Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedKilgoris ELC Appeal No. E008 of 2024 (Memorandum of Appeal dated 1st February 2024 against Kilgoris ELC No. E037/2021)· [2025] KEELC 3014 (KLR)

Saeni & another v Seme & 3 others (Environment and Land Appeal E004 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3014 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
1 April 2025
2,089 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court cancelled a land title bought on a falsified record, returning the property to the family that won the original adjudication objection.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first appeal to the Environment and Land Court at Kilgoris against the judgment of Hon. C.W. Waswa (Senior Resident Magistrate) delivered on 18th January 2024 in Kilgoris ELC No. E037/2021. The Appellants, John Masiantet Saeni and Odupoi Ole Saeni, lodged a memorandum of appeal dated 1st February 2024 with 14 grounds, contending that the trial court failed to recognise the decision of the Land Adjudication Officer Transmara West in Objection No. 107/1990, which allowed the objection and awarded the suit land to the 1st Appellant. They relied on Munyu Maina v Hiram Githaka Maina and related authority to argue that the 1st Respondent's title, procured through a purported withdrawal of the objection, was fraudulent and impeachable. The 1st Respondent maintained that the objection had been withdrawn and that fraud was not proved. The court, as a first appellate court guided by Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co., re-evaluated the adjudication record. It found that entry No. 14 recorded the allowance of the objection and award of the land to the 1st Appellant, and that the later annotation that the objection was withdrawn was unreliable and made in a vacuum once the objection had been determined, rendering it a nullity under Mcfoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. Consequently the 1st Respondent's registration, founded on an illegal entry, was a nullity and the title impeached under section 26(1)(b) of the Land Registration Act. The appeal was allowed, the trial judgment set aside, judgment entered as prayed in the plaint, the register ordered rectified in favour of the Appellants, a permanent injunction issued, and costs with interest awarded to the Appellants.

Key legal issues

#
01

Outcome of Land Adjudication Objection No. 107/1990

Holding

The objection was allowed and the suit land awarded to the 1st Appellant; the annotation 'objection 107 is withdrawn' was an afterthought made years later and without evidential support

Reasoning

Entry No. 14 communicated an outcome allowing the objection and awarding the land to the objector, over the name of adjudication officer F.M. Muiruri dated 21.05.2015. The withdrawal note appeared elsewhere, undated as to year, over a bare designation 'LAO', and would render the second objection 729/1990 inexplicable. DW2's evidence confirmed both objections were allowed. The trial court failed to consider this outcome.

p. 4
02

Validity of the 1st Respondent's registration and title

Holding

The registration was a nullity ab initio and the title is impeached under section 26(1)(b) of the Land Registration Act

Reasoning

Once objection proceedings were concluded in favour of the objector they could not be withdrawn; the purported withdrawal was a nullity under Mcfoy v United Africa Co. The registration founded on that illegal entry cannot be protected, and the court directed rectification of the register under section 80(1) of the Land Registration Act.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A void act is a nullity and need not be set aside by a court; every proceeding founded on it is also bad and incurably bad
  • A registered proprietor whose title is under challenge must prove the legality of how he acquired the title beyond dangling the instrument of title

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment of Hon. C.W. Waswa delivered on 18th January 2024 in Kilgoris ELC No. E037/2021 set aside and judgment entered as prayed for in the Plaint
  2. 2.Order directing the 2nd Respondent to cancel the title deed in respect of Transmara/Nkararo/773 issued in favour of the 1st Respondent and rectify the register by registering the same in the name of the Appellants taking into account the subdivisions authorised in objection No. 729/1990
  3. 3.Permanent injunction issued against the Respondents from interfering with the proprietary rights and interests of the Appellants
  4. 4.Costs of the suit in Kilgoris E037 of 2021 and of the Appeal, together with interests at court rates, awarded to the Appellants

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Evidence ActSections 107-109
  • Land Registration ActSection 26(1)(b)
  • Land Registration ActSection 80(1)

Cases cited (4)

  • Munyu Maina Vs. Hiraru Gathiha Maina
  • Zacharia Wambugu Gathimu and David Wangari Maina
  • Selle Vs. Associated Motor Boat Co. (1968) EA 123
    (1968) EA 123
  • Mcfoy Vs. United Africa Co. Ltd
    1961 3 ACC ER 1169
On appeal from
Senior Resident Magistrate's Court, Kilgoris
ELC No. E037/2021
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction under the Environment and Land Court Act over appeals from subordinate courts

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Saeni & another v Seme & 3 others (Environment and Land Appeal E004 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3014 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kilgoris ELC Appeal No. E008 of 2024 (Memorandum of Appeal dated 1st February 2024 against Kilgoris ELC No. E037/2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3014/eng@2025-04-01

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.