Choi & 3 others v Goldstein Group Services Limited & 2 others [2025] KEELC 7234 (KLR)

Introduction and factual background

The case involved, as per the court, ambitious three parcels of land.  Ambitious because the three parcels of land had acquired several owners, each bearing a certificate of title from the same ministry of land. All the competing titles were allegedly initially acquired by allotment between 1995 and 1997. Each title holder accused the other with competing title of fraud and an attempt to defeat their right to property under Article 40 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010.

The 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs contended that they were the lawful registered proprietors of Land Reference No. 21075. The 3rd Plaintiff, on the other hand, claimed to be the registered proprietor of Land Reference No. 21103 (I.R. 68300) while the 4th Plaintiff claimed proprietorship of Land Reference No. 21104 (I.R. 75381). The 1^st Defendant, on the other hand, claimed to be the registered owner of all three parcels of land. According to the 1^st Defendant, all three parcels of land had been lawfully allotted to him by the government in 1995.

Issues for determination

The main daunting task before the court was the determination of who had a valid title to each of the three parcels of land.

Court’s determination

The court carefully assessed the root of each title from the initial allotment. While the 1^st Defendant was found to have been the first to be issued with an allotment letter, that alone did not, as per the court, guarantee the validity of its claims of over any of the three parcels of land.  The court found no evidence on record of observance of due administrative procedures by the 1^st Defendant after receipt of the allotment letters. On the other hand, all three Plaintiffs were able to prove the root of their title by documentary evidence corroborated by testimonies from officials at the land registry. Having proved, to the satisfaction of the court, the root of their titles, the court upheld the title held by the three plaintiffs over the three contested parcels of land and invalidated the titles held by the 1^st Defendant.

Key take-aways

1. In disputes where both parties have competing titles to a piece of land, it is not enough for either party to dangle his or her title as proof of ownership. Each party must prove, to the satisfaction of the court, the root of his or her title.
2. A document proving a root of title is only valid if:
3. It deals with or shows the origin of ownership of the whole legal and equitable interest in the land in question.
4. It contains a recognizable description of the particular parcel of land.
5. It does not contain anything that casts any doubt on the validity of the title.
6. An initial letter of allotment is a mere invitation to treat that can only confer a valid title after the recipient fully complies with the requirements contained in the letter of allotment.
7. A letter of allotment does not become invalid merely because payment was made after the stipulated timeline, where the government nonetheless accepted such payment.

Conclusion

This case is a classic reminder to individuals, financial institutions, and businesses of the importance of due diligence before completing any land transactions. Several titles dangled by some people were either obtained fraudulently or without due procedure and hence cannot be validly transferred. Therefore, before you get drawn into a fraudulent land transaction scheme that could cost you millions of shillings, conduct an extensive investigation into the root of the title that is sought to be transferred to you.