Maina v Karithi alias Albert Githinji Murithi & 3 others (Environment and Land Appeal E041 of 1000) [2026] KEELC 5251 (KLR)

The claim was for recovery of land based on pleaded fraud discovered in 2021, when the 1st respondent sought to construct on the parcel and a police report followed. Section 26 provides that in actions based on fraud or relief from mistake, limitation does not run until discovery or constructive discovery. Both parties testified they learned of the competing registrations only in 2021, so both claims were within time.

The parcel file at the land registry could not be traced; all transaction documents between 2008 and 2017 were missing, so the transfers from Monica Muthoni to the 4th respondent and onward to joint registration could not be verified. The transfer year was illegible, the identity card used was alleged lost, the sale agreement was disputed, and the green card indicated a gift rather than a sale. Preceding 2008 the parcel was registered to Monica Muthoni Kangangi.

Fraud must be strictly proved on a standard higher than balance of probabilities but not beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant produced no sale agreement or supporting transfer documents; the green card contradicted his case of purchase; the 4th respondent denied the transfer and his identity card was lost the same year; and registry records were missing. These discrepancies proved fraud in the joint registration.

A bona fide purchaser must hold a title, purchase in good faith for valuable consideration, without notice of fraud and not party to it. The appellant conceded there was no agreement, no evidence of payment, and an illegible year on the transfer form; he simultaneously claimed purchase and gift, contradicting himself. Having participated in the registration and holding the original title, he could not claim innocence, and his burden of proof was not discharged.