Why title deed is not proof of land ownership

The portrait photo of  Former State house Comptroller Abraham Kiptanui during the burial ceremony at his Kipkabus Home in Uasin Gishu. [File, Standard]

Merely holding a title deed does not prove land ownership unless the process by which it was acquired is shown to be lawful; the Environment and Land Court in Eldoret has ruled. 

Justice Charles Yano declared that a title deed or lease is only the end product of a process and can only enjoy legal protection if obtained in compliance with the law. 

“It is now well settled that a title or lease is an end product of a process. For a title to be valid and qualify for protection under the law, it must have been acquired legally and in compliance with both the law and procedure,” the judge stated. 

The decision arose from a dispute involving the estate of former State House Comptroller, the late Abraham Kipsang Kiptanui, whose administrators—Mary Jeruto and Patrick Kiplagat—sued the estate of the late James Komen over ownership of land in Uasin Gishu County. 

Jeruto and Kiplagat, as administrators of Kiptanui’s estate, claimed he was the registered owner of land known as Kahungura Settlement Scheme/466. 

They accused John Ngetich, Hillary Kipsang, Henry Kurui and Miriam Sote of forcefully trespassing onto the land in February 2022, ploughing it and destroying a perimeter fence and trees. 

However, they failed to appear in court or file submissions after instituting the suit. 

Ngetich, representing Komen’s estate, told the court that his father legally owned the 16-acre property and had been using it for grazing livestock until his death. 

He produced documents from the Settlement Fund Trustees (SFT) showing that Komen was the original allottee. He further pointed out a discrepancy indicating that the land was transferred to Kiptanui on September 29, 2005—more than two years after Komen’s death on June 17, 2003. On the same date, Kiptanui was issued with a title deed. 

Ngetich argued that the transfer was fraudulent since Kiptanui was not an SFT allottee. The court examined several official documents, including a letter dated October 1, 2021, from the Uasin Gishu County Director, Land Adjudication & Settlement, confirming the land was discharged to Komen as the original allottee. 

Another letter dated June 27, 2018, from the Assistant Director, certified that Plot No. 466 had been discharged in favour of Komen’s estate and advised his family to obtain a title deed. 

“All these documents together with the registration documents issued to the late James Komen by the SFT point towards the undeniable fact that he was the original allottee of the land…and the first registered owner,” the court noted. 

The judge found that Kiptanui’s estate failed to defend their title, worsened by their failure to prosecute the suit or furnish evidence explaining how Kiptanui acquired the land. "Owing to the above discussions, I am convinced that the Plaintiff’s title was not acquired legally or regularly,” Justice Yano ruled. 

The court noted that it was not clear how the late Kiptanui was registered as the proprietor of the suit property. 

“Aside from the title presented in this suit, the Plaintiffs (estate of Kiptanui) did not present any other document showing the process through which the late Abraham Kiptanui came to be registered as the owner of the land,” noted the court. 

According to the court, Kiptanui’s estate failed to defend their title over the suit land, and their predicament is made worse by the fact that they failed to prosecute their case by testifying and adducing evidence in support of their title. 

The court ordered cancellation of the title deed issued in Kiptanui’s name and directed the Land Registrar to rectify the register and revert ownership to Komen. 

The court issued permanent orders barring the estate of Kiptanui, their agents, servants and any other person from interfering with Komen’s estate.