REPUBLIC OF KENYA.

IN THE CHIEF’S MAGISTRATES COURT AT NYAHURURU.

MC-ELC NO E40 OF 2022.

PETER G MWANGI -----------------------------------------------------------------PLAINTIFFF

-VERSUS-
JECINTA WANGUI MUGUONGO------------------------------------------INTERESTED PARTY

REPLY TO INTERESTED PARTY'S STATEMENT OF DEFENCE.

1. The Plaintiff denies each and every singular allegation of facts contained in the Interested Party
Statement of Defence as set out herein and traversed in seriatim.

2. The contents of paragraph 2 are denied in toto and Plaintiff is put to strict proof thereof. The Plaintiff
further denies that Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the suit property .

3. Plaintiff has not met the requisite standard of proving rightful ownership of the suit property. The
Plaintiff's root and sanctity of title are clear, unlike Plaintiff's, who has failed to demonstrate a clear
chain of root title including proof of acquisition from alleged previous owner, issuance of a title deed,
or establish fraudulent issuance of the Plaintiff's title.

4. That it is true that the Court directed the land reverts back to the allotee, the Republic of Kenya, who
through the County Commissioner issued the same to the Plaintiff. A valid Clearance Certificate dated
24.03.2021 addressed to the Land Registrar is provided as evidence of the Plaintiff's qualification for
the Title Deed issuance, along with copies of the said Clearance Letter and Members Register.

5. The Title Deed issued to the Plaintiff on 23.04.2021 stands as valid and conclusive evidence of the
Plaintiff's proprietorship of the suit land, as per Section 26 of the Land Registration Act, supported by
copies of the said Title Deed and Green Card.

6. That following the reversion of the suit land to the previous owner, the State; the Plaintiff presented
his documents to the County Commissioner who upon verification issued the Plaintiff with a Clearance
certificate on 24.03.2021 leading to issuance of the title deed of the suit land.

7. Interested Party statement of defence does not raise any triable issues as the Interested lacks locus
standi.

REASONS WHEREOF the Defendant prays that the Plaintiff’s Counter-claim be dismissed with cost

REPUBLIC OF KENYA.
IN THE CHIEF’S MAGISTRATES COURT AT NYAHURURU.
MC-ELC NO E40 OF 2022.

JECINTA WANGUI MUGUONGO------------------------------------------------------PLAINTIFF

(INTERESTED PARTY IN THE ORIGINAL SUIT)
-VERSUS-
PETER G MWANGI -----------------------------------------------------------------DEFENDANT
(PLAINTIFF IN THE ORIGINAL SUIT)
 DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT OF DEFENCE TO THE COUNTER CLAIM.

1. Plaintiff has failed to prove misrepresentation nor fraud against the Defendant to warrant the
cancellation his title deed dated 23.04.2021. The Plaintiff aver that no formal complaint has been
filed with any authority regarding the alleged illegal /fraudulent acquisition of the suit property by
Plaintiff as against Defendant to date.
2. Plaintiff has presented sweeping, ambiguous, and unsubstantiated accusations of falsification
pertaining to undisclosed 'documents,' 'registers,' and 'receipts.' Plaintiff, however, has failed to
disclose the purported falsified particulars in the mentioned documents, registers, and receipts,
thereby hindering the court's ability to determine whether the asserted facts amount to falsehood
or fraud.
3. The alleged falsified 'documents,' 'registers,' and 'receipts' have not been attached to the listed as
evidence in the List of Documents.
4. The claims of Defendant collusion with the Land Registrar to defraud Plaintiff lack substantiation.
Plaintiff has neither taken steps to involve the Land Registrar as a party in these proceedings to
address the allegations nor sought authentication of the contested photostat title deed, which
serves as the sole document supporting Plaintiff's claim over the subject land.
5. Plaintiff alleges document forgery but has not demonstrated any action taken to report the matter
to investigative agencies. Additionally, no evidence from relevant public authorities responsible
for the creation and custody of such documents has been presented to establish the alleged
forgery.
6. Plaintiff has not met the requisite standard of proving rightful ownership of the subject property,
including a failure to demonstrate the acquisition from the previous owner, issuance of a title deed,
or establish fraudulent issuance of the Plaintiff's title.
7. Plaintiff has not provided evidence of a valid agreement for the sale of the land in question,
including proof of payment, receipts, or documentation of stamp duty payment, as required by
Section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act.
8. Plaintiff has failed to produce essential documents, such as the alleged sale agreement, transfer
forms, and LCB consent forms, necessary for verifying the transaction details.
9. Despite the complexity of land sale transactions involving multiple parties, Plaintiff has not called
upon any relevant individuals as witnesses, or submitted documentary evidence supporting her
claim as a bona fide purchaser.
10. Plaintiff has not shown an inability to obtain copies of transfer forms and LCB consent forms from
the Land Registrar, which are considered public records.
11. Plaintiff has seemingly misrepresented facts regarding the alleged loss of her title documents, as
evidenced by the absence of supporting documents, police abstracts, statutory declarations,
gazette notices, or any explanation for the extensive delay in obtaining a replacement.
12. If Plaintiff indeed acquired the suit property from parties other than the Defendant as the
registered proprietor, the suit is improperly brought against the Defendant, and the appropriate
remedy lies elsewhere.
13. The allegations regarding Plaintiff's occupation of the Suit Property since 2013 are denied, with no
supporting proof provided.
 14. Based on legal advice, the Plaintiff contends that there is proof of a valid sale of the suit land to
Plaintiff. The failure to produce essential documents, such as a title, search, or agreement of sale,
contravenes Section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act.
15. Plaintiff has not taken the necessary steps outlined above, and Plaintiff is challenged to provide
strict proof thereof, as the Defendant denies any involvement in taking Plaintiff to the Land Control
Board, selling the suit land, receiving any money, or executing transfer documents.
16. The Defendant holds an indisputable and absolute valid Title Deed to the suit property, acquired
as a bona fide allottee from Laikipia West Land Buying Company. The Defendant 's root and
sanctity of title are clear, unlike Plaintiff's, who has failed to demonstrate the purchase from the
alleged 'PETER G MWANGI' or produce any agreement or proof of payment.
17. Defendant’s Clearance Certificate dated 24.03.2021 addressed to the Land Registrar is provided
as evidence of the Plaintiff's qualification for the Title Deed issuance, along with copies of the said
Clearance Letter and Members Register.
18. The Title Deed issued to the Defendant on 23.04.2021 stands as valid and conclusive evidence of
the Defendant 's proprietorship of the suit land, as per Section 26 of the Land Registration Act,
supported by copies of the said Title Deed and Green Card.
19. Plaintiff has failed to prove fraud against the Defendant, and no formal complaint has been filed
with the police regarding the alleged illegal acquisition of the suit property.
20. Plaintiff counter claim does not raise any triable issues and appears designed to impede the
expeditious resolution of the matter. Plaintiff's Witness Statement lacks coherence and includes
unsupported averments and uncertified documents.

REASONS WHEREOF the Plaintiff prays that Plaintiff Statement of Defence be dismissed with costs.

DATED at NYAHURURU on this 16th day of November 2023

Muchangi Patrick.
& Associates Advocate’s for the Plaintiff.

DRAWN & FILED BY:-

Muchangi Patrick & Associates Advocates.
Mbaria Complex, Building,1st Floor, Suite 9.
P.O.Box 1565-20300
NYAHURURU
Tel: 0722 878 607 / 0736 358 938 Email:muchangi@lawyer.com.

TO BE SERVED UPON:-
Kariuki Mwangi & Co. Advocates.
Kimwa Centre, 2nd Floor.
P.O.Box 468-20300,
NYAHURURU.
 REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE CHIEF’S MAGISTRATES COURT AT NYAHURURU.
MC-ELC NO E40 OF 2022.

PETER G MWANGI --------------------------------------------------PLAINTIFFF/PLAINTIFF

-VERSUS-
STEPHEN KIPNGETICH MAIYO -------------------------------------------------------------1ST DEFENDANT.
JECINTA NJOKI NJOROGE------------------------------------------------------------------2ND DEFENDANT.
HENRY NYAGA KINYUA -------------------------------------------------------------------- 3RD DEFENDANT.
OMBORI ALFAYO ----------------------------------------------------------------------------4TH DEFENDANT.
MURIITHI KAMAU ---------------------------------------------------------------------------5TH DEFENDANT
-AND-
JECINTA WANGUI MUGUONGO-------------------------------INTERESTED PARTY /INTERESTED PARTY

PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER WITNESS STATEMENT.

I am the plaintiff herein and further to my earlier statements on record and in response to
averments by Plaintiff herein aver.

1. I would like to address the court concerning Plaintiff's assertions, which I find to be both vague
and unsupported. Plaintiff has made sweeping allegations of falsification of various documents,
registers, and receipts without providing specific details of the purported falsifications. The lack
of disclosure regarding the alleged falsifications makes it difficult for the court to assess the
veracity of these claims.

2. Plaintiff contend that certain undisclosed ‘documents’, ‘registers’, and ‘receipts’ have been
falsified, yet these items have not been included in the List of Documents as evidence. This
omission raises concerns about the reliability of the hearsay testimony presented by Plaintiff.

3. The accusations of collusion with the Land Registrar to defraud Plaintiff remain unsubstantiated.
Furthermore, Plaintiff has not taken steps to involve the Land Registrar in these proceedings to
address the allegations or authenticate the contested photostat title deed forming the basis of
their claim to the suit land.

4. Plaintiff claims that the relied-upon documents are forgeries but has not demonstrated any
action taken to report the matter to investigative agencies. Additionally, there is a lack of
evidence from relevant public authorities responsible for the generation and custody of such
documents, further undermining the claim of forgery.
 5. Plaintiff has not met the required standard of proof to establish themselves as the rightful owner
of the suit property. There is no evidence demonstrating the purchase from the previous owner
or the issuance of a title deed, and no substantiation that the Plaintiff's title was fraudulently
obtained.

6. Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence of a valid agreement for the sale of the land or any proof
of payment. Absence of documentation such as receipts and the payment of stamp duty raises
questions about the legitimacy of the claimed transaction.

7. As per legal advice, Section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act mandates a written contract for the
disposition of an interest in land. Plaintiff has not produced any such written agreement, which
is crucial for validating their claim.

8. Plaintiff has not produced essential documents such as the alleged sale agreement, transfer
forms, and LCB consent forms that would identify the parties involved in the transaction and aid
in tracing her title.

9. Despite the nature of land sale transactions involving multiple parties, Plaintiff has failed to call
any witnesses or provide documentary evidence demonstrating her bona fide purchase of the
suit land.

10. Plaintiff has not demonstrated any disability in obtaining copies of transfer forms and LCB
consent forms from the Land Registrar, which are considered public records.

11. Plaintiff's claim of lost title documents lacks substantiation, as there is no inclusion of essential
documents such as a Police Abstract, Statutory Declaration, Gazette Notice, or any explanation
for the significant delay in obtaining a replacement.

12. If Plaintiff purchased the property from someone other than me, her claim should be directed
against the proper party, and her remedy lies elsewhere.

13. The defense contends that Plaintiff's witness statement lacks clarity, with unsupported averments
and uncertified documents. The reference to two criminal cases in the List of Documents raises
questions about the clarity of the pending criminal case.

14. The allegations that Plaintiff has been in occupation of the suit property since 2013 are denied,
and no proof has been provided to support this claim.

15. Legal advice suggests that there is no proof of a valid sale of the suit land to Plaintiff. The failure
to produce essential documents contravenes Section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act, which
requires a written, signed agreement.
16. I deny taking Plaintiff to the Land Control Board, selling the suit land to her, receiving any
purchase price, or executing any transfer documents in her favor.

17. I assert an indefeasible and absolute valid Title Deed to the suit property, acquired as a bona
fide allottee from Laikipia West Land Buying Company. Plaintiff's root title remains unclear, and
no reasonable explanation has been provided for this lack of clarity.

18. I possess a valid Clearance Certificate dated 24.03.2021, addressed to the Land Registrar,
supporting the issuance of my Title Deed as a member of Laikipia West Land Buying Company.

19. The Title Deed issued to me on 23.04.2021 is conclusive evidence of my proprietorship, as

stipulated in Section 26 of the Land Registration Act.

20. Plaintiff has failed to prove fraud, and no formal complaint has been filed against me with the
police regarding the alleged illegal acquisition of the suit property or any claim of current legal
possession by Plaintiff.

RECORDED at NYAHURURU on this 16th day of November, 2023.

…………………………….……
PETER G. MWANGI.
PLAINTIFF