Karissa v Juma & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E038 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 3137 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court cancelled land titles bought from fraudsters, ruling that a buyer who knew the seller wasn't the real owner cannot keep the property.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Pecuniary jurisdiction of the ELC
The 3rd defendant's objection on pecuniary jurisdiction failed; the ELC enjoys unlimited original jurisdiction over environment and land matters
The 3rd defendant argued the suit exceeded the court's pecuniary jurisdiction because the property was valued at Kshs 10,200,000 per the sale agreement. The court held a sale agreement is not proof of value; no valuation report was adduced, while the plaintiff produced one valuing the property at Kshs 28,000,000. Article 162(2)(b) and section 13(1) of the ELC Act confer unlimited original jurisdiction over land disputes.
Bona fide purchaser defence
The 3rd defendant was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice
The 3rd defendant's title originated from the fraudulently acquired titles of the 1st and 2nd defendants. Its own witness admitted that a search conducted before the 3 September 2020 sale agreement showed the plaintiff as registered owner. The 3rd defendant therefore knew, or ought to have known, of the plaintiff's ownership and acquiesced in the fraud; no valid title passed to it.
Ownership of the suit property
The plaintiff is the bona fide registered owner of Kilifi/Roka/308
The plaintiff purchased the property from Hamisi Alawi Mbwana and was transferred it on 11 June 2002, remaining the registered owner. The transfers to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants rested on the judgment of 11 February 2014, which Munyao J and Kibunja J had declared fake, null and void. The plaintiff's title was therefore never validly cancelled and vests under section 24(a) of the Land Registration Act.
General damages for unlawful eviction
General damages of Kshs 5,000,000 awarded against the 1st and 2nd defendants
The 1st and 2nd defendants, knowing the plaintiff was the registered owner, unlawfully evicted him relying on the forged judgment and sold the land to the 3rd defendant. The court held wrongdoers cannot benefit from their mischief and awarded Kshs 5,000,000, signalling judicial disapproval of extrajudicial deprivation of property rights.
Legal principles established
#- To be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, a purchaser must prove acquisition of valid and legal title, due diligence, and payment of valuable consideration
- A registered proprietor acquires an absolute and indefeasible title only if the allocation was legal, proper and regular; indefeasibility cannot sanction illegality
- Article 40(6) of the Constitution protects only property acquired legally, and such legality encompasses the acquisition process
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the transfers registered in favour of the 1st and 2nd defendants on 12 November 2020, pursuant to the fake judgment dated 11 February 2014, are null and void
- 2.Declaration that the transfer of Kilifi/Roka/308 registered on 29 November 2021 in favour of the 3rd defendant is null and void
- 3.Declaration that the title held by the 3rd defendant is cancelled and the title of the suit property restored to its status before the registration of the transfer of 12 November 2020
- 4.Eviction order against the 3rd defendant to vacate the suit property immediately and surrender vacant possession to the plaintiff, with forcible eviction after 90 days in default
- 5.General damages of Kshs 5,000,000 awarded to the plaintiff against the 1st and 2nd defendants
- 6.Costs of the suit and counterclaim awarded to the plaintiff, including interest at court rates
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13(1) of the Environment and Land Court Act No 19 of 2011
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Karissa v Juma & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E038 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 3137 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (ELC suit, Malindi; concerning land parcel Kilifi/Roka/308). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3137/eng@2025-04-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.