A recent judgment by the Environment and Land Court in Nairobi has concluded a
contentious land dispute involving Trikuti Investments Ltd, Wang Wang Centre Ltd, and
several other parties. The case, Trikuti Investments Ltd v Alasow Hassan Mohamud &
Others (ELC Suit No. 1532 of 2013), revolved around ownership claims over Land
Reference (L.R.) No. 1/199 in Upper Hill, Nairobi. The dispute stemmed from allegations
of fraudulent land transactions, unauthorized evictions, and property demolitions.
Background of the Case
Trikuti Investments Ltd, the plaintiff, asserted that it had legally acquired L.R. No. 1/199
in 1997 from the estate of Sat Pal Magon. The company claimed uninterrupted possession
of the property until 2013 when the 1st and 2nd defendants allegedly fraudulently
subdivided and sold it to Wang Wang Centre Ltd. The plaintiff accused the defendants of
illegally evicting its tenants, demolishing structures, and falsifying documents to gain
control of the property.
The plaintiff sought various remedies, including:
● A declaration of ownership over L.R. No. 1/199.
● Nullification of the subdivision and transfer to Wang Wang Centre Ltd.
● Compensation for losses and mesne profits amounting to Kshs. 9.5 million.
On the other hand, Wang Wang Centre Ltd defended its purchase of L.R. No. 1/1330 and
L.R. No. 1/1331 (subdivisions of L.R. No. 1/199) as legitimate. The company insisted that it
was an innocent purchaser for value, having conducted due diligence before acquiring the
properties from the 2nd defendant. It counterclaimed for a permanent injunction against
the plaintiff’s interference.
Court’s Findings and Judgment
The court presided over by Justice O. A. Angote, had to determine key issues, including the
plaintiff’s capacity to sue, the validity of its ownership claims, and whether the defendants
committed fraud.
- Lack of Capacity to Sue
○ The court found that Trikuti Investments Ltd was under a winding-up process
when it filed the suit. As per the Insolvency Act, a company in liquidation
cannot initiate legal proceedings without court approval. Since no such
approval was obtained, the court ruled the suit invalid and subject to
striking out. - Failure to Prove Ownership
○ The plaintiff failed to produce an original title document or certified copies
from the Chief Land Registrar confirming its ownership of L.R. No. 1/199.
○ The court noted discrepancies in the documents presented by the plaintiff,
which were not corroborated by the Ministry of Lands.
○ None of the documents produced by the plaintiff, including the
conveyance, mortgage, and reconveyance, were certified as true
copies by the Chief Land Registrar.
○ The plaintiff also failed to provide an official search record showing its
registered ownership at any point.
○ The court emphasized that in land disputes, merely presenting an instrument
of title is insufficient—claimants must demonstrate the legal process through
which the title was obtained.
○ The investigating officer testified that the plaintiff’s documents were not on
record at the Ministry of Lands, further undermining its claim.
○ In contrast, Wang Wang Centre Ltd provided official documentation, including
sale agreements, land search records, and payment proof amounting to Kshs.
230 million for the purchase of L.R. Nos. 1/1330 and 1/1331.
○ The court found that the subdivision of L.R. No. 1/199 into L.R. No.s
1/1330 and 1/1331 were duly registered, making Wang Wang Centre Ltd’s title
superior.
- No Proof of Fraud
○ The plaintiff alleged fraud in the subdivision and sale of the property but
failed to provide concrete evidence to support these claims.
○ The 4th defendant (Land Registrar, Nairobi) and expert witnesses confirmed
that the subdivision of L.R. No. 1/199 into L.R. Nos. 1/1330 and 1/1331
followed due process. - 3rd Defendant’s Counterclaim Allowed
○ The court ruled in favor of Wang Wang Centre Ltd, granting a permanent
injunction restraining Trikuti Investments Ltd from interfering with the
property.
○ The plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs of the counterclaim.
Conclusion
The ruling underscores the importance of procedural compliance in corporate litigation
and land transactions. Without court approval, companies in liquidation cannot institute
legal proceedings, a factor that ultimately led to the dismissal of Trikuti Investments Ltd’s
case. Moreover, the case highlights the legal principle that possessing a title document
alone is insufficient—claimants must prove a valid root of ownership by demonstrating
proper registration and official verification.
This judgment serves as a cautionary tale for property investors and legal practitioners,
emphasizing the necessity of due diligence before purchasing land and ensuring
compliance with corporate litigation requirements.
How We Can Help
At Prof. Tom Ojienda & Associates, we are committed to providing expert legal insights and
guidance across various practice areas. Whether you are an individual seeking legal redress
or an organization navigating complex regulatory frameworks, our experienced team is
here to support you. Our articles and insights are for informational purposes only and do
not constitute legal advice. For tailored legal solutions, please contact our team of
professionals at www.proftomojiendaandassociates.com to Stay Ahead of the Game.
