REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NYANDARUA
ELCLC NO 70 OF 2023
JOSEPHINE WAMBUI JOHN.................................1ST PLAINTIFF
CATHERINE NYAGUTHII NGUNJIRI......................2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JOSEPH NGUNJIRI GATHUO.............................1ST DEFENDANT
MARAGARET WANGUI WAITHAKA.....................2ND DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
Josephine Wambui John and Catherine Nyabuti Ngunjiri the children of the late Susan Wangari Ngunjiri together with Joseph Ngunjiri Gathuo filed suit against the said Gathuo on 24/4/2023 vide a Plaint dated 5/4/2023.
Susan allegedly acquired L.R No NYANDARUA/LESHAU KARAGOINI BLOCK 2 ( KAHEMBE)/387 measuring 4 acres or thereabout. This was in the year 1977/1978. Susan died in the year 1994 leaving behind some of her children on the suit land including both Plaintiffs.
The Defendant was registered the proprietor of the land in trust for himself and the Plaintiff, but in December, 2020 in breach of the trust, the Defendant barred the Plaintiffs from farming on the suit land and on 6/2/2021 he cultivated the entire land and destroyed over 700 cypress and pine trees planted by the 1st Plaintiff thereon. He also burned 18 cypress and pine trees belonging to the said 1st Plaintiff. It later turned out that the Defendant was registered the proprietor of the neighbour’s (interested party’s) L.R No NYANDARUA/LESHAU KARAGOININ BLOCK 2 (KAHEMBE)/386 measuring 0.87 Hectares instead of NYANDARUA/LESHAU KARAGOININ BLOCK 2 (KAHEMBE) /387.
The Plaintiffs occupy parcel No 387 – 4 acres. The 2 have been in occupation of land parcel No 387 since 1979, over 45 years now where Susan Wangari Ngunjiri, Susan Wangui daughter of Jackson Mutehi and John Githinji son of Catherine Nyaguthii are buried .
The 2 contend that a customary trust exists on parcel No 387 and the interested party is agreeable to rectification of the error in the Title Deeds and she is ready to execute the requisite documents for this purpose. But the Defendant is unwilling. The Plaintiff therefore prayed for Judgment for the following orders: -
a) A Declaration of a trust for the Plaintiffs on L.R NO. NYANDARUA/LESHAU/KARAGOINI BLOCK 2 (KAHEMBE)/387 of 1.76 HA and for the trust to be determined by registering half of the land (2.17 acres) to the plaintiffs and for the remainder to be registered to the defendant.
b) The Land Registrar–Nyandarua be ordered to cancel the title deed for L.R NO. NYANDARUA/LESHAU/KARAGOINI BLOCK 2 (KAHEMBE)/386 registered to JOSEPH NGUNJIRI GATHUO and to register the land in favour of MARGARET WAMBUI WAITHAKA the rightful owner.
c) The Land Registrar–Nyandarua be ordered to cancel the title deed for L.R NO. NYANDARUA/LESHAU/KARAGOINI BLOCK 2 (KAHEMBE)/387 registered to MARGARET WAMBUI WAITHAKA and do register the land as per Prayer No. (a) above and for its acreage to be rectified from 1.070HA to 1.76HA
d) The Land Surveyor–Nyandarua North be ordered to subdivide L.R. NO. NYANDARUA/LESHAU/KARAGOINI BLOCK 2 (KAHEMBE)/387 into two equal portions as per prayer (a) above and to prepare a Mutation Form to facilitate transfer.
e) The Land Registrar be allowed to dispense with the production of the original title deeds while executing Prayers No: (b) and (c) and the Honourable Court’s Executive Officer be authorized to execute the relevant documents in place of the Plaintiff and the Interested Party in execution of Prayers (b), (c) and (d) above.
f) THAT a permanent injunction do issue restraining the defendant by himself, his agents, servants and/or employees from evicting, cutting trees, demolishing structures and/or in any other interfering with the Plaintiffs’ occupation on the land they are currently occupying which registration Number is L.R NO. NYANDARUA/LESHAU/KARAGOINI BLOCK 2 (KAHEMBE)/387 in perpetual.
g) Costs of this suit plus interest thereon at court rates.
h) Any other or further relief that this Honourable Court may deem fit and just to grant.
In his Statement of Defence, the Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s claim that the suit land was acquired by their late mother but that the land L.R NO NYANDARUA/LESHAU KARAGOININ BLOCK II (KAHEMBE) / 387 bought by himself singlehandedly on 1974 from Kahembe Farmers Co-operative Society Ltd, from his salary while working with New Kenya Auctioneers at Nairobi after which he took immediate possession of the suit land and built there and developed the land.
He averred that their mother was working as a casual labourer and an impoverished squatter at Maxwells Coffee Farm in Nyeri Town. She could therefore not afford to purchase the suit land since she relied on the Defendant for her sustenance. He later relocated his poor mother to the suit land when the 1st Plaintiff was only 5 years old. The Plaintiffs have therefore lived on part of the suit land as licensees of the Defendant. He did get Clearance Certificate from the Kihembe Farmers Cooperation Society Ltd to enable him be issued with the Title Deed for the land. And since at the time of her death her late mother Susan Wangari Ngunjiri did not own land that is why he allowed her to be buried on the land.
The Defendant also admits that Title Deed to his land was interchanged with that of the interested party and that the 1st Plaintiff only occupies ¼ of an Acre of the entire land but the 2nd Plaintiff moved out of the property as soon as she became an adult.
The other persons were also buried on the suit land due to the Defendant’s compassion and that the land is therefore not trust land.
By way of counter-claim the Defendant averred that his son Gilbert Gathuo Ngunjiri has been in possession of the suit land save the ¼ Acre occupied by the 1st Plaintiff since the year 2012.
The Defendant accordingly sought for the following orders against the Plaintiffs jointly and severally:-
a. A declaration that all Title known as L.R No NYANDARUA/ LESHAU KARAGOINI BLOCK II (KAHEMBE)/387 belongs to the Plaintiff and he is entitled to its exclusive and unimpeded right of possession and occupation.
b. A Declaration that the Plaintiffs occupy a portion measuring one quarter (¼) of an acre on L.R No NYANDARUA/LESHAU KARAGOINI B;LOCK II (KAHEMBE)/387 as licenses of the plaintiff.
c. A Declaration that the Plaintiffs have acted inconsistently with the license granted to them by staking ownership claims to the portion they were permitted to use and accordingly the license stands cancelled and/or revoked.
d. A Declaration that the Plaintiffs whether by themselves or their servants or agents and/or otherwise howsoever are wrongfully in occupation of the suit property and are accordingly trespassers on the same.
e. An order that the Plaintiffs and all other trespassers do forthwith vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the Defendant.
f. An order of eviction against each of the Plaintiffs, their agents, servants, as well as any other parties whom the Plaintiffs or any of them have permitted to occupy any part of the suit property.
g. A permanent Injunction restraining the Plaintiffs whether by themselves or their servants or agents and/or otherwise howsoever from remaining on or continuing in occupation of the suit property.
h. General damages for trespass.
i. An order directed to all police station in the vicinity of the suit property to execute the orders of this Honourable Court and evict all trespassers and unauthorized occupants of the suit property including the Plaintiffs and their servants and agents.
j. Costs of the Counter-Claim together with interest thereon.
k. Any such other or further relief as this Honourable Court may deem appropriate to grant.
l. Compensation of the portion of land measuring one quarter (¼) of an acre the Plaintiffs occupy on L.R No NYANDARUA/LESHAU KARAGOININ BLOCK II (KAHEMBE)/387 at the current and prevailing market price at the time of the Judgment with interest at Court rates until liquidation of the same in full.
m. General damages for Trespass.
In their Reply to Defence and the Defence to the Counter-claim, the Plaintiffs repeated the contents of the Plaint. The same is dated 30/1/2024.
The Plaintiffs later brought another suit by way of an Originating Summons dated 13/2/2024 claiming to have acquired 2 Acres out of NYANDARUA/LESGAU KARAGOININ BLOCK 2 (KAHEMBE)/387 by way of adverse possession praying that the Defendant should be ordered to sign the necessary transfer documents to effect the same with land registrar Nyandarua dispensing with the production of the Originating Title Deed of parcel No 387.
In the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons sworn on 13/2/2024, the 2 deponed that the land was acquired by their late mother in 1977/78 and they relocated to the land in 1979 from a settlers’ village in Nyeri where they have resided, planted pine and cypress trees, built houses thereon and lived there for over 45 years.
Margaret Wangui Waithaka, the Defendant in the latter Case No E002 of 2024 (O.S ) swore an Affidavit in reply to the Originating Summons sworn on 23/7/2024 where she depones that her late husband Michael Githinji was a member of Kahembe Farmers Co-operative Society being member No 388 which corresponds to parcel No. 387 measuring 0.0870 Hectares where Joseph Ngunjiri Gathuo is entitled to parcel No. 386 measuring 1.070 Hectares and that there is no boundary dispute between them. She also denies any claim of adverse possession and that the Plaintiffs are mere licensees of their brother, Joseph Ngunjiri.
The claim of adverse possession is hence based on erroneous presumption /assumption and that Ngunjiri has not been sued in the adverse possession suit. She sums up her Affidavit by claiming that the Plaintiffs’ suit is adventurous, misguided, vexatious and incurably defective and that the remedy is to struck it out in limine with costs to the Defendant.
In his Replying Affidavit to the Originating Summons sworn on 4/3/2025, Joseph Ngunjiri Gathuo repeats the contents of his Defence and Counter-claim where he said that the Plaintiffs have not been in actual, open, notorious, regular, continuous, uninterrupted, hostile, exclusive occupation of the suit land without permission from him but have enjoyed occupation of the suit parcel of land from his generosity and the true spirit of family rather than evicting them. There have also been issues and altercations between them on one side and the Defendant’s son, one Gilbert Gathuo Ngunjiri on the other since 2012 when he allowed him to use the land. He pleaded with the Court to evict the Plaintiffs from the suit land.
Following an Application dated 13/5/2024 by the Plaintiffs, the 2 suits ELC No 70 of 2023 and the Originating Summons No. E002 of 2024 were consolidated in preparation for hearing. The Originating Summons was to be treated as a Plaint and any Responses thereto as Defences to the same.
The case then commenced hearing on 11/3/2025 after the Defendant was unwilling to give mediation a chance.
PW1 Josephine Wambui John adopted her Statement dated 5/4/2023 as well as her Supporting Affidavit sworn on 13/2/2024. This she did with authority from the 2nd Plaintiff. The same is in the tandem with the contents of the Plaint dated 5/4/2023 where she said that she and her sister (2nd Plaintiff) were brought up together with 6 other siblings on L.R No NYADARUA/LESHAU KARAGOININ BLOCK 2 (KAHEMBE) /387 whose acreage is 4.
The land was acquired by her late mother in 1977/78 before they relocated on it from a settlers’ village in Nyeri in 1979. She is unmarried and has never left the land. Her sister’s child was buried on the land in 2013. Catherine Nyaguthii’s child, John Githinji also died in 2013 and was as well buried on the land. She testified that they have planted cypress and pine trees there and also constructed a permanent stone house. She later discovered the Title Deed her brother, the Defendant holds is for NYANDARUA/LESHAU KARAGOINI (KAHEMBE) BLOCK II/386 is for the neighbor, the interested party herein and not their mother’s - 387. She said the land they have lived on for over 45 years now has electricity connection which was connected with the Defendant’s knowledge and consent. She said that the interested party has no problem with the rectification but that the Defendant refused to co-operate. She then produced the following Documents in support of the Plaintiffs’ case : -
a. Title Deed dated 3/10/1997 for Parcel No: 386.
b. Letter dated 9/4/2021.
c. Official search for Parcel No: 386 and 387 dated 6/4/2021.
d. Letter dated 14/2/2006.
e. 16 photographs.
f. Letter dated 19/2/2021.
g. Reports dated 8/11/2022.
h. Letter dated 2/2/2023
In cross-examination by Ms. Mureithi for the Defendant, the 1st Plaintiff said she only came to learn later that the land is not registered in her mother’s name but in her brother’s, Joseph Ngunjiri Gathuo according to the Title Deed signed on 3/10/1997. She admitted that her mother’s name does not appear in the Title Deed and that her mother had told her that the land was bought by her father. She said that she was claiming Joseph Ngunjiri’s land. she also said that as the surveyors Report shows, the Defendant stays on the land, it is true that the Defendant came to live on the suit land 3 years ago and built a home recently (of course before the suit was filed). She said she has abandoned the earlier suit to concentrate on the Originating Summons.
On Cross-examination by Mr... Mbugua for the interested party, Ms. John said there is a boundary case between Gathuo and the interested party, Margaret but that the 2 parcels of land do not have a common boundary and that the 2 parcels overlap and she would want the 2 to interchange. She has not been licensed.
On cross-examination by Mr... Gakenia, the witness said that Mr... Gathuo has put up a home on the land.
This saw the end of the Plaintiffs’ case and paved way for the Defendant’s evidence.
Mr. Joseph Ngunjiri Gathuo also relied on his Statement dated 20/12/2023 and his Affidavit sworn on 4/3/2025 wherein he said that he bought the suit land being a member No 387 and a shareholder of Kahembe Farmers Co-operative Society Ltd and then became a beneficiary of parcel No. 386 measuring approximately 1.070 Hectares which is now NYANDARUA/LESHAU KARAGOINI ( KAHEMBE) BLOCK II/386. This was before 1974.
The interested party’s husband Michael Githinji was also a member. The Defendant’s mother was too impoverished at the time that she could not afford to buy the land. He is the 2nd born of Susan Wangari Ngunjiri who allowed his mother and siblings to live on the land and even the family members who died he allowed them to be buried therein because they had nowhere else to be buried. Every development on the suit land was permitted by the Defendant. Their occupation of the ¼ Acre was with his permission and that there is no trust. He further said that the present acrimony arose as a result of him allowing his son Gilbert Gathuo Ngunjiri to build on and cultivate the land between 2010 and 2012. Mr. Gathuo summarized up his evidence by saying that his sisters were his licensees. He then produced the following documents: -
a. Title Deed dated 3/10/1997.
b. Letters dated 9/4/2021.
c. Official searches for parcel Nos. 386 and 387 dated 6/4/2021.
d. Letter dated 14/2/2006.
e. A number of photographs.
f. Letter dated 19/2/2021.
g. Reports dated 8/11/2022.
h. Letter dated 2/2/2023.
i. Photographs of trees and house
j. Letter dated 14/2/2006.
k. Green card.
On cross-examination by Mr. Mbugua for the interested party, Mr. Gathuo insisted that he was on 4 acres. In answer to questions from Mr. Gakenia for the interested party, the witness said that although he has Title for Parcel No 386 his land is parcel No. 387. The titles were erroneously interchanged during issuance. His mother had filed a case in 1991 in Nyahururu against him for the same land but later on abandoned it. She had invited his mother to the land. He also said he built his home therein in 1975 and still occupies the land.
On re-examination by his counsel Ms. Mureithi, the Defendant testified that he did not instruct any surveyor to do a Report over the land and he was not even present when the latter visited the suit land. He said that the other siblings had claimed the land and that out of the photos shown to him there is one that shows a timber home belonging to him.
The last witness, the interested party, Margaret Wangui Waithaka gave evidence by adopting her Affidavit in reply sworn on 23/7/2024. She said that she knew the Plaintiff since birth and that the Defendant is her neighbor in Kahembe, the land being in the name of her late husband Samwel Waithaka who had inherited it from her father-in-law. Gathuo’s land is 4 Acres. She said that the Plaintiffs have never lived on her land.
She then produced the following document in support of her case:-
a. Kahembe Farmers Co-operative Society Ltd Members’ Register.
When cross-examined by Ms. Njoki Mureithi for the Defendant, the witness said that her land was 387 where she has lived for over 50 years. Her husband died before being issued with the Title Deed but in 2019 she was issued with the same. She said that the Plaintiffs are not related to her and that they have never been on her land.
Both lands 386 and 387 are not even bordering each other but are on opposite sides of a road in between. And the 2 parcels are distinct. She finally said that she has never seen a surveyor on her land.
On cross-examination by Mr. Gakenia for the Plaintiffs, Ms. Waithaka testified that the 2 Plaintiffs have put up a home on their land and that they live in the neighbourhood. Her Title Deed reads 387 and that they have never disclosed who owns what.
Finally, on re-examination by her Counsel Mr. Mbugua, the witness said she has never been invited by the Surveyor, she lives on 387 and not on 386. She has a Title Deed for 387 where she has lived since 1973.
From the evidence it comes out clearly that the 1st Defendant is occupying part of the suit land. She says it is 2 Acres while the Defendant claims it is ¼ of an Acre. But what is not in dispute is that she occupies part of the suit land.
The Defendant occupies the other portion and still his son occupies part of the land. It is in doubt whether the 2nd Plaintiff occupies the suit land. the 1st Plaintiff even admitted that as is shown by the surveyor’s Report, the Defendant stays on the suit land where he came to stay 3 years ago. The Defendant was already on the suit land before this suit was filed in 2024. He built a house thereon.
The earlier suit which the 1st Plaintiff says he abandoned was filed in 2023. On re-examination by her Advocate Mr. Gakenia, Ms. John said that Mr. Gathuo has put up a house on the land.
This therefore negates the doctrine of adverse possession since in an adverse possession the possessor must be in exclusive occupation of the land. But in this case, the 1st Plaintiff admits that both parties have been occupying the land and together even prior to the filing of either suit and more particularly the Originating Summons. You have to be in exclusive possession of the land to qualify for adverse possession otherwise the doctrine is negated.
Secondly, it is quite clear from the evidence of the Defendant which I find credible that the Plaintiffs and their late mother were invited to the suit land as licensees. The 2nd Plaintiff did not even testify and evidence came out that she ceased living on the suit land long before this suit was filed.
The Defendant said that the 1st Plaintiff and her late mother, Susan Wangari Ngunjiri came to live on the suit land with his permission because they did not have any other place to live on and upon the death of his mother and the children of his siblings, he also allowed them to be buried on the land because they had nowhere to be buried.
Having come to this conclusion, a certificate of Title is conclusive evidence of ownership and is prima facie evidence that the registered proprietor is the owner. Section 24 of the Land Registration Act 2012, gives the registered proprietor absolute rights over land, it provides:
Subject to this Act—
(a) 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; and
(b) The registration of a person as the proprietor of a lease shall vest in that person the leasehold interest described in the lease, together with all implied and expressed rights and privileges belonging or appurtenant thereto and subject to all implied or expressed agreements, liabilities or incidents of the lease
Section 26(1)(a) &(b) of the Land Registration Act, 2012 guides me on the need to protect the sanctity of a Title Deed but limits me where there is darkness: -
“The certificate of title issued by the Registrar upon registration, or to a purchaser of land upon a transfer or transmission by the proprietor 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, subject to the encumbrances, easements, restrictions and conditions contained or endorsed in the certificate, 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; or
(b) where the certificate of title has been acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme.
No fraud or misrepresentation have been demonstrated in the acquisition of the suit land by the Defendant and I wish to attribute none. Nor has there been shown illegality, unprocedural obtaining of the Title or such acquisition through a corrupt scheme.
On the issue of trust in favour of the Plaintiffs, to begin with, in a case founded on breach of Trust, such as the one before the Court, Order 2, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires that the particulars of the breach of Trust be contained in the pleading: -
10. (1) Subject to sub rule (2), every pleading shall contain the necessary particulars of any claim, Defence or other matter pleaded including, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing —
(a) particulars of any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue influence on which the party pleading relies;
In this case the Plaintiffs never provided the particulars of the alleged breach of Trust.
As to the existence of customary trust, Section 24 of the Land Registration Act 2012 as follows: -
“. Subject to this Act:
(a)The registration of a person as proprietor of land shall vest in that person the absolute ownership of that land together with all rights and privileges belonging or appurtenant thereto. “
Section 25(1) provides that such a registered owner’s rights are indefeasible and are held free from all other interests and claims and that the said rights can only be defeated in the manner provided under the Act. The rights of a registered owner are however subject to overriding interests declared by section 28 of the Land Registration Act as not requiring noting in the register. Section 28 of the Land Registration Act provides that: “Unless the contrary is expressed in the register, all registered land shall be subject to the following overriding interests as may for the time being subsist and affect the same, without their being noted on the register—
(a) ……………………………………
(b) trusts including customary trusts;”
Customary trust is an encumbrance on land.In Isack Kieba M’inanga v Isaaya Theuri M’Lintari & another the Supreme Court of Kenya stated the requirements of a customary trust as follows;“
“Each case has to be determined on its own merits and quality of evidence. It is not every claim of a right to land that will qualify as a customary trust. In this regard, we agree with the High Court in Kiarie v. Kinuthia, that what is essential is the nature of the holding of the land and intention of the parties. If the said holding is for the benefit of other members of the family, then a customary trust would be presumed to have been created in favour of such other members, whether or not they are in possession or actual occupation of the land. Some of the elements that would qualify a claimant as a trustee are:
“1. The land in question was before registration, family, clan or group land.
2. The claimant belongs to such family, clan, or group
3. The relationship of the claimant to such family, clan or group is not so remote or tenuous as to make his/her claim idle or adventurous.
4. The claimant could have been entitled to be registered as an owner or other beneficiary of the land but for some intervening circumstances.
5. The claim is directed against the registered proprietor who is a member of the family, clan or group.”.
The provisions of the law above are to the effect that the overriding interest such as customary trust need not be noted in the Register of the suit land. Therefore, it follows that registration of a person as a proprietor of land does not preclude him from holding an interest in trust for another. These are non -registrable rights which run with the land. They are overriding. They subsist on the land.
If customary trust is a non-registrable encumbrance, then how is it proved in Court? The legal burden to prove the existence of the trust rests with the one who is asserting a right under customary trust. To discharge this burden, the person must prove that: -
(a) the suit properties were ancestral clan land;
(b) during adjudication and consolidation, one member of the family was designated to hold the land on behalf of the family;
(c) the registered persons were the designated family members who were registered to hold the parcel of land on behalf of the family. In essence, one had to lay bare the root of the Title to create the nexus or link of the trust to the Title holder and the claimant.
In the current case, the land was bought by the Defendant from a Farmers Co-operative society and the same was not a clan, ancestral or family land.
In Peter Ndungu Njenga vs. Sophia Watiri Ndungu [2000] eKLR, the Court held that:
“The concept of trust is not new. In case of absolute necessity, but only in case of absolute necessity, the Court may presume a trust. But such presumption is not to be arrived at easily. The Courts will not imply a trust save in order to give effect to the intention of the parties. The intention of the parities to create a trust must be clearly determined before a trust is implied.”
The onus lies on a party relying on the existence of a trust to prove it through evidence. The intention to create a trust must be clearly determined before a trust will be implied. It is trite law that customary trust must be proved. From the above analysis and there being no evidence adduced and on a balance of probabilities, the Court finds and holds that customary trust was not proved to subsist on the suit land in favor of the Plaintiffs herein. The Defendant has shown how he was a member of Kahembe Farmers Co-operative Society being member No 386. He later was given plot No 386 and there are documents to that effect. Title No NYANDARUA/LESHAU KARAGOINI BLOCK II KEHEMBE/386 was issued to Joseph Ngunjiri Gathuo of ID. No. 1811744 on 3/10/1997. This is what the Title Deed shows. It was issued to him as an absolute proprietor and not in trust. He also produced a copy of clearance Certificate serial No. 432 showing that he was the owner of plot No 386 of Kahembe Farmers Co-operative Society Ltd. This is in line with the Title Deed . He also produced Receipt serial number 373 dated 3/10/1997 for 500/- being payment for Title Deed and Clearance Certificate. Nowhere is it indicated that the land was in trust for the Defendant and his siblings nor that it was even his mother’s or father’s.
As to who owns what, the 1st Plaintiff produced a copy of Certificate of Official Search for NYANDARUA/LESHAU KARAGOINI BLOCK II (KEHEMBE)/387 and at 24/3/2021 showing that the same 1.070 Hectares belongs to the interested party Margaret Wangui Waithaka and is what the Defendant holds and NYANDARUA/ LESHAU KARAGOINI BLOCK II/386 0.870 Hectares as belonging to the Defendant, Joseph Ngunjiri Gathuo. As at 24/3/2021 with several cautions by Jackson Mungahi, Godfrey Gicahi and Catherine Nyaguthii.
As to who stays on what land between the Defendant and the interested party, that is none of the Plaintiffs’ business and their thoughts are not required. But the truth is that there is no trust in the suit property. The land belongs to the Defendant absolutely. The two suits are therefore dismissed. Since this is a family dispute, I will spare the Plaintiffs the costs of the suit.
Judgment dated, signed and delivered at Nyandarua this 27h Day of November, 2025.
MUGO KAMAU
JUDGE
In the Presence of: -
Court Assistant: Samson
Appellants’ Counsel: Mr... Waichungo.
Respondent’s Counsel: Mr... Gathumbi.
| 2 |