https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3609

Wambugu & 19 others (Suing as Members/Former Members and Officials of United Social Club) v Mugo & 3 others (Environment and Land Appeal 257 of 2016) [2026] KEELC 3609 (KLR) (4 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3609 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Nyeri Environment and Land Appeal 257 of 2016 EK Makori, J June 4, 2026 Between Gerald Kibocha Wambugu & 19 others (Suing as Members/Former Members and Officials of United Social Club) Plaintiff and Michael Mugo 1st Defendant Nancy Keziah Mugure 2nd Defendant Florence Wanjiru Marine 3rd Defendant Umplosh Company Ltd 4th Defendant Judgment 1.This suit was instituted by way of a Further Amended Plaint dated 24th November 2016 and further amended on 11th March 2019. The Plaintiffs averred that they are members/officials of United Social Club, which was initially the registered owner of Title No. Nyeri/Municipality Block 111/99. Ownership was later transferred to the registered trustees, who were registered in 2014, but the membership, governing constitution, and rules remained unchanged. 2.The Plaintiffs accused the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants, who are the directors of the 4th Defendant, together with three other persons, of fraudulently causing the said Title No. Nyeri/Municipality Block 111/99 to be transferred to the 4th Defendant herein. 3.The Plaintiffs learned of the change of ownership when the 1st Defendant put up billboards, describing himself as the C.E.O of the 4th Defendant and proclaiming ownership of the suit property, and circulated letters requesting members to buy shares to become members of the 4th Defendant. 4.They state that this change of ownership was fraudulent because it was carried out without the sanction of the members of the United Social Club. 5.The Plaintiffs aver that after the circulation of the said letters, the tenants occupying the premises have been paying rent to the Defendants, to the exclusion of the bona fide members of the United Social Club/United Members Social Club. 6.The Plaintiffs therefore pray for the following orders:a.A declaration that the registration of the 4th Defendant as the proprietor of title No. Nyeri/Municipality Block 11/99 on March 30, 2015, was fraudulent.b.An order that title No. Nyeri Municipality Block 111/99 revert to its original owner, United Social Club.c.The Defendants are condemned to costs.d.Any other or better relief.e.The 19th Plaintiff prays that his Advocate/Client Bill of Costs and conveyance fees be offset from the funds deposited with this Court, and the balance be offset from future rents of the club.f.An order for the surrender of the 19th Plaintiff’s repossessed plot or for compensation therefor. The hearing of the suit 7.The hearing of the case commenced on 1st November 2022, during which PW1: Gerald Kibucha Wambugu, the First Plaintiff, provided his testimony. He stated that, together with the Second and Third Plaintiffs, he has instituted legal action against the United Social Club, of which he is a member. He referenced his witness statements filed on 25 November 2016, those appearing on page 9 of the bundle, as well as the sets of documents dated 24 November 2016 and 14 September 2020, which he presented as his evidence-in-chief. 8.PW 1 indicated that he is a member of the United Social Club, having joined in 1974. He has been regularly paying membership fees, with his most recent renewal occurring on 30 March 2008, when he was issued a receipt by the Treasurer, the current 1st Defendant. Furthermore, he has served as the Secretary of the Club since his election on 26 May 2008, a fact duly recorded in the minutes. The club was established in 1960, as evidenced by the letter of allotment issued in the same year. 9.Subsequently, on March 15, 2021, the Club secured a lease for the disputed property, which is under the custodianship of V.E. Mugutu, Advocate. The alteration of membership occurred without their awareness. 10.PW 1 observed that he has reviewed documents indicating that Umplosh Company Limited was incorporated on 30 March 2015. He is unaware of the manner in which they acquired their parcel of land until they received correspondence from the Nyeri County Government dated 3 May 2015, whereby they became informed that the 4th Defendant is owned by the 1st Defendant, his wife Nancy (2nd Defendant), and one additional director. 11.PW 1 was referred to the minutes of a meeting of the 4th Defendant held on 5 December 2015, which indicate that during a gathering purportedly representing the United Social Club, the following individuals were elected: the 1st Defendant as Chairman; Fernando Munene as Vice Chairman; Nancy Mugure, the wife of the 1st Defendant, as Secretary; the Assistant Secretary, who is the wife of the 1st Defendant's son. Furthermore, all other members are identified as either his sons or relatives. Of the nine members, six are the 1st Defendant’s sons or daughters-in-law, and the United Social Club was unaware of these developments. 12.Furthermore, PW 1 stated that the minutes of 5 December 2015 were prepared significantly after the transfer had been completed, which they did not authorize. It was previously asserted that the 1st Defendant convened a meeting on 29 December 2009. This meeting was purportedly attended by seventeen members; however, during the voting process, it was claimed that twenty-five members participated. 13.They were unaware of any such meeting, asserting that he, as the Secretary, should have summoned it. The Minutes indicate that they suggested Ibrahim Murungi Kabachia to record the minutes. However, those minutes are signed by Ephraim Mwangi Wachira instead. 14.During cross-examination, the Plaintiff referred to the minutes dated 5 December 2015 and characterized them as fictitious. He observed that the minutes were prepared approximately eight months subsequent to the registration of the Certificate of Lease on 30 March 2015 in the name of the 4th Defendant. 15.PW 1 added that, as United Social Club, they had only 4 members. The new one has 40 members. However, he noted that the club is a public utility club and that anyone can join in accordance with the constitution. 16.He denied ever having left the club, stating instead that the 1st Defendant left the club, created another parallel body, and formed his own management committee. He also denied that the committee has been running the club, stating that David Ngunjiri and the 1st Defendant are now running the place. He was referred to the lease for the suit property dated 15 March 2011, which refers to United Social Club and lists the trustees as David Ngunjiri Mueithi, Erastus Kama Gichuki, and Ephraim Mwangi Wachira. 17.Further, DW 1 stated that he was aware of an attempt to grab the land. There was a case, Nyeri HCCC No. 19 of 2006, Batian Grand Ltd vs. Mathew Ngunjiri & Others. He agreed that Batian Grand had already registered a lease and had sued the Club for eviction, and that the case was dismissed with costs. 18.The 1st Defendant was the Treasurer of the United Social Club. He later purported to be the Chairman. He contended that the attempt to transfer the Lease to a private company violated Clause 19 of the Lease. 19.PW 1 stated that the club continues to generate revenue. There was an order that all tenants pay the money to the court until the dispute is determined. That the 1st Defendant should account for the monies he has been collecting. 20.PW 1 was referred to the Constitution on Page 22 of the Plaintiff’s Bundle, where he read that any member who fails to pay the prescribed annual subscriptions within three months shall cease to be a member under clause 3(c). He acknowledged that he had no evidence that he had paid the subscriptions. He was also referred to the Constitution of the United Members Social Club, but stated that it is a draft unilaterally amended by the First Defendant. He had not read it to determine whether it provides for membership subscriptions. He added that they were supposed to be consulted because they were former members of the committee. The minutes of 26 May .2008 demonstrate that he was elected Secretary, and there has been no subsequent General Meeting; to date, he remains the Secretary. 21.Regarding the distinction between United Social Club and United Members Social Club, PW 1 stated that he learned of the creation of United Members Social Club much later and that the Plaintiffs were not involved. He further stated that the Certificate of Registration for the United Members Social Club is a forgery. His position is that he represents members of the United Social Club in this matter and that the issue before the court is the ownership of the land, because the United Social Club members never approved any transfer to the 4th Defendant. 22.PW2: Joram Theuri Kibicho relied on his witness statement filed in court on April 13, 2022. He stated that the United Social Club (USC) was founded in the 1960s and that he was unaware of the United Members' Social Club (UMSC). The transfer of the United Social Club's property to the 4th Defendant is the reason they filed this case in court. 23.Upon cross-examination, PW 2 stated that United Social Club was not intended to be a private members' club because it was a public utility, as clarified in the Constitution. Membership was open to all who sought the facilities. They later developed a project to build rental premises and leased them to tenants. 24.He further stated that he knew Plaintiffs 4 – 8 because they were the first to apply for tenancies, but didn’t know they were admitted as members. This was probably after I left. He denied knowing that the 4th Defendant, Umplosh Company Ltd, owned the suit land. His case is that they are in Court because the club's property was fraudulently transferred and that the entire process was procedurally improper. 25.PW 2 was questioned about his evidence of membership and stated that he had returns he prepared for the club as the Secretary of the United Social Club. He was elected Secretary in 1967 and served until 2007, when he handed over the role to the 1st Plaintiff, Gerald Kibucha Wambugu. However, he acknowledged that he had not provided any documents to show that he was a Secretary. 26.PW stated that he saw minutes by members to form Umplosh but did not see where members resolved to register the property of United Social Club in the name of the 4th Defendant Company. He also stated that members have suffered prejudice as a result of the registration in the name of Umplosh because they no longer enjoy the services they were entitled to, as this is now a personal company. There are no sports, games, or leisure activities, and members don not enjoy the facilities. There were sports like table tennis and darts before the change to Umplosh, but not anymore. The hall meant for sports activities is still there but is not open to members, as it is now a private company. 27.PW3: Wilson Mwangi Kiraguri provided his testimony, indicating that he appears as a witness on his own behalf and for the 5th to 18th Plaintiffs. He referenced his witness statement along with a collection of documents dated 11 March 2019, which were filed on the same day, as well as an additional list of documents submitted on 10 May 2022. 28.Upon cross-examination, PW 3 stated that he occupies premises in the suit land, including the other Plaintiffs whom he represents, and they all came on different dates as tenants. In 2001, he was paying rent to the management of the club, i.e., the Chairman, Secretary, etc. of United Social Club. Many years later, they received communication from Umplosh Company Ltd, signed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, Erastus Kiama Gichuki, 1st Defendant. However, he didn’t know when Umplosh came to be formed. He later learned that the company was owned by the 1st–3rd Defendants as shareholders. He stated that the 2nd Defendant is the wife of the 1st Defendant. 29.PW 3 was referred to the minutes of the meeting held on 29 December 2009 (Minute 7/2010, Title Deed, Deed Plan RIM) in the further list of documents submitted by the 4th–18th Plaintiffs. The said minute stated that the title was to be registered in the name of the designated trustees, and PW 3 confirmed that this discussion was documented. However, when referred to the minutes of the meeting held on 18 October 2014 (Minute 133/2014), PW 3 refused to confirm the contents of that minute and characterized them as fictitious minutes purportedly obtained from the Registrar of Societies. 30.According to the 1st Defendant, he read Minute 12 of 2015, which included the agenda for a name change and a change of ownership. The club became a one-man show in 2010. 31.On re-examination, PW 3 stated that it was a requirement to pay Kshs. 25,000/- to become a member of the United Social Club. Later, they were told that the club had changed to Umplosh Company Ltd, and as members, they were to pay Kshs. 400,000. He denied participating in the meetings whose minutes are produced in evidence, stating that the 1st Defendant forged his signature and/or inserted it. They have reported the matter to the DCI; it is under investigation, and their signatures have been collected. 32.DW1: Erastus Kiama Gichuki commenced the presentation of the defense case. He indicated that he serves as a Director of the 4th Defendant and presented his witness statement dated 21 June 2022, along with a bundle of documents dated 8 October 2020, as his primary evidence. He contested the claim of the First Plaintiff that he is a member of the United Members Social Club. Furthermore, he affirmed that Plot No. Nyeri Municipality/Block III/99 was transferred in accordance with lawful procedures, supported by minutes, specifically entry No. 132 of 2014, Agenda No. 6 - Change of Lease, dated 18 October 2014. 33.DW 1 noted that the rent payable to the company is now deposited to the court in accordance with this Court’s order by Lady Justice Waithaka. This has made the company’s work very difficult, and some of the Tenants do not pay, while others pay irregularly. 34.DW 1 contended that the Plaintiffs have no interest in the company and that they are tenants, not shareholders, and that the 1st Plaintiff is not a shareholder of the company. 35.During cross-examination, DW 1 indicated that the land in question is located in Block 3/99 Nyeri, with its lease initially granted in 2011. The land was registered to three individuals acting as trustees of the United Social Club. The club operated under a formal constitution. In the same year, the title for the plot was transferred to United Members Social Club. On March 30, 2015, ownership was transferred to Umplosh Company Ltd, the 4th defendant, a private company limited by shares incorporated on March 23, 2015. Subsequently, on December 5, 2015, Umplosh Company Ltd convened an Annual General Meeting, during which one of the key items on the agenda was the alteration of its trustees. 36.He referred to the Defendants’ List of Documents and to a Certificate for United Members Social Club dated 21 May 1962. The certificate indicates that it was registered under the Societies Rules of 1968. He stated that the individuals who have initiated the lawsuit are not members. The minutes authorizing the change from United Social Club to Umplosh were dated 5 December 2015. 37.DW 1 stated that he is the Chairman and that he was Chairman of the United Members Social Club even at the time of the transfer. 38.Upon reviewing the Plaintiff’s Bundle of Documents, DW 1 observed that the search conducted on 23 April 2015 indicates Umplosh was registered on 30 March 2015, prior to the December 2015 meeting. He stated that he did not possess the transfer form to Umplosh. Additionally, he clarified that the trustees' mandate is outlined within the constitution, which restricts them from selling land; however, they are permitted to be shareholders in the company. The 1st-3rd Plaintiffs’ submissions 39.Counsel for the 1st through 3rd Plaintiffs submitted that the change of ownership of Title No. The transfer of Nyeri/Municipality Block III/99 from the original owner, United Social Club, to the 4th Defendant was fraudulent. 40.Counsel emphasized that the 4th Defendant company was incorporated on March 23, 2015. Subsequently, on March 30, 2015, the company was officially registered as the proprietor of the suit property. A Social Club, registered under the Societies Act and open to members over the age of 18, was converted into a private limited liability company limited to fifty members. Notably, within seven days of the Fourth Defendant being registered as the owner of the suit property, an action which is alleged to have been fraudulent, the registration was completed. 41.It was also highlighted that the 3rd Defendant filed an application seeking to have her name struck out of the suit because she does not know the 4th Defendant and does not know how she was included as a Director of the 4th Defendant. That application was disallowed, which further confirms the fraud. 42.Furthermore, the Plaintiffs referred to the Defendant's list of documents, specifically the Certificate of Registration No. 2. The Society is the United Members Social Club, registered on 21 May 1962 under the Societies Rules of 1968. However, in 1962, the entity in existence was the United Social Club, which asserted that the 1968 Rules could not be applicable to an entity registered in 1962. 43.The Plaintiffs prayed that ownership of the suit property revert to its rightful owner, United Social Club, and that the Defendants bear the costs. 4th-18th Plaintiffs/Interested Parties written submissions 44.Counsel for the interested parties herein submitted that United Social Club, of which they are members, is the lawful owner of Land Title No. Nyeri/Municipality block 111/99, the suit land herein, and that the said land title was fraudulently transferred to the 4th Defendant herein, without the Club's consent, by the 1st to 3rd Defendants. 45.They noted that the 1st Defendant, albeit reluctantly, admitted this fact and acknowledged that the names of the 4th to 18th Plaintiffs appear in the minutes he filed with the Registrar of Societies. 46.Counsel cited Sections 26 and 80 of the Land Registration Act and relied on the case of Sehmi & another v Tarabana Company Limited & 5 others (Petition E033 of 2023) (2025) KESC 21 (KLR), in which the Supreme Court held that an illegally acquired title cannot defeat prior interests, even if acquired in good faith. 47.It is their submission that the United Social Club held the suit land herein through its trustees. The 1st-3rd Defendants herein, being directors/shareholders of the 4th Defendant herein, had no authority from the Club's members or trustees to convert the Club's property into a private company's asset. There was also no Annual General Meeting or Special Meeting to convert or transfer the social club property to a private company. 48.It is further submitted that the suit land, Land Title No. LR. Nyeri Municipality Block 111/9 is public land and requires government clearance before transfer. The letter from the Nyeri County Government, Land and Infrastructure Development Department, adduced by the Plaintiffs herein, confirming that it did not issue clearance, demonstrates that due process was not followed and that the transfer should not have proceeded. 49.Therefore, it is their submission that the 1st Defendant, having fraudulently caused the suit land to be transferred from United Social Club to the 4th Defendant, prepared false minutes in an attempt to cover up the fraud, even though the meetings they denied attending were recorded in the attendance list. 50.They pray that the Honorable Court declare that the registration of Land Title No. Nyeri/Municipality Block 111/99 in the name of Umplosh Company Ltd, the 4th Defendant herein, was obtained by fraud, and order that the said title be canceled. In addition, this Honorable Court orders the Defendants to account for all rents collected from the premises since March 30, 2015, and to pay such rents to the Plaintiffs and to pay costs. The Defendants’ written submissions 51.Counsel for the Defendants submitted that the Defendants deny that any legal entity by the name “United Social Club” existed, capable of filing a suit. The Defendants further denied in their defense that the said “United Social Club” was the initial registered owner of the suit premises. 52.Further, the defendants denied and put the plaintiffs to specific proof that they were ever registered or former members of the said United Social Club. 53.It was highlighted that during cross-examination of the various plaintiffs’ witnesses, it emerged that most of the plaintiffs were present in the various meetings and even participated in the formulation of the resolution as per the minutes. 54.Their submission, therefore, is that the plaintiffs should be estopped from alleging that the change is fraudulent or unprocedural to any effect. Analysis and Decision-Making 55.The Plaintiffs claim that they are members/officials of United Social Club, the initial registered owners of Title No. Nyeri/Municipality Block 111/99, and that the Defendants fraudulently registered the suit property in the 4th Defendant’s name. 56.Having considered the Plaint and Defense herein, the trial and rival submissions, I opine that the following issues arise for determination: Do the Plaintiffs herein have the locus standi and capacity to file the suit herein? Was the suit property, Title No. Nyeri/Municipality Block 111/99, fraudulently transferred to the 4th Defendant? Costs Do the Plaintiffs herein have the locus standi and capacity to file the suit herein? 57.Counsel for the Defendants argued that the Plaintiffs herein lack the locus standi to file this suit, denying that any legal entity by the name of United Social Club exists, capable of filing a suit. 58.Locus standi is the right to appear in court and has been fundamentally transformed under the Constitution of Kenya 2010. By virtue of Articles 22 and 258 of the Constitution, any person may institute proceedings on behalf of another person who cannot act in their own name, or as a member of, or in the interest of, a group or class of persons, or in the public interest. 59.The Plaintiffs have demonstrated, through Plaintiff Exhibit 1 (letter of allotment dated 8th September 1960), that the suit property was allotted to the United Social Club. Plaintiff Exhibits 3 and 4 (Lease dated 15th March 2011 and certificates of official search dated 19th October 2011 and 31st October 2014) show that the suit property was registered to the registered trustees of the United Social Club. Several minutes of the said United Social Club confirm that the 1st Plaintiff herein was the secretary, who has also produced a membership receipt for the year 2008. 60.According to the minutes dated December 5, 2015, the agenda for meeting number 1 indicates that the United Social Club’s name was changed to the United Members’ Social Club. 61.The 4th Plaintiff presented his confirmation of membership in the United Members Social Club and assigned stall space, along with his copy of the Constitution, signed and stamped by the 1st Defendant herein, the Chairman of the Club. 62.The remaining Plaintiffs have shown that they were listed as members in attendance at several meetings. Thus, it is clear that the Plaintiffs have the requisite locus standi as persons with an interest in the said United Social Club or United Members’ Social Club. 63.In Mumo Matemu v. Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 others (Civil Application 29 of 2014) [2014] KESC 6 (KLR), the learned Judges of the Supreme Court recognized the 1st Respondent, Human Rights Society, as having locus standi, even though it was no longer registered as a non-governmental organization, and found as follows:“The NGO Act must be interpreted in conformity with the Constitution. Although Section 12(2) and (3) of the Act provides for the legal status of the 1st respondent, when read together with Articles 22, 258, and 260 of the Constitution, and in the public interest, it is to be inferred that the 1st respondent did not lose its locus standi, even if it were to be assumed to have lacked registered status. The three Articles give an enlarged view of locus standi, to the effect that every “person”, including persons acting in the public interest, can move a Court of law contesting infringements of any provisions in the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution.” 64.Although the present case is not a Constitutional Petition, I am of the view that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated sufficient capacity to bring this suit as members or former members of the United Social Club, with a direct interest in the suit property, which is protected under Section 40 of the Constitution of Kenya. Was the suit property herein, Title No. Nyeri/Municipality Block 111/99 fraudulently transferred to the 4th Defendant? 65.As noted above, it has been sufficiently demonstrated that the suit property was initially registered to the United Social Club's registered trustees. However, ownership changed, and the property was registered on the 30th of March 2015 in the name of the 4th Defendant, Umplosh Company Limited, which, as exhibited in the Defense, was incorporated on the 23rd of March 2015, 7 days before the registration. 66.The Plaintiffs herein contend that they did not agree to transfer ownership of the suit property to the 4th Defendant and deny attending any meeting where members decided to change the ownership. 67.I note that in the 4th-18th Plaintiff’s further bundle of documents No. 6, there are minutes of a Special General Meeting held on 5th December 2015, with an agenda to change the Club’s trustees to officials and to Umplosh Company Limited for the future good and development of the Plot. I note that by this time, Umplosh Company Limited was already the registered owner of the suit property. 68.Further, the Defendants have failed to produce any transfer documents showing how the transfer to the 4th Defendant Company was authorized and effected. Thus, they are unable to prove the veracity of the root of the 4th Defendant’s title. 69.The Land Registration Act Cap 300 provides in Section 26 that:“The certificate of title issued by the Registrar upon registration, or to a purchaser of land upon a transfer or transmission by the proprietor shall be taken by all courts as prima facie evidence that the person named as proprietor of the land is the absolute and indefeasible owner, subject to the encumbrances, easements, restrictions and conditions contained or endorsed in the certificate, and the title of that proprietor shall not be subject to challenge, except—(a)on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation to which the person is proved to be a party; or(b)where the certificate of title has been acquired illegally, unprocedurally, or through a corrupt scheme.” 70.The Court of Appeal in Munyu Maina v Hiram Gathiha Maina [2013] eKLR held that:“We state that when a registered proprietor’s root of title is under challenge, it is not sufficient to dangle the instrument of title as proof of ownership. It is this instrument of title that is in challenge and the registered proprietor must go beyond the instrument and prove the legality of how he acquired the title and show that the acquisition was legal, formal and free from any encumbrances including any and all interests which need not be noted on the register. It is our considered view that the respondent did not go this extra mile that is required of him and no evidence was led to rebut the appellant’s testimony.” 71.Munyao J. (as he then was) in the case of Hubert L. Martin & 2 Others v Margaret J. Kamar & 5 Others [2016] KEELC 1092 (KLR) held as follows:“A court when faced with a case of two or more titles over the same land has to make an investigation so that it can be discovered which of the two titles should be upheld. This investigation must start at the root of the title and follow all processes and procedures that brought forth the two titles at hand. It follows that the title that is to be upheld is that which conformed to procedure and can properly trace its root without a break in the chain. The parties to such litigation must always bear in mind that their title is under scrutiny and they need to demonstrate how they got their title, starting with its root. No party should take it for granted that simply because they have a title deed or Certificate of Lease, then they have a right over the property. The other party also has a similar document, and there is therefore no advantage in hinging one's case solely on the title document that they hold. Every party must show that their title has a good foundation and passed properly to the current title holder. With the nature of case at hand, I will need to embark on investigating the chain of processes that gave rise to the two titles in issue as it is the only way I can determine which of the two titles should be upheld. 72.This position was affirmed by the Learned Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of Dina Management Ltd v County Government of Mombasa & 5 others (Petition 8 (E010) of 2021) [2023] KESC 30 (KLR), as follows:“The acquisition of title cannot be construed only in the end result; the process of acquisition is material. It follows that if a document of title was not acquired through the proper process, the title itself cannot be said to be a good title. If this were not the position, then all one would need to do is to manufacture a Lease or Certificate of Title, at a backyard or the corner of a dingy street, and by virtue thereof, claim to be the rightful proprietor of the land indicated therein.” 73.Therefore, I conclude that the title deed for the property, numbered Nyeri/Municipality Block 111/99, currently in the possession of the 4th Defendant, was obtained through illicit and unprocedural means. Consequently, it should be annulled in favor of the United Members Social Club, as it is now recognized. Additionally, I observe that the rent has been duly remitted to the Court in accordance with the directives issued by Honorable Lady Justice Waithaka; the Club's officials are expected to provide a proper account of the receipts thus far. Furthermore, I note that the claim of the 19th Plaintiff pertains to a separate lawsuit and is not relevant to the matter at hand, and therefore, it is hereby disregarded. 74.Consequently, the Court will make these final orders:a.A declaration is hereby made that the registration of the 4th Defendant as the proprietor of title No. Nyeri/Municipality Block 11/99 on March 30, 2015, was fraudulent.b.An order is hereby made that title No. Nyeri Municipality Block 111/99 revert to its original owner, United Social Club, and the Land Registrar is hereby directed to effect those changes.c.The defendants are condemned to bear the costs of the suit. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY IN NYERI ON THIS 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.E. K. MAKORIJUDGEIn the presence of:Ms. Mwangi H/B for Mr. Kiminda for the 1st-3rd PlaintiffMr. Ombongi for the DefendantsMs. Wachira for the 3rd Interested PartyKendi: Court Assistant