Chengo Mwandeje Mudzomba & Another v John Michael Sifa Keah & Land Registrar Kilifi

one parcel according to the plaintiff but that the same were fraudulently given separate map sheets yet the two plots are one. 4. The plaintiffs suit was lodged claiming ownership of suit property which based on official search and green card plaintiff relies on dated 28th January, 2026 issued by 2nd Defendant LAND REGISTRAR KILIFI, the acreage of the property is 2.35 Hectares. 5. The applicant relied on a copy of a title deed that showed that the acreage for the property as 2.35 Hectares which he annexed to his replying affidavit to the Plaintiffs’ application dated 19th February, 2026. In the said reply the 1st defendant did not raise the issue of Jurisdiction. The striking out application is an afterthought. 6. Plaintiff countered the value of the land contended in the valuation report relied upon by applicant valuing the suit property at Kshs. 41 million through a valuation done by Elite Africa Valuers Limited, dated 22nd June, 2026. The value shows that the suit land is Kshs. 1,500,000/= based on the initial acreage of 2.35 Hectares. 7. Plaintiff submits that the rectification appears to have been done without following the laid down procedure and without notifying the Plaintiffs. 8. Plaintiff submits the most important issue apart from the jurisdiction is rectification of the title where the acreage; that all a sudden increase from 2.35 Hectares to a whooping 4.76 Hectares, and issuance of new title done almost three months after the suit was filed, shows want of due process in the rectification. Plaintiff contends that a look at annexture “JMM-3” annexed to 1st defendant’s affidavit shows the land owners who were notified of the impending rectification but the 1st Plaintiff’s parcel of land was not listed and accordingly the Plaintiff was excluded deliberately, and to have 1st defendant continue with his trespass against the suit property. 9. The 1st defendants replying affidavit sworn 1st April, 2026 did not raise jurisdiction issue. Instead the 1st defendant relied on a certificate of title issued 16th October, 2025 which showed that the suit property was 2.35 Hectares. After the Plaintiffs were served with the application which had a valuation report showing that the parcel of land is valued at Kshs. 41,000,000/= they also appointed Elite Africa Valuers Limited whose report dated 22nd June, 2026 shows that the suit parcel of land is Kshs. 1,500,000/= based on the initial acreage of 2.35 Hectares. MARIAKANI SPM ELC E 004 OF 2026/ RULING 2

page 2 of 6

10. The rectification leading to issuance of the title for 8/5/2026 was done mainly to derail the hearing and determination of the suit which had been filed 3 months before the said rectified title was issued by the 2nd defendant. 11. Submissions 1st defendant dated 13/7/2026: Suit property….Kilifi/Kadzonzo Madzimbani/267. The suit is for a Permanent injunction sought vide Plaint dated 19/2/2026. John Sifa Kea registered owner of the parcel applicant contends that an error in acreage 2.35Hectares, he took step seek correction of error; he wrote a letter dated 17/11/2025 to request rectification of the acreage. Rectified title issued 4.76Heactares. A Valuation by Rubyland Ltd done on Kilifi/Kadzonzo Madzimbani/267 valued at market Kshs. 41, 800,000/=. His application is to strike out the plaint is founded as jurisdiction is everything. 12. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: The Magistrate’s Court jurisdiction: Has 1st defendant John Michael Sifa Keah demonstrated that striking out of Plaint dated 19th February, 2026 is warranted for want of jurisdiction? Costs of the application be provided for. 13. Plaintiffs have a valuation report for Kshs. 1.5 million for land (not for 4.7hectares but the initial 2.35hectares). Plaintiffs contend the rectification was unlawfully done geared to avoid magistrates court. Plaintiffs contend given that they were issued with copy of green card by the 2nd Defendant, showing acreage of 1st defendant’s land is 2.35 Hectares. That in his response to the plaintiffs’ application the 1st defendant relied on the certificate proving that he is the registered owner of the suit parcel of land measuring 2.35 Hectares. The Magistrate’s Court therefore has pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter, and it should not allow its ousting of courts jurisdiction over a valuation report that has been overly exaggerated for that purpose. 14. Fact is 1st Defendants certificate of title dated 8th May, 2026 now shows acreage was 4.76 Hectares and there is a valuation report that shows market value of 41million. Plaintiffs have a valuation for report for b1.5 million for land (not for 4.7hectares but the initial 2.35hectares). Plaintiffs contend the rectification was unlawfully done geared to avoid magistrates court. 15. The magistrates court presided over by principal magistrate has pecuniary jurisdiction of Kshs. 10 million. That is a matter of law: prescribed. MARIAKANI SPM ELC E 004 OF 2026/ RULING 3

page 3 of 6

16. Whether or not the rectification that has resulted in KILIFI/KADZONZO/MADZIMBANI/262 bearing 4. 76Hectares rather than the initial 2.35heactare was lawful conducted and in fact corrected an error in the title deed in good faith rather than to aid a party forum shop, is a question that a court: competent with jurisdiction shall determine. 17. The plaintiff has rightly submitted that where the value of the subject matter is contested, the court cannot simply adopt one valuation while rejecting another without hearing evidence. 18. To proceed before this and entertain this matter in this court in the face of the different valuation reports with staggeringly divergent valuations of the suit property, is essentially to ignore the value alleged by 1st defendant of Kshs. 41million in favour of the value of 1.5million alleged by the plaintiff, and proceed as though there has been no rectification of the title. 19. Whether or not rectification by the 2nd defendant was lawfully done or not is a question within the Environment and Land Court (specialized court) jurisdiction as a party aggrieved by a decision of the land registrar has a right to appeal to the ELC. 20. The plaintiffs’ claim as framed in the submissions seems to be that a portion of their land was fraudulently hived off from 1st Plaintiff’s parcel of land known as KILIFI/KADZONZO/MADZIMBANI/3642 and that 1st defendant's the 1st Defendant KILIFI/KADZONZO/MADZIMBANI/262, should be part of the 1st plaintiffs plot not separate parcel. 21. In the plaintiffs' submission, plaintiffs call for a look at records allegedly showing that suit parcel of land was purchased by M/S Mabeke Services Limited a company owned by the 1st Defendant’s father from one Moiz Taherali Mulla Mohamedbhai for Kshs. 150,000/=. The sale was on the 1st July, 1992. The portion bought was 10 acres which translates to 4.004686 Hectares, and that the 1st defendant was issued with a certificate of title showing acreage as 2.35 Hectares. 22. If that contention were to be taken as true for argument's sake at this point, it would appear that the 1st defendant's alleged parcel historically was larger than what was reflected in the title deed that plaintiffs relied upon to file suit in the magistrates court. That is 10acres ( “4.004686 Hectares) , and that the 1st defendant was issued with a certificate of title showing acreage as 2.35 Hectares”. MARIAKANI SPM ELC E 004 OF 2026/ RULING 4

page 4 of 6

23. That seems to lend credence to the defence contention that the 1st defendant's property acreage was understated, and error subsequently rectified. 24. For a just resolution of the issues that must be determined between the parties, it would be unjust for this court to proceed with this matter as it will essentially amount to this court disregarding probative alleged value of 41 million valuation based on rectified acreage and assume as correct the one of 1.5million favoured by the plaintiffs based on initial acreage. 25. Unlike this court, ELC specialized court has no pecuniary jurisdictional limits. Declining jurisdiction in favour of the specialized Court ELC, is just in the circumstances. Court finds merit in the 1st defendant’s application and strikes out the suit for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. 26. On costs: Plaintiffs’ acted on the basis of the land registrar's records at times of suit showing acreage which reasonably made this SPM Mariakani court (headed by Senior Principal magistrate seized with 15 million pecuniary jurisdiction), court of 1st instance competent to try the case. Rectification was done after the suit had been filed. It's just in this case to order each party to bear their own costs of the suit. Right of appeal to ELC Malindi as prescribed. RULING DATED, SIGNED & DELIVERED THIS……25th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 T. N. SINKIYIAN, PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE IN PRESENCE OF: For the plaintiffs/respondents:ABSENT Otieno Otwere & Associates For the 1st defendant/applicant:.....ABSENT . Brian Otieno & Co. Advocates 2nd defendant: ABSENT Court assistant: Wesonga MARIAKANI SPM ELC E 004 OF 2026/ RULING 5

page 5 of 6

MARIAKANI SPM ELC E 004 OF 2026/ RULING 6

page 6 of 6