[2018] KEHC 4821 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 4821 (KLR)

The court found that the suit land was lawfully registered in the name of Margaret Kedogo Oyangi in 1978, and that no credible evidence of fraud or misrepresentation was adduced by the protestor. The protestor's father did not challenge the registration during the adjudication process, nor was there evidence of any...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 4821 (KLR)
Parties
Defendant: Kennedy Lidali Oyangi; Plaintiff: Aggrey Alukhaba Mmosi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 576 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Judgment
Outcome
Protest dismissed; grant confirmed in favour of petitioner.
Judges
CM Njagi
Legal Topics
Confirmation of Grant, Fraudulent Registration, Title to Land, Adjudication Process
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Confirmation of Grant Fraudulent Registration Title to Land Adjudication Process

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

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

Parties

Kennedy Lidali Oyangi

Defendant

Aggrey Alukhaba Mmosi

Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the registration of land parcel Kakamega/Mugomari/1174 in the name of Margaret Kedogo Oyangi was fraudulent.
  2. 2 Whether the estate of Margaret Kedogo Oyangi is entitled to the suit land or it should devolve to the protestor and his siblings.
  3. 3 Whether the protestor's affidavit of protest has merit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the suit land was lawfully registered in the name of Margaret Kedogo Oyangi in 1978, and that no credible evidence of fraud or misrepresentation was adduced by the protestor. The protestor's father did not challenge the registration during the adjudication process, nor was there evidence of any dispute at that time. The protestor failed to report the alleged fraud to the police or to sue for recovery of the land for over two decades. The law presumes the registered proprietor to be the absolute owner unless fraud or illegality is strictly proved, which was not done in this case. Consequently, the protest lacked merit and the court confirmed the grant in favour of the...

Court Disposition

Protest dismissed; grant confirmed in favour of petitioner.

Orders

  • The affidavit of protest dated 23rd October, 2017 by the protestor/plaintiff is dismissed with costs to the petitioner/defendant.
  • The summons for confirmation of grant dated 17th August, 2017 are granted.