MFA Investment Limited v Kinuthia & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E031 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 1513 (KLR)

DW-1, the Land Registrar and custodian of the records, confirmed in cross-examination that the registers for the Diani Settlement Scheme were opened between 1990 and 1992, and that the RIM for the scheme was opened on 4th February 1992. A green card purporting to open on 15th November 1974, before the scheme and RIM existed, showing a divergent acreage (2.1 Ha against the actual 2.0 Ha) and the wrong map sheet, could not be genuine. This evidence was not disputed and established that the record relied upon for the subsequent chain of transfers was fabricated.

Section 79 of the Land Registration Act limits the Registrar's rectification powers to administrative corrections that do not materially affect proprietorship; a change of ownership requires a court order under Section 80. Section 33(5) and Regulation 28 of the Land Registration (General) Regulations, 2017 require enquiries and 60 days' gazette notice before reconstructing a lost register. DW-1 admitted the original file was missing, the reconstructed card was not the original, entries were unsigned, and there was no gazette notice. No evidence existed of dispensation with production of the certificate of title under Section 31. The Registrar therefore acted ultra vires and the entries were invalid.

A bona fide purchaser must show a valid certificate of title, good faith, no knowledge of fraud, valuable consideration and a vendor with apparently valid title. Here the root of the Defendants' title was a forged green card; the 1st Defendant obtained a fresh title while the Plaintiff still held the original title deed in its possession, without any explanation for the double issuance. The 1st and 2nd Defendants, though properly served, failed to enter appearance or defend the suit, which the court treated as conduct evidence supporting an adverse inference. Article 40(6) of the Constitution excludes protection of unlawfully acquired property.

Where two titles compete over the same parcel, the court investigates which title conforms to procedure and traces its root without a break; the existence of competing certificates offends Section 30(2) of the Land Registration Act, which allows only one certificate per parcel. The Plaintiff proved the root of its title and the forgery behind the competing titles. Having found in the Plaintiff's favour, the register must be corrected, the irregular entries removed, and the 2nd Defendant permanently restrained. Exclusive possession supports an eviction order, backed by Sections 152A, B and E of the Land Act.