Langat v Chepkwony and another; Chepkwony (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Kaplachan Maritim) v Maritim and 2 others (Counter Claim) (Environment & Land Case 8 of 2012) [2022] KEELC 3379 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kericho court cancelled land titles that traced back to someone selling a dead man's property without proper succession papers, and dismissed the buyer's claim.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff's title to Kericho/Kabianga/3920 was lawfully acquired
The title was acquired illegally, un-procedurally and/or through a corrupt scheme and is liable to impeachment because the chain of title originated from an improper transfer of a deceased's estate without a grant of representation
Kaplachan Arap Maritim died on 24th October 1984 as the first registered proprietor of parcel 98. No succession proceedings were ever filed, yet the land was transferred to Elizabeth Chemutai Maritim on 24th September 1990 and subdivided in 1992, and later parcels passed to Joseph Ruto and the Plaintiff. Contrary to sections 45 and 55 of the Law of Succession Act, the estate was never distributed under a confirmed grant, so the registration was a nullity, and section 80(1) of the Land Registration Act empowered rectification.
Whether the Plaintiff's title is protected as an indefeasible title under section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act
Section 26(1)(b) removes protection from a title obtained illegally, un-procedurally or through a corrupt scheme, even where the title holder did not contribute to the vitiating factors
The court emphasized that title is extremely protected but only within the two statutory exceptions. The import of section 26(1)(b) is to protect real title holders from being deprived of their titles by subsequent transactions, so the Plaintiff's registered title could not shield the defect in the root of title flowing from intermeddling with the deceased's estate.
Whether the Plaintiff proved his claim for eviction and vesting orders
The Plaintiff failed to prove his case on a balance of probabilities and his suit was dismissed
There was no evidence of the sale agreements, no Land Control Board consents, no proof of payment of the substantial purchase price, and no evidence of compliance with section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act. The court nonetheless rested its decision on the fundamental defect in the root of title and declined to belabour these additional lacunae.
Legal principles established
#- A certificate of title is prima facie evidence of absolute and indefeasible ownership but may be challenged on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation to which the proprietor is proved to be a party, or where it was acquired illegally, un-procedurally or through a corrupt scheme
- Allegations of fraud must be strictly proved to a standard higher than a mere balance of probabilities
- No person may take possession of, dispose of or otherwise intermeddle with free property of a deceased person except under a grant of representation, and such dealings are void ab initio
- Where a registered proprietor's root of title is under challenge, the proprietor must prove the legality of the acquisition beyond the instrument of title
- An act that is void is a nullity, incurably bad, and needs no order of court to set it aside
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs
- 2.Cancellation of the transfer of title No Kericho/Kabianga/98 to the 1st defendant in the counterclaim, the issuance of title deed on 24th September 1990, and the subsequent subdivision into title Nos Kericho/Kabianga/2387, 2388, 2389 and 2442 on 13th May 1992, and title No Kericho/Kabianga/98 restored
- 3.Cancellation of the subdivision of title No Kericho/Kabianga/2387 into Nos Kericho/Kabianga/3920 and 3921, the subsequent transfers of No Kericho/Kabianga/3920 to the 2nd and then the 3rd defendant in the counterclaim, and any titles issued
- 4.The County Land Registrar Kericho County or the land registrar in charge of the area where the suit parcel is situate to be served with the orders for compliance
- 5.A permanent injunction restraining the defendants in the counterclaim from trespassing upon, remaining on, or otherwise interfering with any part of the original title No Kericho/Kabianga/98 or its use or possession by the plaintiff in the counterclaim and beneficiaries of the estate
- 6.Costs of the counterclaim awarded to the plaintiff in the counterclaim
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under the Environment and Land Court Act over title to and occupation of land (statutory provisions not expressly recited in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Langat v Chepkwony and another; Chepkwony (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Kaplachan Maritim) v Maritim and 2 others (Counter Claim) (Environment & Land Case 8 of 2012) [2022] KEELC 3379 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/3379/eng@2022-05-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.