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· [2022] KEELC 3341 (KLR)

Chege & 3 others (Suing through their attorney Joseph Chege Njoroge) v Wahome & another (Environment & Land Case 120 of 2018) [2022] KEELC 3341 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
26 May 2022
818 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Kajiado cancelled a land registration made without proper transfer documents, restoring the plot to its rightful owners.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Five plaintiffs, registered owners of L.R. Kajiado/Kisaju/2710 since a 2008 purchase from David Mukui Karangu, discovered in 2015 that the land had been registered in 2010 in the name of the first defendant, Samuel Wanjohi Wahome, without any sale to him. Police could not trace him, and the District Land Registrar, Kajiado declined to cancel the entry without a court order, prompting this suit against the first defendant and the Attorney General seeking a declaration that the registration was null and void ab initio, cancellation of the title, reinstatement of the status quo, costs and interest. The suit proceeded undefended. Three witnesses testified, including the Land Registrar, who produced the green card showing the first defendant as proprietor from 5/8/2010 but admitted in cross-examination that the registration was unsupported by the original title, executed transfer forms, Land Control Board consent, valuation slip, payment receipts, identity cards, PIN certificates and spousal consent. The court adopted the three issues framed by plaintiffs' counsel, found that no transfer to the first defendant occurred, that the Land Registry failed to exercise due diligence, and that the plaintiffs' uncontroverted and corroborated evidence met the required standard of proof. Judgment was entered for the plaintiffs as prayed in the plaint on 26 May 2022.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiffs transferred the suit land to the first defendant

Holding

The court found the plaintiffs did not transfer the land; the absence of mandatory transfer documents proved no valid transaction occurred

Reasoning

The court reasoned that a genuine transfer would necessarily have been accompanied by the mandatory documents: executed transfer forms, Land Control Board consent, valuation slip, receipts, identity cards, PIN certificates and spousal consent. None were presented, and the first defendant never appeared to defend his ownership. The inference was that no transfer by the plaintiffs ever took place.

p. 3
02

Whether the Land Registrar was negligent in making the register entries

Holding

The Land Registry at Kajiado failed to exercise due diligence in effecting the transfer to the first defendant

Reasoning

The Land Registrar admitted in cross-examination that the registration was unsupported by the original title, transfer forms, Land Control Board consent, valuation slip, payment receipts, identity cards, PIN certificates and spousal consent. The registry did not call the registrar who signed against the register to defend the entries, leading the court to conclude due diligence was not exercised.

p. 3
03

Whether the plaintiffs proved their case to the required standard

Holding

The plaintiffs discharged the burden of proof on a balance of probability

Reasoning

The suit proceeded undefended, but the court did not treat that as automatic proof. It found the plaintiffs' documentary and oral evidence strong, cogent and credible, and materially corroborated by the Land Registrar's own testimony and admissions in cross-examination that the registration lacked the requisite supporting documents.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A transfer of land must be supported by the mandatory documents prerequisite to a transfer, and a registration not supported by such documents is invalid
  • A Land Registry is bound to exercise due diligence before entering a transfer in the register

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered for the plaintiffs against the defendants as prayed for in the plaint
  2. 2.A declaration that the registration of the first defendant as owner of L.R. Kajiado/Kisaju/2710 is invalid, null and void ab initio
  3. 3.An order to the District Land Registrar Kajiado to cancel the Title Deed issued on August 5, 2010 to the first defendant
  4. 4.An order to reinstate the status quo before the illegal entry in the register of the suit land
  5. 5.Costs of the suit
  6. 6.Interest on costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Not expressly stated in the judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Chege & 3 others (Suing through their attorney Joseph Chege Njoroge) v Wahome & another (Environment & Land Case 120 of 2018) [2022] KEELC 3341 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/3341/eng@2022-05-26

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