Both claimants had title documents. Njonjo still held her original and denied transferring the land. The later purchaser's certificate therefore raised a question that the certificate itself could not answer: what lawful transaction connected the earlier ownership to the new entry?
In Njonjo v Attorney General & 2 others [2024] KECA 599 (KLR), Civil Appeal 187 of 2019, the Court of Appeal delivered judgment on 24 May 2024. It reversed the trial result and ordered cancellation of the competing title.
The original certificate was evidence, not the whole case
Njonjo's account was that she retained the original title and had not made the transfer relied on by the competing claimant. The existence of a second title created a dispute over the history behind the register.
The later purchaser relied on acquisition and the protection associated with buying in good faith. The trial court had accepted that defence and treated Njonjo's title as extinguished.
On appeal, the court examined whether the evidence supported that conclusion. The task was not simply to choose whichever certificate appeared more persuasive in isolation.
Retention of an original title can be significant, but it does not create a universal rule that whoever holds the older paper must win. The court still had to consider the transaction and registration evidence.
The documents needed to connect the two positions
The Court of Appeal identified missing support for the later purchaser's acquisition. The signed transfer was not produced, nor were the receipts supporting stamp-duty and transfer-fee payments.
Those were not peripheral questions. They concerned the process by which the later claimant said ownership had passed from the previous registered position.
Paragraphs 25–29 explain the evidential difficulty. A search or later entry may show what the registry records, but it does not, by itself, establish every disputed step that produced that record.
The absence of the supporting documents mattered alongside Njonjo's denial of transfer and retention of her original title. The court evaluated that combination rather than treating the later certificate as an answer to its own disputed origin.
The purchaser defence did not survive the appeal
In paragraphs 30–34, the appellate court rejected the trial court's acceptance of the bona fide purchaser defence on this record.
The finding should remain tied to the evidence before the court. It is not a declaration that good faith never matters, or that every lost document automatically establishes an unlawful transaction.
Nor should the account become a criminal accusation against every person associated with a contested register. The judgment resolved the civil title and compensation issues presented to it.
The decisive practical distinction is between evidence of a registration and evidence establishing the lawful transaction underlying it.
Cancellation did not carry an automatic compensation award
The Court of Appeal set aside the trial judgment and declared Njonjo the legal registered owner. It ordered cancellation of the third respondent's title and removal of the corresponding register entry.
The third respondent had also pursued a cross-appeal seeking Kshs. 20 million in compensation from the Attorney General. That cross-appeal was dismissed.
The final paragraph awarded costs to Njonjo. Although the source also criticised her counsel, the recorded costs order was not an order denying her costs.
There was no separate appellate damages or eviction award in the operative relief described here. The unsuccessful purchaser's loss of the title did not automatically produce a monetary remedy against government.
Questions when two titles appear
- What instrument is said to have transferred the earlier registered interest?
- Does the transaction evidence connect the parties, property and registration?
- What supports the relevant payment and registration steps?
- Is compensation actually awarded, merely requested or expressly refused?
A Kenyan advocate should examine the entire chain and the actual court orders. Holding a certificate, receiving a cancellation order and obtaining financial recovery are different matters.
The judgment also does not prove that the register was later corrected or that possession changed. Those implementation questions require their own evidence.
Screening can organise the documentary gaps
ArdhiScore screening only organises available dated evidence, identifiers, citations and questions needing official or professional checks. It cannot authenticate a transfer, certify title or boundaries, guarantee detection of duplicate records, or replace an official search and Kenyan legal advice.
Explore ArdhiScore screening and its limits.
This is historical analysis, not legal advice or present ownership certification. The retained record reports no later related decision from earlier scoped searches; no new history search was performed, and further proceedings remain possible.
AI source note — 2026-09-11: Ezra independently read all locally captured paragraphs 1–37 and HTML title metadata, not just writer notes. Original acquisition/source-reader attribution remains CA2024TitleSelection fresh independent reading, 2026-09-11. No new evidence was acquired. The formal judgment header, judicial panel and dated signatures are absent from these captures: full-primary-source acceptance remains held. This is NOT human legal/publication clearance; access/use, privacy and publication acceptance remain separate.
Primary decision
Read the judgment. See paragraphs 1–3 and 25–29 for the competing records, 12 for compensation sought, 30–34 for the purchaser defence, and 35–37 for cancellation, the cross-appeal and costs.