Kaoyeni Community Self-Help Group & 3 others v Rama & 8 others

6th defendant did not appear or defend. The 7th to 9th defendants appeared and led defenses on November 25, 2019, but did not call any witnesses at the hearing. 3. At the hearing, the plaintis called two witnesses and concluded their case, while on the defense side, only the 1st defendant testied. 4. At the conclusion of the hearing, I instructed the parties to submit written submissions. I received submissions from the learned counsel for the 1st defendants; the other counsels did not. 5. Based on the record, the history of the case, and various interlocutory rulings, this matter was poorly managed. The defendants from the 2nd to the 4th kept changing advocates but failed to le their statements or defenses. It was unusual. The court did not gain valuable insights from the counsels representing the parties; instead, the record shows confusion at its best. 6. John Katana Thoya, who testied on behalf of the plainti, stated that he represented the group Kaoyeni Community Self-Help Group, of which he was the core founder. 7. Their main grievance in this matter is that they have been squatters on the suit property, plot 148. They organized themselves to purchase the land from the registered owner. As of 2012, they had raised Kshs. 2,000,000 toward the purchase of the land, leaving a balance of Kshs. 3,000,000. 8. They sued the rst defendant because he was the registered owner of the land and had colluded with some of their members, specically the 2nd to 4th defendants, to defraud them. He pretended to come in as an investor to assist them, but instead, he ended up taking their land. 9. Fredrick Baya PW2 testied that he took over from PWI to follow up on the ownership of the suit property. In cross-examination, he admitted that the group had issues with its leadership, composition, objectives, and even its constitution, but that it had legally purchased the land in question. 10. The 1st defendant, Richard Premchand Rama (Col..), testied that the Kaoyeni Community Self Help Group approached him as an investor and sold him land. He realized they did not have a good title. He oered to pay the purchase price to the owner, who was the 5th defendant. The group was represented by its ocials, Albert and Simeon, the 2nd and 3rd defendants. In the arrangement with the group after the purchase, all the genuine members were allotted 50-by-100 plots for a harmonious settlement. The arrangement did not work because other members objected to it, hence this suit. 11. As stated, the other defendants did not participate in the hearing of this matter despite numerous adjournments and time extended to them to do so. 12. The issues this court considers are whether the plaintis have a legitimate interest as buyers in the land to justify the sought declarations, and ultimate transfer, and whether the title issued to the 1st defendant should be revoked or nullied. Costs. 13. From the preliminary proceedings, the plaintis never submitted any evidence to the court to support the claim that the plainti, as a CBO, was ocially registered. In fact, at the time of the alleged transaction, the said CBO was not registered. Additionally, the plaintis did not testify whether their Constitution and Objectives of the CBO allowed them to buy land. During cross-examination of PW1 and PW2, it was revealed that the plaintis' constitution did not permit them to buy or sell land. The constitution also prohibited them from accepting investments from members interested in purchasing land, and it did not clarify whether the plaintis actually purchased any interest from the 5th defendant. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/14236/eng@2024-09-27 2

page 2 of 3

14. Throughout this case, the plaintis admit they were squatters on the 5th defendant's land. They never claim to have owned or currently own the property. No material was presented to the court proving the plaintis' actual ownership interest in the suit property. 15. Regarding the reliefs sought in the plaint, particularly the revocation of the title held by the 1st defendant, the plaintis agree that the 1st defendant was involved as an investor. The 1st defendant testied that he purchased the entire portion and is therefore not a stranger to the matter. The documents the defendant used to support his case are also part of the plainti's bundle. The 1st defendant also produced two sworn statements from the 2nd to 4th defendants, acknowledging that squatters had indeed been settled in accordance with the arrangements they had arrived at. 16. To cancel one's title, it is well-established law that the plainti must prove fraud, misrepresentation, illegality, or corrupt practices in the acquisition by the defendant. See Nzili J. in Maina v Waweru & 2 others [2025] KEELC 791 (KLR): “ In Elijah Makeri Nyangwara -vs- Stephen Mungai Njugujna & Another [2013] eKLR, the court observed that the law is protective of a title and that the burden was on the defendant to prove that the title was obtained illegally, unprocedurally, or through a corrupt scheme. Fraud, illegality, and unprocedurally acquired must be specically pleaded and proved on a balance higher than in a balance of probabilities. See Arithi Highway Developers Ltd -vsWest End Butchery [2015] eKLR.” 17. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that the 1st defendant engaged in any fraudulent conduct; if anything, his involvement with the group to regularize the purchase was armed. If the court intended to determine fraud, the claim should have been led by the 5th Defendant, Mr. Arbi Mussani. At his death, Arbi Mussani had not raised any issues regarding his dealings with the 1st defendant. In fact, at the start of this trial, he was active and represented by Alfred Wanga and Company Advocates. If the 1st defendant had defrauded him, it would have been a signicant matter in this case, possibly prompting a notice of claim. The other requirements for revoking a title were never brought before the court. 18. Looking at the plaintis’ grievances, this case primarily concerns a debt the plaintis may recover from the 5th defendant, as they claim to have purchased the land but did not nish the payment of the purchase money they brought in the 1st defendant and made further arrangements to their detriment. 19. The plaintis' suit is dismissed with costs. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT MALINDI VIRTUALLY ON THIS 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024. E. K. MAKORI JUDGE In the presence of: Ms.Adoyo, for the Plaintis Mr. Atiang for the 1st Defendant Court Clerk: Happy In the absence of: Ms. Kai, for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants Mr. Ojwang for the 7th, 8th and 9th Defendants https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/14236/eng@2024-09-27 3

page 3 of 3