The Court of Appeal reinstated the land ownership of a British national, bringing to a close a decades-long dispute after finding that her Kiambu property had been fraudulently transferred without her consent.
In a judgment delivered on April 10, a three-judge bench comprising Daniel Musinga, Joel Ngugi, and George Odunga ruled that Patricia Mary Clark is the lawful owner of the 0.2240-hectare parcel known as L.R. No. Kiambu Municipality/Block III/112.
The appellate court found that Clark legally purchased the land in 1994 and never transferred it to any party, dismissing claims that it had changed hands the following year.
“The only title whose lawful origin was proved on the record was the appellant’s title issued in 1994,” the judges held.
Court records show that Clark bought the land from Mumwe Investments Limited in February 1994 for sh 750,000 and was issued with a 99-year lease later that year.
She left the original title deed in the custody of her advocate while residing abroad.
The dispute emerged in 2010 when Clark sent her mother to inspect the property ahead of planned development.
Instead, she found construction materials on the land belonging to Samuel Kuntai Tunai, who claimed ownership.
An official search later revealed that the property had allegedly been transferred to Godfrey Ngatia Njoroge in June 1995 before being sold to Tunai years later despite Clark insisting she had never signed any transfer documents.
According to Investigations by the Land Registrar there was no transfer instrument on record to support the purported change of ownership from Clark to Njoroge.
Tunai argued that he was a bona fide purchaser, stating he had conducted due diligence before buying the property for sh11 million in 2009.
The Environment and Land Court in Thika initially upheld his claim, nullifying Clark’s title and issuing an injunction against her.
However, the Court of Appeal overturned that finding.
The judges ruled that ownership cannot be validated solely by registration where the origin of title is questionable.
“Where the root of title is under challenge, it is not sufficient to rely merely on the title instrument,” the court ruled.
The bench further ruled that Njoroge neither testified nor produced any documentation to justify how he acquired the land.
His lawyer admitted during the appeal that no sale agreement or transfer documents had been presented in court.
The appellate court also said there were inconsistencies in the transaction between Njoroge and Tunai.
Although the sale and transfer documents were said to have been witnessed by advocate Patrick Onyango Ogola, he did not testify.
Instead, another lawyer, Joakim Kiarie Kamere, appeared in court despite not being listed in the documents.
Judges also questioned claims that Njoroge was unaware of the proceedings, ruling that evidence suggested he remained in contact with parties involved.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower court’s decision and directing the Land Registrar to rectify all records to reflect Clark as the rightful owner.
It also issued a permanent injunction barring Njoroge and Tunai from interfering with her possession of the land.
Both respondents were ordered to jointly bear the costs of the case at the trial and appellate levels.
Email your news TIPS to Editor@Kahawatungu.com — this is our only official communication channel
