Kimanya & 2 others (Suing as the Administratix of the Estate of the Late Keloi Kimanya Njokona (Deceased)) v Lekishirini & 5 others (Environment & Land Case 37 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 611 (KLR)

The meeting of 13-9-2006 was attended only by group ranch officials, not all members, contrary to Section 15(5) of the Land (Group Representatives) Act, so new members could not be introduced without an AGM meeting the 60% attendance and support thresholds. The husband's 1996 certificate of ownership had already demarcated his parcel with identified beacons, which could not be altered without his knowledge or consent. The DLASO's note that action was being taken although 'late' confirmed the irregularity. The Ndolo vs Ndolo threshold for fraud was met, engaging the Section 26(1)(b) exception to indefeasibility.

The plaintiffs' evidence did not differentiate between the two parcels, treating them as one land belonging to their deceased husband. The 1st Defendant maintained he occupied only L.R. No. 248. There was no evidence of occupation, infrastructure or farming, and an earlier court order had restrained him from trespassing onto L.R. No. 248. The court could not determine on which parcel, or both, the alleged trespass occurred.

Because the 1st Defendant's acquisition of L.R. No. 248 was unprocedural and prohibited by Section 26(1)(b) of the Land Registration Act, the plaintiffs were entitled to the declarations, cancellation of title and permanent injunction sought. The same reasoning defeated the Counterclaim, as fraud cannot be rewarded but only penalised. Costs followed the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act.