Wambaa v City Council of Nairobi & another [2023] KEELC 21894 (KLR)

Wambaa v City Council of Nairobi & another (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 134 of 2019) [2023] KEELC 21894 (KLR) (30 November 2023) (Judgment)

Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 21894 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi

Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 134 of 2019

JA Mogeni, J

November 30, 2023

Between

Anne Muthoni Wambaa

Plaintiff

and

City Council of Nairobi

1st Defendant

Moses Ndungu Mungai

2nd Defendant

Judgment

1. The dispute in this suit relates to an alleged trespass on to the suit property which according to the plaintiff was allotted to her on 27/10/1992 by the 1st defendant and certificate of lease was issued to her and husband’s name upon her application on 22/01/1998 against the parcel register of Land Title Number Nairobi/Block 111/1195 Komarock Nairobi (the suit property). It is her claim that the 2nd defendant entered onto her suit property and started construction. As a result, the plaintiff filed this instant suit and also sought injunctive orders against Moses Ndungu Mungai, the 2nd defendant herein and the orders against the 2nd defendant were issued on 25/03/2009 stopping further developments, transfer or disposal of the suit property.

2. She stated that the certificate of lease issued to the 2nd defendant in 2018 was fraudulent; since she had already been allotted the said suit property and it was therefore not available for reallocation.

3. Aggrieved by the fact that despite the court orders issued on 25/03/2009 the 2nd defendant continued to construct on the impugned suit property she brought this suit through a plaint dated 18/06/2003. She seeks the following verbatim orders:a.A declaration that the plaintiff is the lawful registered owner of LR No.111/1195 Komarock Nairobi.b.Cancellation of any title document issued to the 2nd defendant and rectification of the relevant records and general damages for trespass inclusive of mesne profits.c.Costs of this suit plus interest.

Plaintiff’s Case 4. The Plaintiff’s case was that she together with her husband were the registered proprietor of the suit property situated in Komarock Estate. That she was allotted by the 1st defendant the suit property in 1992 and later on 22/01/1998 issued with a certificate of lease. She contended that the 2nd defendant entered upon her suit property and commenced construction. Further that despite the plaintiff demanding that the 2nd defendant stops the trespass he continued.

5. That the plaintiff therefore filed this suit against him. That on 25/03/2009 the plaintiff obtained injunctive orders against both the 1st and 2nd defendants from any developments, transfer or disposal of the suit property However, the plaintiff contends that despite this order, the 1st defendant transferred the suit property to the 2nd defendant who then issued two separate certificates of leases dated 27/06/2018 in total disregard of the court order.

6. She alleges that that the 2nd defendant knowingly obtained allotment of land which had already been allocated to someone else’s.

1st Defendant’s Case 7. The 1st defendant filed a statement of defence dated 15/02/2004 and denied all the content in the plaint and averred that it has all along acted within the parameters of the law in relation to the suit property.

2nd Defendant’s Case 8. The 2nd defendant filed his statement of defence dated 25/08/2006 and denied all the content in the plaint and averred that the suit property LR 111/1195 was allocated to Olga Mugoshi by the 1st defendant on 18/01/1994 and that on 25/06/1997 the said Olga Mugoshi sold the plot to the 2nd defendant at a sum of Kshs.500,000 and executed the transfer and an irrevocable Power of Attorney which led to the 1st defendant executing a lease in favour of the 2nd defendant.

9. Further that as the 2nd defendant, he is a purchaser for value without notice and in possession and therefore the plaintiff should claim for damages from the 1st defendant since being the rightful owner he has constructed on the suit property a building worth Kshs. 1,500,000.

Plaintiff’s Evidence 10. At the hearing, the plaintiff testified as PW 1 and called no witnesses. She adopted her witness statement dated 07/07/2015 as her sworn evidence in chief. She also produced for adoption her list of documents dated 1/03/2005. In addition, she produced a supplementary list of documents dated 22/03/2022. She testified that she was the owner of the suit property, having been allotted by the 1st defendant vide a letter of allotment dated 27/10/1992. She testified that she intended to construct a school in the name of Thorn Tree Academy a business name registered in her name and her husband’s name. They were also issued with certificate of lease in both their names.

11. She testified that before they could start construction, the 2nd defendant trespassed on the suit property and started putting up structures without the plaintiff’s consent. She supported her evidence by the documents she produced.

12. Upon being cross-examined she stated that she was allocated the plot but she decided to include her husband’s name on the certificate of title since they intended to start the Thorn Tree Academy together. It was her testimony that they could not pay rates because the plot was grabbed from them and that the 2nd defendant never obeys court orders and he has continued living on the suit property. With this the plaintiff’s counsel informed the court that the plaintiff is moving to close her case.

Defence Evidence 13. The defence called 2 witnesses. Moses Ndungu Mungai, the 2nd defendant, testified as DW1. He adopted his witness statement dated 20/01/2021 as his sworn evidence in chief and a further witness statement dated 4/10/2021. He also produced his document as exhibits. He testified that he was sold the suit plot by one Olga Mugoshi who had given her Power of Attorney to Charles Malenya.

14. In cross-examination he reiterated that’s he was sold the plot on 25/06/1997 through a sale agreement by Charles Adavaji Malenya who had a Power of Attorney (hereinafter PA) from Olga Mugoshi which was registered on 02/09/2011 and it is dated 10/08/2011. It was his testimony that he did not know that the Power of Attorney was issued after the sale agreement was done.

15. Further that he did not know that at the time of entering into the sale agreement with Charles Adavaji Malenya that the said Charles did not have the authority to enter into such agreement on behalf of Olga since the PA was not registered. He testified that the document at page 8 of the defendant’s bundle shows that the lease was issued on 27/06/2015 and the title document was issued on 27/06/2018 and the acreage of the property is 0. 0225 hectares whereas o the original lease the acreage is reflected as 0. 022 hectares. The copy and the original document bear different entries.

16. It was his testimony that in the Agreement for sale it states that he paid Kshs. 100,000 yet according to him he paid Kshs. 500,000 and that is what should have been written. He testified that since it was a long time ago he did not have a receipt to show the amounts he paid.

17. It was his testimony that he had been on the suit property since 1997. He testified that had not produced in court the construction plans but that the one he had at page 25 of his bundle was the correct plan dated 25/05/2007 and there was also a stamp on the said plan bearing the date 24/10/2007. He testified that that approvals bear different dates.

18. He stated that whereas the lease for the plaintiff was issued on 22/01/1998 all he knows is that he was issued with a Certificate of Lease by the City Council. He also testified that the search that was done in 2018 when this matter was already in court but this case was filed in 2012.

19. When he was re-examined by his counsel, he testified that he was in possession of the suit property and he has been staying there for many years. Further that he paid the vendor the money reflected on the sale agreement. That Certificate is written in his name and it was issued on 27/06/2018 for acreage of 0. 0225.

20. DW2 Benson Ndegwa is the Principal Administration Officer of the 1st defendant and produced the list of documents dated 21/03/2022. In cross examination he stated that the minutes he had produced were dated 16/11/2011 and that item 146 at pages 1205 refers to plot number No. 111/1195. He stated that he did not have the history of the suit property. That he did not know that the property was allotted to Thorn Tree Academy on 27/10/1992 as per the allotment letter.

21. It was his testimony that a Certificate of Lease was issued on 22/01/1998 and that it refers to the same property referenced in the minutes. He further testified that he is not aware that there are two (2) certificates. He testified that the leases do not pass through his office that they are issued by the legal department.

22. He also testified that he did not know that the court stopped transactions dealing with the suit property. It was his testimony that the minutes he had produced in court are for the month of November 2011. The transfer was done when this suit was in court. He told the court that he had filed in court the allotment letter for Olga. He testified that the size of land is determined during allocation and this matter is addressed by the Ministry of Lands. He confirmed that the allotment letter for 2nd defendant is dated 18/01/1994.

23. It was his testimony that the current plot owner is Moses Ndungu Mungai, and that the plot was previously owned by Olga Mugoshi and it was transferred to Charles Malenya who sold it to Moses Ndungu Mungai. That in their records they retain the letter of allotment copy and sale agreement to show transfer and they record the sale. With this the defendant closed their case.

Submissions 24. The Plaintiff filed her submissions dated on 12/10/2023. She argued that she had proved that the 2nd defendant acquired the suit property through fraud. She relied on the case of Hubert L.Martin & 2 Others vs Margaret J. Kamar &5 Others [2016]eKLR and the case of Munyu Maina vs Hiram Gathiha Maina, Civil Appeal No. 239 of 2003 where the courts and in the later case the Court of Appeal addressed the issue of root of title. That it is not enough to just wave a title a party must show the process involved in obtaining the same without breaking the chain. In the Court of Appeal case the court emphasized that the registered proprietor of a title under challenge must go beyond the instrument to prove ownership that is legal, formal and free from any encumbrances.

25. I will mention the other cases referred to in summary and these are Alice Chemutai Too vs Nickson Kipkurui Korir & 2Others [2015] Eklr, Dr Joseph Arap Ngok versus Justic Moijo Ole Keiwua & 5 Others, Civil Appeal No. 60 of 1997, Denis Mukhulo Ochwada and Partick Co. Obanya Aguto vs Elizabeth Murungari Njoroge and Lilian Wairimu Ngotho Court of Appeal No. 298/14 Nairobi, Vijay Morjaria vs Nansingh Madhusingh Darbar & Another [2000] Eklr and Kinyanjui Kamau vs George Kamau [2015] eKLR.

26. By the time of writing this judgment I did not see the submissions of the 2nd defendant but I saw the submissions filed by the 1st defendant dated 9/11/2023. The 1st defendant seemed to submit for both the 1st and the 2nd defendant. They submitted that there were three issues which they think are the ones that need to be addressed to resolve the dispute and these are:i.Who between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant is the rightful owner of the LR No. Nairobi/Block 111/1195 Komarock Nairobiii.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to general damages and mesne profitsiii.Who should bear the cost of this suit?

27. On the first issue it was the 1st defendant’s submission that both the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant have allotment letters. The plaintiff’s letter is dated 27/01/1992 and she has receipts of payment of premium made to Nairobi City Commission for plot no. 5 HFCK Komarock Estate Phase 1 Kayole .

28. For the 2nd defendant he produced a letter of allotment for the same suit property issued to Olga Mugoshi on 18/01/1994 and he produced receipts of payment of survey, premium and legal costs made to the City Council of Nairobi. He submits that despite a party having an allotment letter the Government Land Act (repealed) has listed seven steps that have to be taken by a party until a certificate of lease is issued. That this being government land, it needs to be accompanied by a part development plan which is approved by the Commissioner of Lands. Further that the respective Municipal Council where the land is situate advises the Commissioner of Land the portions of land that could be alienated. He relied on the cases of Nelson Kazungu Chai & 9 Others vs Pwani University College (2014) eKLR.

29. In his submissions he stressed the fact that one has to undertake survey of the land allotted and it is this process of survey that lead to issuance of a certificate of leas. He relied on the case of Daudi Kitugen vs Commissioner of Lands & 4 Others (2015) eKLR, which underscores the fact that ownership of a Certificate of lease must be supported by evidence showing how one acquired the suit property that it is not enough to wave a title or Certificate of lease. It was his submission that the plaintiff failed to show the process that she went through to acquire the Certificate of Lease. On the contrary, the 2nd defendant produced receipts of payments of he premiums, survey fees, legal fees and ground rent.

30. On the issue of damages, he referred to several cases and section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act stating that the defendants deserve to the awarded costs since their case shall carry the day.

Issues for Determination 31. The following are the issues that arise in this suit for determination:a.Who, as between the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant, is the lawful owner of the suit property.b.Whether to issue an order of rectification of the land register in respect of the suit property to reflect the Plaintiff as the registered proprietor.c.Whether to award the Plaintiff mesne and general damages and in what amount.d.Who shall bear the costs of the suit and interest.

Determination a. Who, as between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant, is the lawful owner of the suit property. 32. Both the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant went to great lengths to convince this court that they are the lawful owners of the suit property. On her part, the Plaintiff told the court that she was allotted the suit property by the 1st defendant on 27/10/1992. She produced to this court a copy of her Letter of Allotment, whose validity was not challenged at all by the Defendants. She produced a receipt which showed that she paid for stand premium and ground rent of Kshs. 84,0000 dated 27/10/192 but the printed part of the receipt show that the payment was made on 30/07/93.

33. On the other hand, the 2nd defendant claims to have bought his suit property from the original allottee Olga Mogochi through an allotment letter dated 18/01/1994. He also produced in court receipts dated 28/07/1994, being payment for survey fees and legal fees and other receipts all dated 21/06/1994 undated receipts and others for 01/08/2011 all these was to demonstrate to the court that he made the required payment of stand premium and annual ground rent. To further support this claim over the suit property, he produced a Beacon Certificate dated 01/08/2011 which had payments for clearance of Kshs. 5,000, transfer fees of Kshs. 5,000, search of Kshs. 1,500 and beacon certificate of Kshs. 5500. Additionally, she produced a receipt of Change of User where the 2nd defendant paid Kshs. 40,000.

34. On his part, the 1st Defendant testified that from the records in their custody it was the 2nd defendant who was the rightful owner of the suit property. It was his evidence that the plaintiff did not follow the seven steps recommended in the Government Land Act (repealed) that are a prerequisite to one claiming ownership of allotted parcel of land.

35. The 2nd defendant testified that he took immediate possession of the suit property after purchasing it from Olga who gave a Power of Attorney to Charles Adavaji Malenya and that he paid Kshs. 500,000 as sale price of the suit property. But there was contradiction in his testimony because on 30/05/2023 he stated that in the agreement for sale the purchase price is indicated as being Kshs. 100,000. When cross-examined on this he stated that the figure shown on the sale agreement is less by Kshs. 400,000 making a total of Kshs. 500,000. As already stated he did not produce any receipt or document to support this allegation

36. I note that the defendant testified that the Certificate of Lease that he produced in his bundle at page 8 shows that the lease between the 2nd defendant and the 1st defendant was issued on 27/06/2015 yet the copy of the Certificate of Lease produced at page 3 of the 2nd defendant’s bundle show that the lease was issued on 27/06/2018.

37. These contradictions make it difficult for me to be convinced that the 2nd defendant obtained a genuine title because nothing would have been harder than just having one narrative that is connected like an unbroken chain.

38. The court issued an injunction on 25/03/2009 stopping any activity on the suit property. The 2nd defendant testified that he did not know about the injunctive orders. My perusal of the file show that a temporary injunction was issued first on 21/07/2006 and the 2nd defendant was represented. The injunctive order which was extracted on 25/03/2009 was issued as an order by my Sister Justice Ang’awa on 9/04/2008 and the orders that emanated from it were by consent.

39. Order number 5 read; “ THAT pending the hearing and determination of this suit the 2nd defendant, his servants and/or agents are hereby restrained from further constructing, alienation and/or selling the property Nairobi Block 111/1195” This was a very clear order I note also from the file that once this order was issued, the file went missing and the plaintiff’s advocate wrote to the Deputy Registrar in August 2009 and January 2010 and in 2016 for the filed to be traced. An application was made dated 12/04/2018 seeking to have the file transferred to the ELC court and Lady Justice Jayden allowed the application and the file was transferred to the ELC.

40. My perusal of the file has not come across an order setting aside the injunctive orders issued by Lady Justice Mary Ang’awa. In the circumstances the 2nd defendant was bound by the said injunctive orders. The 2nd defendant has testified that there was transacted with Charles Advaji Malenya who has been issued with power of attorney sell the land from Olga Mugochi.

41. The sale agreement is dated 25/06/1997 yet the power of Attorney is dated 10/08/2011. What this means is that the said Charles Advaji Malenya had no capacity at all to sell the said parcel of land to the 2nd defendant. It was completely wrong for the said Charles Advaji Malenya to purport to execute a sale agreement on behalf of someone else by the name Olga Mugochi without holding any power of attorney because the date when the sale agreement was executed was fourteen (14) years or thereabout after the sale agreement.

42. On the basis of this alone it becomes difficult to address any other issue knowing that what is purported to be a sale agreement is null and void. The 2nd defendant conveniently avoided calling the two persons who would have shade light on how he bought the alleged suit property – Charles Advaji Malenya and Olga Mugochi. Instead he chose to bring a Land Administrator from the 1st defendant’s office.

43. PW2’s testimony did not help much because he was not able to explain how the allotment to the plaintiff was cancelled if at all and how then the 2nd defendant was registered as the proprietor of the suit property.

44. Further the copy of the Certificate of Lease produced by the 2nd defendant’s proprietorship section does not bear out the alleged transaction with the alleged previous lessee Olga Mugochi. From the documents presented by the 2nd defendant, no development permission and or approved building plans were granted prior to the alleged construction by the 2nd Defendant.

45. There were many pointers to the fact that the transaction for the purchase of the suit property between 2nd Defendant and the alleged Olga Mugochi was suspect. The documents produced in evidence by the 2nd Defendant which I have mentioned above all point to an illegality. The 2nd Defendant is a holder of a Certificate of Lease in respect of the suit property but this Certificate of Lease was issued long after the plaintiff had obtained the Certificate of Lease on 22/01/1998.

46. The position of the holder of a title deed over a parcel of land is well stated in Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act which provides as follows:“The certificate of title issued by the Registrar upon registration, or to a purchaser of land upon a transfer … shall be taken by all courts as prima facie evidence that the person named as proprietor of the land is the absolute and indefeasible owner , … and the title of that proprietor shall not be subject to challenge, except-a.On the ground of fraud or misrepresentation to which the person is proved to be a party; orb.Where the certificate of title has been acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme.”

47. In this particular suit, it is alleged by the Plaintiff that the 2nd Defendant’s Certificate of Lease was acquired illegally and unprocedurally. I have raised several issues in the manner in which the 2nd Defendant acquired the title which point to illegality. I seek to rely on the following observation of the court in a case which is referred to by the 2nd defendant too of Daudi Kiptugen versus Commissioner of Lands & 4 Others (2015) eKLR:“In order to determine the question whether the lease held by the plaintiff is valid, it must be demonstrated that it was properly acquired. It is not enough that one waves a Lease or a Certificate of Lease and assert that he has good title by the mere possession of the Lease or Certificate of Lease. Where there is contention that a Lease or Certificate of Lease held by an individual was improperly acquired, then the holder thereof must demonstrate through evidence that the Lease or Certificate of Lease that he holds was properly acquired. The acquisition of title cannot be construed only in the end result; the process of acquisition is material. It follows that if a document of title was not acquired through the proper process, the title itself cannot be said to be a good title. If this were not the position, then all one would need to do is to manufacture a Lease or Certificate of Title at a backyard or the corner of a dingy street and by virtue thereof claim to the rightful proprietor of the land indicated therein. It is therefore necessary for this court to determine how the plaintiff ended up having a Lease and Certificate of Lease in his name and further determine if the Government did intend to issue the plaintiff with a Lease over the suit land.”

48. The 1st Defendant is the one which has custody over the records for, among others, the suit property. In its pleadings, the 1st Defendant confirmed that it allotted the suit property to the 2nd defendant but failed to address the fact that Committee Meetings for the Months of November, December 2011 and February, March, April and May 2012 happened while the instant suit was going on. Further there was already a court order directing parties to not deal in any way with the suit property until the suit is heard and determined. Both the 1st and 2nd defendant are parties to this suit and they had filed their respective defences in the instant suit.

49. The minutes produced by the 1st defendant are therefore of no consequence and bearing on the matter at hand since it is clear this was in outright disobedience of an existing court order. DW2 who is the witness from the 1st defendant’s office does not seem to have familiarized himself with the instant suit despite having joined the 1st defendant in 1991. Otherwise he would have come to know that there was an injunction on the suit property having been obtained by the plaintiff who claimed to have been allotted the suit property. In the case of Republic versus City Council of Nairobi & 3 Others (2014) eKLR, Odunga, J. had this to say about land that has already been allotted:“once allotment letter is issued and the allottee meets the conditions therein, the land in question is no longer available for allotment since a letter of allotment confers absolute right of ownership unless it is challenged by the allotting authority or is acquired through fraud, mistake or misrepresentation or that the allotment was out rightly illegal or it was against public interest. In other words, where land has been allocated, the same land cannot be reallocated unless the first allocation is validly and lawfully cancelled.”

50. No evidence was produced by the DW2 that the Letter of Allotment issued by the 1st Defendant to the Plaintiff in respect of the suit property was ever cancelled or was invalid in any way. The failure of the 2nd Defendant to ascertain the true owner of the suit property prior to purchasing the same from one Olga Mugochi who allegedly gave a power of attorney to one Charles Advaji who however obtained it 14 years after signing the sale agreement is a failure in undertaking the due diligence required of him. Had he conducted that search in the records of the 1st defendant, he would have found out that those who alleged to be the rightful owners were indeed not the rightful owners of the suit property.

51. He proceeded to deal with strangers and even the transaction with the is riddled with inconsistencies. The lease with the 1st defendant was issued twice on different dates. The 2nd Defendant proceeded to construct a storey building on the suit property without obtaining approval of the 1st defendant to his architectural drawings because there are two dates stamped on the plan 25/05/2007 and 24/10/2007. The question that begs an answer is which is the date when the approval was given by the 1st defendant? Or better still, was there truly an approval by the 1st defendant for construction? This whole scenario paints a picture that the 2nd Defendant was aware that the transaction was not above board. He was clearly not an innocent purchaser for value without notice.

52. Overall, this court finds that the Plaintiff is the rightful owner of the suit property and the Certificate of Lease held by the 2nd Defendant over the suit property is invalid and of no legal effect for the reason that it was obtained illegally and unprocedurally.

b. Whether to issue an order of rectification of the land register in respect of the suit property to reflect the Plaintiff as the registered proprietor. 53. Having established that the suit property belongs to the Plaintiff and not the 2nd Defendant, this court hereby issues an order for the rectification of the land register to reflect the Plaintiff as the registered proprietor of the suit property.

54. With the above finding that the Plaintiff is the duly registered proprietor of the suit property, it follows that the Plaintiff has the rights over the suit property as set out in section 24(a) of the Land Registration Act which provides as follows:“Subject to this Act, the registration of a person as the proprietor of land shall vest in that person the absolute ownership of that land together with all rights and privileges belonging or appurtenant thereto.”

55. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to have exclusive use and possession of the suit property to the exclusion of the 2nd Defendant who is restrained from trespassing or in any other way whatsoever interfering with the Plaintiff’s possession and or ownership of the suit property.

c. Whether to award the Plaintiff mesne and general damages and in what amount. 56. On the reliefs sought by the plaintiff, the plaintiff under prayer 2 in the plaint sought for general damages for wrongful trespass inclusive of mesne profits but I must say no basis was provided by way of any evidence to enable the court to make an informed determination. However, it is a fact that the plaintiff was deprived of the use of the property at least from 1992 when she had wanted to commence development of the property. The plaintiff indicated that she wanted to build a nursery school on the suit property but she has not put any evidence before this court as to whether she was ready with the financing to do so.

57. However, it was her property and the 2nd Defendant did not have any right to enter into it and to effect the developments that he did. Even so, on the issue of mense profits I find that the plaintiff has not proved this limb as it is a special damage which must be specifically pleaded and proved. There was no evidence on this. This limb fails.

58. Therefore, on whether the plaintiff is entitled to general damages against the defendant, it is trite law that trespass to land is actionable per se (without proof of any damage). In the case of Park Towers Ltd v. John Mithamo Njika & 7 others (2014) eKLR where J.M Mutungi J., stated:-“I agree with the learned Judges that where trespass is proved a party need not prove that he suffered any specific damage or loss to be awarded damages. The court in such circumstances is under a duty to assess the damages awardable depending on the unique facts and circumstances of each case. ..”

59. I will therefore for the intrusion and deprivation of the plaintiffs’ use of the property award the plaintiff a nominal sum of Kshs. 2,000,000 as general damages payable jointly and severally by the 1st and 2nd defendants. The damages will attract interest from the date of judgment.

d. Who shall bear the costs of the suit and interest. 60. It is trite that costs usually follow the events. Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act gives the Court discretion to grants costs. As the successful party is always entitled to costs except in exceptional circumstances, no exceptional circumstance exists in this suit, and thus the Court finds that the Plaintiff being the successful litigant is entitled to the costs of the suit.

Disposal Orders 61. In the end result I enter judgment for the plaintiff as against the 2nd Defendant and make the following orders: -a.A declaration is hereby made that the plaintiff is the lawful registered owner of LR No. 111/1195 Komarock Nairobi 2998. b.An order be and is hereby issued for cancellation of any title document issued to the 2nd defendant and directs the Land Registrar to rectify the relevant records to reflect Order (a) above.c.An award of Kshs. 2,000,000 as general damages is made payable jointly and severally by the 1st and 2nd defendants. The damages will attract interest 30 days from the date of this judgment.d.Costs of the suit are awarded to the plaintiff.It is so ordered.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023. MOGENI JJUDGEJudgment read in virtual court in the presence of:Ms. Muriuki for the 2nd DefendantMrs. Ondimu for the 1st DefendantMr Kuria for the Plaintiff