How the Case of Musa v Musa & 6 Others [2025] impacts real estate transactions and bank lending practices

Issue

Can third-party purchasers or lenders rely on land titles that were fraudulently obtained, assuming they had no knowledge of the fraud? Whether the 1st respondent fraudulently obtained registration of land and if such title could be nullified—despite the interests of third parties like Family Bank.

Rule

A title obtained through fraud or misrepresentation is void under the Land Registration Act. Third-party rights (e.g., banks or buyers) cannot override this if the root of the title is defective.

Under the Land Registration Act (Kenya), a title obtained through fraud or misrepresentation is not indefeasible. Fraud vitiates title, even where the land has been charged to a bank or sold to an innocent third party.

Application

The court ruled that even where a bank holds a charge, it cannot claim protection if the original title was fraudulently acquired. This places an obligation on lenders and buyers to conduct thorough due diligence, not just rely on registration records.

The court found that:

• The 1st respondent used forged documents and bypassed required consents to register the land solely in her name.
• The Land Registrar processed these changes irregularly, violating legal procedure.
• Although Family Bank held a charge on the land, its interest could not survive because the root of the title was void due to fraud.
• The trial court erred by upholding a title obtained through clear misrepresentation.

Conclusion

This case strengthens the position that fraud vitiates title, and third parties—especially banks—must take extra precautions when dealing with land transactions. Legal ownership must be substantively clean, not just procedurally registered.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, declared the registration fraudulent, nullified the title and all derivative interests (including the bank’s), and ordered the land revert to the rightful family heirs.

🔗 Read full case here