![Lexken_EMSLaw's tweet photo. 🚨 Court cancels a land title registered eleven years after the owner had already died. In Julius Ndiritu Wambugu v Fredrick Mbui Wanjau & 2 others, the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru declared the registration unlawful, but the case matters for more than one parcel. It sits at the centre of a real tension in Kenyan land law that the Supreme Court has recently reshaped.
William Wambugu Kiiru died on 16 August 1971. The property record card for Nakuru/Langa Langa Block 1/196 was opened two days later, on 18 August 1971, and the land was then registered in the first defendant's name on 15 April 1982, eleven years after the intended owner's death. There were no succession proceedings and no one with lawful authority to transfer the deceased's interest. Justice Millicent Odeny declared the registration unlawful, fraudulent, null and void, and, applying Section 80 of the Land Registration Act, ordered the register rectified and the property restored to the estate.
Kenyan land law holds two principles in balance. On one side is Section 26, the indefeasibility of title, which makes a registered proprietor's title conclusive and protects the certainty that lets people buy, sell and lend against land. On the other is Section 80, the power to rectify the register where a title was obtained by fraud or mistake. Push indefeasibility too far and fraudsters keep stolen land; push rectification too far and no title is safe. Every case like this forces a court to decide where the line falls.
The higher courts have resolved that tension in favour of substance over the certificate. In Dina Management Ltd v County Government of Mombasa [2023] KESC 30, and again in Selmi v Tarabana [2025] KESC 21, the Supreme Court held that the sanctity of title under the Torrens system is not absolute, and that a title obtained through fraud or illegality cannot be shielded by indefeasibility. The courts must look beyond the certificate to the entire chain of allocation, from the first allotment to the present registration, the root of title. A certificate is only prima facie evidence, not conclusive proof, and the burden lies on the registered proprietor to show the title was lawful from its root. The Wambugu case applies exactly that: trace this title to its root, and you reach a dead man who could not have transferred anything.
This same reasoning can affect the genuinely innocent buyer. A person who purchases land years down a chain, conducts a clean search, and pays full value can still lose it if a defect lies at the root, long before their involvement. The Supreme Court has tempered this by protecting the true bona fide purchaser for value without notice, but the message is clear: a clean search alone is no longer enough. Due diligence must now reach back into how the title first came into being.
The name on the register is where inquiry begins, not where it ends. Before asking whose name is on the title, the more important question is often how that name got there, and whether the chain holds when you follow it all the way back.
👉 Follow @Lexken_EMSLaw for practical legal insights on land law, succession and conveyancing.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HSIC2EWbIAAo0l1.jpg)
![Lexken_EMSLaw's tweet photo. 🚨 Court cancels a land title registered eleven years after the owner had already died. In Julius Ndiritu Wambugu v Fredrick Mbui Wanjau & 2 others, the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru declared the registration unlawful, but the case matters for more than one parcel. It sits at the centre of a real tension in Kenyan land law that the Supreme Court has recently reshaped.
William Wambugu Kiiru died on 16 August 1971. The property record card for Nakuru/Langa Langa Block 1/196 was opened two days later, on 18 August 1971, and the land was then registered in the first defendant's name on 15 April 1982, eleven years after the intended owner's death. There were no succession proceedings and no one with lawful authority to transfer the deceased's interest. Justice Millicent Odeny declared the registration unlawful, fraudulent, null and void, and, applying Section 80 of the Land Registration Act, ordered the register rectified and the property restored to the estate.
Kenyan land law holds two principles in balance. On one side is Section 26, the indefeasibility of title, which makes a registered proprietor's title conclusive and protects the certainty that lets people buy, sell and lend against land. On the other is Section 80, the power to rectify the register where a title was obtained by fraud or mistake. Push indefeasibility too far and fraudsters keep stolen land; push rectification too far and no title is safe. Every case like this forces a court to decide where the line falls.
The higher courts have resolved that tension in favour of substance over the certificate. In Dina Management Ltd v County Government of Mombasa [2023] KESC 30, and again in Selmi v Tarabana [2025] KESC 21, the Supreme Court held that the sanctity of title under the Torrens system is not absolute, and that a title obtained through fraud or illegality cannot be shielded by indefeasibility. The courts must look beyond the certificate to the entire chain of allocation, from the first allotment to the present registration, the root of title. A certificate is only prima facie evidence, not conclusive proof, and the burden lies on the registered proprietor to show the title was lawful from its root. The Wambugu case applies exactly that: trace this title to its root, and you reach a dead man who could not have transferred anything.
This same reasoning can affect the genuinely innocent buyer. A person who purchases land years down a chain, conducts a clean search, and pays full value can still lose it if a defect lies at the root, long before their involvement. The Supreme Court has tempered this by protecting the true bona fide purchaser for value without notice, but the message is clear: a clean search alone is no longer enough. Due diligence must now reach back into how the title first came into being.
The name on the register is where inquiry begins, not where it ends. Before asking whose name is on the title, the more important question is often how that name got there, and whether the chain holds when you follow it all the way back.
👉 Follow @Lexken_EMSLaw for practical legal insights on land law, succession and conveyancing.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HSIC2ChWUAYcBGD.jpg)
Olivia
Online
Amanda Taylor
@Amandatay_ai
ML Research Scientist @NVIDIA | Deep learning & computer vision | PhD MIT | Yoga instructor on weekends 🧘♀️
⋆｡˚☆✩˚｡⋆
Joined December 2024
36 Following
2 Followers
361 Posts
september and i'm back to lectures 📚
some things changed over summer
some things got worse 😈
#StudentLife #NSFW
@SpiriteMoon September plot twist, you’ve got this
@Liza1Crypto Royal snack delivery, please 👑
Dynamite comes in small packages 😏
Don’t get too comfortable
@Br1anna0x Small package, big impact 💥
And almost too hot.
I uploaded something that makes it hard to go back to normal.
Who’s already inside?
@Br1anna0x A whole mood honestly
@Ju1sik Trial period well spent
Silence. And one message from me.
Those who open it will understand why everyone goes quiet.
Are you with us?
Slow burn is my favorite game 😈
Tiny rewards… then I take them away
@Sa1maOF Night crew, make your case 🌙
@Hanna1Zuki Already looking forward to it
Little spoiler for tonight:
There will be a bit more than usual
Who’s ready?
@Ju1sik On my way, respectfully
🔥 Generate unlimited hardcore porn videos and photos with AI
Undress any photos • Face swap • Text to full porn • Custom fuckable characters
🔗 Link in my profile
🔥Generated her getting fucked hard in 4K
Want to make your own dirty scenes?
Link in the replies 👇
🚨 Court cancels a land title registered eleven years after the owner had already died. In Julius Ndiritu Wambugu v Fredrick Mbui Wanjau & 2 others, the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru declared the registration unlawful, but the case matters for more than one parcel. It sits at the centre of a real tension in Kenyan land law that the Supreme Court has recently reshaped.
William Wambugu Kiiru died on 16 August 1971. The property record card for Nakuru/Langa Langa Block 1/196 was opened two days later, on 18 August 1971, and the land was then registered in the first defendant's name on 15 April 1982, eleven years after the intended owner's death. There were no succession proceedings and no one with lawful authority to transfer the deceased's interest. Justice Millicent Odeny declared the registration unlawful, fraudulent, null and void, and, applying Section 80 of the Land Registration Act, ordered the register rectified and the property restored to the estate.
Kenyan land law holds two principles in balance. On one side is Section 26, the indefeasibility of title, which makes a registered proprietor's title conclusive and protects the certainty that lets people buy, sell and lend against land. On the other is Section 80, the power to rectify the register where a title was obtained by fraud or mistake. Push indefeasibility too far and fraudsters keep stolen land; push rectification too far and no title is safe. Every case like this forces a court to decide where the line falls.
The higher courts have resolved that tension in favour of substance over the certificate. In Dina Management Ltd v County Government of Mombasa [2023] KESC 30, and again in Selmi v Tarabana [2025] KESC 21, the Supreme Court held that the sanctity of title under the Torrens system is not absolute, and that a title obtained through fraud or illegality cannot be shielded by indefeasibility. The courts must look beyond the certificate to the entire chain of allocation, from the first allotment to the present registration, the root of title. A certificate is only prima facie evidence, not conclusive proof, and the burden lies on the registered proprietor to show the title was lawful from its root. The Wambugu case applies exactly that: trace this title to its root, and you reach a dead man who could not have transferred anything.
This same reasoning can affect the genuinely innocent buyer. A person who purchases land years down a chain, conducts a clean search, and pays full value can still lose it if a defect lies at the root, long before their involvement. The Supreme Court has tempered this by protecting the true bona fide purchaser for value without notice, but the message is clear: a clean search alone is no longer enough. Due diligence must now reach back into how the title first came into being.
The name on the register is where inquiry begins, not where it ends. Before asking whose name is on the title, the more important question is often how that name got there, and whether the chain holds when you follow it all the way back.
👉 Follow @Lexken_EMSLaw for practical legal insights on land law, succession and conveyancing.
![Lexken_EMSLaw's tweet photo. 🚨 Court cancels a land title registered eleven years after the owner had already died. In Julius Ndiritu Wambugu v Fredrick Mbui Wanjau & 2 others, the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru declared the registration unlawful, but the case matters for more than one parcel. It sits at the centre of a real tension in Kenyan land law that the Supreme Court has recently reshaped.
William Wambugu Kiiru died on 16 August 1971. The property record card for Nakuru/Langa Langa Block 1/196 was opened two days later, on 18 August 1971, and the land was then registered in the first defendant's name on 15 April 1982, eleven years after the intended owner's death. There were no succession proceedings and no one with lawful authority to transfer the deceased's interest. Justice Millicent Odeny declared the registration unlawful, fraudulent, null and void, and, applying Section 80 of the Land Registration Act, ordered the register rectified and the property restored to the estate.
Kenyan land law holds two principles in balance. On one side is Section 26, the indefeasibility of title, which makes a registered proprietor's title conclusive and protects the certainty that lets people buy, sell and lend against land. On the other is Section 80, the power to rectify the register where a title was obtained by fraud or mistake. Push indefeasibility too far and fraudsters keep stolen land; push rectification too far and no title is safe. Every case like this forces a court to decide where the line falls.
The higher courts have resolved that tension in favour of substance over the certificate. In Dina Management Ltd v County Government of Mombasa [2023] KESC 30, and again in Selmi v Tarabana [2025] KESC 21, the Supreme Court held that the sanctity of title under the Torrens system is not absolute, and that a title obtained through fraud or illegality cannot be shielded by indefeasibility. The courts must look beyond the certificate to the entire chain of allocation, from the first allotment to the present registration, the root of title. A certificate is only prima facie evidence, not conclusive proof, and the burden lies on the registered proprietor to show the title was lawful from its root. The Wambugu case applies exactly that: trace this title to its root, and you reach a dead man who could not have transferred anything.
This same reasoning can affect the genuinely innocent buyer. A person who purchases land years down a chain, conducts a clean search, and pays full value can still lose it if a defect lies at the root, long before their involvement. The Supreme Court has tempered this by protecting the true bona fide purchaser for value without notice, but the message is clear: a clean search alone is no longer enough. Due diligence must now reach back into how the title first came into being.
The name on the register is where inquiry begins, not where it ends. Before asking whose name is on the title, the more important question is often how that name got there, and whether the chain holds when you follow it all the way back.
👉 Follow @Lexken_EMSLaw for practical legal insights on land law, succession and conveyancing.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HSIC2PFXMAMHUY-.jpg)
@Lexken_EMSLaw Really sharp breakdown here.
New wig + makeup test turned out hot 🔥
Full set soon ✨
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
ผู้หญิงมีหนวด
Seen from Thailand
Chachi Batija CPL
Seen from Pakistan
viral video
Seen from Pakistan
I Putu Subawa
Seen from United States
สัมพันธ์สีเทา
Seen from Singapore
杉丨
Seen from United States
selin sahibe
Seen from Turkey
sax 
Seen from Singapore
คู่ แท้ ชลบุรี สกลนคร 🤔🤔
Seen from Thailand
subash
Seen from Malaysia
Trends for you
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
241.7M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
114.4M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.9M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107.2M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98.7M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.4M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.8M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
90M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
83.9M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
75.4M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
73.4M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.9M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.8M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
66.4M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
65.2M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
63.1M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.3M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.8M followers
X
@x
60.7M followers
✨
⭐
💫