Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedEnvironment & Land Miscellaneous Case 55 of 2022· [2022] KEELC 13750 (KLR)

Said Bin Seif Properties (2016) Limited & another (Suing as administrators of the Estate of Meya Binti Salim Bin Khalfan Al-Busaidy aka Meya Salim Khalfan (Deceased)) v Director of Surveys, Ruaraka Nairobi & another

Environment and Land Court
25 October 2022
1,622 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Mombasa court dismissed an attempt to cancel land title entries through a shortcut application, ruling that ownership and fraud disputes need a full trial.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicants, administrators and beneficiaries of the estates of Said Bin Seif and Meya Binti Salim, registered proprietors of Mombasa/Block XVII/1068 in equal shares, moved the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa by notice of motion dated August 25, 2022 under sections 80 and 79(1)(c) of the Land Registration Act and provisions of the Civil Procedure Act and Rules. They sought orders compelling the Director of Surveys to cancel and nullify entries of January 26, 2015 on file Ref No CT 12/Vol 10/93, conduct a re-survey of the title, and compelling the Chief Registration Officer to cancel entry No 2 of January 28, 2015 on the green card and cancel the parcel files for the resulting subdivisions, Mombasa/Block XVII/1804 and 1805. They alleged the subdivision was irregular and unauthorised, done while succession proceedings were pending, and feared the property would be grabbed. Matheka J held that fraud is a serious allegation which must be specifically pleaded and distinctly proved, and that such issues cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence in a miscellaneous cause. A dispute over ownership and entitlement to land requires an ordinary suit with pleadings, viva voce evidence and cross-examination; a miscellaneous application is not a forum for adjudicating such disputes or making substantive orders affecting title. The notice of motion was dismissed with no order as to costs, the application having been undefended, and the applicants were left to institute a proper civil suit.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether cancellation of title/survey entries and determination of alleged irregular subdivision can be granted in a miscellaneous application

Holding

No - the application was dismissed; the applicants must file an ordinary civil suit where ownership and fraud can be tried with viva voce evidence

Reasoning

The court held that the dispute concerns ownership and entitlement to land, requiring witnesses to testify and be cross-examined. Affidavit evidence in a miscellaneous cause cannot suffice where there are rival claims. Fraud must be specifically pleaded and distinctly proved, which is only possible at a proper trial. The sanctity of title to land can only be determined through pleadings and viva voce evidence, so the notice of motion lacked merit.

p. 3
02

Standard and manner of pleading and proving fraud

Holding

Fraud is a serious allegation that must be specifically pleaded with particulars and proved to a standard above balance of probabilities but not beyond reasonable doubt

Reasoning

Relying on Vijay Morjaria v Nansing M Darbar, the court reiterated that fraudulent conduct must be distinctly alleged and distinctly proved and cannot be inferred from facts. Order 2 rules 4 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules require pleadings to particularise fraud. Whether fraud exists is a question of evidence for trial, not affidavit material.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Fraud must be specifically pleaded and distinctly proved; it cannot be left to be inferred from facts
  • Allegations of fraud cannot be determined on affidavit evidence; they require a trial with cross-examination
  • A miscellaneous cause is not a proper forum for adjudicating disputes on ownership of land, which require viva voce evidence

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Notice of motion dated August 25, 2022 dismissed
  2. 2.No order as to costs, the application having been undefended

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Registration Actsection 80
  • Land Registration Actsection 79(1)(c)
  • Civil Procedure Rulessections 1A, 1B and 314
  • Civil Procedure Actsection 89
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 2 rule 4 as read with rule 10

Cases cited (4)

  • Vijay Morjaria v Nansing M Darbar & another
    (2000) eKLR

    Fraud must be specifically pleaded with particulars; fraudulent conduct must be distinctly alleged and distinctly proved

  • Naimisha Somchand Shah v Resident Magistrate, Mombasa & 3 others
    (2017) eKLR

    Allegations of fraud cannot be dealt with by affidavit evidence; must be pleaded and proved at a hearing with cross-examination

  • Vivo Energy Kenya Limited v Maloba Petrol Station Limited & 3 others
    [2015] eKLR

    Issues of alleged fraud can only be determined with finality during a proper trial, not on conflicting affidavit evidence

  • Westmon Power Kenya Limited v Frederick & another/a Continental Traders & Marketing
    [2003] KLR 357

    Fraud issues determined at proper trial, not on affidavit evidence (cited within Vivo Energy quote)

Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 80 and 79(1)(c) of the Land Registration Act 2012; sections 1A, 1B and 314 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 and section 89 of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Said Bin Seif Properties (2016) Limited & another (Suing as administrators of the Estate of Meya Binti Salim Bin Khalfan Al-Busaidy aka Meya Salim Khalfan (Deceased)) v Director of Surveys, Ruaraka Nairobi & another", Case Analysis (2022). Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case 55 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/13750/eng@2022-10-25

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