Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission and Rift Valley Development Trust Registered Trustees T/A Technology Farm vs Francis Zaasita Kiptoo Menjo and 37 others 2015 (Unreported)

On the first and second issues, the court stated that the Plaintiffs did not adduce any evidence demonstrating that the amalgamation was unilateral or how the amalgamation was carried out and what was illegal about it. Further, the court cited the sale of the parcel number 22771/1 which was sold to Egerton University. This parcel was a product of the alleged illegal amalgamation. However, the Plaintiffs did not contest the sale and acknowledged that it was done above board. In light of this, the court found that it could not, in good conscience, find that the amalgamation was illegal as the process that created L.R. No. 22771/1, whose sale the 2nd Plaintiff sanctioned, was also the one that created L.R. Nos 22771/2-6 whose sale they were contesting. Additionally, the only evidence presented on the amalgamation was a letter from the Commissioner for Lands addressed to the 2nd Plaintiff, rather than the 1st Defendant. The court remarked that the 2nd Plaintiff never led any evidence contesting the receipt of this letter. The court also remarked that it was quite telling that the 1st Defendant was never charged with any offences relating to the amalgamation. Instead, he was only charged with the unlawful sale of the subdivisions. In light of this, the court held that the amalgamation was done with the explicit or tacit approval of the 2nd Plaintiff. It was therefore lawful. On the question of whether the sale of plot L.R. 22771/2 to Betsy Irongi was illegal, the court agreed with the Plaintiffs that the land parcels resulting from the amalgamation and subdivision belonged to the 2nd Plaintiff. Per its trust deed, any instrument for the sale of land belonging to it had to be signed by all the trustees and sealed with its common seal. However, in the sale of the Land to Betty, the instrument was only signed by one trustee and the 1st Defendant, who was not a trustee. In light of this, the sale to Betty was flawed. Further, the court stated that Betty could not be an innocent purchaser as she worked as a bursar with the 2nd Plaintiff. It was therefore expected that she knew or ought to have known the process regarding the trust and trust property as she handled the finances. The court held that the sale was unlawful. Consequently, it held that the land remained the 2nd Plaintiff’s property as no title passed to Betty. The court also nullified all subdivisions that emanated from L.R. 22771/2. On the issue of adverse possession, the court remarked that the Defendants had purchased the land on or about the year 2001. However, the initial suit was filed in 2007. Therefore, per the cases of William Gatuhi Murathe v Gakuru Gathimbi, Civil Appeal No. 49 of 1996 and Njuguna Ndatho v Maasai Itumo and 2 others (2002) KLR, the Defendants could not be said to have enjoyed quiet possession. Therefore, the Defendants’ counterclaim for adverse possession was dismissed. In conclusion, the court cancelled all titles emanating from L.R. No. 22771/2 and ordered that the titles should revert back to L.R. No. 22771/2 and be registered in the name of the 2nd Plaintiff. The court also ordered the Defendants in those parcels to give vacant possession within 30 days. The 1st Defendant was ordered to pay all the costs.