Kasikua & another (Suing as Widow and Personal Representative of Mula ole Nkurne Kasikua - Deceased) v National Land Commission & 20 others (Environment & Land Case 950 of 2017) [2024] KEELC 6928 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kajiado dismissed a widow and son's bid to cancel subdivided land titles because they could not prove fraud.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the subdivision of L.R. Kajiado/Kisaju/598 was irregular and fraudulent
The subdivision was not irregular; the deceased's sons, led by Daniel Nkiiju Mula, participated in and benefited from the transactions, thumb-printing the mutation form and receiving sale proceeds
Fraud pleaded in fourteen particulars had to be proved to a higher standard. The plaintiffs failed to explain over Kshs. 350,000 received by Samuel and Joseph Mula from the 8th defendant. A criminal court found the thumbprint on the mutation form matched Daniel Mula's. Under Maasai customary law, inheritance is patrilineal, explaining the sons' central role. The court found PW1's evidence materially false.
Whether the defendants obtained title fraudulently or are bona fide purchasers
All defendants obtained titles procedurally and lawfully and paid valuable consideration; their titles are confirmed by the Land Registry records filed by the Attorney General
The consents of the Land Control Board were obtained by the deceased's children. The register, presentation book and mutation forms captured all transactions. The lands office believed the registered owner was transacting. The Attorney General's evidence proved all procedural requirements were met, confirming the authenticity of the defendants' title deeds.
Whether the suit is time barred
If the fraud claim were believed the suit would not be time barred, but the court doubted that the plaintiffs were unaware of the defendants' occupation, noting suspicious circumstances surrounding the grant
Under Section 26(b) of the Limitation of Actions Act time runs from discovery of fraud. The plaintiffs claimed discovery in 2010. However the court found it doubtful they were unaware of the occupation, given that Joseph Rakaro Mula was himself a seller, and questioned the genuineness of the official search certificate used in the succession cause.
Legal principles established
#- A party alleging fraud must prove it to a standard higher than a balance of probabilities, though not beyond reasonable doubt
- Under Section 26(b) of the Limitation of Actions Act, time does not run in a fraud-based action until discovery of the fraud
Court orders
#- 1.The plaintiffs' suit is dismissed with costs to the defendants
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land registered under the Land Registration Act (Section 26 relief sought)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kasikua & another (Suing as Widow and Personal Representative of Mula ole Nkurne Kasikua - Deceased) v National Land Commission & 20 others (Environment & Land Case 950 of 2017) [2024] KEELC 6928 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). ELC Case at Kajiado (amended plaint dated 11/5/2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6928/eng@2024-10-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.