Karobia v Karobia (Appeal E024 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 920 (KLR)

The trial magistrate found a valid certificate of title confirmed by the Land Registrar. On appeal, the Court held that once the validity of a title is challenged, the entire paper trail must be scrutinised. The instrument of transfer was never tendered in evidence, no evidence showed when it was executed, and the Land Registrar's testimony was speculative. The Land Control Board consent issued on 25 March 2021 did not prove execution of the transfer. Following Munyu Maina, the burden was on the Respondent to prove legality of acquisition, which she failed to discharge.

Section 26(1) deems a certificate of title prima facie evidence of absolute ownership, subject to challenge on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation, or where acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme. Having found the Respondent did not prove regular and procedural acquisition of the certificate, the Appellant's challenge fell within Section 26(1)(b), and the transfer could not stand.

The deceased died on 19 July 2022 and the transfer was registered on 26 September 2022 without letters of administration. Rule 55 of the Land Registration General Regulations 2017 bars registration of transfers of a deceased proprietor's land before confirmation of grant. Any gift inter vivos suggested by the Land Control Board consent did not vest before death. The land should revert to the deceased's name for succession proceedings, where any claim by the Respondent can be ventilated.

The trial court ordered the caution lifted and a permanent injunction against the Appellant. The appellate court found the transfer was unprocedural, so the Appellant's interest as a potential beneficiary survived. The lifting of the caution and the injunction were premised on a validity that failed; setting aside the judgment restores the caution and disposes of the injunction.