles, had no lawful interest to defend.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • Where competing titles exist over the same land, the court must investigate the root of each title and uphold the one that conforms to procedure with an unbroken chain.
  • A non-existent company cannot hold title to land.
  • A bona fide purchaser must prove good faith, absence of knowledge of fraud, valuable consideration, vendor's apparent valid title and no participation in fraud.
  • A purchaser is expected to make thorough investigations of both the land and the seller before purchase.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Plaintiff's case (ELC 225 of 2011) is dismissed with costs to the Defendants
  2. 2.The 3rd Defendant's claim by way of counter-claim is dismissed with costs to the Defendants
  3. 3.The Plaintiff's suit in ELC 277 of 2010 is dismissed with costs to the Defendant
  4. 4.The 1st Interested Party's claim is dismissed with costs to the 1st and 2nd Defendants
  5. 5.The 2nd Interested Party's claim is dismissed with costs to the 1st and 2nd Defendants
  6. 6.Declaration that the suit property is lawfully owned by the 1st Defendant (Trippel Two Properties Limited)

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Co-operative Societies Actnot specified
  • Companies Actnot specified

Cases cited (5)

  • Hubert L Martin and 2 Others v Margaret J. Kamar & 5 Others
    (2016) eKLR
  • Charles Karaithe Kiarie & 2 Others v Administrators of the Estate of John Wallace Mathare (Deceased) & 5 Others
    (2013) eKLR
  • Katende v Haridar & Company Limited
    [2008] 2 E.A. 173
  • Sir John Bagire v Ausi Matovu
    Ugandan Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1996
  • Mpagazihe & Another v Nchumisi
    (1992-93) HCB 148
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under Article 162(2) of the Constitution (not expressly quoted in judgment; court determined land title disputes in first instance)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ubora Housing Co-operative Society Ltd v Trippel Two Properties Limited & 5 others; Angut Muumbi Munyao & another (on his behalf & on behalf of 82 others (Interested parties) [2021] KEELC 2638 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). ELC No. 225 of 2011 (consolidated with ELC No. 277 of 2010). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/2638/eng@2021-06-16

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