Kamwere v Kamau & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E175 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 4221 (KLR) (12 May 2026) (Judgment)

 **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT THIKA** **ELC SUIT NO. E175 OF 2024** **JANE MUGURE KAMWERE………………………………..………..PLAINTIFF** **VERSUS** **FRANCIS KANYINGI KAMAU…………………………………1ST DEFENDANT** **PETER NDUATI MBAU…………………………….…………2ND DEFENDANT** **LAND REGISTRAR- RUIRU………………………..………….3RD DEFENDANT** **JUDGMENT** 1. This suit was filed at Thika ELC vide a Plaint dated 14/10/2024. The Plaintiff in the suit avers that she is the registered proprietor of the land known as **Title Number Ruiru East Block 5/148** measuring 0.0532 hectare and situated in Kahawa Wendani Area. 2. She avers that it is a resultant subplot of Title Number Ruiru East Block 5/1 (formerly L.R No. 4899/2, the original property), then owned by Kiambu Wendani Women Investors Limited (herein after **“the Company”**). 3. That the Plaintiff as a shareholder was issued with Share Certificate membership number 249 and that upon subdivision of the original property, she was allocated parcel number 148 which was also recorded in the schedule of the allocation of subplots of the Company’s members or shareholders. 4. That she was later issued by the Kiambu District Land Registrar with a Title Deed dated 12/01/1988. Since then, the property has been in her custody and remains so to date. 5. On 2/04/2017 a group of six men trespassed on her suit property and she reported this act to the Police. However, she avers that when she conducted a search, she discovered that there were entries numbers 4, 5, 6 and 7 made in favour of the 1st and 2nd Defendants respectively and entries 8 and 9 made in favour of one George Kangata Mwangi by the 3rd Defendant without her knowledge. 6. She alleges fraud and has therefore filed the aforesaid suit. She prays for the following orders: 7. **A declaration that entries 4 and 5 in favour of the 1st Defendant and entries 6 and 7 in favour of the 2nd Defendant in Title Number Ruiru East Block 5/148 register were made fraudulently, unlawfully and therefore null and void ab initio.** 8. **A permanent injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants, whether by themselves, their agents, employees, servants or any person claiming under them howsoever from selling, disposing, pledging, alienating or taking possession or in any other manner interfere with the Plaintiff’s ownership of Title Number Ruiru East Block 5/148.** 9. **A permanent injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants, whether by themselves, their agents, employees, servants or otherwise, effecting any changes or alteration to the state and condition of the suit property known as Title Number Ruiru East Block 5/148 or any part thereof.** 10. **An Order directed to the 3rd Defendant to cancel entries 4 and 5 in favour of the 1st Defendant and 6th and 7th in favour of the 2nd Defendant in the Land Registry in respect of Title Number Ruiru East Block 5/148.** 11. **An Order directed to the 3rd Defendant to rectify the Register regarding the Title Number Ruiru East Block 5/148 in line with (d) above.** 12. **A declaration that the Plaintiff’s Title in respect of Title Number Ruiru East Block 5/148 is the valid bona fide one.** 13. **Costs of the suit together with interest.** 14. **Any other or further relief that the Honorable Court may deem just in the circumstances to grant.** 15. The matter was set down for formal proof hearing against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants on 24/11/2025 who neither entered appearance nor filed any Defence. The 1st and 2nd Defendants were served through substituted service vide the Daily Nation dated 22/08/2025. The Court granted the Plaintiff leave to serve via substituted service following the Notice of Motion dated 23/05/2025 made by the Plaintiff. The Court granted the order for service on substituted service on 23/07/2025. 16. The Plaintiff solely testified as PW1. She produced copies of her documents as listed in the List of Documents dated 14/10/2024. She told the Court that she acquired the land in 1988 and that she was issued with the title deed. 17. She testified that she has never transacted with the property since the issuance of the title. It was her testimony that in the register at Ruiru the 1st and 2nd Defendant’s name appear in the register but she confessed not knowing them. Further that she never sold the suit property to them. She told Court that she is the one who is in the suit property and there is no one else. 18. The Plaintiff in her case stated that the dispute arose in May 2017 when third parties trespassed on the land, claiming ownership under one George Kangata Mwangi. Subsequent investigations at the Land Registry revealed a series of fraudulent dealings. Specifically, the register (Green Card) reflected that the 1st and 2nd Defendants had been entered as proprietors under entries 4, 5, 6, and 7 without the Plaintiff’s knowledge, consent, or participation. 19. According to the Plaintiff she told the Court that while a previous suit (**ELC Case No. E085 of 2022 at Thika**) successfully resulted in the cancellation of subsequent entries (8 and 9) held by George Kangata Mwangi, the fraudulent entries in favor of the 1st and 2nd Defendants remain uncancelled in the registry. 20. The Plaintiff asserts that the 1st Defendant engaged in a criminal scheme by masquerading as the Plaintiff to effect a transfer, while the 2nd Defendant failed to verify the root of the title despite the Plaintiff holding the original title deed. Furthermore, the Plaintiff holds the 3rd Defendant liable for negligence and breach of statutory duty for failing to verify the original Schedule of Allocation and for facilitating the registration of forged documents. 21. The Plaintiff relies on the provisions of the Land Registration Act, 2012, specifically Section 26(1), which provides that: **"The certificate of title issued by the Registrar upon registration... 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 ... 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."** 1. The Plaintiff further invokes the Court’s power to rectify the register under Section 79(2) of the same Act, which mandates the cancellation of any registration obtained by fraud. The Plaintiff’s position aligns with the precedent set in **Arthi Highway Developers Limited v West End Butchery Limited & 6 Others [2015] eKLR**, which she has cited where the Court emphasized that a title acquired through fraud or illegal processes cannot enjoy the protection of the law. Similarly, she cites the decision held in **Munyu Maina v Hiram Gathiaya Maina [2013] eKLR**, and maintains that since the 1st Defendant’s title was void *ab initio*, he had no valid interest to pass to the 2nd Defendant, applying the principle of *nemo dat quod non habet*. 2. Consequently, the Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Defendants' entries are null and void, a permanent injunction against further interference, and an order for the 3rd Defendant to rectify the register by cancelling entries 4, 5, 6, and 7 to restore the integrity of the Plaintiff’s title. 3. The Court directed the Plaintiff to file written submissions. The Plaintiff filed her written submissions dated 12/03/2026. 4. In summary the Plaintiff’s case is that in giving her testimony started by producing before the Court the Original Title Deed, Original Share Certificate, a Schedule of Original Allottees of Kiambu Wendani Women Investors Limited, a certified copy of the Green Card, a Sworn Statutory Declaration by the 1st Defendant in **ELC E085/2022** disavowing interest in the property following the fraudulent transfer, and evidence of ongoing construction halted by reason of the disputed entries. 5. In her submissions, on law, the Plaintiff relies on Section 25(1) of the Land Registration Act, which renders the rights of a registered proprietor indefeasible and free from all other interests and claims whatsoever, and Section 26(1) of the same Act, which provides that a Certificate of Title may be impeached on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation, illegality, or acquisition through a corrupt scheme. It is submitted that since the Title Deeds issued to the 1st and 2nd Defendants were not founded on any transfer executed by the Plaintiff as the registered proprietor, the same are liable to impeachment under both grounds. 6. According to the Plaintiff her position is fortified by the principle of *nemo dat quod non habet* and the decisions in **Hubert L. Martin & 2 Others v Margaret J. Kamar & 5 Others [2016] eKLR, Samuel Odhiambo Oludhe & 2 Others v Jubilee Jumbo Hardware Ltd & Another [2018] eKLR, Alice Chemutai Too v Nickson Kipkurui Korir & 2 Others [2015] eKLR, and Samuel Kamere v Lands Registrar, Kajiado [2015] eKLR,** all of which affirm that no fraudster or beneficiary of fraudulent activities can gain title thereby, and that a transfer executed without the authority, consent or participation of the registered proprietor is null and void ab initio. 7. On the question of cancellation, the Plaintiff submits that Section 80(1) of the Land Registration Act 2012 empowers this Honourable Court to order rectification of the Register by directing cancellation of any registration obtained by fraud or mistake. According to the Plaintiff, she contends that this is trite, as affirmed **in Republic v Kisumu District Lands Officer & Another [2010] eKLR, Super Nova Properties Limited & Another v District Land Registrar Mombasa & 2 Others [2018] eKLR, Elijah Makeri Nyangw v Stephen Mungai Njuguna & Another [2013] eKLR, and Samuel Kamere v Lands Registrar, Kajiado [2015] eKLR,** that only a Court of law bears the mandate to cancel a title obtained illegally or through fraud. 8. It is accordingly submitted that the Plaintiff has proved her case on the balance of probabilities, that entries 4, 5, 6 and 7 ought to be cancelled forthwith, that the Land Register in respect of Title Number Ruiru East Block 5/148 ought to be rectified by reinstating the Plaintiff as the sole registered proprietor, and that costs of the suit be awarded against the Defendants. **Analysis and Determination** 1. This matter was set down for formal proof hearing on 24th November 2025, the 1st and 2nd Defendants having neither entered appearance nor filed any Defence despite having been duly served through substituted service vide the Daily Nation dated 22nd August 2025, following orders for substituted service granted by this Court on 23rd July 2025 upon application by the Plaintiff. The 3rd Defendant similarly neither entered appearance nor filed any response to the suit despite being served. The Plaintiff solely testified as PW1 and produced her documents as listed in the List of Documents dated 14th October 2024. 2. It is trite that the failure by a Defendant to enter appearance or file a Defence does not relieve the Plaintiff of the burden of proving her case to the required standard. As was stated in **Mati & Another v Gicheru [2025] KEHC 2062 (KLR)**, ***“Though the appellant chose to rely on the documents and not adduce evidence, the Court erred by failing to interrogate the Respondent’s evidence on purely on the basis that the evidence was not controverted. The Court had a duty to determine whether the Respondent had proved its case on a balance of probabilities.”*** 1. The Court is not bound to enter Judgment in favour of a Plaintiff merely because the Defendant has not filed a Defence, and it remains the duty of the Court to satisfy itself that the Plaintiff has discharged the burden of proof to the requisite standard on the basis of the evidence placed before it. The standard of proof in civil matters is proof on a balance of probabilities, and that standard admits of no reduction merely because the matter proceeds by way of formal proof. This Court is accordingly guided and proceeds to evaluate the Plaintiff's case on its own merits. 2. Before embarking on an analysis of the evidence and the law, it is necessary to identify the issues that fall for determination in this matter. Having considered the Plaint, the evidence adduced by the Plaintiff at the formal proof hearing and the written submissions filed on her behalf, this Court identifies the following as the issues calling for resolution. 3. *First, whether the Plaintiff has established on a balance of probabilities that she is the rightful registered proprietor of Title Number Ruiru East Block 5/148.* 4. *Second, whether entries numbers 4, 5, 6 and 7 made in the register of the suit property in favour of the 1st and 2nd Defendants respectively were fraudulently and unlawfully obtained and ought therefore to be declared null and void ab initio.* 5. *Third, whether the 3rd Defendant is liable in negligence and breach of statutory duty for facilitating the registration of the impugned entries.* 6. *Fourth, whether this Court ought to exercise its power to order rectification of the register by cancelling the impugned entries and reinstating the Plaintiff as the sole registered proprietor of the suit property.* 7. *Fifth, who ought to bear the costs of the suit.* 8. As already stated, it is trite that the failure by a Defendant to enter appearance or file a Defence does not relieve the Plaintiff of the burden of proving her case to the required standard. For example, in **Kihara v Mathenge (Civil Appeal 86 of 2019) [2025] KEHC 7914**, the High Court, in an appellate capacity, emphasized that even with an interlocutory Judgment in place, the Court must be satisfied that a case was proved on its merits and that the Defendant’s inaction does not equate to an automatic win for the Plaintiff if no evidence is produced. 9. The standard of proof in civil matters is proof on a balance of probabilities, and that standard admits of no reduction merely because the matter proceeds by way of formal proof. This Court is accordingly guided and proceeds to evaluate the Plaintiff's case on its own merits. 10. See also the decision of the Court in **Kiema Muthuku v Kenya Cargo Handling Services Ltd [1991] 2 KAR 258**. 11. Furthermore, where fraud is alleged, as is the case here, the Courts have consistently held that the standard of proof, while remaining that of a balance of probabilities, tilts towards the higher end of that standard, given the gravity of the allegation. The Court of Appeal in **Kinyanjui Kamau v George Kamau Njoroge (2015) eKLR** observed that: ***“In the case, fraud cannot be imputed on the part of the Respondent by the mere fact that the record in relation to the subject property was missing at the Land Registry. To succeed in the claim for fraud, the appellant needed to not only plead and particularize it, but also lay a basis by way of evidence, upon which the Court would make a finding”.*** 1. Thus, fraud is a serious allegation which must be proved by clear, cogent and convincing evidence, and that a Court ought not lightly make a finding of fraud without being satisfied that the evidence before it adequately supports such a conclusion. This Court bears that caution firmly in mind as it evaluates the evidence before it. 2. **Whether the Plaintiff has established her ownership of the suit property** 3. The Plaintiff testified that she acquired the suit property, Title Number Ruiru East Block 5/148 measuring 0.0532 hectares situated in Kahawa Wendani Area, as a shareholder of Kiambu Wendani Women Investors Limited, having been issued with Share Certificate membership number 249. Upon the subdivision of the original property, Title Number Ruiru East Block 5/1 formerly LR No. 4899/2, she was allocated parcel number 148, which was duly recorded in the schedule of allocation of subplots of the Company's members and shareholders. She was thereafter issued with a Title Deed by the Kiambu District Land Registrar dated 12/01/1988. The Plaintiff produced before this Court the original Title Deed, the original Share Certificate, the schedule of original allottees of Kiambu Wendani Women Investors Limited, and a certified copy of the Green Card, all of which were admitted in evidence without challenge. 4. The starting point for any consideration of title to land under our laws is the provisions of the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012. Section 25(1) of the Act renders the rights of a registered proprietor paramount and indefeasible, free from all other interests and claims whatsoever. Section 26(1) of the same Act provides that a certificate of title issued by the Registrar shall be taken by all Courts as prima facie evidence that the person named as proprietor is the absolute and indefeasible owner, and that such title shall not be subject to challenge except on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation to which the person is proved to be a party, or where the certificate of title has been acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme. 5. The Supreme Court of Kenya in **Dina Management Limited v County Government of Mombasa & 5 Others, Petition No. 8 of 2021 (2023) eKLR** affirmed that the principle of indefeasibility of title is not a shield behind which parties who have acquired title through fraud or illegality may hide, and that the provisions of the Land Registration Act are clear that fraud or illegality at any stage of the registration process vitiates the title so acquired. The Plaintiff's title, having been issued in 1988 and remaining in her custody to date, is the original and primary title to the suit property. She has produced the original title deed, the Share Certificate and the schedule of allottees in support of her ownership, all of which stand uncontroverted before this Court. This Court is accordingly satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the Plaintiff is the rightful registered proprietor of Title Number Ruiru East Block 5/148. 6. **Whether the impugned entries were fraudulently obtained and are null and void** 7. The Plaintiff testified that she has never at any time transacted with the suit property since the issuance of her title in 1988, and that she does not know the 1st and 2nd Defendants and has never sold, transferred or in any other manner alienated the suit property to them or to any other person. She further testified that the dispute came to her attention in May 2017 when a group of six men trespassed upon the suit property claiming ownership under one George Kangata Mwangi. A search at the Land Registry revealed that entries 4, 5, 6 and 7 had been made in the register in favour of the 1st and 2nd Defendants respectively, all without her knowledge, consent or participation. Remarkably, the Plaintiff produced before this Court a Sworn Statutory Declaration by the 1st Defendant in **ELC E085/2022** in which he disavowed any interest in the suit property following the fraudulent transfer, a declaration that speaks volumes as to the fraudulent nature of entries 4 and 5 purportedly made in his favour. 8. The Environment and Land Court in **Arthi Highway Developers Limited v West End Butchery Limited & 6 Others (2015) eKLR** held that a title acquired through fraud or illegal processes cannot enjoy the protection of the law, and that the Court has both the jurisdiction and the duty to intervene to cancel such title and restore the register to its rightful state. The Court in that case further observed that the doctrine of indefeasibility of title is predicated upon the assumption that registration was effected lawfully and in accordance with the law, and that where that assumption is displaced by evidence of fraud, the Court will not hesitate to intervene. 9. The principle of *nemo dat quod non habet*, that a person cannot give what he does not have, is deeply embedded in the land law and has been consistently applied by the Courts in disputes of this nature. In **Munyu Maina v Hiram Gathiaya Maina (2013) eKLR**, the Court of Appeal stated that; ***"We have stated that when a registered proprietor's root of title is challenged, it is not sufficient to dangle the instrument [title deed] ... .”*** 1. The Court of Appeal affirmed that where the root of title is tainted by fraud, all subsequent dealings deriving from that root are equally void, because a fraudster acquires no valid title capable of being passed to another. In the present case, the Plaintiff has demonstrated that entries 4 and 5 in favour of the 1st Defendant were made without her knowledge or consent, and that the 1st Defendant himself executed a statutory declaration disavowing any interest in the suit property. It follows inexorably from the principle settled in **Munyu Maina** (**supra**) that the 2nd Defendant, whose entries 6 and 7 are derived from the 1st Defendant’s defective and fraudulent root, equally acquired no valid title. 2. This position finds further support in the decisions of **Hubert L. Martin & 2 Others v Margaret J. Kamar & 5 Others (2016) eKLR**, **Samuel Odhiambo Oludhe & 2 Others v Jubilee Jumbo Hardware Ltd & Another (2018) eKLR**, **Alice Chemutai Too v Nickson Kipkurui Korir & 2 Others (2015) eKLR**, and **Samuel Kamere v Lands Registrar, Kajiado (2015) eKLR**, all of which are to the consistent effect that no person can acquire valid title through fraud, and that a transfer executed without the authority, knowledge or participation of the registered proprietor is a nullity incapable of conferring any proprietary right upon the transferee, however many hands the property may subsequently pass through. 3. This Court is accordingly satisfied on a balance of probabilities, supported by clear and cogent evidence, that entries numbers 4, 5, 6 and 7 were fraudulently and unlawfully made without the knowledge, consent or participation of the Plaintiff, and are consequently null and void *ab initio* and of no legal effect whatsoever. 4. **Whether the 3rd Defendant is liable in negligence and breach of statutory duty** 5. On the role of the 3rd Defendant, this Court finds merit in the Plaintiff's contention that the Land Registrar was negligent and breached his statutory duty by facilitating the registration of the impugned entries without verifying the original schedule of allocation and without the participation of the Plaintiff as the registered proprietor. 6. In **Republic v Kisumu District Lands Officer & Another exparte M & L Gateway Ltd & 4 Others (2010/2011)**, the Court held that a Land Registrar who registers a transfer without due regard to the safeguards established by law to protect registered proprietors is liable for the consequences of that failure. The Court nullified a first registration under the Registered Land Act (RLA), challenging the total indefeasibility of titles, particularly when fraud or improper procedure is involved. 7. Similarly, in **Super Nova Properties Limited & Another v District Land Registrar Mombasa & 2 Others (2018) eKLR**, the Court made it clear that a Land Registrar has a duty to satisfy himself as to the validity and authenticity of documents presented for registration, and that failure to exercise that duty diligently cannot be used to legitimise fraudulently obtained entries on the register. 8. The 3rd Defendant's failure in the present case to verify the authenticity of the documents presented for registration against the original schedule of allottees and the Plaintiff's original title deed represents a dereliction of statutory duty that this Court cannot countenance. Underscoring a pattern of reckless negligence by custodians who act as mere conduits rather than diligent stewards of the public record. 9. I will say a little bit more here on what seems to be perennial reckless behaviour of Land Registrars and it is time this has to be addressed. Prior to 2010, a Registrar's conduct was almost entirely statutory. The 2010 Constitution changed that. Articles 47 on Fair Administrative Action, Article 73 on leadership and integrity and Article 232 on public service values now impose independent constitutional standards on every Registrar. Violating them is not just a disciplinary matter it is a constitutional wrong that Courts have jurisdiction to remedy under Article 165(3)(b). 10. The [**Frank Logistics Limited v Golden Lion Real Estate Company & 6 Others (Civil Appeal E303 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1471 (KLR) (12 September 2025)**](https://www.google.com/search?q=Frank+Logistics+Limited+v+Golden+Lion+Real+Estate+Company+%26+6+others+%28Civil+Appeal+E303+of+2024%29+%5B2025%5D+KECA+1471+%28KLR%29+%2812+September+2025%29&newwindow=1&sca_esv=8973cab98d98f2bf&sxsrf=ANbL-n5ameNCPHoMEuvfCu6FjrEZ00M-bQ%3A1777377711001&ei=rqHwae3SPPi39u8Pu6uK-A4&biw=1366&bih=599&ved=2ahUKEwjeiLSuwJCUAxWK_7sIHWwuPWEQgK4QegQIARAB&uact=5&oq=Give+me+citation+of+Frank+Logistics+case+being+an+appeal+from+Mogeni+J&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiRkdpdmUgbWUgY2l0YXRpb24gb2YgRnJhbmsgTG9naXN0aWNzIGNhc2UgYmVpbmcgYW4gYXBwZWFsIGZyb20gTW9nZW5pIEpIpG1Q2wdYpGhwDXgAkAEAmAH4AaABrDyqAQcwLjE5LjE5uAEDyAEA-AEBmAIVoALMIsICCBAAGO8FGLADwgILEAAYgAQYogQYsAPCAgsQABiJBRiiBBiwA8ICBRAhGKABwgIEECEYFcICBxAhGAoYoAGYAwCIBgGQBgSSBwYxLjEuMTmgB-BGsgcGMC4xLjE5uAfHIsIHBjEuMTguMsgHKoAIAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp&mstk=AUtExfBHH4e_CTePA2niRrz8nSsxMa17iuErrf5MWuIWIHWcusvu114R366Wi3yY6dvm7LukIcJJL2-Y3HQZcxZzdzqNdxIB0Iczc_NHpXIRXouKOIaMu-e9lvIPLsUQr8bcyzRuuhYPoCfGjfnufvp1ASDMmSXZPFTer32bv9_iioDAypeRP3FQLPnHdmrbjVC3Ik9lPEXs9fSFgG6UKrh35NwRnu2YQNdsQVqMl0GzHM5x5cE9RE3S5hPIit5w72vhR3u1wjdzjwwcqa3Ahv-CmKqyIn1k62Elin7bEhBUeIJ8MA&csui=3)*.* This Court of Appeal Judgment arose from a decision by Mogeni J in the **Environment and Land Court of Kenya at Nairobi in ELC Civil Case No. 792 of 2015**gave detailed judicial attention to document irregularities traceable to the registry itself. That is the toehold. 11. Indeed, the existing law already contains everything needed and the Courts have simply never stitched it together and pointed it at the officer rather than the parties. The pivot being Section 81(4) of the Land Registration Act, which allows the Government to recover indemnity paid from the person who caused the loss. That provision has never been seriously litigated against a Registrar personally. That time is nigh. 12. **Whether the register ought to be rectified** 13. The power of this Court to order rectification of the register where entries have been obtained by fraud is expressly conferred by Section 80(1) of the Land Registration Act, 2012, which empowers the Court to direct the cancellation or amendment of any registration obtained by fraud or mistake. As was affirmed in **Elijah Makeri Nyangw'a v Stephen Mungai Njuguna & Another (2013) eKLR**, only a Court of law bears the mandate to cancel a title obtained through fraud or illegality, and the register must be rectified to reflect the true state of ownership once fraud is established to the satisfaction of the Court. It would be a perversion of justice for this Court to decline to exercise that power in the face of the clear evidence of fraud placed before it. The register must be rectified to restore the Plaintiff to her rightful position as the sole registered proprietor of the suit property. 14. **Who bears the costs?** 15. On the question of costs, it is trite law that costs follow the event and are awarded at the discretion of the Court. The Plaintiff has been put to the expense of filing and prosecuting this suit as a consequence of the unlawful and fraudulent actions of the Defendants, and it is only just and proper that she be awarded the costs of the suit. **Final Determination** 1. Taking the totality of the evidence before this Court, this Court finds that the Plaintiff has proved her case on a balance of probabilities across all the issues identified for determination. She has established to the satisfaction of this Court that she is the original registered proprietor of Title Number Ruiru East Block 5/148, that she has never sold, transferred or otherwise alienated the suit property to any person, that entries 4, 5, 6 and 7 were made in the register without her knowledge, consent or participation, that the said entries are tainted by fraud and are therefore null and void *ab initio*, and that the 3rd Defendant facilitated the making of the impugned entries in breach of his statutory duty and without proper verification of the underlying documents. 2. In the premises, this Court enters Judgment in favour of the Plaintiff as follows: 3. ***This Court declares that entries numbers 4 and 5 in favour of the 1st Defendant and entries numbers 6 and 7 in favour of the 2nd Defendant in the register of Title Number Ruiru East Block 5/148 were made fraudulently, unlawfully and without the knowledge or consent of the Plaintiff, and are accordingly null and void ab initio and of no legal effect whatsoever.*** 4. ***A permanent injunction is hereby issued restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants, whether by themselves, their agents, employees, servants or any persons claiming under them howsoever, from selling, disposing, pledging, alienating, taking possession or in any other manner interfering with the Plaintiff's ownership of Title Number Ruiru East Block 5/148.*** 5. ***A further permanent injunction is hereby issued restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants from effecting any changes or alterations to the state and condition of the suit property or any part thereof.*** 6. ***The 3rd Defendant is hereby directed to cancel entries numbers 4, 5, 6 and 7 from the Land Register in respect of Title Number Ruiru East Block 5/148 and to rectify the said register so as to reinstate the Plaintiff as the sole registered proprietor of the suit property.*** 7. ***This Court further declares that the Plaintiff's title in respect of Title Number Ruiru East Block 5/148 is the valid and bona fide title to the suit property.*** 8. ***The costs of this suit are awarded to the Plaintiff against the Defendants jointly and severally.*** 9. It is so ordered. **DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT THIKA VIA VIDEOLINK THIS 12TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.** **………………………** **MOGENI J** **JUDGE** **In the presence of:** Mr. Gabriel Gathumbi for the Plaintiff Defendants – Absent Mr. Melita - Court Assistant **………………………** **MOGENI J** **JUDGE**