[2014] KEHC 3760 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff's case was uncontroverted as the 1st defendant failed to enter appearance or file a defence. The plaintiff provided sufficient evidence, including official land searches and a sale agreement, demonstrating that he was the rightful owner of the land parcel KISUMU/KANYAWEGI/1447. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 3760 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Richard Oindo Odanga; Defendant: Plantex Limited; Defendant: Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Land Case 176 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- judgment for the plaintiff
- Legal Topics
- Fraudulent Transfer, Rectification of Register, Proprietary Rights, Land Registration
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Richard Oindo Odanga
Plaintiff
Plantex Limited
Defendant
Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the transfer and registration of land parcel KISUMU/KANYAWEGI/1447 to the 1st defendant was fraudulent and illegal.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to rectification of the land register and issuance of title deed in his name.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff is the rightful proprietor of the suit land.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff's case was uncontroverted as the 1st defendant failed to enter appearance or file a defence. The plaintiff provided sufficient evidence, including official land searches and a sale agreement, demonstrating that he was the rightful owner of the land parcel KISUMU/KANYAWEGI/1447. The court noted that any fraudulent attempts to transfer the land to the 1st defendant were not supported by credible evidence and that the latest official search confirmed the plaintiff's ownership. The court concluded that the plaintiff had established his case on a balance of probabilities and was entitled to the reliefs sought, including rectification of the register and...
Court Disposition
judgment for the plaintiff
Orders
- A declaration that the transfer and registration of the 1st defendant's name over land parcel KISUMU/KANYAWEGI/1447 was fraudulent and illegal.
- A declaration that the plaintiff is the proper and rightful sole proprietor of the said parcel of land.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
36 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU
LAND CASE NO.176 OF 2013
RICHARD OINDO ODANGA...................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. PLANTEX LIMITED
2. ATTORNEY GENERAL.................................................DEFENDANTS
FINAL JUDGMENT
1. By a plaint filed here on 05/7/2013 and dated 4/7/2013, the plaintiff – RICHARD OINDO ODANGA – sued the two defendants – PLANTEX LIMITED (1st defendant) and AG (2nd defendant), alleging that the two, without his concurrence, fraudulently caused his land parcel No. KISUMU/KANYAWEGI/1447to be registered in the name of 1st defendant thereby taking away the plaintiff's proprietary rights.
2. The plaintiff pleaded that he came to know about this fraudulent transaction sometimes in January 2013 when he went to the Lands office to collect his title deed.
3. The 1st defendant is said to have been fraudulent in causing the land parcel to be registered in its name; causing the name of the plaintiff to be removed from the land Register; misleading the 2nd defendant that the plaintiff had transferred the land to it; presenting forged documents to the Land's office for registration; circumventing the requirements of the Land Control Board; and colluding with fraudsters to deprive the plaintiff of the land.
4. The 2nd defendant is accused of causing the 1st defendant to be registered as the proprietor of the land;accepting forged documents to transfer the land;assisting the 1st defendant to circumvent the requirement of land Control Board; altering entries in the land Register without the consent of the plaintiff; refusing to rectify the register even after the plaintiff complained; and colluding with the 1st defendant to deprive the plaintiff of his proprietary rights.
5. The plaintiff wants the following orders:
- A declaration that the purported transfer and Registration of 1st defendant's name over land parcel KISUMU/KANYAWEGI/1447 was fraudulent and illegal and a declaration that the plaintiff is the proper and rightful sole proprietor of the said parcel of land; and a title deed to be issued in his name
- An order of rectification of the register directing the District Land Registrar to rectify the Register in respect of the land parcel by cancelling the 1st defendant and replacing it with that of the plaintiff and then issue a title deed in the plaintiff's name.
- Costs of the suit.
6. It appears to this Court that this suit was withdrawn against 2nd defendant on 6/8/2013 and this followed a written notice to that effect filed on 5/8/2013 and dated the same.
7. It appears clear that the 1st defendant was served by counsel for the plaintiff on 16/7/2013. There is an affidavit of service to that effect filed on 5/8/2013.
8. The 1st defendant however didn't enter appearance and/or file defence. Because of this, interlocutory judgment was asked for and the same was entered on 5/8/2013.
9. The matter came for formal proof on 13/2/2014. The plaintiff reiterated more or less what his pleadings contain. But his evidence had other details too. For instance , he conducted various searches which showed that the land was in his name but a search by a relative in January 2013 showed the land was in the name of 1st defendant. An earlier search by one Jack Omollo had also shown the land to belong to 1st defendant. And it appears that the 1st defendants name was inserted on 12/2/2005.
10. The plaintiff also availed a sale agreement showing that he bought the land from the original owner. The agreement was availed here as exhibit P1. I need to observe here that the agreement shows the plaintiff was buying 0. 9 ha of the land and not the 3. 5 ha that he now claims.
11. It appears clear that the plaintiff has been trying in vain to procure a title deed but the land's office has not given him one inspite of the official records showing him as the owner of the land. That is why he came to COURT.
12. This is an uncontroverted matter. It was shown to the Court, vide a search conducted on 11/3/2014, that the land is in the plaintiff's name. It is not clear therefore why the lands office should be reluctant to issue the plaintiff with a title deed.
13. As things stand now, there is nothing really standing in the way of the plaintiff's case. It would appear that shady things had been attempted to wrest ownership of the land from him but the outcome of the latest search show that such things now belong in the past.
14. For the Court, the position taken is that the matter is uncontroverted and the plaintiff has shown on balance that the land belongs to him. The plaintiff is therefore granted the prayers spelt out in para 5 of this judgment which are the same prayers sought in the last paragraph of the plaint. Costs are also granted.
A.K. KANIARU – JUDGE
3/7/2014
3/7/2014
A.K. Kaniaru – Judge
Dioanga – C/C
No party – Present
Interpretation: English/Kiswahili
COURT: Judgment read and delivered in open COURT.
Right of Appeal – 30 days.
A.K. KANIARU - JUDGE
3/7/2014