King'ora Estates Limited & 2 Others v Syokimau Farm Limited

1. A man buys land. He pays for it. He takes it. He builds on it. He lives on it. He waits for a title. Twenty years pass. The title does not come. That is the story the Plaintiffs tell. 2. The Plaintiffs instituted this suit vide a Plaint dated 12 th September, 2025 and filed on 7th October, 2025. The 1st Plaintiff’s case is that, in the year 2005, it purchased from the Defendant all that parcel of land known as L.R. No. 12715/502 at a consideration of Kshs. 230,000/-, which it paid in full. The transaction was subsequently formalized through a written Transfer dated 12th January, 2015. 3. The Plaintiffs averred that, upon purchase, the 1 st Plaintiff took possession of L.R. No. 12715/502 and subdivided it into sixteen (16) plots. It thereafter sold Plot No. 5, being L.R. No. 12715/14253, to the 2nd Plaintiff and Plot No. 6, being L.R. No. 12715/14256, to the 3rd Plaintiff, while retaining Plot No. 10, being L.R. No. 12715/14264, for itself. ELCLC. NO.E 121/2025-JUDGMENT 2

page 2 of 33

4. According to the Plaintiffs, they have been in occupation of their respective parcels since the year 2005. They contended that, despite payment of the full purchase price, the Defendant has failed, neglected and/or refused to execute the requisite transfer instruments or provide the completion documents necessary to facilitate the registration of the respective parcels in their names. They therefore maintained that the Defendant holds the parcels in constructive trust for them. 5. Consequently, the Plaintiffs seek judgment against the Defendant for the following orders, as pleaded: a) An order that the Defendant transfers to the Plaintiffs Plot No. 10 on LR No. 12715/14264, plot 5 (LR No. 12715/14253) and 6 (LR. 12715/14256) respectively all excised from LR No. 12715/502 in accordance with the Survey Map. b) An alternative order that the Defendant gives to the plaintiffs including ELCLC. NO.E 121/2025-JUDGMENT all the completion original title for LR documents No.12715/502, 3

page 3 of 33

signed transfers in triplicate in favour of the plaintiffs, certificates, land rent and Rates PIN and photos and clearance any other documents necessary to effect the transfers. c) An order that if the Defendant fails to execute transfers and any other documents for effecting transfer in favour of the plaintiff, the Deputy Registrar of this Honourable court signs the same. d) An order that transfer be effected without the original title held by the Defendant. e) An order that the transfer be effected with a copy of the survey map. f) Costs. 6. Although the Defendant was duly served with summons to enter appearance and the pleadings, it neither entered appearance nor filed a Defence. On 15 th June, 2026, the Court, having satisfied itself as to service upon the ELCLC. NO.E 121/2025-JUDGMENT 4

page 4 of 33

Defendant, directed that the suit proceeds by way of formal proof. 7. At the formal proof hearing on 8th July, 2026, the Plaintiffs called one witness, Keziah Wanjiku Ng’ang’a (PW1), a director of the 1st Plaintiff. She adopted her witness statement dated 12th September, 2025 as her evidence-inchief and produced the documents contained in the Plaintiffs’ List of Documents of even date as Plaintiff Exhibits 1 to 12. 8. PW1 testified that the 1st Plaintiff purchased L.R. No. 12715/502 from the Defendant at a consideration of Kshs. 230,000/- and thereafter subdivided it into sixteen (16) plots. She stated that the 1st Plaintiff retained Plot No. 10, being L.R. No. 12715/14264, while Plots Nos. 5 and 6, being L.R. Nos. 12715/14253 and 12715/14256 respectively, were sold to the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs. She urged the Court to grant the orders sought in the Plaint. ELCLC. NO.E 121/2025-JUDGMENT 5

page 5 of 33

9. Upon the close of the Plaintiff’s case, the Court granted the Plaintiffs seven days within which to file written submissions. The Plaintiffs’ advocates on record, M/S Malonza Company Advocates, subsequently filed & submissions dated 20th July, 2026, which the Court has considered. Plaintiff’s Submissions 10. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that the Plaintiffs had proved their case on a balance of probabilities. Counsel argued that the 1st Plaintiff paid the full purchase price, took possession of L.R. No. 12715/502 and subsequently subdivided it, but the Defendant failed to execute the requisite transfer documents. Counsel relied on the case of Willy Kimutai Kitilit v Michael Kibet [2015] eKLR for the proposition that the doctrines of constructive trust and proprietary estoppel apply where a purchaser has paid the purchase price and taken possession of the property. ELCLC. NO.E 121/2025-JUDGMENT 6

page 6 of 33

11. Counsel further relied on the order issued in Machakos ELC Case No. 262 of 2010, Peter Mathuki & 10 Others v King’ora Estates Limited & Syokimau Farm Limited, in which the Court directed the Defendant to execute the requisite transfer documents in respect of L.R. No. 12715/502 and the subsequent subdivisions, and in default authorized the Deputy Registrar to execute the same. Counsel urged the Court to find that the Defendant holds the suit properties in constructive trust for the Plaintiffs and to grant the reliefs sought in the Plaint. Issues for Determination 12. I have carefully considered the pleadings, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the Plaintiffs, their written submissions, the authorities cited and the applicable law. As already stated, the Defendant neither entered appearance nor filed a Defence despite having been duly served with summons to enter appearance and the pleadings. The matter therefore proceeded by way of formal ELCLC. NO.E 121/2025-JUDGMENT 7

page 7 of 33

proof, and the evidence tendered by the Plaintiffs remains uncontroverted. 13. The fact that the Plaintiffs’ evidence is uncontroverted does not, however, entitle them to judgment as a matter of course. The Plaintiffs still bear the burden of proving their claim to the required standard of a balance of probabilities. In Samson S. Maitai & Another v African Safari Club Ltd & Another [2010] KEHC 595 (KLR), the Court stated as follows: “I have not seen judicial definition of the phrase ‘formal proof’. ‘Formal’ in its ordinary dictionary meaning refers to being ‘methodical’ according to rules of evidence. On the other hand, according to Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol. 17 Paragraph 260, proof is that which leads to a conviction as to the truth or falsity of alleged facts which are the subject of inquiry. Proof refers to evidence which satisfies the court as to the truth or falsity of a fact. Generally, as we well ELCLC. NO.E 121/2025-JUDGMENT 8

page 8 of 33

know, the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the truth of the issue in dispute. If that party adduces sufficient evidence to raise a presumption that what is claimed is true, the burden passes to the other party who will fail unless sufficient evidence is adduced to rebut the presumption.” 14. It is against the foregoing background that the Court now proceeds to frame the following issues arising for determination: a. Whether the 1st Plaintiff lawfully purchased L.R. No. 12715/502 from the Defendant; b. Whether a constructive trust arose in favour of the Plaintiffs over the suit properties; c. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought in the Plaint; and d. Who should bear the costs of the suit? Analysis and Determination ELCLC. NO.E 121/2025-JUDGMENT 9

page 9 of 33

a. Whether the 1st Plaintiff lawfully purchased L.R. No. 12715/502 15. It is trite law that he who alleges must prove. Sections 107 of the Evidence Act (Cap 80) place the burden of proof upon the person who asserts the existence of a fact. The Plaintiffs assert that the 1st Plaintiff purchased L.R. No. 12715/502 from the Defendant in 2005 for Kshs. 230,000/-, which was paid in full. 16. In support of this assertion, PW1 testified that the 1 st Plaintiff purchased the suit property, paid the full purchase price, and thereafter took possession. The Plaintiffs produced a written Transfer dated 12th January, 2015 as one of their exhibits. While the Transfer is dated 2015, PW1’s uncontroverted evidence is that the purchase and payment occurred in 2005, and the Transfer was subsequently formalized. The existence of a written Transfer document, produced without objection, corroborates the Plaintiffs’ assertion that a sale transaction occurred between the parties. ELCLC. NO.E 121/2025-JUDGMENT 10

page 10 of 33

17. The Defendant has not denied the sale. The Defendant has not asserted that it did not receive the purchase price. The Defendant has not claimed any proprietary interest in the suit properties adverse to the Plaintiffs. In the absence of any rebuttal, I find that the 1 st Plaintiff lawfully purchased L.R. No. 12715/502 from the Defendant and paid the full purchase price of Kshs. 230,000/ b. Whether a constructive trust arose in favour of the Plaintiffs over the suit properties 18. A constructive trust is an equitable instrument imposed by operation of law to prevent unjust enrichment. The Supreme Court of Kenya in Shah & 7 Others v Mombasa Bricks & Tiles Limited & 5 Others [2023] KESC 106 (KLR) described a constructive trust as follows: “A constructive trust was instrument which served preventing unjust enrichment. created either expressly, an the equitable purpose Trusts where the of were trust property, its purpose and the beneficiaries were ELCLC. NO.E 121/2025-JUDGMENT 11

page 11 of 33

clearly stated, or established by the operation of the law. Like in the instant case, where it was not expressly stated, the trust may be established by operation of the law… A constructive trust was a right traceable from the doctrines of equity. It arose in connection with the legal title to property when a party conducted himself in a manner to deny the other party beneficial interest in the property acquired. A constructive trust would thus automatically arise where a person who was already a trustee took advantage of his position for his own benefit.” 19. The Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition at page 1649, defines a constructive trust as: “The equitable right to the beneficial enjoyment of property where legal title is held by another.” 20. The Court of Appeal in [2018] KECA 573 (KLR) confirmed ELCLC. NO.E 121/2025-JUDGMENT Kitilit that the v Kibet equitable 12

page 12 of 33

doctrines of constructive trust and proprietary estoppel are applicable to land transactions in Kenya. The Court held: “Thus, since the current Constitution has by virtue of Article 10(2)(b) elevated equity as a principle of justice to a constitutional principle and requires the courts in exercising judicial authority to protect and promote that principle, amongst others, it follows that the equitable doctrines of constructive trust and proprietary estoppel are applicable to and supersede the Land Control Act where a transaction relating to an interest in land is void and unenforceable for lack of consent of the Land Control Board.” 21. The circumstances that give rise to a constructive trust in favour of a purchaser were elaborated in Maina & 87 others v Kagiri [2014] KECA 880 (KLR). At paragraph 19, the Court stated as follows: “Pending the sale of all 240 plots by the Respondent, the question that comes to mind is ELCLC. NO.E 121/2025-JUDGMENT 13

page 13 of 33

what was to be the legal status and relationship between the Respondent and the Appellants as purchasers who had paid the purchase price for individual plots? It is our considered view that the Respondent created an implied or constructive trust in favour of those persons who had paid the purchase price pending the sale of all the 240 plots. In Mwangi & another v Mwangi (1986) KLR 328, it was held that the rights of a person in possession or occupation of land are equitable rights which are binding on the land and the land is subject to those rights; the absence of any reference to the existence of a trust in the title documents does not affect the enforceability of the trust since the reference to a trustee under section 126(1) of the Registered Land Act is merely permissive and not mandatory. In Mutsonga v Nyati (1984) KLR 425 and Kanyi v Muthiora (1984) KLR 712, it was held that the ELCLC. NO.E 121/2025-JUDGMENT equitable doctrines of implied, 14

page 14 of 33

constructive and resulting trusts are applicable to registered land by virtue of section 163 of the Registered Land Act which provides for the Application of the common law of England as modified by equity” 22. The court further stated at paragraph 20: “In the instant case, it was the Respondent who put the Appellants in possession of the suit property not as licensees but with the intention that he was to transfer individual plots purchased by them. The Respondent went ahead and received the purchase price. We are of the considered view that the doctrines of proprietary estoppel and constructive trust are applicable and the Respondent cannot renege. As Lord Bridge observed in Llyods Bank Plc v Rosset, (1991) 1 AC 107,132, a constructive trust is based on agreement, ‘common intention’ arrangement or which is an understanding actually reached between the parties and relied ELCLC. NO.E 121/2025-JUDGMENT 15

page 15 of 33

on and acted on by the Claimant. In the instant case, there was a common intention between the Appellants and the Respondent in relation to the suit property. Nothing in the Land Control Act prevents the Claimants from relying upon the doctrine of constructive trust created by the facts of the case. The Respondent all along acted on the basis and represented that the Appellants were to obtain proprietary interest in the suit property. Constructive trust is an equitable concept which acts on the conscience of the legal owner to prevent him from acting in an unconscionable manner by defeating the common intention.” 23. The foregoing principles were reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in William Kipsoi Sigei v Kipkoech Arusei & Another [2019] KECA 446 (KLR) where the court stated the at paragraph 20: ELCLC. NO.E 121/2025-JUDGMENT 16

page 16 of 33

“Taking into account the Macharia Mwangi Maina decision and the Willy Kimutai Kitilit decision alongside the circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the fact that the appellant herein, received the full purchase price for the property, allowed the 1st respondent to take possession, and for a period of at least fourteen years, let undisturbed, him remain on a constructive the trust property had been created.” 24. The Court consequently concluded that the equitable doctrines of constructive trust and proprietary estoppel were applicable and enforceable, notwithstanding the absence of the consent of the Land Control Board. 25. From the foregoing authorities, the material considerations in determining whether a constructive trust arose include the existence of an agreement or common intention concerning the property, payment of the purchase price, ELCLC. NO.E 121/2025-JUDGMENT 17

page 17 of 33

delivery of possession, the purchaser’s reliance on the agreement and whether it would be unconscionable for the registered proprietor to retain the legal title contrary to that common intention. 26. Against this legal framework, the Court must determine whether the evidence demonstrates a common intention between the Defendant and the 1st Plaintiff concerning L.R. No. 12715/502, whether the Plaintiffs acted in reliance upon that intention, and whether the Defendant’s continued retention of the legal title would be unconscionable. 27. The Plaintiffs produced a copy of the Grant, I.R. No. 45492, in respect of L.R. No. 12715/502. The Grant shows that the property, measuring approximately 2.024 hectares, was granted to the Defendant for a term of ninety-nine (99) years commencing on 1st November, 1983. I am therefore satisfied that the Defendant is the registered proprietor of L.R. No. 12715/502 and holds the legal title thereto. ELCLC. NO.E 121/2025-JUDGMENT 18

page 18 of 33

28. The Plaintiffs also produced a Transfer dated 12 th January, 2015 between the Defendant and the 1 st Plaintiff. In the instrument, the Defendant expressly acknowledged that it had received Kshs. 230,000/- from the 1 st Plaintiff and purported to transfer its right, title and interest in L.R. No. 12715/502 to the 1st Plaintiff. The instrument was executed on behalf of both companies. 29. In my view, the Transfer is cogent evidence of the parties’ common intention. It not only identifies the property and the parties but also contains the Defendant’s express acknowledgment that the agreed consideration had been paid by the 1st Plaintiff. Although the transfer was not registered and the legal title consequently remained in the Defendant’s name, the Defendant’s receipt of the full purchase price and execution of the Transfer created a beneficial interest in favour of the 1st Plaintiff. 30. PW1’s evidence was that the 1st Plaintiff took possession of L.R. No. 12715/502 following the purchase and subdivided it ELCLC. NO.E 121/2025-JUDGMENT 19

page 19 of 33

into sixteen (16) plots. That evidence is supported by the Deed Plans produced in respect of L.R. Nos. 12715/14253, 12715/14256 and 12715/14264. The Deed Plans identify the parcels as subdivisions of L.R. No. 12715/502 corresponding to Plots Nos. 5, 6 and 10 respectively. 31. In respect of the 2nd Plaintiff, the Plaintiffs produced an agreement entered into between the 1st Plaintiff and the 2nd Plaintiff in the year 2005 for the sale of Plot No. 5, measuring one-quarter of an acre and comprised in L.R. No. 12715/502, at a consideration of Kshs. 350,000/-. The agreement expressly acknowledges receipt of the full purchase price and records that the 1st Plaintiff gave vacant possession of the plot to the 2nd Plaintiff and undertook to effect its transfer in his favour. The plot was subsequently designated as L.R. No. 12715/14253. 32. The Plaintiffs similarly produced an agreement dated 5 th February, 2005 between the 1st Plaintiff and the 3rd Plaintiff for the sale of Plot No. 6, also measuring one-quarter of an ELCLC. NO.E 121/2025-JUDGMENT 20

page 20 of 33

acre and comprised in L.R. No. 12715/502, for Kshs. 350,000/-. The agreement acknowledges payment of the purchase price in full and records that vacant possession was given to the 3rd Plaintiff. The plot was subsequently designated as L.R. No. 12715/14256. 33. PW1 testified that the 1st Plaintiff retained Plot No. 10, now known as L.R. No. 12715/14264, for itself. She further stated that the Plaintiffs have remained in uninterrupted occupation of their respective plots since the year 2005 and have undertaken developments thereon. Her evidence concerning the purchase, payment, subdivision and possession was not challenged by the Defendant and is consistent with the documentary evidence produced before the Court. 34. The Plaintiffs further produced a demand letter dated 8 th July, 2025, by which they called upon the Defendant to release the completion documents necessary to facilitate the transfer of the respective plots. The Defendant did not ELCLC. NO.E 121/2025-JUDGMENT 21

page 21 of 33

respond to the demand and has neither transferred the properties nor provided the completion documents sought. 35. The circumstances of this case are substantially similar to those considered in William Kipsoi Sigei v Kipkoech Arusei & Another (supra). The 1st Plaintiff purchased the mother parcel, paid the full consideration and was placed in possession by the Defendant. It thereafter sold two of the subdivisions to the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs, who paid the respective purchase prices and took possession. The equitable interest acquired by the 1 st Plaintiff was therefore followed by corresponding equitable interests in favour of the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs over the particular plots sold to them. 36. In this case, the evidence establishes that the 1 st Plaintiff paid the full purchase price of Kshs. 230,000/- in 2005 and thereafter took possession of L.R. No. 12715/502. The 1 st Plaintiff subsequently subdivided the property into sixteen plots and sold Plots Nos. 5 and 6 to the 2 nd and 3rd Plaintiffs ELCLC. NO.E 121/2025-JUDGMENT 22

page 22 of 33

respectively. The Plaintiffs have remained in occupation of their respective parcels since 2005. 37. I find that the conduct of the Defendant in receiving the full purchase price and permitting the Plaintiffs to take possession, subdivide and occupy the suit properties, only to later refuse to execute the transfer documents, is unconscionable and inequitable. Equity will not permit the Defendant to retain the legal title to properties for which it has received the full consideration, while denying the Plaintiffs the beneficial interest therein. The Defendant holds the suit properties in constructive trust for the Plaintiffs. 38. I find that the conduct of the Defendant in receiving the full purchase price and permitting the Plaintiffs to take possession, subdivide, and occupy the suit properties, only to later refuse to execute the transfer documents, is unconscionable and inequitable. Equity will not permit the Defendant to retain the legal title to properties for which it has received the full consideration, while denying the ELCLC. NO.E 121/2025-JUDGMENT 23

page 23 of 33

Plaintiffs the beneficial interest therein. The Defendant holds the suit properties in constructive trust for the Plaintiffs. 39. I am fortified in this finding by the decision in Peter Mathuki & 10 Others v King’ora Estates Limited & Another [2018] KEELC 3854 (KLR), which concerned the same parcel of land. At paragraph 6, the Court observed: “The court allowed the Plaintiffs’ claim vide its Judgment dated 13th April, 2018. In the said Judgment, the court directed the Defendants to transfer the sub-divisions of L.R. No. 12715/502 to the Plaintiffs. However, the said title for L.R. No. 12715/502 has never been transferred to the Defendants todate by Syokimau Farm Limited, the original owners.” 40. The Court proceeded to find that the purchasers were the bona fide owners of the subdivisions arising from L.R. No. 12715/502 and made the following orders: ELCLC. NO.E 121/2025-JUDGMENT 24

page 24 of 33

“a. Syokimau Farm Limited be and is hereby ordered to execute all the requisite transfer documents in respect of L.R. No. 12715/502 and the subsequent sub-divisions in favour of the Plaintiffs. b. In default, the Deputy Registrar of this court to execute the transfer documents in satisfaction of the Judgment and Decree of this court.” 41. The decisions in the earlier proceedings are material to the present dispute because they concerned the same mother title and the same chain of transactions. They establish that the 1st Plaintiff sold subdivisions arising from L.R. No. 12715/502 to individual purchasers, while the mother title remained registered in the Defendant’s name. They also demonstrate that the failure to transfer the mother title prevented the 1st Plaintiff from completing the transfers to the purchasers. ELCLC. NO.E 121/2025-JUDGMENT 25

page 25 of 33

42. Those findings are consistent with the Grant, the Transfer dated 12th January, 2015, the Deed Plans and the sale agreements produced in the present suit. They further demonstrate that the Defendant’s continued retention of the mother title has previously impeded the registration of subdivisions purchased through the 1st Plaintiff. 43. I therefore find that the Defendant holds Plot No. 10, being L.R. No. 12715/14264, in constructive trust for the 1 st Plaintiff, Plot No. 5, being L.R. No. 12715/14253, in constructive trust for the 2nd Plaintiff and Plot No. 6, being L.R. No. 12715/14256, in constructive trust for the 3 rd Plaintiff. The first issue is accordingly answered in the affirmative. c. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought in the Plaint 44. Having found that a constructive trust exists in favour of the Plaintiffs, the next question is whether the reliefs sought are ELCLC. NO.E 121/2025-JUDGMENT 26

page 26 of 33

appropriate. The Plaintiffs seek orders for transfer of the suit properties to them, and in the alternative, orders compelling the Defendant to provide completion documents, and in default, authorizing the Deputy Registrar to execute the transfer instruments. 45. Section 28 of the Land Registration Act, 2012 recognizes trusts as overriding interests in land. A constructive trust, being a trust arising by operation of law, is an overriding interest that binds the registered proprietor. The beneficiary of a constructive trust is entitled to be registered as the proprietor of the land. 46. In Maina & 87 Others v Kagiri (supra), the Court of Appeal cited with approval the decision in Chase International Investment Corporation & Another v Laxman Keshra & Others [1978] KLR 143, where the Court stated: “If the circumstances are such as to raise equity in favour of the Plaintiff and the extent of the ELCLC. NO.E 121/2025-JUDGMENT 27

page 27 of 33

equity is known, and in what way it should be satisfied, the plaintiff is entitled to succeed....” 47. In Peter Mathuki & 10 Others v Kingora Estates Ltd & Another; Syokimau Farm Limited (Intended Interested Party) [2021] KEELC 4178 (KLR), the Court, faced with a situation where the Defendant had failed to execute transfer documents in respect of subdivisions of L.R. No. 12715/502, ordered the original owner to execute the requisite transfer documents and, in default, authorized the Deputy Registrar to execute the same. The case involved the same mother title as the present case, and I find its reasoning persuasive. 48. The Plaintiffs have established that they are the beneficial owners of their respective parcels by virtue of the constructive trust. The Defendant, as the holder of the legal title, is obligated to give effect to that trust by executing the necessary transfer instruments. The Defendant has failed, neglected and/or refused to do so. In the circumstances, it is just and equitable for this Court to order the Defendant to ELCLC. NO.E 121/2025-JUDGMENT 28

page 28 of 33

execute the transfer documents and in default, to authorize the Deputy Registrar to execute them. 49. As for the prayer that transfer be effected without the original title held by the Defendant, I note that the Plaintiffs have prayed in the alternative for an order that the Defendant gives to the Plaintiffs the original title for L.R. No. 12715/502 together with the completion documents. The appropriate order is to compel the Defendant to surrender the original title and completion documents. If the Defendant fails to do so, the Deputy Registrar should be at liberty to execute the transfer instruments, and the Land Registrar should be at liberty to dispense with the production of the original title upon such terms as the Land Registrar may deem fit. 50. In the circumstances, I find that the Plaintiffs are entitled to the substantive reliefs sought in the Plaint. ELCLC. NO.E 121/2025-JUDGMENT 29

page 29 of 33

d. Who should bear the costs of the suit 51. On the question of costs, section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act vests the Court with discretion as to costs while preserving the general principle that costs follow the event unless, for good reason, the Court orders otherwise. In Rai & 3 others v Rai & 4 others [2014] KESC 31 (KLR), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that although the award of costs is discretionary, where a court departs from the general rule that costs follow the event, the reasons for doing so must be discernible from the record 52. In the present case, I find no basis for departing from the general principle that costs follow the event. In the exercise of my discretion under section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, I award the costs of these proceedings to the Plaintiffs. Orders: 53. In the result, I find that the Plaintiffs have proved their case on a balance of probabilities. The Defendant holds the suit ELCLC. NO.E 121/2025-JUDGMENT 30

page 30 of 33

properties in constructive trust for the Plaintiffs. I therefore enter judgment for the Plaintiffs against the Defendant and make the following orders: a) The Defendant shall transfer Plot No. 10, being L.R. No. 12715/14264, to the 1st Plaintiff, Plot No. 5, being L.R. No. 12715/14253, to the 2nd Plaintiff, and Plot No. 6, being L.R. No. 12715/14256, to the 3rd Plaintiff, respectively, all being subdivisions excised from L.R. No. 12715/502 in accordance with the Survey Map. b) In default requisite of the transfer Defendant documents executing and any the other documents necessary to effect the transfers, the Deputy Registrar of this Court is authorized to execute the same on behalf of the Defendant. c) In the alternative, the Defendant shall avail to the Plaintiffs the completion documents necessary to effect the transfers, including the original title for L.R. No. 12715/502, signed transfers ELCLC. NO.E 121/2025-JUDGMENT in triplicate, land rent and rates 31

page 31 of 33

clearance certificates, photographs, and PIN any and other photo size documents necessary to effect the transfers. d) In the event that the Defendant fails to surrender the original Grant for L.R. No. 12715/502, the Land Registrar shall dispense with its production pursuant to section 31(1) of the Land Registration Act and proceed with registration of the transfers, subject to compliance with all other applicable statutory requirements. e) The approved survey map and the Deed Plans for L.R. Nos. 12715/14253, 12715/14264 shall identifying the be used respective 12715/14256 for purposes properties and of and effecting the transfers. f) The Defendant shall bear the Plaintiffs’ costs of the suit. It is so ordered. ELCLC. NO.E 121/2025-JUDGMENT 32

page 32 of 33

Delivered and Dated at Machakos this 24th day of September, 2026. HON. J. N. KUYIONI JUDGE 24.09.2026 Judgment delivered virtually through Microsoft Teams Video Conferencing Platform In the presence of; Catherine Court Assistant. Ms. Musa for the Plaintiff. No appearance for the Defendant ELCLC. NO.E 121/2025-JUDGMENT 33

page 33 of 33