https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4579

Mwaura v Earthline Properties Ltd & 11 others (Environment and Land Case 774 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 4579 (KLR) (9 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 4579 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Thika Environment and Land Case 774 of 2017 JG Kemei, J July 9, 2026 Between Joseph KIhara Mwaura Plaintiff and Earthline Properties Limited 1st Defendant Merwin Holdings Limited 2nd Defendant Merclaire Holdings limited 3rd Defendant Arbee Logistics Limited 4th Defendant Samuel Karonji Kimani 5th Defendant Patrick Mbau Malika 6th Defendant Hiram Kago Mukuna 7th Defendant Michael Muhia Kinuthia 8th Defendant Gladys Karambu Miriti 9th Defendant Judy Wanja Kigettah 10th Defendant Chief land Registrar 11th Defendant Hon Attorney General 12th Defendant Judgment The pleadings 1.On 3/10/2017, the Plaintiff, the administrator of the estate of his late father, Mwaura Muturi [hereinafter called Muturi], vide Succession No CMCC No 161 of 2005 at Kiambu, instituted this suit against the Defendants and sought the following orders;a.A permanent injunction be issued against the Defendants restraining by themselves, their servant, agents, employees, buyer, or anyone else claiming through them from selling, disposing, advertising for sale, interfering, trespassing, charging or in any other manner interfering with all resultant titles Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9818, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9819, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9820, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9821, Ruiru/Kiu 2/9822, Ruiru Kiu Block 2/9823, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9824, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9825, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9826, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9827 arising from the subdivision of the mother land parcel Ruiru/Kiu Block 2 (Githunguri)/3929 [suit land].b.A declaration that the deceased Mwaura Muturi is the legal owner of all that parcel of land known as Ruiru/Kiu Block 2(Githunguri)/3929 and the resultant titles Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9818, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9819, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9820, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9821, Ruiru/Kiu 2/9822, Ruiru Kiu Block 2/9823, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9824, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9825, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9826, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9827 thereof.c.A declaration that the registration of the 1st Defendant as the owner of Ruiru/Kiu BLOCK 2/3229 by the 12th Defendant and subsequent transfers to 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th is unlawful and fraudulent and the Titles thereof were improperly procured and the same should be cancelled.d.Nullification or cancellation of the subdivision of L.R No. Ruiru/Kiu BLOCK 2(Githunguri)/3229 into Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9818, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9819, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9820, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9821, Ruiru/Kiu 2/9822, Ruiru Kiu Block 2/9823, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9824, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9825, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9826, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9827 and the subsequent transfers plus title deeds thereto and restoration of the original LR Ruiru/Kiu BLOCK 2/3229.e.An order that the register of the land parcel Ruiru/Kiu Block 2(Githunguri)/3929 and the resultant Titles Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9818, 9819, 9820, 9821, 9822, 9823, 9824, 9825, 982 and 9827 be rectified, so as to remove the entries in favour of Earthline Properties Limited, Merwin Holdings Limited, Merclaire Holdings Limited Arbee Logistics Limitd, Samuel Karonji Kimani, Patrick Karambu Miriti, Hiram Kago Mukuna, Michael Muhia Kinuthia, Gladys Karambu Miriti, Judy Wanja Kigettah and the title to revert back to the proprietorship of Mwaura Muturif.That this Honourable Court be pleased to order the eviction of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th Defendants herein from land known as Ruiru/Kiu BLOCK 2(Githunguri)/3929 and the resultant titles Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9818, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9819, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9820, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9821, Ruiru/Kiu 2/9822, Ruiru Kiu Block 2/9823, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9824, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9825, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9826, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9827 forthwith.g.That the O.C.S Ruiru Police Station to ensure compliance of the orders. 2.It is averred that Muturi acquired the suit land from Githunguri Ranching Company Limited [GRCL] that allotted shares to him as a member of the Company. He paid the requisite fees for the share and plot allocation and was issued a certificate of clearance, resulting in the registration of title in his favour on 5/2/92. Thereafter, he took possession of the land, and subsequent searches continued to show him as the registered proprietor of the suit land. 3.It is the Plaintiff’s averment that in or about the year 2009 he discovered that the 1st Defendant had unlawfully and fraudulently procured title to the suit property, thereafter subdividing it into several portions and disposing of them to the 2nd -10th Defendants, thereby depriving the estate of the late Mwaura Muturi and its beneficiaries of their proprietary rights. The Plaintiff has set out the particulars of fraud with specificity in paragraph 12 of the plaint, including the alleged irregular acquisition of title, unlawful subdivision, and subsequent transfers made in disregard of the estate’s interest. 4.The 1st Defendant denied the Plaintiff's claim and contended that it purchased the property from GRCL through share certificate No B603 – Ballot No 1158, after carrying out due diligence at the Lands Office to identify the duly registered owner of the land and obtaining the necessary consents from the Land Control Board. It was its position that Muturi's land was parcel 349 and not the suit land. Furthermore, the GRCL register did not list Muturi as a member of the company, and the company acquired the land as a bona fide purchaser for value. After taking possession, it subdivided the land and sold it to the 2nd and 10th Defendants. It urged the Court to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim with costs. 5.The 2nd to 10th Defendants denied the Plaintiff's claim and contend that they are bona fide purchasers of the plots from the 1st Defendant for value, having carried out due diligence that identified the 1st Defendant as the duly registered owner of the suit land. In their counterclaim, they sought the following orders;a.A declaration that the 2nd-10th Defendants are bonafide purchases for value without notice of the suit properties respectively namely; Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9818, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9819, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9820, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9821, Ruiru/Kiu 2/9822, Ruiru Kiu Block 2/9823, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9824, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9825, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9826, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9827 and as such the legal and rightful owner as well as the registered proprietors thereof.b.A declaration that the 2nd – 10th Defendants, being the registered proprietors are entitled to the ownership occupation use and enjoyment of the suit properties respectively namely; Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9818, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9819, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9820, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9821, Ruiru/Kiu 2/9822, Ruiru Kiu Block 2/9823, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9824, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9825, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9826, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9827.c.A permanent injunction does issue, restraining the Plaintiff and/or the 1st, 11th and 12th Defendants, whether by themselves, their agents, servants, employees, assigns, or whosoever, from offering for sale, selling, disposing of, transferring, subdividing, taking possession, occupying, alienating, and/or in any other manner dealing with and/or interfering with the 2nd to 10th Defendants' quiet possession and ownership of the suit properties, respectively known as; Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9818, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9819, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9820, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9821, Ruiru/Kiu 2/9822, Ruiru Kiu Block 2/9823, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9824, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9825, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9826, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9827.d.Nullification and cancellation of the title deed for all that parcel of land being the suit land held by the Plaintiff if at all.e.Costs of the suit 6.The 11th and 12th did not file any statement in defence of the suit. The evidence adduced at the hearing 7.Joseph Kihara Mwaura testified as PW1 and stated that he is the son of the late Muturi and the administrator of his father's estate. He relied on his witness statement dated 3/10/2017 as his evidence in chief and produced documents marked PEX Nos 1-12. 8.In summary, he stated that, according to the register of members in his custody, Muturi was a member of GRCL and, upon payment of the requisite fees, was issued ballot No 1158 and allocated plot No 3929, measuring 1.025 acres. Armed with a clearance certificate dated 22/1/1992 issued by GRCL, he was registered as proprietor of the suit land and issued a title on 5/2/96, as evidenced by official land searches issued in 2000 and 2007, respectively. He further stated that Muturi took possession of the land and that the witness had previously farmed it with his father. He showed the Court the original title in Muturi’s name, which he kept after his father’s demise. 9.Upon Muturi’s death, the witness stated that he petitioned for the successful succession of the estate and obtained a grant of administration; however, he could not transmit the asset to the beneficiaries of the estate as he discovered that the 1st Defendant had illegally and fraudulently caused the title of the suit land to be registered in its name and had subdivided it into several portions for sale to the 2nd – 10th Defendants. He lodged a complaint with GRCL, who confirmed that, according to their records, the land belonged to Muturi. He also filed a complaint with the Criminal Investigation Department [DCI] at Kiambu, where the director of the 1st Defendant was charged with forgery and obtaining by false pretences. 10.During cross-examination, the witness informed the Court that, in addition to the suit land, his father owned other plots from GRCL, including plot No 349 [ clearance certificate dated 31/7/95], 4036, T.570 and 976, which are not in dispute. He stated that he did not know who occupied the suit land, except that it was fenced with a perimeter wall. He added that he sued the 11th Defendant for fraudulently issuing a title to the 1st Defendant, yet, Muturi owned the land. 11.PW2 – John Maina Mburu testified and relied on his witness statement dated 18/10/2009 and produced documents in support of his testimony marked as PEX No 13-17. 12.The witness introduced himself as the chairman of GCRL from 12/9/2009 to date. He stated that, according to the company's records, the land belongs to Muturi, who held ballot No 1158 upon payment of the requisite fees. Based on the clearance certificate, the land allotted by GCRL and was issued with a title in 1996. He stated that, according to the records available at the offices of GCRL, Hannah Wanjiku Thigo was not a member of GCRL, nor did she ballot for or own any parcel of land. He disowned the clearance certificate dated 16/7/2009, issued to the 1st Defendant, on the ground that it did not emanate from GCRL, because the then chairman of GCRL, James Kamau Njoroge, was blind and signed documents only by thumbprint, not by signature. 13.He cast doubt on the authenticity of the clearance certificate dated 30/6/2009, which preceded the sale agreement dated 2/7/2009. In addition, he noted that the clearance certificate dated 30/6/2009 referred to share certificate No. 289, yet the 1st Defendant presented a share certificate No 603. In his experience, no land possessed two share certificates. 14.Further, he added that the 1st Defendant was not a shareholder of GCRL. That GCRL was incorporated in 1968, when members bought shares, and that the entire land was allocated to its members between 1983 and 1984. That there were neither new members nor unallocated land after 1984. That, as parcel No 3929 had been allocated to Muturi in 1992, the land was not available for clearance to the 1st Defendant by GCRL, which, at that point, held no title to the said plot. Furthermore, that having been shown the green card for plot 3929 when he visited the lands office, he wondered how the 11th Defendant issued a title to the 1st Defendant in the face of the current title being held by Muturi, deceased. He questioned how the share certificate No 603 dated 30/6/2009 could have come before the sale agreement dated 2/7/2009, save to term it a forgery. 15.He explained that, due to the large number of members and for ease of processing titles, GRCL handed over the original title to the Chief Land Registrar to facilitate the transfer of the plots to its members on its behalf. This explains why the land was registered under the Government of Kenya as the 1st entry on the green card. He also stated that its members were not paying any stamp duty on the acquisition of shares in the company. GCRL presented the documents for registration to the Land Registrar on behalf of its members. 16.PW3 - PC No 67487 – Thomas Kareithi stated that he investigated the complaint lodged by the Plaintiff regarding the alleged fraud by the 1st Defendant. He sought documents from the Lands Office and, among others, was given a copy of the clearance certificate dated 30/6/2009, which was used to register the land in favour of the 1st Defendant. Francis Karianja, who purported to have signed the clearance, disowned it, as seen in the letter dated 24/2/2017. Mr Kinuthia, a director of the 1st Defendant, was unable to explain how he acquired the land, and his co-director, his wife, was unaware that she was a director of the 1st Defendant in the first place. Mr Kinuthia was charged in Kiambu with forgery, uttering a false document contrary to Section 353 of the Penal Code, and obtaining registration by false pretences contrary to Section 320 of the Penal Code; however, the case was closed following his demise. He added that the Plaintiff held an original title in the name of Muturi, deceased; however, the supporting documents at the Lands Office were missing. He also stated that he visited the land in July 2009 and found it unoccupied and unfenced, save for trenches that had been dug up. Further, the clearance certificate dated 16/9/2009 was not in the parcel file. 17.DW1 – Esther Mumbi Kinuthia relied on her witness statement dated 20/12/2022 and produced documents marked DEX Nos 1-1-12 in support of the 1st Defendant's defence. She stated that she was a co-director and the wife of the late Francis Njoroge Kinuthia, who handled the transaction. 18.She stated that the 1st Defendant purchased the land from Hannah Wanjiku Thigo under a sale agreement dated 2/7/2009, evidenced by share certificate No B0545, Ballot No 1158, issued by GRCL. Although she stated that the 1st Defendant carried out due diligence, she was unable to present any evidence in support before the Court, either from GRCL or the Lands Office. Thereafter, a share certificate was issued to the 1st Defendant in GRCL No 603. Under a clearance certificate dated 30/6/2009, issued by GRCL, the 1st Defendant was registered as proprietor of the suit land. She did not present any share certificate before the Court. Thereafter, the 1st Defendant subdivided the land and sold the portions to the 2nd -10th Defendants. 19.Regarding the sale agreement, she stated that it was not signed by her but by a person named James Njuguna, unknown to her. She stated that she was unaware of the clearance certificate dated 30/6/2009, but was aware of the one dated 16/7/2009. She admitted that her husband was charged with a criminal case at Kiambu law Courts for forgery of the clearance certificate dated 30/6/2009, but the case collapsed after his demise. She stated that following the transfer of the land to the 2nd –10th Defendants, the 1st Defendant retained no interest in the suit land. 20.DW2 – Samuel Karonji Kimani testified on his own behalf and that of the 2nd–10th Defendants. He relied on his witness statement dated 16/1/2018 in evidence in chief and produced documents marked as DEX No 13 -18 in support of their defence and counterclaim. 21.The witness stated that he purchased land from the 1st Defendant and is a bona fide purchaser without notice of any taint, having conducted due diligence at the land office, which showed that the 1st Defendant is the registered owner. Although he stated that he purchased the land for Kshs 2 Million, he produced no evidence in support: no stamp duty payment on the transfer and no receipt for the transfer fees. He was unaware that the Plaintiff’s father owned the land, as the title search showed that the land was owned by the 1st Defendant. He acquired vacant possession of the plot, fenced it, and developed houses thereon. 22.DW3 – Robert Mugendi Mbuba testified and identified himself as the Land Registrar, Ruiru, since 2019. He relied on his witness statement dated 5/9/2023 and produced documents marked DE Nos 19-21 in support of this defence. He stated that, according to the land records at the registry, the suit land was registered in the name of the 1st Defendant as at 16/9/2009, and that the land was later subdivided into several plots, prompting the closure of the original title. He further stated that the land was subsequently transferred to the 2nd to 10th Defendants, and that their records contain no evidence that either Muturi or the Plaintiff is registered as an owner of the suit land. 23.In further testimony, the witness confirmed that the transfer on record was not executed; not attested; not stamped for stamp duty; not signed by the Commissioner of Land; not booked for registration; and not dated. In itself, it could not have been used to register a title. Although the title was issued on 16/9/2009, the same date on which the green card was opened, there is no illegality about it. All requisite processes were followed for the subdivision mutation and the registration of the sub-titles. When shown the title of the Plaintiffs father, he confirmed that the signature appearing on the title is that of Mr Akwella, a retired Land Registrar known to him. He stated that the clearance certificate dated 30/6/2009 is the basis for the registration of the land in the name of the 1st Defendant, not the one dated 16/9/2009. He denied any fraud or conspiracy to commit fraud by his office and stated that he is leading evidence based on the documents on record. He stated that before 2012, the Commissioner of Land would transfer the plots to GCRL members on behalf of the company, but not anymore. He stated that he is unable to dispute GRCL's position that the land belongs to Muturi, given that the land emanated from the company, which would have the records of who the true allottee/member between the protagonists currently before the Court was. Further, he confirmed that the title search dated 26/4/2000 belonged to a Land Registrar named Njambi who is now retired and was known to him. The written submissions 24.As directed by the Court, all the parties have filed written submissions, which I have read and considered. I thank counsel for their insights and diligence. Analysis and determination 25.Having considered the pleadings, the evidence adduced at the hearing, and the written submissions and case law, the issues that commend themselves for determination are;a.Whether the Plaintiff has proven fraud on the part of the Defendantsb.Whether the 2nd to 10th Defendants are bona fide purchasers of title or whether they acquired any valid title.c.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the orders soughtd.Who meets the cost of the suit? 26.It is undisputed that the land in question originates from GCRL, a public company that acquired extensive parcels of land in the early 1980s. The company recruited members who purchased shares with the purpose of land allocation. These members would ballot and would be allocated land upon payment of the required fees. Their names would be entered into the company's register. The land was subsequently surveyed and beaconed; the beacons were visibly marked, and the beneficiaries issued clearance certificates, facilitating their registration as titleholders at the Lands Office. The process of land alienation was relatively straightforward; however, as evidenced by numerous Court cases, it has been compromised by fraudsters seeking to unlawfully acquire land whose value has been rising in recent times. 27.The Plaintiff alleged fraud against the Defendants. The 1st Defendant asserts that it obtained a valid title from Hannah Wanjiku Thigo and clearance from GRCL, resulting in the registration and issuance of the title on 16/9/2009. The 2nd to 10th Defendants hold subsequent titles arising from the subdivision of the primary title and the transfer of these subdivisions by the 1st Defendant. They maintain that their titles were acquired in good faith and with consideration to the 1st Defendant after exercising due diligence; consequently, they urge that the Court recognise their bona fides and uphold their titles. The 11th Defendant urges that the Court declare it blameless, as records in its custody indicate that the 1st Defendant was the registered owner of the suit land. They lack documentation to substantiate the claim that a title was issued to Muturi, even though the Plaintiff possesses the original title. 28.It is trite that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on the person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on the person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless any law provides that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person. So critical is the question of proof that under Section 116 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof that the suit land belongs to the Plaintiffs has been placed on the shoulders of the Plaintiff and the 2nd – 10th Defendants in the present case. Section 116 states as follows;“When the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner.” 29.In this case therefore the Court finds that the burden therefore rests with both the Plaintiff on his plaint and the 2nd -10th Defendants on their counterclaim to show that the suit land does not belong to the 1st and the 2nd – 10th Defendants and vice versa. 30.The gist and thrust of the present case is that there are two tiles issued to two sets of supposed land owners over one parcel of land. Double titles, however, created are outlawed in Kenya as each parcel must have one title at any one time. What is expected of the Court in such a scenario? I refer to the case of Hubert L. Martin & 2 Others v Margaret J. Kamar & 5 Others [2016] eKLR, which states as follows;“Of course, the issuance of two titles is not contemplated in the law and strictly speaking should not happen… 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.” 31.Back to the present dispute, it is not disputed that the case of the Plaintiff is anchored on fraud. It is his case that his title was fraudulently registered in the name of the 1st Defendant and illegally subdivided and transferred to the 2nd -10th Defendants. It is trite that fraud cannot be inferred from the facts of the case but must be pleaded and proved to a standard that is lower than beyond reasonable doubt obtainable in criminal cases and higher than the balance of probabilities in civil cases. Looking at the pleadings on record, the Court is satisfied that the Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded and particularised fraud. 32.Black’s Law Dictionary defines fraud as follows;“Fraud consists of some deceitful practice or willful device, resorted to with intent to deprive another of his right, or in some manner to do him an injury. As distinguished from negligence, it is always positive, intentional. As applied to contracts, it is the cause of an error bearing on a material part of the contract, created or continued by artifice, with design to obtain some unjust advantage to the one party, or to cause an inconvenience or loss to the other. Fraud, in the sense of a Court of equity, properly includes all acts, omissions, and concealments which involve a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence justly reposed, and are injurious to another, or by which an undue and unconscientious advantage is taken of another”. 33.In the case of R.G. Patel versus Lalji Makanji (1957) EA 314 it was stated as follows:“Allegations of fraud must be strictly proved: although the standard of proof may not be so heavy as to require proof beyond reasonable doubt, something more than a mere balance of probabilities is required.” 34.Section 26 of the RLA provides ways in which a title may be impeached. It states as follows;“ 26.(1)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; orb.where the certificate of title has been acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme” 35.To answer the question posed above, the Court will examine the evidence led at the hearing, coupled with the documentary evidence placed before it. 36.PW1 and PW2 led evidence that Muturi was the registered owner of the suit land. According to the evidence placed before the Court, the root of title is traced to GRCL. Documents in support of ownership include a share certificate No 3033 for 100 shares issued in the early 1980s; a receipt dated 10/3/1988 for payment of the completion of shares, on which share certificate No 3033 is endorsed; the company's share register showing Mwaura Muturi, ID No 0971668/63 [this ID No is also endorsed on the receipt aforesaid]; and ballot No 1158 for plot No 3929. 37.My analysis of the above documents leaves no doubt that Muturi was a member of the GCRL; acquired shares in the company; paid for those shares; balloted for the land; was issued a ballot for the beaconed land; and had his name entered in the members' register. All of these aligns with the process for members of the GCRL to acquire land, as adduced by PW2, the GCRL's chairman in Court. 38.Evidence was also led to show that Muturi acquired other parcels of land from GRCL, and therefore the Court finds that the 1st Defendant's contention that Muturi owned only plot No 349 is untrue. I say so because the clearance certificate dated 21/7/1995 was for residential plot No. 349, not 3929, which was a shamba. PW2 led evidence that each member holding 100 shares was entitled to three parcels of land, namely a 1/8-acre residential plot, a 1.25-acre shamba, and a ¼-acre plot. Therefore, plot No 349 was the residential component of Muturi’s holding in GRCL. 39.Evidence was presented that Muturi was issued a clearance certificate dated 22/1/1992, as confirmed by a letter addressed to the Land Registrar, Kiambu, which stated that Muturi was the lawful owner of plot No 3929 in Block 2, Ballot No 1158, and requested that the Land Registrar issue him a title. PW1 indicated that, pursuant to this clearance certificate, Muturi was issued a title on 5/2/1996 for Ruiru/Kiu/BLOCK2 [GITHUNGURI]/3929, upon payment of the registration fees, as evidenced by the receipt dated 29/1/1995. Additionally, he [Muturi] took possession of the subject land and engaged in farming activities until his death. PW1 stated that, subsequent to his death, the land was included as part of the estate assets, and, in his capacity as an administrator, he regularly conducted searches to ensure that the land remained under his control. For instance, searches dated 26/4/2000 and 17/6/2007 confirmed Muturi’s registration as the legal owner of the land in question. Although unchallenged, the signatures of the Land Registrars on the title and the searches were verified by DW3, the current Land Registrar of Ruiru. Unchallenged evidence was led by PW2, the chairman of GRCL, that he had physically seen the green card for the suit land at the Lands office at Ruiru. Referring to the letters dated 30/6/2016 addressed to the Land Registrar and the Director of Criminal Investigations, PW2 confirmed that, according to GRCL's records, the suit land belonged to Muturi and urged the Land Registrar to register a restriction to prevent fraudulent sales to unsuspecting members of the public. 40.That it was in the process of transmitting the suit land to the beneficiaries of the estate of Muturi that the Plaintiff discovered that a title had been issued to the 1st Defendant. 41.According to the evidence so far analysed, it is clear that Mwaura Muturi acquired land from GRCL and obtained a title for it. 42.I will now examine the documentary evidence led by the 1st Defendant as to its acquisition of the land. 43.The 1st Defendant averred that it acquired the suit land from Hannah Wanjiku Thigo vide a sale agreement dated 2/7/2009. In the said sale agreement, Ms Thigo's interest is stated as share B0545/Ballot No 1158, measuring 1.25 acres within GRCL. The said vendor was to hand over the original share certificate and other necessary documents to the 1st Defendant. DW1, a director of the 1st Defendant, informed the Court that she had no original share certificate from Ms Thigo. PW2 informed the Court that neither Ms Thigo nor the 1st Defendant were members of GRCL. 44.The share certificate dated 30/06/2009 was challenged on the ground that it did not originate from GRCL, as the members' register shows that none of the parties involved is listed as a member. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the transfer fees were paid to GRCL. The record contains two clearance certificates, dated 30/06/2009 and 16/07/2009. DW1 informed the Court that the land was registered in the name of the 1st Defendant pursuant to the clearance dated 16/09/2009. However, both clearances were disowned by PW2, the chairman of GRCL, on the ground that Karianja, who purportedly signed, refuted his signature vide the letter dated 24/2/2017, and the then chairman, who was blind, could only execute by thumbprint. This evidence was not contested by the 1st Defendant. DW1 acknowledged the clearance dated 16/07/2009, not 30/06/2009, to address the discrepancy arising from the clearance preceding the sale agreement. It is uncontested that the Land Registrar, together with PC Kareithi, confirmed to the Court that the clearance upon which the title was registered was the one dated 30/06/2009, prior to the execution of the sale agreement. 45.It is to be noted that, as at 2009, GRCL had no land to clear in favour of the 1st Defendant because it had already cleared the land for Muturi, who held a title. The Court finds that, in the absence of any share certificate or member registration for Ms Thigo, it cannot hold that she held any interest or title in the suit land. None has been demonstrated, and the conclusion is that she was but an imposter or an effigy created by the 1st Defendant to defraud the estate of Muturi. 46.Furthermore, the transfer of the suit land as presented by the 1st Defendant constitutes the subsequent focal point of discourse. PW2 and DW3 affirmed that, prior to 2012, the Government of Kenya, through the Commissioner of Lands, executed land transfers in favor of allottees on behalf of GRCL. The record indicates a transfer from the Government of Kenya to the 1st Defendant. However, this transfer was neither executed by the Commissioner of Lands nor attested. Regarding the 1st Defendant, the transfer was not executed under seal nor was the seal attested; only photographs of two individuals, purportedly gentlemen, were affixed. Moreover, the transfer was not executed by the Land Registrar, and DW3 confirmed that the transfer could not have conveyed any interest in land, let alone to the 1st Defendant. 47.Registration of land in this country is a matter of law. Section 36 of the Land Registration Act [LRA] provides that a lease, charge or interest in land shall not be disposed of or dealt with except in accordance with this Act, and any attempt to dispose of any lease, charge or interest in land otherwise than in accordance with this Act or any other law, shall not, extinguish, transfer, vary or affect any right or interest in that land, or in the land, lease or charge. 48.Section 37 of the said Act provides that;“A proprietor may transfer land, a lease or a charge to any person with or without consideration, by an instrument in the prescribed form or in such other form as the Registrar may in any particular case approve.(2)A transfer shall be completed by-a.filing the instrument; andb.registration of the transferee as proprietor of the land, lease or charge.” 49.The Act provides that the transfer instrument must be executed. Section 44 provides as follows;“ 44.Executions of instruments in writing.1.Except as otherwise provided in this Act, every instrument effecting any disposition under this Act shall be executed by each of the parties consenting to it, in accordance with the provisions of this section.2.The execution of any instrument referred to in subsection (1), by a person shall consist of appending a person’s signature on it or affixing the thumbprint or other mark as evidence of personal acceptance of that instrument.3.The execution of any instrument referred to in section (1) by a corporate body, association, cooperative society or other organization shall be effected in accordance with the provisions of the relevant applicable law and in the absence of provisions on execution of instruments, the execution shall be effected in the presence of either an advocate of the High Court of Kenya, a Magistrate, a Judge or a notary public.3A) Where practicable, an instrument processed and executed electronically by persons consenting to it by way of an advanced electronic signature or an electronic signature shall be deemed to be a validly executed document.4.An instrument executed outside Kenya shall not be registered unless it has been endorsed or is accompanied by a certificate in the prescribed form completed by a notary public or such other person as the Cabinet Secretary may prescribe.5.The transferee shall in addition to executing the instrument, attach the following-a.a copy of an identity card or passport; andb.a copy of a Personal Identification Number certificate;c.passport-size photographs;d.where applicable, a marriage certificate; ore.a copy of the certificate of incorporation, in the case of a corporate entity; orf.such other identification documents as the Cabinet Secretary may prescribe(Act No. 28 of 2016, S.18, Act No. 1 of 2020, S. 24) 45.Verification of execution.1.Subject to subsection (3), a person executing an instrument shall-a.appear before the Registrar, Public Officer or other person as is prescribed; andb.be accompanied by a credible witness for the purpose of establishing identity, unless the person is known to the Registrar, public officer or other person.2.The Registrar, Public Officer or other person shall identify the person and ascertain whether the person freely and voluntarily executed the instrument, and shall complete thereon a certificate to that effect.3.The Registrar my dispense with verification under this section-a.if the Registrar considers that it cannot be obtained or it can only be obtained only with difficulty and is otherwise satisfied that the document has been properly executed;b.if the Registrar knows the document has been properly executed, and shall record on the document the reasons for dispensing with the appearance of the parties; orc.if the instrument has been electronically processed and executed by the parties consenting to it.[Act No. 1 of 2020, S. 25.] 46.StampingAn instrument required by law to be stamped shall not be accepted for registration unless it is stamped in accordance with the Stamp Duty Act, Cap. 480.” 50.The Court concludes that the purported transfer document, which purported to transfer an interest and/or title to the 1st Defendant, does not comply with legal requirements and is therefore null and void. As a result, the 1st Defendant did not acquire any interest or title under these circumstances. One wonders how the Land Registrar could have created a title in favour of the 1st Defendant based on no transfer at all. 51.The Land Registrar presented evidence indicating that the green card registered in the name of Muturi was missing. This was corroborated by the testimony of PC Kariethi, who informed the Court that he visited the Land Registry to inspect the records. This finding is notwithstanding the fact that the Land Registry issued official land searches in 2000 and 2007, respectively, concerning the subject land. On n the basis of this evidence, the Court concludes that Muturi’s green card was available until 2009, when it was deliberately made to go missing to facilitate the creation of a fraudulent and illegal title in favour of the 1st Defendant. 52.In the case of Daudi Kiptugen Vs Commissioner of Lands & 4 others (2015) EKLR the Court stated 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 a proper process the title itself cannot be a good title. If this were not the position then all one would need to do is to manufacture a lease or a certificate of title at a backyard or corner of a dingy street and by virtue thereof claim to be the rightful proprietor of the land indicated.” 53.I have said enough to show that the title of the 1st Defendant was acquired fraudulently and illegally and therefore is null and void. The Court answers the 1st issue in the positive Whether the 2nd to 10th Defendants are bona fide purchasers of title or whether they acquired any valid title. 54.It is the case of the 2nd to 10th Defendants that they acquired a good title from the 1st Defendant after carrying out due diligence on the title, and that they are bona fide purchasers without notice of any taint of title. 55.A bonafide purchaser is an innocent party who purchases property without notice of any other party's claim to the title of that property. In the case of Lawrence Mukiri – vs- Attorney General & 4 others (2013) eKLR where the Court stated what amounts to “bonafide purchaser for value thus:-“... a bona fide purchaser for value is a person who honestly intends to purchase the property offered for sale and does not intend to acquire it wrongly. For a purchaser to successfully rely on the bona fide doctrine, he must prove the following:a.He holds a certificate of Title.b.He purchased the Property in good faith;c.He had no knowledge of the fraud;d.The vendors had apparent valid title;e.He purchased without notice of any fraud;f.He was not party to any fraud.” 53.A bona fide purchaser of a legal estate without notice has absolute unqualified and answerable defence against claim of any prior equitable owner. In the case of Samuel Kamere Vs Land Registrar (2015) EKLR the Court of Appeal held that;“in order to be considered a bonafide purchaser for value, a person must prove that he had acquired a valid and legal title, secondly that he carried out the necessary due diligence to determine the lawful owner from whom he acquired legitimate title and thirdly that he paid valuable consideration for the purchase of the suit property.” (emphasis is mine). 56.It is trite that when the root of a claimant's title is under attack, he must go beyond the title to prove that he acquired a good title. I rely on the decision of the Court in the case of Munyu Maina Vs Hiram [2016] EKLR, where the Court stated as follows;“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.” 57.Accordingly, the Defendants were obliged to go beyond the purported title held by the 1st Defendant and inspect the green card and all the constituent documents. Had they inspected the parcel file, for example, they would have noticed the unexecuted transfer staring them in the face. This was a clear warning not to proceed with the transaction. Secondly, knowing that the land emanated from GRCL, any inquiry with the said company would have revealed that neither Ms Thigo nor the 1st Defendant was a member. More importantly, it would have disclosed that Mwaura Muturi was the member to whom the land was allocated, not Ms Thigo. Further, it would have shown that a clearance certificate had been issued to Muturi, deceased, whose original title continues to be in the hands of the Plaintiff. The long and short of this analysis is that the 2nd – 10th Defendants have not demonstrated any bona fides at all. They walked into the deal with their eyes blindfolded and therefore cannot claim any protection of the law on the basis that the root of title of the 1st Defendant is illegal; it sold nothing and the Defendants acquired nothing in the transaction. 58.The Court finds in the negative in respect of this issue. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the orders sought 59.Having held that Muturi holds a valid title and that the title of the 1st Defendant, and as a result the titles of the 2nd -10th Defendants, are null and void, the Court mandate under Section 80 of the Land Registration Act, that the title in the name of the 1st Defendant is a candidate for rectification by cancellation. The Court will make the necessary orders in the end. 60.Although costs of an action or proceeding are at the discretion of the Court, the general principle is that costs shall follow the event in accordance with the proviso to Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap.21). As such, the successful litigant should ordinarily be awarded costs unless, for good reason, the Court directs otherwise. The Court has found for the Plaintiff and I do not see any good reason to deny him costs of the suit. 61.Final orders for disposal;a.The Plaintiff's case has succeeded entirelyb.The counterclaim of the 2nd - 10th Defendants is not merited. It is dismissed.c.It is hereby declared that the deceased Mwaura Muturi is the legal owner of all that parcel of land known as Ruiru/Kiu Block 2(Githunguri)/3929 and the resultant titles Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9818, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9819, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9820, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9821, Ruiru/Kiu 2/9822, Ruiru Kiu Block 2/9823, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9824, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9825, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9826, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9827 thereof.d.It is hereby declared that the registration of the 1st Defendant as the owner of Ruiru/Kiu BLOCK 2/3229 by the 11th Defendant and subsequent transfers to 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th is unlawful and fraudulent and the Titles thereof were improperly procured and the same stand cancelled.e.I therefore order for the immediate nullification and cancellation of the subdivisions of L.R No. Ruiru/Kiu BLOCK 2(Githunguri)/3229 into Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9818, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9819, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9820, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9821, Ruiru/Kiu 2/9822, Ruiru Kiu Block 2/9823, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9824, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9825, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9826, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9827 and the subsequent transfers plus title deeds thereto and restoration of the original LR Ruiru/Kiu BLOCK 2/3229.f.The Land Registrar is hereby ordered to rectify the register of land parcel Ruiru/Kiu Block 2 (Githunguri)/3929 and the resultant Titles Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9818, 9819, 9820, 9821, 9822, 9823, 9824, 9825, 982 and 9827, so as to cancel the entries in favour of EArthline Properties Limited, Merwin Holdings Limited, Merclaire Holdings Limited, Arbee Logistics Limited, Samuel Karonji Kimani, Patrick Karambu Miriti, Hiram Kago Mukuna, Michael Muhia Kinuthia, Gladys Karambu Miriti, Judy Wanja Kigettah forthwith and revert the title of the suit land to Mwaura Muturi, deceased.g.A permanent injunction be and is hereby issued against the Defendants restraining by themselves, their servant, agents, employees, buyer, or anyone else claiming through them from selling, disposing, advertising for sale, interfering, trespassing, charging or in any other manner interfering with all resultant titles Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9818, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9819, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9820, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9821, Ruiru/Kiu 2/9822, Ruiru Kiu Block 2/9823, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9824, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9825, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9826, Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/9827 arising from the subdivision of the mother land parcel Ruiru/Kiu Block 2 (Githunguri)/3929 [suit land].h.The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th Defendants are hereby ordered to vacate the suit land within the next 30 days; in default, they shall be evicted forthwith in line with the provisions of the law.i.That the O.C.S Ruiru Police Station to ensure compliance of the orders.j.The costs shall be in favour of the Plaintiff and to be paid by the 1st -10th Defendants. 62.Orders accordingly DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY 2026 VIA MICROSOFT TEAMSJ G KEMEIJUDGEDelivered Virtually in the Presence of:Ms Kinyanjui for the PlaintiffMs. Macharia H/B for Mr. Njuguna for 1st DefendantMr. Kago for the 2nd – 10th DefendantsN/A for the 11th & 12th Defendants