Kilongu alias Ipite Ole Kiloku (Chairman) & 2 others v Sanoe (Chairman) & 10 others (Environment & Land Case 39 of 2020) [2024] KEELC 7011 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court cancelled fraudulently obtained title deeds, restoring land to trustees who must hold it for community beneficiaries.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Beneficiary status of the Plaintiffs over Maela/Ndabibi Block 5/2253 and 3073
Only the 1st Plaintiff proved beneficiary status; the 2nd to 6th Plaintiffs' proof was equivocal though the court later states they proved it
The court traced the award in Nakuru HCCC 89 of 1996 and Civil Appeal 64 of 2004, under which the seventeen defendants were to hold the land in trust for themselves and about 3,000 Maasai beneficiaries. Measuring the plaintiffs against the parties and beneficiaries in those decisions, the court found the 1st Plaintiff proved beneficiary status while the position of the others was less clear.
Fraud in the registration of the titles in the names of the 1st to 6th Defendants
Fraud proved to the required standard; the 1st to 6th Defendants fraudulently transferred the titles, having produced no minutes of the alleged 30th January 2015 meeting
The court applied the strict standard of proof for fraud from Koinange v Charles Karuga Koinange. The 1st to 6th Defendants claimed registration followed a meeting of 30th January 2015 resolving that they hold the land in trust for 601 members, but they produced no minutes of that meeting. Their registration of the parcels in their own names in equal shares circumvented the judgment in HCCC 89 of 1996.
Costs of the suit
Costs awarded to the Plaintiffs against the 1st to 6th Defendants
Relying on Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and the Party of Independent Candidate of Kenya v Mutula Kilonzo principle, the court held that costs follow the event and that no good grounds existed to depart from awarding costs to the successful Plaintiffs.
Legal principles established
#- Allegations of fraud must be strictly proved; the standard is higher than a mere balance of probabilities
- The burden of proving fraud lies on the plaintiff alleging it
- Costs follow the event and are awarded to the successful party absent good grounds
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration is hereby issued that the 1st Plaintiff is a beneficiary of Land Parcels Maela/Ndabibi Block 5/2253 and 3073
- 2.The Register in respect of land parcel Maela/Ndabibi Block 5/2253 and 3073 be rectified and the issued title deeds be cancelled
- 3.Title Deeds to land parcel Maela/Ndabibi Block 5/2253 and 3073 be issued to the 17 Defendants vide H.C.C.C 89 of 1996 to hold in trust of themselves and all the beneficiaries
- 4.Cost of the suit and interest thereof at court rates awarded to the Plaintiffs against the 1st to 6th Defendants
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land parcels Maela/Ndabibi Block 5/2253 and 3073
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kilongu alias Ipite Ole Kiloku (Chairman) & 2 others v Sanoe (Chairman) & 10 others (Environment & Land Case 39 of 2020) [2024] KEELC 7011 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/7011/eng@2024-10-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.