[2015] KEELC 373 (KLR)

[2015] KEELC 373 (KLR)

The court found that the Plaintiff had established, on a balance of probabilities, that the 1st and 2nd Defendants fraudulently represented themselves as heirs of the deceased registered proprietor and unlawfully procured the sub-division of the suit property without involving the rightful administrators. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEELC 373 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Nicholas Kombe Pembe; Defendant: Kenga Kombe; Defendant: Kaleso Kombe; Defendant: Registrar of Lands-Kilifi; Defendant: Attorney General
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 111 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's suit allowed as prayed.
Judges
OA Angote
Legal Topics
Land Title, Fraudulent Transfer, Succession, Land Subdivision
Source Language
en
Land and Property Land Title Fraudulent Transfer Succession Land Subdivision

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

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

Parties

Nicholas Kombe Pembe

Plaintiff

Kenga Kombe

Defendant

Kaleso Kombe

Defendant

Registrar of Lands-Kilifi

Defendant

Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the 1st and 2nd Defendants fraudulently represented themselves as heirs of Pembe Murogo Kithi.
  2. 2 Whether the sub-division of Kaloleni/Vishakani/538 into plots 876, 877, and 878 was lawful.
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to cancellation of the resultant sub-divisions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Plaintiff had established, on a balance of probabilities, that the 1st and 2nd Defendants fraudulently represented themselves as heirs of the deceased registered proprietor and unlawfully procured the sub-division of the suit property without involving the rightful administrators. The Defendants failed to rebut the Plaintiff's evidence, and the Plaintiff's claim was unchallenged. The court concluded that the Plaintiff was entitled to the reliefs sought, including the cancellation of the sub-divisions resulting from the fraudulent process.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's suit allowed as prayed.

Orders

  • Plaint dated 20th September 2010 is allowed as prayed.