The Lands Court has determined that city tycoon Ramji Manji Shamji was in unlawful possession of a prime land title deed that rightfully belonged to the late businessman Rajanikant Nathoobhai Shah.
This is after Justice Christine Ochieng has found that Ramji had fraudulently obtained the property through forged documents and deceptive practices in 2001.
Justice Ochieng has ordered the Land Registrar to cancel Ramji’s ownership documents of the land situated in Parklands, Nairobi, as they were obtained through fraud.
The property in question known as LR No. 209/4537, was originally allocated to Shah in 1983.
The estate, represented by Arvinlal Nathoo Shah, argued that Ramji had fraudulently acquired the land title.
Ramji, along with Paul Githaiga Ng’ang’a, was accused of improperly obtaining the title deed from Edward Nthuli, who had allegedly sold it to Ng’ang’a under dubious circumstances.
During the hearing, Nthuli filed a defense denying ownership of the land and claiming that the transaction involving Ramji was fraudulent.Nthuli argued that the land transfer to Ramji was not authorized and that he never consented to the sale.
He maintained that the transaction was executed without his knowledge and that he had not authorized the transfer.On the other hand, Ng’ang’a and Ramji Ramji a well-known tycoon with significant business interests, presented a defense that included a historical overview of the land.
They insisted that Ramji was the rightful owner, having developed the land significantly.
They contested the claims of fraud and maintained that they had obtained all necessary approvals and clearances for the land transactions.Rajnikant Shah, testifying in court, produced several documents to support his claim.
He presented his Letter of Allotment, a receipt for fees paid on September 9, 1992, and a Grant dated December 6, 1983, as evidence.
Shah detailed the procedural hurdles he faced, including the delay in construction due to a sewer line passing through the property and the subsequent receivership of Trust Bank, which held his funds.
Despite these issues, Shah asserted that his title deed, issued in 1983, was genuine and had not been canceled.
Shah also claimed that Ramji’s title deed contained a Deed Plan copied from his, arguing that it was impossible for two titles to share the same plan.
He asserted that Ramji’s title, issued in 2001, was invalid since Shah’s original title and Deed Plan remained in his possession.
In stark contrast, the defendants, Ramji and Harish Ramji Patel and Ng’ang’a offered a narrative of legitimate acquisition and development.
Ramji and Patel claimed that the land was purchased from Ng’ang’a, who had acquired it from Nthuli.
However, their defense was marred by inconsistencies and a lack of critical documentation, including the transfer documents from Nthuli and proof of the legitimacy of their Deed Plan.
Ramji’s defense included a claim that he had developed the land extensively, investing heavily in infrastructure and construction.
Despite this, he failed to provide credible evidence proving the authenticity of his title and the legality of the transactions involved.
Patel the son of Ramji, who had lived near the land since 1991, further complicated the matter.He testified that his family’s acquisition of the land from Ng’ang’a was legitimate, supported by an official search confirming the title’s clarity.
He claimed significant investments were made in developing the property, including relocating a sewer line at a cost of Sh 1.5 million.
In her decision, Justice Ochieng found that Ramji could not claim an indefeasible title because the root of his title was contested.
Ochieng criticized Shamji and Ng’ang’a for failing to provide sufficient documentation to prove the legitimacy of their title or the validity of the transfer from Nthuli.
The court highlighted that there was no transfer documentation from Nthuli to Ng’ang’a and that Ng’ang’a was never summoned to verify whether Shah’s title had been canceled.
Justice Ochieng declared that the grant issued to Ramji was fraudulent and ordered the cancellation of all subsequent transfers.
“I find that Ng’ang’a did not have a good title to pass to the Ramji.
In the circumstances, I find that Ramji cannot be deemed as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice,” She ruled.
The court also directed the Chief Land Registrar to rectify the records, reinstating Shah’s title and invalidating the fraudulent transactions.
Furthermore, a mandatory injunction was issued, ordering Ramji to demolish all structures on the land within 120 days.
