Nyoike v Chief Land Registrar & 4 others (Land Case E197 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 325 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A buyer who paid Kshs. 25 million lost the land because his title documents were forgeries, and he must pay the winning family's legal costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the 5th Defendant's counter-claim was merited
The counter-claim was allowed as prayed; the estate of Fredrick Gacanja Munjogu is the bona fide owner and the Plaintiff's documents were forgeries.
The Deputy Chief Land Registrar, custodian of titles under Section 9 of the Land Registration Act, confirmed on oath that the registered owner is Fredrick Gachanja Munjogu with no further entries. The Registrar termed the Plaintiff's purported entries and searches forgeries, the day book relied on relating to a different parcel. The evidence was uncontroverted, the Plaintiff admitting he had been defrauded, so the counter-claim was proved as by law required.
Who should bear the costs of the suit and counter-claim
Costs of both the withdrawn suit and the counter-claim were awarded to the 5th Defendant, no special circumstances justifying departure from the general rule.
Both parties accepted the court's discretion under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, guided by Halsbury's Laws of England, Kuloba's Judicial Hints on Civil Procedure, and the Ritter v Godfrey principle as approved in Mayfair Holdings Ltd v Ahmed. Finding no good reason or special circumstances to deviate, the court applied the rule that costs follow the event, awarding costs to the 5th Defendant against the Plaintiff.
Legal principles established
#- Costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act unless the court, for good reason, otherwise orders.
- A successful litigant should receive costs absent special circumstances, and a discretion exercised on no grounds is not judicial.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that L.R. No. 12672/186 is registered in the name of the late Fredrick Gacanja Munjogu whose estate is the bona fide owner of the suit property and that the property was not available for alienation to the Plaintiff under the Lands Act, 2012 and the Land Registration Act, 2012.
- 2.An order directed at the Chief Land Registrar to cancel, remove and rectify the register and any other fraudulently created records in respect of the suit property in the name of the 1st Defendant and all previous transfers to Chege Richard Mwangi and John Macharia Njoroge.
- 3.A permanent injunction restraining the Plaintiff, his agents, servants or anyone acting at his behest from taking possession, trespassing onto, alienating, transferring, occupying or constructing on L.R. No. 12672/186 or dealing with it in any manner likely to adversely affect the Plaintiff's interest.
- 4.Costs of the suit and counter-claim awarded to the 5th Defendant against the Plaintiff.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction over land title and registration disputes under the Land Registration Act, 2012 and the Lands Act, 2012
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nyoike v Chief Land Registrar & 4 others (Land Case E197 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 325 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Land Case E197 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/325/eng@2025-01-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.