Imiet Supa Investments Limited (Formerly Goshen Ventures Limited ((Formerly Goshen Ventures Limited)) v Burton & 2 others (Being Sued as the Personal Representatives of the Late Burton Mbogo Mwai alias Mbogo Mwai) & another (Environment and Land Case E028 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 6840 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed that a buyer who does proper due diligence keeps valid land titles, even when a family member alleges fraud.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff obtained legal titles to LR No. Naivasha/Mwichiringiri Block 4/1704-1709
Yes. The plaintiff, as a purchaser dealing with administrators acting under a confirmed grant with no evidence of its revocation, and having conducted due diligence, paid the full purchase price, obtained LCB consents and was registered, acquired the land legally; allegations of fraud against the grant were not proved.
The grant was confirmed on 7 October 2014 and there was no evidence it was revoked. The plaintiff searched the register, dealt with the three administrators, paid Kshs 15,000,000, obtained Land Control Board consents and titles. The 2nd Defendant alleged forgery of her signature but produced no proof; her DCI report led to no charges, and her 2015 revocation application was never determined. Fraud being unproved, the Section 26(1) protection of title applied.
Whether the inhibitions lodged by the 2nd Defendant should be lifted
Yes. Restrictions exist to prevent fraud or improper dealing or for other sufficient cause; none was disclosed, so the court ordered removal within 30 days.
Having found no fraud or improper dealing and that the plaintiff's titles were legally acquired, the court invoked Sections 24(a) and 78 of the Land Registration Act to order removal of the inhibitions. The 2nd Defendant's share (parcel 1710) had been set aside intact, so the inhibition on the sold parcels served no legitimate purpose.
Legal principles established
#- A certificate of title is prima facie evidence of absolute and indefeasible ownership and may only be challenged on fraud or misrepresentation to which the proprietor is a party, or where acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme
- Where a registered proprietor's root of title is under challenge, the proprietor must prove the legality of the acquisition beyond the instrument of title
- Fraud must be specifically pleaded and proved to the required standard with concrete evidence
- A party alleging forgery bears the burden of proving that the documents were not authentic
- Restrictions under Section 76(1) of the Land Registration Act are for prevention of fraud or improper dealing or other sufficient cause; absent such cause, the court may order removal under Section 78
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendants
- 2.It is declared that the suit properties LR No Naivasha/Mwichiringiri Block 4/1704-1709 were validly transferred to the Plaintiff by the 1st Defendant
- 3.The Land Registrar shall within 30 days from the date of delivery of the Judgment remove the inhibitions lodged by the 2nd Defendant on the suit properties
- 4.The 2nd Defendant shall bear costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution and the Environment and Land Court Act, 2015 (land dispute; Section 3 overriding objective invoked in submissions)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Imiet Supa Investments Limited (Formerly Goshen Ventures Limited ((Formerly Goshen Ventures Limited)) v Burton & 2 others (Being Sued as the Personal Representatives of the Late Burton Mbogo Mwai alias Mbogo Mwai) & another (Environment and Land Case E028 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 6840 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the excerpt (Naivasha Environment and Land Court suit). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6840/eng@2025-10-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.