Phillip Kamundia Munga & 2 Others v James Ngumo Mugo (Sued as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Salome Ngonyo Mugo (Deceased))

adverse possession to 4 acres, 4 acres and 3 acres respectively from Title No. Nyandarua/Simbara/235. 2. A decree was issued directing the subdivision and transfer of the respective portions to the plaintiffs and providing for execution of the necessary documents where there was default. 3. During execution, it became apparent that the original title deed could not be found or produced, thereby preventing registration and implementation of the decree. 4. An Official Search dated 4th September, 2026 also revealed a restriction registered against the title in favour of the family of the late Salome Ngonyo Mugo. 5. The applicants filed a notice of motion dated 7th July, 2026 seeking an order authorizing the Land Registrar, Nyahururu, to dispense with production of the original title deed for Nyandarua/Simbara/235 and proceed with subdivision, registration and issuance of resultant titles in accordance with the Court’s decree. The applicants amended the notice of motion dated 7th September, 2026 to include a prayer for the removal, lifting and/or cancellation of a restriction registered against the title in favour of the family of the late Salome Ngonyo Mugo, or NYAHURURU ELC NO. 422 OF 2017 (O.S) – RULING 2|Page

page 2 of 5

any other restriction that may hinder implementation of the decree. 6. They urged the Court to exercise its statutory and inherent jurisdiction to authorize the Land Registrar to proceed without the original title deed and to remove, lift or cancel the restriction to the extent necessary to implement the decree. 7. The application is supported by the affidavit of Charles Gakuhi Chege Advocate, to which the judgment and decree are annexed. The applicants maintain that granting the orders will cause no prejudice to the defendant, the estate of Salome Ngonyo Mugo, or any other person, while refusal would continue to prevent the plaintiffs from enjoying the fruits of the judgment. 8. When the application came for inter parties hearing on 24th September 2024, the defendant was present virtually in the office of the applicant’s counsel and informed the court that he was not opposing the application. He explained that after delivery of the judgement, he executed the necessary transfer forms as ordered by the NYAHURURU ELC NO. 422 OF 2017 (O.S) – RULING 3|Page

page 3 of 5

Court but the registration process could not be completed because the original title deed could not be traced and his wife who had registered a restriction against the title deed. He stated that he had no objection to removal of the restriction as his wife was not one of the children of the deceased. He urged the court to grant the prayers sought. 9. I have considered the application and the prayers sought. I have also taken into consideration that the defendant acknowledged that the title deed could not be traced and had executed the transfers as ordered by the court. Taking the above circumstances into consideration and noting that a judgement has been delivered by court directing how the suit property will be shared, l see no good reason not to grant the prayers sought. Consequently, l grant prayers 1 and 2 in the amended application dated 7th September 2026 with no orders as to costs as the application was not defended. 10. Orders accordingly. NYAHURURU ELC NO. 422 OF 2017 (O.S) – RULING 4|Page

page 4 of 5

Ruling dated, signed and delivered at Nyahururu this 28th day of September, 2026 through Microsoft teams in the absence of the parties. L. N. WAITHAKA JUDGE Court Assistant: Bedan NYAHURURU ELC NO. 422 OF 2017 (O.S) – RULING 5|Page

page 5 of 5