Shiundu v Agricultural Development Corporation & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition E004 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 5336 (KLR)

The Petitioner held Grant No. IR 162069 registered on 29th November 2012, which was prima facie valid since no evidence rebutted it. The 1st Respondent, a State corporation, procured a parallel title and issued a letter of allotment to the 2nd Respondent over the same land without any lawful basis or authority of law, and failed to produce its own title in evidence. Issuance of duplicate titles over registered land amounted to unlawful deprivation of property.

Article 47 entrenches the right to expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair administrative action. Where a public body creates a legitimate expectation through representations and then frustrates it without due process, it acts unfairly. The 1st Respondent gave no reasons for allocating the suit property to third parties while it stood registered to the Petitioner, failing the fairness test and breaching his legitimate expectation.

Under Sections 107 and 109 of the Evidence Act, the 1st Respondent bore the burden of proving its claim of ownership and the fraud allegations. It tendered no documentary title in evidence and no forensic report; its documents (RMFI 1-3) were never formally produced as exhibits. Fraud being a quasi-criminal accusation must be specifically pleaded and proved. Its Cross-Petition therefore had no merit.

The court noted the principle of avoidance from the Communications Commission case and that factual title disputes are best resolved in civil suits. However, because the Respondents adduced no evidence to rebut the Petitioner's registered title, the title had to be taken as prima facie valid, justifying constitutional relief rather than dismissal on avoidance grounds.