https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4863

 **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVEIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT THIKA** **ELC NO. E046 OF 2022 (OS)** **FIDELITY HOLDINGS LIMITED……………………………………....PLAINTIFF** **VERSUS** **CECILIA WAMAITHA MWANGI………………………...……1ST DEFENDANT** **THIKA DISTRICT LAND REGISTRAR…………………….….2ND DEFENDANT** **DIRECTOR LAND ADMINISTRATION…………….………..3RD DEFENDANT** **DENNIS WAWERU NDERITU/TA** **COCONUT GRILLS HOTEL LTD…………………….……….4TH DEFENDANT** **DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS……..……….5TH DEFENDANT** **PERIS WANJIRU NJONJO (Suing or being sued on behalf** **Of the Estate of BERNARD NDUNGU NJONJO)…............6TH DEFENDANT** **GRACE WANJIRU KAMAU……………………..……..……..7TH DEFENDANT** **WILLIAM KAMAU KARIUKI…………………………….……8TH DEFENDANT** **JUDGMENT** 1. Land in Kenya is not merely an economic asset; it is the fulcrum around which identity, livelihood, inheritance and dignity revolve, a reality that traces back to the colonial alienation of native lands, the settlement schemes of the 1960s and 1970s, and the perennial administrative disorder that has since dogged the Ministry of Lands. It is against this backdrop that the present dispute over a modest 0.0587 hectare urban plot in Thika, contested by no fewer than three claimants each armed with paper documents purporting to trace to the Commissioner of Lands, must be understood. 2. Pursuant to an order issued by my sister Lady Justice Grace Kemei dated 27/09/2022, the Plaintiff herein was directed to convert the Originating Summons which it approached the Court through to a Plaint. This led to the filing of the plaint dated 30/09/2022. 3. The Plaintiff claims to be the registered owner of the parcel of land known as **Title No. THIKA MUNICIPALITY BLOCK 9/233 (formerly Thika Municipality LR No. 4953/153)** measuring approximately 0.0587 Ha located within Kiambu County. The Plaintiff claims to have been allocated the said suit property by the Commissioner of Lands. 4. The Plaintiff claims that sometime in late September 2020 the 5th Defendant placed a restriction against its title and that the same was caused due to a complaint lodged by the 1st Defendant. That despite the 2nd and 3rd Defendants having written to the 5th Defendant to confirm that the Applicant is the Bonafide owner of THIKA MUNICIPALITY BLOCK 9/233, the 5th Respondent has neglected, failed and or refused to lift the restriction. 5. The following prayers are sought by the Plaintiff: 6. ***A declaration that the Plaintiff is the rightful and legal owner of THIKA MUNICIPALITY BLOCK 9/233 and a declaration that ownership documents held by the 1st, 6th 7th and 8th Defendants are forgeries, fake and/or void ab initio.*** 7. ***An Order do issue to the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendant to lift and or remove the restriction placed on 23rd September 2020 by the 5th Defendant on THIKA MUNICIPALITY BLOCK 9/233*** 8. ***An eviction order do issue to the 4th, 7th and 8th Defendants to immediately vacate THIKA MUNICIPALITY BLOCK 9/233 and yield possession to the Plaintiff*** 9. ***A permanent injunction do issue to the 5th Defendant restraining its agents servants and all persons acting/claiming through or in the name of the 5th Defendant from harassing the Plaintiff in relation to THIKA MUNICIPALITY BLOCK 9/233*** 10. ***Mesne profit from the 4th, 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants.*** 11. ***Cost of this suit*** **1st Defendant’s Statement of Defence and Counter-Claim** 1. The 1st Defendant filed a Statement of Defence and Counter-claim dated 16/11/2022 in which she denies that the Plaintiff owns the disputed land, Thika Municipality Block 9/233. She argues that the Plaintiff’s 2020 registration is fraudulent, completely invalid *ab initio*), and should be cancelled. 2. She states she has no knowledge of the Plaintiff's internal dealings. She asserts her own legitimate claim to the land, having been allocated the property and issued ownership documents, a lease and Certificate of Lease much earlier, in 1999. 3. She defends the DCI's decision to place a restriction on the property. Furthermore, she highlights that police investigations are complete and the Plaintiff’s directors are currently facing criminal charges for fraudulently registering the land. 4. She lists the particulars of fraudulent dealings by the Plaintiff and the co-Defendants as follows: 5. The Plaintiff acted in collusion with current officials of the 3rd Defendant to re-allocate the suit parcel which had already been lawfully allocated to the 1st Defendant. 6. The Plaintiff forged and uttered false documents to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants to facilitate its fraudulent registration as the owner of the suit parcel. 7. The Plaintiff acted in a corrupt and unjust manner with the explicit intention of defeating the ends of justice. 8. The 2nd Defendant acted corruptly in the circumstances to illegally strip the lawful owner who is the 1st Defendant of her land. 9. The Plaintiff, in cahoots with corrupt officials of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, plucked out original registration documents from the Lands Registry to facilitate the duplication of title in favor of the Plaintiff. 10. The Plaintiff took unlawful advantage of the fact that the 1st Defendant’s registration documents were lost during an incident of arson to secure the duplicate registration over the suit land. 11. The 1st Defendant explains that she is currently unable to produce her copy of the registration papers because her home, along with four motor vehicles, was destroyed in an arson attack. At the time of the incident, her original Certificate of Lease was securely held by a local bank as collateral for a financial facility. This catastrophic event severely disrupted and destabilized her personal and financial affairs. 12. Consequently, previous attempts to resolve the dispute out of Court have failed, and the cause of action falls within the jurisdiction of this Court. The 1st Defendant is seeking the total cancellation of the Plaintiff's title and a formal Court order declaring her own 1999 title documents as the sole, legitimate root of ownership for the suit land. 13. She therefore filed a Counter-claim seeking the following: 14. A declaration that the 1st Defendant is the absolute, lawful owner of all that land parcel known as **THIKA MUNICIPALITY BLOCK 9/233** (Formerly **THIKA MUNICIPALITY L.R. NO. 4913/1583**), and that her Certificate of Lease issued in 1999 is *bona fide* and legitimate. 15. An order that the Plaintiff’s purported lease, Certificate of Lease, and registration over land parcel **THIKA MUNICIPALITY BLOCK 9/233** (Formerly **THIKA MUNICIPALITY L.R. NO. 4913/1583**) be annulled and cancelled. 16. An order directing the 2nd and 3rd Defendants to reconstruct the land register pertaining to **THIKA MUNICIPALITY BLOCK 9/233** (Formerly **THIKA MUNICIPALITY L.R. NO. 4913/1583**) to reflect the 1st Defendant's lawful ownership. 17. An order for the demolition of all illegal structures erected on land parcel **THIKA MUNICIPALITY BLOCK 9/233** (Formerly **THIKA MUNICIPALITY L.R. NO. 4913/1583**), and an order granting vacant possession of the suit land to the 1st Defendant against the Plaintiff and all Co-Defendants. 18. That the costs of this suit and Counter-claim be awarded to the 1st Defendant. **2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendants’ Statement** 1. The 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendants issue a general denial of all the factual allegations raised in the Plaint, accepting paragraphs 1 through 7 solely to the extent that they describe the parties involved. They deny the Plaintiff’s claim of ownership over the suit land, with the 5th Defendant averring that the Plaintiff's title was acquired fraudulently. They justify the restriction placed on the property as a necessary measure prompted by an initial report of fraud and forgery, confirming that a subsequent investigation has been concluded. 2. According to the Defendants, the investigation resulted in the 1st Defendant’s director being criminally charged with forgery and obtaining registration by false pretenses under the Penal Code, thereby rendering the ongoing property restriction fully lawful. Furthermore, they deny the Plaintiff's alleged particulars of loss and assert that the Plaint fails to disclose any viable cause of action against them. Consequently, they maintain that the Plaintiff’s suit lacks merit and should be dismissed with costs. **Defence to the 1st Defendant’s Counter-Claim** 1. The 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendants answer the Counter-claim by the 1st Defendant as follows: 2. The 2nd, 3rd, and 5th Defendants explicitly incorporate all the facts, denials, and arguments from paragraphs 1 through 7 of their primary Statement of Defence into their response to the Counter-claim. 3. They completely reject the 1st Defendant's allegations of fraud, collusion, and registry manipulation. They declare these accusations to be entirely false, defamatory, and legally unsubstantiated, demanding strict proof from the co-Defendants. 4. They argue that the 1st Defendant has failed to establish any legitimate legal claim or valid cause of action against the 2nd, 3rd, or 5th Defendants. 5. While they accept that the Court has the proper jurisdiction to hear the matter, they formally request the Honourable Court to throw out the 1st Defendant's Counter-claim entirely and award them the legal costs incurred. **6th, 7th and 8th Defendants’ Statement of Defence and Counter-Claim** 1. The 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants filed a Statement of Defence and Counter-claim dated 14/11/2022. They begin their Defence with a blanket denial of all factual allegations raised in the Plaint, except where expressly admitted. They accept paragraphs 1 through 7 only to the extent that they describe the parties involved. 2. The core of their Defence challenges the Plaintiff’s claim of ownership over the suit land, Thika Municipality Block 9/233. They strictly deny paragraph 8, averring that the Plaintiff’s registration and title documents must have been fraudulently obtained using illegal or unauthentic records. They further reject the Plaintiff’s claim for damages outlined in paragraph 19, maintaining that the Plaintiff's entire claim and registration over the suit property is null and void from the very *ab initio*. 3. They also deny paragraphs 9 through 19 by asserting a prior, superior legal claim that pre-dates both the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant. They contend that the suit land could not have been legally reallocated because it was originally allotted to the 6th Defendant via a formal Letter of Allotment dated 27/03/1991. With the allotment officially accepted on 5/07/1995, and full payments completed that same year, they argue that no land remained available for any subsequent allocation, putting both the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant to strict proof of their respective claims. **The 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants’ Response to the Counter-Claim** 1. In their response to the Counter-claim they reiterate and adopt all the denials and facts set out in paragraphs 1 through 6 of their Statement of Defence. The 6th Defendant establishes her legal standing as the lawful administrator of the estate of her late husband, Bernard Ndungu Njonjo, averring that the suit property was originally allotted to him on 27/03/1991, at a standard premium of Ksh. 44,180. Following this initial allotment, the deceased sold the plot on 21/06/1991, to the 7th and 8th Defendants, who immediately took physical possession of the land. Although the formal allotment was never officially transferred into the names of the 7th and 8th Defendants, a Letter of Acceptance was duly presented to the Department of Lands on 5/07/1995, and the standard premiums were fully paid that same year. 2. That since taking over the plot in the 1990s, the Defendants have consistently paid land rates to the relevant local authorities and have actively utilized the property to earn a livelihood by operating a car wash. The Counter-claim explains that the 7th and 8th Defendants currently reside in Malawi in pursuit of better economic opportunities, a circumstance that the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant allegedly exploited in an attempt to grab and claim ownership over the property. Consequently, the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants contend that the purported property registrations and competing claims held by both the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant are deeply tainted with illegality and cannot stand against their prior, lawful possessory and beneficial title. 3. The matter was set down for hearing on 4/05/2022. **Plaintiff’s Evidence** 1. Peter Kihara Mwaura - PW1, told the Court that he is a businessman and a director of the Plaintiff company with authority to testify on behalf of the Plaintiff and he produced a letter of authority which is among the Exhibits he produced. 2. He told the Court that he’d rely on his witness statement dated 19/04/22 as his evidence in chief. He also produced the documents listed on page 13 to 14 of the tribal bundle marked as **“PExhibit 1-22”**. 3. He testified that he has lived in Thika since 1967 and was conversant with the town. That the property is known to him as he used to pass by it on a daily basis and on inquiry he was told that the land had been located to a person who had passed away. That he applied for the land from Commissioner of Lands in 1995 and he got the letter of offer in 1997. 4. He acknowledged that he had seen the documents presented by the Defendants. According to him Bernard Njonjo (deceased) was allotted the land in 1981. The allotment was later withdrawn and he was given the letter of offer in 1997 and he paid for it in 2019. That he had financial constraints and that is why he did not pay immediately. He told the Court that he did not lose the documents of the 1st Defendant from the land record. Further that it was false that he obtained the Letter of Allotment through fraud since he was allocated land that was available. 5. According to him the property has been restricted by DCI Kiambu on inquiry he was told by an officer in Kiambu DCI office that they were investigating the property. That he lodged the suit in 2022. He told the Court that he was unable to enter his suit property with the restriction since there is a pending criminal case in Kiambu law Courts and that he is accused in the criminal case filed five months after he had filed the present suit. 6. All cross examines shown by Council Wachira he testified that his Letter of Allotment is dated 1997. That the title is dated 2020 and that he had financial challenges in processing the title. He testified not having seen the 1st Defendant’s title but when the Counsel showed him the title, he stated that it shows clearly that it was issued in 1999. On his part however his title was issued on 3/09/2020 and is produced at page 28 of the Plaintiff’s trial bundle therefore his title is recent compared with that of the first Defendant. 7. He stated that he supplied the DCI with the ownership documents which he had for the land. He told the Court that he did not know the status of the investigations and that he had been charged with fraud. He confirmed that there is an ongoing criminal case with respect to forgery and fraud. He stated not being aware that the ownership documents have been disowned by the land officers who signed them. And that he had not seen the forensic report by the DCI. 8. According to him, noting from the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendant’s trial bundles and letter dated 5/01/2022 by the DCI and forensic examiners report dated 17/12/2021 he confirms that he is not aware that his ownership documents are forgeries and that he was furnished with the documents from the Defendants. It is his averment that the restriction was lodged because of DCI investigations. 9. From paragraph 5 of the letter dated 5/01/2022 by the DCI the one who was charged by the DCI is referred to in paragraph 5 of the letter. 10. He testified that he had not read the statement of the investigating officer. But at paragraph 8 according to him the DCI found out that the land had been allotted to the 1st Defendant as per statement of the investigating officer. That the 1st Defendant trial bundle on pages 36 to 38 show the statement by Edward K Mutai which he told the Court that he had not read and so he had to read paragraph 1 of the statement. He then testified that the documents including the Allotment Letter which he supplied the DCI with is the one being described at page 38 of the 1st Defendant’s bundle. 11. He expressed surprise that the land officer is disowning the Letter of Allotment. He further stated that he had not developed the property and that he does not live nor occupy the suit property. 12. On cross examination by Mr Riugu He denied having said that the Letter of Allotment that was given to Njonjo was withdrawn. He stated that Mr Riugu’s client’s letter was issued in 1991 and his letter was issued in 1991 and that he did not know why there is a difference in years. 13. At page 19 of the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants’ trial bundle the grant therein was issue on 29/01/2020. He further stated that he did not know Peris W Njonjo. He told the Court that the suit land is included in the estate of Njonjo. 14. He testified that he paid Kes 57,520 as allotment fees for Letter of Allotment of 1997 and that he had receipts for the payment as shown at page 21 of the Plaintiff’s trial bundle. The date on the receipts is 26/11/2019. However, the receipt for the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants was issued in 1995. That there is an acceptance letter by Mr Njonjo accepting the letter and the terms of the Letter of Allotment for parcel 1583. The letter is however not signed by Mr Ndungu but also there is nothing to show that it did not emanate from Njonjo. 15. According to the Plaintiff the withdrawal of a Letter of Allotment is done by the Commissioner of Lands but he stated that he did not know if the deceased withdrew the Letter of Allotment. He pointed out that the Sale Agreement dated 21/06/1991 is between Njonjo and William Kamau Kariuki and Grace Wanjiru Kamau. As for him he was not enjoined in the transaction with respect to the land and so he is not party to the agreement of sale. 16. He stated that he did not know who has been paying the outgoings in respect of the suitland. At page 29 of the trial bundle, it shows that the application for Clearance Certificate dated 14/08/2014 and rates were paid on this date and at page 30 it shows that property rates for the suitland dated 1/02/2013 were also paid. Yet according to the Plaintiff he has never paid any outgoing as far as this property is concerned. 17. In examination he testified that he has not been convicted in the criminal case and that he pleaded not guilty. But the first Defendant bundle at page 20 shows that the title was issued on 24/06/1999 and it is Thika /Municipality Block 9/233. For the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants Trial Bundle, the plot number on page 19 is Thika/Municipality Block 4953/1583 and the grant was confirmed on 29/01/2020. 18. In the Plaintiff’s trial bundle, at page 22 the Registry Index Map (RIM) for LR 4953/1583 the letter allotting is dated 22/11/2019 and therefore this LR No. could not have been issued in 1999. Pointing to the fact that the 1st Defendant’s documents are not legitimate. As for the statement of Edward Muchai, the Plaintiff testified that he had not been furnished with the documents in the Criminal Case and that there is nothing to show that the report was prepared by Edward Kariuki Muchai. 19. Further that at page 7 of the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendants’ statement, it says the counter-claim of the 1st, 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants should be dismissed as it lacks merit. It is his case that he did not collude with officials of the Lands Office to pluck out the documents of registration from the register. 20. The witness read out paragraph 3 and 4 of the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendant’s bundle letter dated 11/04/2022 which show that the offer to Njonjo was formerly withdrawn on 26/10/1995 and the withdrawal was from the Ministry of Lands Office. That the issue of disparity in respect of dates of Letter of Allotment should be explained by the Ministry of Lands officers. 21. The Plaintiff also read out paragraph 8 of the Letter of Allotment which is at page 23 of the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants’ bundle and which show special conditions to the Letter of Allotment. He stated that Njonjo did not have the authority to sell the land. He denied again knowing anyone by the name Peris Njonjo. 22. With that the Plaintiff closed his case. **Defence Case** **1st Defendant’s Case** 1. Cecilia Wamaitha Mwangi took oath and testified as DW1. She adopted her witness statement dated 16/11/2022 as her evidence in chief and produced the documents listed ate page 19 of the bundle running through to page 40 which she testified are marked **“DExh 1-7”** in support of her case. 2. She told the Court that her house in Gatuanyaga got burned and she lost many documents. That her title is legitimate and that the DCI has confirmed her title to be genuine. 3. When she was cross-examined by the Counsel for the 1st Defendant, Mr Owade, she testified that he was not aware that the Registrar’s stamp should be on the title. That her title does not have the Land Registrar’s stamp. That her documents got burned in his house and she reported to the police and she obtained a Police Abstract as filed at page 24 of the bundle but she testified that she has not produced a Police Abstract. 4. She also testified that she did not seek replacement of the documents. It is her contention that the Plaintiff plucked out her documents together with others and that she reported the matter to the police. The DCI lodged a restriction on the land since she was not aware that under Section 76 it was her duty to lodge the restriction and that at that time there was no Green Card. 5. She stated that she is aware that copies of documents are in the Ministry of Lands but that according to her she believes that Mr Mwaura with others plucked out her documents. According to her she was given the land in 1996 and she has a title. That she is aware that the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants are claiming ownership of the land but that she has not sued them. She has a claim against the Plaintiff only. 6. She told the Court that she had no intention of harassing the Plaintiff and that she is not in cohorts with the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants. 7. Upon cross-examination by Mr. Riugu she stated that she does not know the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants and that she holds a Certificate of Lease dated 24/06/2019. That the letter dated 22/11/2019 amended RIM for LR No. 4953/1583 and that it is not true that the land reference changed it has always been Thika/Municipality/Block 9/2332. That at allotment the Land Reference was parcel No. 233. 8. She told the Court that she did not have the Letter of Allotment and other allotment documents because they were burned in her house and that she had not produced a Police Abstract in Court to prove her claim that she had reported to the police. Although she testified having had the abstract and that she lost it. 9. That she has not sought duplicates of the documents because she had the title and the need of the documents was overtaken by the original title deed. The Letter of Allotment at page 20 of the 6th - 8th Defendant’s bundle is dated 27/03/1991 and she denied being aware of the said letter she it is not allotted to her but to Njonjo since hers was issued she stated in 1996. When asked about production of her Letter of Allotment she testified that she did not have her Letter of Allotment in her name in Court. She reiterated that she hard it but it got burned. 10. When she was referred to page 29 of the 6th to 8th Defendant’s bundle, she told the Court that the Clearance Certificate application appearing there shows that the Applicant is BN Njonjo and it is dated 14/08/2014. For her she stated that whereas she has receipts which show payment for the outgoings, the same are not in Court. 11. That the rate payment shown at page 30 of the bundle is dated 1/02/2013 and is in the name of BN Njonjo. But she testifies to have been paying but she had no evidence before Court to prove her claim. She denied again knowing Njonjo and she also denied having transactions with the deceased. She also referred to the letter dated 11/04/2023 in the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendant’s bundle where the author has stated that they do not hold any records relating to her title. But she insists that her file was stolen at the Ministry of Lands. 12. When her Counsel re-examined her she testified that she has never worked at the Ministry of Lands in 1999. She denied knowing the 6th to 8th Defendants. That the letter by Ministry of Lands prompted her to visit the DCI. That there are charges against the Plaintiff. 13. She testified that she would not have been issued with title without Letter of Allotment and other documents. That her documents got damaged in a fire and that she has been paying rates on the suit property and she has receipts although they are not produced before the Court. 14. Furthermore, she stated that she had not sued the 6th to 8th Defendants since they had no title and that it is only the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant who have titles. According to her she is the legitimate owner of the land since this was confirmed by the DCI. She stated that she was not in possession of the land and that the land is occupied by a car wash. That she gave the young men to do car washing on the suit property although she had no tenant leases. 15. With that the 1st Defendant closed her case. 16. James Muthini Wambua testified as DW2 and he stated he issued the Certificate of Lease. He adopted his witness statement as his evidence in chief and he confirmed that the signature on the lease document is his and that by 1999 stamps for Land Registrars had not been introduced. That he saw the Letter of Allotment and he did not sign any other lease. 17. When he was cross-examined, he testified not knowing the 1st Defendant whom he only met with the CID Officer for the first time. He told the Court that he is the only one who signed the lease. The grant was signed by Mr. Gacanja and attested by a Lawyer. It is also signed by the 1st Defendant as the lessee. When cross-examined further by Mr Rurigu he testified that he was aware of the allotment in the name of the 1st Defendant. 18. He told the Court on cross-examination that the grant was dated 1997 and that he was not aware that another grant was issued in 1991 and he signed the lease and had it registered on 24/06/1999. 19. Mr Owade on cross-examining him he told the Court that he is a retired Land Registrar. That he worked at Thika in 1997/1998. It was his case that he was not requested to produce his Letter of Allotment but that he had them in his house. He testified having signed the Certificate of Lease on both pages. However, he told the Court that his name does not appear on the lease. The procedure of having Name Stamps/Tags was introduced in 2000. He confirmed that the signature is his and he has not presented any evidence such as CID specimen to confirm the signature to be his. 20. He testified that the CID presented 3 documents for his comments and these were, the Letter of Allotment dated 5/11/1996, the lease for plot 9/233 which should be produced by the Land Registrar. 21. He was shocked to learn that the 1st Defendant informed the Court that her documents were destroyed in a fire and he stated that he was not aware about this fact. Further that he was not aware that the Ministry have disowned the 1st Defendant’s title. He described to the Court the process of allocation upto registration of title. He then told the Court that he was not aware that the 1st Defendant has not produced any of the resultant documents 22. On Re-examination he told the Court that the signatures on the forensic document are not his but he confirmed that he was the Land Registrar Thika in 1997. 23. DW3- Edward Kariuki Mutai testified and told the Court that he was a retired civil servant having worked at the Ministry of Lands. He adopted his witness statement field at page 36. He stated that he gave specimen signatures to the CID but that his signature was not on the Allotment Letter. 24. According to him when cross-examined by Mr Riugu he stated that the Allotment Letter in favour of the 1st Plaintiff is invalid, it had no folio number and the reference and the number 23136/XXVII is unusual and it had no reference and the signature on the said Letter of Allotment does not belong to the DW3. 25. When cross-examined by Counsel Owade, he reconfirmed that he worked with the Ministry in 1979 and that between 1997 to 1999 he was based in Nairobi but that he had not produced his letter of employment and that the CID Officer Mr Wainaina showed him a copy of his employment letter and he confirmed it. Again, he denied knowing DW1 and stated that he would be surprised if the 1st Defendant has not produced the Letter of Allotment. 26. He stated that it is possible for documents to be removed from files or to be misplaced. According to him, a title cannot be issued without a Letter of Allotment which is considered a primary document. He then informed that Court that key documents before issuance of title are, Letter of Allotment, Part Development Plan, Deed Plan and RIM- Registry Index Map. Further that the offices of Chief Land Registrar, Land Administration and Survey are involved in the preparation of title. That it is not possible to issue two titles for the same parcel of land. 27. He denied having signed the Letter of Allotment in the name of the Plaintiff he confirmed having seen the Letter of Allotment of the 1st Defendant. A copy was shown to him by the CID. He testified that he is not aware that the land had been issued to another 3rd party. 28. When he was re-examined, he stated that he did not sign the Plaintiff’s Letter of Allotment. That he saw the Letter of Allotment belonging to the 1st Defendant. With that the Counsel for the 1st Defendant Mr. Wachira closed the 1st Defendant’s case. 29. DW4- Chief Inspector Daniel Wainaina No. 240489 based at Subukia sub-county and previously having worked at DCI headquarters. He adopted his witness statement dated 29/11/2022 as his evidence in chief. He produced documents numbers 2-4 and 8-10 listed on page 11 as his exhibits. 30. The Counsel for the Plaintiff objected to the production of the forensic report requiring the maker to be the one to produce the report. The objection was upheld and so the document was marked for production. 31. At cross-examination by Counsel Wachira for the 1st Defendant, he testified that he was the investigating officer with respect to fraud. That according to his findings, the Letter of Allotment that was used to register the Plaintiff’s title was a forgery. That the Plaintiff’s director was charged with forgery at Kiambu Law Courts. That the discovery of the forgery led the DCI to write to the Land Registrar informing him that the title in the name of the Plaintiff was a forgery and so he was to rectify the records to read the name of the 1st Defendant. He relied on the forensic report. He testifying not knowing the 6th Defendant and that his allotment was cancelled on account of default of payment of premium 32. When he was cross-examined by Mr. Riugu, he stated that the documents by the Plaintiff are forgeries. Their claim is therefore null and void. That although he knows the Letter of Allotment to the 6th Defendant was cancelled but he had no document to present to show the cancellation. 33. That the land rates/rent have been paid by the 1st Defendant but he did not evidence to proof this. On further cross-examination he stated that investigated the transaction on the land. That the suit property is occupied by a car wash but he stated that he did not know who they are since according to him they have no authority from the 1st Defendant but that he did not arrest the people running the car wash. 34. According to him they lodged a caution on 23/09/2020 so as to protect the rights of both parties after receiving a complaint by the 1st Defendant. That he perused the parcel file in the lands office and he also recorded statements from the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendants Documents were also requested for from Ministry of Lands with respect to the suit property. 35. When asked whether he has produced any documents relating to the land he testified that he had not produced any evidence showing that he had requested for the documents. Infact that he had not produced any authorization from the Ministry of Lands to show that James Murimi Wambua had authority to sign Certificate of Lease in 1991. 36. That the Plaintiff was charged arising from the forensic report. He denied not being aware that the Ministry of Lands stated that the 1st Defendant is a stranger to them and that he relied on the Certificate of Lease since he no documents in the land parcel file. That he did not visit the survey of Kenya offices although he corresponded with office though he had not produced the said correspondence. According to him the Letter of Allotment in favour of the Plaintiff dated 20/02/1997 is not admissible since Mr Muchai denied signing the said letter. 37. An earlier scheduled witness Mr Reynard Ngila who was to testify as DW5 a Land Registrar registration number 392 could not testify since Counsels for the Plaintiff, 1st Defendant and 6th to 8th Defendants objected to him testifying preferring to have the Land Registrar who was in office. He was therefore stood down. 38. Further, since I took over this matter from my sister Justice Kemei, Counsel for the Plaintiff wanted to have her continue hearing the matter but the rest of the Counsels objected. Therefore, I took over the hearing of this matter at DW5. 39. DW5 - Mr Ojwang Omolo Patroba who testified as the Deputy Director of Land Administration and who has been in service since 2006. He adopted his witness statement dated 25/03/2025 as his evidence in chief and the list of documents dated 29/11/2022, **“DWExhibits 1-11”** for the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendants. 40. On cross-examination by Counsel of the Plaintiff, he confirmed that he produced certified copies of the documents and that the original documents are with the office of the Land Administration. 41. He testified that there is a letter dated 10/08/1995 which he has produced from Fidelity Holdings to Commissioner of Lands to be allotted the suit property. That a Letter of Allotment dated 20/02/1997 was issued to Fidelity Holdings who are the Plaintiff herein. 42. That they were requested by DCI to place a restriction and they never carried out internal investigations with a view to address the restriction and a letter was written by the Registrar to DCI to find out who the genuine allottee was. According to him, they never discovered any records relating to Cecilia Mwangi. 43. That as is the practice, they requested the Registrar to put a restriction from Directorate of Land Administration and that according to their records Fidelity Holdings is the genuine lessee. 44. He denied the claim by Cecilia that her documents were plucked from the file. That even if documents were to be plucked which is denied there are many ways of trangulating and tracing ownership documents. 45. Upon cross-examination by Counsel Wachira for the 1st Defendant it was his testimony that they receive a letter from DCI on the issue of fraud dated 5/10/2022 which confirms that the property was registered in the name of Cecilia and that they property was fraudulently registered under Fidelity Holdings Limited. The DCI recommended that the Land Administration office consider expunging the Plaintiff’s name from the record and that the director of the Plaintiff, Mr Peter Kihara Mwaura was also charged with the offence of forgery for Thika Municipality Block 9/233. 46. On the part of Edward Muchiri Kariuki, he denied having signed any allotment belonging to the Plaintiff and James Muthini Wambua in a letter dated 5/10/2022 confirmed when he appeared in Court that he is the one who issued the 1st Defendant with Certificate of Lease. He told the Court that he is aware that there are two title deeds to the suit property. 47. He further testified that he is aware that a forensic report was filed which confirmed that the signatures on the Fidelity Holdings documents are forged – see No. 4 on the list of documents. On the part of the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants he told the Court that he had no documents relating to them. 48. When he was cross-examined by Mr. Riugu he testified that from his own statement at paragraph 3 the suit property was allocated to Bernard Ndungu Njonjo. That he corrected his earlier statement vide Letter of Allotment dated 27/03/1991 and that at paragraph 5 of the letter he stated that, Bernard was being reminded to pay the fee. At the same time told the Court that he was not familiar with the receipt that shows payment of Kehs 44,180. That at paragraph 8 of his witness statement whereas he stated that the offer was withdrawn vide the letter dated 26/10/1995, he was not able to produce the said letter as evidence in Court but that in his records there was a withdrawal in 1995 of the offer. 49. He told the Court that at paragraph 10 of his witness statement he has stated that an offer was made to Fidelity (Plaintiff) in 1997 and the offer was accepted in 2019. On the issue of payment of rates and rent he stated that he did not know who has been paying the land rates because the records are held by municipalities. That as per their records it was not true that multiple titles were issued and that it was only one dated 20/02/1997 allocated to Fidelity Holdings 50. When he was re-examined, he stated that the evidence he has given is based on records in the office of Directorate of Land Administration which holds records of Commission of Lands previously held and processing of leases. 51. Defence hearing for 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants continued with DW6 – Inspector Gilbert Kipng’eno Tanui, the Deputy Sub-County Investigation Officer at Masaba North Nyamira County. He told the Court that he is a qualified and trained Forensic Document Examiner with over 7 years’ experience having been trained in DCI Headquarters and Khartoum with a BSC in Agribusiness Management from Egerton University. 52. He testified that the Investigating Officer based at Land Fraud, Inspector Daniel Wainaina forwarded documents to him to examine in pursuit of a criminal matter related to the instant civil land case. Upon examining the exhibits on 16/12/2021 he told the Court that he came up with the conclusion that the signatures were by different authors. 53. He also told the Court that when he compared the exhibits, he observed that font types were different, alignment varied and spacing was also varied. He produced his report which was signed. 54. On cross-examination by Counsel for the Plaintiff he told the Court that he had not produced any documents to support his claim of having seven years’ experience in the forensic examiners field. He testified that he was given specimen signatures but they were returned to the investigating officer. With regard to the known signatures of Edward Kariuki Muchai he stated that he had the known signatures of Edward though he had not produced them. Further he stated that he had not produced any documents to show the additional writings are irregular. 55. Mr Wachira, Counsel for 1st Defendant cross-examined him and he testified that the two signatures the known and specimen came from the same person. But that the documents from Fidelity were from forged signatures. 56. On re-examination he told the Court that he produced the report as the Forensic Examiner having received the suspect’s specimen and known signatures from the investigating officer. 57. DW7 – Reginald Kilonzo Ngila introduced himself as the Assistant Land Registrar from Thika. He adopted his witness statement as his evidence in chief and produced a list of documents as exhibits dated 29/12/2022. He testified that he received a letter from DCI And they were requesting that the Land Registrar should rectify their records by invoking section 79 (1) and (2) of Land Registration Act to expunge records in respect of Peter Kihara. 58. At the same time that they received a letter dated 11/04/2022 from Director Land Administration seeking clarification pursuant to the letter from DCI. The letter from the land administration requested for a restriction to be placed on the land. 59. Upon cross examination he stated that he had the parcel file for Thika and from his records the suit property is registered under Fidelity Holdings. That the first registered and previous owner is Fidelity Holdings who has at Lease Certificate received from Director of Land Administration. That whereas the first Defendant claims that her documents for registration were plucked out but the documents only support ownership by the Plaintiff. 60. He informed the Court that it is not possible for an insider to access a file and interfere with documents in the file. That there are no documents in the parcel file emanating from the 1st Defendant. According to him the reporting of lost documents is not time specific. Further, the time frame of accepting Letter of Allotment is tied to timings as per the offer although they did not keep records on this. 61. According to him Certificate of Lease can only be issued to one parcel at a time there can be no two Certificates of Lease. That there is nobody else aside from the Plaintiff who applied to be issued with the with the title. And from their end they registered the documents that were sent to them from Nairobi. 62. Counsel for the 1st Defendant Mr Wachira cross-examined him and he told the Court that he has only heard of documents being plucked. He also testified that he not aware of the DCI investigation until he received the letter dated 5/01/2022. Further that he was not aware there is an investigating officer who testified in Court and confirmed that there was fraud. 63. He confirmed that the Land Registrar’s office does not deal with Letters of Allotment they only register forwarded leases from the office. According to him the letter for Land Administration written to the Land Registrar and dated 11/04/2022 showed that the offer letter to Bernard Ndungu Njonjo was formally withdrawn on 26/10/1995. 64. He also stated that he had a booking form but no rate payments. That title document Lease Certificate letter is dated 23/07/2020 it was registered on 3/09/2020. Prior to 2020 he stated there were no any registration documents. Upon reexamination he confirmed that the Land Registrar in Thika wrote to Director Land Administration seeking clarification on previous registration via later dated 11/04/2022 showing that the offer to Bernard Ndungu Njonjo was withdrawn. Following which they registered a restriction on the suit property. 65. With that the Counsel for the 2-5th Defendants closed their case. 66. DW8- William Kamau Kariuki testified as the 8th Defendant representing his wife and himself. He adopted his witness statement dated 14/11/2022 as his evidence in chief and produced his exbibits. He stated that it was his evidence that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants engaged in fraud and that the suit property was allocated to Bernard Ndungu Njonjo. 67. When cross-examined by Counsel Owade, he stated that the 6th Defendant was the wife of the late Benard Ndungu Njonjo although he had not produced any document to prove the union. That Mr Njonjo passed away on 24/06/2008 but again he had not produced a Death Certificate. 68. He testified having purchased the suit property for Kesh 400,000 as per the agreement but that he had not provided any document to show that Bernard signed the same. Further that he had attached a letter but there is not signature appearing on the letter and that he was not able to process title due to time constraint. According to him, he did not know that he had to be physically present in Kenya to process title. 69. He further told the Court that he had not produced any document to show that he had communication between himself and Mr Njonjo. He had also not produced any document to show Mr Bernard Njonjo owned the property. 70. He was aware that Letter of Allotment was not transferable but that he has a claim that he was given possession by Mr Njonjo although he has not produced any proof to show that he is in possession and on site. 71. According to him he was not aware that the Letter of Allotment for Mr Bernard Njonjo was withdrawn. The Letter of Allotment according to him is dated 27/03/1999 and their Sale Agreement is dated 21/06/1991. That their Letter of Acceptance is dated 5/07/1995 therefore he could see that 30 days had lapsed and Letter of Allotment had to be withdrawn. So, the letter produced at page 27 of the bundle was written by himself but not Bernard Njonjo. 72. At re-examination he stated that the receipt at page 28 show rates were paid but that he never saw any revocation of the Letter of Allotment and so according to him the offer stood even after 30 days were over. Since 1991, he stated that they have been in possession. That if there was revocation the money paid should have been refunded. With that the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendant’s case was closed. **Plaintiff’s Submissions** 1. In their submissions dated 30/09/2022, the Plaintiff asserts absolute ownership over **THIKA MUNICIPALITY BLOCK 9/233**, maintaining that he followed the requisite legal procedures to secure valid title to the suit land. Having submitted an initial application for allocation of the surveyed plot on 10/08/1995 and subsequently receiving a Letter of Allotment dated 20/02/1997, the Plaintiff later formally accepted the offer on 18/11/2019 upon paying the standard premiums. Following the necessary conversion procedures and payment of registry fees, a lease document was executed and a Certificate of Lease issued on 3/09/2020. The Plaintiff contends that under Article 40(1) of the Constitution and Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act, his title constitutes prima facie evidence of indefeasible ownership, as the official records held by the Ministry of Lands, including a search and confirmation by the Director of Land Administration on 30/09/2020, affirm his proprietorship. 2. The Plaintiff refutes the allegations of fraud and forgery raised by the 1st and 5th Defendants, characterizing their defense and investigative findings as deeply biased, unprocedural, and built on untenable witness evidence. It is submitted that the defense witnesses specifically former land officials DW2 and DW3 failed to produce any credentials or letters of appointment to prove their past official capacities, thereby failing to satisfy the legal burden of proof under Section 107(1) of the Evidence Act. Furthermore, the Plaintiff impugns the credibility of the document examiner, DW6 and the investigating officer, DW4, pointing out that DW6 relied on a lease certificate which is executed by a Land Registrar rather than the Commissioner of Lands under whom DW3 served to evaluate the questioned signatures. To challenge the weight of the contradictory forensic evidence, the Plaintiff relies on the principles governing expert testimony set out in **Mutonyi & Another v. Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 1981),** as applied in **Cheboi & Another v. Republic (Criminal Appeal E037 & E035 of 2024 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEHC 668 (KLR) (30 January 2025) (Judgment),** arguing that the forensic examiner failed to instruct the Court on the criteria of his science or prove the underlying facts. 3. Finally, the Plaintiff submits that neither the 1st Defendant nor the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants possess a legitimate or enforceable claim over the suit property. Grounded in the landmark jurisprudence of the Supreme Court in **Dina Management Ltd v County Government of Mombasa & 5 Others (Petition 8 (E010) of 2021) [2023] KESC 30 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (21 April 2023) (Judgment),** the Plaintiff reiterates that a party challenging or claiming ownership must go beyond a mere instrument of title to demonstrate a legal, unblemished root of title. The 1st Defendant failed to produce her underlying Allotment Letter or subject her title documents to scrutiny, while the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants wrongfully attempt to assert ownership through an Allotment Letter issued to the late Benard Njonjo that was formally withdrawn on 18/09/1995. Citing **Torino Enterprises Limited v Attorney General (Petition 5 (E006) of 2022) [2023] KESC 79 (KLR) (22 September 2023) (Judgment), alongside Dr Joseph NK Arap Ng’ok v Justice Moijo Ole Keiyua & 4 Others CA 60/1997 [unreported]** and **Gladys Wanjiru Ngacha v Teresa Chepsaat & 4 Others HC Civil Case No 182 of 1992; [2008] eKLR,** the Plaintiff emphasizes that an Allotment Letter is a mere invitation to treat that confers no legal interest in land. Consequently, having demonstrated an unbroken, lawful chain of title on a balance of probabilities, the Plaintiff prays for the grant of all orders sought in the Plaint dated 30/09/2022. **6th, 7th and 8th Defendants’ Submissions** 1. In the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants’ Submissions dated 6/03/2026, the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants’ urge the Court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s suit in its entirety and invalidate the competing claims over THIKA MUNICIPALITY BLOCK 9/233. Testifying on behalf of the 6th and 7th Defendants’, the 8th Defendant maintains that the deceased, Bernard Ndungu Njonjo, was lawfully allocated the suit property by the Commissioner of Lands on 27/03/1991, subsequently selling his interest to the 6th and 7th Defendants on 21/06/1991. The 7th and 8th Defendants accepted the offer in 1995 under the care of the deceased, paid the standard premiums, and have continuously maintained actual physical possession, leasing the land to the 4th Defendant for a car wash and paying municipal rate outgoings. 2. Crucially, the Defendants contend that because the property was already allocated in 1991, it was unavailable for re-allocation to the Plaintiff in 1995 or the 1st Defendant in 1999. In challenging the Plaintiff’s purported title, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff orchestrated a fraudulent scheme of land registry manipulation, as evidenced by ongoing criminal prosecution for forgery under Section 350(1) of the Penal Code. Invoking Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act, 2012, they assert that a title acquired unprocedurally, illegally, or corruptly carries no protection and is subject to absolute nullification. 3. To fortify their argument that an unprocedural title cannot pass valid rights or be saved by a claim of innocence, the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants rely on extensive judicial authorities. Applying the common law principle of *nemo dat quod non habet* as articulated in **Geoffrey Kiptarbei Rono vs Johana Komen Rotich & Another (2021) eKLR**, they argue that an unauthorized transfer conveys no legal interest, leaving the subsequent recipient with nothing. They further cite the landmark Supreme Court decision in **Dina Management vs County Government of Mombasa & 5 Others, Supreme Court of Kenya, Petition No. 8 (E010) of 2021) [2023] KESC 30 (KLR),** emphasizing that title is the end product of a process; where the underlying process violates the law, the title is defeasible, and the doctrine of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice cannot cure an illegal root of title under Article 40(6) of the Constitution. This principle was similarly enforced in **Arthi Highway Developers Limited vs West End Butchery Limited & 6 Others, Court of Appeal at Nairobi, Civil Appeal No. 246 of 2013 [2015] eKLR, as cited in Miroro v Nyarumi & 5 Others (Environment & Land Case 23 of 2019) [2023] KEELC 21533 (KLR) (15 November 2023),** where the Court of Appeal confirmed that fraudulent titles are irredeemable fakes incapable of passing valid ownership downstream. 4. Finally, the Defendants submit that in resolving rival property claims, the Court is duty-bound to interrogate the origins of all competing titles to establish the true, lawful owner. Citing **James Njoroge Gitau v Lucy Chepkurui Kimutai [2018] eKLR,** they highlight that a claimant must demonstrate a legitimate root of title through cogent evidence, rather than mere paper assertions. They further cite the Court of Appeal authority in **William & Kennedy Limited vs David Kimani Gicharua & 6 Others (Civil Appeal No. E682 of 2024),** which dictates that a holistic judicial approach requires an inquiry into the root of every party's title to ensure unprocedural or fraudulent interests are denied jural imprimatur. The 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants maintain that their title root remains the only valid and unbroken claim, properly traced to the 1991 allocation. They pray that the Plaintiff's claim be dismissed with costs, that the title deeds held by both the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant be canceled under Section 26(1)(b) of the Land Registration Act, and that an order issue directing the registration and issuance of a genuine title deed to the 7th and 8th Defendants. **Issues for Determination** 1. Having examined the pleadings, the testimony of the witnesses, and the documentary exhibits, the primary issues falling for determination in this suit are: 2. *Whether the suit property was unalienated government land capable of allocation at the material times* 3. *Which of the Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant, or the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants holds the legitimate and superior root of title to Thika Municipality Block 9/233;* 4. *Whether the Plaintiff's registration was procured through forgery, collusion with registry officials, or other fraudulent means as pleaded by the 1st, 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants* 5. *Whether the Letter of Allotment issued to the late Bernard Ndungu Njonjo in 1991 was validly withdrawn before it could support the onward sale relied upon by the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants;* 6. *Whether the titles held by the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant were obtained fraudulently, illegally, or unconstitutionally* 7. *Whether the restriction lodged on 23/09/2020 by the 5th Defendant, DCI was lawfully founded and should be sustained or lifted; and* 8. *What relief, if any, follows on the prayers for eviction, mesne profits, cancellation and costs.* **Analysis and Determination** 1. Turning first to the Plaintiff's case, PW1 Peter Kihara Mwaura's own testimony is riddled with internal contradiction that gravely undermines the credibility of his claim. His evidence reveals a web of grave contradictions, missing records, and procedural illegalities. He told the Court he applied for the land in 1995 and received a Letter of Allotment in 1997, yet did not accept the offer or pay the standard premiums until 2019, a delay of twenty-two years explained away only by vague reference to financial constraints. 2. He conceded he has never occupied, developed, or paid a single outgoing on the suit property, notwithstanding that rate were demonstrably paid by other persons in 2013 and 2014, a circumstance entirely inconsistent with the conduct of a genuine proprietor asserting dominion since 1997. He is, moreover, a person currently facing live criminal charges of forgery and obtaining registration by false pretences in respect of this very parcel, charges founded on a forensic report he claims never to have read and a DCI letter which, on his own admission, he did not know had disowned his documents as forgeries. 3. Where a litigant's title is the direct subject of an unresolved criminal indictment for forgery touching the same instrument, he asks a civil Court to validate, the Court is entitled to treat that title with considerable circumspection, for as the Court of Appeal held in **Ndolo v Ndolo [2008] 1 KLR (G&F) 742,** the standard demanded of a party resisting a serious charge of forgery is ***"… the standard of proof required of him [the Respondent] was obviously higher than that required in ordinary civil cases, namely proof upon a balance of probabilities; but the burden of proof on the Respondent was certainly not one beyond a reasonable doubt as in criminal cases..."*** 1. Similarly, in **Koinange & 13 Others v Charles Karuga Koinange [1986] KLR**, the Court found that when fraud is alleged, the burden of proof rests firmly on the Plaintiff. While the standard is not as high as criminal proof beyond a reasonable doubt, allegations of fraud must be strictly proven, requiring a standard greater than a mere balance of probabilities, as detailed in [**Oraro v Oraro (Civil Appeal 84 of 2021)**](https://kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/20981/eng%402023-10-26)**.** The Plaintiff has not surmounted that threshold; if anything, the surrounding circumstantial evidence tips against him 1. On the other hand, the 1st Defendant, DW1, Cecilia Wamaitha Mwangi asserts ownership via a 1999 Certificate of Lease, claiming her original papers perished in a house fire; yet, she produced no Police Abstract, no Letter of Allotment in her name, no payment receipts, and no registry records confirming her allocation. DW2, James Muthini Wambua, the retired Land Registrar who purportedly registered her lease, admitted that her lease lacked the official Land Registrar's stamp and that no underlying registry file exists. Moreover, DW3, Edward Kariuki Mutai, a retired land official, emphatically disowned the signatures on the 1st Defendant’s Letter of Allotment shown to him by the DCI, while the Ministry of Lands confirmed under official correspondence dated 11/04/2023 that it holds no records relating to the 1st Defendant’s alleged title. 2. Furthermore, the retired Land Registrar who signed her Certificate of Lease, confirmed on cross-examination that his name does not physically appear on the lease document, that name stamps were only introduced in 2000, and could produce no letter of appointment to prove his tenure, yet astonishingly told the Court on re-examination that the signatures examined by the forensic document examiner were not his a statement that, taken at face value, casts doubt on the very authenticity the 1st Defendant sought to establish through him. 3. Equally troubling is the evidence of the investigating officer, Chief Inspector Daniel Wainaina, DW4, who conceded he had not produced documentary proof of the cancellation of the 6th Defendant's allotment, had not visited the Survey of Kenya despite the dispute turning substantially on the Registry Index Map, and did not investigate or arrest the persons operating the car wash on the disputed land notwithstanding his assertion that they held no authority from the 1st Defendant. 4. His forensic witness, Inspector Gilbert Kipng'eno Tanui, DW6, likewise could produce no documents evidencing his claimed seven years of forensic experience and admitted the known specimen signatures used for comparison were never placed before the Court, a methodological gap that recalls the caution long expressed by Kenyan Courts that expert opinion evidence must disclose its factual basis to be of probative value, not merely assert a conclusion. Adding to the institutional confusion, the Assistant Land Registrar Reginald Kilonzo Ngila, DW7 testified that the parcel file contains no documents at all emanating from the 1st Defendant and that, from the register's own face, the Plaintiff remains the first registered proprietor directly at odds with the Directorate of Land Administration's own witness, DW5 and the DCI correspondence recommending that the Plaintiff's name be expunged. That two arms of the same Ministry cannot agree on whose name the register truly bears is itself the clearest evidence of dysfunction within the registry. 5. Turning to the claim by the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants, the evidentiary matrix demonstrates a prior, subsisting root of title derived from the late Bernard Ndungu Njonjo. The undisputed records confirm that the suit land was originally allotted to the deceased on 27/03/1991, accepted on 5/07/1995, and all statutory fees paid in full that same year, before the purported transactions of the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant. The deceased subsequently sold his interest on 21/06/1991 to the 7th and 8th Defendants, who entered into actual physical possession, developed a car wash business, and continuously paid local authority rates as evidenced by demand notes and receipts dated 2013 and 2014. 6. Although the Plaintiff and DW4 asserted that the deceased’s allotment was withdrawn or cancelled for non-payment, DW4 conceded in cross-examination that he possessed no documentary evidence or formal Gazette notice confirming such cancellation. Under Kenyan law, an allotment once accepted and fully paid for creates an enforceable equitable interest that alienates the land from government control, rendering any subsequent attempt by the Commissioner of Lands to allocate the same parcel to third parties an absolute nullity. 7. I note that DW3 asserted a withdrawal dated 26/10/1995 but candidly admitted he could not produce the letter itself; DW7 relied not on that primary instrument but on a derivative 2022 letter from the Directorate of Land Administration merely referencing an alleged withdrawal, which is secondary evidence of a fact never independently proved. 8. Under Sections 64 and 68 of the Evidence Act, a document's contents must ordinarily be proved by primary evidence, and a party who pleads a formal act of cancellation by a public office bears the burden, under Sections 107 and 109 of the Evidence Act, of producing that act, not merely alluding to it. Here, the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendants, who stood to benefit from establishing the withdrawal, failed to discharge that burden. This gap is reinforced by DW8's unrebutted evidence that no refund of the Kshs 44,180 premium was ever made to the estate, a fact of some significance because withdrawal of an accepted allotment, to be effective, must ordinarily be communicated and accompanied by restitution of monies paid; an uncommunicated, unrefunded withdrawal that exists only in a witness's recollection cannot be permitted to defeat an allotment that was accepted, paid for, and followed by uninterrupted physical possession from 1991 to date, evidenced by the continuous operation of the car wash and the payment of rates recorded at pages 29 and 30 of the 6th and 8th Defendants' bundle. Possession of this character is itself powerful corroboration of a possessory and beneficial title that neither the Plaintiff nor the 1st Defendant can match, since neither of them was ever in occupation. 9. Now, the 1st Defendant's case cannot survive scrutiny once measured against the primary-document rule that governs the proof of title in Kenya. Cecilia Wamaitha Mwangi never produced her Letter of Allotment, the foundational instrument without which, as DW3 himself testified, no Certificate of Lease can properly issue. She never produced Police Abstract for the fire she says destroyed her documents, notwithstanding that she twice claimed under oath to have obtained one. She produced no rate receipts despite insisting she had paid outgoings, and her own witness DW2, the Registrar who purportedly executed her lease, contradicted himself fatally by first confirming his tenure and signature and then, on re-examination, disowning the very signature the forensic examiner had scrutinized. 10. A title resting on a chain this porous cannot be preferred over a rival claim merely because it happens to be registered; Section 26 of the Land Registration Act affords a certificate only prima facie, not conclusive, force, and that presumption falls away the moment the underlying root is shown to be undocumented and internally contradictory. Her claim must therefore fail alongside the Plaintiff's, both being unsupported by any unbroken, documented root capable of withstanding challenge. 11. I am therefore persuaded to find that the Plaintiff's registration is a fraudulent nullity procured through forged instruments, as the DCI's investigation, the forensic findings, and the pending criminal prosecution of its Director all confirm; that the 1st Defendant's Certificate of Lease, however facially registered, rests on no provable root and must equally be treated as void for want of the primary documentation that alone could validate it; and that the estate of the late Bernard Ndungu Njonjo, through the 7th and 8th Defendants, holds the only claim substantiated by an original, accepted, and paid-for allotment coupled with decades of open possession, a possessory and equitable interest that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants failed to show was ever lawfully extinguished. This accords with the established principle that a title procured unprocedurally or without proof of lawful derivation confers no protection, and it is consistent with the general caution that Kenyan Courts have long applied to unsubstantiated assertions of cancellation advanced by land officials without the underlying instrument to support them. 12. The legal framework governing land registration in Kenya, particularly Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act No. 3 of 2012, protects the indefeasibility of a title except where it is shown to have been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, or through an illegal process. The issuance of parallel or dual titles over a single parcel of land is a statutory anomaly and a legal impossibility that destroys the sanctity of the land register. In the landmark decision of **Munyu Maina v Hiram Gathiha Maina [2013] eKLR,** the Court of Appeal stated verbatim: ***"When a title is challenged, it is not enough to show that one has a title. One must go beyond the title and show the root of the title."*** 1. Applying this principle, both the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant have failed to demonstrate a clean, lawful root of title, as their registrations were anchored on forged Allotment Letters and fabricated registry entries over land that was no longer unalienated government land. Furthermore, as held by the Court of Appeal in **Arthi Highway Developers Limited v Westlands Water Services Company & 6 Others [2015] eKLR**: ***"The Commissioner of Lands had no jurisdiction to allocate land that was already alienated... Any subsequent allocation or title issued over already alienated land is null and void ab initio."*** 1. Kenyan land law has long treated the existence of more than one title over a single parcel as a legal impossibility rather than a mere administrative curiosity, since the Torrens system upon which the Land Registration Act, 2012 is built proceeds on the premise that the register is a true and singular mirror of ownership. As the Court of Appeal observed in **Wreck Motors Enterprises v Commissioner of Lands, Civil Appeal No. 71 of 1997**, equity teaches that first in time prevails only where competing titles are, on their face, issued regularly and without fraud; that principle offers no refuge to any party here because each root is independently impugned. In **M'ikiara M'rinkanya & Another v Gilbert Kabeere M'binjiwe [1982-1988] 1 KAR 196,** the Court confirmed that once land has been allotted, the Commissioner retains no power to allot the same parcel afresh, a proposition fatal to any suggestion that the 1997 and 1999 allotments could coexist with the 1991 grant to Njonjo. Scholars of Kenyan land administration, notably the late Professor H.W.O. Okoth-Ogendo in his seminal writing on tenure reform, long warned that a register administered by a chronically understaffed and poorly supervised civil service would inevitably become a site of manipulation rather than certainty, a warning vindicated by the present file, where a dormant 1997 offer was processed without query twenty-two years later, where a parcel file is missing the very documents a registered proprietor says were plucked from it, and where no single Ministry witness could produce the original letter withdrawing Njonjo's allotment despite repeated reliance on its existence. 2. Individual officers who process such irregular transactions, or who fail to safeguard parcel files against tampering, cannot hide behind the anonymity of the institution; Section 81 of the Land Registration Act withholds the State's indemnity from any officer implicated in fraud or negligence, and commentators have rightly urged, as observed in the Nairobi Law Monthly's critique of land fraud enforcement, that Courts must punish culpable public officers as much as owners if the rot within the registry is ever to be arrested. On the evidence before this Court, the unnamed officers who processed the Plaintiff's stale allotment in 2019 and those who allowed the 1st Defendant's file to be stripped of its primary documents bear individual, not merely institutional, culpability, and their conduct ought properly to be referred for further investigation 3. As already stated above on the rogue Ministry of Lands staff including registrars, this Court cannot turn a blind eye to the sinister role played by these rogue staff within the Ministry of Lands and the Thika Land Registry, whose corrupt conduct lies at the epicenter of this dispute. The deliberate destruction, stripping, and manipulation of parcel files, combined with the illicit generation of duplicate green cards and parallel leases, represents a pervasive decay that undermines public confidence in the Torrens system of registration. Officers who facilitate the issuing of fraudulent letters of allotment, sign unauthenticated leases without verifying registry records, or assist fraudsters in plucking valid documents from official files are individually culpable in both civil and criminal law. These rogue officials act outside the scope of public duty, aiding and abetting the theft of private property, and ought to be held personally accountable for damages and subjected to full criminal prosecution. **Final Orders** 1. Given the foregoing I issue the following final orders: 2. ***It is hereby declared that the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant have each failed to establish a valid root of title to THIKA MUNICIPALITY BLOCK 9/233 (formerly Thika Municipality LR No. 4953/153 and LR No. 4913/1583), and that their respective allocations, leases and title deeds over the suit property were obtained unlawfully and/or without documentary proof, and are void ab initio.*** 3. ***The 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendants shall forthwith cancel and annul the Plaintiff's Certificate of Title dated 3/09/2020 and the 1st Defendant's Certificate of Lease dated 24/06/1999, and expunge all associated entries from the Land Register.*** 4. ***It is hereby declared that the prior beneficial and possessory title over THIKA MUNICIPALITY BLOCK 9/233 rests legitimately with the Estate of the late Bernard Ndungu Njonjo, as represented by the 6th Defendant, and as transferred to the 7th and 8th Defendants pursuant to the Letter of Allotment dated 27/03/1991, the acceptance and full payment thereof, and the Sale Agreement dated 21/06/1991.*** 5. ***The 2nd and 3rd Defendants shall reconstruct the parcel register for THIKA MUNICIPALITY BLOCK 9/233 and regularize and complete the formal processing and registration of title in favour of the 7th and 8th Defendants, or the Estate of Bernard Ndungu Njonjo, upon compliance with the necessary conveyancing procedures, within sixty (60) days of this Judgment.*** 6. ***The restriction placed on the register on 23/09/2020 by the 5th Defendant is hereby lifted to facilitate the execution of Orders 3 and 4 above.*** 7. ***The Plaintiff's Plaint dated 30/09/2022 and the 1st Defendant’s Counter-claim dated 16/11/2022 are hereby dismissed in their entirety.*** 8. ***The Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant shall jointly and severally bear the costs of this suit and of the Counterclaim incurred by the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants, to be taxed if not agreed.*** 9. ***The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) are hereby directed to investigate the individual land registry officers implicated in the fraudulent duplication of documents and the disappearance of primary parcel-file records for THIKA MUNICIPALITY BLOCK 9/233, with a view to personal prosecution and personal civil recovery. File to be passed to the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commissions for investigation and to Director of Public Prosecutions for prosecution.*** It is so ordered. **DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT THIKA VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS THIS 27TH DAY OF JULY 2026.** …………….………. **MOGENI J** **JUDGE** **In the Presence of**: Miss Muithirania holding brief for Mr. Owade for the Plaintiff Mr. Wachira holding brief for Mr. Kanyi for the 1st Defendant 2nd – 8th Defendants - Absent **Mr. Melita - Court Assistant** ……………..……. **MOGENI J** **JUDGE**