A long-running land dispute involving a family from Kiambu has taken a new turn at the Ruiru Law Courts, with the parties contesting the authenticity of land records, subdivision maps and the circumstances under which ownership of the disputed property changed hands.
The case, ELC Case No. 6223 of 2024, is being heard before Ruiru Chief Magistrate Beatrice Kimemia and pits six plaintiffs against the Ruiru Land Registrar and Jackson Kubai Muraya.
The plaintiffs, led by Penina Wambui Gitumbu, are challenging the ownership history and registration of land that they claim was previously associated with their family.
During the latest proceedings, a witness appearing for the plaintiffs adopted his earlier statement and testified on documents relating to a parcel identified in the proceedings as Ruiru/Ruiru East Block 4/6690, which the plaintiffs associate with the estate of the late Nancy Muthoni Njogo.
The witness told the court that a search conducted at the land registry on May 22, 2017, was followed by the publication of a Kenya Gazette notice on July 21 of the same year.
He said the discovery of the Gazette notice was among the developments that prompted the family to pursue the matter in court.
The proceedings also turned to competing maps presented by the parties.
The witness was shown a map dated March 7, 2016, which he compared with another map relating to the disputed property and its subdivisions.
He claimed that some portions appearing on one map were missing from another, arguing that the documents did not reflect the same subdivision history.
According to his testimony, several portions of the original parcel were identifiable on one of the maps, while corresponding markings were absent from the document produced by the defence.
The witness described the disputed map as problematic and suggested that changes had been made to the land records.
However, his evidence came under sustained challenge during cross-examination.
The defence questioned the witness’s qualifications to determine whether a land survey map was genuine or fraudulent.
The witness acknowledged that he was a mechanic and not a surveyor or land officer.
He was subsequently pressed to explain the basis on which he had concluded that one map was genuine while another was not.
The cross-examination further examined his understanding of amendments to survey maps and whether such amendments arise from the purchase of land or from subsequent subdivision.
The witness eventually agreed that a map would require amendment to reflect a subdivision, rather than merely because an individual had purchased land.
He was also unable to give a firm answer on the period within which a map should be amended after subdivision, initially suggesting periods such as six months or one year.
The issue of title documents also emerged as a significant point of contention.
The court heard arguments concerning an earlier title, succession proceedings and the subsequent handling of the original or mother title at the land registry.
Counsel also questioned the witness about the legal consequences of an allegedly irregular acquisition of land and whether a person who obtained property improperly could subsequently pass a valid interest in it to another person.
The witness agreed with the proposition that a person who had acquired land fraudulently could not lawfully transfer a valid title derived from that transaction.
The exchange highlighted the central legal question facing the court whether the disputed property was lawfully transferred through the succession and registration processes relied upon by the parties.
Another contested aspect of the hearing concerned a house allegedly constructed on the disputed property.
The witness was questioned about photographs he had presented to court showing the house.
The defence challenged whether the photographs could establish who actually constructed the building.
The witness was asked whether merely producing photographs of an existing house could prove that he was the person who built it.
He explained that the photographs were intended to show the existence of the structure and referred to circumstances in which his mother had allegedly sought assistance in connection with the construction.
The witness conceded that he had not produced receipts or other documentary evidence showing that he personally purchased construction materials.
He said his mother had been responsible for purchasing the materials.
The witness was also questioned about his professional qualifications after stating that he was a mechanic but had also undertaken carpentry work.
He acknowledged that he had not produced documentation before the court to demonstrate formal qualifications as a carpenter, although he maintained that he performed such work.
The competing accounts have placed the credibility of documentary evidence and oral testimony at the centre of the dispute.
The plaintiffs’ case seeks to establish the history of the property and challenge what they consider to be irregularities in its registration and subdivision.
The defendants, however, have challenged aspects of the plaintiffs’ evidence, including the witness’s interpretation of survey maps and his ability to authenticate technical land records.
The dispute illustrates the complexity that can arise where historical land ownership, succession proceedings, survey records and subsequent registration intersect.
At the heart of the case is the question of whether the disputed property was properly transferred and whether the documents relied upon by either side accurately reflect its legal and survey history.
The court is yet to make a final determination on the competing claims.
Hearing of the matter will continue on November 5, 2026, when the Land Registrar, officers from the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) and other defence witnesses are expected to testify.
Their evidence could provide further insight into the history of the contested land records, the registration process and the allegations surrounding the disputed documents.
Until the remaining witnesses testify and the court considers all the evidence and submissions, the allegations raised by either side remain contested.
The case therefore remains closely watched as the court seeks to establish the lawful ownership and documentary history of the disputed property.
