Ndegwa & another v Liguyani (Environment and Land Case E095 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 332 (KLR)

a. A declaration that the plaintifis are the only bonafide registered owners of all that property known as Land Ref no 7785/802(Original no 7785/1/64) located in Runda Nairobi b. An order directing the defendant, his agents, servants or any other person occupying the property without the plaintifi’s authority to forthwith vacate, and in default an order of eviction do issue against the defendant and all other such persons to be executed by OCS Runda police station c. An order of permanent injunction prohibiting the defendant, his servants, agents or any other person from claiming, encroaching, trespassing or in any manner interfering with the plaintifi’s ownership, occupation and use of the suit property d. Costs of the suit e. Any other reliefs the honourable court may deem fit 6. The defendant was duly served as evidenced by the afidavit for service of one Richard Adere sworn on the 2nd April 2025 indicating that the defendant had been served by way of substituted service. 7. The Matter proceeded for hearing on the 2nd October 2025 where the 1st plaintifi appeared as PW1 and gave his evidence relied on his sworn witness statement dated 1st March 2024 and list of documents. He reiterated the fact that he bought the suit property in 2006 and had it registered in the plaintifis’ name and never sold or transferred it to anyone. That the actions of the defendant to obtain title are fraudulent as he has no rights over the property hence the orders prayed Analysis and Determination 8. Having looked at the pleadings filed by the plaintifi, and on consideration of the submissions filed as well, the defendant having not entered appearance nor put in a defense, I come to the conclusion that the determination of the instant suit turns on only one issue for determination and that whether the plaintifi is entitled to the orders as prayed for in the plaint. In the case of Daniel Kenga Katana & 4 others v Dzitu Toto Bokole & 3 others [2022] eKLR which addressed the issue of uncontroverted evidence. The learned judge in coming up with his judgment stated; “The issue that the court has to deal with is whether the Plaintifi discharged the burden of proof. The Plaintifi gave evidence to proof ownership of the suit land by adducing oral and documentary evidence which was uncontroverted. It is trite that uncontroverted evidence is weighty and courts will rely on it to prove facts in dispute. The evidence cannot be controverted by allegations in the statement of defence if the defendants fail to call a witness to adduce evidence and be cross-examined to test the evidence.” He further went to quote was said by Justice Mwongo in Peter Ngigi & Another (suing as legal representative of the Estate of Joan Wambui Ngigi) -v-Thomas Ondiki Oduor & Another 2019 eKLR where he stated “The general position running through such authorities is that uncontroverted evidence bears a lot of weight and a statement of defence without any evidence to support the assertions therein will amount to mere statements”. He went ahead to dismiss the appeal based on the fact that the defendant never participated in the hearing process neither did he adduce any evidence alluding to the fact that he was not keen in defending the claim. The same reasoning can be applied by this honourable court since the defendant was of no show in the hearing process neither did, he put in any response to the pleadings. 9. The plaintifis produced documentary evidence as in their list of documents. The plaintifi testified as PW1 and adduced a Copy of Sale Agreement dated 4/09/2006. This agreement is between Peter Ngugi Chege (Vendor)and Maina Ndegwa.It is not in dispute that the plaintifi is the purchaser in the https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/332/eng@2026-01-29 2

page 2 of 4

agreement. The agreement identifies the suit properties herein, has a consideration and is signed by both parties. Also adduced was a Copy of the transfer document in favour of the plaintifis, a copy of the stamp duty receipt paid over the said transfer, A copy of title deed over the suit property in the plaintifi’s name. The plaintifi has also attached a letter from the ministry of lands confirming and attributing ownership of the suit property to the plaintifis and another letter cancelling the title deed that has been registered in the defendant’s name .All these documents in my view set out the history of how the plaintifis acquired title to the suit and the mere fact that the title deed is registered in the plaintifis ‘names , which title has not been challenged ,then is evidence enough on the ownership of the suit property. It has been established that a certificate of title is held to be prima facie evidence of ownership of the stated land. This is provided for in Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act which provides; “ The certificate of title issued by the Registrar upon registration or to a purchaser of land upon a transfer … shall be taken by all courts as prima facie evidence that the person named as proprietor of the land is the absolute and indefeasible owner … and the title of that proprietor shall not be subject to challenge, except – (a)on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation to which the person is proved to be a party; or (b)where the certificate of title has been acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme.” 10. I hold the view that the Plaintifis’ have established that their title is legitimate. They are therefore entitled to a declaration in that respect as well as vacant possession of the suit property and injunctive orders restraining interference with the property. Conclusion 11. The upshot of the following is that the Plaintifis have established their case on a balance of probabilities and are entitled to the orders sought as in the plaint that is a. A declaration that the plaintifis are the bona fide owners of LR 7785/802(Original no 7785/1/64) located in Runda Nairobi b. An order of permanent injunction prohibiting the defendant, his servants, agents or any other person from claiming, encroaching, trespassing or in any manner interfering with the plaintifi’s ownership, occupation and use of the suit property c. An order directing the defendant to vacate the suit property and in default an order of eviction within 90 days is hereby issued.. d. The defendant to bear the costs of the suit It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI ON THIS 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026. MOHAMMED N. KULLOW JUDGE Ruling delivered in the presence of: - https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/332/eng@2026-01-29 3

page 3 of 4

Mr. Oonge for the Plaintifi No appearance for the Respondent Philomena W . Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/332/eng@2026-01-29 4

page 4 of 4