Two purchaser claims traced back to NSSF. One side held a title obtained through an assignment and transfer containing inconsistent parcel references. The other relied on an offer, payment and occupation, but had never executed the contemplated formal sale agreement.
Ramji & 2 others v Fund & another [2023] KECA 1674 (KLR) concerns Civil Appeal 590 of 2019. The retained Supreme Court ruling corroborates the principal judgment's 15 December 2023 date and appeal number; the principal judicial header itself is unavailable.
The abbreviated indexed name is retained here. In the body, Mombasa Cement is the first respondent and NSSF the second.
The two purchase histories were not interchangeable
The appellants traced their acquisition through Golden Terrace's agreement with NSSF and an assignment to them. An earlier dispute had produced a consent governing the purchasers' dealings.
Mombasa Cement asserted its own purchase and occupation. It alleged fraudulent registration in the appellants' names and counterclaimed for cancellation and transfer to itself.
The ELC dismissed the appellants' suit and allowed that counterclaim. The Court of Appeal re-examined both the registered acquisition and the contractual foundation of the competing claim.
NSSF did not participate despite service, a fact that later mattered to costs.
The court treated the parcel discrepancy as clerical
The transfer document referred to one parcel in its description but another in its operative wording. The title referred to the disputed parcel.
The court examined the instrument and treated the inconsistent reference as a rectifiable clerical error. It also found insufficient evidence proving the pleaded fraud against the appellants.
That was a finding on this instrument and evidence. It is not permission for a buyer to disregard mismatched parcel numbers or assume that any discrepancy can safely be repaired.
The judgment itself contains inconsistent consideration and area figures. This account does not publish a reconciled price or acreage that the retained material cannot establish.
Payment did not supply the missing formal agreement here
Mombasa Cement relied on its offer, payment and the earlier consent. The Court of Appeal found that the offer contemplated a formal sale agreement which had not been executed.
It also found that Mombasa Cement was not a party to the consent and that the consent itself contemplated purchase terms in sale agreements.
On those facts, the counterclaim could not be sustained. The court did not accept that the consent bypassed the contractual deficiency.
This case should not be presented as deciding every possible equitable claim arising from an informal sale. It decided the pleaded counterclaim and the evidence before it.
The successful title claim and the refund were separate orders
Paragraph 47 allowed the appeal, set aside the ELC judgment and substituted an order allowing the appellants' plaint prayers. The body describes their claim for a permanent injunction against trespass. The counterclaim was dismissed.
NSSF was ordered to bear the appeal and trial costs; paragraph 48 does not allocate individual recipients. Paragraph 49 directs repayment to Mombasa Cement of all purchase money NSSF received in this matter, with court-rate interest from the date of payment until payment in full.
The refund was not ordered against the successful title holders. Nor does the direction prove that the money was subsequently repaid.
Certification did not become a Supreme Court title trial
The retained [2024] KECA 1139, identified as dated 20 September 2024, refused certification of an intended Supreme Court appeal and dismissed the motion with costs, without specifying a recipient.
The Supreme Court's [2025] KESC 5, delivered on 14 March 2025, dismissed the certification-review motion, with each party bearing its own costs.
It treated the fraud dispute as fact-specific and expressly distinguished a separate additional-evidence application, which required its own conclusion. The certification ruling did not dispose of that separate application or conduct a new merits appeal confirming every title finding.
The 2024 source varies the certification motion's year. The Supreme Court source also varies the additional-evidence application's year. Neither discrepancy establishes a later outcome for that separate application.
Questions for competing purchaser records
What property does each agreement actually describe? Was the contemplated agreement signed? Who was party to the consent relied upon? Does the final relief concern land, a refund or both, and against whom?
A Kenyan advocate should compare the complete instruments and orders. Neither an offer nor an apparent clerical explanation should be treated as title certification.
Review ArdhiScore's screening scope and limitations. Screening cannot correct a transfer, establish equitable rights, secure a refund or guarantee complete coverage. It does not replace an official search or Kenyan legal advice.
Explore ArdhiScore screening and its limits.
Independent local review, 11 September 2026: Ezra read the retained original responses identified by the postwriting cache index, separately from the writer's selected-cache record. The principal text through paragraph 49 and 2024 text through paragraph 17 lack formal headers and signed closings. The complete Supreme Court ruling was read. Source hold remains, including unresolved chronology and additional-evidence history. No network request, fresh later-history search, refund-payment check or current-title verification occurred. Access/reuse, privacy/legal and publication approval remain separate.
Read the principal judgment, paragraphs 28-49; the certification ruling, paragraphs 10-17; and the Supreme Court ruling, paragraphs 9-10.