https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4677

# **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** ## **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT OF KENYA** ## **AT KAJIADO** ## **ELCA E040 OF 2024** **ANNA NABULU, ALICE TIMPIYIAN & NAEKU** **MOMPOSHI** *(Suing as the legal representatives* *of the estate of LOSHURUA NKOIDORI)*.............................................................. **APPELLANTS** ### **VERSUS** **DAVID PARMETUNA MOMBOSH** ........................................................ **1ST RESPONDENT** **THE LANDS REGISTRAR, KAJIADO COUNTY** ............................... **2ND RESPONDENT** **SAJILONI GROUP RANCH** ................................................................... **3RD RESPONDENT***(Being an Appeal against the entire judgment of HON. R.A OGANYO, CM, delivered on 27th August 2024 in KAJIADO CM'S ELC CASE NO. 263 OF 2013)* # **JUDGMENT** ## **Introduction and Background** 1. This is an appeal against the entire judgment and decree of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Kajiado (Hon. R.A. Oganyo, CM) delivered on the **27th day of August 2024** in **Kajiado CMELC Case No. 263 of 2013**. 2. The Appellants herein, **Anna Nabulu, Alice Timpiyian, and Naeku Momposhi** (suing as the legal representatives of the estate of the late **Loshurua Nkoidori**), were the Plaintiffs in the lower court whereas the Respondents herein, **David Parmetuna Mombosh** (1st Respondent), **The Lands Registrar, Kajiado County** (2nd Respondent), and **Sajiloni Group Ranch** (3rd Respondent), were the Defendants. 3. Being dissatisfied with the lower court's decision which dismissed their suit and upheld the 1st Respondent's title to the suit land, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal followed by a Memorandum of Appeal dated **18th September 2024**. 4. In their Memorandum of Appeal, the Appellants raised the following grounds of appeal: 5. **THAT** the Trial Magistrate failed to cumulatively evaluate the entire evidence on record and hence failed to capture and decipher the salient issues and/or features of the suit before her and thus arrived at an erroneous conclusion, contrary to and in contradiction of the evidence adduced. 6. **THAT** the Trial Magistrate erred both in law and in fact by relying on minutes of the Executive members of the Group Ranch to find that the Late Loishorua Ole Nkoidori (deceased) had legally transferred his share of the Group Ranch land to the 1st Respondent, whereas the deceased passed on Intestate. 7. **THAT** the Trial Magistrate erred in law and in fact by holding that the 1st Respondent acquired the suit land by dint of being a member of the Group Ranch whereas no such evidence was availed as to the membership of the 1st Respondent. The trial Court hence arrived at a slanted and erroneous judgement based on the failure to appreciate and/or discern the claim by and/or at the instance of the Appellant. 8. **THAT** in finding and holding that the 1st Respondent holds a clean and genuine title to the suit land, the Trial Court failed to consider the overwhelming evidence tendered by the Appellants and thus her finding has occasioned a miscarriage of justice. 9. **THAT** The learned Trial Magistrate demonstratively acted with bias and selectively when she failed to consider and take into account the uncontroverted evidence on record, and considered extrinsic evidence that was never produced during trial. 10. Consequently, the Appellants pray for the following reliefs from this Court: 11. The Court finds the Appeal merited and be allowed. 12. The Judgement entered by **HON. R.A OGANYO, CM** delivered on **27th August 2024** be set aside and substituted with an Order allowing the prayers in **KAJIADO CM'S CIVIL CASE NO. 263 OF 2013**. 13. Costs be provided for. 14. The dispute commenced in the lower court via a Plaint dated **23rd September 2013** filed by the original Plaintiff, **Ann Nambulu Loshorua** (also known as Ann Nambulu Nakusie), against **David Parmetuna Momboshi** as the sole Defendant. 15. In the original Plaint, the Plaintiff averred that her grandfather, **Loshurua Ole Koidori** (deceased), was the registered beneficiary of the suit land, parcel number **KJD/DALALEKUTUK/2930**. She stated that her mother, **Margaret Nkoyia Loshorua**, was the daughter of the deceased, unmarried, and the heir apparent to the suit land. 16. The Plaintiff’s mother passed away in 1998, leaving the Plaintiff and her sisters under the care of their grandfather. In March 2002, when their grandfather fell seriously ill, the 1st Defendant visited their home. The grandfather allegedly requested the 1st Defendant to look after his grandchildren and entrusted him with the suit land to hold **in trust** for them until they came of age. 17. Their grandfather passed away later in 2002. In November 2010, the Plaintiff discovered that the 1st Defendant had registered the suit property, **KJD/DALALEKUTUK/2930**, in his own name. She asserted that the 1st Defendant who was neither a relative, nor a beneficiary had fraudulently obtained registration of the suit property, **KJD/DALALEKUTUK/2930** without any instrument of transfer or Letters of Administration, thereby disinheriting the rightful heirs. 18. The original Plaintiff sought a permanent injunction against the Defendant and an order compelling the transfer of the suit land back to herself in trust for her siblings. 19. To properly align the parties and address developments in the case, the pleadings were amended. Under an **Amended Plaint dated 26th January 2023**, the Appellants, **Anna Nabulu, Alice Timpiyian, and Naeku Momposhi**, stepped into the suit as the Plaintiffs, suing in their capacity as the legal representatives of the estate of the late **Loshurua Nkoidori**. 20. The Amended Plaint formally joined **the Land Registrar, Kajiado County** and **Sajiloni Group Ranch** as the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, respectively. 21. The Appellants pleaded that their grandfather, **Loshurua Ole Koidori**, held the suit land by virtue of being member **No. 259** of the **Sajiloni Group Ranch**. They raised serious allegations of fraud against the 1st Defendant, asserting that he colluded with the 2nd and 3rd Defendants to bypass the succession process under the Law of Succession Act. They pointed out that the 1st Defendant purported to transfer the deceased's land to himself without taking out Letters of Administration contrary to the provisions of the *Law of Succession Act*. 22. The 1st Respondent defended the suit via a Written Statement of Defence dated **22nd March 2022**. He denied all allegations of trust and fraud. He averred that the property belonged to him absolutely and put the Plaintiffs to strict proof of their claims. 23. In his Witness Statement dated **22nd March 2022**, the 1st Respondent asserted that the suit land, **KAJIADO/DALALEKUTUK/2930**, was legally given to him by the deceased, **Loshurua Ole Koidori**, as evidenced by executive committee minutes of the Sajiloni Group Ranch. He alleged that the original Plaintiff's mother was known as Esther Lenkoya (and not Margaret Nkoyia Loshorua) and that she had lived elsewhere (in Majengo) and only returned when she became stranded. He contended that his title was clean, absolute, and free from any overriding interests including trust. 24. The trial before the Chief Magistrate’s Court culminated in the impugned judgment delivered on **27th August 2024** by **Hon. R.A. Oganyo, CM**. 25. In a comprehensive determination, the learned Trial Magistrate dismissed the Appellants’ suit in its entirety. The trial court found that the 1st Respondent held a valid, clean, and genuine title to the suit land. 26. In arriving at her decision, the trial Magistrate relied on the minutes of the Executive Committee members of the **Sajiloni Group Ranch** (3rd Respondent). The trial court held that these minutes constituted proof that the late **Loshurua Ole Nkoidori** had legally and voluntarily transferred his share of the Group Ranch land to the 1st Respondent prior to his demise. 27. Furthermore, the trial court found that the 1st Respondent had acquired the suit land in his capacity as a recognized member of the Sajiloni Group Ranch. The court dismissed the Appellants' claims of fraud, noting that the transfer was sanctioned by the Group Ranch's administrative organs, thereby bypassing the necessity of intestate succession administration under the *Law of Succession Act*. 28. The Appellants argue that this holding is slanted and legally flawed. They contend that the Trial Magistrate failed to evaluate the evidence cumulatively, erroneously accepted Group Ranch committee minutes as a substitute for legal succession instruments, and ignored the fact that the deceased died intestate, leaving the property to vest in his estate. **Analysis of Submissions** **Appellants’ Submissions** 1. The Appellants filed submissions on the date of 4 May 2026, isolating issues for the determination of the Court. In their submissions dated 4 May, 2026, they identify 5 issues for determination as follows; 2. *Whether the trial magistrate understood the issues raised during trial;* 3. *Whether the trial magistrate erred in relying on minutes to justify the illegal transfer of the suit property to the 1st Respondent;* 4. *Whether the trial magistrate erred in holding that the 1st Respondent acquired legally the suit land whereas he was not a member of the group ranch;* 5. *Whether the trial magistrate erred in law and fact in holding that the 1st Respondent had acquired a clean title to the suit property;* 6. *Whether the trial magistrate exhibited bias by failing to consider uncontroverted evidence;* 7. *Whether the Appeal has merit; and* 8. *Cost.* 9. They reminded the Court of its mandate to re-evaluate, re-assess, and re-analyze the evidence on record to draw conclusions of its own. To support the principle, the Appellants relied on the case of ***Abok James Odera T/A. J. Odera & Associates v John Patrick Machira T/A Machira & Co. Advocates [2013] eKLR***, which outlines the duty of the appellate court to determine whether the conclusions of the trial court should stand. They cited ***Kenya Ports Authority vs Kusthon (Kenya) Limited (2000) 2EA 212***, stating that an appellate court must make allowance of the fact that it neither heard or saw the witnesses firsthand. 10. The Appellants argued that the trial magistrate misunderstood the facts of the case, noting that their grandfather, Nkoioduri Oloishorua, died without a will in the year 2002. They submitted that the deed of title for the land in dispute was issued through fraud to the Respondent on the date of 9 April 2010, a period of 8 years after the death of their grandfather. In addition, they submitted that the Respondent faced charges in criminal case MCCR No. 385/2021 for obtaining registration of the suit land by means of fraud, for intermeddling with the estate of the decedent, and for conspiracy to defraud. 11. The Appellants challenged the trial court’s reliance on the minutes of the meeting of the committee of the group ranch on 26 January 1999 (MIN 9/99) to justify the transfer of the land. The Appellants submitted that the Respondent was not a member of the Sajiloni Group Ranch as he was never admitted into membership through a resolution of the Community assembly of the members in accordance with the Land (Group Representatives) Act Cap 287. They relied on ***Munge v Oloiren Group Ranch (sued through its representatives) & 9 others [2022] KEELC 13526 (KLR)***, which held that the land of a group ranch cannot undergo adjudication to a person without membership by virtue of occupation without acceptance in law by the ranch. 12. The Appellants also cited **Kimanya & 2 others v Lekishirini & 5 others (Environment & Land Case 37 of 2020),** arguing that officials of the group ranch lack the mandate to introduce persons without membership without the holding of a meeting with a quorum and a resolution. 13. The Appellants faulted the trial court for elevating an expression of intention in the minutes into a valid gift. They submitted that under the Law of Succession Act Cap 160, a gift between living persons requires perfection by delivery and transfer during the lifetime of the donor. They relied on ***Micheni Aphaxard Nyaga & 2 others v Robert Njue & 2 Others [2021] eKLR,*** which outlines the necessity of capacity, competency, and delivery for a gift. They too cited ***Ngugi v Mukuria (Probate & Administration Appeal 4A of 2017) [2025] KEHC 11395 (KLR)*** to distinguish gifts between living persons from gifts in contemplation of death, maintaining that the decedent died without a will in the year 2002 and the Respondent, as a person without membership in the ranch, could not obtain title without a Grant of Letters of Administration. **Respondent’s Submissions** 1. In opposition to the appeal, the Respondents filed written submissions dated of 21 April 2026, urging the court to dismiss the appeal with costs. The Respondent argued that the Appellants lacked the locus standi to institute the suit at the trial court. He submitted that because the Appellants claimed the property in their capacity as granddaughters of the decedent, they needed to obtain Letters of Administration in the estate of their mother before instituting the suit. He stated that letters of administration obtained after the filing of the suit cannot validate a suit with defects, rendering the suit a nullity from the beginning. 2. To substantiate the point on jurisdiction, the Respondent relied on the case of ***Taura & 3 others v Taura [2025] KEELC 148 (KLR),*** which quoted ***Ibrahim v Hassan & Charles Kimenyi Macharia [2019] eKLR and Otieno v Ougo [1986-1989] EALR 468*** for the principle of law that litigants in matters of succession without a will must possess locus standi prior to filing an action. He cited ***Odera v Wasonga & another [2025] KEHC 5417 (KLR),*** which quoted ***Julian Adoyo Ongunga & Another v Francis Kiberenge Bondeva [2016] eKLR,*** stating that an action instituted by a party without capacity in law equates to a court acting without jurisdiction. ***Hawo Shanko v Mohamed Uta Shanko [2018] eKLR*** was cited to state that a party cannot file a suit before obtaining a grant. 3. The Respondent raised a point of law regarding the competency of the appeal, arguing that the Record of Appeal omitted a copy of the decree. He submitted that under Section 65(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act 2010, an appeal lies from a decree. He asserted that under Order 42 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a decree is necessary in a record of appeal. He relied on Supreme Court ***Petition 17 of 2018*** ***Alfred Asidaga Mulima & 20 Others v The Attorney General and 8 Others,*** which quoted ***Hamids Yaroi Shek Nuri v Faith Tumaini Kombe & 2 Others [2018]***. 4. On the merits, the Respondent supported the findings of the trial court, arguing that the Learned Magistrate correctly evaluated the evidence regarding the ownership of the property in dispute. He contended that the decedent appeared before the committee of the Group Ranch on the date of 26 January 1999, directed the transfer of his share to the Respondent, and perfected the gift during his lifetime by substituting his name with the name of the Respondent. To support his arguement, he relied on ***Nganga & another v Mungai & 3 others [2026] KEELC 247 (KLR),*** which quoted ***In Re: Estate of the Late Gedion Manthu Nzioka (deceased) [2015] eKLR***, defining the parameters of gifts inter vivos and affirming that such gifts require completion to attain validity. 5. Addressing the allegations of fraud and collusion by the Appellants, the Respondent submitted that fraud requires not only specific pleading but specific proof as well. He asserted that the standard of proof for fraud stands above a balance of probabilities. He concluded that the Appellants failed to meet the threshold of evidence under Sections 107, 108, and 109 of the Evidence Act. **Issues for Determination** 1. From the record of appeal, the memorandum of appeal, and the rival submissions, the grounds of appeal substantially coalesce into a few dispositive questions. To avoid repetition and ensure that every issue determines the real controversy between the parties, the issues may be framed as follows: 2. ***Whether the appeal is competent in light of the alleged omission of a decree from the Record of Appeal, and if so, whether such omission is fatal to the appeal.*** 3. ***Whether the learned Trial Magistrate erred in law and in fact in finding that the late Loshurua Ole Nkoidori validly transferred his interest in KAJIADO/DALALEKUTUK/2930 to the 1st Respondent during his lifetime.*** 4. ***Whether the Appellants proved the allegations of fraud, illegality, collusion and unlawful acquisition of title against the Respondents to the requisite standard.*** 5. ***Whether the learned Trial Magistrate properly evaluated the evidence and correctly applied the law in dismissing the Appellants' claim and upholding the 1st Respondent's title to the suit property.*** 6. ***What orders should this Court make as to the appeal and costs.*** **Analysis and Determination** ***a. Whether the appeal is competent in light of the alleged omission of a decree from the Record of Appeal, and if so, whether such omission is fatal to the appeal.*** 1. The Respondent raised objections of procedure. The Respondent stated that the Appellants omitted the decree issued by the trial court from the Record of Appeal. The Respondent submitted that the omission rendered the appeal incompetent. 2. Order 42 Rule 13(1) governs the contents of a record of appeal. The rule states: ***"(1) For the purpose of an appeal from a subordinate court to the High Court, the appellant shall prepare a record of appeal which shall be filed with the memorandum of appeal, and which shall contain copies of the following documents— ... (d) the decree or order appealed from;"*** 1. The record of appeal filed by the Appellants lacks the decree. The absence of the decree constitutes a departure from Order 42 Rule 13(1)(d). In times past, courts struck out appeals for the omission of a decree, a primary document. The decree is the formal expression of the judgment. 2. However, the Constitution of Kenya commands a departure from the strictness of procedure to facilitate justice. Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution states: ***"(2) In exercising judicial authority, the courts and tribunals shall be guided by the following principles— ... (d) justice shall be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities;"*** 1. The Record of Appeal contains the judgment of the trial court. The judgment bears the signature of the trial Magistrate. The judgment sets out the reasoning of the court and the final orders. The omission of the decree causes no prejudice to the Respondent. The striking out of the appeal for the lack of a decree would elevate form over substance. The Court finds and holds that the omission is not fatal to the appeal. 2. The Respondent also challenged the standing of the Appellants. The Respondent stated the Appellants instituted the suit without a grant of letters of administration. The Respondent relied on the case of ***Otieno v Ougo [1986-1989] EALR 468***. 3. The general rule requires a litigant to possess a grant of representation to sue on behalf of an estate. However, the law provides exceptions through the mechanism of protection. Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act prohibits intermeddling. Beneficiaries possess standing to institute suits to protect the estate from intermeddlers and to preserve the property of the deceased prior to the issuance of a grant. The Appellants instituted the suit seeking the preservation of the estate; to protect the estate from intermeddlers. They ultimately obtained the letters of administration. 4. In the case of ***In re Estate of*** ***Joseph Kipkemoi Chepkeitany alias Joseph Kipkemoi Chepkaitany {2026} KEHC 6298 (KLR),*** Nyakundi J opined that; ***“This is what the law envisages as the legal remedies and consequences of intermeddling:*** * ***Criminal liability: An intermeddler may be prosecuted and punished, which can lead to jail term, a fine, or both.*** * ***Accountability: The intermeddler becomes answerable to the rightful Administrator for the assets they interfered to.*** * ***Injunction: Beneficiaries can obtain a Court injunction to stop the intermeddling immediately…….”*** ***b. Whether the Trial Magistrate erred in law and in fact in finding that the late Loshurua Ole Nkoidori validly transferred his interest in KAJIADO/DALALEKUTUK/2930 to the 1st Respondent during his lifetime.*** 1. The resolution of the dispute centers on the actions of the decedent and the Respondent. The Respondent claims ownership of the land as a gift from the decedent. The Respondent heavily relies on the minutes of the Sajiloni Group Ranch. The committee of the group ranch held a meeting on 26 January 1999. The minutes bear the reference MIN 9/99. The minutes record the appearance of the decedent. The minutes record a statement of intention from the decedent to substitute his name with the name of the Respondent. 2. The decedent died in the year 2002. The State issued the title deed for KAJIADO/DALALEKUTUK/2930 to the Respondent on 9 April 2010. 3. The law recognizes gifts between living persons. The law terms the gifts *inter vivos*. The completion of a gift *inter vivos* demands elements of intention, delivery, and acceptance. The donor must possess the capacity. The donor must execute the transfer during his lifetime; otherwise perfect the gift. 4. The High Court of Kenya defined the parameters of gifts in the case of ***In Re: Estate of the Late Gedion Manthu Nzioka (deceased) [2015] eKLR***. The Court stated that: ***"A gift inter vivos is a gift made by a living person to another living person. To be valid, it must be complete. The donor must have done everything necessary to transfer the property to the donee."*** 1. The minutes of the year 1999 only demonstrate an intention. The expression of intention falls short of a transfer. The execution of a transfer of land requires the execution of forms of transfer and the registration of the forms at the land registry. The decedent failed to execute the forms of transfer during his lifetime. The decedent failed to register the transfer prior to his death in the year 2002. 2. The death of the donor extinguishes the capacity to complete a gift. Upon death, the property therefore falls under the estate of the deceased. Section 45(1) of the Law of Succession Act prohibits the assumption of control of the property of a deceased person without a grant of representation. The section states: ***"(1) Except so far as expressly authorized by this Act or by any other written law or by a grant of representation under this Act, no person shall, for any purpose, take possession or dispose of, or otherwise intermeddle with, any free property of a deceased person."*** 1. The registration of the land in the year 2010 occurred eight years after the death of the donor. The execution of the transfer in the year 2010 therefore required a grant of letters of administration. There is no evidence of succession proceedings and issuance of a grant of letters of administration. The completion of the gift after the death of the donor therefore constitutes a violation of the Law of Succession Act. The trial magistrate elevated the minutes of the group ranch expressing an intention into an instrument of transfer. 2. The Court finds and holds that the decedent did not transfer the interest in KAJIADO/DALALEKUTUK/2930 to the Respondent during his lifetime. ***c. Whether the Appellants proved the allegations of fraud, illegality, collusion and unlawful acquisition of title against the Respondents to the requisite standard.*** 1. The Appellants pleaded fraud and illegality. Section 107(1) of the Evidence Act places the burden of proof upon the party who asserts the existence of facts. The section states: ***"(1) Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist."*** 1. The standard of proof for fraud exceeds a balance of probabilities. The Court of Appeal articulated the standard in ***Vijay Morjaria v Nansingh Madhusingh Darbar & another [2000] eKLR.*** The Court stated that: ***"It is well established that fraud must be pleaded and strictly proved and the standard of proof is higher than the ordinary standard of proof in civil cases."*** 1. The Appellants presented the certificate of death of the decedent. The certificate proves death in the year 2002. They too presented the register of the title. The register proves the registration of the land to the Respondent in the year 2010. The Appellants therefore established a timeline of the events. The timeline demonstrates the procurement of a title deed from a deceased person. 2. The Respondent obtained the title without the initiation of succession proceedings. The Respondent obtained the title without a grant of letters of administration. The actions of the Respondent bypassed the legal mechanisms provided under the Law of Succession Act. The acquisition of the title of a deceased person outside the confines of the probate registry constitutes an illegality. 3. Furthermore, the Land (Group Representatives) Act Cap 287 governs the allocation of land within a group ranch. The allocation requires admission to membership by a resolution of the assembly of members. The High Court in ***Munge v Oloiren Group Ranch (sued through its representatives) & 9 others [2022] KEELC 13526 (KLR)*** held that officials of a group ranch lack the mandate to adjudicate land to a non-member without the process of the assembly of members. There is no evidence of the admission of the Respondent to the Sajiloni Group Ranch by an assembly of members. 4. The circumvention of the Law of Succession Act and the Land (Group Representatives) Act establishes unlawful acquisition. The Court determines that the Appellants discharged the burden of proof to the requisite standard. The Appellants successfully proved that the root of the Respondent’s title was founded on illegalities. ***d. Whether the Trial Magistrate properly evaluated the evidence and correctly applied the law in dismissing the Appellants' claim and upholding the 1st Respondent's title to the suit property.*** 1. The duty of the Court as the first appellate court was spelt out by the Court of Appeal in ***Selle v Associated Motor Boat Company [1968] EA 123*** where the court stated that: ***"An appeal to this Court from a trial by the High Court is by way of retrial and the principles upon which this Court acts in such an appeal are well settled. Briefly put they are that this Court must reconsider the evidence, evaluate it itself and draw its own conclusions though it should always bear in mind that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses and should make due allowance in this respect."*** 1. The trial court relied upon the minutes of the committee of the group ranch to arrive at the impugned decision. The trial magistrate construed the minutes as an absolute transfer of property. The trial magistrate failed to consider the effect of the death of the donor in the year 2002. The trial magistrate failed to interrogate the import of the issuance of the title in the year 2010. 2. The trial magistrate disregarded the Law of Succession Act. The property of a deceased person vests in his estate upon death. The distribution of the property requires the grant of letters of administration and confirmation. The trial magistrate upheld a transfer executed eight years after the death of the owner. The decision of the trial magistrate in essence endorsed intermeddling with an estate. 3. The trial magistrate failed to subject the defense of the Respondent to the scrutiny of the law. The trial magistrate misapprehended the elements of a gift *inter vivos*. The trial magistrate ignored the law of succession. The Court finds that the magistrate failed to evaluate the evidence and therefore failed to apply the law correctly. ***e. What orders should this Court make as to the appeal and costs.*** 1. The evaluation of the Court leads to the success of the appeal. Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act vests the Court with the discretion to award costs. The section commands costs to follow the event. The section states: ***"(1) Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, and to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, the costs of and incidental to all suits shall be in the discretion of the court or judge... Provided that the costs of any action, cause or other matter or issue shall follow the event unless the court or judge shall for good reason otherwise order."*** 1. Consequently the court makes the following orders; 2. ***The Court allows the appeal.*** 3. ***The Court sets aside the entire judgment of HON. R.A OGANYO, (CM) delivered on 27th August 2024 in KAJIADO CMCELC CASE NO. 263 OF 2013.*** 4. ***The Court declares the registration of the land parcel KAJIADO/DALALEKUTUK/2930 in the name of the 1st Respondent a nullity.*** 5. ***The Court directs the Land Registrar to cancel the title deed for the parcel KAJIADO/DALALEKUTUK/2930.*** 6. ***The Court directs the rectification of the register and the title of the parcel KAJIADO/DALALEKUTUK/2930 to revert to the estate of Nkoioduri Oloishorua for administration under the Law of Succession Act.*** 7. ***The 1st Respondent shall pay the costs of the suit in the trial court and the costs of the costs of this appeal.*** It is so ordered. **Dated, Signed and Delivered at Kajiado Virtually this 20th Day of July 2026.** **M.D. MWANGI** **JUDGE** **In the virtual presence of:** Mr. Nairi for the Appellants N/A by the Respondent Court Assistant: Alex **M.D. MWANGI** **JUDGE**