Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedELC Case No. 106 of 2016 (renumbered on transfer from Nyeri)· [2022] KEELC 2973 (KLR)

Gathaithe Farmers Cooperative Society Limited v Ndungu & another (Environment & Land Case 250 of 2017) [2022] KEELC 2973 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
28 July 2022
3,884 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~16 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court cancelled land titles obtained through fraud, returning the property to the co-operative society that had always owned it.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Gathaite Farmers Co-operative Society Limited sued Nicholas Kigo Ndungu and Gideon Kamau Karanja, claiming to be the registered absolute owner of LR No. Makuyu/Makuyu Block 11/1092 (3.908 Ha) and alleging that the Defendants fraudulently caused its registration into their joint names in 2012 without the society's knowledge or consent. The Plaintiff sought a declaration of fraudulent title, cancellation, reinstatement of its title, a permanent injunction and costs. The Defendants entered appearance but filed no defence; the case proceeded to formal proof, with three witnesses including the Land Registrar, Murang'a. The Defendants, through submissions, raised two preliminary objections: lack of service of summons and want of authorization of the suit by the management committee, citing the Cooperative Societies Act and two authorities. The court found service proved by the process server's affidavit and the Defendants' appearance, and held the authorization objection res judicata, having been determined in a ruling of 26/7/2018. On the merits, the green card showed the Plaintiff registered in 1998 and never transferred; a gazette notice of a lost title preceded the impugned 2012 transfer by named transferors who never appeared on the register and who purported to gift the land. The court found them to be imposters and fraudsters, held the Defendants' title a product of fraud, and granted judgment: a declaration of ownership, cancellation of the Defendants' title, rectification of the register by cancelling entries 3, 4 and 5, reinstatement of the Plaintiff's title, a permanent injunction, and costs to the Plaintiff.

Key legal issues

#
01

Service of summons on the Defendants

Holding

The Defendants were duly served; the objection was dismissed.

Reasoning

The affidavit of service deponed by the process server showed each Defendant served at their home and declining to sign. The Defendants subsequently entered appearance through counsel and even filed an application to strike out the suit, demonstrating knowledge of the proceedings. The court held that appearance could only be explained by service.

p. 4
02

Whether the suit was defective for want of authorization by the management committee

Holding

The objection was res judicata, having been determined in the ruling of 26/7/2018, and was dismissed.

Reasoning

The Defendants had raised the same issue in a notice of motion dated 25/7/2017, which the court heard and determined. No evidence was led that the ruling was set aside or appealed. The court therefore declined to re-open the issue and dismissed the second objection.

p. 4
03

Whether the Plaintiff proved fraud and entitlement to rectification

Holding

Yes. The transferors were imposters/fraudsters who gifted land they never owned; the Defendants' title was a product of fraud and was cancelled, with the register rectified.

Reasoning

The green card showed the Plaintiff registered on 4/12/1998 and never transferred. A gazette notice of a lost title preceded the impugned transfer, yet the Plaintiff still held the original title. The named transferors never appeared on the register, and no society minutes or land control board application supported the gift. Fraud was specifically pleaded and distinctly proved to the elevated standard, justifying rectification under Section 80 LRA.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • Fraud must be specifically pleaded, its particulars stated, and fraudulent conduct distinctly alleged and distinctly proved; it may not be left to inference.
  • A certificate of title is prima facie evidence of absolute and indefeasible ownership but may be challenged on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation, or where acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme.
  • A party claiming not to have been served cannot simultaneously have entered appearance through counsel; appearance in response to summons evidences service.
  • An issue previously raised and determined by the court, with no appeal or setting aside, is res judicata.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that the Plaintiff is the rightful owner of LR. No. Makuyu/Makuyu Block 11/1092
  2. 2.The title in the name of the Defendants be cancelled forthwith
  3. 3.The Land Registrar Murang'a to cancel the Title Deed L.R. No. Makuyu/Makuyu Block 11/1092 held by the Defendants, rectify the register by cancelling entries Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and reinstate the title in the name of Gathaite Farmers Cooperative Society Limited
  4. 4.A permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants, employees or anyone claiming through them from selling, disposing, alienating, transferring or interfering with the Plaintiff's ownership, use and/or possession of the suit property
  5. 5.Costs of the suit to the Plaintiff

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Registration ActSections 25, 26, 35, 37, 80
  • Evidence ActSection 107
  • Cooperative Societies ActSections 2 and 28(3)
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 27
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 5 rule 1
  • Registered Land Act (Cap. 300)Section 35

Cases cited (3)

  • Vijay Morjaria vs Nansingh Madhusingh Darbar & Another
    [2000] eKLR
  • Josephat Kimani Mirara & 2 others v Romano K. Mikigu
    [2013] eKLR
  • Geoffrey Ndirangu & 5 Others v Chairman of Mariakani Jua Kali Association & 2 Others
    [2005] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under the Environment and Land Court Act over disputes relating to title and registration of land

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Gathaithe Farmers Cooperative Society Limited v Ndungu & another (Environment & Land Case 250 of 2017) [2022] KEELC 2973 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). ELC Case No. 106 of 2016 (renumbered on transfer from Nyeri). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/2973/eng@2022-07-28

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