Togom v Sigei (On Behalf of the Estate of the Late David K. Soi) (Environment & Land Case 109 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 4062 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nakuru court cancelled a land owner's rival title and confirmed that only a title tracing an unbroken chain back to government allocation will stand in Kenya.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Who is the rightful owner of the suit parcel
The Plaintiff, whose title conforms to the green card and traces its root from government allocation to Erastus C. Maina and then by transfer to her
The Land Registrar produced the certified green card showing the Plaintiff as registered proprietor after Erastus C. Maina. Her title matched the register. The Provincial Appeals Tribunal and the Provincial Administration had also confirmed her ownership. The Defendant's asserted allocation was unsupported, and he was never allocated plot 925 per the Ogiek Welfare Council letter. His title was printed in 2012 yet claimed registration in 2006, an anomaly.
Whether fraud was proved against either party's title
The Defendant failed to prove fraud in the Plaintiff's title; the Defendant's own title was doubtful
Fraud must be strictly proved. The Defendant alleged the Plaintiff's husband, a committee member, fraudulently channelled land through Erastus Maina, but adduced no evidence. The Land Registrar found no evidence of fraud in the Plaintiff's title, whereas the Defendant's title showed anomalies (printed 2012 but allegedly registered 2006) and his name never appeared in the registry.
Whether mesne profits were payable
Refused for want of proof
Mesne profits are special damages and must be specifically proved by evidence. The Plaintiff led no evidence quantifying or establishing the loss, so the claim failed notwithstanding the success of the main claim.
Legal principles established
#- Where two or more titles are claimed over the same land, the court must investigate the root of title and uphold the title that conformed to procedure and traces its root without a break
- Allegations of fraud must be pleaded and strictly proved to a standard higher than a balance of probabilities
Court orders
#- 1.An order of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant and/or his servants or agents from invading, cultivating, developing, selling, charging, alienating or interfering howsoever with the Plaintiff's quiet possession of land parcel no LR No Nakuru/Tinet Sotik Settlement Scheme/925
- 2.An order cancelling the title held by David K. Soi over all that piece of land known as L.R No Nakuru/Tinet Sotik Settlement Scheme/925
- 3.The Defendant's counterclaim is dismissed with costs
- 4.Costs of the suit are awarded to the Plaintiff
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes (Environment and Land Court Act); no specific constitutional article invoked for jurisdiction
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Togom v Sigei (On Behalf of the Estate of the Late David K. Soi) (Environment & Land Case 109 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 4062 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment text provided (ELC suit, Nakuru). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4062/eng@2025-05-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.