A land ownership dispute involving allegations of irregular registration, questionable succession proceedings and inconsistencies in official land records has taken a new turn after a Land Registrar and a court official were subjected to intense cross examination over the history of a contested parcel.
The hearing in ELC Case No. 6223 of 2024 before Ruiru Chief Magistrate Beatrice Kimemia exposed discrepancies in records relating to land parcel Ruiru/Ruiru East Block 4/184, with questions raised over its subdivision, reconstruction of its green card and the circumstances under which competing ownership claims emerged.
The case pits six plaintiffs, led by Penina Wambui Gitumbu, against the Ruiru Land Registrar and Jackson Kubai Muraya, with the plaintiffs challenging the ownership history and registration of land they claim was previously associated with their family.
During cross examination, the Land Registrar confirmed that parcel 184 had been subdivided into five new parcels numbered 6688 to 6692, following a mutation process.
The witness told the court that the subdivision had followed the required procedures, citing mutation documents and registration cards as evidence.
However, the examination exposed gaps in the documentation, particularly the absence of a green card showing the formal closure of the original parcel following subdivision.
The registrar admitted that he did not have the card reflecting the closure of parcel 184, although he maintained that the subdivision had been completed.
He explained that once an original title is surrendered during subdivision, the mother register is closed and new parcel numbers entered to reflect the resulting titles.
The court also examined a disputed entry in the land records indicating that the original title had been closed on subdivision in 2012. The registrar described the entry as erroneous, saying it could not have been effective because the mutation was approved on August 15, 2012, after the date appearing on the relevant green card.
He maintained that a valid closure should have contained the new parcel numbers and the Land Registrar’s signature.
Questions were also raised over the reconstruction of the missing green card after an application by Jackson Kubai Muraya.
The registrar confirmed that the reconstruction notice identified Kubai as the registered proprietor, although the court heard that the original parcel had already undergone subdivision.
He explained that reconstruction was intended to restore a missing registry record and did not automatically amount to issuance of a new title or transfer of ownership.
Kubai, in his own testimony, said he bought the property in 1982 for Sh50,000, paid in cash, but admitted that the transaction was not witnessed by another person and that he had no written evidence of payment.
He said he was not immediately given the title deed because it had been deposited with the Lands Board Committee, adding that only the seller signed the transfer documents. He claimed he signed when he later went to collect the title.
Kubai told the court that he first learnt in 2017 that another party was claiming ownership of the land.
The hearing also examined the succession proceedings surrounding the property after Irene Wambui , a judicial staff member attached to the Kiambu Law Courts’ Probate and Administration Registry, testified.
Wambui confirmed that a search certificate presented in the succession file identified the proprietor of parcel 184 as Raji Nene Raji, rather than the deceased whose estate was being administered.
She agreed that accepting a search document that did not correspond with the deceased’s name would be improper and could amount to an oversight by the registry.
She further confirmed that a grant would ordinarily be confirmed after six months unless the court allowed an earlier confirmation for sufficient reasons.
The witness, however, defended the release of certified copies of the succession file, saying the registry acted on a request from the Directorate of Criminal Investigations dated August 12, 2025, in connection with investigations into alleged acquisition of land registration through false pretences.
The court heard that the disputed search certificate had been received in the succession file on March 24, 1992, alongside searches relating to four other properties.
The case will continue further on 28th January where two more witnesses are expected to testify.
The proceedings are expected to shed further light on the competing ownership claims, the integrity of historical land records and whether the procedures followed in the subdivision and subsequent reconstruction of the register complied with the law.
