https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5234

***REPUBLIC OF KENYA*** ***IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAROK*** ***ELC CASE NO. E015 OF 2023*** ***ZULFIKAR AMRIALI SHIVJI ……………………………. 1ST PLAINTIFF*** ***SHIVJI SHENA SHEENAZ ZULIFIKAR ………………. 2ND PLAINTIFF*** ***VERSUS*** ***LAND REGISTRAR NAROK …………………………… 1ST DEFENDANT*** ***THE HONOURABLE*** ***ATTORNEY GENERAL ………………………………… 2ND DEFENDANT*** ***KILOJA LEPORE (The Legal Representative of the Estate of the late Kashu Lepore aka Kashu Ole Lepore) ……. 3RD DEFENDANT*** ***LEPOSO LEPORE (The Legal Representative of the Estate of the late Kashu Lepore aka Kashu Ole Lepore) ……. 4TH DEFENDANT*** ***JUDGMENT*** 1. The Plaintiffs herein **Zulfikar Amirali Shivji** and **Shivji Shena Sheenaz Zulfikar,** instituted this suit against the Defendants herein jointly and severally vide a Plaint dated ***19th December* *2023,*** in respect of land parcel known as **L.R. Number** ***CISMARA/MAJIMOTO/595,*** measuring approximately ***22.3*** ***Hectares*** (hereinafter referred to as “the **Suit Property**”). 2. The Plaintiffs averred that they are the registered proprietors of the suit property, having purchased the same from ***MACHARIA OLE IKOKIA****;* and that the records maintained by the 1st Defendant confirmed that the suit property belonged to them. 3. The Plaintiffs further averred that they had been in **quiet possession** of the suit property from the ***year 2014 until the year 2023,*** when they encountered strangers on the land who claimed ownership thereof; and that this prompted them to conduct an official search at the ***Lands Registry,*** wherein they discovered that the 1st Defendant had ***unilaterally cancelled*** and ***revoked*** their title deed ***without***any ***lawful justification***. 4. The Plaintiffs pleaded that the ***cancellation and revocation*** of their title deed over the suit property was undertaken without their involvement, knowledge or participation, and without according them an opportunity to be heard. 5. The Plaintiffs further averred that the explanation advanced by the 1st Defendant was that the ***cancellation*** had been effected pursuant to a ***Decree*** issued on ***25th July 2022*** *in* ***Environment and Land Case No. 268 of 2017 at Narok****,* as captured in the Green Card relating to the suit property. 6. The Plaintiffs maintained that the said explanation was erroneous because the suit property did not form part of the parcels of land that were the subject of the aforementioned proceedings; and that the judgment delivered by ***Hon. Justice Mohammed N. Kullow,*** in the said suit neither concerned nor affected their parcel of land. 7. Therefore, it was their averments that the actions of the 1st Defendant in cancelling and revoking their title deed and subsequently facilitating the transfer of the suit property to ***KASHU LEPORE (Deceased*), *were unlawful, illegal and undertaken*** without any legal basis. According to the Plaintiffs, they had ***never sold, transferred*** or otherwise ***parted*** with their proprietary interest in the suit property, nor had they authorized any person to enter upon or deal with the land. 8. The Plaintiffs further pleaded that the impugned actions violated their constitutional right to own property, and deprived them of the use and quiet enjoyment of the suit land, thereby occasioning them loss and damage. Further, that despite issuing a demand and notice of intention to sue, the 1st Defendant had declined to reinstate their title. 9. Consequently, the Plaintiffs prayed for Judgment against the Defendants herein jointly and severally for the following orders: - 10. ***A declaration that the plaintiffs are the bona fide legal owners of all that parcel of land known as L.R Number CISMARA/MAJIMOTO/595.*** 11. ***An order directing the 1st Defendant to cancel and revoke the Title Deed erroneously issued to Kashu Lepore (Deceased) in respect to the suit parcel of land.*** 12. ***An order directing the 1st Defendant to issue the Plaintiffs with a Title Deed and further correct all details pertaining to the suit land to reflect the Plaintiffs ownership.*** 13. ***General damages for trespass.*** 14. ***Costs of this suit together with interest thereon at such rate and for such period of time as this Honourable Court may deem fit and just to grant.*** 15. ***Any other order and or relief that this Honourable court may deem fit to grant.*** 16. In response to the Plaint, the 2nd Defendant filed a Statement of Defence dated ***8th July 2024,*** and denied that the Plaintiffs were the ***lawful registered proprietors*** of the suit property; and further denied the allegations relating to the alleged unlawful cancellation of the Plaintiffs’ title. 17. It also denied any knowledge of the alleged intrusion onto the suit property, contending that if the Plaintiffs knew the identities of the alleged trespassers, they ought to have joined them as parties to the proceedings. 18. The 2nd Defendant averred that the cancellation of the Plaintiffs’ title was undertaken pursuant to the judgment delivered in ***Narok ELC No. 268 of 2017****,* which directed the revocation of titles that had been issued to private persons who were not members of ***Maji Moto Group Ranch,*** and that the suit property originated from the said Group Ranch. 19. It was further pleaded that the suit property was presently registered in the name of ***KASHU LEPORE***, as evidenced by the Plaintiffs’ own documents annexed to the Plaint; and that if the Plaintiffs disputed that registration, they ought to have joined ***Kashu Lepore***, being the registered proprietor, as well as ***Macharia Ole Ikokia***, from whom they allegedly purchased the property, as parties to the suit. 20. According to the 2nd Defendant, determining the matter in the absence of the registered proprietor would offend the rules of natural justice by condemning him unheard, and would inevitably result in endless litigation. 21. The 2nd Defendant denied that its actions violated or infringed upon the Plaintiffs’ proprietary rights, asserting that it merely implemented a valid court order. It further denied the Plaintiffs’ claims for loss and damages; and also denied that any demand for payment had been made. 22. On ***11th November 2024***, the 3rd and 4th Defendants sought to be joined in the suit as Defendants, and on ***19th May 2025***, the two were joined as Defendants, and were directed to file their pleadings, witness statements, and list of exhibits, which directions were complied with. 23. The 3rd and 4th Defendants, joined the suit in their capacity as the Legal Representatives of the Estate of the Late ***Kashu Lepore*** ***a.k.a Kashu Ole Lepore***, filed their Statement of Defence dated ***11th August 2025,*** and denied all the allegations contained in the Plaint. 24. The 3rd and 4th Defendants denied the Plaintiffs’ allegations that they were the lawful proprietors of the suit property; They claimed that the late ***Kashu Lepore alias Kashu Ole Lepore*** was a bona fide member of ***Majimoto Group Ranch;*** and that during the demarcation process he was lawfully allocated the suit property. 25. It was their case that, by virtue of the said allocation, the Estate of the late ***Kashu Lepore*** was the lawful owner of L.R. No. ***CIS-MARA/MAJIMOTO/595****.* Further, that following demarcation, the deceased visited the offices of the ***District Land Registrar, Narok*** ***North and South***, to collect his title deed, but was shocked to discover that the title had instead been issued to the Plaintiffs. 26. The 3rd and 4th Defendants further contended that the Plaintiffs knew, or ought to have known, that the suit property belonged to the late ***Kashu Lepore,*** and could ***not*** therefore have ***lawfully*** ***acquired*** a valid title over the suit property without the authority of the rightful owner. Consequently, they denied that the Plaintiffs were bona fide purchasers for value without notice, and contended that the Plaintiffs’ title was not indefeasible, having allegedly been acquired ***illegally***, ***unprocedurally*** and through a ***corrupt*** scheme. 27. They further pleaded that the Plaintiffs were seeking to use the judicial process to sanitize ***a fraudulently acquired title*** with the ***intention of dispossessing*** the Estate of the late ***Kashu Lepore*** of its lawful property. According to the 3rd and 4th Defendants, the Plaintiffs had misrepresented themselves as the owners of the suit property with the sole objective of disinheriting the deceased’s estate and appropriating the land for their own benefit. 28. Further, that the deceased had lodged a complaint with the ***District Land Registrar, Narok North and South***, which culminated in investigations and a report dated ***10th August 2016***. They also pleaded that the investigations established that the deceased appeared in both the primary register and the members’ list for purposes of issuance of title deeds and that the Plaintiffs’ title had been issued without his knowledge or consent. 29. They relied on the judgment delivered by ***Hon. Justice Mohammed N. Kullow in Narok ELC No. 268 of 2017****,* pursuant to which orders were issued directing the ***District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer*** to regularize the allocation of parcels within ***Majimoto Group Ranch*** in accordance with the original members’ register; and that following the implementation of those orders, the Land Registrar lawfully issued ***Title No. CIS-MARA/MAJIMOTO/595,*** to the ***late Kashu Lepore*** as the original allottee and ***lawful owner*** through a transparent and legitimate process. 30. Accordingly, the 3rd and 4th Defendants prayed that the Plaintiffs’ suit be dismissed with costs and that the Estate of the late ***Kashu Lepore alias Kashu Ole Lepore*** be declared the legal owner of the suit property. 31. The matter proceeded for hearing via ***viva voce evidence,*** wherein, the 1st Plaintiff ***Zulfikar Amirali Shivji*,** gave evidence for himself and on behalf of the 2nd Plaintiff. The 1st and 2nd Defendants gave evidence through ***Philip Mathew Odidah,*** the Land Registrar Narok, and the 3rd and 4th Defendants gave evidence through ***Kiloja Lepore***, the 3rd Defendant herein on his behalf and on behalf of the 4th Defendant. ***PLAINTIFFS’ CASE*** 1. **PW1: *Zulfikar Amirali Shivji,*** adopted his witness statement dated ***19th December 2023,*** as part of his evidence in chief and produced his list of documents dated ***19th December 2023*** as ***PExhibits 1 – 11.*** 2. He further testified that the 2nd Plaintiff and himself are the registered proprietors of ***L.R. No. CISMARA/MAJIMOTO/595***, measuring approximately ***22.3 hectares***; and that they purchased the suit property from ***Macharia Ole Ikokia*** in the year ***2014*** at a purchase price of ***Kshs. 3,300,000/=.*** 3. That following the said purchase, they took possession of the suit property, and have remained in ***quiet and uninterrupted*** **occupation** from the year ***2014 until the year 2023***, when they encountered strangers on the land claiming ownership thereof. Further, that the purchase was undertaken ***lawfully*** and in compliance with all the relevant legal requirements, including obtaining the requisite consent of the Land Control Board. 4. PW1 also testified that the presence of the alleged trespassers prompted the Plaintiffs to conduct an official search at the Lands Registry. According to him, although the Plaintiffs remained the lawful owners of the suit property, they were surprised to discover that the 1st Defendant had ***unilaterally cancelled and revoked*** their title deed without any lawful justification. 5. Further, that the ***Green Card,*** indicated that the cancellation of the Plaintiffs’ title had been undertaken pursuant to a decree issued on ***25th July 2022,*** in ***Narok Environment and Land Case No. 268 of 2017****.* PW1 maintained that this explanation was erroneous because *L.R. No.* ***CISMARA/MAJIMOTO/595****,* measuring approximately ***22.3 hectares***, was ***never*** one of the parcels of land that formed the subject matter of the said proceedings. 6. He also testified that the suit property had never been the subject of any court proceedings before any court and that the judgment delivered by ***Hon. Justice Mohammed N. Kullow in Narok ELC No. 268 of 2017,*** neither concerned nor affected L.R. No. ***CISMARA/MAJIMOTO/595,*** the suit property herein. 7. It was PW1’s further testimony that the actions of the 1st Defendant in ***cancelling and revoking*** the Plaintiffs’ title deed and subsequently transferring the suit property to a third party lacked any legal basis. He maintained that the impugned actions violated the Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to property. 8. Further, that the Plaintiffs had never sold, transferred or otherwise parted with their proprietary interest in the suit property, nor had they authorized any person to enter upon or deal with the land on their behalf. Therefore, he urged the Court to grant the reliefs sought in the Plaint. 9. Upon cross examination by ***Mr Mwandej,e*** Counsel for 1st and 2nd Defendants, PW1 testified that when he carried out a search in ***2022,*** the Suit Property was still registered in his name; that he bought the land to ***grow*** ***capsicums and tomatoes*** on the said land; that when he bought the said land, he obtained a consent from the ***Land Control Board*** and ***a title deed*** in his name; that the title was cancelled on ***8th October 2014***, reinstated then later cancelled again in ***2023;*** and that on ***1st December 2014,*** the title was still in his name. 10. On further cross examination by Mr Kenka for the 3rd and 4th, Defendants, he testified that the 3rd and 4th Defendants are his immediate neighbors; that he was not aware of the allocation of the suit land to them; that the ***LCB Consent*** was issued on ***20th March 2014***, 6 months before the sale agreement dated ***15th September 2014***; he acknowledged that he had seen the Defendants’ documents and that ***Kashu Lepore*** was indeed the allottee of the suit land. ***1st and 2nd DEFENDANTS’ CASE*** 1. **DW1**: **Phillip Matthew Odidah,** the District Land Registrar, Narok adopted his witness statement dated ***18th October 2024,*** as his evidence in chief, and further testified that according to the records held at the Narok Land Registry, ***L.R. No. CIS-MARA/MAJIMOTO/595,*** measuring approximately **22.3 hectares**, was first registered in the name of ***Macharia Ole Ikokia*** on ***5th September 2014****,* and a title deed was issued to him on the same day. 2. He further testified that on ***8th October 2014***, the suit property was transferred to the ***1st and 2nd Plaintiffs,*** and a title deed issued to them on the same date. However, he noted that the relevant entries on the ***Green Card*** remained unsigned and appeared to have been ***cancelled***, although there was a subsequent entry reinstating the entries, which was signed by the Land Registrar, but not by the officer who had issued the title deed. 3. DW1 further testified that on or about ***29th August 2023***, the Land Registry was served with a decree issued on ***25th July 2022*** *in* ***Narok ELC No. 268 of 2017****,* together with the judgment of the Court. He stated that under ***Order (d) of the decree,*** the ***District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer*** were directed to regularize the allocation of parcels of land within ***Majimoto Group Ranch*** to the entitled owners in accordance with the original members’ list, and that the ***District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer*** complied by submitting a regularized allocation list for implementation. 4. It was DW1’s testimony that under ***Order (g)*** of the decree, the 1st to 10th Respondents in ***Narok ELC No. 268 of 2017***, together with their agents and beneficiaries, were ordered to surrender all title documents relating to parcels of land that had been ***irregularly and*** ***illegally allocated*** to them, failing which the titles would stand revoked upon the lapse of thirty days from the date of the judgment. 5. DW1 also testified that pursuant to the implementation of ***Order (d),*** ***L.R. No. CIS-MARA/MAJIMOTO/595,*** was regularized and allocated to ***Kashu Ole Lepore***, a member of ***Maji Moto Group*** ***Ranch,*** bearing membership number ***454,*** as the original allottee. He further stated that the suit property had previously been ***irregularly and illegally allocated*** to ***Macharia Ole Ikokia*** instead of ***Kashu Ole Lepore,*** thereby rendering the parcel liable for revocation under the decree. 6. According to DW1, the regularized members’ allocation register confirmed that the suit property rightfully belonged to ***Kashu Ole*** ***Lepore,*** and upon implementation of the decree, the parcel reverted to him as the lawful owner. He further testified that ***L.R. No. CIS-MARA/MAJIMOTO/595*** formed part of the ***irregular*** and ***illegal allocations*** arising from the subdivision of ***L.R. No. CIS-MARA/MAJIMOTO/8,*** which was the subject of **Narok ELC No. 268** ***of 2017***, and that the proceedings in that suit sought to rectify the ***irregular allocation*** of land to restore the genuine members of the Group Ranch, including ***Kashu Ole Lepore***, who had allegedly been unlawfully deprived of their rightful shares. 7. DW1 further testified that the Plaintiffs deliberately failed to join ***Macharia Ole Ikokia*** to the proceedings, yet he was the person best placed to explain how he acquired the suit property, and subsequently transferred it to the Plaintiffs barely one month after it had been registered in his name. 8. Finally, DW1 testified that where a title deed is revoked pursuant to a court order, the registered proprietor is deemed to have notice of such revocation, and no separate notification is required. He therefore maintained that the revocation of the titles issued to ***Macharia Ole Ikokia*** and the Plaintiffs, and the subsequent reversion of ***L.R. No.*** ***CIS-MARA/MAJIMOTO/595*** to ***Kashu Ole Lepore*** pursuant to the decree in ***Narok ELC No. 268 of 2017,*** was ***lawful, regular*** and undertaken in compliance with the Court’s orders. 9. Upon cross examination, DW1 testified that when a court orders revocation, the Land Registry does not give notice. ***3RD AND 4TH DEFENDANTS CASE*** 1. **DW2**: **Kiloja Lepore,** adopted his witness statement dated ***11th August 2025,***as his evidence in chief and also produced his list of documents as exhibits. He also testified that he is one of the legal representatives of the Estate of the ***late Kashu Lepore*** alias ***Kashu Ole Lepore***, who died on ***28th June 2023***. Further, that the deceased was a bona fide member of ***Majimoto Group Ranch*** and that during the demarcation process he was allocated parcel number ***CIS-MARA/MAJIMOTO/595***, which consequently belonged to him. 2. It was DW2’s evidence that after the demarcation exercise, the deceased visited the offices of the ***District Land Registrar, Narok*** ***North and South***, to collect his title deed, but discovered that the title had instead been issued to the Plaintiffs. He maintained that despite the deceased being the rightful owner of the suit property, the Plaintiffs had ***misrepresented*** themselves as the owners with the intention of ***dispossessing*** the deceased’s estate of its land. 3. He further testified that the deceased lodged a complaint with the ***District Land Registrar, Narok North and South***, prompting investigations into the matter. According to him, the investigations culminated in a report dated ***10th August 2016****,* which established that the deceased appeared in both the primary register, and the members’ list for issuance of title deeds, but that the title deed had nevertheless been issued to the Plaintiffs without the deceased’s knowledge or consent. 4. He stated that following the investigations, new officials of ***Majimoto Group Ranch*** were elected on ***14th December 2016***, and that on ***16th March 2017,*** the said new officials instituted ***Narok ELC No. 268 of 2017,*** challenging the irregular allocation of parcels of land to persons who did not appear in the original area list. 5. DW2 further testified that pursuant to the judgment delivered by ***Hon. Justice Mohammed N. Kullow*** on ***8th July 2022***, the Court directed the ***District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer*** to regularize the allocation of parcels of land within ***Majimoto Group Ranch,*** in accordance with the original members’ register. Further, that upon implementation of those orders, ***L.R. No. CIS-MARA/MAJIMOTO/595,*** was lawfully registered in the name of the late ***Kashu Lepore*** as the original allottee and legal owner. 6. It was his further testimony that the Plaintiffs knew, or ought to have known, that the suit property belonged to the deceased ***Kashu Lepore*** and therefore could not have acquired a valid title from a person who lacked lawful authority to transfer the land. He maintained that the Plaintiffs ***were not bona fide purchasers for value without notice*** and that their title was liable to impeachment, for having been acquired ***illegally***, ***unprocedurally*** and through a ***fraudulent scheme***. 7. ***DW2*** further testified that the Plaintiffs were seeking to use the Court process to legitimize a ***fraudulently acquired*** title and ***dispossess*** the Estate of the deceased of the suit property. He maintained that the adjudication records, registers and original area list traced the root of title to the deceased and demonstrated that the Plaintiffs had not lawfully acquired the suit property from the rightful owner. 8. After the viva voce evidence, parties were directed to file and exchange written submissions, which directions they complied with. The Plaintiffs filed their written submissions dated ***12th May 2026***, through ***Maina Ngaruiya & Co Advocates,*** wherein they raised the following issues for determination: 9. ***Whether the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs are the bona fide legal owners of L.R. No. CISMARA/MAJIMOTO/595.*** 10. ***Whether L.R. No. CISMARA/MAJIMOTO/595 formed part of the parcels affected by the judgment delivered by Hon. Justice Mohammed N. Kullow in Narok ELC Petition No. 268 of 2017.*** 11. ***Whether the cancellation of the Plaintiffs’ title by the 1st Defendant was procedural, lawful and constitutional.*** 12. ***Whether the Land Registrar failed in his statutory duty by failing to produce the relevant land records, adjudication records, parcel file, Green Card instruments and supporting documents before the Court.*** 13. ***Whether the Plaintiffs proved their case on a balance of probabilities against the Defendants.*** 14. ***Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought in the Plaint.*** 15. On the first issue, the Plaintiffs submitted that they are the bona fide and lawful proprietors of L.R. No. ***CISMARA/MAJIMOTO/595,*** having purchased the same from ***Macharia Ole Ikokia*** for valuable consideration in the year **2014** after conducting due diligence, obtaining the requisite ***Land Control Board consent***, executing the transfer instruments and being duly registered as proprietors. 16. The Plaintiffs further submitted that upon registration they acquired an ***indefeasible title*** protected under ***Section 26*** of the ***Land Registration Act*** and had remained in ***peaceful possession*** until the impugned ***cancellation in 2023.*** 17. Further, the Plaintiffs submitted that their title had not been impeached in the manner contemplated under ***Section 26(1)(a)*** ***and (b) of the Land Registration Act,*** as no evidence had been tendered demonstrating ***fraud***, ***misrepresentation, illegality,*** ***procedural impropriety*** or a ***corrupt scheme*** attributable to them. 18. In support of the above submission, the Plaintiffs relied on ***Joseph N.K. Arap Ng’ok v Moijo Ole Keiwua & 4 Others [1997] KLR****,* where the Court of Appeal held that registration confers absolute and indefeasible ownership upon the registered proprietor, and on ***Elijah Makeri Nyangw’ra v Stephen Mungai Njuguna & Another [2013] eKLR***, where the Court held that the law affords extensive protection to registered titles, and that such titles cannot be defeated except in the circumstances expressly provided by statute. 19. The Plaintiffs further submitted that although questions had arisen during the hearing regarding the chronology of the ***Land Control Board consent*** and the entries appearing on the Green Card, those matters did not invalidate their title because the registration was ***processed, accepted and completed*** by the ***Land Registrar*** after scrutiny of all the statutory documents. 20. The Plaintiffs further argued that the ***Land Registrar*** failed to produce the parcel file, transfer instruments, application for consent, presentation book or any registry records capable of demonstrating fraud, forgery, illegality, collusion or procedural impropriety on their part, and therefore their title could not lawfully be impeached. 21. On whether the suit property formed part of the proceedings in ***Narok ELC Petition No. 268 of 2017***, the Plaintiffs submitted that the cancellation of their title on the basis of the decree issued therein was unlawful because ***L.R. No. CISMARA/MAJIMOTO/595,*** neither formed part of the parcels that were specifically pleaded nor was it determined in the impugned judgment. 22. The Plaintiffs also submitted that there is a pending appeal, namely ***Nakuru Civil Appeal No. E161 of 2025; David Mayone Matunke & 4 Others v Majimoto Group Ranch & 19 Others****,* against the said judgment and that reliance upon the decree to cancel their title was therefore premature. Further, that execution of a decree must strictly conform to the terms of the decree, and cannot be extended to affect property that was never the subject of the proceedings. 23. On the ***legality*** of the ***cancellation,*** the Plaintiffs submitted that the 1st Defendant ***cancelled*** and ***revoked*** their title without notice, without summoning them, and without according them an opportunity to be heard, thereby violating ***Article 47*** of the ***Constitution*** and the ***Fair Administrative Action Act***. 24. It was the Plaintiffs argument that ***cancellation*** of title is not a routine administrative act, but one affecting proprietary rights protected under ***Article 40*** of the ***Constitution,*** and must therefore comply with the rules of natural justice. Reliance was placed on ***Onyango Oloo v Attorney General [1986 - 1989] EA* *456****,* where the Court held that a decision reached in breach of the rules of natural justice is ***void*** irrespective of whether the same decision would otherwise have been reached. 25. The Plaintiffs further submitted that the official register contained duplicate and unexplained cancellation entries which the Land Registrar failed to reconcile during cross-examination. Further, that the ***Land Registrar***, being the statutory custodian of land records, failed to produce the parcel file, adjudication records, implementation documents, mutation forms, notices or cancellation proceedings to explain the impugned entries. 26. In support thereof, the Plaintiffs relied on ***Chucha v Wamaitha (Suing as the Legal Representative ad litem of the Estate of Esther Wamaitha Mbugua (Deceased)) & 2 Others***, wherein the Court observed that deceptive entries on a title register cannot be upheld in the absence of documentary explanation, and further affirmed that the Land Registrar, as custodian of land records, bears responsibility for validating the authenticity of registry entries. 27. The Plaintiffs also relied on ***Bukenya & Others v Uganda [1972] EA 549****,* where the Court held that failure to call material witnesses or produce crucial evidence entitles the Court to draw an ***adverse inference*** against the party withholding such evidence, and ***Nyamanga v Makabongo & 2 Others [2023] KEELC******22581 (KLR)****,* where the Court held that in the absence of any documentary proof justifying impugned ***Green Card*** entries, the registered proprietor’s title remained valid and there existed no lawful basis for its cancellation. 28. The Plaintiffs further submitted that the title subsequently issued in favour of the late ***Kashu Lepore*** was ***unlawful*** as it was issued after his death, and before any grant of representation had been obtained. It was their argument that such dealings amounted to intermeddling with the estate of a deceased person contrary to ***Section 45*** of the ***Law of Succession Act***. 29. In support thereof, they relied on ***Re Estate of Mutugi Mbutii (Deceased) [2018],*** wherein the Court adopted the holding in ***Re Estate of Veronica Njoki Wakagoto (Deceased) [2013] eKLR*** that estate property cannot lawfully be dealt with by persons lacking authority under a grant of representation and that such conduct constitutes intermeddling. 30. Further, the Plaintiffs also relied on ***Trouistik Union International & Another v Jane Mbeyu & Another [1993] eKLR****,* where the Court of Appeal held that only a duly appointed legal representative has the legal capacity to sue or otherwise act on behalf of a deceased person’s estate. 31. Finally, the Plaintiffs submitted that they had proved their case on a balance of probabilities, by demonstrating that they ***lawfully acquired*** the suit property, ***conducted due diligence***, obtained all ***statutory approvals,*** were ***duly registered*** as ***proprietors*** and remained ***in possession*** for several years without challenge, whereas the Defendants failed to establish any ***fraud*** or ***illegality*** attributable to them. 32. On the applicable standard of proof, the Plaintiffs relied on ***Vijay Morjaria v Nansingh Madhusingh Darbar & Another [2000] eKLR****,* where the Court of Appeal held that allegations of fraud must not only be specifically pleaded, but must also be strictly proved to a standard higher than a balance of probabilities though lower than beyond reasonable doubt. Further, they relied on ***Palace Investments Limited v Geoffrey Kariuki Mwenda & Another [2015] eKLR****,* where the Court reiterated that in civil proceedings, a party succeeds upon proving its case on a balance or preponderance of probabilities. 33. The 1st and 2nd Defendants filed their written submissions dated **2nd June 2026, through Mwandeje *M. Mngo’ng’o, Principal State Counsel*** at **The Attorney General Chamber,** and they identified two issues for determination, namely; 34. ***Whether the Plaintiffs had proved their case against the Defendants; and*** 35. ***Whether they were entitled to the reliefs sought in the Plaint.*** 36. On whether the Plaintiffs had proved their case, the 1st and 2nd Defendants submitted that the burden of proof lay upon the Plaintiffs under ***Sections 107 and 108*** of the ***Evidence Act***. In support of that proposition, they relied on ***Evans Otieno Nyakwana v Cleophas Bwana Ongaro [2015] eKLR,*** where the Court reiterated that the party who alleges the existence of a fact bears the legal burden of proving it. Further, they argued that it was therefore incumbent upon the Plaintiffs to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the facts pleaded in support of their claim. 37. The 1st and 2nd Defendants also submitted that although the Plaintiffs alleged that they purchased the suit property from ***Macharia Ole Ikokia*** for ***Kshs. 3,300,000/=*** under a Sale Agreement dated ***15th September 2014,*** and remained in quiet possession until ***2023;*** they failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove those assertions. 38. Further, that during cross-examination ***PW1*** admitted that no official search was produced to demonstrate that ***due diligence*** had been ***undertaken prior*** to the purchase, and that there was equally no documentary evidence proving payment of the purchase price. It was their argument that the Plaintiffs had failed to discharge the evidential burden required in civil proceedings. 39. Further, they submitted that the Plaintiffs’ own evidence exposed ***irregularities in the transaction***. That ***PW1*** confirmed during cross-examination that the ***Land Control Board Consent*** was obtained on ***20th March 2014***, several months before the Sale Agreement dated ***15th September 2014***. 40. Further, they submitted that such chronology was contrary to ***Section 6(1) of the Land Control Act***, which requires a valid transaction to precede the application for consent. Reliance was sought in ***Hirani Ngaithe Githire v Wanjiku Munge [1979] KLR 50****,* where the Court held that failure to obtain a valid ***Land Control Board Consent*,** renders a controlled transaction void and that equitable principles cannot override the mandatory provisions of the ***Land Control Act***. That the ***Land Control Board*** process in the present case could not ***lawfully precede*** the sale transaction, and consequently cast doubt on the legitimacy of the Plaintiffs’ acquisition of title. 41. The 1st and 2nd Defendants also relied on the evidence of ***DW1,*** the ***District Land Registrar***, who testified that the ***Green Card*** reflected unsigned entries relating to the transfer of the suit property to the Plaintiffs, thereby rendering the registration process incomplete. Further, that the Plaintiffs failed to join ***Macharia Ole Ikokia,*** their alleged vendor, to explain how he acquired and subsequently transferred the suit property. According to the 1st and 2nd Defendants, these inconsistencies demonstrated that the Plaintiffs had failed to establish a lawful chain of ownership. 42. On whether the cancellation of the Plaintiffs’ title was lawful and procedural, the 1st and 2nd Defendants submitted that the Land Registrar acted pursuant to a valid decree issued in ***Narok ELC Petition No. 268 of 2017****.* Further, that the ***Land Registrar*** did not ***act arbitrarily*** but merely implemented the court decree which directed the ***District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer*** to regularize the allocation of parcels of land within ***Majimoto Group Ranch***, in accordance with the original members’ list, following which the Land Registrar effected the consequential entries in the register. 43. Further, that the suit property was a subdivision of ***CIS MARA/MAJIMOTO/8***, which had formed part of the subject matter in the said proceedings, and therefore the impugned cancellation was undertaken in compliance with the court decree and within the law. 44. Ultimately, the 1st and 2nd Defendants submitted that the Plaintiffs had failed to prove their claim on a balance of probabilities and urged the Court to dismiss the suit with costs, contending that the Court ought not to validate an allegedly irregular acquisition of title merely because the Plaintiffs held a certificate of title. 45. The 3rd and 4th Defendants filed their written submissions dated ***26th May 2026,*** through ***Kenka & Co Advocates*,** and set out seven issues for determination being; 46. ***Whether the plaintiffs have proved that Macharia Ole Ikokia was a bona fide member of Maji Moto Group Ranch and whether he was lawfully allotted land parcel No Cis Mara/ Maji Moto /595;*** 47. ***Whether the plaintiffs established a lawful root of title;*** 48. ***Failure to call material witness.*** 49. ***Whether CIS-MARA/MAJIMOTO/595 formed part of the subject matter in Narok ELC Petition No. 268 of 2017,*** 50. ***Whether this suit is an impermissible collateral attack;*** 51. ***Whether registration of Kashu Lepore after death was lawful;*** 52. ***Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought.*** 53. On ***whether the plaintiffs proved that Macharia Ole Ikokia was a bona fide member of Majimoto Group Ranch and whether he was lawfully allotted parcel no. cis-mara/majimoto/595,*** the 3rd and 4th Defendant submitted that the Plaintiffs' entire claim is founded upon the allegation that they acquired the suit property from one ***Macharia Ole Ikokia.*** Consequently, the legality of the Plaintiffs' claim is entirely dependent upon the legality of ***Macharia Ole*** ***Ikokia's*** alleged entitlement to the suit property. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the Plaintiffs to demonstrate that ***Macharia Ole*** ***Ikokia*** was: 1. *a bona fide member of Majimoto Group Ranch;* 2. *entitled to allocation of land within the Group Ranch;* 3. *lawfully allocated Parcel No. CIS-MARA/MAJIMOTO/595; and* 4. *possessed a valid and transferable interest capable of being conveyed to the Plaintiffs.* 54. The 3rd and 4th Defendants submitted that the Plaintiffs failed to discharge their burden of proof, as said ***Macharia Ole Ikokia*** was not called as a witness. Reliance was sought in the case of ***Majimoto Group Ranch & 10 Others v Matunke & 14 Others; Sankale & 4 Others (Interested Parties) (Petition No. 268 of 2017) [2022] KEELC 3602 (KLR).*** 55. It was submitted that the Plaintiffs produced no evidence to demonstrate that ***Macharia Ole Ikokia*** was not one of the fictitious persons, non-members or unlawful beneficiaries referred to by the Court in the foregoing findings. Reliance was also sought in the cases of ***Dina Management Ltd v County Government of Mombasa & 5 others (Petition 8 (E010) of 2021) [2023] KESC 30 (KLR); Munyu Maina v Hiram Gathiha Maina (2013) eKLR*** and ***Samuel Kamere v. Lands Registrar, Kajiado Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2005; [2015] eKLR.*** 56. On whether the plaintiffs established a lawful root of title, it was submitted that the Plaintiffs relied heavily on a purported ***Land Control Board Consent*** dated ***20th March 2014,*** without producing a copy of transfer. However, as at ***20th March 2014***: the suit property was still registered in the name of the ***Majimoto Group Ranch,*** and no individual title existed in favour of ***Macharia Ole Ikokia***; Therefore, ***Macharia Ole Ikokia*** lacked any registrable proprietary interest at that moment. That ***Land Control Board*** cannot lawfully approve transfer of land by a person who is not the registered owner and who possesses no registrable interest. 57. On failure to call material witness, it was submitted that the plaintiffs are not members ***of Majimoto Group Ranch***, and their entire case revolves around the alleged transaction involving ***Macharia Ole Ikokia***, whom they did not call as a witness. They relied on ***King’oo v Mwangi (Civil Appeal 113 of 2015) [2019] KECA 734 (KLR) (10 May 2019),*** to support the above submissions. 58. On whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought, the 3rd and 4th Defendants submitted that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish any legal or factual basis upon which the reliefs sought can be granted. First, the Plaintiffs failed to prove a lawful root of title, as the evidence before this Court demonstrates that the Plaintiffs' claim is entirely dependent upon an alleged transfer from ***Macharia Ole Ikokia***. However, the Plaintiffs failed to call ***Macharia Ole Ikokia***, as a witness. 59. Ultimately, the 3rd and 4th Defendants urged the court to dismiss the Plaintiffs suit with costs to them for having failed to prove their case on the required standard of balance of probabilities. 60. The court has carefully considered the pleadings, the oral and documentary evidence, the submissions by parties herein, and the applicable law, and the court finds the issues for determination as follows; 61. ***Whether the Plaintiffs acquired a valid and indefeasible title to L.R. No. CIS MARA/MAJIMOTO/595;*** 62. ***Whether the cancellation of the Plaintiffs’ title and the subsequent registration of the suit property in the name of the late Kashu Lepore was unlawful; and*** 63. ***Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought.*** 64. The Plaintiffs’ case is that they ***lawfully*** purchased the suit property from ***Macharia Ole Ikokia*** in the year ***2014,*** for valuable consideration, obtained the requisite ***Land Control Board consent***; were duly registered as proprietors and were subsequently issued with a title deed. They contended that upon registration, they acquired an ***indefeasible title protected*** under ***Sections 24, 25 and 26*** of the ***Land Registration Act,*** and remained in peaceful possession until the impugned cancellation of their title by the ***Land Registrar*** in the year ***2023.*** 65. The Defendants dispute the Plaintiffs’ claim, contending that the suit property was originally allocated to the late ***Kashu Lepore as*** a bona fide member of ***Majimoto Group Ranch***, and that ***Macharia Ole Ikokia*** therefore had no lawful interest capable of being transferred to the Plaintiffs. Consequently, they urged the Court to find that the Plaintiffs’ title was liable to impeachment. 66. The legal position regarding the rights of a registered proprietor is now well settled. ***Sections 24 and 25*** of the ***Land Registration Act*** vest in a registered proprietor ***absolute ownership*** of land together with all rights and ***privileges*** ***appurtenant*** thereto. ***Section 26(1),*** of the same Act, further provides that a ***Certificate of title*** shall be taken by the Court as ***prima facie evidence*** that the person named therein is the ***absolute and indefeasible owner***, unless it is shown that the title was obtained through fraud or ***misrepresentation*** to which the proprietor was a party or that it was acquired ***illegally***, ***unprocedurally*** or through a ***corrupt scheme.*** 67. In ***Joseph N.K. Arap Ng’ok v Justice Moijo Ole Keiwua & 4 Others [1997] eKLR, the*** Court of Appeal held that once a person is registered as proprietor, such registration confers absolute ownership together with all rights and privileges belonging or appurtenant thereto. Likewise, in ***Elijah Makeri Nyangw’ra v Stephen Mungai Njuguna & Another [2013] eKLR****,* the Court observed that although a title is not immune from challenge, it can only be impeached upon proof of the statutory grounds set out under Section 26 of the Land Registration Act. The burden therefore lies upon the party seeking to impeach a registered title to establish the existence of those statutory grounds. 68. The Defendants relied heavily on the principle enunciated by the Court of Appeal in ***Munyu Maina v Hiram Gathiha Maina [2013] eKLR,***that where the root of a registered proprietor’s title is ***challenged,*** the proprietor must go beyond the instrument of title and demonstrate the legality of its acquisition. This Court respectfully agree with that principle. However, that decision does not relieve the party impugning title of the obligation to lay before the Court credible evidence demonstrating why the root of title is under challenge in the first place. The evidential burden imposed upon a registered proprietor does not arise in a vacuum; it must be founded upon cogent evidence ***disclosing illegality, fraud or procedural impropriety.*** 69. In the present case, this court is satisfied that the Plaintiffs discharged that burden. They produced the Sale Agreement dated ***15th September 2014***, the transfer documents, the ***Land Control Board consent,*** the ***title deed issued*** in their favour and the official searches confirming their registration. PW1 testified that immediately after purchase, they ***took possession*** of the suit property and remained in ***quiet occupation for close to nine years*** until the year ***2023,*** when strangers entered unto the said land claiming ownership. That evidence remained substantially unshaken during cross-examination. 70. The Defendants invited this Court to ***infer illegality*** from the fact that the ***Land Control Board Consent*** was issued on ***20th March 2014***, whereas the Sale Agreement was executed on ***15th September 2014****.* While that chronology appears unusual, the Court is not persuaded that, standing on its own, it is sufficient to invalidate a registered title. The transaction was accepted for registration by the ***Land Registrar***, the transfer was effected, and a title deed was issued. No evidence was led to demonstrate that the ***consent itself*** was forged, fraudulently procured or cancelled by the relevant ***Land Control Board***. 71. More importantly, the ***Land Registrar,*** being the statutory custodian of the transaction documents, failed to produce the parcel file, the application for consent, the transfer instruments or any registry records demonstrating that the registration was procured unlawfully, and thus was a candidate for impeachment. 72. Equally significant is the evidence of ***DW1*** regarding the Green Card. While DW1 testified that certain entries were unsigned, and that there had been ***cancellations and reinstatements***, he candidly admitted that he could not explain those anomalies by reference to the supporting registry documents because none were produced before the Court. The ***Green Card*** is merely a reflection of entries made in the register; it is the underlying instruments that authenticate those entries. Without production of the parcel file or the supporting registration documents, this Court is unable to conclude that the Plaintiffs’ registration resulted from fraud or illegality. 73. The failure by the ***Land Registrar*** to produce those primary records cannot be overlooked. As the statutory custodian of land records, the ***Land Registrar*** bears the responsibility of explaining the legality of entries appearing in the register whenever those entries become the subject of litigation. In ***Bukenya & Others v Uganda [1972] EA 549****,* the Court held that where a party fails to call material evidence that is within its possession, the Court is entitled to draw an adverse inference that such evidence would have been unfavourable to that party. 74. In the present case, the parcel file, adjudication records, transfer instruments and implementation documents remained exclusively within the custody of the Land Registrar, yet none was availed to substantiate the allegations levelled against the Plaintiffs’ title. 75. The Defendants further relied on the allocation records of ***Majimoto Group Ranch,*** and maintained that the late ***Kashu Lepore*** was the original allottee of the suit property. While those documents may demonstrate competing historical claims over allocation within the ***Group Ranch,*** they do not, without more, establish that the Plaintiffs participated in ***fraud, misrepresentation or any illegal scheme*** contemplated under **Section 26(1)** of the ***Land Registration Act.*** The Court is required to determine the legality of the Plaintiffs’ registered title, not merely on the existence of competing claims to allocation. 76. The court also attach significance to the fact that the Plaintiffs were purchasers for value who acquired a title issued by the ***Land Registrar*** after completion of the statutory registration process. There is no evidence that they colluded with land officials, forged documents or participated in any fraudulent allocation. Indeed, the Defendants did not plead any particulars of fraud against the Plaintiffs capable of meeting the strict standard required by law. Mere assertions that ***Macharia Ole Ikokia*** was not the rightful allottee cannot, without proof of illegality in the Plaintiffs’ acquisition, defeat the statutory protection accorded to a registered proprietor. 77. The Supreme Court in ***Dina Management Limited v County Government of Mombasa & 5 Others [2023] KESC 30 (KLR)*** reaffirmed that courts must interrogate the root of title whenever competing claims arise. Having undertaken that inquiry, this court finds that the Defendants failed to demonstrate how the Plaintiffs’ registration was procured unlawfully. Their evidence principally focused on the historical allocation of the land rather than the legality of the Plaintiffs' registration. It is the court considered view, that distinction is crucial. 78. Similarly, the decision in ***Arthi Highway Developers Limited v West End Butchery Limited & 6 Others [2015] eKLR,*** does not assist the Defendants. In the said case, the Court was confronted with an elaborate fraudulent scheme supported by overwhelming documentary evidence tracing forged transfers and fabricated instruments. No comparable evidence was produced in the present case. There is no evidence that any document relied upon by the Plaintiffs was forged or fraudulently procured, nor was there evidence that the Plaintiffs knowingly participated in any unlawful scheme. 79. The Court also notes that although ***PW1*** acknowledged during cross-examination that the Defendants’ documents identified ***Kashu Lepore*** as the allottee, that acknowledgment cannot, by itself, amount to proof that the Plaintiffs’ registered title was unlawfully acquired. Allocation records and registration records serve different legal purposes, and where Parliament has decreed that a registered title may only be impeached upon proof of the grounds specified under ***Section 26*** of the ***Land Registration Act,*** the Court must be guided by that statutory threshold. 80. Consequently, the Court finds and holds that the Defendants failed to discharge the burden of proving that the Plaintiffs’ title was acquired through ***fraud,*** ***misrepresentation, illegality, procedural impropriety*** or a ***corrupt scheme***. The evidence placed before the Court falls far short of the threshold required to impeach a registered title. 81. On the contrary, the Plaintiffs demonstrated that they purchased the suit property for valuable consideration, complied with the registration process recognized by the Lands Registry, and remained the registered proprietors for several years before the impugned cancellation. In the absence of cogent evidence impeaching that title, the court finds and holds that the Plaintiffs are entitled to the protection accorded by ***Sections 24, 25 and 26*** of the ***Land Registration Act.*** 82. Accordingly, this court finds and holds that the Plaintiffs have proved, on a balance of probabilities, that they lawfully acquired and held a valid and indefeasible title over ***L.R. No. CIS MARA/MAJIMOTO/595.*** 83. The first issue is therefore answered in the affirmative. Consequently, the Court finds and holds that the Plaintiffs acquired ***a valid and indefeasible title*** over ***L.R. No. CIS MARA/MAJIMOTO/595,*** which title could only be defeated in the manner prescribed by law. 84. Having found that the Plaintiffs lawfully acquired a valid and indefeasible title to the suit property, the next issue for determination is whether the ***Land Registrar*** acted ***lawfully*** in ***cancelling*** that title and subsequently registering the suit property in the name of the late ***Kashu Lepore.*** 85. The Plaintiffs contended that the ***cancellation*** was undertaken without notice, without affording them an opportunity to be heard and in reliance on a decree that neither related to nor specifically determined their parcel of land. The Defendants, on the other hand, maintained that the ***Land Registrar*** merely implemented the judgment and decree issued in ***Narok ELC No. 268 of 2017,*** and therefore acted within the confines of the law. 86. There is no dispute that the right to property under ***Article 40*** of the ***Constitution*** and the right to ***fair administrative action*** under ***Article 47,*** are among the fundamental rights guaranteed to every person. ***Article 47(1)*** provides that every person has the right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and ***procedurally fair***. 87. ***Article 47(2***) further requires that where a person's rights or fundamental freedoms have been adversely affected by administrative action, that person is entitled to written reasons for the action taken. 88. These constitutional guarantees are operationalized by ***Section 4*** of the **Fair Administrative Action Act,** which obligates public bodies to accord affected persons prior notice, an opportunity to be heard and reasons for any decision adversely affecting their rights. 89. The central question is therefore whether the ***cancellation*** of the Plaintiffs’ title constituted an administrative action attracting the ***procedural safeguards under Article 47,*** of the Constitution and the ***Fair Administrative Action Act***. It is the court’s considered view that, the answer is in the affirmative. The ***cancellation*** of a registered title undoubtedly extinguishes proprietary rights protected by both the Constitution and the Land Registration Act. Such action cannot be undertaken casually or mechanically, even where the Land Registrar purports to be acting pursuant to a court decree. 90. The Defendants’ principle justification is that the Land Registrar ***merely implemented the decree*** issued on ***25th July 2022 in Narok ELC No. 268 of 2017***. However, having carefully considered both the pleadings and the evidence before this Court, the court is not persuaded that the said decree expressly **authorized the cancellation** of the Plaintiffs’ title over ***L.R. No. CIS MARA/MAJIMOTO/595.*** 91. Although DW1 testified that the suit property arose from the subdivision of ***CIS MARA/MAJIMOTO/8,*** and was therefore affected by the judgment, no documentary evidence was placed before this Court demonstrating that land parcel No. ***CIS MARA/MAJIMOTO /595,*** was specifically litigated, adjudicated upon or identified in the said decree. 92. A court decree must be interpreted strictly according to its terms and cannot be expanded administratively to affect persons or properties that were not expressly determined by the court. To hold otherwise would permit administrative officers to enlarge the scope of judicial pronouncements beyond what the court itself decided. 93. The Plaintiffs consistently maintained that they were neither parties to ***Narok ELC No. 268 of 2017,*** nor afforded an opportunity to participate in those proceedings despite being the registered proprietors of the suit property. That evidence was not rebutted. Indeed, ***DW1*** readily admitted during cross-examination that where a title is revoked pursuant to a court order, the ***Land Registry*** does not issue notice to the affected proprietor. With respect, such an approach cannot be reconciled with the constitutional imperatives of fair administrative action. 94. The Court is guided by the decision in ***Onyango Oloo v Attorney General [1986–1989] EA 456****,* where the court held that a decision reached, in breach of the rules of natural justice is void irrespective of whether the same decision might ultimately have been reached had the affected party been heard. The right to be heard is not a mere procedural technicality; it is a cardinal principle of constitutional governance and one of the indispensable safeguards against arbitrary deprivation of rights. 95. Equally instructive is the decision of the Court of Appeal in ***Judicial Service Commission v Mbalu Mutava & Another [2015] eKLR****,* where the Court emphasized that ***Article 47*** ***constitutionalized*** every person’s right to ***fair administrative action*** and requires all public bodies to act ***lawfully, reasonably*** and ***procedurally fairly*** whenever their decisions affect rights or legitimate expectations. 96. The Land Registrar, as a public officer exercising statutory power under the ***Land Registration Act***, was therefore under a constitutional obligation to ensure that any action affecting the Plaintiffs’ registered proprietary rights complied with the requirements of procedural fairness. 97. The Defendants further argued that because the Land Registrar was implementing a court decree, no separate hearing was required. This court is unable to agree. While the Land Registrar was undoubtedly bound to obey lawful court orders, that obligation did not absolve him from satisfying himself that the ***decree actually*** related to the parcel of land in question, or from ensuring that its implementation did ***not unlawfully affect*** the rights of persons who had neither been parties to the proceedings nor accorded an opportunity to be heard. 98. The Land Registrar’s statutory mandate is not merely mechanical; but it must always be exercised within the confines of the Constitution and the law. 99. The Court also finds merit in the Plaintiffs’ complaint regarding the evidential gaps surrounding the implementation of the decree. Apart from the ***Green Card***, the Defendants failed to produce the implementation schedule, the ***regularized allocation register***, the ***parcel file***, ***adjudication records*** or ***any correspondence*** demonstrating how land parcel ***No. CIS MARA/MAJIMOTO/595,*** became subject to the decree. The absence of those critical documents leaves the Court without any evidential basis upon which it can conclude that the impugned cancellation was lawfully undertaken. 100. Having considered all the available evidence, this court finds and holds that the cancellation of the Plaintiffs’ title was undertaken in violation of ***Articles 40 and 47*** of the ***Constitution,*** the provisions of the ***Fair Administrative Action Act*** and the ***Land Registration Act***. 101. Having found that the Plaintiffs acquired a valid and ***indefeasible*** title to ***L.R. No. CIS MARA/MAJIMOTO/595,*** and that the ***cancellation*** of their title by the ***Land Registrar*** was **unlawful, unconstitutional and procedurally unfair**, it follows that the Plaintiffs are entitled to the protection afforded to registered proprietors under the ***Land Registration Act*** and ***Article 40 of the Constitution***. The Court must therefore consider whether the reliefs sought in the Plaint are merited. 102. The Plaintiffs seek, first, a declaration that they are the bona fide legal owners of ***L.R. No. CIS MARA/MAJIMOTO/595.*** A declaratory order is a discretionary remedy issued to affirm the legal rights of parties where the Court is satisfied that those rights have been established. See the case of ***Mitu-Bell Welfare Society vs Attorney General and 2 Others (2021) eKLR***. 103. Having found that the Plaintiffs ***lawfully acquired the suit property***, were duly registered as proprietors and that their title has not been impeached on any of the grounds set out under ***Section 26 of the Land Registration Act***, the court is satisfied that the Plaintiffs have established their proprietary interest on a balance of probabilities. Consequently, they are entitled to the declaratory relief sought. 104. The Plaintiffs further sought for an order directing the ***Land Registrar*** to ***cancel and revoke*** the title issued in favour of the late ***Kashu Lepore*** and to rectify the register by restoring the Plaintiffs as the registered proprietors. ***Section 80(1)*** of ***the Land Registration Act*** empowers this Court to order rectification of the register by directing that any registration be cancelled or amended where it is satisfied that such registration was obtained, made or omitted by fraud or mistake. 105. Having found that the ***cancellation*** of the Plaintiffs’ title was undertaken u***nlawfully,*** and that the subsequent registration in favour of the ***late Kashu Lepore*** was ***procedurally irregular*** and ***unsupported by law,*** the court finds and holds that this is a proper case for the exercise of the Court’s powers under ***Section 80 of the Land Registration Act.*** Consequently, the register shall accordingly be rectified by ***cancelling the registration*** made in favour of the ***late Kashu Lepore,*** and restoring the Plaintiffs as the lawful registered proprietors of ***L.R. No. CIS MARA/MAJIMOTO/595.*** 106. The Plaintiffs also prayed for ***General damages*** for trespass. Although they testified that strangers entered unto the suit property in the ***year 2023,*** claiming ownership thereof, no evidence was placed before the Court identifying the alleged trespassers, the nature and extent of the trespass or the loss occasioned thereby. 107. The 3rd and 4th Defendants were sued in their capacity as legal representatives of the Estate of the ***late Kashu Lepore,*** and not as persons shown to have physically entered or occupied the suit property. In the absence of any cogent evidence establishing the acts complained of and the persons responsible therefor, this court is not persuaded that the Plaintiffs have proved a claim for ***general damages*** for trespass. That prayer is thereof declined. 108. As regards costs, ***Section 27(1)*** of the ***Civil Procedure Act*** provides that costs shall follow the event unless the Court, for good reason, orders otherwise. The Plaintiffs have substantially succeeded in their claim, having established that they are the lawful proprietors of the suit property, and that the impugned cancellation of their title was unlawful. 109. For the above reasons, this court finds ***no reason*** to depart from the general rule. Accordingly, the ***Plaintiffs*** are entitled to the ***costs*** of the suit together with interest thereon at court rates, from the date of this judgement to the date of payment in full. 110. Ultimately, the court finds and holds that the Plaintiffs herein, have proved their case against the Defendants jointly and severally on a balance of probabilities. Accordingly, judgment is entered in favour of the Plaintiffs against the Defendants jointly and severally in the following terms; 111. ***A declaration be and is hereby issued that the Plaintiffs are the bona fide and lawful proprietors of all that parcel of land known as L.R. No. CIS MARA/MAJIMOTO/595.*** 112. ***An order be and is hereby issued directing the 1st Defendant to cancel and revoke the title issued in favour of the late Kashu Lepore in respect of L.R. No. CIS MARA/MAJIMOTO/595.*** 113. ***An order be and is hereby issued directing the 1st Defendant to rectify the land register and issue the Plaintiffs with a title deed in respect of L.R. No. CIS MARA/MAJIMOTO/595 and to correct all records relating thereto to reflect the Plaintiffs as the lawful registered proprietors.*** 114. ***The Plaintiffs’ prayer for general damages for trespass is declined.*** 115. ***The Plaintiffs shall have the costs of this suit together with interest thereon at court rates, from the date of this judgment to the date of payment in full.*** **It is so ordered.** ***Dated, Signed and Delivered virtually this 6th Day of August 2026.*** ***L. GACHERU*** ***JUDGE.*** ***06/08/2026*** ***Delivered online in the presence of:*** ***Boniface Maluki – Court Assistant*** ***Mr. Kaloki for the Plaintiffs.*** ***No appearance for the 1st and 2nd Defendants.*** ***No appearance for the 3rd and 4th Defendants.*** ***L. GACHERU*** ***JUDGE*.** **06/08/2026**