[2017] KEELC 3216 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 3216 (KLR)

The court found that the Plaintiff had lawfully acquired and registered the suit land, supported by documentary evidence including the land control board consent, transfer forms, and title deed. The 1st Defendant’s registration was not supported by any documentation or explanation, and the green card did not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 3216 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Erastus Omondi Okul; Defendant: George Mwangi Waigwa; Defendant: District Land Registrar Kisumu; Defendant: National Land Commission
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 19 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Land Dispute / Judgment
Outcome
judgment_for_plaintiff
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Land Transfer, Rectification of Register, Proprietorship Disputes
Source Language
en
Land and Property Fraudulent Land Transfer Rectification of Register Proprietorship Disputes

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Erastus Omondi Okul

Plaintiff

George Mwangi Waigwa

Defendant

District Land Registrar Kisumu

Defendant

National Land Commission

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land Dispute / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff’s registration with the suit land was regular, lawful and procedurally done.
  2. 2 Whether the 1st Defendant's registration as proprietor was regular, lawful and procedurally done or fraudulent.
  3. 3 What orders should issue regarding the title and register of the suit land.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Plaintiff had lawfully acquired and registered the suit land, supported by documentary evidence including the land control board consent, transfer forms, and title deed. The 1st Defendant’s registration was not supported by any documentation or explanation, and the green card did not indicate how the 1st Defendant obtained registration. The 2nd Defendant failed to provide any evidence justifying the 1st Defendant’s registration. The court concluded that the 1st Defendant’s registration was fraudulent and in collusion with the 2nd Defendant. Accordingly, the registration of the 1st Defendant as proprietor was irregular, unlawful, and unprocedural, and was cancelled...

Court Disposition

judgment_for_plaintiff

Orders

  • The registration of the 1st Defendant as proprietor of land parcel Kisumu/Kanyakwar B/245 is cancelled.
  • The 2nd Defendant is directed to rectify the register by cancelling the name of the 1st Defendant as proprietor and restoring the Plaintiff’s name.