Land ownership disputes in Kenya continue to be plagued by competing titles, missing records, and the persistent problem of “parallel registers.” In Williams & Kennedy Limited v David Kimani Gicharu & Others (Civil Appeal Nos. E682, E686 & E705 of 2024), the Court of Appeal confronted one of the most intricate land disputes in recent years, involving allegations of historical fraud, titles purportedly emanating from a dissolved company, conflicting deed plans, and the reconstruction of land registers.
The consolidated appeals centred on the lawful root of title to a prime parcel of land in Runda, Nairobi, and whether titles allegedly originating from a dissolved company could override the claim of a registered proprietor who traced his ownership to an earlier deed plan and conveyance.
Key Determinations by the Court of Appeal
Proof of root of title
The Court reaffirmed the settled principle that where a title is challenged, a
registered proprietor must do more than produce a certificate of title. The
holder must demonstrate the legality of the acquisition and compliance with all
statutory processes. The Court underscored that the doctrine of indefeasibility
does not protect titles tainted by fraud or illegality, and cannot be invoked
to shield an unlawful root of title.
Effect of titles purportedly issued to a dissolved
company
A central issue concerned the legal capacity of Williams & Kennedy Ltd. The
Court accepted evidence that the company was dissolved in 1973 and had neither
been reinstated nor re-incorporated. As a result, it lacked the legal capacity
to receive a presidential grant in 1983 or to transact in land thereafter.
The Court held unequivocally that a non-existent legal person cannot acquire, hold, charge, or transfer land. Any titles or interests purportedly flowing from such an entity were therefore null and void ab initio.
Parallel registers and the role of the Chief Land
Registrar
The Court strongly criticised the existence of parallel land registers, holding
that they undermine the integrity and reliability of the land registration
system. It affirmed that the Chief Land Registrar cannot lawfully maintain
multiple parent files for the same parcel of land. Further, the reconstruction
of land registers must strictly comply with statutory requirements and cannot
be used to defeat ongoing litigation or to legitimise defective titles.
Practical Implications
For conveyancers, developers, lenders, and litigators, the decision serves as a clear cautionary tale. Effective due diligence must go beyond the face of a title deed and include scrutiny of corporate status, deed plans, surrender history, and the integrity of registry records.
In an environment where land fraud has grown increasingly sophisticated, the judgment represents a firm judicial commitment to restoring legality, certainty, and public confidence in Kenya’s land ownership regime.
