https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2942

Kalume (Suing as the administrator of the Estate of the Late Kalume Bavanda) v Ngala & 3 others (Civil Suit 291 of 2016) [2026] KEELC 2942 (KLR) (18 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 2942 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Malindi Civil Suit 291 of 2016 EK Makori, J May 18, 2026 Between Nyevu Kalume (Suing as the administrator Of The Estate Of The Late Kalume Bavanda) Plaintiff and Nyiro Pande Ngala 1st Defendant Kilifi District Land Registrar 2nd Defendant The Honourable Attorney General Of Kenya 3rd Defendant Thomas Joseph Baya 4th Defendant Judgment 1.By a Plaint dated 21st October 2016 and filed in Court on the 31st October 2016 against the Defendants, the Plaintiff sought the following Orders from the Court:a.A permanent injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendants from selling, transferring, subdividing, leasing, or interfering in any way with the property, Title No. Kilifi/Ngerenyi/132.b.A declaration that the title deed issued to the 1st Defendant is illegal and that the Estate of Kalume Bavanda is the sole and lawful proprietor of the Property Title No. Kilifi/Ngerenyi/132.c.Costs of this suit.d.Such other or further relief that this Court may deem fit and just to grant. 2.The 1st Defendant, in the 1st Defendant’s Statement of Defense and Counterclaim dated 2nd February, 2018, generally denied the Plaintiff’s claim herein as pleaded in the Plaint. He then raised a Counterclaim, alleging that he is the absolute proprietor of Parcel Number: Kilifi/Ngerenyi/132; that the Plaintiff had lodged and/or placed a restriction on the said land on 23rd March, 2007, which was to remain in force until the dispute herein is resolved; and thus, sought Orders:a.That the Defendants to the Counterclaim unconditionally remove the restriction placed on the suit land.b.Costs be provided for. 3.According to the record, no other Defendant has filed a Defense to the Plaintiff’s suit. 4.To support her case, the Plaintiff, who initially acted in person, submitted a Witness Statement on October 31, 2016, followed by a Supplementary Witness Statement on March 10, 2025. She also submitted a List of Documents dated October 21, 2016, and later filed a Plaintiff’s Further List and Bundle of Documents on March 11, 2025. 5.The Plaintiff, Nyevu Kalume, testified as PWI and stated she was the Administrator of the Estate of the late Kalume Bavanda (the Deceased). After his death, the Estate gained full ownership of the suit property, Title Number: Kilifi/Ngerenyi/132, measuring 6.4 hectares. The Deceased acquired the property through the Government of Kenya’s settlement program, managed by the Settlement Fund Trustee (SFT). At the time of acquisition, the property was encumbered by a charge to the SFT, and no transfer from the Deceased or his Estate could take place until the SFT’s charge was cleared. 6.She stated that since acquiring the land, they have continuously enjoyed quiet possession of the property and that, apart from the Family of the Deceased, no other person, including the Defendants, has any right, title, interest, or possession in the suit property. 7.Following the Deceased's death, the Plaintiff began the process of clearing the property by settling the remaining dues with the Settlement Fund Trustee. Later, a friend informed her that a title deed had been registered in the 1st Defendant's name. This is even though the suit property was never transferred or leased to anyone, either before or after the Deceased's death, including to the 1st Defendant. 8.She also claimed that shortly after the Deceased’s death, the 1st and 2nd Defendants fraudulently created a forged title deed for the suit property in favor of the 1st Defendant, and they destroyed the Deceased’s ownership records. This was done with the intent of unlawfully depriving the Deceased’s Estate of its property. Additionally, she mentioned that since the property was registered in the Deceased’s name and secured by the Settlement Fund Trustee, any transfer of ownership could only occur through a Discharge from the Trustee and a transfer to the 1st Defendant. 9.The Plaintiff testified that the 1st Defendant has no connection to the suit property, lacking any right, title, interest, or possession, and that his claim of ownership is invalid. Nonetheless, after acquiring an allegedly dubious title deed, the 1st Defendant encroached on the property, cleared vegetation, and handed out copies of the deed to real estate agents, indicating his plan to sell or transfer the property. 10.The Plaintiff was recalled and provided additional testimony, affirming that Kalume Bavanda was her father, for whom a Grant of Letters of Administration had been issued. Subsequently, she formally adopted her Supplementary Witness Statement dated 10th March 2025 and submitted the Additional Bundle of Documents as supplementary exhibits. 11.Relying on the Supplementary Witness Statement, the Plaintiff testified that she discovered after filing the suit that the 1st Defendant had filed Malindi District Succession Cause No. 36 of 1980. This case falsely claimed that the Deceased, Kalume Bavanda, had died when he was still alive and that the 1st Defendant was seeking appointment as the Estate Administrator. 12.When the Deceased, Kalume Bavanda, learned that the 1st Defendant had filed Malindi District Succession Cause No. 36 of 1980, he instituted Miscellaneous Succession Application No. 2 of 1982 in the High Court, Mombasa. Upon hearing the application, the Honorable Judge nullified the proceedings in Malindi District Succession Cause No. 36 of 1980 as fraudulent, void, and a nullity; set aside, quashed, and canceled the 1st Defendant’s claim to the suit property; and ordered that the property be reinstated to the Deceased unconditionally and that a title deed be issued to the Deceased. 13.The Plaintiff submitted the following documents listed in her List of Documents dated October 21, 2016, which support her case. The most relevant documents are as follows: Exhibit 1 - a copy of the allotments for the Ngerenyi Settlement Scheme, which shows that Plot Number 132 was allotted to Kalume Bavanda. Exhibit 2 - Official Receipt No. 2475323, dated July 18, 2013, issued to Kalume Bavanda, showing payment of Kshs—30,000.00 as Land Loan Repayment for Plot No. 132, Ngerenyi Settlement Section. 14.In her further List and Bundle of Documents dated March 11, 2025, she produced the following documents: Exhibit 5 - Limited Grant of the Letters of Administration Ad Litem, which showed that Kalume Bavanda died on July 5, 2020, and that the Plaintiff had been appointed as the Administrator of his Estate. Exhibit 6 - Application for Certificate of Succession lodged before the District Magistrate’s Court, Malindi, in Succession Cause No. 36 of 1980 on October 17, 1980, for the alleged Estate of Kalume Bevanda with regard to the parcel situated at Ngerenyi Settlement Scheme, Plot No. 132. Thereafter, a Certificate of Succession was issued by the said Court on December 4, 1980, wherein the 1st Defendant, Nyiro Pande Ngala, who was the Applicant, was named as heir to the Estate of Kalume Bavanda. Exhibit 7 – Ruling in High Court Miscellaneous Succession Application Number 2 of 1982, Mombasa. 15.The Plaintiff claimed she currently possesses the suit property, where her father’s remains are also buried. She confirmed that a portion is occupied by the 1st Defendant’s son, Pande wa Nyiro, and Thomas Baya, and requested their eviction. She also mentioned that the High Court in Mombasa, in High Court Miscellaneous Succession Application Number 2 of 1982, determined that the land, Title No. Kilifi/Ngerenyi/132 belonged to her father. Therefore, she requested that the title deed be registered in her name on behalf of her father, asserting that any other claims to the property are illegal. She seeks a judgment in her favor as outlined in her Plaint. 16.Thomas Joseph Bayaa, who testified as DW1, the 4th Defendant, stated that he had purchased a portion of land from Juma Saidi Chula and that he seeks only that the plot purchased, as decreed by the court, be registered in his name. He had filed a case against the 1st Defendant, which he won, and there is no appeal yet. From the 4th Defendant’s list of documents, he produced a letter dated 29th August, 2005, from the Ministry of Land and Housing, Land Adjudication /Settlement, Kilifi, the 4th Defendant also produced the Decree in SRMCC No. 454 of 2008 where the 1st Defendant had sued him claiming 2 acres from him, but he lost leading to Appeal, being ELC Appeal No. 51 of 2010, Malindi, which was dismissed. 17.During cross-examination by the Plaintiff in person, the 4th Defendant stated that he purchased the land from Juma Said Chula in 2005, claiming that four acres of the land belonged to the Chula Family. He confirmed that the Plaintiff was not informed of this transaction and that she was occupying the land. The Defendant did not compensate the Plaintiff because he believed that the land he bought did not belong to Kalume Bavanda. He explained that the entire land was 16 acres, jointly owned by Kalume Bavanda and Chula Said, and that Nyiro Pande was present when he purchased it. He also verified that the Plaintiff had placed a caveat or restriction on Nyiro Pande's property. 18.In response to the Plaintiff's application to reopen the case, DW 1 and DW 2 were recalled for additional cross-examination. During cross-examination by Mr. Tindika, the Plaintiff's Advocate, DW 1, also the 4th Defendant, revealed that he had purchased three acres from Juma Saidi (now deceased), reversing his earlier claim of having bought only two acres. He also mentioned that the purchase occurred in 2004 and that there was no title document. Furthermore, he stated that he was never informed that the land belonged to Mzee Kalume Bavanda, who is now also deceased. 19.He explained that Nyiro Panda Ngala sued him in Kilifi Case No. 454/2010, and after that case, the court awarded him the land. However, he confirmed that the Plaintiff in this case, Nyevu Kalume, was not involved in the previous litigation and has since built on that land. He also stated that he does not possess a title deed for his portion and has not applied to the Land Registrar for registration of ownership. 20.DW 2 mentioned that his land was sold to him by the family of Said Chula, but he was not given a title deed. The land is 16 acres, for which Nyiro Panda Ngala illegally obtained a title deed, but he was not present when the 1st Defendant secured the title to the entire land. 21.Khamis Saidi Chula, who testified as DW 2, adopted his witness statements as his main testimony. He stated that the land at Kilifi/Ngerenyi/132, covering 16 acres, was their ancestral land. It was jointly owned by his late father, Saidi Chula, and Kalume Bevanda. He further stated that their father purportedly owned 4 acres, while Kalume Bevanda owned 12 acres. They also share a common boundary. 22.He also mentioned that his father sold 1 acre of the described land to Nyiro Pande Ngala, the 1st Defendant. After his father passed away, his late brother, Juma Said Chula, inherited the remaining 3 acres and sold them to Thomas Baya, the 4th Defendant, in 2005. He confirmed that he witnessed this transaction. 23.DW 2 further indicated that Nyiro Pande Ngala fraudulently obtained a title deed for all 16 acres in his name, despite only being sold 1 acre. They discovered this title deed only after Nyiro Pande Ngala (the 1st defendant) filed a lawsuit against Thomas Baya (the 4th defendant) in Kilifi Civil Suit No. 454 of 2008. During cross-examination by the Plaintiff, he explained that his father sold the land to the 4th defendant and that his father had the authority to do so. 24.When DW 2 was recalled, during cross-examination by Mr. Tindika, Advocate for the Plaintiff, he stated that he is familiar with the suit property. His Father told him that Kalume Bavanda owned 12 acres of the 16 acres, which adjoins the 4 acres he claims belonged to Saidi Chula (his Father). However, he confirmed there is no ownership documentation. He also mentioned that his Father sold 1 acre to the 1st Defendant, Nyiro Pande Ngala, but later discovered Nyiro Pande Ngala had obtained a deed for the entire 16 acres, not just the 4 acres owned by his Father or the 1 acre sold. 25.DW 2 explained that he does not possess a Sale Agreement for the 1 acre that his father allegedly sold to the 1st Defendant, as he was young at that time. He mentioned that his father sold Pande Ngala and Thomas Baya, 1 acre and 3 acres, respectively. DW 2 also stated he was unaware that Kalume Bavanda owned all 16 acres, and he was not familiar with the decisions in District Magistrate Succession Cause No. 36 of 1980 in Malindi or the High Court Misc. Application No. 2 of 1982 in Mombasa, nor with the significance of these cases. 26.Nyiro Pande Ngala testified as DW 3. He explained in his main testimony that he resides in Ngeleni-Majaoni and recognizes the Plaintiff, Nyevu Kalume, whom he claimed resides on his land, Kilifi/Ngerenyi/132. He stated that he obtained this land from the Kenyan Government through an allotment and was subsequently issued a title deed. He also referenced the documents he submitted in this case. He clarified that he does not know Kalume Bavanda and that he owns the entire property, not just 1 acre of the disputed land. 27.During cross-examination by Mr. Obaga, the 1st Defendant claimed he was unfamiliar with Bavanda, had never resided on the suit land, and that the land was not his. The 1st Defendant also stated that he had been living on the land by himself and that he had been officially allocated it. 28.During cross-examination by Mr. Tindika, the 1st Defendant initially claimed he did not know Kalume Bavanda. However, upon further questioning, he admitted that the entire suit land, Kilifi/Ngerenyi/132, was owned by Kalume Bavanda. He then stated that he obtained the title to the land because Kalume Bavanda's wife, whose name he could not recall (other than that she was Taita), sold it to him. He denied ever defrauding Kalume Bavanda of his land. Referring to his documents, DW 3 acknowledged that he had not filed a Witness Statement and relied solely on his Affidavit on record. In it, he claimed to have purchased the land in 1977 from the widow of Kalume Bavanda for Kshs 4,782.00. 29.The 1st Defendant acknowledged awareness of his 1980 case, Succession Cause No. 36 of 1980, in Malindi, where he claimed to be the heir of Kalume Bavanda’s Estate. He also recognized the High Court Miscellaneous Succession Application No. 2 of 1982 in Mombasa and his appearance before Aganyaya J., who later revoked the grant issued to him. Despite this revocation, DW 3 denied any fraudulent acquisition of the Grant of Letters of Administration for Kalume Bavanda's Estate or any fraudulent manipulation of documents to alter ownership of the suit land. 30.DW 3 stated he was aware of the Succession Cause decision in Mombasa but did not file an appeal against it. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the High Court's decision. He clarified that he has no relation to Kalume Bavanda and no agreement with Diramu Bavanda regarding the purchase of the land. 31.He mentioned that he was born in Mitamboni Maweni, where his relatives are all based. He is the only family member living in Ngerenyi. He explained that Kalume Bavanda was a Digo, while he is a Kaume, so they are not related. He claimed to have purchased the land legally but is willing to surrender it if it is proven that he acquired it fraudulently. During re-examination by his lawyer, Ms. Minyanzi, the 1st Defendant confirmed that he obtained the title deed from the Lands offices and did not do so fraudulently, asserting that the land is his. He also admitted to having been sued in the High Court at Mombasa. 32.Upon the closure of both the Plaintiff's and the Defendants' cases, the counsels for the parties were directed to file written submissions, which they did. The Court appreciates counsel's submissions, which went a long way toward aiding the Court in reaching a verdict in this matter. 33.Based on the submissions and evidence, the key issues for the Court's decision are: who owns Kilifi/Ngerenyi/132? Did the 1st Defendant fraudulently acquire the ownership and a Title Deed to the property? Has the Plaintiff established her claim? Is the 1st Defendant's counterclaim valid? Are there any other claimants besides the Plaintiff and the Estate of Kalume Bavanda asserting any claim to the property? If so, what orders should be issued? Costs. 34.Based on the evidence on record, the Deceased, Kalume Bavanda, was the sole Allotee of the suit property, as confirmed by the List of Allottees of the Ngerenyi Settlement Scheme produced by the Plaintiff as Exhibit 2. 35.Further in the proceedings before the Aganyanya J. (as he then was) in Miscellaneous Succession Application Number 2 of 1982, the late Kalume Bavanda testified on oath that he was issued a Letter of Allotment by the Government of Kenya for Parcel Number Kilifi/Ngerenyi/132, for which he paid Kshs. 5,650.00, and that he produced the Letter of Allotment before the said Court as Exhibit 2. 36.The 4th Defendant produced Exhibit 2, being the letter dated 29th August, 2005 from the Ministry of Land and Housing, Land Adjudication /Settlement, Kilifi, where it was stated and confirmed, inter alia, that:“According to the records held in the office, the plot was registered under the name of Kalume Bavanda.” 37.The 1st Defendant, who is the only party to submit a Defense and Counterclaim, did not provide any documentation showing that the land in question, which he claims was granted to him by the Government, was ever officially allocated to him when the SFT was established. He presented a Charge from the Ministry of Land and Settlement dated September 8, 1983, asserting it was in his favor and covered the suit property. However, this occurred after the 1st Defendant fraudulently filed District Magistrate’s Succession Cause Number 36 of 1980, claiming he was the Administrator of Kalume Bavanda, who was alive at that time and had no relation to him. 38.Consequently, the only allottee of the suit land was Kalume Bavanda, and all actions by the 1st Defendant on the suit property were illegal and unlawful. 39.Whether the acts of the 1st defendant were fraudulent with respect to the suit property. By the Ruling in High Court Miscellaneous Succession Application Number 2 of 1982, Mombasa, Aganyanya J. found that:“From the oral evidence adduced by PW 1 the Applicant corroborated by his witness PW 2 and pleadings, it is not in dispute that the Applicant was allocated and paid for parcel Kilifi/Ngerenyi/132. It is also not in dispute the Respondent Nyiro Pande Ngala was neither related in any way to the Applicant nor Diramu the 2nd Wife of the Applicant. The Respondent did not buy Parcel Kilifi/Ngerenyi/132 from the Applicant. There was no written will made the Applicant in his favour it is my humble view the Respondent was not entitled at all to apply for administration of the Estate of Kalume Bavanda even if the Applicant could be deceased.The alleged deceased by the Respondent in Malindi District Magistrate’s Court Succession 36 of 1980 and the Applicant herein is one and the same. The Applicant, Kalume Bavanda testified in Court, produced his national identity card, Letter of Allotment of Parcel Kilifi Ngerenyi 132 and was identified by his wife Diramu Kalume Bavanda. All the Advocates of the respective parties interrogated him. This Court had the opportunity and benefit to see, interrogate and hear from him. I confirm beyond reasonable doubt Kalume Bavanda is alive.It is my holding that the Succession proceedings by the Respondent were fraudulent, misuse and abuse of the court process. It is also my humble view, the Respondent filed Malindi DMC Succession Cause No. 36 of 1980 to defraud the Applicant parcel Kilifi Ngerenyi 132. By the Respondent’s fraudulent succession proceedings, the Applicant’s parcel, Kilifi Ngerenyi 132, was transferred by transmission to the Respondent, Nyiro Pande Ngala.The Respondent benefited from his fraudulent transactions. It was unlawful and illegal for succession proceedings under cap. 160 Laws of Kenya to be commenced, prosecuted and concluded when the owner of the Estate to be inherited was alive. It is my humble view, the grant of representation and Certificate of Succession issued to the Respondent were fraudulently obtained by the making of false statements and by concealment from the Court of something material to the case.The Grant and Certificate of Succession were obtained by means of untrue allegations of a fact in point of law to justify their grant. From the foregoing, I hold that the proceedings in Malindi District Magistrate Succession Cause 36 of 1980 in the matter of the Estate of Kalume Bavanda were fraudulent, void and nullity. Proceedings and orders that were a nullity are something that a person affected by them is entitled ex debito justitiae to have set aside. I find the Applicant’s Application Summons for Revocation of Grant dated 4/1/1982 merited and is allowed. Accordingly. It is hereby ordered: - 1.That the fraudulent, void and nullity Succession proceedings and orders in Malindi Magistrate’s Court Succession Cause No. 36 of 1980 in the Estate of Kalume Bavanda Deceased be and are hereby set aside in their entirety. 2.That the proceedings and orders in Malindi Magistrate’s Court Succession Cause No. 36 of 1980 being fraudulent, void and nullity, the Grant of Representation and Certificate of Succession issued therein be and are hereby annulled and revoked accordingly. 3.That the execution the Certificate of Succession issued in Malindi Magistrate’s Court Succession Cause No. 36 of 1980 on parcel Kilifi Ngerenyi 132 be and is hereby set aside, quashed and cancelled from the records. 4.That parcel Kilifi Ngerenyi 132 be reinstated back unconditionally to Kalume Bavanda the Applicant forthwith and a title deed be issued to him. 40.This position is supported by Exhibit 2, submitted by the 4th Defendant, DW 1. It contains a letter dated August 29, 2005, from the Ministry of Land and Housing, Land Adjudication/Settlement in Kilifi, which states and confirms, among other details, that:“According to the records held in the office, the plot was registered under the names of Kalume Bavanda.Through succession, the plot was transferred to Nyiro Pande Ngalla and is documented……...” 41.The Succession mentioned here was declared invalid by the High Court at Mombasa in High Court Miscellaneous Succession Application Number 2 of 1982. This indicates that the 1st Defendant engaged in serious fraud to acquire the title deed to the suit property, which was originally land allocated to Kalume Bavanda. 42.The record, particularly the decision by Aganyanya J., confirms that the 1st Defendant unlawfully modified the records at the Adjudication Department after falsely asserting his role as the Administrator of Kalume Bavanda's estate, despite the individual still being alive. Notwithstanding the High Court's ruling, which nullified the grant in the District Magistrate’s court and mandated the registration of the land in Kalume Bavanda's name with an official title deed issued to him, the 1st Defendant proceeded to process the title deed in his own name. 43.During cross-examination, the 1st Defendant initially claimed he did not know Kalume Bavanda, but later stated that the land was sold to him by Kalume Bavanda’s wife, whom he could not name but identified as a Taita. This case strongly supports the Plaintiff’s argument that the 1st Defendant acquired ownership of the entire land through fraud. 44.To address the issue of fraud as submitted by the Plaintiff, with whom I agree, in Kiarie & 2 others v Magera [2018] KECA 467 (KLR), the court made the following observations:” The next and only other issue is fraud. The law is clear and we take it from the case of Vijay Morjaria vs Nansingh Madhusingh Darbar & Another [2000] eKLR, where Tunoi, JA. (as he then was) stated as follows:“It is well established that fraud must be specifically pleaded and that particulars of the fraud alleged must be stated on the face of the pleading. The acts alleged to be fraudulent must, of course, be set out, and then it should be stated that these acts were done fraudulently. It is also settled law that fraudulent conduct must be distinctly alleged and distinctly proved, and it is not allowable to leave fraud to be inferred from the facts.” [Emphasis added].The same procedure goes for allegations of misrepresentation and illegality. See Order 2 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.” 45.The Plaintiff not only pleaded fraud but also presented compelling evidence of the 1st Defendant's fraudulent conduct. Significantly, the filing of a succession cause against a person who was alive, in the name of Kalume Bavanda, was notable. 46.Therefore, I find that the 1st Defendant’s actions in acquiring Title Number: Kilifi/Ngerenyi/132 and the associated title deed were, among other things, fraudulent, illegal, unlawful, and wrongful. Additionally, these actions are null and void from the outset and constitute a clear violation of the constitutional rights of the Plaintiff and the Estate of Kalume Bavanda to the suit property. 47.The 1st Defendant cannot be allowed to retain the suit property by virtue of a title deed obtained through fraudulent, unconstitutional, illegal, unlawful, and wrongful actions. 48.DW 2, Khamis Saidi Chula, who appeared solely as a witness, claimed that Kalume Bavanda owned 12 acres of the disputed land, with his father owning the remaining 4 acres. No supporting documents were provided for this claim. Additionally, the 4th Defendant, although a party in this case, did not submit a defense or counterclaim. He stated that he purchased 3 acres from Juma Chula and referenced Orders from SRMCC No. 454 of 2008, Kilifi, in which the 1st Defendant sued him, and the Court ruled that the 4th Defendant owns two (2) acres within Plot No. 132, Ngerenyi Settlement Scheme. He also referenced ELC Appeal No. 51 of 2010, Malindi, in which the 1st Defendant appealed the judgment from SRMCC No. 454 of 2008, and that appeal was dismissed. However, as the 4th Defendant admitted, neither the Plaintiff nor the Estate of Kalume Bavanda was involved in those cases. Besides, the bedrock or root of the title held by the 1st Defendant has been challenged as a bad title. Therefore, those cases do not bind the Plaintiff or the Estate of Kalume Bavanda. Besides, the 1st Defendant, in view of the history of the case, had no good title to pass to any person having acquired it fraudulently. 49.I therefore find that the estate of the deceased Kalume Bavanda was the lawful allotee of the suit property, and that it shall revert to its original owner. Any claim by any other person shall be subject to succession. 50.The counterclaim by the 1st Defendant, in view of the foregoing, has no merit; in fact, it was bare and unprosecuted. It is dismissed. 51.Consequently, the Plaintiff’s suit will succeed in this manner:a.A permanent injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendants from selling, transferring, subdividing, leasing, or interfering in any way with the property, Title No. Kilifi/Ngerenyi/132.b.A declaration that the title deed issued to the 1st Defendant is fraudulent and illegal, and that the Estate of Kalume Bavanda is the sole and legal proprietor of the Property Title No. Kilifi/Ngerenyi/132, measuring Sixteen (16) Acres.c.It is hereby ordered that the title deed issued to the 1st Defendant on 29th August, 2006, be and is hereby nullified and/or canceled, and that an order be and is hereby issued directing the 2nd Defendant to issue a fresh Title Deed for Title Number: Kilifi/Ngerenyi/132 in the name of the deceased Kalume Bavanda.d.Upon such issuance of title, the heirs of the deceased Kalume Bavanda, along with any other claimants, are at liberty to file a succession cause for the inheritance of the suit property in accordance with the Succession Act.e.Costs of the suit are awarded to the plaintiff DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY IN NYERI ON THIS 18TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.E. K. MAKORIJUDGEIn the presence of:Mr. Tindika for the PlaintiffMr. Obaga for the 4th DefendantKendi: Court AssistantIn the absence of:Ms. Minyanzi for the 1st Defendant.