Vipingo Development PLC, owned by property developer Centum Real Estate Ltd, got a reprieve after a court declared that it holds valid titles to three parcels of land in the Vipingo area, Kilifi County.
The parcels of land have been claimed by five individuals and a community-based organisation (CBO).
The Land and Environment Court in Mombasa further issued a declaration that title documents issued to Wycliffe Tembo, Ngumbao Iha, Joseph Fondo, Esther Kache, Geoffrey Kamau and Bambani Kilio CBO, and any subdivisions emanating from it are null and void.
Tembo, Iha, Fondo, Kache, Kamau, and Bambani Kilio CBO (plaintiffs) had sued Rea Vipingo Plantations Ltd, Vipingo Development PLC (formerly Vipingo Development Ltd), Centum Development PLC and Mombasa Cement Ltd. The Lands Registrar, Mombasa, and the Attorney General were named as interested parties in the case.
The court said the plaintiffs and the CBO were duty-bound to prove the legality of their title over the parcels of land.
“The titles issued to them (plaintiffs) on September 15, 2020, and December 13, 2022, were clearly fraudulent and erroneous as confirmed by the Land Registrar in his letter,” ruled Justice Olola.
He noted that it was clear from the evidence adduced by Vipingo Development PLC that the parcels of land had been registered in the name of Rea Vipingo Plantations Ltd for many years before they were transferred to Vipingo Development PLC pursuant to a sale agreement dated March 27, 2015.
Justice Olola also said that it was apparent from the plaintiffs’ pleadings that they were aware that the parcels of land had always been in the name of Rea Vipingo Plantations, hence their assertion that the defendant's title and interest in them had been extinguished under the Limitations of Actions Act.
He further said that the plaintiffs did not lead any evidence in support of that assertion and that if the defendants had no proper title to the land, there would be no title or interest to be extinguished under the Act.
“I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the second defendant (Vipingo Development PLC) has proved the titles held by itself are the only valid titles for the suit properties and it is the lawful proprietor,” ruled Justice Olola.
The court also ordered the Land Registrar in Mombasa to cancel, expunge, and nullify all records relating to the plaintiffs’ title document and any subdivisions resulting or emanating therefrom.
“The plaintiffs, whether by themselves or any person acting under their direction or authority, are hereby restrained by a permanent order of injunction from entering upon, interfering with, procuring titles or in any way infringing upon or interfering with Vipingo Development PLC's proprietary rights to any part of the suit properties,” ordered Justice Olola.
Plaintiffs and the CBO instituted the case, which was later dismissed for want of prosecution, against the defendants, urging the court to grant them an order of injunction from conducting a survey, subdividing, fencing, or evicting them from the land.
They also urged the court to stop the defendants from planting sisal, constructing a perimeter wall, or carrying on any other activities on the said parcel of land.
The plaintiffs asked the court to declare that they were the rightful/legal owners of the property and to direct that the certificates of title in the name of the defendants be revoked.
They accused the defendants of proceeding to the said parcel of land and threatening to demolish and evict them on account that they (defendants) were the lawful owners.
Vipingo Development PLC, in its case against the residents, told the court that they had acquired the land by purchasing it from Rea Vipingo Plantations Ltd, and since then they have enjoyed quiet possession and use until sometime in January 2023, when it emerged that there was a duplicate title issued to the plaintiffs comprising the parcels of land.
It asserted that they had actively utilised the land over a period of time by growing sisal, that they had charged it to various financial institutions, hence it had not been open for alienation to the plaintiffs.
