Johanah Githinji Njoroge & 613 Others v Hon Attorney General & 51 Others

b. Orders for revocation of the three leases created in favour of the 3rd Respondent and also revocation of any demises or sub leases or sub divisions which could have been created by the Respondents in favour of third parties; c. An order declaring that LR. No.s 9464, 1356 and 4166 should be subjected to land adjudication within the terms of the Land Adjudication Act, where the Petitioners, the 3rd Respondent or any other party with sustainable customary claims could if they so wish, stake claims for consideration by the Land Adjudication Committee. d. An order of rationalization, accommodation and reconciliation between the parties especially because of the existing occupation and developments which have been undertaken by both parties; e. An order for status inspection of the three parcels and payment of reasonable mesne prots by the Respondents to the Petitioners; f. Such other order or orders as the Honourable Court might deem t to grant under the Law of Succession to some of the Petitioners, more especially, those who were fathered by some of the Italian Missionaries living in Mathari, they being mixed race; and the said Petitioners should be allocated 10% of LR. No. 9463 which we accept belongs to the Diocese of Nyeri Trustees (Registered) as their genealogical inheritance from the Consolata Missionaries; and g. An order for costs and interests thereon in favour of the Petitioners. 2. The basis for those prayers is the Petitioners contention that the Commissioner of Lands allocated LR. No. 9464 in 1958 during the emergency period and that both LR. No. 1356 and 4166 were allocated after independence in 1965 and that the same was done contrary to the Trust Land Ordinance of 1938. The Petitioners aver that their land was part of the Native reserves, or adjudicated lands under customary tenure and that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents did not follow the laid down procedures for setting apart and divestiture from the trust lands regime. 3. The Petitioners aver that the 3rd Respondent took advantage of the end of the colonial period, the confusion surrounding the land adjudication exercise in Central Province, the ascendancy of home guards and the administrative transition in local and central governments during the period of allotment to obtain leases to lands which were not previously part of the White Highlands. 4. It is the Petitioners’ case that the whole process of encroachment on their ancestral lands was assisted by the fact that the 3rd Respondent held LR. No 1105 on freehold, which they inexplicably agreed to covert from a freehold estate to a leasehold to disguise and enable the acquisition of the neighbouring trust lands later under the pretext that they were originally a part of LR. No. 1105. It is further the Petitioners case that they have remained homeless with a total population of about 3,000 men, women and children for about 50 years and that they have lost produce, grazing lands and income from their said ancestral lands. 5. The Petitioners assert that the 3rd Respondent has used local, provincial and Police Administration to resist the legitimate demand of the Petitioners to return home and that the 4th, 5th and 6th Respondents and their predecessors have been at the head of the resistance and oppressive application of trespass. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5707/eng@2026-09-24 2

page 2 of 11

6. 7. The Honourable the Attorney General (the 1st Respondent) is opposed to the Petition. By their Grounds of Opposition dated 21st February 2014, the 1st Respondent objects to the Petition on the grounds: 1. That the Application is an abuse of the process of the Court, misconceived and discloses no reasonable cause of action against the 1st Respondent; 2. That the Petitioners have no locus standi in this case hence the Petition is bad in law and the reliefs sought are untenable; 3. That the claim in the Petition is time barred and therefore incompetent; and 4. That the 1st Respondent in the exercise of its statutory duties, (particularly of receiving executed documents by parties, registering or rejection of lodged documents and making entries in the Land Register) acted in a regular, lawful, reasonable and duly procedural manner. The County Government of Nyeri (the 2nd Respondent) is equally opposed to the Petition. By its Grounds of Opposition dated 12th May 2014, the 2nd Respondent objects to the Petition on the grounds: 1. That the National Land Commission established under Article 67 of the Constitution of Kenya has jurisdiction pursuant to Act No. 5 of 2012 to entertain the Petitioners’ claim and the Petition is prematurely before this Court; 2. That Land Reference Number 9464 measuring 1089 acres, Land Reference Number 1356 measuring 584 acres and Land Reference Number 4166 measuring 904 acres, the disputed parcels of land, did not vest in the Nyeri African District Council or any of its Successors (including the 2nd Respondent) to hold in trust for the Petitioners; 3. That the disputed parcels of land are not and have never been trust land; 4. That the 2nd Respondent does not hold any quantum of interest in the disputed parcels of land in trust for the Petitioners; 5. That the disputed parcels of lands are registered under the Registration of Titles Act (Cap 281 Laws of Kenya) and the quantum of interests therein is duly ascertained; 6. That the disputed parcels have never been part of the Kikuyu Native Land Reserve; 7. That the Trust Land Act (Cap 288 Laws of Kenya) does not apply in respect of the disputed parcels of land nor to land classied as private land or public land; 8. That the Land Adjudication Act (Cap 284 Laws of Kenya) and the Land Consolidation Act (Cap 283 Laws of Kenya) have never and do not apply to the disputed parcels of land nor do they apply to public or private land; 9. That the Petition against the 2nd Respondent is frivolous, vexatious and does not disclose any violation of the Petitioner’s rights by the 2nd Respondent; and https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5707/eng@2026-09-24 3

page 3 of 11

10. That the Petition does not disclose any relief sought against the 2nd Respondent and the 2nd Respondent is an unnecessary party to this Petition. 8. The Diocese of Nyeri Trustees (the 3rd Respondent), the Most Reverend Bishop Peter Kairu (the 4th Respondent) and Reverend Father James Kihara (the 6th Respondent) are equally opposed to the Petition. In a Replying Adavit sworn on their behalf by the 4th Respondent, the Respondents deny that the Petitioners are the original land owners of the suit land and/or that they are the descendants or ospring of the original owners of the land and the Consolata Catholics Clergy. 9. The 3rd, 4th and 6th Respondents assert that the 4th to 6th Respondents have never been beneciaries of any proceeds from the three suit parcels as the 3rd Respondent is the only registered and lawful owner thereof. In addition, the said Respondents deny that the Petitioners were ever evicted from the parcels of land during the emergency period of 1952 to 1960 as claimed or at all. 10. The 3rd, 4th and 6th Respondents aver that the Petitioners have instituted several suits namely, Nairobi HC Misc. Civil Application No. 158 of 2005 and Nairobi HC Petition No. 398 of 2006 under dierent names and styles but on the same subject matter on the repealed constitution which they lost. 11. The 3rd, 4th and 6th Respondents aver that the subject suit parcels were transferred to the 3rd Respondent by way of gift on 24th May 1974 from the Original Grantee, the Consolata Catholic Mission Trustees (Registered) and that the 3rd Respondent has all along been paying land rates and rent to the Government. The three Respondents aver further that all along, the suit parcels were crown land and admistered by the Government and were never held under Kikuyu Customary Law. They aver that the subject suit parcels were acquired legally, regularly and without notice of fraud on the part of the 3rd to 6th Respondents. 12. The Very Reverend Father Donatus Mathenge (the 5th Respondent) is similarly opposed to the Petition. In his Replying Adavit sworn on 24th February 2014, the 5th Respondent reiterates the contents of the Replying Adavit sworn by the 3rd, 4th and 6th Respondents. 13. As it turned out, by an earlier Plaint dated 27th December 2011, Samuel Githiga Mwai, Paul Murage Ndiangui and John Mwangi Chege in their respective capacities as the Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer suing on behalf of Nyeri Hill Farm Maganjo Land Owners Self Help Group had instituted Nyeri HCCC No. 212 of 2011 against the Archdiocese of Nyeri, the Commissioner of Lands, the Attorney General and the County Council of Nyeri. By the said suit, the Group sought an order declaring that LR. No.s 9464, 4166 and 1356 belonged to them and for the same to be registered in their names. Following an application made herein, the said suit was consolidated with this matter on 20th February 2014 and the Plaintis therein were enjoined as Interested Parties in this matter. 14. On 4th August 2014 another group of 46 individuals terming themselves as “Mbari ya Mathari” were similarly joined as Interested Parties in these proceedings. 15. At the trial herein which commenced on 22nd November 2017, the Petitioners called a total of ten (10) witnesses in support of their case. The Respondents on the other hand called ve (5) witnesses. The Interested Parties called three (3) witnesses. Analysis and Determination 16. I have carefully perused and considered the pleadings as led by the parties herein, the testimonies of the witnesses as well as the evidence adduced at the trial. I have similarly perused and considered https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5707/eng@2026-09-24 4

page 4 of 11

the submissions and authorities placed before the Court by the Learned Advocates representing the parties. 17. By their suit before the Court, the 614 Petitioners urge the Court to declare that both the colonial and the Kenyan Government had no title to the parcels of land known as LR. Nos. 9464, 1356 and 4166 which were allocated and registered in the name of the 3rd Respondent. The Petitioners urge the Court to revoke the said leases and to declare that the said parcels of land should be subjected to land adjudication within the terms of the Land Adjudication Act. 18. The Petitioners aver that the Commissioner of Lands allocated LR. No. 9464 in the year 1958 during the emergency period and that both LR. No. 1356 and 4166 were allocated to the 3rd Respondent in the year 1965. It is the Petitioners’ case that their land was part of the Native Reserves and that the allocation was done contrary to the provisions of the Trust Land Ordinance, 1938. 19. The Petitioners further aver that the 3rd Respondent took advantage of the end of the colonial period, the confusion surrounding the land adjudication exercise in Central Kenya, the ascendancy of home guards and the administrative transition in local and central governments during the period of allotment to obtain leases to lands which were previously not part of the White Highlands. 20. The Petitioners assert that they have since remained homeless, lost produce, grazing lands and income from what was hitherto their ancestral land. They accused the 3rd Respondent of using local, provincial and police administration to resist their legitimate demand to return to their ancestral homes. 21. On 4th August 2014, a group of 46 individuals styling themselves as Mbari ya Mathari were enjoined herein as the Interested Parties. According to the Interested Parties, the suit land was originally known as LR. No. 1105. It is their case that the land originally belonged to one Mathari wa Karuri who was the patriarch of the Mbari ya Mathari. 22. According to the Interested Parties, the said Mathari wa Karuri lived happily with his family on the land that is today known as Mathari before the advent of the 1st World War. In the course of the war, the eldest sons of Mathari were all conscripted into the Colonial army by one Chief Ndiuni Murathimi who then proceeded to fraudulently sell all their land to the Consolata Catholic Missionaries who were the predecessors of the 3rd Respondent. 23. It is the Interested Parties’ case that the said Chief Ndiuni Murathimi had no proprietary rights to pass on to the Missionaries and that the 3rd Respondent’s acquisition of the said LR. No. 1105 was tainted with fraud and the title to the land should therefore revert back to the Interested Parties. 24. As it were, the Petitioners claim to be either the original owners, or the descendants or osprings of the owners of the suit properties presently registered in the name of the 3rd Respondent. In the course of the trial, it became apparent that the Petitioners had formed themselves into three main groups all staking a claim to the land. Other than the Interested Parties referred to above as Mbari ya Mathari, the other group was known as the Nyeri Hill Farm. The third group – Kamwenja Maganjo Self Help Group asserted that they were descendants of the said Chief Ndiuni Murathimi and collectively referred to themselves as Mbari ya Murathimi. 25. By a letter addressed to the Deputy Registrar of this Court dated 26th October 2018 as led herein on 29th October 2018, the said Mbari ya Murathimi Clan indicated that they had withdrawn their Petition against the Respondents. The said letter was apparently prompted by the fact that at the time, the said Mbari ya Murathimi Clan had presented a complaint of historical injustices in regard to the suit property to the National Land Commission. The Commission however later declined to hear the https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5707/eng@2026-09-24 5

page 5 of 11

complaint on the basis that it would be sub-judice to these proceedings and the clan continued to participate in these proceedings terming themselves as the “Aected Parties”. 26. During the trial herein it emerged that other than the above mentioned clans, there were many other groups such as the Mbari ya Maganjo, Aitherandu and Muchera clans that were also laying claim to the suit properties. 27. It was the position of the Petitioners, the Interested Parties and the Aected Parties that the suit properties are encumbered by a customary trust in their favour. It is their case that the suit properties were native reserves or un-adjudicated parcels of land under customary tenure and assert that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents did not follow the laid down procedure in dealing with trust land. 28. In support of that position, Shadrack Muteru Gitonga (PW1) told the Court that the suit properties initially belonged to his great grandfather one Murathimi Mitei. It was further his testimony that after the demise of his great grandfather, the land was left in the hands of his grandfather one Ndiuni Murathimi before the arrival of the white settlers in the year 1900. According to PW1, his grandfather gave the Missionaries 1000 acres of land to build a Church and a School. In exchange, the Missionaries gifted his grandfather with a blanket, necklaces, and a barrel of sugar. 29. PW1 testied that thereafter, they had continued to occupy another portion of the land measuring 2500 acres peacefully until the time the emergency period was declared in Kenya in the year 1952 following which they were evicted and taken away into concentration camps. PW1 told the Court that when the emergency period came to an end in the year 1959, they returned home only to nd that the settlers had acquired title to the whole portion of land measuring 3500 acres and they were hence denied access thereto. 30. It was interesting to note that the position taken by the Interested Parties was slightly dierent. According to them, the said Ndiuni Murathimi, was the area Chief during the 1st World War. It was the Interested Parties’ case that it was during that period that the said Chief had sold their land situated in present day Mathari area to the Missionaries after he had cunningly conscripted all the elder sons of Mathari wa Karuri into the colonial army to go and ght abroad. 31. The Petitioners’ claim as it were is centered on the suit properties known as LR No. 9464 (measuring 1089 acres), LR No. 1356 (measuring 584 acres) and LR. No. 4166 (measuring 904 acres). From the material placed before the Court the issues concerning LR. No. 1105/ LR. No. 9463 were separate and were already dealt with by the Court in Nairobi HC Misc. App. No. 158 of 2005; John Peter Mureithi & 2 Others –vs- Attorney General & 4 Others (2006) eKLR. The Petitioners concede that position in their submissions. 32. In relation to the 2nd Respondent, the Petitioners have asserted that its predecessor in title, the Nyeri African District Council was the institution that was entrusted with protecting all trust lands for the African People until the lands were adjudicated and the owners were registered under the Registered Land Act. 33. I was however unable to nd any evidence in support of that position. In M’Ikiebia –vs- M’Lintari & Another (Petition No. 10 of 2015) 2018 KESC 22 (KLR) Judgment) the Supreme Court of Kenya prescribed a test which ought to apply in determining whether a claim of a right to land qualied as a customary trust as follows:a. The land in question was before registration, family, clan or group land; b. The Claimant belongs to such family, clan or group; https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5707/eng@2026-09-24 6

page 6 of 11

c. The relationship of the Claimant to such family, clan or group is not so remote or tenuous as to make his/her claim idle or adventurous; d. The Claimant could have been entitled to be registered as an owner or other beneciary of the land but for some intervening circumstances; and e. The Claim is directed against the registered proprietor who is a member of the family, clan or group. 34. In the matter herein it is not in dispute that the Petitioners and the Interested Parties all belong to the same community and that they share a common ethnicity and/or similar culture as provided under the Community Lands Act. There was however no material evidence placed before the Court to demonstrate that the land was held under a customary trust tenure either for the members of the Hill Farm, Kamwenja, Mathari or any of the clans staking a claim to the land herein. 35. In Black’s Law Dictionary 9th Edition, a trust is described as:“ The right enforceable solely in equity, the benecial enjoyment to which another holds a legal title, a property interest held by one person (trustee) at the request of another (settler) for the benet of a third party (beneciary).” 36. The Community Lands Act denes “Community Land” to be land declared as such under Article 63 (2) of the Constitution and land converted into Community land under any law. The said Article 63(2) provides as follows: “ (2) 37. Community land consists of— a. land lawfully registered in the name of group representatives under the provisions of any law; b. land lawfully transferred to a specic community by any process of law; c. any other land declared to be community land by an Act of Parliament; and d. land that is— (i) lawfully held, managed or used by specic communities as community forests, grazing areas or shrines; (ii) ancestral lands and lands traditionally occupied by hunter-gatherer communities; or (iii) lawfully held as trust land by the county governments, but not including any public land held in trust by the county government under Article 62(2). In the matter before me, the Petitioners’ witnesses asserted that prior to the state of emergency in Kenya they would graze their livestock on or around the properties. It was their case that their grievances https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5707/eng@2026-09-24 7

page 7 of 11

started in the year 1959 after the colonial government irregularly allocated the suit properties to the 3rd Respondent without the land being set apart. 38. In support of their case, the Petitioners produced a number of letters written to various institutions airing their complaints over time. While one would sympathize with the plight of the Petitioners, I was unable to nd any evidence that would demonstrate that the suit properties were ever registered or held by the local authority or any institution for that matter on behalf of the groups now claiming it herein. 39. In its Grounds of Opposition dated 12th May 2014, the 2nd Respondent had asserted that the subject parcels of land have not at any time fallen in the category of trust land for administration by its predecessors in title. In support of that position, the 2nd Respondent had called its surveyor Nelson Ngari Muriithi (DW2) who was categorical that the parcels of land fell under what was set aside as the “White Highlands” and separate from what was referred to as “native reserves.” While such classication was certainly derogatory and meant to demean the so-called “natives”, it was clear to me that historically, such parcels were declared out of bounds for African Communities and that the Petitioners and the Interested Parties were no exception. 40. As was stated by the Court in Wambua –vs- Wambua (2025) KEELC 595 (KLR) (12th February 2025) (Judgment): “ Customary trust is a matter of evidence and not inference. The burden of proof lies with the person who wishes the Court to make a nding as to the existence of such trust. It is an issue both of fact and law which requires serious demonstration through proper evidence .....” 41. The Petitioners have also relied heavily on the Ndungu Land Commission Report whose recommendations they contend required the 3rd Respondent to retain a specic acreage of the suit properties while a larger portion would revert to the Claimants as communal land. It was however clear to me that even where such a Commission recommends action, such recommendations are not self – executing judicial decrees and they cannot be relied upon to automatically nullify registered titles or to supersede the statutory thresholds set out under Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act, 2012. Indeed, as was held by Justice J.G. Nyamu in John Peter Mureithi & 2 Others –vs- Attorney General & 4 Others (2006) eKLR, “the Ndung’u Report” on its own cannot constitute a cause of action and evidence has to be adduced on a case by case basis. 42. It was also clear to me that while the Petitioners pleaded and testied before the Court that they were displaced during the emergency period declared between 1952 to 1959, the evidence adduced by the 3rd to 6th Respondents points to the historical occupation of the said parcels of land much earlier than that. According to Fr. David Mutahi (DW5), the activities of the Consolata Missionaries began in the area around 1902 when they put up saw mills for processing timber and engaged in some coee farming. 43. DW5 further told the Court that in 1925 the Missionaries had put up a Chapel and Post Oce on the land while in 1930, they set up a coee factory and printing press on LR No. 1105. It was further his testimony that around the same time, the Missionaries started the construction of Nyeri High School on LR No. 9463 and that the construction of St. Paul’s Seminary and Kamwenja Teachers College were equally started at the same time. 44. That position was indeed corroborated by one of the Petitioners. While all the Petitioners insisted that the land belonged to their forefathers before it was taken away during the emergency period, Joseph Kahoro (PW8) told a dierent story. According to PW8, he was the son of Fr. John Salale, an Italian Priest who was in-charge of the property which was owned by the Catholic Church. PW8 who told the Court he was 73 years old testied in cross examination that he knew the parcels of land in question https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5707/eng@2026-09-24 8

page 8 of 11

belonged to the Consolata fathers and the Missionaries had been on the land given to them by the Colonial Government since the year 1902. 45. In their List of Documents led herein, the Petitioners have produced as part of their evidence excerpts of a book titled “The Conquest for Christ in Kenya,” which book highlights the journey of Christianity in Kenya as advanced by the Consolata Missionaries in the year 1902 into a place named Tuso and Forthall. The book further gives the history of land acquisition, in Kikuyu land by the 3rd Respondents’ predecessors. In an except of the text at page 45, the author states thus: “ Father Perlo oered to purchase the ground outright but Dr. Hinde told him that it was not necessary (as) the matter would be amicably settled in due time. In those days the entire province was recognized as crown land and obviously Father Perlo could have bought the land directly from Government without considering further claims. Rather than do that, he preferred to compensate the native proprietors who expressed their appreciation for his consideration. On November 15, Father Perlo led a formal application with Government for the land.” 46. At Page 54 of the book, the author further discusses the entry of the said Fr. Perlo and other Missionaries into Othaya area on 28th October 1904 and later on into Nyeri in April of the following year where a Catholic Mission was established. At the second paragraph of that page, the author states as follows: “ The government was consulted and shortly after an application was made for one thousand acres of land at the foot of Nyeri hill Gethuri north of Chania river. The land thus legally acquired was entirely bush land and completely uninhabited the domain of wild beasts. The Akikuyu considered it an No-Man’s land, a buer between them and the Maasai. No one had ventured to plant a garden there, or to graze his herds for fear of a Maasai raid or attack by wild beasts. The application was in no way considered unreasonable and the land was granted to the Mission for mission purposes.” 47. While again some of these write ups could have been skewed in support of some agenda, it certainly supports the claim by the 3rd Respondent that its predecessor in title was already in occupation of the suit properties long before the emergency period when the Petitioners and the Interested Parties claim to have been displaced from the suit properties. 48. Indeed, from the material placed before the Court by the 3rd to 6th Respondents it was evident that LR. No. 1105 measuring 1054 acres was acquired through an indenture dated 26th January 1915 by Bishop Fillipe Perlo at a consideration of 2108 Rupees. The land was subsequently registered in the name of the Consolata Missionaries on 19th December 1915. LR No. 1358 measuring 584 acres was similarly acquired through another indenture dated 6th November 1916. LR Nos 9463 and 9464 were similarly acquired through the indenture dated 6th November 1916 while LR. No. 4166 measuring 904 acres was a Grant issued to Rev. Fillipe Perlo by King George V eective 1st September 1922. 49. It was also evident that in 1958 the Consolata Missionaries surrendered the Grant No. IR No. 15243 for LR No. 9463 and were issued with a 99 year leasehold grant under the Registration of Titles Ordinance. In the year 1965, the Missionaries surrendered Grant No. IR No. 1282/5 and were issued with a 965 year leasehold title for LR. No. 4166 under the Registration of Titles Act. In the same year they surrendered Grant No. IR 20737 for LR. No. 1356 and were issued with a 947 year leasehold title. Subsequently, in the year 1972, the Consolata Catholic Mission Trustees transferred all their land to the Diocese of Nyeri Trustees (the 3rd Respondent). https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5707/eng@2026-09-24 9

page 9 of 11

50. As it were, the land regime in Kenya prior to the inception of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, specically the Crown Lands Ordinance (1902), the Government Land Ordinance (1915), the Registration of Titles Ordinance (1920) and the Registered Land Act (1963) (all now repealed) allowed the Commissioner of Lands to issue grants of leasehold title for periods not exceeding 999 years. Under the Government Lands Act, the President and the Commissioner of Lands had power to make grants and dispositions of any estate, interests and rights in un-alienated land. 51. In the circumstances herein it is my nding that there was no proof of fraud or irregularities in regard to the instruments of conversion produced by the Consolata Mission Trustees in 1972 by which the documents now held by the 3rd Respondent can be besmirched. The 3rd to 6th Respondents have led evidence that the Diocese of Nyeri Trustees is a legal entity presently led by Kenyan nationals and in the absence of proof of fraud, I did not nd any basis upon which their titles can be cancelled. 52. In respect to sanctity of a title, Section 26 of the Land Registration Act, 2012 provides as follows: “ 26 (1). (2) The certicate of title issued by the Registrar upon registration, or to a purchaser of land upon a transfer or transmission by the proprietor 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, subject to the encumbrances, easements, restrictions and conditions contained or endorsed in the certicate, 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 certicate of title has been acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme. A certied copy of any registered instrument, signed by the Registrar and sealed with the Seal of the Registrar, shall be received in evidence in the same manner as the original. 53. Arising from the foregoing, it follows that when a person has been issued with a Certicate of Title, that title, prima facie, demonstrates that the individual named therein is the proper owner of the freehold or leasehold interest noted in the said certicate. The law presumes the title to be a good title and therefore if another person claims that the said title is not regular or genuine, then the burden of proof is upon the person claiming as much. In the matter herein I was not persuaded that the titles held by the 3rd Respondent for the suit properties were fraudulent and/or irregular as to warrant their cancellation. 54. In the premises I did not nd any merit in the Petition and I hereby dismiss the same and any other claim against the Respondents herein. 55. Due to the public interest nature of the Petition I hereby order that each party shall bear their own costs. JUDGMENT DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AND VIRTUALLY AT MOMBASA THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5707/eng@2026-09-24 10

page 10 of 11

………………………… J.O. OLOLA JUDGE In the presence of: a) Ms. Firdaus Court Assistant. b) Mr. Wanyiri Kihoro Advocate for the Petitioner c) Mr. Gikandi for the 2nd set of Petitioners d) Ms. Nyawira holding brief for Ms. Chege Advocate for the 1st Respondent e) Mr. R. P. Mugambi Advocate for the 2nd Respondent f) Mr. Kibe holding brief for J.N. Mugambi Advocate for the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Respondent g) Ms. Wachira holding brief for Muchiri wa Gathoni Advocate for the Interested Parties https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5707/eng@2026-09-24 11

page 11 of 11