A buyer can hold a registered certificate and still face a serious question about the interest its seller was able to transfer. Where an earlier lease has been surrendered, the transaction history must explain how a valid interest later reached the buyer.
That gap was central to Martin & 2 others, suing as officers of the Church of God Prophecy, v Kamar & 5 others [2016] KEELC 1092 (KLR), decided by the Environment and Land Court on 18 February 2016. The court did not find that the church participated in fraud. It nevertheless cancelled the church's certificate.
Two sides relied on competing title histories
The dispute concerned Nakuru Municipality Block 16/219. The church's representatives relied on a purchase and a certificate they believed supported the church's ownership.
The opposing claimants relied on a different chain involving the property's earlier lease arrangements. The litigation required the court to determine which asserted title had the better foundation.
The judgment's paragraphs 1-2 identify the property and competing claims.
The important enquiry was not which side could display the more convincing-looking certificate. It was whether the history behind each certificate could withstand examination.
The court traced the interest backwards
In paragraph 31, the court explained the need to examine the root of competing titles.
Its analysis in paragraphs 32-34 found gaps in the church's asserted purchase chain. No agreement establishing the seller's acquisition from the predecessor was produced, and the seller was neither sued nor called to testify. The predecessor's lease had already been surrendered before the church's purchase.
The church's later certificate did not resolve those problems. A transaction history needed a credible link from the earlier interest to the purported seller and then to the purchaser.
For due diligence, this means a historic lease should not be read without asking whether it remained in force at the relevant time. Surrender, replacement and subsequent registration are distinct events. The documents must explain the sequence.
The title failed without a finding of buyer fraud
Paragraphs 35-36 make an important distinction. The court did not find that the church had participated in fraud or misrepresentation, but held that its title had been acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme because of the unsupported chain and surrendered lease.
That is not permission to describe the church, or a seller who was not before the court, as criminally dishonest. It is a warning that a buyer's own good faith and the legal sufficiency of the acquired interest are separate questions.
A risk assessment should preserve the finding and its limits. Reporting only that the title was cancelled could imply wrongdoing the court did not establish. Reporting only that buyer fraud was not found would omit the rejection of the claimed land interest.
The orders affected occupation as well as the certificate
The court dismissed the church's claim and held that the first five defendants had the better title. It ordered cancellation and immediate surrender of the church's certificate to the court, prohibiting its use for transactions.
The church was to vacate within three months, with eviction in default. A permanent restraint would apply after vacation or eviction. The court made no order as to costs.
Those are the historical orders in paragraphs 37-38. This article does not establish when they were implemented, whether later relief was sought or what today's register records.
Questions before relying on an older lease
Ask for the documents connecting the seller to the interest being offered. A purchase agreement, lease and certificate should describe a coherent transaction history, rather than three disconnected pieces of paper.
Investigate any surrender or replacement entry. An advocate and the relevant registry can help establish its effect and the subsequent documents that would be needed to support the proposed sale.
Treat missing links as questions requiring evidence. Missing paperwork is not automatically proof of fraud, but it should not be silently filled in by an assumption that registration solved everything.
Put the transaction history beside the current claim
When considering ArdhiScore, ask which sources can inform a dated parcel record and which links in the claimed transfer history still need evidence. Earlier instruments and unresolved questions belong beside the ownership claim, not behind an assumption that a certificate resolves them.
Explore ArdhiScore screening and its limits. Screening does not authenticate a lease or guarantee that a registered interest is unchallengeable. The judgment and scoped later-history search were reviewed on 11 September 2026; no exhaustive litigation or current-register clearance is claimed.