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 Case 241 of 2017· [2023] KEELC 16539 (KLR)

Kisoso v Wish Life Investment Limited & another; Lucy Wangari Akweyu & another (the Administrators of the Estate of Purity – Wanjiru Mwangi - Deceased) (Interested Party)

Environment and Land Court
27 March 2023
2,004 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kitengela landowner lost his case because he couldn't prove fraud, and the buyer holding the original title deed won.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, originally registered owner of LR Kajiado/Kitengela/4076 subdivided in 1994 into parcels 5476 and 5477, sought a declaration that he was the lawful owner of the suit land (5477), permanent injunctions against the first defendant and the County Land Registrar, cancellation of the first defendant's title with rectification of the register, and costs. He alleged that in March 2016 the defendants colluded to fraudulently register the first defendant as owner after he had obtained a replacement title for a supposedly lost title deed. The first defendant denied the claim, asserting it purchased the land from the plaintiff and that the plaintiff procured a second title through a corrupt scheme; it counterclaimed for a declaration of ownership, eviction, an injunction and cancellation of the plaintiff's second title. The second defendant Registrar averred it re-issued the plaintiff's title on his misrepresentation. The interested parties initially joined in their own right but supported the defence. Counsel agreed five issues. The court found the counterclaim was properly instituted by the majority shareholder; that the first defendant's title was procedurally acquired, corroborated by the presentation book entry of July 8, 1994 and the Registrar's evidence; that the plaintiff's second title, though procedurally issued, was founded on misrepresentation; and that the plaintiff proved none of the five pleaded particulars of fraud. The suit was dismissed with costs and the first defendant's counterclaim allowed as drawn with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Authority to institute defence and counterclaim for a company

Holding

The defence and counterclaim were properly filed; the majority shareholder had authority to swear the verifying affidavit

Reasoning

Maureen Waitherero held 600 of 1,000 shares, the majority, and had the authority of the only other shareholder. No contrary evidence was adduced. The court relied on Nairobi Veterinary Centre Ltd v Asia Pharmaceuticals for the proposition that the majority of members may decide even overruling directors.

p. 4
02

Whether the first defendant's title was fraudulently issued

Holding

The first defendant's title was lawfully acquired; the presentation book of July 8, 1994 records the plaintiff transferring the land, and the Registrar confirmed procedural issuance

Reasoning

The Land Registrar testified the title was acquired procedurally and that the deed presented by the first defendant was the original. The presentation book extract corroborates the 1994 transfer. The plaintiff's lack of the original title and his failure to comply with a lawful Section 14(1)(a) Land Registration Act order to return the second title reinforced this finding.

p. 5
03

Whether the plaintiff's second title was issued through due process

Holding

It was procedurally issued but founded on misrepresentation that the original title was lost, and was therefore properly recalled

Reasoning

The court accepted the replacement title followed the prescribed process, but the application was based on a falsehood since the plaintiff had already transferred the land. The title was recalled once the truth emerged, undermining the plaintiff's claim to ownership.

04

Who is the bona fide owner where there are two conflicting titles

Holding

The first defendant, holder of the original title deed corroborated by the presentation book, is the bona fide owner

Reasoning

Possession of the original title deed, together with the presentation book entry of July 8, 1994 evidencing the plaintiff's transfer, established the first defendant's ownership. The plaintiff's duplicate title, obtained through misrepresentation, could not prevail over the original.

05

Burden of proof of fraud

Holding

The plaintiff, as the party alleging fraud, bore the burden of proving all five particulars pleaded and proved none

Reasoning

Fraud must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. The plaintiff alleged five particulars of fraud in paragraph 10 of the plaint but the court found not a single one established, which was dispositive of the claim for cancellation of the first defendant's title.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • The plaintiff bears the burden of proving each particular of fraud alleged; failure to prove even one is fatal to a claim for cancellation of title
  • Where two conflicting titles exist, the holder of the original title supported by the presentation book is the bona fide owner
  • A majority shareholder is the proper person to verify a defence and counterclaim on behalf of a company

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The plaintiff's suit against the defendants is dismissed with costs
  2. 2.The first defendant's counterclaim dated January 23, 2018 is allowed as drawn and with costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under Article 162(2) of the Constitution (not expressly cited in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kisoso v Wish Life Investment Limited & another; Lucy Wangari Akweyu & another (the Administrators of the Estate of Purity – Wanjiru Mwangi - Deceased) (Interested Party)", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case 241 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/16539/eng@2023-03-27

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